Cole Schave collection: face jobs?

[Davenport]

What you’re seeing here is a result of the cover shrinking from exposure to humidity, and happens most often on early Silver Age Marvels because they were printed so poorly. The sides of the cover can shrink, although the top and bottom covers will not.

 

Thanks for clearing it up Matt.

I don't know how that clears up anything - it shrunk substantially in between gradings, and it's blamed on poor printing quality?

Actually, it's very clear - for the 1st 50 years of it's life, the book more or less looked like it is pictured in the CGC gallery as shown above. Then, within the last month it was exposed to humidity, and shrank. But it's still a solid NM+, good as new...only smaller.

"Exposure to humidity" is pretty vague. If it's from processes in a Lab and not from time in the world at large, why not just say so? Move the conversation along?

[originalisbest]

So the JIM 93 in OP (in addition to a plethora of other books) went from a 9.2 to a 9.6 via humidity & time and without any manipulation?

Why would there be lateral without vertical shrink? Better yet, what causes the lateral shrink as opposed to vert?

I'm on the fence with pressing, but believe if done for one right reason, it can help "restore" the book to it's being flat again(i.e. remove waviness from improperly stored books) It's up to the individual to draw the line. I'm with the bunch that I'd rather have the 9.2 rather than the 0.4 or 0.2 bump and ruining the appearance. It's unfortunate that taking the knowledge that books did come off the press this way (with extended pages), someone derived a way to take advantage of this "natural" bindary defect and use it to their advantage. Like most everything else in the world, it all boils down to the almighty greenback .

 

Matt can probably explain it to you.

[originalisbest]

What you’re seeing here is a result of the cover shrinking from exposure to humidity, and happens most often on early Silver Age Marvels because they were printed so poorly. The sides of the cover can shrink, although the top and bottom covers will not.

 

 

:roflmao:

 

I doubt that even Matt would be able to explain it to you.

[Beige]

What you’re seeing here is a result of the cover shrinking from exposure to humidity, and happens most often on early Silver Age Marvels because they were printed so poorly. The sides of the cover can shrink, although the top and bottom covers will not.

 

Thanks for clearing it up Matt.

 

Pfft.

 

You are a major dealer and a 3 line reply "clears it all up"?

 

Don't bother replying.

[InvstmntComcSuply]

What you’re seeing here is a result of the cover shrinking from exposure to humidity, and happens most often on early Silver Age Marvels because they were printed so poorly. The sides of the cover can shrink, although the top and bottom covers will not.

 

Thanks for clearing it up Matt.

I don't know how that clears up anything - it shrunk substantially in between gradings, and it's blamed on poor printing quality?

Actually, it's very clear - for the 1st 50 years of it's life, the book more or less looked like it is pictured in the CGC gallery as shown above. Then, within the last month it was exposed to humidity, and shrank. But it's still a solid NM+, good as new...only smaller.

"Exposure to humidity" is pretty vague. If it's from processes in a Lab and not from time in the world at large, why not just say so? Move the conversation along?

 

Exposure to humidity to relax the paper fibers prior to pressing.

Then pressing. Possibly at too high a temperature, too long, or too much pressure, removes humidity, fibers contract and cover shrinks.

[drbanner]

"Exposure to humidity" is pretty vague. If it's from processes in a Lab and not from time in the world at large, why not just say so? Move the conversation along?

In this case "Exposure to humidity" = "Bad Press Job" = ruined book that should have been downgraded, just like the Wilson face-jobbers are now (supposedly). The only question is, "Whodunnit?"

[Davenport]

 

So it must be about the notion of pressing generally, the whys and wherefores, and ultimately, the money. I see.

From someone who's been tagged "a one trick pony" by detractors before, a tip-of-the-hat. You sir elevate the artform to new heights. Bang that money-drum!

[originalisbest]

What you’re seeing here is a result of the cover shrinking from exposure to humidity, and happens most often on early Silver Age Marvels because they were printed so poorly. The sides of the cover can shrink, although the top and bottom covers will not.

 

What would printing have to do with causing shrink in a matter of the few months between the resub? If anything from the original process, wouldn't it be the paper/pulp rather than printing? And, while I know cotton is different from paper/pulp, when I shrink my shirts in the dryer it shrinks entirely, not just the vertical or the sleeves.

 

Different types of paper stock entirely, plus cover inks, plus the sizing (the gloss) on the original comic cover, will ensure that it reacts differently than the paper pulp inside with exposure to humidity. As to how the cover shrinks horizontally but not vertically, probably due to the paper grain, perhaps the staples as well? To my mind it probably "wants" to shrink in both directions, but perhaps the staples as anchors prevent this, and horizontal shrinkage is the path of least resistance. I wouldn't be able to define exactly for you why, but I certainly trust Matt's take as a paper expert, why it acts as it does under a variety of conditions.

 

Of course, I'm sure Matt's more than flattered about all the overt insinuations that he's responsible for these shrunken covers, but IMO they probably were the result of a less-experienced presser, who used either too much humidity, too long an exposure to humidity, or a combination of both, in pressing these books (if the goal was to have them not materially change in overall visual appearance OTHER than that which would be brought about by a good press, i.e. remove dents, waves, etc.)

[Beige]

 

So it must be about the notion of pressing generally, the whys and wherefores, and ultimately, the money. I see.

From someone who's been tagged "a one trick pony" by detractors before, a tip-of-the-hat. You sir elevate the artform to new heights. Bang that money-drum!

 

 

[Rip]

What you’re seeing here is a result of the cover shrinking from exposure to humidity, and happens most often on early Silver Age Marvels because they were printed so poorly. The sides of the cover can shrink, although the top and bottom covers will not.

 

Thanks for clearing it up Matt.

I don't know how that clears up anything - it shrunk substantially in between gradings, and it's blamed on poor printing quality?

Actually, it's very clear - for the 1st 50 years of it's life, the book more or less looked like it is pictured in the CGC gallery as shown above. Then, within the last month it was exposed to humidity, and shrank. But it's still a solid NM+, good as new...only smaller.

"Exposure to humidity" is pretty vague. If it's from processes in a Lab and not from time in the world at large, why not just say so? Move the conversation along?

 

Well said! Let's try to move things forward.

[Spidey-fan73]

So the JIM 93 in OP (in addition to a plethora of other books) went from a 9.2 to a 9.6 via humidity & time and without any manipulation?

Why would there be lateral without vertical shrink? Better yet, what causes the lateral shrink as opposed to vert?

I'm on the fence with pressing, but believe if done for one right reason, it can help "restore" the book to it's being flat again(i.e. remove waviness from improperly stored books) It's up to the individual to draw the line. I'm with the bunch that I'd rather have the 9.2 rather than the 0.4 or 0.2 bump and ruining the appearance. It's unfortunate that taking the knowledge that books did come off the press this way (with extended pages), someone derived a way to take advantage of this "natural" bindary defect and use it to their advantage. Like most everything else in the world, it all boils down to the almighty greenback .

 

Matt can probably explain it to you.

 

Someone should "splain" something to the CGC community/consumers.

[InvstmntComcSuply]

In this case "Exposure to humidity" = "Bad Press Job" = ruined book that should have been downgraded, just like the Wilson face-jobbers are now (supposedly). The only question is, "Whodunnit?"

 

I think the real question is "why were they not downgraded?"

[blazingbob]

My comment would be that Golden age covers shrink from water washes and pressing.

 

Do multiple pressings causing the same thing?

 

Each time the book is pressed it is "humidified".

 

Some of these books are being done more than once.

 

 

[plitch]

Over the years, CGC has seen a number of books with the covers falling short of the right edge, especially early Marvel issues. Sometimes it occurs naturally over time or possibly from printing, and other times from pressing or restoration.

 

We consider all factors (including those above) when determining the grade of each book. As normal, when the grading team looked at these books we did not know who submitted them or if they were submitted before; we did not know if they were pressed; we grade the book that is in front of us. We feel the grades on these books are justified. All of the graders who saw these books were uniform in their grades.

 

[Spidey-fan73]

What you’re seeing here is a result of the cover shrinking from exposure to humidity, and happens most often on early Silver Age Marvels because they were printed so poorly. The sides of the cover can shrink, although the top and bottom covers will not.

 

What would printing have to do with causing shrink in a matter of the few months between the resub? If anything from the original process, wouldn't it be the paper/pulp rather than printing? And, while I know cotton is different from paper/pulp, when I shrink my shirts in the dryer it shrinks entirely, not just the vertical or the sleeves.

 

Different types of paper stock entirely, plus cover inks, plus the sizing (the gloss) on the original comic cover, will ensure that it reacts differently than the paper pulp inside with exposure to humidity. As to how the cover shrinks horizontally but not vertically, probably due to the paper grain, perhaps the staples as well? To my mind it probably "wants" to shrink in both directions, but perhaps the staples as anchors prevent this, and horizontal shrinkage is the path of least resistance. I wouldn't be able to define exactly for you why, but I certainly trust Matt's take as a paper expert, why it acts as it does under a variety of conditions.

 

I also was thinking gradient of the paper and/or staples may come into play as far as humidity shrink, but I'm not schooled in archival resto.

[originalisbest]

 

So it must be about the notion of pressing generally, the whys and wherefores, and ultimately, the money. I see.

From someone who's been tagged "a one trick pony" by detractors before, a tip-of-the-hat. You sir elevate the artform to new heights. Bang that money-drum!

 

It's all about the money, and I've never said anything to the contrary that I'm aware of. Maybe you can elaborate, davvy? The difference is, I freely admit that it's all about the money, but you seem to claim that it ain't -- your disgust with pressing seems to be based on the fact that the purity of all comics everywhere is being sullied.

 

OTOH, I think it's because you've got an incredible problem with having left money on the table at some point when a press would've benefited you financially. I agree, that's a real pisser, but I suppose you'll just have to blame yourself.

 

I also noticed that you deftly avoided comment about my take on your laughable position about the "purity" of comics as defined by their "as-made" condition. Would you care to comment? I've copied and pasted my take again below, for your convenience!

 

You said:

That simple point should carry much more weight than it currently does. "Grade" should be related to the "as published" state and its desirability.

 

Books being flatter than they ever existed before shouldn't trump all other "Grade" considerations. Right? Unless you're offering flattening services, of course, and deem common sense gut-reactions as 'purist' nonsense.

 

Somewhere along the line the 'Grading Scale' disconnected from "as published" and became a "flatness of paper" scale. Even if books end up appearing "not right", even if the previous "as published" state is more authentic and appealing.

 

And I said:

The funny thing about Dav and his notion of what "as published" means, is that I can only presume he'd better not have any admiration of, or presence of, mile high books in his collection (to pick the grandaddy of all pedigrees as an example seems appropriate.) Because the bottom halves of the mile high stacks were gloriously flattened, immensely flattened, as a pancake flattened, with all air squished out of their blinding white pages, and most certainly were discovered in a much more flattened state, than when first published and put out for sale to be purchased by Mr. Church.

 

Garbage all, the lot of them!

 

-- and to this, you never did reply. I feel sad. Or amused. Whichever.

[originalisbest]

Very well then, I'll just take it as you're ignorant on how the open, trimmed edge of a fat GA book CAN appear, as manufactured (nothing whatsoever to do with whether that particular book was also facejobbed), and are content to remain so. Because by the nature of your non-question, you seem to think there's a problem with the appearance of its open edge (specifically, what you seem to see as an unnatural curvature.)

 

Nice, name calling.

 

(thumbs u

 

So, seeing the before & after of the 6.0 that turned into the franken7.5, can you finally agree that curve isn't natural? Or am I just ignorant there, too?

 

 

 

 

-slym

 

I think we were talking about different things on the same book, so I'll clarify. The curve I refer to is the paper cover (only the cover)'s long open edge. It's got a slight curve to it, as published. The fanning out of the pages, making the overall angle of the book more extreme, was caused by the facejob. Even before the facejob, the fanning was there a little bit (the book wasn't square overall.)

 

While the cover 's long & curved open edge didn't change in appearance, the overall angle of the book was more extreme after, so I assume that's what you were talking about (the overall appearance), and I was talking about the curve on the long edge of the cover only, not the overall appearance of the book. I apologize for not being clearer about what I was talking about, and for calling names.

[chrisco37]

If it does shrink due to humidity/water exposure, I still don't understand why it would only shrink on the right side.

 

Matt said it doesn't occur on the top/bottoms. Why is that? That doesn't make sense to me.

[DiceX]

Over the years, CGC has seen a number of books with the covers falling short of the right edge, especially early Marvel issues. Sometimes it occurs naturally over time or possibly from printing, and other times from pressing or restoration.

 

We consider all factors (including those above) when determining the grade of each book. As normal, when the grading team looked at these books we did not know who submitted them or if they were submitted before; we did not know if they were pressed; we grade the book that is in front of us. We feel the grades on these books are justified. All of the graders who saw these books were uniform in their grades.

 

It would really help if you would scour the internet searching for existing scans of every book you grade so you can compare it and determine if it was monkeyed with.

 

 

[originalisbest]

So the JIM 93 in OP (in addition to a plethora of other books) went from a 9.2 to a 9.6 via humidity & time and without any manipulation?

Why would there be lateral without vertical shrink? Better yet, what causes the lateral shrink as opposed to vert?

I'm on the fence with pressing, but believe if done for one right reason, it can help "restore" the book to it's being flat again(i.e. remove waviness from improperly stored books) It's up to the individual to draw the line. I'm with the bunch that I'd rather have the 9.2 rather than the 0.4 or 0.2 bump and ruining the appearance. It's unfortunate that taking the knowledge that books did come off the press this way (with extended pages), someone derived a way to take advantage of this "natural" bindary defect and use it to their advantage. Like most everything else in the world, it all boils down to the almighty greenback .

 

Matt can probably explain it to you.

 

Someone should "splain" something to the CGC community/consumers.

 

Well, everyone's mileage may vary, but the fact the thread stands to facilitate discussion has to count for something.