Cole Schave collection: face jobs?

[Silver Surfer]

Roy all this natural shrinkage talk still irks me

 

I'll tell you what irks me, it irks me that you have a reading comprehension problem and you continue to troll my posts while taking them out of context.

 

There's obviously at least a few people in this thread who believe it's a relevant conversation because the conversation is going on. If you don't want to take the time to read that conversation and be involved, and you can't stop yourself from trolling those posts then just put me on ignore rather than constantly comment about how you don't like my posts.

 

 

Roy you have been going on about this for weeks, months. 75% of all the posts are from you so sorry if you think I'm trolling you but you are carrying the torch of this natural shrinkage theory which I just think is a bunch of misdirect. Obvious some people agree with me, some don't.

[fantastic_four]

No need to apologize. If you feel 7.0 or 6.5 is right grade, more power to you! I'm not saying the 7.5 grade is the one I would have chosen either. I'm just stating a fact that it was downgraded. That chip did not get a free pass.

 

Exactly. CGC doesn't ignore defects, they just don't grade some defects the way others would...which, surprise surprise, has been going on since the dawn of the hobby.

 

The truth is that most people will always disagree over how to grade something.

 

My experience with the market on high-ish grade books like the Spidey 1 in question is that the market hates CGC not downgrading enough for chips and tends to de-value them. You really have to knock some off of the value because they just don't sell as well--which suggests to me that CGC is overgrading them.

 

Off-topic, of course, but I'm just doing my part to compact multiple forums and threads down into just one big thread. This thread IS the new "Grading and Restoration Issues" forum...let's talk about staple replacement next!

[Old Fashion PB and J]

This thread gets worst every time I click on it. Don't buy the books that were destroyed. Don't shop with people who are selling these books, as they obviously can't understand that CGC is not grading these correctly. Money Talks, BS Walks. The second dealers are having issues selling these, or are having them sent back, the situation will be addressed.

+1

 

Sounds like a plan.

grab one at a convention, say what happened to this book? And then hand it back. But do it when it's busy.

 

Since we're fine tuning this, do you have a particular dealer mind?

roy, it wouldn't be me to do this, I don't even considering wasting my money on nosebleed silver age. I buy at a grade level where there isn't much advantage to pressing, other than to conserve a harsh spine rolled book.

[THE_BEYONDER]

No need to apologize. If you feel 7.0 or 6.5 is right grade, more power to you! I'm not saying the 7.5 grade is the one I would have chosen either. I'm just stating a fact that it was downgraded. That chip did not get a free pass.

 

Exactly. CGC doesn't ignore defects, they just don't grade some defects the way others would...which, surprise surprise, has been going on since the dawn of the hobby.

 

The truth is that most people will always disagree over how to grade something.

 

My experience with the market on high-ish grade books like the Spidey 1 in question is that the market hates CGC not downgrading enough for chips and tends to de-value them. You really have to knock some off of the value because they just don't sell as well--which suggests to me that CGC is overgrading them.

 

Off-topic, of course, but I'm just doing my part to compact multiple forums and threads down into just one big thread. This thread IS the new "Grading and Restoration Issues" forum...let's talk about staple replacement next!

 

Might as well....considering how some of the staples on these books have been mashed. (thumbs u

[drbanner]

No need to apologize. If you feel 7.0 or 6.5 is right grade, more power to you! I'm not saying the 7.5 grade is the one I would have chosen either. I'm just stating a fact that it was downgraded. That chip did not get a free pass.

 

Exactly. CGC doesn't ignore defects, they just don't grade some defects the way others would...which, surprise surprise, has been going on since the dawn of the hobby.

 

The truth is that most people will always disagree over how to grade something.

 

My experience with the market on high-ish grade books like the Spidey 1 in question is that the market hates CGC not downgrading enough for chips and tends to de-value them. You really have to knock some off of the value because they just don't sell as well--which suggests to me that CGC is overgrading them.

 

Off-topic, of course, but I'm just doing my part to compact multiple forums and threads down into just one big thread. This thread IS the new "Grading and Restoration Issues" forum...let's talk about staple replacement next!

 

Might as well....considering how some of the staples on these books have been mashed. (thumbs u

I've already mentioned it in this thread...winner!

[blazingbob]

Imagine if you were to focus that energy on actually working on buying/selling books instead of wasting time in this thread.

 

Maybe there would be some more books on that website.

 

Oh yeah, I forgot, spontaneous

[Silver Surfer]

Careful Bob he might call you a troll.

[mschmidt]

No need to apologize. If you feel 7.0 or 6.5 is right grade, more power to you! I'm not saying the 7.5 grade is the one I would have chosen either. I'm just stating a fact that it was downgraded. That chip did not get a free pass.

 

Exactly. CGC doesn't ignore defects, they just don't grade some defects the way others would...which, surprise surprise, has been going on since the dawn of the hobby.

 

The truth is that most people will always disagree over how to grade something.

 

My experience with the market on high-ish grade books like the Spidey 1 in question is that the market hates CGC not downgrading enough for chips and tends to de-value them. You really have to knock some off of the value because they just don't sell as well--which suggests to me that CGC is overgrading them.

 

But that's always been the case, though - two raw books might have the same technical grade, but one commands a premium over the other due to it having better visual appeal. It doesn't mean that one is suddenly overgraded - it just means that not all books with the same grade look the same :shrug:

[Silver Surfer]

The ASM#3 is also a 1197 submission but it doesn't stick out like a sore thumb.

[fantastic_four]

No need to apologize. If you feel 7.0 or 6.5 is right grade, more power to you! I'm not saying the 7.5 grade is the one I would have chosen either. I'm just stating a fact that it was downgraded. That chip did not get a free pass.

 

Exactly. CGC doesn't ignore defects, they just don't grade some defects the way others would...which, surprise surprise, has been going on since the dawn of the hobby.

 

The truth is that most people will always disagree over how to grade something.

 

My experience with the market on high-ish grade books like the Spidey 1 in question is that the market hates CGC not downgrading enough for chips and tends to de-value them. You really have to knock some off of the value because they just don't sell as well--which suggests to me that CGC is overgrading them.

 

But that's always been the case, though - two raw books might have the same technical grade, but one commands a premium over the other due to it having better visual appeal. It doesn't mean that one is suddenly overgraded - it just means that not all books with the same grade look the same :shrug:

 

Disagree--it means we're not incorporating enough into grade. The very idea of you and I talking about something that people attribute to grade yet isn't actually included in grading is an anathema to grading's purpose.

[comicdonna]

Would it be possible that the top book or two would have the room to be skewed ever so slightly compared to the bottom books? If shifting were to occur it would be my guess that the top books would be the more likely candidates. And if so, it would affect the cut on a few books per batch.

 

What makes you think multiple books are cut at once? In the videos linked earlier, it looked like each book went through separately. They'd have to in order to be stapled individually.

 

In some of the videos I have watched the books are assembled, stacked in maybe groups of 50 (stacked) and then trimmed on 3 sides.

 

Were those videos in the thread or did you see that somewhere else?

 

Somewhere else. I have even visited a bindery and watched the process on magazines not comics.

 

There's a question for the 1960s Sparta guy Dice knows--were the books cut on three sides individually, or were they cut in stacks? If they were cut in stacks, how many per stack?

I thought Dice said they were cut in stacks.

[fantastic_four]

There's a question for the 1960s Sparta guy Dice knows--were the books cut on three sides individually, or were they cut in stacks? If they were cut in stacks, how many per stack?

I thought Dice said they were cut in stacks.

 

I don't remember that. I just did a post search on the words "stack" and "stacks" under Dice's name and found nothing.

[VintageComics]

There's a question for the 1960s Sparta guy Dice knows--were the books cut on three sides individually, or were they cut in stacks? If they were cut in stacks, how many per stack?

I thought Dice said they were cut in stacks.

 

I don't remember that. I just did a post search on the words "stack" and "stacks" under Dice's name and found nothing.

 

Dice simply showed a picture of how the cutting blade worked.

 

Some people may have assumed they were stacks but I wasn't sure if they were pages or stacks. This is the picture below that he used.

 

Careful, you guys might be derailing the thread.

 

[InvstmntComcSuply]

Grain adds dimensional stability. Whatever pressing process they are performing is weakening the grain. There is no other reason for consistent shrinkage in one direction only. I linked a paper early in the thread which explained it. Here is another: About Paper Grain . First paragraph of this one: How to make paper by hand

What you're calling grain and what the linked webpage calls grain are very misleading about what's going on in the production of paper. The article admits that the grain isn't within the fibers, but a phenomenon of the paper's manufacture.

 

The article points out that the movement of the slurry through the wringer and the ensuring stream of paper through the dryer was more likely to maximize the tensile qualities of the paper in that direction, crediting that part of the process with the creation of what it calls "grain." The article you linked to also says that the fibers are virtually random in their orientation. The photograph illustrates this well.

 

The tensile characteristics of the paper have been maximized in one direction, not in the other. It is much more likely that the paper can shrink in the direction it has been pulled through the wringer, the dryer and the printing press. It is more likely it can expand in the direction perpendicular to that movement.

 

As we agreed earlier, the direction of this maximizing, if you will, is in the up-down axis of a comic book, based on the way it's printed. Shrinking would occur from top to bottom, not side to side. The clay in the covers would inhibit such shrinking, but there is less clay in the interior pages, which is why they are generally more supple.

 

I don't know why DiceX was saying that paper fibers are woven. Paper isn't a textile.

 

We have the entire internet at our disposal. There is no reason to have such an insular argument over issues that a five-minute Google session can shed great light on.

 

I had an opportunity to read through the first link I referenced above and found nothing to contradict my hypothesis about damage caused by pressing affecting the grain of the Schave books. In point of fact, if you start reading from Figure 9:

 

Many types of paper distortion including moisture-induced curl and cockle are directly related to dried-in strain. The strains that have been locked into the paper by drying under tension can be partially released by humidity cycling or wetting and redrying. A cross-grain strip of Mohawk Superfine 80 lb. paper was measured before and after wetting and redrying (Figure 9). The redried length was 0.63% shorter than the original length, a typical change for many different kinds of paper. ... This implies that thoroughly wetting the sheet and then redrying without tension can reduce the amount of grain. In practice, however, paper sizing retards wetting and several wet/dry cycles are usually necessary to have a significant impact on the grain.

 

it specifically supports my argument as does the original link I provided a month + ago, upon which I based the hypothesis:

 

From September 11, 2013

I found this link interesting:

 

Why does paper shrink when soaked?

 

In this entire time, no one else has put forward a rational hypothesis to explain the effect seen on the Schave books. Although, I think there is a strong possibility that several people "in the know" could have answered the big questions on day one.

[mrmyst]

This thread has become sciatica.

[InvstmntComcSuply]

This thread has become sciatica.

 

Although you don't have to read between the lines, you do have to read it.

[Silver Surfer]

This thread has become sciatica.

 

"Sciatia - Sciatica is a relatively common form of low back and leg pain, but the true meaning of the term is often misunderstood. Sciatica is a set of symptoms rather than a diagnosis for what is irritating the root of the nerve to cause the pain".

 

Is this is a polite way of saying its becoming a pain in the arse?

[Bomber-Bob]

Another 1197 submission:

ASM#1 CGC 7.5

 

Read the description. "exact cover alignment"

 

That whole description is infuriating. Epic Huckster.

 

Doug is the ultimate salesman. Honestly, I think 7.5 is too high for that book.

Look at the size of the Marvel chip that's missing.

 

That's CGC downgrading less for production defects. There's no defect I hate them doing that more for than chipping.

 

That's yet another scam, way of playing the system. You have a book with a corner ding and an impact chip missing. Press the ding and now you have a stand alone production default chip. Point is CGC is guessing on so too many flaws. A flaw is a flaw whether it's a common Marvel problem or not.

 

This plus a gazillion.

 

A book not getting downgraded because it has a 'production' flaw is ridiculous.

 

But it was downgraded, just not enough to your liking.

 

According to Schmell's spiel it was undergraded and should be an 8.0 .

Personally, I think that's a 7.0 all day, any day of the week, 7.5 was generous, and 8.0 would be a gift.

[DeliBebek]

I had an opportunity to read through the first link I referenced above and found nothing to contradict my hypothesis about damage caused by pressing affecting the grain of the Schave books.

The article does support points you dismissed previously, such as the fibers being oriented randomly and the so-called "grain" being produced because of the paper being pulled through the drying rack. The fact that the "grain" is not inherent to the product, but created as part of the process is worth noting, for the sake of a broader understanding of how the paper will react and why. As you see, the covers don't exhibit curling which is just as likely from the wetting/drying process.

In point of fact, if you start reading from Figure 9:

 

Many types of paper distortion including moisture-induced curl and cockle are directly related to dried-in strain. The strains that have been locked into the paper by drying under tension can be partially released by humidity cycling or wetting and redrying. A cross-grain strip of Mohawk Superfine 80 lb. paper was measured before and after wetting and redrying (Figure 9). The redried length was 0.63% shorter than the original length, a typical change for many different kinds of paper. ... This implies that thoroughly wetting the sheet and then redrying without tension can reduce the amount of grain. In practice, however, paper sizing retards wetting and several wet/dry cycles are usually necessary to have a significant impact on the grain.

In this entire time, no one else has put forward a rational hypothesis to explain the effect seen on the Schave books.

I'd say the hypothesis that the interior pages are being flattened into a wider shape is as rational as the idea that the covers and only the covers are being soaked to the extent that they shrink.

 

The site you quoted above also makes it clear the drying which causes the shrinking is done without tension on the paper. I'd qualify the amount of pressure in the thermal press enough to prevent any shrinking that might otherwise occur during the drying caused by the press's heat.

 

It's very difficult to imagine the paper shrinking while it's in the press. It's difficult to imagine it happening suddenly on the release of the pressure. That part would need some thorough explaining to support the theory of shrinking covers.

[InvstmntComcSuply]

I had an opportunity to read through the first link I referenced above and found nothing to contradict my hypothesis about damage caused by pressing affecting the grain of the Schave books.

The article does support points you dismissed previously, such as the fibers being oriented randomly and the so-called "grain" being produced because of the paper being pulled through the drying rack. The fact that the "grain" is not inherent to the product, but created as part of the process is worth noting, for the sake of a broader understanding of how the paper will react and why. As you see, the covers don't exhibit curling which is just as likely from the wetting/drying process.

I never dismissed the fact that grain is produced during the manufacturing process of paper. It has been my understanding from day one. The remainder of the above is not part of my argument, although I thoroughly agree that there needs to be a broader understanding of how the paper will react.

 

I'd say the hypothesis that the interior pages are being flattened into a wider shape is as rational as the idea that the covers and only the covers are being soaked to the extent that they shrink.

If flattening is causing dimensional instability, why does it appear to only expand the newsprint horizontally and often shrink it vertically(assuming no change in coverstock)?

 

The site you quoted above also makes it clear the drying which causes the shrinking is done without tension on the paper. I'd qualify the amount of pressure in the thermal press enough to prevent any shrinking that might otherwise occur during the drying caused by the press's heat.

 

It's very difficult to imagine the paper shrinking while it's in the press. It's difficult to imagine it happening suddenly on the release of the pressure. That part would need some thorough explaining to support the theory of shrinking covers.

Tension created in the paper manufacturing process is unilateral, tension under the plates of the press is equilateral. That said, I always assumed the majority of dimensional change occurred after removal from the press, as the paper normalized to atmospheric humidity/temperature, over the course of a couple days. Which would also mean, it would be unlikely for a press operator, whose task is only to press books and then send them on down line to the next person, to catch his mistake.