Cole Schave collection: face jobs?

[Flaming_Telepath]

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?"

Matt can explain that for you.

 

Actually, plitch already answered in a matter-of-fact way, how they were graded, just above in the thread a little bit.

 

Yes, but I thought that CGC had issued a warning that they were going to downgrade books treated this way? I don't think anyone from CGC has address that. Sounds like Paul isn't connecting those dots.

 

That was just PR BS. Was just as easy to see that then as it is now.

 

Why in the world would anyone think someone else other than nelson pressed these books? Unless you didnt already know matts been pressing for doug for over 10 years. Why would he incur extra costs (shipping) to use someone else, it makes no sense. The most obvious answer is usually the correct one and the fact that matt didnt deny it ....rofl

 

Correct.

 

Matt's company pressed these books.

 

Matt's other company graded these books.

 

Why the apologists feel the need to throw out red herrings about Doug suddenly changing his go-to presser - when he's the best in the business and now also works for the company that grades these puppies - smells of sheer desperation.

 

This type of damage - and it is damage, and it wasn't there before manipulation - has the CGC Official Stamp Of Approval, so if you don't like it, you know what you can do.

[InvstmntComcSuply]

 

Yep, two different things being talked about -- cover shrinkage in this case, the thing they can recognize and will downgrade for, should be the facejobbing, shifting spine wear and the like to the back cover and making a "new spine."

 

They can also recognize cover shrinkage.

The idea that they can not downgrade for it (especially in UHG books) is what should be questioned. Just because something "might" happen naturally in some small percentage of a population should not preclude it from being graded as a defect.

 

You might say: "But, that interferes with a business model that encourages resubs". Resubs which commonly use techniques which when not applied properly, can result in this defect.

 

Oh well.

[drbanner]

Okay, Matt has more or less confirmed the cause of the shrinkage, specifically humidity, probably combined with pressing. Plitch has basically stated they stand by their grades. I don't know about anyone else but I still feel the books are fugly. The fact that they were manipulated to look like this and received higher grades still doesn't sit well with me.

Going forward, is there anything we can do ?

Two things:

 

Bend over and continue to take it.

Buy the book not the all mighty label.

 

One more:

 

Teach George Costanza how to properly press books so he doesn't mess them up like this.

 

On an entirely unrelated note, has CGC hired any new pressers lately?

[originalisbest]

 

Yep, two different things being talked about -- cover shrinkage in this case, the thing they can recognize and will downgrade for, should be the facejobbing, shifting spine wear and the like to the back cover and making a "new spine."

 

They can also recognize cover shrinkage.

The idea that they can not downgrade for it (especially in UHG books) is what should be questioned. Just because something "might" happen naturally in some small percentage of a population should not preclude it from being graded as a defect.

 

You might say: "But, that interferes with a business model that encourages resubs". Resubs which commonly use techniques which when not applied properly, can result in this defect.

 

Oh well.

 

I don't think they could recognize cover shrinkage without benefit of "before" scans, for any given book. Matter o' fact, I'd hazard a guess that no one, without before scans, could consistently recognize cover shrinkage via a recent press, vs. as-manufactured-at-time-of-issue state of being.

 

And you got it, the professional grading world encourages resubs, it's the case with all collectible, slabbable items.

[InvstmntComcSuply]

swing... and a miss.

[originalisbest]

swing... and a miss.

 

Um, how so?

[VintageComics]

Why the apologists feel the need to throw out red herrings about Doug suddenly changing his go-to presser - when he's the best in the business and now also works for the company that grades these puppies - smells of sheer desperation.

 

I'm assuming you're subtly aiming this point at me since I'm the only one that brought it up.

 

I genuinely wasn't trying to throw out a red herring or apologize for anything. I'm as disappointed that this is happening as all of you and I don't think that this type of work should be rewarded. I am OK with pressing, I am not OK that unattractive books are being rewarded.

 

Of course, Matt is a smart boy and he could have done it himself after being inspired by Wilson's previous work. I was just looking at the timeline of how this practice has evolved with an open mind and wondered if Doug has contacted Wilson to do the work.

 

The main reason I doubted that CCS would be allowed to perform something like this was because it was frowned upon by CGC a few weeks ago.

 

Now, if CGC were frowning on something different (the tell tale marks of the spine shift, such as the wear being obscured by moving it) than we thought they were frowning upon (the fanned pages) then it's very obvious that it could be Matt and that CGC is OK with it.

 

That's why I maintain that the fanned pages should be considered a defect no different than a spine roll, just a lesser one.

[originalisbest]

Why the apologists feel the need to throw out red herrings about Doug suddenly changing his go-to presser - when he's the best in the business and now also works for the company that grades these puppies - smells of sheer desperation.

 

I'm assuming you're subtly aiming this point at me since I'm the only one that brought it up.

 

I genuinely wasn't trying to throw out a red herring or apologize for anything. I'm as disappointed that this is happening as all of you and I don't think that this type of work should be rewarded. I am OK with pressing, I am not OK that unattractive books are being rewarded.

 

Of course, Matt is a smart boy and he could have done it himself after being inspired by Wilson's previous work. I was just looking at the timeline of how this practice has evolved with an open mind and wondered if Doug has contacted Wilson to do the work.

 

The main reason I doubted that CCS would be allowed to perform something like this was because it was frowned upon by CGC a few weeks ago.

 

Now, if CGC were frowning on something different (the tell tale marks of the spine shift, such as the wear being obscured by moving it) than we thought they were frowning upon (the fanned pages) then it's very obvious that it could be Matt and that CGC is OK with it.

 

That's why I maintain that the fanned pages should be considered a defect no different than a spine roll, just a lesser one.

 

I think the fanned pages appearance of the Schave books is due to cover shrinkage as Matt explained, but I don't think it was intentional to have that appearance be the result. With the spine-shifting Wilson books, that was a different animal, as the intent was to change the books' appearance materially, with the damage/normal wear shifted to the back of the book, to get the higher facial grade appearance.

[VintageComics]

I think the fanned pages appearance of the Schave books is due to cover shrinkage as Matt explained, but I don't think it was intentional to have that appearance be the result. With the spine-shifting Wilson books, that was a different animal, as the intent was to change the books' appearance materially, with the damage/normal wear shifted to the back of the book, to get the higher facial grade appearance.

 

Fair point.

 

 

[thirdgreenham]

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.

 

I could see it happening due to cover grain and the staples being "in the way" of the paper wanting to shrink vertically, but that is a guess on my part. Matt, or Joey, or Ze-man, all very experienced with working with paper, could give a qualified answer I'd think.

 

I could see it happening but it would depend on how much humidity and how much heat was used. If paper can expand with moisture, it can also shrink if the moisture is removed unevenly.

 

On Paul's comments about the final grades given I can see why CGC is taking the stance they do. Not knowing where it came from the objective is to grade it impartially. They only question I would have is; Are they that removed from books coming from CCS? Since this type of issue does occur without a book being pressed they can only go on what is laying right in front of them. If they had a before scan I would see it making a difference, but who sends in before scans with their books.

 

See, I would figure that every single book is "supposed" to be treated anonymously. ie. Not knowing who the submitter is.

 

If they come to the graders with an extra sticker on the mylar, informing them that CCS had just worked on the book, then we are now getting away from impartiality.

 

[mschmidt]

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.

 

I could see it happening due to cover grain and the staples being "in the way" of the paper wanting to shrink vertically, but that is a guess on my part. Matt, or Joey, or Ze-man, all very experienced with working with paper, could give a qualified answer I'd think.

 

I could see it happening but it would depend on how much humidity and how much heat was used. If paper can expand with moisture, it can also shrink if the moisture is removed unevenly.

 

On Paul's comments about the final grades given I can see why CGC is taking the stance they do. Not knowing where it came from the objective is to grade it impartially. They only question I would have is; Are they that removed from books coming from CCS? Since this type of issue does occur without a book being pressed they can only go on what is laying right in front of them. If they had a before scan I would see it making a difference, but who sends in before scans with their books.

 

See, I would figure that every single book is "supposed" to be treated anonymously. ie. Not knowing who the submitter is.

 

If they come to the graders with an extra sticker on the mylar, informing them that CCS had just worked on the book, then we are now getting away from impartiality.

 

 

They're not. Anyone who says otherwise is a insufficiently_thoughtful_person with an agenda.

 

Paul made it perfectly clear that CGC are grading the books that are put in front of them, with no knowledge of their history or owner. It's so strange to hear people complaining that CGC should be researching books prior to grading - that they should somehow take into consideration that the books they're looking at used to be lower grade & have now been pressed - when the cornerstone of CGC's business model is their impartiality.

 

It's fairly obvious that CGC can't win here ... you have the tinfoil hat brigade on one side, claiming that CCS is responsible for every bad press job known to man (and with zero evidence to back up this claim) and that Matt himself is somehow involved in the grading of these books. And on the other side, you've got the lynch mob who don't seem to realize that as CGC don't look at before & after shots of every book that's submitted, they have no way of determining whether these books were manipulated or simply display a production defect that's common in older SA books :doh:

 

[Silver Surfer]

I don't understand the JiM 88 and 93. The interior pages are clearly more fanned, but the spines on both don't appear to be shifted. The same amount of art is showing on both,m with nothing discernible moved to the back cover.

 

Maybe extra pressings have caused the book to flatten more and the pages to fan?

 

That's what I surmised early on in the thread.

 

Others have suggested the cover shrank.

 

I'm thinking that it's got to be one of two possibilities.

 

 

Don't forget the humidity in Green Bay.

[Bomber-Bob]

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.

 

I could see it happening due to cover grain and the staples being "in the way" of the paper wanting to shrink vertically, but that is a guess on my part. Matt, or Joey, or Ze-man, all very experienced with working with paper, could give a qualified answer I'd think.

 

I could see it happening but it would depend on how much humidity and how much heat was used. If paper can expand with moisture, it can also shrink if the moisture is removed unevenly.

 

On Paul's comments about the final grades given I can see why CGC is taking the stance they do. Not knowing where it came from the objective is to grade it impartially. They only question I would have is; Are they that removed from books coming from CCS? Since this type of issue does occur without a book being pressed they can only go on what is laying right in front of them. If they had a before scan I would see it making a difference, but who sends in before scans with their books.

 

See, I would figure that every single book is "supposed" to be treated anonymously. ie. Not knowing who the submitter is.

 

If they come to the graders with an extra sticker on the mylar, informing them that CCS had just worked on the book, then we are now getting away from impartiality.

 

 

They're not. Anyone who says otherwise is a insufficiently_thoughtful_person with an agenda.

 

Paul made it perfectly clear that CGC are grading the books that are put in front of them, with no knowledge of their history or owner. It's so strange to hear people complaining that CGC should be researching books prior to grading - that they should somehow take into consideration that the books they're looking at used to be lower grade & have now been pressed - when the cornerstone of CGC's business model is their impartiality.

 

It's fairly obvious that CGC can't win here ... you have the tinfoil hat brigade on one side, claiming that CCS is responsible for every bad press job known to man (and with zero evidence to back up this claim) and that Matt himself is somehow involved in the grading of these books. And on the other side, you've got the lynch mob who don't seem to realize that as CGC don't look at before & after shots of every book that's submitted, they have no way of determining whether these books were manipulated or simply display a production defect that's common in older SA books :doh:

 

Michael, with all due respect I wish to disagree on one comment you made. I don't think that this particular defect is 'common' on SA books, especially to this degree. I have just gone through hundreds of my books and only found one that had this kind of severity. Agreeing with you that the Graders don't know the history of the books, to suddenly place a stack in front of them, all with the same defect, one would think should arouse some suspicion.

 

[namisgr]

First off, it's not impossible to distinguish books that naturally have pages sticking out from those that got that way by a bad pressing. One systematic look through the Cole Schave collection shows why this is so: a couple of submissions of early SA Marvels in which the interior pages uniformly stick out from the covers means that the vast majority didn't get that way by natural processes.

 

Secondly, now that it's been brought to public attention and deemed problematic, perhaps Matt's shop can make an effort to devise ways of minimizing or at least reducing the amount of cover shrinkage occurring on the early SA Marvels they press. I hope they can do this with maverick staples as well.

 

Finally, when the degree of cover shrinkage gets to the point where it negatively impacts the eye appeal of a comic, the marketplace will decide on the lost value. I, for one, would strongly prefer that my otherwise high grade comics not have the interior pages sticking out to the degree that they do on the JIM93, ASM14, and some of the other books in the Cole Schave collection. If Matt's shop can't reduce the Costanza problem, and sellers lose value as a consequence, perhaps the financial incentive will be there for both presser and seller to reduce the problem.

[Silver Surfer]

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?"

Matt can explain that for you.

 

Actually, plitch already answered in a matter-of-fact way, how they were graded, just above in the thread a little bit.

 

Yes, but I thought that CGC had issued a warning that they were going to downgrade books treated this way? I don't think anyone from CGC has address that. Sounds like Paul isn't connecting those dots.

 

That was just PR BS. Was just as easy to see that then as it is now.

 

Why in the world would anyone think someone else other than nelson pressed these books? Unless you didnt already know matts been pressing for doug for over 10 years. Why would he incur extra costs (shipping) to use someone else, it makes no sense. The most obvious answer is usually the correct one and the fact that matt didnt deny it ....rofl

 

Correct.

 

Matt's company pressed these books.

 

Matt's other company graded these books.

 

Why the apologists feel the need to throw out red herrings about Doug suddenly changing his go-to presser - when he's the best in the business and now also works for the company that grades these puppies - smells of sheer desperation.

 

This type of damage - and it is damage, and it wasn't there before manipulation - has the CGC Official Stamp Of Approval, so if you don't like it, you know what you can do.

 

Remember the good old days when CGC brass use to say that they can't detect pressing if its done correctly.

[originalisbest]

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?"

Matt can explain that for you.

 

Actually, plitch already answered in a matter-of-fact way, how they were graded, just above in the thread a little bit.

 

Yes, but I thought that CGC had issued a warning that they were going to downgrade books treated this way? I don't think anyone from CGC has address that. Sounds like Paul isn't connecting those dots.

 

That was just PR BS. Was just as easy to see that then as it is now.

 

Why in the world would anyone think someone else other than nelson pressed these books? Unless you didnt already know matts been pressing for doug for over 10 years. Why would he incur extra costs (shipping) to use someone else, it makes no sense. The most obvious answer is usually the correct one and the fact that matt didnt deny it ....rofl

 

Correct.

 

Matt's company pressed these books.

 

Matt's other company graded these books.

 

Why the apologists feel the need to throw out red herrings about Doug suddenly changing his go-to presser - when he's the best in the business and now also works for the company that grades these puppies - smells of sheer desperation.

 

This type of damage - and it is damage, and it wasn't there before manipulation - has the CGC Official Stamp Of Approval, so if you don't like it, you know what you can do.

 

Remember the good old days when CGC brass use to say that they can't detect pressing if its done correctly.

 

I think those days are still with us, because if pressing is done correctly, yep, you can't tell.

[DiceX]

Maybe Matt has started Martinizing as a part of the pressing service.

 

 

[batman_fan]

My interpretation is that Paul is saying that they can not distinguish this type of poor press job from a naturally occurring shrinkage or a production defect,

 

I think you are spot on.

[Silver Surfer]

Dale please don't take this the wrong way but I have to ask, do you have books consigned to this auction?[such as a few of the high grade TOS's and TTA's that were formerly from Doug's collection?] Just curious, nothing else.

[namisgr]

I think those days are still with us, because if pressing is done correctly, yep, you can't tell.

 

Glad to see that you agree with others that pressing is being done incorrectly when it produces Costanza comics with profound shrinkage of the cover.