Cole Schave collection: face jobs?

[Bomber-Bob]

Question, I thought one of the ways of detecting trimming, especially microtrimming, was the difference in the color of the paper underneath. The aging of the paper would differ on the exposed portion as oppossed to the paper under the cover. Wouldn't the cover shrinkage expose this ? Almost like a tan line.

 

[drbanner]

Let's see, on August 2 Doug posts on the boards that he just picked up a sweet HG Marvel SA Collection with these 12 JIMs:

 

Journey Into Mystery 83 9.0

Journey Into Mystery 84 9.4 (CGC Signature SERIES)

Journey Into Mystery 85 9.6

Journey Into Mystery 86 9.6

Journey Into Mystery 87 9.4

Journey Into Mystery 88 9.6 (Northland)

Journey Into Mystery 89 9.6

Journey Into Mystery 90 9.6

Journey Into Mystery 92 9.4 (White Mountain)

Journey Into Mystery 93 9.4

Journey Into Mystery 96 9.6

Journey Into Mystery 103 9.8

 

Less than 3 weeks later, CGC grades these:

 

Journey Into Mystery 83 9.0

Journey Into Mystery 86 9.6

Journey Into Mystery 87 9.4

Journey Into Mystery 88 9.6 (Northland)

Journey Into Mystery 92 9.4 (White Mountain)

Journey Into Mystery 93 9.6 (Finally, a winner!)

Journey Into Mystery 96 9.6

 

Of the original 12 JIMs, only 5 weren't re-graded subsequent to his purchase of the collection. Looks like these 5 weren't exposed to the same "humidity" as the others:

 

 

The 89 is

 

 

[Dale Roberts]

None. I have consigned no books with Doug in the past 4 years

[namisgr]

Yes, in this case the problem resides in the 11977... submissions.

[Silver Surfer]

Ok thanks. (thumbs u

[Bomber-Bob]

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.

 

I'm repeating my question, why can't it be detected ? ...

I thought one of the ways of detecting trimming, especially microtrimming, was the difference in the color of the paper underneath. The aging of the paper would differ on the exposed portion as oppossed to the paper under the cover. Wouldn't the cover shrinkage of these books expose the difference in paper ? Like a tan line.

[originalisbest]

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.

 

Actually I do agree with everyone on that point, I think these were incorrectly pressed, as there was cover shrinkage, and too much humidity used. I think without before and after scans, or being presented with, say, 80 books all with the same distinct pages-protruding appearance, people would be hard-pressed to tell cover shrinkage, though.

 

I think the "before" JIM #88 9.6 slab (without unusual page protrusion) would be a more or less "good" press job.

[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:

 

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.

 

But, again, you're asking the graders to take into account the history of the books they're grading - which I honestly don't think they should. The graders should grade whatever is in front of them in whatever state those books might be in.

 

The market already penalizes books with high technical grades and low eye appeal - a 9.6 with C/OW pages and a fugly miswrap is never going to get the same amount of money as a white-paged wonder with a perfect wrap.

[originalisbest]

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.

 

I'm repeating my question, why can't it be detected ? ...

I thought one of the ways of detecting trimming, especially microtrimming, was the difference in the color of the paper underneath. The aging of the paper would differ on the exposed portion as oppossed to the paper under the cover. Wouldn't the cover shrinkage of these books expose the difference in paper ? Like a tan line.

 

I don't think the cover, pulled back, would reveal the tan line you're looking for, not on a high-grade book. The pages being probably uniformly bright. On an old-paged book which has seen dust and/or sun exposure, it would of course be pretty noticeable.

[namisgr]

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.

 

No, but Matt can, and that's where the matter ought to be addressed. The marketplace is not likely to look upon books with this feature very favorably, and he certainly risks losing business if he doesn't.

[skypinkblu]

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:

 

And we have people who are very bright, but are so kind that they stood up many times for a person who is now in the HOS.

 

I don't hate CGC, I like them so much I've invested in their product, I truly hope that their reputation continues to be excellent, one because I enjoy these boards, and two, because the books I've had slabbed/bought slabbed will lose value if the company does not maintain their reputation..

 

However, this is not a business for me, it's a hobby. I don't need to preserve my investment at the cost of ignoring the questions that keep bothering me.

 

I understand that the graders need to be impartial, however, Bob made a good point.

 

If the books were not downgraded because it's possibly a manufacturer's defect, why didn't someone notice or ask why so many of the same defects were showing up at the same time? and if they did? Why wasn't this brought to management so the grades could be corrected?

 

If its because the graders are not allowed to ask these questions, maybe there is something missing from their quality control sequences?

 

As for the rest...well, I guess they could have been abducted by aliens, at this point no one from CGC has said they were pressed there, so we don't really know...but by not saying they were NOT pressed by CCS, it leaves the question open.

[originalisbest]

It also depends on whether this defect, which can occur "in nature", is viewed by CGC as a grade-punisher. As mschmidt pointed out, the market can decide how it views/rewards/doesn't reward books with high cgc grades/protruding pages/possible shrunken covers.

[Mr.Diggler]

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.

The Costanza books have been pressed correctly according to the CGC. They've been given a blue label and some a grade bump.

[drbanner]

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.

Bingosaurus Rex.

[Badger]

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

 

+100000000000000

[r100comics]

Let's see, on August 2 Doug posts on the boards that he just picked up a sweet HG Marvel SA Collection with these 12 JIMs:

 

Journey Into Mystery 83 9.0

Journey Into Mystery 84 9.4 (CGC Signature SERIES)

Journey Into Mystery 85 9.6

Journey Into Mystery 86 9.6

Journey Into Mystery 87 9.4

Journey Into Mystery 88 9.6 (Northland)

Journey Into Mystery 89 9.6

Journey Into Mystery 90 9.6

Journey Into Mystery 92 9.4 (White Mountain)

Journey Into Mystery 93 9.4

Journey Into Mystery 96 9.6

Journey Into Mystery 103 9.8

 

Less than 3 weeks later, CGC grades these:

 

Journey Into Mystery 83 9.0

Journey Into Mystery 86 9.6

Journey Into Mystery 87 9.4

Journey Into Mystery 88 9.6 (Northland)

Journey Into Mystery 92 9.4 (White Mountain)

Journey Into Mystery 93 9.6 (Finally, a winner!)

Journey Into Mystery 96 9.6

 

Of the original 12 JIMs, only 5 weren't re-graded subsequent to his purchase of the collection. Looks like these 5 weren't exposed to the same "humidity" as the others:

 

 

The 89 is

 

 

I believe the #89 9.6 is the 9.4 from the original Greg Manning auction and the #103 9.8 is the #103 9.4 Eides copy from 2004.

[Mark 1]

I've had Joey press my SA JIMs and TOS and none have this issue after I submitted the books. (not all of my books just some)

 

Perhaps Matt isn't doing a very good job since he is in effect damaging the book...but then again the grades increased...

 

What a dilemma

[r100comics]

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.

 

No, but Matt can, and that's where the matter ought to be addressed. The marketplace is not likely to look upon books with this feature very favorably, and he certainly risks losing business if he doesn't.

 

Has it been proven that Matt did these poor press jobs ?

 

Love him or hate him, the quality of his work usually isn't in question.

[miraclemet]

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.

 

I'm repeating my question, why can't it be detected ? ...

I thought one of the ways of detecting trimming, especially microtrimming, was the difference in the color of the paper underneath. The aging of the paper would differ on the exposed portion as oppossed to the paper under the cover. Wouldn't the cover shrinkage of these books expose the difference in paper ? Like a tan line.

 

I think it can be detected.

 

Just not conclusively detected. There's probably a scenario where this could naturally occur (like a collection being moved after a period of time).

 

Its the ability to conclusively detect it that's the problem.

[Mark 1]

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.

 

I'm repeating my question, why can't it be detected ? ...

I thought one of the ways of detecting trimming, especially microtrimming, was the difference in the color of the paper underneath. The aging of the paper would differ on the exposed portion as oppossed to the paper under the cover. Wouldn't the cover shrinkage of these books expose the difference in paper ? Like a tan line.

 

I think it can be detected.

 

Just not conclusively detected. There's probably a scenario where this could naturally occur (like a collection being moved after a period of time).

 

Its the ability to conclusively detect it that's the problem.

 

It most certainly can be detected. I just checked my entire TOS run of 39-99 and not one of them has this defect. The cover is right to the edge of the paper.

 

I know i'll be able to tell this issue moving forward and believe I can tell just looking at the book in the slab.