Cole Schave collection: face jobs?

[THE_BEYONDER]

So these books are getting washed and pressed and showing up in blue label holders?

 

Hmmm. Very interesting.

 

I really hesitate to ask this but is it possible the CGC is simple missing these things ? If truly restored books are sitting in blue CGC labels we have a problem. This is a topic that Paul Litch should look into.

 

Missing them, or again redefining what is restoration based on what is "detectable"? If books are being cleaned in some undetectable way by someone who doesn't work at CCS, and the covers are shrinking either as a side effect of this process or through a different process, then this is potentially a new issue. If CCS is cleaning them then shouldn't that be disclosed as restoration?

 

At this point, CGC can't really win, can they? ::

 

If the 9.0 copy of the book still had the dirt/staining/whatever it is on the back, people would be complaining that it was a gift grade, due to CGC colluding with CCS.

 

Now that it doesn't, it immediately means it's been wet-cleaned and put in a blue label slab, due to CGC colluding with CCS.

 

I think the next step is to just post up scans of random blue label CGC books, claim that they've been trimmed, and blame it on Matt slipping Litch $20 as he stands by his side, telling him how the books should grade out. Because, you know, unless Litch actually comes into this thread & confirms that this isn't how it works, how do we really know?

 

I'm not suggesting any dubious conspiracy but why can't you just look at this with an open mind and wait for some facts before hunkering in? I think it's good that we are noticing the work that is being done on these books as information is power. Since you brought it up, the "slipping" of $20 does sound ridiculous but how about taking a $8k book and making it into a $20k book for resale? I hope the removal of the foxing was done with some cutting edge non-restorative technology as that would be exciting news. However, if it's not then we may have an ugly situation like we have never seen on these boards before. Also, I'm not sure anyone from CCS would be too willing to hand out trade secrets on techniques and that is totally understable.

 

You don't find it slightly hypocritical to say "wait for some facts" when everyone seems to have decided this book was solvent cleaned & CGC either missed it or let it slide because it came from CCS - even though there's no proof for any of this?

 

Everyone? Really?

[pickycollector]

I'm sure CGC will change their stance on this any day now. I mean, why wouldn't they be in favor of a practice created specifically to put their sister company at a disadvantage in the marketplace?

 

It's certainly a conflicted view to, on the one hand, consider pressing to be an innocuous treatment unworthy of continued consideration, and on the other hand consider it to be sufficiently negatively impactful to place CCS at a competitive disadvantage if they ever disclosed it.

 

If books coming from CCS receive any label notes that books which have received the exact same treatment from someone else (say CFP Comics or the Restoration Lab) don't, it puts CCS at a competitive disadvantage - there's nothing conflicted about that :thumbsup:

On one hand you (and many others) say that disclosing pressing would put CCS at a competitive disadvantage and on the other hand you say that pressing is not restoration, that it is undetectable and that nobody should care about it.

 

There is the conflict

[mschmidt]

I'm sure CGC will change their stance on this any day now. I mean, why wouldn't they be in favor of a practice created specifically to put their sister company at a disadvantage in the marketplace?

 

It's certainly a conflicted view to, on the one hand, consider pressing to be an innocuous treatment unworthy of continued consideration, and on the other hand consider it to be sufficiently negatively impactful to place CCS at a competitive disadvantage if they ever disclosed it.

 

If books coming from CCS receive any label notes that books which have received the exact same treatment from someone else (say CFP Comics or the Restoration Lab) don't, it puts CCS at a competitive disadvantage - there's nothing conflicted about that :thumbsup:

On one hand you (and many others) say that disclosing pressing would put CCS at a competitive disadvantage and on the other hand you say that pressing is not restoration, that it is undetectable and that nobody should care about it.

 

There is the conflict

 

You're missing my point entirely.

 

CGC doesn't consider pressing restoration ergo it doesn't get noted on the label. I know you don't agree, but them's the breaks.

 

If CGC specifically started labeling books coming from CCS with a "pressed" notation, those people who don't want that notation would send their books to someone else - like Joey. Or they'd crack the books once they received them & send them back in to get a "fresh" label.

 

How would this do anything other than put CCS at a competitive disadvantage within the marketplace?

[VintageComics]

And why are you call me hypocritical? Shouldn't that comment be directed to others? It's misdirected commentary like this that fuels heated pointless debates that get personal. Maybe I should just refer to you as a CGC apologist, how would you like that?

 

Ironically enough, right now you sound a lot like me talking to you a few weeks ago.

 

You've been one of the hottest heads in this entire thread without a doubt.

 

Even after I left the discussion weeks ago, you continued to quote my out of context words (like the 'natural shrinkage' jokes) for the past two weeks. Why? I don't know.

 

Sorry if I notice and make mention of it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mschmidt]

So these books are getting washed and pressed and showing up in blue label holders?

 

Hmmm. Very interesting.

 

I really hesitate to ask this but is it possible the CGC is simple missing these things ? If truly restored books are sitting in blue CGC labels we have a problem. This is a topic that Paul Litch should look into.

 

Missing them, or again redefining what is restoration based on what is "detectable"? If books are being cleaned in some undetectable way by someone who doesn't work at CCS, and the covers are shrinking either as a side effect of this process or through a different process, then this is potentially a new issue. If CCS is cleaning them then shouldn't that be disclosed as restoration?

 

At this point, CGC can't really win, can they? ::

 

If the 9.0 copy of the book still had the dirt/staining/whatever it is on the back, people would be complaining that it was a gift grade, due to CGC colluding with CCS.

 

Now that it doesn't, it immediately means it's been wet-cleaned and put in a blue label slab, due to CGC colluding with CCS.

 

I think the next step is to just post up scans of random blue label CGC books, claim that they've been trimmed, and blame it on Matt slipping Litch $20 as he stands by his side, telling him how the books should grade out. Because, you know, unless Litch actually comes into this thread & confirms that this isn't how it works, how do we really know?

 

I'm not suggesting any dubious conspiracy but why can't you just look at this with an open mind and wait for some facts before hunkering in? I think it's good that we are noticing the work that is being done on these books as information is power. Since you brought it up, the "slipping" of $20 does sound ridiculous but how about taking a $8k book and making it into a $20k book for resale? I hope the removal of the foxing was done with some cutting edge non-restorative technology as that would be exciting news. However, if it's not then we may have an ugly situation like we have never seen on these boards before. Also, I'm not sure anyone from CCS would be too willing to hand out trade secrets on techniques and that is totally understable.

 

You don't find it slightly hypocritical to say "wait for some facts" when everyone seems to have decided this book was solvent cleaned & CGC either missed it or let it slide because it came from CCS - even though there's no proof for any of this?

 

And why are you call me hypocritical? Shouldn't that comment be directed to others? It's misdirected commentary like this that fuels heated pointless debates that get personal. Maybe I should just refer to you as a CGC apologist, how would you like that?

 

You specifically told me to look at this "with an open mind and wait for some facts" when, in fact, that's exactly what I was doing; pointing out that people are jumping to conclusions based on no facts whatsoever :shrug:

[VintageComics]

I'm sure CGC will change their stance on this any day now. I mean, why wouldn't they be in favor of a practice created specifically to put their sister company at a disadvantage in the marketplace?

 

It's certainly a conflicted view to, on the one hand, consider pressing to be an innocuous treatment unworthy of continued consideration, and on the other hand consider it to be sufficiently negatively impactful to place CCS at a competitive disadvantage if they ever disclosed it.

 

Yay, another pressing thread with the same circular arguments.

 

It's not conflicted, you are mixing up two separate things.

 

On the one hand, you are talking about the effects of pressing on a book. When done properly to a proper specimen it is innocuous.

 

On the other hand you are also talking about CGC's internal policy which is designed to keep the grading process impartial. If you want impartiality, then you have to take the good with the bad. Unless someone can come up with a better impartial system.

 

 

Two separate things that you can't really comingle in a discussion.

[pickycollector]

I'm sure CGC will change their stance on this any day now. I mean, why wouldn't they be in favor of a practice created specifically to put their sister company at a disadvantage in the marketplace?

 

It's certainly a conflicted view to, on the one hand, consider pressing to be an innocuous treatment unworthy of continued consideration, and on the other hand consider it to be sufficiently negatively impactful to place CCS at a competitive disadvantage if they ever disclosed it.

 

If books coming from CCS receive any label notes that books which have received the exact same treatment from someone else (say CFP Comics or the Restoration Lab) don't, it puts CCS at a competitive disadvantage - there's nothing conflicted about that :thumbsup:

On one hand you (and many others) say that disclosing pressing would put CCS at a competitive disadvantage and on the other hand you say that pressing is not restoration, that it is undetectable and that nobody should care about it.

 

There is the conflict

 

You're missing my point entirely.

 

CGC doesn't consider pressing restoration ergo it doesn't get noted on the label. I know you don't agree, but them's the breaks.

 

If CGC specifically started labeling books coming from CCS with a "pressed" notation, those people who don't want that notation would send their books to someone else - like Joey. Or they'd crack the books once they received them & send them back in to get a "fresh" label.

 

How would this do anything other than put CCS at a competitive disadvantage within the marketplace?

Mike, what you are saying is that disclosing pressing on the label would put CCS at a competitive disadvantage within the marketplace, right ?

 

So a CGC 9.0 labeled as "pressed" would worth less or would not sell as well as a CGC 9.0 of the same book without such notation, right ?

 

Therefore, a pressed book worth less than an unpressed one, don't we agree ?

[mschmidt]

I'm sure CGC will change their stance on this any day now. I mean, why wouldn't they be in favor of a practice created specifically to put their sister company at a disadvantage in the marketplace?

 

It's certainly a conflicted view to, on the one hand, consider pressing to be an innocuous treatment unworthy of continued consideration, and on the other hand consider it to be sufficiently negatively impactful to place CCS at a competitive disadvantage if they ever disclosed it.

 

If books coming from CCS receive any label notes that books which have received the exact same treatment from someone else (say CFP Comics or the Restoration Lab) don't, it puts CCS at a competitive disadvantage - there's nothing conflicted about that :thumbsup:

On one hand you (and many others) say that disclosing pressing would put CCS at a competitive disadvantage and on the other hand you say that pressing is not restoration, that it is undetectable and that nobody should care about it.

 

There is the conflict

 

You're missing my point entirely.

 

CGC doesn't consider pressing restoration ergo it doesn't get noted on the label. I know you don't agree, but them's the breaks.

 

If CGC specifically started labeling books coming from CCS with a "pressed" notation, those people who don't want that notation would send their books to someone else - like Joey. Or they'd crack the books once they received them & send them back in to get a "fresh" label.

 

How would this do anything other than put CCS at a competitive disadvantage within the marketplace?

Mike, what you are saying is that disclosing pressing on the label would put CCS at a competitive disadvantage within the marketplace, right ?

 

So a CGC 9.0 labeled as "pressed" would worth less or would not sell as well as a CGC 9.0 of the same book without such notation, right ?

 

Therefore, a pressed book worth less than an unpressed one, don't we agree ?

 

Technically, I think it's the other way around - a book guaranteed unpressed (meaning it might still have some juice left that could be pressed out) could sell for more than a book that's known to be pressed. You see this all the time when old label, supposedly "virgin" books go up for auction.

 

But forcing CGC to label CCS books with a "pressed" notation doesn't guarantee you that any book that doesn't have this notation hasn't been pressed - all it does it leave a wide opening in the marketplace for an unscrupulous seller who wants to make some easy bucks. Do you honestly think that the sort of people who engage in reverse spine rolls would balk an eye at having a book pressed by CCS, cracking it out & sending it back in for a "fresh" label, and then bringing said book to market as an "unpressed beauty"? Or simply send the book to any other pressing service where books don't get this notation?

 

I just don't agree with the notion that CGC should treat books coming from CCS differently than they treat books coming from anyone else - and that by remaining oblivious as to the owner or provenance of the books (like they do now) they're somehow engaging in unethical behavior.

[Bomber-Bob]

Personally, I don't care about the pressing notation anymore though I think having it available in the notes would be nice. I am now more concerned about the foxing removal. For the record, I don't think CCS did it and I don't care, doesn't matter. The fact that it is in a blue label puzzles me. I think CGC should comment on this specific example. Making a mistake is okay. Awareness is more important for future examples.

[Silver Surfer]

And why are you call me hypocritical? Shouldn't that comment be directed to others? It's misdirected commentary like this that fuels heated pointless debates that get personal. Maybe I should just refer to you as a CGC apologist, how would you like that?

 

Ironically enough, right now you sound a lot like me talking to you a few weeks ago.

 

You've been one of the hottest heads in this entire thread without a doubt.

 

Even after I left the discussion weeks ago, you continued to quote my out of context words (like the 'natural shrinkage' jokes) for the past two weeks. Why? I don't know.

 

Sorry if I notice and make mention of it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry if I interrupted your thread Roy. You were not the only one who backed the natural shrinkage idea or even started it for that matter but its funny that you think I'm making fun of "your words". As for me sounding like you I don't think so. I'm not here trying to cram some unproven, almost hokey theory down everyone's throat.

[VintageComics]

Sorry if I interrupted your thread Roy.

 

It's everyone's community thread, Pete, and always has been.

 

Your sarcasm doesn't help you make your point.

 

You were not the only one who backed the natural shrinkage idea or even started it for that matter but its funny that you think I'm making fun of "your words".

 

No, but you were very obviously and vocally annoyed at me every time I mentioned it, so excuse me if I misread that behaviour. Next time someone is mocking me I'll make sure I understand they mean someone else.

 

As for me sounding like you I don't think so.

 

We should take a poll. I do.

 

I'm not here trying to cram some unproven, almost hokey theory down everyone's throat.

 

Neither am I. And it's not my idea. It's actually a long standing theory that's been held by people who study paper and it has a string of facts to support it.

 

Still, more importantly no mention was ever made that the Schave books were naturally shrunken so forgive me if I can't understand why you have a problem with a discussion about it.

 

 

[drbanner]

I'm sure CGC will change their stance on this any day now. I mean, why wouldn't they be in favor of a practice created specifically to put their sister company at a disadvantage in the marketplace?

It's certainly a conflicted view to, on the one hand, consider pressing to be an innocuous treatment unworthy of continued consideration, and on the other hand consider it to be sufficiently negatively impactful to place CCS at a competitive disadvantage if they ever disclosed it.

It's certainly perplexing that on one hand CGC says that repeated pressing may damage books (as evidenced by this very thread), but then to hold the position that they're not going to tell you that they pressed the very book they're grading? It's not only perplexing, it's a bit hypocritical actually.

 

When they start indicating these types of procedures on the label, the consumer can be confident that the book they're buying has been handled in a professional manner such that the integrity of the book is not in question.

[Silver Surfer]

Sorry if I interrupted your thread Roy.

 

It's everyone's community thread, Pete, and always has been.

 

Your sarcasm doesn't help you make your point.

 

You were not the only one who backed the natural shrinkage idea or even started it for that matter but its funny that you think I'm making fun of "your words".

 

No, but you were very obviously and vocally annoyed at me every time I mentioned it, so excuse me if I misread that behaviour. Next time someone is mocking me I'll make sure I understand they mean someone else.

 

As for me sounding like you I don't think so.

 

We should take a poll. I do.

 

I'm not here trying to cram some unproven, almost hokey theory down everyone's throat.

 

Neither am I. And it's not my idea. It's actually a long standing theory that's been held by people who study paper and it has a string of facts to support it.

 

Still, more importantly no mention was ever made that the Schave books were naturally shrunken so forgive me if I can't understand why you have a problem with a discussion about it.

 

Then why did you spend so much time and energy trying to push this theory in this thread? If I need another migraine I'm sure that would be easy enough splitting hairs and semantics with you for another 100 pages but no thanks. You can't paint it any way you want if it makes you feel better but please do not use this as another excuse to continue to justify your angle in this thread.

[VintageComics]

Then why did you spend so much time and energy trying to push this theory in this thread? If I need another migraine I'm sure that would be easy enough splitting hairs and semantics with you for another 100 pages but no thanks. You can't paint it any way you want if it makes you feel better but please do not use this as another excuse to continue to justify your angle in this thread.

 

I clearly spelled it out for you probably a dozen times but it seems that you only see what you want to see.

 

a) because early on in the thread nobody could tell for sure what happened to the books and it was an attempt to figure out what happened to the books be reverse engineering the defect

b) because it was an attempt to show that paper can and does shrink and that the books were not trimmed or twisted, which some people incorrectly guessed was the cause initially.

c) because after we realized covers were shrinking, there was a secondary discussion about how to grade books with shrunken covers after it was pretty much agreed upon that they shrank from poor pressing so I thought it was relevant to the discussion on grading defects

d) because I like to know how things work and why they happen just for the sake of knowing it.

e) because it's a internet chat forum thread and people are free to discuss anything they want and anyone that doesn't want to be part of the discussion can just not read someone's posts.

 

Instead it devolved into another "what I want to talk about rocks and what you want to talk about sucks" thread.

 

 

 

[THE_BEYONDER]

e) because it's a *spoon* internet chat forum thread and people are free to discuss anything they want and anyone that doesn't want to be part of the discussion can just not read someone's posts.

 

 

[Silver Surfer]

e) because it's a *spoon* internet chat forum thread and people are free to discuss anything they want and anyone that doesn't want to be part of the discussion can just not read someone's posts.

 

 

 

Classic!

[VintageComics]

e) because it's a *spoon* internet chat forum thread and people are free to discuss anything they want and anyone that doesn't want to be part of the discussion can just not read someone's posts.

 

 

 

I find you annoying so I'm furiously (and respectfully) ignoring you in a nice way.

 

ie. I'm taking my own medicine.

 

Don't tell me you didn't notice.

[Ze-man]

I miss Kenny

 

Pretty sure he's tired of people in the forums spreading misinformation, overreacting to restoration, and trashing his profession so he has mostly given up on this place. I don't blame him.

 

I hope you're wrong, but I really wouldn't be surprised if you're not.

It must be tough - being on both sides of a thing.

On one hand you're passionate about what you do and on the other, there are people who hate it and you have to defend yourself all the time.

 

I think we need to start taking the restoration craft a bit more seriously. I mean they're restoring King James Bibles and that's ok with the historians.

I think restoring funny books doesn't herald the end of the world.

 

I'm pretty sure he's just really busy.

 

(thumbs u

 

Been dealing with several family related issues that went from bad to worse in recent months.

 

As a result I have not kept up with things here like I should.

 

I basically shut down everything that was a black hole, time wise.

 

For that I apologize, I have no disdain for this place.

 

And before I cause undo worry, Ellen and Trevor are just fine.

 

 

 

 

 

[THE_BEYONDER]

I miss Kenny

 

Pretty sure he's tired of people in the forums spreading misinformation, overreacting to restoration, and trashing his profession so he has mostly given up on this place. I don't blame him.

 

I hope you're wrong, but I really wouldn't be surprised if you're not.

It must be tough - being on both sides of a thing.

On one hand you're passionate about what you do and on the other, there are people who hate it and you have to defend yourself all the time.

 

I think we need to start taking the restoration craft a bit more seriously. I mean they're restoring King James Bibles and that's ok with the historians.

I think restoring funny books doesn't herald the end of the world.

 

I'm pretty sure he's just really busy.

 

(thumbs u

 

Been dealing with several family related issues that went from bad to worse in recent months.

 

As a result I have not kept up with things here like I should.

 

I basically shut down everything that was a black hole, time wise.

 

For that I apologize, I have no disdain for this place.

 

And before I cause undo worry, Ellen and Trevor are just fine.

 

Thank goodness. My heart just skipped a beat.

 

Miss ya buddy

 

 

 

 

[slym2none]

I'm sure CGC will change their stance on this any day now. I mean, why wouldn't they be in favor of a practice created specifically to put their sister company at a disadvantage in the marketplace?

It's certainly a conflicted view to, on the one hand, consider pressing to be an innocuous treatment unworthy of continued consideration, and on the other hand consider it to be sufficiently negatively impactful to place CCS at a competitive disadvantage if they ever disclosed it.

It's certainly perplexing that on one hand CGC says that repeated pressing may damage books (as evidenced by this very thread), but then to hold the position that they're not going to tell you that they pressed the very book they're grading? It's not only perplexing, it's a bit hypocritical actually.

 

When they start indicating these types of procedures on the label, the consumer can be confident that the book they're buying has been handled in a professional manner such that the integrity of the book is not in question.

 

CGC doesn't press books. Just sayin'...

 

 

 

 

-slym