Cole Schave collection: face jobs?

[gaz973]

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.

 

It depends on where someone finds quality.

 

Sure the books look worse but some of the grades have bumped and therefore the financial value of them. If that was the objective then it's mission accomplished.

 

Seems like the same intent and end result as facejobs, making money at the expense of the books appearance.

[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.

 

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.

 

It depends on where someone finds quality.

 

Sure the books look worse but some of the grades have bumped and therefore the financial value of them. If that was the objective then it's mission accomplished.

 

Seems like the same intent and end result as facejobs, making money at the expense of the books appearance.

 

I don't think it's the same thing whatsoever. Facejobs moved the cover around back to try and hide wear. The Schave books seem to have had cover shrinkage, but this was I'm sure not the intent, vs. just going for the flattened pressed appearance. Intentional vs. not intentional cover differences when seen before and after.

[originalisbest]

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.

 

That begs the question, is the former 9.4 JIM #89, now sitting in a 9.6 holder, any less loveable in Dr Banner's eyes now? Because it was surely pressed to get there, it just happened not to have cover shrinkage.

[gaz973]

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.

 

It depends on where someone finds quality.

 

Sure the books look worse but some of the grades have bumped and therefore the financial value of them. If that was the objective then it's mission accomplished.

 

Seems like the same intent and end result as facejobs, making money at the expense of the books appearance.

 

I don't think it's the same thing whatsoever. Facejobs moved the cover around back to try and hide wear. The Schave books seem to have had cover shrinkage, but this was I'm sure not the intent, vs. just going for the flattened pressed appearance. Intentional vs. not intentional cover differences when seen before and after.

 

If this was completely unintentional then why did the person responsible for these not stop when the first couple came out badly? There are a whole bunch of these from the same collection and the person responsible kept going with these after seeing the effects.

 

If it wasn't intentional in the first place then it was intentional when it became apparent what effect it was having on the books.

[drbanner]

That begs the question, is the former 9.4 JIM #89, now sitting in a 9.6 holder, any less loveable in Dr Banner's eyes now? Because it was surely pressed to get there, it just happened not to have cover shrinkage.

Nope, I have nothing against properly pressed books, have had plenty of books pressed by both Matt and Joey, and just picked up a grail book that I knew was pressed - a JIM in fact.

 

These books, however, have been deformed/ruined and I won't buy any books that look like this. I won't do business with Matt anymore because CGC pressing, restoring, unrestoring, and grading books all under one roof is an inherent conflict of interest, and somebody out there messed these books up, big time.

 

While the situation is pretty sad overall, the vehemence and doggedness of your defense of CGC and whoever did this is certainly imPRESSive.

[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.

 

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.

 

It depends on where someone finds quality.

 

Sure the books look worse but some of the grades have bumped and therefore the financial value of them. If that was the objective then it's mission accomplished.

 

Seems like the same intent and end result as facejobs, making money at the expense of the books appearance.

 

I don't think it's the same thing whatsoever. Facejobs moved the cover around back to try and hide wear. The Schave books seem to have had cover shrinkage, but this was I'm sure not the intent, vs. just going for the flattened pressed appearance. Intentional vs. not intentional cover differences when seen before and after.

 

If this was completely unintentional then why did the person responsible for these not stop when the first couple came out badly? There are a whole bunch of these from the same collection and the person responsible kept going with these after seeing the effects.

 

If it wasn't intentional in the first place then it was intentional when it became apparent what effect it was having on the books.

 

I would venture to say unintentional, because (to me) a good press job achieves the benefits of pressing without an unintended side effect (shrinking cover horizontally.) Your point is well-taken, in that perhaps whomever did it, continued apace, because they thought or surmised that CGC wouldn't punish pages that seemed to protrude pretty much across the board. Maybe they didn't have enough experience to recognize this would be an issue. I think it was a mistake on their part ultimately though, if that's the case, because using before/after scans, it's a pretty evident visual difference, and it may affect the market's perception of those books regardless of the CGC grade. Whereas a good press job should try to achieve the removal of dents, ncb creases and the like, but not otherwise alter the overall 3-feet-away appearance of the book.

 

Because so many books pressed over the years prior to this batch don't particularly show cover shrinkage (see the 9.4 to 9.6 JIM #89 I wonder about earlier) and others on the thread have told of their experiences pressing books, multiple times, without shrinkage, I tend to conclude that the shrinkage seen on this group was an unintended side effect, done by probably less experienced hands.

[originalisbest]

That begs the question, is the former 9.4 JIM #89, now sitting in a 9.6 holder, any less loveable in Dr Banner's eyes now? Because it was surely pressed to get there, it just happened not to have cover shrinkage.

Nope, I have nothing against properly pressed books, have had plenty of books pressed by both Matt and Joey, and just picked up a grail book that I knew was pressed - a JIM in fact.

 

These books, however, have been deformed/ruined and I won't buy any books that look like this. I won't do business with Matt anymore because CGC pressing and grading books all under one roof is an inherent conflict of interest, and somebody out there messed these books up big time.

While the situation is pretty sad overall, the vehemence and doggedness of your defense of CGC, Doug, and whoever did this is certainly imPRESSive.

 

Well stop the presses () because I have no idea who did the pressing. I too am in favor of properly pressed books. My issue is with those who slavishly rail against pressing in all forms. I am against pressing with obvious intent to deceive (facejobs) -- in this case (cover shrinkage) my reaction is more of a "too bad", much like the parasol effect, ripply ocean waves, and other such side effects of well-intentioned, but probably inexperienced/poor quality pressing.

[comicwiz]

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.

 

Well said, and a sentiment we share. Putting it bluntly, I firmly believe that at some point CGC realized keeping the "hobbying" segment happy wouldn't keep the lights on. If you ask CGC, they'll probably say they answered the questions that bother us.

 

IMHO, any fire-fighting they did was done in a manner which resoundingly demonstrates the "hobbying" aspects don't matter nearly as much as keeping the gamification play humming along.

[slym2none]

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

 

 

What exactly is Martinizing, and why does it only take an hour?

 

 

 

 

-slym

[originalisbest]

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.

 

Well said, and a sentiment we share. Putting it bluntly, I firmly believe that at some point CGC realized keeping the "hobbying" segment happy wouldn't keep the lights on. If you ask CGC, they'll probably say they answered the questions that bother us.

 

IMHO, any fire-fighting they did was done in a manner which resoundingly demonstrates the "hobbying" aspects don't matter nearly as much as keeping the gamification play humming along.

 

Life's too short to be bothered by any aspect of funnybooks in slabs. On a side note, it's impressive that CW can both ask AND answer on behalf of CGC!

[Sqeggs]

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

 

I know nothing of the mechanics of pressing but after reading through this thread and mulling it over, I wonder if the only way to get the grade increase was by "damaging" the book? That is, to correct whatever defects needed correcting to bump the grade the presser had to do something -- use greater than normal humidity? -- that resulted in cover shrinkage and page fanning.

 

It would explain why the presser kept doing whatever he was doing despite the fact that the result was books with page fanning.

[originalisbest]

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

 

I know nothing of the mechanics of pressing but after reading through this thread and mulling it over, I wonder if the only way to get the grade increase was by "damaging" the book? That is, to correct whatever defects needed correcting to bump the grade the presser had to do something -- use greater than normal humidity? -- that resulted in cover shrinkage and page fanning.

 

It would explain why the presser kept doing whatever he was doing despite the fact that the result was books with page fanning.

 

I tend to think it was more inexperience at play, only because why would that many books need such an overage of humidity, vs. press jobs done in the past that show no such consistent shrinkage?

[Sqeggs]

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

 

I know nothing of the mechanics of pressing but after reading through this thread and mulling it over, I wonder if the only way to get the grade increase was by "damaging" the book? That is, to correct whatever defects needed correcting to bump the grade the presser had to do something -- use greater than normal humidity? -- that resulted in cover shrinkage and page fanning.

 

It would explain why the presser kept doing whatever he was doing despite the fact that the result was books with page fanning.

 

I tend to think it was more inexperience at play, only because why would that many books need such an overage of humidity, vs. press jobs done in the past that show no such consistent shrinkage?

 

Maybe, but would an inexperienced presser be given these high-value books to work on?

[InvstmntComcSuply]

swing... and a miss.

 

Um, how so?

 

My point was there need be no past history with the book. Anytime the cover has shrunk to expose the newsprint, there should be a hit to the grade. Regardless of how it came to be that way.

 

 

 

[originalisbest]

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

 

I know nothing of the mechanics of pressing but after reading through this thread and mulling it over, I wonder if the only way to get the grade increase was by "damaging" the book? That is, to correct whatever defects needed correcting to bump the grade the presser had to do something -- use greater than normal humidity? -- that resulted in cover shrinkage and page fanning.

 

It would explain why the presser kept doing whatever he was doing despite the fact that the result was books with page fanning.

 

 

I tend to think it was more inexperience at play, only because why would that many books need such an overage of humidity, vs. press jobs done in the past that show no such consistent shrinkage?

 

Maybe, but would an inexperienced presser be given these high-value books to work on?

 

Point well taken, which I am at a loss to explain? I just think something must have happened with this batch that didn't on previous pressings.

[originalisbest]

swing... and a miss.

 

Um, how so?

 

My point was there need be no past history with the book. Anytime the cover has shrunk to expose the newsprint, there should be a hit to the grade. Regardless of how it came to be that way.

 

 

 

Ah, I see. Well, though the CGC may differ with you re: that grading standard, happily people generally buy books sight-seen nowadays, so with your own eyes you'll be able to easily discern even from a reasonable scan if you agree with a book's grade.

[Bomber-Bob]

I just reread this CGC article. Just saying......

 

Posted on 8/15/2013

The reverse spine roll technique is controversial because it forces a comic into a state that never existed.

 

Reverse spine roll (RSR) is the newest defect resulting from pressing. Unlike all the others, this one is intentional, making it particularly controversial. Rather than attempting to return a book to its original state through methods that neither add nor take away from a comic book, the RSR technique forces a comic into a state that never existed. The most consistent telltale sign is the fanned pages along the upper right edge of the front cover, which can range from extremely minor (1/64”) to noticeably large (1/8”). For larger rolls and GA books, disassembly may be utilized.

 

Another less consistent sign of RSR is the spine line, now shifted slightly onto the back cover. How conspicuous it is depends on the amount of wear the spine line exhibited prior to being rolled back.

[thehumantorch]

swing... and a miss.

 

Um, how so?

 

My point was there need be no past history with the book. Anytime the cover has shrunk to expose the newsprint, there should be a hit to the grade. Regardless of how it came to be that way.

 

 

 

Agreed, as long as there is a financial incentive to press books this way it will continue.

[originalisbest]

I just reread this CGC article. Just saying......

 

Posted on 8/15/2013

The reverse spine roll technique is controversial because it forces a comic into a state that never existed.

 

Reverse spine roll (RSR) is the newest defect resulting from pressing. Unlike all the others, this one is intentional, making it particularly controversial. Rather than attempting to return a book to its original state through methods that neither add nor take away from a comic book, the RSR technique forces a comic into a state that never existed. The most consistent telltale sign is the fanned pages along the upper right edge of the front cover, which can range from extremely minor (1/64”) to noticeably large (1/8”). For larger rolls and GA books, disassembly may be utilized.

 

Another less consistent sign of RSR is the spine line, now shifted slightly onto the back cover. How conspicuous it is depends on the amount of wear the spine line exhibited prior to being rolled back.

 

Which is why I'd call this cover shrinkage unintentional, much like no presser wants to introduce a waffle pattern or waviness to their work.

[CatskillMike]

Fanned paged books shouldn't get 9.6's. Doesn't matter if it is natural or not. Wouldn't that solve all this?