Cole Schave collection: face jobs?

[fantastic_four]

Peter_In_Portugal's 9.8 Iron Man and Subby 1 with 1/8" of pokethrough shows that CGC barely downgraded for this prior to CCS shrinking covers.

 

Sold it on Pedigree.

Hunting down a new copy.

 

Just checked but couldn't find it--how'd you make out?

 

Sold it at a loss. Don't care. OCD about my books.

 

I know how you feel. I avoid Curators because I heard Tom Brulato picks his nose. Who wants to own books that passed through the hands of a nose-picker?

[Gotham Kid]

I know how you feel. I avoid Curators because I heard Tom Brulato picks his nose. Who wants to own books that passed through the hands of a nose-picker?

 

[StuporMan]

How many points does CGC take off for nose goblins?

[Gotham Kid]

[fantastic_four]

How many points does CGC take off for nose goblins?

 

Not enough, but it screams for a Qualified label in my book. It's the absolute only good use of the otherwise-useless green label that I can think of.

[pickycollector]

most people are now being biased by the source of the defect.

And why it should not be ?

 

Many people (me included) were not aware or had only suspicions that extreme right edge pokethroughs like the Costanzas books was a result of bad pressing before Robert (namisgr) started this thread.

 

Now you have a defect that can be linked to bad pressing and still get a grade bump by CGC. If people are complaining suddenly about that defect, is it because they don't like the defect or because it means that the book has stronger probability to have been pressed ?

 

As for me, the answer is both.

 

For example, I never did like extreme pokethroughs, nor too much off-centered books, nor rust on staples, nor arrival date or any writing on front cover. No way for me a book like the JIM #93 displayed on first page with a big "R" in blue pen on front cover could get a 9.2 or 9.6 grade, either pressed or not. But this is my preference and point of view. Discussing such preferences is like discussing if you prefer brunettes to blondes.

 

The FF #25 displayed in previous post is certainly an extreme example of book manipulation. Not only it does now look horrible, but you could easily add a mention "pressed" to it.

 

For awakening people to the existence of such practices, I raise my hat to the OP. Now people can decide if they want to buy such books or not and for whatever reason they do prefer.

[fantastic_four]

most people are now being biased by the source of the defect.

And why it should not be ?

 

Because it's bad grading. There are an infinity of possible defects that a comic can have, and to give any one of those more weight because of its potential source as opposed to its impact upon the function or aesthetics of the comic is an endless wellspring of weird, idiosyncratic grading that no group of people would ever come to a consensus about.

[pickycollector]

most people are now being biased by the source of the defect.

And why it should not be ?

 

Because it's bad grading. There are an infinity of possible defects that a comic can have, and to give any one of those more weight because of its potential source as opposed to its impact upon the function or aesthetics of the comic is an endless wellspring of weird, idiosyncratic grading that no group of people would ever come to a consensus about.

So the new JIM #93 with a label of 9.6 is good grading ?

 

[Straw-Man]

More peakthrough than that, and especially on a book with a perfectly centered spine, would look suspicious to me

 

Suspicious? As in the type of comic who might jimmy your back door open or sleep with your sister? Whatever do you mean, suspicious? Suspiciousness is an element of grading I'm unfamiliar with.

 

worthless, without a picture of the sister.

[Straw-Man]

most people are now being biased by the source of the defect.

And why it should not be ?

 

Because it's bad grading. There are an infinity of possible defects that a comic can have, and to give any one of those more weight because of its potential source as opposed to its impact upon the function or aesthetics of the comic is an endless wellspring of weird, idiosyncratic grading that no group of people would ever come to a consensus about.

So the new JIM #93 with a label of 9.6 is good grading ?

 

 

no; he's saying grade it for what it looks like, not for what MADE it look like that.

[fantastic_four]

most people are now being biased by the source of the defect.

And why it should not be ?

 

Because it's bad grading. There are an infinity of possible defects that a comic can have, and to give any one of those more weight because of its potential source as opposed to its impact upon the function or aesthetics of the comic is an endless wellspring of weird, idiosyncratic grading that no group of people would ever come to a consensus about.

So the new JIM #93 with a label of 9.6 is good grading ?

 

 

I didn't say that. But it jibes with all standards of grading explicitly (through words) or implicitly (through examples) put forward by Overstreet to the best of my recollection, and CGC has been pretty consistent in not downgrading for pokethrough for the last 13 years. Just like they don't downgrade much for miswrap, which is also a mistake to my eyes. But I understand why Borock and the boys didn't hammer both defects more. They found no consensus in the community for it.

[pickycollector]

most people are now being biased by the source of the defect.

And why it should not be ?

 

Because it's bad grading. There are an infinity of possible defects that a comic can have, and to give any one of those more weight because of its potential source as opposed to its impact upon the function or aesthetics of the comic is an endless wellspring of weird, idiosyncratic grading that no group of people would ever come to a consensus about.

So the new JIM #93 with a label of 9.6 is good grading ?

 

 

no; he's saying grade it for what it looks like, not for what MADE it look like that.

My point exactly. NO WAY this book looks like a 9.6.

[fantastic_four]

My point exactly. NO WAY this book looks like a 9.6.

 

Since you've demonstrated your bias, it's questionable as to whether you would have said that six months ago before you knew what caused it. We'll never know.

[pickycollector]

My point exactly. NO WAY this book looks like a 9.6.

 

Since you've demonstrated your bias, it's questionable as to whether you would have said that six months ago before you knew what caused it. We'll never know.

Not sure where you are going but I have several examples of books where I have questioned CGC's grading. Here is an example of one post that I did in the CGC Forum:

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Main=159139&Number=3141651#Post3141651

 

And I would be posting 24 hours a day if I wanted to publicly post my doubts on every book that I think was overgraded by CGC.

 

And yes I am biased negatively on pressed books which you already know. I am also biased negatively on several other defects and I have been for several years.

 

The questionability is rather on you. Feel free to buy the Costanzas books if you want, I know I will not.

 

But what is your point exactly ? That many people would not care about the page fanning before this thread existence ? Then let's assume you are right, why suddenly those people would care now ? Why somebody whom have bought a Costanza book without knowing its origin would suddenly feel the urge to re-sell it ? Because it is now known that it was pressed ? or rather because it was badly pressed in such a way that it changes its original appearance ?

[jimbo_707]

My point exactly. NO WAY this book looks like a 9.6.

 

Since you've demonstrated your bias, it's questionable as to whether you would have said that six months ago before you knew what caused it. We'll never know.

For my part, pages sticking out excessively is something I've avoided over the past year and a half. Before that I was on a long break from the hobby; the defect is something I never saw when I was actively collecting before (on and off from 1984 - 2003). When I started seeing it last year, I unconsciously added it to the list of things I'd prefer to avoid regardless of grade, like bad dust shadows, foxing, and transfer stains, all of which seem to be tolerated in most grades by the CGC.

 

As for this:

 

But at least you didn't threaten to kill yourself over these "suspicious" books like Jimbo said earlier they make him feel like doing.

 

Please paraphrase me accurately. I never said I felt like killing myself; I only said certain books almost made me wish I were dead. And as you can see from the posts below, I was referring to pedigree books that had lost their freshness from being pressed, not Costanza'd books (although a Costanza'd GA pedigree book would have the same effect, if I were to see one).

 

 

You can find info on a DD7 I believe a Pacific Coast that was pressed from 8.5 to 9.6 after 4-5 tries.

 

As a fan of Pedigrees, to me this is disgusting. First off, no one can convince me this is the same legacy book that was in the Original collection. In this case, the Pedigree status is meaningless.

Also, if you ever ever owned books from certain pedigrees that have outstanding color you can see a deterioration in the color after a pressing.

It's a subtle thing, only noticeable in hand, but that sharp brightness, fresh off the stand look is diminished. I can only imagine that multiple pressings will completely destroy the freshness factor.

This depresses me almost to the point of wishing I were dead.

 

It also demonstrates a flaw in the CGC grading, in that freshness isn't being considered, or considered enough, in grading. Were that loss of freshness properly punished, people would not be trying to press fresh, high-grade, books. The scales need to be adjusted, even if it's just a little - enough to make the risk outweigh the reward.

 

[Hammerhead]

My point exactly. NO WAY this book looks like a 9.6.

 

Since you've demonstrated your bias, it's questionable as to whether you would have said that six months ago before you knew what caused it. We'll never know.

For my part, pages sticking out excessively is something I've avoided over the past year and a half. Before that I was on a long break from the hobby; the defect is something I never saw when I was actively collecting before (on and off from 1984 - 2003). When I started seeing it last year, I unconsciously added it to the list of things I'd prefer to avoid regardless of grade, like bad dust shadows, foxing, and transfer stains, all of which seem to be tolerated in most grades by the CGC.

 

As for this:

 

But at least you didn't threaten to kill yourself over these "suspicious" books like Jimbo said earlier they make him feel like doing.

 

Please paraphrase me accurately. I never said I felt like killing myself; I only said certain books almost made me wish I were dead. And as you can see from the posts below, I was referring to pedigree books that had lost their freshness from being pressed, not Costanza'd books (although a Costanza'd GA pedigree book would have the same effect, if I were to see one).

 

 

You can find info on a DD7 I believe a Pacific Coast that was pressed from 8.5 to 9.6 after 4-5 tries.

 

As a fan of Pedigrees, to me this is disgusting. First off, no one can convince me this is the same legacy book that was in the Original collection. In this case, the Pedigree status is meaningless.

Also, if you ever ever owned books from certain pedigrees that have outstanding color you can see a deterioration in the color after a pressing.

It's a subtle thing, only noticeable in hand, but that sharp brightness, fresh off the stand look is diminished. I can only imagine that multiple pressings will completely destroy the freshness factor.

This depresses me almost to the point of wishing I were dead.

 

It also demonstrates a flaw in the CGC grading, in that freshness isn't being considered, or considered enough, in grading. Were that loss of freshness properly punished, people would not be trying to press fresh, high-grade, books. The scales need to be adjusted, even if it's just a little - enough to make the risk outweigh the reward.

 

 

This is a great quote by Bomber Bob that I strongly agree with.

[Silver Surfer]

Simply gorgeous!

[comicwiz]

most people are now being biased by the source of the defect.

And why it should not be ?

 

Because it's bad grading. There are an infinity of possible defects that a comic can have, and to give any one of those more weight because of its potential source as opposed to its impact upon the function or aesthetics of the comic is an endless wellspring of weird, idiosyncratic grading that no group of people would ever come to a consensus about.

 

I refuse to accept that this is a by-product of collector idiosyncracies. This thread was born from the frustration that "improper pressing" was discovered to be coming from CCS. As near as one can get to the source who had openly publicized their disapproval of "improper" pressing techniques.

 

The results are an aberration, and what's worse is we have before scans to prove the books were better off left unaltered.

 

Suggesting bias is interfering with people's better judgement to differentiate between good and bad is laughable.

 

Especially since we've already had a situation where the OP was called out - the claim being that he sold a book without disclosing the work traced back to Matt - a claim quickly put to rest when it was suggested the buyer had been apprised of the transformation the book went through.

 

People don't just disclose things for the sake of disclosure. There is a reason why it was disclosed, and it's exactly why CGC needs to retire these books and the practices that led to them being wrecked, or ready itself for the onslaught of disapproval and discontent.

[mschmidt]

My point exactly. NO WAY this book looks like a 9.6.

 

Since you've demonstrated your bias, it's questionable as to whether you would have said that six months ago before you knew what caused it. We'll never know.

For my part, pages sticking out excessively is something I've avoided over the past year and a half. Before that I was on a long break from the hobby; the defect is something I never saw when I was actively collecting before (on and off from 1984 - 2003). When I started seeing it last year, I unconsciously added it to the list of things I'd prefer to avoid regardless of grade, like bad dust shadows, foxing, and transfer stains, all of which seem to be tolerated in most grades by the CGC.

 

As for this:

 

But at least you didn't threaten to kill yourself over these "suspicious" books like Jimbo said earlier they make him feel like doing.

 

Please paraphrase me accurately. I never said I felt like killing myself; I only said certain books almost made me wish I were dead. And as you can see from the posts below, I was referring to pedigree books that had lost their freshness from being pressed, not Costanza'd books (although a Costanza'd GA pedigree book would have the same effect, if I were to see one).

 

 

You can find info on a DD7 I believe a Pacific Coast that was pressed from 8.5 to 9.6 after 4-5 tries.

 

As a fan of Pedigrees, to me this is disgusting. First off, no one can convince me this is the same legacy book that was in the Original collection. In this case, the Pedigree status is meaningless.

Also, if you ever ever owned books from certain pedigrees that have outstanding color you can see a deterioration in the color after a pressing.

It's a subtle thing, only noticeable in hand, but that sharp brightness, fresh off the stand look is diminished. I can only imagine that multiple pressings will completely destroy the freshness factor.

This depresses me almost to the point of wishing I were dead.

 

It also demonstrates a flaw in the CGC grading, in that freshness isn't being considered, or considered enough, in grading. Were that loss of freshness properly punished, people would not be trying to press fresh, high-grade, books. The scales need to be adjusted, even if it's just a little - enough to make the risk outweigh the reward.

 

 

Here's something that'll cheer you up, then - the DD #7 Pac Coast was never pressed from an 8.5 to a 9.6.

 

And, I'm sorry, but I call hogwash on pressing removing the "freshness" of the book.

 

 

[Silver Surfer]

Jimbo just posted this in the Gold Section, re: the Comiclink auction:

 

5.5 to 8.0? That's a bit much if you ask me.

 

http://www.comiclink.com/Auctions/item.asp?back=%2FComicTrack%2FAuctions%2Fbids%2Easp&id=982094

 

http://comics.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=817&lotNo=3244

 

 

 

A 1197 cert too. Oh how I love this hobby.