Cole Schave collection: face jobs?

[fantastic_four]

Additionally, the idea that grading standards should remain static is shortsighted. Community opinion regularly shifts over time. When new information is provided, those shifts can be drastic and rapid. In this case there is a clear community consensus, regardless of how the participants got there.

 

I never said that grading standards should remain static as is clearly evidenced by my repeated suggestions throughout this post and dozens of others that CGC cutting a break to production defects has always been a mistake. In fact, I'd characterize my entire involvement in these boards for over a decade as being strongly motivated by brainstorming improvements to the grading standard, although that has been less true over the last two years. But this proposed injection of collecting ethics into a proposed change to the grading standard is bizarre. Grading is about function and aesthetics, not the past of the book or the source of a defect. Having said that, I just thought of a parallel for the idea--the way that CGC cuts a break to production defects. I suppose it isn't much different in ignoring the function and aesthetic appeal of the book to downgrade more for shrinkage due to its source than it is to downgrade less for chipping, bindery tears, or miswrap due to their source in the production process. They're all a bad idea for the exact same reason, though--grading should be about condition. Cutting breaks or adding weight to defects due to their source is counterintuitive and eternally controversial.

 

As for a consensus as to the appearance of the books, the range of actual downgrades I've heard people suggest in the thread have been absolutely huge, and I've heard nobody suggest different downgrades for different severities, i.e. 1/64" vs. 1/32" vs. 1/16" vs. 1/8" vs. 1/4", so the consensus you're alluding to doesn't exist yet even in this thread--and is FAR more likely to be nonexistent among people who aren't even aware this is going on, i.e. 99.999% of the collecting community.

[comicwiz]

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

 

Good and bad? Are these Constanza'd books building a meth empire?

 

 

If you think it's funny to compare the situation to two stoners drinking brewskie's in clean-up gear, then there's constant hilarity in watching CGC stumble in a drunken stupor, as they evolved from using a marketing strategy that screamed from the rooftops that they would save the hobby from reverting to the criminality of the Fantazia days, and instead stuck us with Ewart, CCS and now this monumental stuporstardom of Comic Wreckers Inc.

 

Suit up and join the stoners - I'm on the side of not allowing this to go on without some form of expressed disapproval. (thumbs u

[fantastic_four]

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

 

Good and bad? Are these Constanza'd books building a meth empire?

 

 

If you think it's funny to compare the situation to two stoners drinking brewskie's in clean-up gear, then there's constant hilarity in watching CGC stumble in a drunken stupor, as they evolved from using a marketing strategy that screamed from the rooftops that they would save the hobby from reverting to the criminality of the Fantazia days, and instead stuck us with Ewart, CCS and now this monumental stuporstardom of Comic Wreckers Inc.

 

Suit up and join the stoners - I'm on the side of not allowing this to go on without some form of expressed disapproval. (thumbs u

 

The people who push the ethical border aren't funny. Neither is your misdirection of the blame for their actions onto CGC--you literally just blamed CGC for humanity's inability to detect some types of restoration. Many here have been doing that for close to a decade now, and most of those voices I tuned out years ago. This type of irrational reasoning is a big part of the reason that I resent the idea in this thread that the solution to deal with undetectable restoration is to build it into the grading standard. It's as rash and reactionary as your unreasonable willingness to blame CGC for the ills of the hobby. It's like blaming cops for crime because they're not going to the lengths you'd prefer they go to in order to catch them. Direct your ire towards those the criminals that deserve it, not towards the cops. Irrational blame isn't going to motivate them to do the job you want them to do--only reasoned criticism will.

 

And Walter White is no stoner.

[comicwiz]

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

 

Good and bad? Are these Constanza'd books building a meth empire?

 

 

If you think it's funny to compare the situation to two stoners drinking brewskie's in clean-up gear, then there's constant hilarity in watching CGC stumble in a drunken stupor, as they evolved from using a marketing strategy that screamed from the rooftops that they would save the hobby from reverting to the criminality of the Fantazia days, and instead stuck us with Ewart, CCS and now this monumental stuporstardom of Comic Wreckers Inc.

 

Suit up and join the stoners - I'm on the side of not allowing this to go on without some form of expressed disapproval. (thumbs u

 

The people who push the ethical border aren't funny. Neither is your misdirection of the blame for their actions onto CGC--you literally just blamed CGC for humanity's inability to detect some types of restoration. Many here have been doing that for close to a decade now, and most of those voices I tuned out years ago. This type of irrational reasoning is a big part of the reason that I resent the idea in this thread that the solution to deal with undetectable restoration is to build it into the grading standard. It's as rash and reactionary as your unreasonable willingness to blame CGC for the ills of the hobby.

 

Look, you'd have more an entitlement to this line of reasoning in the fog that pervades if this happened with a small sample, and if CGC themselves caught the slip-ups. They didn't catch it, and the examples keep appearing. Consider also that we are forced to tip-toe delicately around the landmines and solely discuss examples where a before scan can be found lingering somewhere.

 

Then consider that the enabler to these discoveries is driven primarily from recalling methods which piggy-back on provenance and tracing the trail back to two different sources (Wilson for RSR and Schave/Schmell for the Costanza's). That to me seems a very narrow net to cast and still be productive. Can you imagine how many others would be found if the net was cast wider?

 

The toss of the reality dice lands squarely on the questions of certification relevance, and when we see these examples popping-up repeatedly that fail to properly disclose manipulation techniques, worse of which can be traced to those exact same examples appearing in better condition before the manipulation, it is perfectly reasonable for us to retrace our steps to its purposes, and the reasons why certification was allowed to prosper in the first place.

 

If, by retracing those steps, we discover the function is less relevant or worse (by worse, it would be taken to mean it is allowing this manipulation to pass through undetected) and for the ethically bankrupt to prosper and attain undeserved wealth on the backs of the hobby and its reputation - what you refer to as irrational - I refer to as necessary, and see absolutely nothing wrong with spelling it out for all to weigh-in, for questions to be raised, and for the dialogue to take a no prisoners approach.

[Hammerhead]

Additionally, the idea that grading standards should remain static is shortsighted. Community opinion regularly shifts over time. When new information is provided, those shifts can be drastic and rapid. In this case there is a clear community consensus, regardless of how the participants got there.

 

I never said that grading standards should remain static as is clearly evidenced by my repeated suggestions throughout this post and dozens of others that CGC cutting a break to production defects has always been a mistake. In fact, I'd characterize my entire involvement in these boards for over a decade as being strongly motivated by brainstorming improvements to the grading standard, although that has been less true over the last two years. But this proposed injection of collecting ethics into a proposed change to the grading standard is bizarre. Grading is about function and aesthetics, not the past of the book or the source of a defect. Having said that, I just thought of a parallel for the idea--the way that CGC cuts a break to production defects. I suppose it isn't much different in ignoring the function and aesthetic appeal of the book to downgrade more for shrinkage due to its source than it is to downgrade less for chipping, bindery tears, or miswrap due to their source in the production process. They're all a bad idea for the exact same reason, though--grading should be about condition. Cutting breaks or adding weight to defects due to their source is counterintuitive and eternally controversial.

 

As for a consensus as to the appearance of the books, the range of actual downgrades I've heard people suggest in the thread have been absolutely huge, and I've heard nobody suggest different downgrades for different severities, i.e. 1/64" vs. 1/32" vs. 1/16" vs. 1/8" vs. 1/4", so the consensus you're alluding to doesn't exist yet even in this thread--and is FAR more likely to be nonexistent among people who aren't even aware this is going on, i.e. 99.999% of the collecting community.

 

Grading IS about condition...not so much about appearance as you noted in another post. This thread proves that, along with many other mis-wrapped/shrunken cover 9.6's and 9.8's. Many ugly books posted in this thread.

 

...and yes Walter White is far from being a stoner!

[fantastic_four]

Grading IS about condition...not so much about appearance as you noted in another post.

 

I said grading was about function and aesthetics. What other aspects to condition are there you're implying I overlooked?

[fantastic_four]

Look, you'd have more an entitlement to this line of reasoning in the fog that pervades if this happened with a small sample, and if CGC themselves caught the slip-ups. They didn't. Consider also that we are talking about finding examples where a before scan can be found lingering somewhere. Can you imagine how many others there are out there?

 

The toss of the reality dice lands squarely on the questions of certification relevance, and when we see these examples popping-up repeatedly that fail to properly disclose manipulation techniques, worse of which can be traced to those exact same examples appearing in better condition before the manipulation, it is perfectly reasonable for us to retrace our steps to the reasons why certification was allowed to prosper in the first place.

 

If, by retracing those steps, we discover the function is less relevant or worse (by worse, it would be taken to mean it is allowing this manipulation to pass through undetected) and for the ethically bankrupt to prosper and attain undeserved wealth on the backs of the hobby and its reputation - what you refer to as irrational - I refer to as necessary, and see absolutely nothing wrong with spelling it out for all to weigh-in, for questions to be raised, and for the dialogue to take a no prisoners approach.

 

The main thing that's wrong with it is that it won't work for the same reason they second-guessed themselves about starting CCS up in the first place--the rest of the hobby isn't as fanatical as people in this forum. They're as likely to listen to you blaming them for undetectable restoration as a hothead screaming at other drivers on the freeway for not driving the way you think they should. Respectful dialogue containing practical suggestion in the right venue works ten times better.

[Hammerhead]

I never said you overlooked anything.....just noted I feel and it appears that CGC grades based on condition structure without giving much thought to appearance. I thought most thought this way as well. That is all.

 

I however do think they should count appearance a bit more then they do. Page fanning, mis-wraps, shruken covers should all be down graded. I do understand with the mis wraps that would be hard to do with all the variables. But cover shrinkage....that should definately be down graded. IT IS A DEFECT whether it happened from pressing or naturally. It is not normal and is a defect, what else is it?

[comicwiz]

Look, you'd have more an entitlement to this line of reasoning in the fog that pervades if this happened with a small sample, and if CGC themselves caught the slip-ups. They didn't. Consider also that we are talking about finding examples where a before scan can be found lingering somewhere. Can you imagine how many others there are out there?

 

The toss of the reality dice lands squarely on the questions of certification relevance, and when we see these examples popping-up repeatedly that fail to properly disclose manipulation techniques, worse of which can be traced to those exact same examples appearing in better condition before the manipulation, it is perfectly reasonable for us to retrace our steps to the reasons why certification was allowed to prosper in the first place.

 

If, by retracing those steps, we discover the function is less relevant or worse (by worse, it would be taken to mean it is allowing this manipulation to pass through undetected) and for the ethically bankrupt to prosper and attain undeserved wealth on the backs of the hobby and its reputation - what you refer to as irrational - I refer to as necessary, and see absolutely nothing wrong with spelling it out for all to weigh-in, for questions to be raised, and for the dialogue to take a no prisoners approach.

 

The main thing that's wrong with it is that it won't work for the same reason they second-guessed themselves about starting CCS up in the first place--the rest of the hobby isn't as fanatical as people in this forum. They're as likely to listen to you blaming them for undetectable restoration as a hothead screaming at other drivers on the freeway for not driving the way you think they should. Respectful dialogue containing practical suggestion in the right venue works ten times better.

 

Right, we not only stand to get bent over by the CGC advantage and their way of ruining the hobby, but we need to enlist as volunteers to clean-up their mess.

 

No thanks! (thumbs u

[VintageComics]

Respectful dialogue containing practical suggestion in the right venue works ten times better.

 

If only. I'd cut off my left nut to make that happen.

 

 

 

 

[fantastic_four]

I never said you overlooked anything.....just noted I feel and it appears that CGC grades based on condition structure without giving much thought to appearance. I thought most thought this way as well. That is all.

 

I however do think they should count appearance a bit more then they do. Page fanning, mis-wraps, shruken covers should all be down graded. I do understand with the mis wraps that would be hard to do with all the variables. But cover shrinkage....that should definately be down graded. IT IS A DEFECT whether it happened from pressing or naturally. It is not normal and is a defect, what else is it?

 

They should give production defects and what we've tended to call "eye appeal" that CVA has chosen to specialize in a second look at some point, but to be fair much of what they downgrade for already is about appearance.

[VintageComics]

I never said you overlooked anything.....just noted I feel and it appears that CGC grades based on condition structure without giving much thought to appearance. I thought most thought this way as well. That is all.

 

I however do think they should count appearance a bit more then they do. Page fanning, mis-wraps, shruken covers should all be down graded. I do understand with the mis wraps that would be hard to do with all the variables.

 

The age old argument about how to downgrade for a defect is no different than coming to an agreement on whether a politician is doing a good job or not. Everyone is going to see it differently.

 

But cover shrinkage....that should definately be down graded. IT IS A DEFECT whether it happened from pressing or naturally. It is not normal and is a defect, what else is it?

 

Again, a point to be brought up is that in 10 years of reading this forum, I don't remember a single post about anyone complaining about peek through until someone made a post proving it was related to pressing.

 

I think this is the point F_F is trying to make.

[fantastic_four]

Respectful dialogue containing practical suggestion in the right venue works ten times better.

 

If only. I'd cut off my left nut to make that happen.

 

What practical suggestion have you seen them closed off to?

 

One of CGC's problems is they have a large set of prior work they have to remain backwards compatible with. One of the new grading services ruminating out there just might listen to reason and innovate if it makes sense to do so, though. If Litch won't listen to actual reason--not the brand of combative diatribe many in the thread prefer to level--his potential competition might.

[comicwiz]

Respectful dialogue containing practical suggestion in the right venue works ten times better.

 

If only. I'd cut off my left nut to make that happen.

 

 

 

 

If you'd both realize how much time, money and effort is expended by private enterprise in shaking out the kind of information which has been voluntarily provided in this thread alone, you would realize how ludicrous and unreasonable it is to suggest what you have, especially since it's been packaged and left right on CGC's doorstep.

 

No charge in case you missed it the first time.

 

The problem here has mostly been about hearing, but not listening (big difference between the two) or responding in a manner that has convinced the community they've taken steps to correct the issues.

 

The knee-jerk reaction of shouting the point across would happen regardless of whether it's a company sticking it's head in the sand, or trying to communicate with a person with a hearing impediment.

[fantastic_four]

Again, a point to be brought up is that in 10 years of reading this forum, I don't remember a single post about anyone complaining about peek through until someone made a post proving it was related to pressing.

 

There have been some, just nowhere near the uproar we've seen recently due to shrinkage and RSR. Complaining about miswraps over the years outnumber pokethrough complaints by about 10 to 1.

[InvstmntComcSuply]

this proposed injection of collecting ethics into a proposed change to the grading standard is bizarre. Grading is about function and aesthetics, not the past of the book or the source of a defect. ...... They're all a bad idea for the exact same reason, though--grading should be about condition. Cutting breaks or adding weight to defects due to their source is counterintuitive and eternally controversial.

 

Get past the idea that this is an "injection of collecting ethics into a proposed change". It doesn't matter why the majority wants to change the standard, just that there is a consensus among the majority that a change needs to occur. You and I are on the same page. It doesn't matter how the defect (newsprint exposure) got there, it simply needs to be graded more harshly. In line with the consensus opinion.

 

 

As for a consensus as to the appearance of the books, the range of actual downgrades I've heard people suggest in the thread have been absolutely huge, and I've heard nobody suggest different downgrades for different severities, i.e. 1/64" vs. 1/32" vs. 1/16" vs. 1/8" vs. 1/4", so the consensus you're alluding to doesn't exist yet even in this thread--and is FAR more likely to be nonexistent among people who aren't even aware this is going on, i.e. 99.999% of the collecting community.

 

Of course the consensus exists. It is why the thread was initiated to begin with. EVERYONE agrees that the books appear worse than "normal" examples of books in grade. It is simply getting down to brass tacks as to how much to deduct due to severity. It does not mean that a consensus does NOT exist.

[Hammerhead]

I know I associated this "peek through" with spine roll in the past. Maybe many thought this same way, maybe. Also with a mis-wrapped cover. I know the books being shown do not have spine rolls.

 

This defect is far from normal....the whole happens naturally thing I disagree with. My opinion. That much heat, enough to shrink a cover can't be good. I would think it would also do a number on the cover gloss/inks, but that is speculation on my part.

 

 

[THE_BEYONDER]

Look, you'd have more an entitlement to this line of reasoning in the fog that pervades if this happened with a small sample, and if CGC themselves caught the slip-ups. They didn't. Consider also that we are talking about finding examples where a before scan can be found lingering somewhere. Can you imagine how many others there are out there?

 

The toss of the reality dice lands squarely on the questions of certification relevance, and when we see these examples popping-up repeatedly that fail to properly disclose manipulation techniques, worse of which can be traced to those exact same examples appearing in better condition before the manipulation, it is perfectly reasonable for us to retrace our steps to the reasons why certification was allowed to prosper in the first place.

 

If, by retracing those steps, we discover the function is less relevant or worse (by worse, it would be taken to mean it is allowing this manipulation to pass through undetected) and for the ethically bankrupt to prosper and attain undeserved wealth on the backs of the hobby and its reputation - what you refer to as irrational - I refer to as necessary, and see absolutely nothing wrong with spelling it out for all to weigh-in, for questions to be raised, and for the dialogue to take a no prisoners approach.

 

The main thing that's wrong with it is that it won't work for the same reason they second-guessed themselves about starting CCS up in the first place--the rest of the hobby isn't as fanatical as people in this forum. They're as likely to listen to you blaming them for undetectable restoration as a hothead screaming at other drivers on the freeway for not driving the way you think they should. Respectful dialogue containing practical suggestion in the right venue works ten times better.

 

The only reason that the "rest of the hobby" isn't as fanatical, is because they don't know a fraction of the truth revealed to long-standing forum members. If the last 10 years were condensed into a easy-to-read CGC handbook....I have no doubt the villagers would have torches in hand.

 

 

 

[VintageComics]

Respectful dialogue containing practical suggestion in the right venue works ten times better.

 

If only. I'd cut off my left nut to make that happen.

 

 

 

 

If you'd both realize how much time, money and effort is expended by private enterprise in shaking out the kind of information which has been voluntarily provided in this thread alone, you would realize how ludicrous and hyper-inflated that request, especially since it's been packaged and left right on CGC's doorstep.

 

The problem here has mostly been about hearing, but not listening or responding in a manner that has convinced the community they've taken steps to correct the issues.

 

The knee-jerk reaction of shouting the point across would happen regardless of whether it's a company sticking it's head in the sand, or trying to communicate with a person with a hearing impediment.

 

BTW, my reply to F_F wasn't directed at you.

 

I agree with you. There's a zillion dollars worth of PR research in this thread and I agree that the entire incident could have been handled better by CGC.

 

A simple "sorry, we made a mistake, it won't happen again" from Matt would have been preferable and would have gone a long way rather than the dialogue and additional comments.

 

As far as CGC grading the defect, I've seen books with this "peek through" defect (just as severe as the Schave books) graded from over a year ago. Someone offered me one recently. There must be others out there and it appears they are grading it as consistently as they always have been so I don't know if much is going to change on the front of grading standards.

 

 

[fantastic_four]

It doesn't matter how the defect (newsprint exposure) got there, it simply needs to be graded more harshly, in line with the consensus opinion.

 

You don't believe that. You believe the reason to downgrade more harshly for shrinkage is to punish it. You said so.

 

 

Of course the consensus exists. It is why the thread was initiated to begin with. EVERYONE agrees that the books appear worse than "normal" examples of books in grade. It is simply getting down to brass tacks as to how much to deduct due to severity. It does not mean that a consensus does NOT exist.

 

Then you and CGC are on the same page, because as they said, they already incorporate pokethrough into grade. "Brass tax" is your entire issue--you want them to downgrade more.