Cole Schave collection: face jobs?

[fantastic_four]

This defect is far from normal....the whole happens naturally thing I disagree with. My opinion.

 

It happens, just not as often as we're seeing with these badly pressed books. Peter_In_Portugal just sold his CGC 9.8 book with natural 1/8" pokethrough that he had no problem buying until bad pressing got associated as a potential cause of the defect.

[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.

 

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

 

Why do you hate them so? They do more good than harm. Working with them would achieve more than screaming that they're responsible for all the ill of the hobby.

 

I don't have reason to believe a competitive service would handle undetectable restoration any better than CGC does. No other one is going to be able to analyze the collection of scans available via the consignment and auction sites looking for undetectable restoration as you keep proposing. It's not only too much work for too little payoff, the ones that slip through will result in people like yourself hating them anyway. I haven't heard a viable way to do it yet.

[Hammerhead]

This defect is far from normal....the whole happens naturally thing I disagree with. My opinion.

 

It happens, just not as often as we're seeing with these badly pressed books. Peter_In_Portugal just sold his CGC 9.8 book with natural 1/8" pokethrough that he had no problem buying until bad pressing got associated as a potential cause of the defect.

 

Who's to say that book wasn't pressed. Good chance it was. In this day and age of collecting I would guess many silver age high grade 9.6 and 9.8 have been pressed....at least thats the way I look at them. I don't buy books in this high of grade anyway.

 

I also think books that do show some peek through have been like that since they were printed for whatever reason. I find it hard to believe they have shrunk over the years. IF IT DID happen from shrinkage WE WOULD have heard about it before now...before pressing became the norm. Any natural shrinkage I don't feel would be visible to the eye. I have seen many books faded from sitting in the sun or on a dealers wall for years without any shrinkage. I know that is not enough heat to have a cover shrink but it is definately more amount of heat then sitting away in someones closet or wherever.

 

In my opinion this "natural shrinkage" is a bad cover up for a mistake that occured during pressing. Simply as that.

[Hammerhead]

Just to note as welI am not anti CGC in anyway and don't have much of a opinion on pressing. I have never had a book pressed, but if I did sell a lot of books and had a chance to leave money on the table then I would probably have them pressed. C'mon now the whole point of selling comics is to make money. (of course in a fair way, but again pressing is the norm nowadays)

 

If I was told though that pressing would harm the comic I would not have it done,I definately would not want my cover shrunk though!

[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

 

Why do you hate them so? They do more good than harm. Working with them would achieve more than screaming that they're responsible for all the ill of the hobby.

 

I don't have reason to believe a competitive service would handle undetectable restoration any better than CGC does. No other one is going to be able to analyze the collection of scans available via the consignment and auction sites looking for undetectable restoration as you keep proposing. It's not only too much work for too little payoff, the ones that slip through will result in people like yourself hating them anyway. I haven't heard a viable way to do it yet.

 

Don't put words in my mouth. I don't hate, and hate is way too strong a word in my vocabulary to dispense in situations where humanity demonstrates fallibility.

 

There is a difference between expecting one to roll-up their sleeves and get the job done properly when it was never asked of them, and when they self-appointed themselves and over committed and under delivered.

 

You could dress this up any way you like, but the fact is they are not living up to their purpose and function, which is at the root of the disapproval and discontent expressed by many in this thread.

[fantastic_four]

This defect is far from normal....the whole happens naturally thing I disagree with. My opinion.

 

It happens, just not as often as we're seeing with these badly pressed books. Peter_In_Portugal just sold his CGC 9.8 book with natural 1/8" pokethrough that he had no problem buying until bad pressing got associated as a potential cause of the defect.

 

Who's to say that book wasn't pressed. Good chance it was. In this day and age of collecting I would guess many silver age high grade 9.6 and 9.8 have been pressed....at least thats the way I look at them. I don't buy books in this high of grade anyway.

 

The possibility of it having been pressed is high, but I've seen no evidence that this new type of pressing Matt or his guys are doing was done as far in the past as when his book was graded. As Joeypost keeps saying and as we've seen from Matt's past work that didn't result in shrinkage, this type of damage appears to be a new thing.

 

Did joeypost ever say whether or not he was able to duplicate shrinkage?

[InvstmntComcSuply]

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.

 

Punish simply because it was pressed? Absolutely NOT. I have no problem with pressing.

Downgrade because it is a structural defect that does not meet community standards of grade, Absolutely.

 

 

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.

 

Clearly they do not incorporate it enough into grade, as per the consensus.

[fantastic_four]

Don't put words in my mouth. I don't hate, and hate is way too strong a word in my vocabulary to dispense in situations where humanity demonstrates fallibility.

 

There is a difference between expecting one to roll-up their sleeves and get the job done properly when it was never asked of them, and when they self-appointed themselves and over committed and under delivered.

 

You could dress this up any way you like, but the fact is they are not living up to their purpose and function, which is at the root of the disapproval and discontent expressed by many in this thread.

 

OK, so you don't hate them. Detest? Dislike extremely? They didn't "self-appoint themselves" as anything, they started a certification business in a hobby that didn't already have one. Multiple competitors have popped up, all of which paled in comparison. Yea, they're letting RSR pass through, and they shouldn't. And Matt's actions are indeed eroding confidence in their brand, which sucks. But when it comes to undetectable pressing and microtrims, I don't know why you and a dozen or so others blame them for it like you do. It's a problem nobody has a viable solution for yet.

[batman_fan]

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.

 

But even they seem to give a pass to some production defects like centering and mis-cuts

[VintageComics]

I also think books that do show some peek through have been like that since they were printed for whatever reason. I find it hard to believe they have shrunk over the years. IF IT DID happen from shrinkage WE WOULD have heard about it before now...before pressing became the norm. Any natural shrinkage I don't feel would be visible to the eye. I have seen many books faded from sitting in the sun or on a dealers wall for years without any shrinkage. I know that is not enough heat to have a cover shrink but it is definately more amount of heat then sitting away in someones closet or wherever.

 

There are literally a zillion examples of books with shrunken covers (although not to the same extreme as the Schave books) on books that were not pressed. The entire discussion on shrinkage in this thread has been only to try to identify how and when this type of shrinkage happens. It doesn't happen to all books but it does happen to a lot of them (as has been attested to by many people).

 

In my opinion this "natural shrinkage" is a bad cover up for a mistake that occured during pressing. Simply as that.

 

Again, not a single person in this entire thread has intimated that the Schave books were naturally shrunken. I'm pretty sure everyone believes that it's due to a poor pressing.

 

 

[jimbo_707]

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....

 

Is that a fact? Because I replied to one of your previous posts with just such a suggestion.

 

I am not alone in the thinking. I still stick with three grade level drop for the shrunk covers.

 

Three levels regardless of severity? I presume not--so how much for 1/16"? 2/16"? 3/16"?

 

Someone said that a book with a subscription crease gets a 5.5. I wouldn't go that low on otherwise high grade books with only slight shrinkage, but to me, the worst cases of shrinkage make a book look worse than a fine-yet-color-breaking subscription crease.

 

What I would propose for blue label grades is as follows*:

*(I'm not sure how CGC rounds, but I'm assuming here that they round to the nearest increment but round up when equidistant between two increments.)

 

1) Detectable shrinkage less than 1/32" = 0.4 point deduction on books that would be 9.8 or higher, 0.2 point penalty on books 9.6 or 9.4, no penalty on books 9.2 or below

10.0 => 9.6

9.9 => 9.6

9.8 => 9.4

9.6 => 9.4

9.4 => 9.2

9.2 => no penalty

 

2) 1/32" - 1/16" shrinkage = ADDITIONAL 0.6 point deduction on all books down to 8.0

10.0 => 9.0

9.9 => 9.0

9.8 => 9.0

9.6 => 9.0

9.4 => 8.5

9.2 => 8.5

9.0 => 8.5

8.5 => 8.0

8.0 => 7.5

7.5 => no penalty

 

3) 1/16" - 1/8" shrinkage = ADDITIONAL 1.0 point deduction down to 6.5, 0.5 point deduction on books otherwise 6.0 to 5.5, no penalty on books 5.0 and below

10.0 => 8.0

9.9 => 8.0

9.8 => 8.0

9.6 => 8.0

9.4 => 7.5

9.2 => 7.5

9.0 => 7.5

8.5 => 7.0

8.0 => 6.5

7.5 => 6.5

7.0 => 6.0

6.5 => 5.5

6.0 => 5.5

5.5 => 5.0

5.0 => no penalty

 

4) 1/8" - 3/16" shrinkage = ADDITIONAL 1.0 point deduction down to 5.0, 0.5 point deduction on books otherwise 4.5 to 4.0, no penalty on books 3.5 and below

10.0 => 7.0

9.9 => 7.0

9.8 => 7.0

9.6 => 7.0

9.4 => 6.5

9.2 => 6.5

9.0 => 6.5

8.5 => 6.0

8.0 => 5.5

7.5 => 5.5

7.0 => 5.0

6.5 => 4.5

6.0 => 4.5

5.5 => 4.0

5.0 => 4.0

4.5 => 4.0

4.0 => 3.5

3.5 => no penalty

[THE_BEYONDER]

I also think books that do show some peek through have been like that since they were printed for whatever reason. I find it hard to believe they have shrunk over the years. IF IT DID happen from shrinkage WE WOULD have heard about it before now...before pressing became the norm. Any natural shrinkage I don't feel would be visible to the eye. I have seen many books faded from sitting in the sun or on a dealers wall for years without any shrinkage. I know that is not enough heat to have a cover shrink but it is definately more amount of heat then sitting away in someones closet or wherever.

 

There are literally a zillion examples of books with shrunken covers (although not to the same extreme as the Schave books) on books that were not pressed. The entire discussion on shrinkage in this thread has been only to try to identify how and when this type of shrinkage happens. It doesn't happen to all books but it does happen to a lot of them (as has been attested to by many people).

 

In my opinion this "natural shrinkage" is a bad cover up for a mistake that occured during pressing. Simply as that.

 

Again, not a single person in this entire thread has intimated that the Schave books were naturally shrunken. I'm pretty sure everyone believes that it's due to a poor pressing.

 

 

Literally a zillion?

[slym2none]

I'd say he nailed it - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/zillion?s=t

 

 

 

-slym

[VintageComics]

Literally a zillion?

 

Might be half a zillion. Or a zillion and a half.

 

I could also be off by a few zillion too, though.

[drbanner]

Again, not a single person in this entire thread has intimated that the Schave books were naturally shrunken.

Except for CGC when they said humidity causes it and early Silver Age Marvels are prone to cover shrinkage. That was pretty pathetic considering they were the ones that shrunk the covers on the Schave books (and others) by improper pressing.

[Davenport]

Again, not a single person in this entire thread has intimated that the Schave books were naturally shrunken. I'm pretty sure everyone believes that it's due to a poor pressing.

Maybe not. But authorities made a straight-up equivalency argument. That CGC doesn't recognize the phenomenon as "poor pressing" because it could happen naturally.

 

That's the Gaming loophole. Anything that might also appear in an unaltered book: Flatness, shrinkage, spine folds, maverick staples, etc. becomes "indistinguishable" or "undetectable" or "guesswork". Even when the attribute was created inhouse.

[VintageComics]

Again, not a single person in this entire thread has intimated that the Schave books were naturally shrunken. I'm pretty sure everyone believes that it's due to a poor pressing.

Maybe not. But authorities made a straight-up equivalency argument. That CGC doesn't recognize the phenomenon as "poor pressing" because it could happen naturally.

 

I had to make that point clear because there are a few people who said otherwise, which was untrue.

 

Anything that might also appear in an unaltered book: Flatness, shrinkage, spine folds, maverick staples, etc. becomes "indistinguishable" or "undetectable" or "guesswork". Even when the attribute was created inhouse.

 

Also, was it an equivalency arguement?

 

We're going in circles again.

 

If they can't differentiate it from a naturally occurring specimen, what do you want them to do about it?

 

 

[drbanner]

If they can't differentiate it from a naturally occurring specimen, what do you want them to do about it?

They should do the right thing here - include notes on the label as to the processes and operations they performed on the book before grading. No need to "differentiate" from naturally occurring processes, they explicitly know what unnatural processes they themselves performed on the book. Easy-peasy!

[fantastic_four]

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....

 

Is that a fact? Because I replied to one of your previous posts with just such a suggestion.

 

I am not alone in the thinking. I still stick with three grade level drop for the shrunk covers.

 

Three levels regardless of severity? I presume not--so how much for 1/16"? 2/16"? 3/16"?

 

Someone said that a book with a subscription crease gets a 5.5. I wouldn't go that low on otherwise high grade books with only slight shrinkage, but to me, the worst cases of shrinkage make a book look worse than a fine-yet-color-breaking subscription crease.

 

What I would propose for blue label grades is as follows*:

*(I'm not sure how CGC rounds, but I'm assuming here that they round to the nearest increment but round up when equidistant between two increments.)

 

1) Detectable shrinkage less than 1/32" = 0.4 point deduction on books that would be 9.8 or higher, 0.2 point penalty on books 9.6 or 9.4, no penalty on books 9.2 or below

10.0 => 9.6

9.9 => 9.6

9.8 => 9.4

9.6 => 9.4

9.4 => 9.2

9.2 => no penalty

 

2) 1/32" - 1/16" shrinkage = ADDITIONAL 0.6 point deduction on all books down to 8.0

10.0 => 9.0

9.9 => 9.0

9.8 => 9.0

9.6 => 9.0

9.4 => 8.5

9.2 => 8.5

9.0 => 8.5

8.5 => 8.0

8.0 => 7.5

7.5 => no penalty

 

3) 1/16" - 1/8" shrinkage = ADDITIONAL 1.0 point deduction down to 6.5, 0.5 point deduction on books otherwise 6.0 to 5.5, no penalty on books 5.0 and below

10.0 => 8.0

9.9 => 8.0

9.8 => 8.0

9.6 => 8.0

9.4 => 7.5

9.2 => 7.5

9.0 => 7.5

8.5 => 7.0

8.0 => 6.5

7.5 => 6.5

7.0 => 6.0

6.5 => 5.5

6.0 => 5.5

5.5 => 5.0

5.0 => no penalty

 

4) 1/8" - 3/16" shrinkage = ADDITIONAL 1.0 point deduction down to 5.0, 0.5 point deduction on books otherwise 4.5 to 4.0, no penalty on books 3.5 and below

10.0 => 7.0

9.9 => 7.0

9.8 => 7.0

9.6 => 7.0

9.4 => 6.5

9.2 => 6.5

9.0 => 6.5

8.5 => 6.0

8.0 => 5.5

7.5 => 5.5

7.0 => 5.0

6.5 => 4.5

6.0 => 4.5

5.5 => 4.0

5.0 => 4.0

4.5 => 4.0

4.0 => 3.5

3.5 => no penalty

 

My bad, should have given you credit for that. Even though I disagree with many of your proposed deduction amounts--particularly the ones that would knock Barton's (Ghost_Town's) 9.6 Spideys down to the 8.0 to 9.0 range--it's a superior analysis, and I applaud you for it.

 

The extreme amount of melodrama you've also been prone to has caused me to mentally edit out most of your posts from the last month or so. I don't enjoy pointing it out, but I attribute the absolutely most radical hyperbole detracting from the anti-shrinkage protest's credibility directly to many of your posts. Could you tone down the self-righteous indignation a bit, or preferrably, a LOT? I believe you've got a lot of great things to say and don't need the melodrama to say them.

[VintageComics]

If they can't differentiate it from a naturally occurring specimen, what do you want them to do about it?

They should do the right thing here - include notes on the label as to the processes and operations they performed on the book before grading. No need to "differentiate" from naturally occurring processes, they explicitly know what unnatural processes they themselves performed on the book. Easy-peasy!

 

and

 

 

I give up...