Cole Schave collection: face jobs?

[Rip]

I don't think that looks like a shrunken cover book either.

For those that have spoken out the strongest, your best bet is to just avoid these type of books. I don't see CGC (or others) changing their grading standards much.

[namisgr]

Rather not throw anyone's books under the proverbial bus at the moment.

Glad to see that thought in this thread.

 

The Cole-Schaved covers are something that should be addressed. But at this point, there's no reason to publicly smear every possible example.

If people are still sending books to CCS for pressing and receiving shrunken covers, after everything that's been posted in this thread, then they get what they deserve.

Since this fiasco first surfaced, there have been several "special" auctions with damaged books that weren't called out in deference to the owners/sellers. Namely, some of the Thompson and Dr. Fate books. Not sure if all of them had the 1197 or 1198 serial numbers, but some did.

 

Why isn't CGC doing anything to stop this?

I don't understand the idea of showing deference to the owners. What about showing deference to all the collectors who might overpay because they're not aware of the issue? I think getting the word out trumps kissing anybody's behind.

 

Here is another Thompson book that certainly looks Costanza'd to me; I'm not sure whether it was offered up at auction previously.

 

http://www.comiclink.com/auctions/item.asp?back=%2Fsearch%5Fadv%2Easp%3Fall%3Dy%26TITLE%3Dsgt%2E%2Bfury%26TITLEOPT%3DALL%26ISSUE%3D%26Condition%3D%26ConditionTo%3D%26CensusRank%3D%26SearchPageQuality%3D%26Pedigree%3D%26PRICEF%3D%26PRICET%3D%26DESCRIPTION%3D%26DESCRIPTIONOPT%3DALL%26SearchRemarks%3D%26SearchCGC%3D%26EXCLUDE%3D%26CATEGORIES%3D%2D1%26WCATEGORIES%3D%2D1%26SORT%3DCATEG%26%5Fwhere%5Fauctions%3Dy%26x%3D14%26y%3D9%26where%5Fauctions%3Dy%23Item%5F996823&id=996823

This post of yours is a perfect example of why people should use more discretion before they start throwing around accusations. Thousands and thousands of unpressed books from that time frame display similar characteristics.

 

It's a matter of degree, Barton. Whether caused by natural causes or a side-effect of pressing, a very minor amount of interior page exposure doesn't look that bad and isn't deserving of a lot of hand-wringing. It's the extreme examples that are the problem and that, for me, first showed up during the Pedigree auction of the Schave collection and that continue with other examples on dealer shelves and auction sites. Comics with substantial page exposure and a twisted cover appearance look bad, and when comics look worse after they've been pressed than before, and CGC doesn't detract for the damage, then the hobby has a problem to deal with.

 

I agree with Dr. Banner that a couple of the early FFs from the Don and Maggie pedigree looked manipulated beyond the norm, and are highly unlikely to have resulted from natural aging. Their appearance caused me to shy away from bidding on them.

[jimjum12]

I don't think that looks like a shrunken cover book either.

For those that have spoken out the strongest, your best bet is to just avoid these type of books. I don't see CGC (or others) changing their grading standards much.

 

.....yup..... and there are very few books that can't be found with near perfect QP..... but some are DEFINITELY tougher than others, and they will usually sell for a premium to the inferior examples.....as it should be. GOD BLESS....

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

 

 

[jimbo_707]

Rather not throw anyone's books under the proverbial bus at the moment.

Glad to see that thought in this thread.

 

The Cole-Schaved covers are something that should be addressed. But at this point, there's no reason to publicly smear every possible example.

If people are still sending books to CCS for pressing and receiving shrunken covers, after everything that's been posted in this thread, then they get what they deserve.

Since this fiasco first surfaced, there have been several "special" auctions with damaged books that weren't called out in deference to the owners/sellers. Namely, some of the Thompson and Dr. Fate books. Not sure if all of them had the 1197 or 1198 serial numbers, but some did.

 

Why isn't CGC doing anything to stop this?

I don't understand the idea of showing deference to the owners. What about showing deference to all the collectors who might overpay because they're not aware of the issue? I think getting the word out trumps kissing anybody's behind.

 

Here is another Thompson book that certainly looks Costanza'd to me; I'm not sure whether it was offered up at auction previously.

 

http://www.comiclink.com/auctions/item.asp?back=%2Fsearch%5Fadv%2Easp%3Fall%3Dy%26TITLE%3Dsgt%2E%2Bfury%26TITLEOPT%3DALL%26ISSUE%3D%26Condition%3D%26ConditionTo%3D%26CensusRank%3D%26SearchPageQuality%3D%26Pedigree%3D%26PRICEF%3D%26PRICET%3D%26DESCRIPTION%3D%26DESCRIPTIONOPT%3DALL%26SearchRemarks%3D%26SearchCGC%3D%26EXCLUDE%3D%26CATEGORIES%3D%2D1%26WCATEGORIES%3D%2D1%26SORT%3DCATEG%26%5Fwhere%5Fauctions%3Dy%26x%3D14%26y%3D9%26where%5Fauctions%3Dy%23Item%5F996823&id=996823

This post of yours is a perfect example of why people should use more discretion before they start throwing around accusations. Thousands and thousands of unpressed books from that time frame display similar characteristics.

So posting the book and opening it up for discussion is a problem because...you're against having a free and open discussion? I posted the book, others defended it. People can make up their own minds on this book and every book that's discussed.

[jimjum12]

Rather not throw anyone's books under the proverbial bus at the moment.

Glad to see that thought in this thread.

 

The Cole-Schaved covers are something that should be addressed. But at this point, there's no reason to publicly smear every possible example.

If people are still sending books to CCS for pressing and receiving shrunken covers, after everything that's been posted in this thread, then they get what they deserve.

Since this fiasco first surfaced, there have been several "special" auctions with damaged books that weren't called out in deference to the owners/sellers. Namely, some of the Thompson and Dr. Fate books. Not sure if all of them had the 1197 or 1198 serial numbers, but some did.

 

Why isn't CGC doing anything to stop this?

I don't understand the idea of showing deference to the owners. What about showing deference to all the collectors who might overpay because they're not aware of the issue? I think getting the word out trumps kissing anybody's behind.

 

Here is another Thompson book that certainly looks Costanza'd to me; I'm not sure whether it was offered up at auction previously.

 

http://www.comiclink.com/auctions/item.asp?back=%2Fsearch%5Fadv%2Easp%3Fall%3Dy%26TITLE%3Dsgt%2E%2Bfury%26TITLEOPT%3DALL%26ISSUE%3D%26Condition%3D%26ConditionTo%3D%26CensusRank%3D%26SearchPageQuality%3D%26Pedigree%3D%26PRICEF%3D%26PRICET%3D%26DESCRIPTION%3D%26DESCRIPTIONOPT%3DALL%26SearchRemarks%3D%26SearchCGC%3D%26EXCLUDE%3D%26CATEGORIES%3D%2D1%26WCATEGORIES%3D%2D1%26SORT%3DCATEG%26%5Fwhere%5Fauctions%3Dy%26x%3D14%26y%3D9%26where%5Fauctions%3Dy%23Item%5F996823&id=996823

This post of yours is a perfect example of why people should use more discretion before they start throwing around accusations. Thousands and thousands of unpressed books from that time frame display similar characteristics.

So posting the book and opening it up for discussion is a problem because...you're against having a free and open discussion? I posted the book, others defended it. People can make up their own minds on this book and every book that's discussed.

 

......That's how we all learn, brother. When I came here 10 years ago I thought I knew everything GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

[Ghost Town]

Rather not throw anyone's books under the proverbial bus at the moment.

Glad to see that thought in this thread.

 

The Cole-Schaved covers are something that should be addressed. But at this point, there's no reason to publicly smear every possible example.

If people are still sending books to CCS for pressing and receiving shrunken covers, after everything that's been posted in this thread, then they get what they deserve.

Since this fiasco first surfaced, there have been several "special" auctions with damaged books that weren't called out in deference to the owners/sellers. Namely, some of the Thompson and Dr. Fate books. Not sure if all of them had the 1197 or 1198 serial numbers, but some did.

 

Why isn't CGC doing anything to stop this?

I don't understand the idea of showing deference to the owners. What about showing deference to all the collectors who might overpay because they're not aware of the issue? I think getting the word out trumps kissing anybody's behind.

 

Here is another Thompson book that certainly looks Costanza'd to me; I'm not sure whether it was offered up at auction previously.

 

http://www.comiclink.com/auctions/item.asp?back=%2Fsearch%5Fadv%2Easp%3Fall%3Dy%26TITLE%3Dsgt%2E%2Bfury%26TITLEOPT%3DALL%26ISSUE%3D%26Condition%3D%26ConditionTo%3D%26CensusRank%3D%26SearchPageQuality%3D%26Pedigree%3D%26PRICEF%3D%26PRICET%3D%26DESCRIPTION%3D%26DESCRIPTIONOPT%3DALL%26SearchRemarks%3D%26SearchCGC%3D%26EXCLUDE%3D%26CATEGORIES%3D%2D1%26WCATEGORIES%3D%2D1%26SORT%3DCATEG%26%5Fwhere%5Fauctions%3Dy%26x%3D14%26y%3D9%26where%5Fauctions%3Dy%23Item%5F996823&id=996823

This post of yours is a perfect example of why people should use more discretion before they start throwing around accusations. Thousands and thousands of unpressed books from that time frame display similar characteristics.

 

It's a matter of degree, Barton. Whether caused by natural causes or a side-effect of pressing, a very minor amount of interior page exposure doesn't look that bad and isn't deserving of a lot of hand-wringing. It's the extreme examples that are the problem and that, for me, first showed up during the Pedigree auction of the Schave collection and that continue with other examples on dealer shelves and auction sites. Comics with substantial page exposure and a twisted cover appearance look bad, and when comics look worse after they've been pressed than before, and CGC doesn't detract for the damage, then the hobby has a problem to deal with.

 

I agree with Dr. Banner that a couple of the early FFs from the Don and Maggie pedigree looked manipulated beyond the norm, and are highly unlikely to have resulted from natural aging. Their appearance caused me to shy away from bidding on them.

I know it's a matter of degree. Problem is, in the frenzy that's occasionally come up in this thread, a number of normal looking books have been thrown under the bus along with more obvious examples of Costanza'd books.

 

I don't think it's asking too much for people to be a bit more considerate before they heap scorn on somebody else's books.

[Ghost Town]

So posting the book and opening it up for discussion is a problem because...you're against having a free and open discussion? I posted the book, others defended it. People can make up their own minds on this book and every book that's discussed.

That works both ways. If you're going to call a book into question, a free and open discussion of one's poor judgement is fair game too.

[Sqeggs]

Rather not throw anyone's books under the proverbial bus at the moment.

Glad to see that thought in this thread.

 

The Cole-Schaved covers are something that should be addressed. But at this point, there's no reason to publicly smear every possible example.

If people are still sending books to CCS for pressing and receiving shrunken covers, after everything that's been posted in this thread, then they get what they deserve.

Since this fiasco first surfaced, there have been several "special" auctions with damaged books that weren't called out in deference to the owners/sellers. Namely, some of the Thompson and Dr. Fate books. Not sure if all of them had the 1197 or 1198 serial numbers, but some did.

 

Why isn't CGC doing anything to stop this?

I don't understand the idea of showing deference to the owners. What about showing deference to all the collectors who might overpay because they're not aware of the issue? I think getting the word out trumps kissing anybody's behind.

 

Here is another Thompson book that certainly looks Costanza'd to me; I'm not sure whether it was offered up at auction previously.

 

http://www.comiclink.com/auctions/item.asp?back=%2Fsearch%5Fadv%2Easp%3Fall%3Dy%26TITLE%3Dsgt%2E%2Bfury%26TITLEOPT%3DALL%26ISSUE%3D%26Condition%3D%26ConditionTo%3D%26CensusRank%3D%26SearchPageQuality%3D%26Pedigree%3D%26PRICEF%3D%26PRICET%3D%26DESCRIPTION%3D%26DESCRIPTIONOPT%3DALL%26SearchRemarks%3D%26SearchCGC%3D%26EXCLUDE%3D%26CATEGORIES%3D%2D1%26WCATEGORIES%3D%2D1%26SORT%3DCATEG%26%5Fwhere%5Fauctions%3Dy%26x%3D14%26y%3D9%26where%5Fauctions%3Dy%23Item%5F996823&id=996823

This post of yours is a perfect example of why people should use more discretion before they start throwing around accusations. Thousands and thousands of unpressed books from that time frame display similar characteristics.

 

It's a matter of degree, Barton. Whether caused by natural causes or a side-effect of pressing, a very minor amount of interior page exposure doesn't look that bad and isn't deserving of a lot of hand-wringing. It's the extreme examples that are the problem and that, for me, first showed up during the Pedigree auction of the Schave collection and that continue with other examples on dealer shelves and auction sites. Comics with substantial page exposure and a twisted cover appearance look bad, and when comics look worse after they've been pressed than before, and CGC doesn't detract for the damage, then the hobby has a problem to deal with.

 

I agree with Dr. Banner that a couple of the early FFs from the Don and Maggie pedigree looked manipulated beyond the norm, and are highly unlikely to have resulted from natural aging. Their appearance caused me to shy away from bidding on them.

 

Well stated. A key point not to lose sight of is that the original sin here is with CCS/CGC. CCS shouldn't have persisted in pressing these books in this way when the problem first sufficed, and CGC should have reduced the grades on these books rather than raising them. If CCS/CGC hadn't acted in this way, people who have unpressed books with natural page fanning wouldn't have to worry about the backlash.

 

Been a while since I checked on this thread. Did Mark Z. ever post again on this issue?

 

 

[InvstmntComcSuply]

I know it's a matter of degree. Problem is, in the frenzy that's occasionally come up in this thread, a number of normal looking books have been thrown under the bus along with more obvious examples of Costanza'd books.

 

I don't think it's asking too much for people to be a bit more considerate before they heap scorn on somebody else's books.

 

It has been a while since reading this thread, but I don't recall a significant number of "normal" looking books being "thrown under the bus". And when they were mentioned, such as the Sgt Fury #13, it was quickly and professionally pointed out why they did not exhibit problem characteristics.

 

I think this discussion is important from an educational point of view. Otherwise a clear problem is being swept under the rug, just like the tape issue.

 

The boards are not the sale venue and do not owe the auction houses a professional courtesy of solely positive commentary on individual listings.

 

The idea that people should keep their opinions to themselves may also be seen as reinforcing a "good old boy" wink, wink, nod, nod image that disincentivizes CGC addressing the issue.

 

[THE_BEYONDER]

I grow tired of these MATT NELSON/CCS antics. That they're doing this under the same roof/umbrella as CGC makes it all the more frustrating.

 

 

CGC should really be taking this BS more seriously before it bites them in the azz.

[Randall Dowling]

Rather not throw anyone's books under the proverbial bus at the moment.

Glad to see that thought in this thread.

 

The Cole-Schaved covers are something that should be addressed. But at this point, there's no reason to publicly smear every possible example.

If people are still sending books to CCS for pressing and receiving shrunken covers, after everything that's been posted in this thread, then they get what they deserve.

Since this fiasco first surfaced, there have been several "special" auctions with damaged books that weren't called out in deference to the owners/sellers. Namely, some of the Thompson and Dr. Fate books. Not sure if all of them had the 1197 or 1198 serial numbers, but some did.

 

Why isn't CGC doing anything to stop this?

I don't understand the idea of showing deference to the owners. What about showing deference to all the collectors who might overpay because they're not aware of the issue? I think getting the word out trumps kissing anybody's behind.

 

Here is another Thompson book that certainly looks Costanza'd to me; I'm not sure whether it was offered up at auction previously.

 

http://www.comiclink.com/auctions/item.asp?back=%2Fsearch%5Fadv%2Easp%3Fall%3Dy%26TITLE%3Dsgt%2E%2Bfury%26TITLEOPT%3DALL%26ISSUE%3D%26Condition%3D%26ConditionTo%3D%26CensusRank%3D%26SearchPageQuality%3D%26Pedigree%3D%26PRICEF%3D%26PRICET%3D%26DESCRIPTION%3D%26DESCRIPTIONOPT%3DALL%26SearchRemarks%3D%26SearchCGC%3D%26EXCLUDE%3D%26CATEGORIES%3D%2D1%26WCATEGORIES%3D%2D1%26SORT%3DCATEG%26%5Fwhere%5Fauctions%3Dy%26x%3D14%26y%3D9%26where%5Fauctions%3Dy%23Item%5F996823&id=996823

This post of yours is a perfect example of why people should use more discretion before they start throwing around accusations. Thousands and thousands of unpressed books from that time frame display similar characteristics.

 

It's a matter of degree, Barton. Whether caused by natural causes or a side-effect of pressing, a very minor amount of interior page exposure doesn't look that bad and isn't deserving of a lot of hand-wringing. It's the extreme examples that are the problem and that, for me, first showed up during the Pedigree auction of the Schave collection and that continue with other examples on dealer shelves and auction sites. Comics with substantial page exposure and a twisted cover appearance look bad, and when comics look worse after they've been pressed than before, and CGC doesn't detract for the damage, then the hobby has a problem to deal with.

 

I agree with Dr. Banner that a couple of the early FFs from the Don and Maggie pedigree looked manipulated beyond the norm, and are highly unlikely to have resulted from natural aging. Their appearance caused me to shy away from bidding on them.

 

Well stated. A key point not to lose sight of is that the original sin here is with CCS/CGC. CCS shouldn't have persisted in pressing these books in this way when the problem first sufficed, and CGC should have reduced the grades on these books rather than raising them. If CCS/CGC hadn't acted in this way, people who have unpressed books with natural page fanning wouldn't have to worry about the backlash.

 

Been a while since I checked on this thread. Did Mark Z. ever post again on this issue?

 

No, I've been waiting for Mark's reply as well, although he did mention that he's very busy with his day job and it's worth noting that the holidays are a busy time for everyone.

 

I assume this is an issue for which nobody has a good answer for. Every time this thread comes up, there is a collective groan from a certain segment of the market encouraging all to just "let it go".

 

Take from that what you will.

[Randall Dowling]

I know it's a matter of degree. Problem is, in the frenzy that's occasionally come up in this thread, a number of normal looking books have been thrown under the bus along with more obvious examples of Costanza'd books.

 

I don't think it's asking too much for people to be a bit more considerate before they heap scorn on somebody else's books.

 

It has been a while since reading this thread, but I don't recall a significant number of "normal" looking books being "thrown under the bus". And when they were mentioned, such as the Sgt Fury #13, it was quickly and professionally pointed out why they did not exhibit problem characteristics.

 

I think this discussion is important from an educational point of view. Otherwise a clear problem is being swept under the rug, just like the tape issue.

 

The boards are not the sale venue and do not owe the auction houses a professional courtesy of solely positive commentary on individual listings.

 

The idea that people should keep their opinions to themselves may also be seen as reinforcing a "good old boy" wink, wink, nod, nod image that disincentivizes CGC addressing the issue.

Thanks for writing this. It describes perfectly what my feeling about this issue has been since the beginning of this thread. (thumbs u

[Bomber-Bob]

The idea that people should keep their opinions to themselves may also be seen as reinforcing a "good old boy" wink, wink, nod, nod image that disincentivizes CGC addressing the issue.

 

I believe this is what enables CCS to continue their shrinking ways. It's still happening but nobody is talking about it anymore. For my money, if it looks suspicious, I want to know who pressed the book before I buy.

 

[Ghost Town]

I know it's a matter of degree. Problem is, in the frenzy that's occasionally come up in this thread, a number of normal looking books have been thrown under the bus along with more obvious examples of Costanza'd books.

 

I don't think it's asking too much for people to be a bit more considerate before they heap scorn on somebody else's books.

 

It has been a while since reading this thread, but I don't recall a significant number of "normal" looking books being "thrown under the bus". And when they were mentioned, such as the Sgt Fury #13, it was quickly and professionally pointed out why they did not exhibit problem characteristics.

 

I think this discussion is important from an educational point of view. Otherwise a clear problem is being swept under the rug, just like the tape issue.

 

The boards are not the sale venue and do not owe the auction houses a professional courtesy of solely positive commentary on individual listings.

 

The idea that people should keep their opinions to themselves may also be seen as reinforcing a "good old boy" wink, wink, nod, nod image that disincentivizes CGC addressing the issue.

I'm not advocating sweeping anything under the rug. Bob (namisgr) who started this thread has been very careful in posting suspect books. They've been clear examples that nobody would argue. But there have been more than a few examples, including, a very expensive key book, which have been unfairly stigmatized.

 

It's not just auction houses that are being damaged by the less careful accusations. It's anybody who owns early Marvels. And again, asking people to be more cautious before calling a book under suspicion shouldn't create such handwringing.

[InvstmntComcSuply]

I know it's a matter of degree. Problem is, in the frenzy that's occasionally come up in this thread, a number of normal looking books have been thrown under the bus along with more obvious examples of Costanza'd books.

 

I don't think it's asking too much for people to be a bit more considerate before they heap scorn on somebody else's books.

 

It has been a while since reading this thread, but I don't recall a significant number of "normal" looking books being "thrown under the bus". And when they were mentioned, such as the Sgt Fury #13, it was quickly and professionally pointed out why they did not exhibit problem characteristics.

 

I think this discussion is important from an educational point of view. Otherwise a clear problem is being swept under the rug, just like the tape issue.

 

The boards are not the sale venue and do not owe the auction houses a professional courtesy of solely positive commentary on individual listings.

 

The idea that people should keep their opinions to themselves may also be seen as reinforcing a "good old boy" wink, wink, nod, nod image that disincentivizes CGC addressing the issue.

I'm not advocating sweeping anything under the rug. Bob (namisgr) who started this thread has been very careful in posting suspect books. They've been clear examples that nobody would argue. But there have been more than a few examples, including, a very expensive key book, which have been unfairly stigmatized.

 

It's not just auction houses that are being damaged by the less careful accusations. It's anybody who owns early Marvels. And again, asking people to be more cautious before calling a book under suspicion shouldn't create such handwringing.

 

It is not the accusations which are damaging the market, it is the practice and the subsequent reward of higher grades for uglier books by CGC. I stated near the beginning of the thread that the end result of this would be an across the board devaluation of books with newsprint exposure, regardless of origin.

 

There is no way to put the genie back into the bottle, however the tide could be stemmed by CGC addressing the issue and assigning grades which closer meet consensus opinion.

[drbanner]

Does this book look weird to anyone else? Love the top right corner!

 

[Ghost Town]

It is not the accusations which are damaging the market, it is the practice and the subsequent reward of higher grades for uglier books by CGC. I stated near the beginning of the thread that the end result of this would be an across the board devaluation of books with newsprint exposure, regardless of origin.

Before this thread, nobody would have thought twice about the peek through on the Sgt. Fury #13. And now, thanks to some unfounded speculation, the sale price of the book could be damaged.

 

I get the moral indignation about the actual shrunken covers and questionable grades. But I don't understand the cavalier attitude towards collectors and sellers whose books are unfairly vilified in a rush to judgement.

 

I think we all want CCS and CGC to fix the problems. But indiscriminately calling out books is more than little uncool, no matter who is to blame.

[THE_BEYONDER]

Does this book look weird to anyone else? Love the top right corner!

 

 

[THE_BEYONDER]

It is not the accusations which are damaging the market, it is the practice and the subsequent reward of higher grades for uglier books by CGC. I stated near the beginning of the thread that the end result of this would be an across the board devaluation of books with newsprint exposure, regardless of origin.

Before this thread, nobody would have thought twice about the peek through on the Sgt. Fury #13. And now, thanks to some unfounded speculation, the sale price of the book could be damaged.

 

Blame CCS

Blame CGC

 

Blame the practice of pressing itself.

 

Don't blame those trying to put a stop to these shenanigans.

 

Tons of books became suspect when Ewerts micro-trimming came to light.

 

There are going to be casualties. That's life.

[InvstmntComcSuply]

It is not the accusations which are damaging the market, it is the practice and the subsequent reward of higher grades for uglier books by CGC. I stated near the beginning of the thread that the end result of this would be an across the board devaluation of books with newsprint exposure, regardless of origin.

Before this thread, nobody would have thought twice about the peek through on the Sgt. Fury #13. And now, thanks to some unfounded speculation, the sale price of the book could be damaged.

 

I get the moral indignation about the actual shrunken covers and questionable grades. But I don't understand the cavalier attitude towards collectors and sellers whose books are unfairly vilified in a rush to judgement.

 

I think we all want CCS and CGC to fix the problems. But indiscriminately calling out books is more than little uncool, no matter who is to blame.

 

It is not completely indiscriminate. There are indicators that people are confused about. Realize that if one person posted a book with an unjustified concern, there were likely dozen of others who thought the concern was valid. These people would likely NOT bid on the book and scores of other books exhibiting similar characteristics. When these collectors are educated, it is a positive influence on the market and brings them back in.

 

The caveat is, since there is uncertainty about how these books are going to be perceived in the future, it likely brings them back in at a decreased buy point. Again that has nothing to do with an individual book, but a perception of a changing market for books with newsprint exposure overall.