Cole Schave collection: face jobs?

[Bomber-Bob]

 

. Isn't it possible, that one of the other people pressing the books who didn't know as much as Matt used too much moisture?

 

I think that's the most likely explanation.

 

I'm still disappointed that Mark Zaid never came back as promised and reported his findings.

 

I know he's a busy guy, but it's been quite a while and

I've been waiting for him to post and update because he's much more likely to be able to gather some real answers instead of us all guessing and speculating...

 

So Mark...where are you? [/color]

 

Early on I thought(hoped) that the Cole Shave books were simply an accident by a rogue employee. However, after seeing the volume of books hitting the market from this summer's timeframe, it was no accident. It was intentional, probably, as previously stated, to reduce the cycle time = churn out books faster.

Regarding Mark, I fear it is no longer a matter of his time constraints as much as CGC not giving him much to report on. Hopefully, I am wrong.

 

[InvstmntComcSuply]

Odd, though, one would think after the flag was raised so long ago, that all the books just now coming to market, would have already been returned for the "light pressing" to fix the shrunken covers, prior to putting them on the auction block.

[jimbo_707]

I think it's safe to say that cover shrinkage has been going on as long pressing with moisture has been going on.

 

No it isn't, at least not with any identifiable consistency.

 

It's the nature of the material used for the covers. You can't expect to add heat and moisture and not have shrinkage.

 

Yes you can. As Joeypost pointed out and as many have pointed out about Matt's pressing until this year, they've both been doing it for years without seeing shrinkage. It's almost certainly excessive humidity that Matt has been trying recently. I've seen no evidence of this prior to this year or even the summer of this year.

fantastic_four,

 

With all due respect, you seem to be inexorably self-confident in your assumptions.

 

Maybe hard evidence will change your mind.

 

Here is a picture of a book that I recently purchased raw from Worldwide. It had been in their inventory for quite a while - since long before Nelson left, in fact:

 

 

Here is an older picture of the same book, slabbed, shown to me by another board member:

 

 

You can see more white along the right edge of the book now than when it was in the slab - not a lot, but there is a hairbreadth's more newsprint showing. If you follow the white line of newsprint visible along the right edge, you can clearly follow farther down in the newer, "raw" picture. I think it safe to assume that it was pressed by Nelson or one of his employees.

 

That is when I am talking about when I say that all books pressed with moisture have some shrinkage. The book, as it is now, falls within the normal variation, so before the Cole Schave fiasco, and without before and after pictures, nobody would have known that it has a shrunken cover.

 

[Presumably no-one can object to my "calling out" a book that I own. I like the book despite the shrinkage, but I think it goes without saying that I would have much rather owned it before it got the Nelson (mis-)treatment.]

[BEAUMONTS]

I guess people will have to make a decision to get Matt to press or not to press. That being said the CGC standard for rewarding the fugliness of the press with a grade bump will probably make it a defacto decision in a monetary standpoint. So ultimately CGC is making this viable, and I would assume this is why Mark is not/cannot comment on this debacle.

Not really good for a company that set's the supposed standard and is a "Ambassador" and promoter for the hobby. It would be interesting to be a fly on the wall to see who actually makes this decision, is it the CGC stake holder's or ? Really is baffling even from a public relations standpoint, why would you shoot the golden goose in the head….. truly baffling.

[fantastic_four]

I know Matt has been using moisture for a long time. The difference is it is now probably excessive. I remember Stephen Ritter, Matt's partner with Worldwide, said that the moisture added a suppleness to the paper, sometimes resulting in a PQ bump. That made sense to me and I thought moisture was a good thing, until now.

 

As far as I've been able to tell, this is true on every book from every age except Silver Age Marvels. That doesn't mean there aren't other exceptions from other publishers or time periods, I just haven't seen evidence of others yet.

[fantastic_four]

With him being the head of CCS and with CCS damaging books like this while pressing and continuing to damage them after it's been bought to light

 

I haven't seen much evidence of shrinkage since he said he'd try to stop. Some, but not much.

[fantastic_four]

I think it's safe to say that cover shrinkage has been going on as long pressing with moisture has been going on.

 

No it isn't, at least not with any identifiable consistency.

 

It's the nature of the material used for the covers. You can't expect to add heat and moisture and not have shrinkage.

 

Yes you can. As Joeypost pointed out and as many have pointed out about Matt's pressing until this year, they've both been doing it for years without seeing shrinkage. It's almost certainly excessive humidity that Matt has been trying recently. I've seen no evidence of this prior to this year or even the summer of this year.

fantastic_four,

 

With all due respect, you seem to be inexorably self-confident in your assumptions.

 

What, specifically, in the above quote is an "assumption"? You asserted that shrinkage has always happened, and I asserted nobody has demonstrated that. And that's true, nobody has. I didn't say you weren't right that shrinkage hasn't always happened, just that we don't know one way or the other. You also asserted that you can't add heat and moisture and not have shrinkage, and since all pressing doesn't lead to shrinkage, it's obvious THAT'S an exaggeration.

 

 

Here is a picture of a book that I recently purchased raw from Worldwide. It had been in their inventory for quite a while - since long before Nelson left, in fact:

 

 

Here is an older picture of the same book, slabbed, shown to me by another board member:

 

 

You can see more white along the right edge of the book now than when it was in the slab - not a lot, but there is a hairbreadth's more newsprint showing. If you follow the white line of newsprint visible along the right edge, you can clearly follow farther down in the newer, "raw" picture.

 

I can't entirely tell what's going on with that book. What happened to the interior of the book poking up past the top edge in the slabbed "before" picture? More shifting of the interior happened there than on the right edge--it's visible in the "before," but gone in the "after."

[Bomber-Bob]

I'd like to expand more on what I said earlier to answer some concerns raised the past day. First, Paul and I do take people's concerns over shrinkage very seriously. It's obvious that no one likes it, so as I said in a previous post, I've already taken steps to make sure this kind of thing does not happen with books submitted to CCS. Conversations will continue about this topic at CGC. In regards to a delay in response, time is needed to research and decide on these type of things. For RSR, there were several phone calls, meetings, the examination of books, and the ultimate decision on CGC's stance. Same with the new standards on tape. In every case our end goal is to resolve the issue, not ignore it.

 

This quote from Matt was from 09/20/2013. It was a good statement, leaving some hope for change from CGC. However, this is the last statement from Matt on the Boards. One would reasonably think CCS or CGC would have taken some action by now, even a statement.

[slym2none]

Didn't CGC state that the "Costanza" effect could be remedied by a light pressing?

 

 

 

 

-slym

[fantastic_four]

Didn't CGC state that the "Costanza" effect could be remedied by a light pressing?

 

I vaguely recall that, but I don't recall anyone offering a good explanation as for how another pressing would un-shrink a cover.

[Bomber-Bob]

Didn't CGC state that the "Costanza" effect could be remedied by a light pressing?

slym

 

Perhaps you are right,they gave an 'answer' and it's done.

[InvstmntComcSuply]

Didn't CGC state that the "Costanza" effect could be remedied by a light pressing?

 

I vaguely recall that, but I don't recall anyone offering a good explanation as for how another pressing would un-shrink a cover.

 

Are my posts invisible?

 

 

Odd, though, one would think after the flag was raised so long ago, that all the books just now coming to market, would have already been returned for the "light pressing" to fix the shrunken covers, prior to putting them on the auction block.

[slym2none]

Sorry, grinin - I fade in & out of this thread a lot.

 

 

 

 

-slym

[slym2none]

Didn't CGC state that the "Costanza" effect could be remedied by a light pressing?

slym

 

Perhaps you are right,they gave an 'answer' and it's done.

 

That's what I took from it.

 

 

 

 

-slym

[InvstmntComcSuply]

Speaking of which, I was talking to jimbo about my missing post explaining the V shape of the stacked newsprint on the right edge of the comic book which I was sure was in this thread.....

[originalisbest]

I think it's safe to say that cover shrinkage has been going on as long pressing with moisture has been going on.

 

No it isn't, at least not with any identifiable consistency.

 

It's the nature of the material used for the covers. You can't expect to add heat and moisture and not have shrinkage.

 

Yes you can. As Joeypost pointed out and as many have pointed out about Matt's pressing until this year, they've both been doing it for years without seeing shrinkage. It's almost certainly excessive humidity that Matt has been trying recently. I've seen no evidence of this prior to this year or even the summer of this year.

fantastic_four,

 

With all due respect, you seem to be inexorably self-confident in your assumptions.

 

What, specifically, in the above quote is an "assumption"? You asserted that shrinkage has always happened, and I asserted nobody has demonstrated that. And that's true, nobody has. I didn't say you weren't right that shrinkage hasn't always happened, just that we don't know one way or the other. You also asserted that you can't add heat and moisture and not have shrinkage, and since all pressing doesn't lead to shrinkage, it's obvious THAT'S an exaggeration.

 

 

Here is a picture of a book that I recently purchased raw from Worldwide. It had been in their inventory for quite a while - since long before Nelson left, in fact:

 

 

Here is an older picture of the same book, slabbed, shown to me by another board member:

 

 

You can see more white along the right edge of the book now than when it was in the slab - not a lot, but there is a hairbreadth's more newsprint showing. If you follow the white line of newsprint visible along the right edge, you can clearly follow farther down in the newer, "raw" picture.

 

I can't entirely tell what's going on with that book. What happened to the interior of the book poking up past the top edge in the slabbed "before" picture? More shifting of the interior happened there than on the right edge--it's visible in the "before," but gone in the "after."

 

You're both right.

 

Jimbo, I respectfully submit that, while your theory may or may not be correct for some books, on this one it disproves your point.

 

The slight variance I believe fantastic_four sees is due to the fact that you're comparing a truly squared-up, flush to the glass scan of a raw book, with a photograph (not a scan) or the same book, in a slab, slightly skewed in relation to the lens -- not an apples to apples, flush square comparison. This is most easily observed by noting the slightly skewed dimensions of the blue label, looking from left to right.

 

Just as if you were to place a book on a table, and view it slightly favoring the spine-view, then view it slightly favoring the open edge, you're going to get different perspectives (from slight to extreme) of how much of the pages you'll see. The same with regard to top and bottom of the book views, which helps explain the top edge discrepancy f_f noted.

 

Back to the debate... I would have to say I agree that the worst examples shown of the schave effect are fugly and noticeable, and I hope they are brought to a halt -- but I disagree with the notion put forth that all pressing is going to shrink a cover even if minutely.

 

Jimbo, if you really want to prove it to yourself or not, and I'm sure we all would learn from the results, why not take a few books to make specific examples of and have Joey (or Matt, or ccs, or etc.) press them to your instructions -- but first, scan in hires on a particular piece of equipment "raw" (not in a slab) and then, replicate that scan as closely as possible to the same conditions once you get the book(s) back.

 

Without more defined controls in place, there are too many variables in appearance and setup for me to accept the evidence you've put forth with the FIGHT example for me to agree with your point.

 

Also, I would edit to say, it does look like the in-slab pic is a scan, not a photo, but I think my point still stands, as the book isn't truly flat to the scanner lens compared to the raw-scan. This can be seen with regard to f_f's point about the top and bottom viewable edges of the interior pages. Only a direct raw scan-to-scan comparison can be useful, on the same equipment and same setup, etc. if we're going to be able to determine the most minor of shrinkage.

[fantastic_four]

Didn't CGC state that the "Costanza" effect could be remedied by a light pressing?

 

I vaguely recall that, but I don't recall anyone offering a good explanation as for how another pressing would un-shrink a cover.

 

Are my posts invisible?

 

 

Odd, though, one would think after the flag was raised so long ago, that all the books just now coming to market, would have already been returned for the "light pressing" to fix the shrunken covers, prior to putting them on the auction block.

 

Huh? Not sure what you mean.

[originalisbest]

Didn't CGC state that the "Costanza" effect could be remedied by a light pressing?

 

I vaguely recall that, but I don't recall anyone offering a good explanation as for how another pressing would un-shrink a cover.

 

Are my posts invisible?

 

 

Odd, though, one would think after the flag was raised so long ago, that all the books just now coming to market, would have already been returned for the "light pressing" to fix the shrunken covers, prior to putting them on the auction block.

 

Huh? Not sure what you mean.

 

I don't think there's been enough time, turnaround time, for someone to fix a cover with slight shrinkage (if it's possible with all books - maybe some moreso than others, maybe you could take the worst example, and make it look a good deal better.)

 

Here again, hopefully not with one of the very $$$ books (but maybe that would make the point all the better, one way or the other) -- it would be useful if someone were to take an accepted example of a badly "schaven" book, crack it out of the slab, scan it exactly as it appears raw, have it pressed again by Joey or CCS with express instruction to try and fix the shrinkage -- get it back, scan it again, and let all see and judge whether or not an "additional light pressing" helped mitigate, or hopefully fix entirely, the undesirable appearance.

[joeypost]

Didn't CGC state that the "Costanza" effect could be remedied by a light pressing?

 

I vaguely recall that, but I don't recall anyone offering a good explanation as for how another pressing would un-shrink a cover.

 

It won't.

[originalisbest]

Didn't CGC state that the "Costanza" effect could be remedied by a light pressing?

 

I vaguely recall that, but I don't recall anyone offering a good explanation as for how another pressing would un-shrink a cover.

 

It won't.

 

Now see that's straight and to the point. Thanks Joey -- and, sorry to hear it (with regards to those books that do have a truly schave'd appearance.)