• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Cole Schave collection: face jobs?

Started by namisgr,

4,963 posts in this topic

originalisbest

originalisbest

Posted
Posted
"Petitio" is going to be my new nickname for Dav. :D

 

"Douschenozzle" has been my nickname for you for a while. Thank you for continually proving I'm not a terrible judge of character. :acclaim:

 

lol! I must be doing somethin' right then. Let me know if you want help on understanding how "petito" came about. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Davenport

Davenport

Posted
Posted
"Petitio" is going to be my new nickname for Dav. :D

 

"Douschenozzle" has been my nickname for you for a while. Thank you for continually proving I'm not a terrible judge of character. :acclaim:

lol

I'm confident most boardies can grasp such a basic concept as "as published" that I sometimes use, excepting originalsbest. But just to clarify in case there's actually any confusion out there...

 

As published<----------->destroyed/unusable

 

Pretty basic continuum, right?

'New' to 'ruined'. As published, as minted, as produced, as manufactured... You get the idea, and it's applied across most collectibles. No circular logic or false argument involved. Authenticity and originality have always been highly valued. Not a new concept, and not rocket science.

 

In light of threads like these, two really excellent articles worth reading are:

Bag, Board and Box #5: Artifact Integrity by Tracey Heft and "Why Is Grading So Important?" in the 1st Ed. Overstreet Comic Book Grading Guide.

 

Combined those articles remind what comic books actually are as collectibles and why "as originally created" is so important.

Much has been lost in the current 'Big Numbers' environment, but they're core concepts worth reconsidering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
originalisbest

originalisbest

Posted
Posted
"Petitio" is going to be my new nickname for Dav. :D

 

"Douschenozzle" has been my nickname for you for a while. Thank you for continually proving I'm not a terrible judge of character. :acclaim:

lol

I'm confident most boardies can grasp such a basic concept as "as published" that I sometimes use, excepting originalsbest. But just to clarify in case there's actually any confusion out there...

 

As published<----------->destroyed/unusable

 

Pretty basic continuum, right?

'New' to 'ruined'. As published, as minted, as produced, as manufactured... You get the idea, and it's applied across most collectibles. No circular logic or false argument involved. Authenticity and originality have always been highly valued. Not a new concept, and not rocket science.

 

In light of threads like these, two really excellent articles worth reading are:

Bag, Board and Box #5: Artifact Integrity by Tracey Heft and "Why Is Grading So Important?" in the 1st Ed. Overstreet Comic Book Grading Guide.

 

Combined those articles remind what comic books actually are as collectibles and why "as originally created" is so important.

Much has been lost in the current 'Big Numbers' environment, but they're core concepts worth reconsidering.

 

 

Hi Dav!

 

I do believe I grasp the basic concept of "as published" just fine. Unfortunately we seem to be of differing minds as to whether a proper pressing can help a book get back to its "as published" state. I believe it can, and in the process, garner a higher CGC grade, commensurate with its now-increased eye-appeal, which will result in an owner's ability to sell it for more money, which probably can lead to a profit-making enterprise, which I have no problem with.

 

In another post in this thread, Dr Watson commented, and I agree:

 

-----

 

No, it isn't acceptable (re: the shrinkjobs - "bad" pressing, not good.) I like pancakes. I do not like pancakes so thin that they could moonlight as communion wafers.

 

I like a nice, correctly pressed books. These books, while technically may be pressed correctly, pervert the true intent of having a book pressed. The idea behind pressing (to me) is to create a better looking book, bring it closer to the original condition and possibly achieve a higher grade from the CGC.

 

The main goal being increased eye appeal.

 

-----

 

So with that out of the way, may I ask you about some very famous books, to see if you would consider them anywhere close to "as published", as you define the term? I'm referring to Mr. Church's Mile High collection. These were pressed all right, "naturally" so to speak, just about as pressed as one could imagine given their years of immobility in neatly organized stacks. Perhaps the same as millions of other collections, in the days before bags and boards. Books that survived in nice shape generally were kept in neat stacks, and the similarities of such books, to ones more recently, & properly, pressed so that they too have a flattened appearance, are such that I believe them to be indistinguishable from one another.

 

Now either the Church books are exemplars of "as published" or not, but I think they are. I think the only thing closer to a vintage GA book being "as published" would be if it were bought off the stands, and carefully nestled in a desk drawer with nothing on it, for 70+ years untouched. I can't imagine that being a very realistic scenario for GA books in any sort of quantity, and perhaps it isn't possible at all -- unless one took a book hot off the press, before it could be bundled into stacks and tied up and sent out for distribution, as so very many were. Pretty much in stacks from the start. Maybe file copies alone would qualify then, as "as published."

 

When, in the original statement you made below that I was responding to, you say "Books being flatter than they ever existed before" in a negative sense, and differentiate a book's flatness from how it must have appeared when originally published, I have to think is condemning the Church books, right along with more "currently done" pressing work, when it is done correctly. Which is fine if that's how you truly see it, but it seems to me a somewhat limiting stance to take.

 

Roy said as much below, but was a lot briefer. I just got a bit of time on my hands now, is my excuse. :) Original kerfuffle is copied and pasted below. Happy Friday tomorrow (best day of the week!) :)

 

------

 

Wall-Crawler said:

I definitely like the original 9.2 over the 9.6

 

Davenport said:

That simple point should carry much more weight than it currently does. "Grade" should be related to the "as published" state and its desirability.

 

Books being flatter than they ever existed before shouldn't trump all other "Grade" considerations. Right? Unless you're offering flattening services, of course, and deem common sense gut-reactions as 'purist' nonsense.

 

Somewhere along the line the 'Grading Scale' disconnected from "as published" and became a "flatness of paper" scale. Even if books end up appearing "not right", even if the previous "as published" state is more authentic and appealing.

 

Vintage Comics said:

Your post leaves out the obvious fact that the entire reason pressed books are accepted (by those that accept them) is because they continue to look "as published" after being pressed. If a tree falls in a forest, etc.

 

I'm going to stay away from a pressing debate but the simple fact that you can't always tell if a book is pressed is significant.

 

I said:

The funny thing about Dav and his notion of what "as published" means, is that I can only presume he'd better not have any admiration of, or presence of, mile high books in his collection (to pick the grandaddy of all pedigrees as an example seems appropriate.) Because the bottom halves of the mile high stacks were gloriously flattened, immensely flattened, as a pancake flattened, with all air squished out of their blinding white pages, and most certainly were discovered in a much more flattened state, than when first published and put out for sale to be purchased by Mr. Church.

 

Garbage all, the lot of them!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bomber-Bob

Bomber-Bob

Posted
Posted

Good article. I took away this one statement that I think should be considered.

 

The concept of "artifact integrity" governs the actions of the conservator and prevents the conservator from improving the aesthetic appearance of the object through needless or excessive treatment(s).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
originalisbest

originalisbest

Posted
Posted
Good article. I took away this one statement that I think should be considered.

 

The concept of "artifact integrity" governs the actions of the conservator and prevents the conservator from improving the aesthetic appearance of the object through needless or excessive treatment(s).

 

 

Yep, although in reading the article in its entirety, "artifact integrity" is taken to mean not removing names or markings placed by original owners, etc. Not removing Church books markings was mentioned specifically.

 

We just end up right back to square 1 of the debate over pressing, additive vs. non-additive treatments, and whether one can tell the difference between a newly-properly-pressed, highgrade book vs. one out of Edgar's pressed stacks moved by Chuck in '78 or so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
thehumantorch

thehumantorch

Posted
Posted
Good article. I took away this one statement that I think should be considered.

 

The concept of "artifact integrity" governs the actions of the conservator and prevents the conservator from improving the aesthetic appearance of the object through needless or excessive treatment(s).

 

 

Pretty well sums up our concerns with these press jobs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Davenport

Davenport

Posted
Posted
Good article. I took away this one statement that I think should be considered when grading.

 

The concept of "artifact integrity" governs the actions of the conservator and prevents the conservator from improving the aesthetic appearance of the object through needless or excessive treatment(s).

 

Yeah, the "Artifact Integrity" concept kinda went the way of the dinosaur when the encapsulation-era arrived. The concept seems grounded in common-sense though, when you start peeling back the layers of "why?".

 

You might enjoy some of the other articles, they're all pre-encapsulation era:

 

Bag, Board, and Box #1

Bag, Board, and Box #2

Bag, Board, and Box #3

Bag, Board, and Box #4

Bag, Board, and Box #5

Bag, Board, and Box #6

Bag, Board, and Box #7

Bag, Board, and Box #8

 

This is interesting too (since they keep coming up). Gives a sense of how much they've been f'd with:

Edgar Church collection - CGC-grades

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
originalisbest

originalisbest

Posted
Posted
Good article. I took away this one statement that I think should be considered when grading.

 

The concept of "artifact integrity" governs the actions of the conservator and prevents the conservator from improving the aesthetic appearance of the object through needless or excessive treatment(s).

 

Yeah, the "Artifact Integrity" concept kinda went the way of the dinosaur when the encapsulation-era arrived. The concept seems grounded in common-sense though, when you start peeling back the layers of "why?".

 

You might enjoy some of the other articles, they're all pre-encapsulation era:

 

Bag, Board, and Box #1

Bag, Board, and Box #2

Bag, Board, and Box #3

Bag, Board, and Box #4

Bag, Board, and Box #5

Bag, Board, and Box #6

Bag, Board, and Box #7

Bag, Board, and Box #8

 

This is interesting too (since they keep coming up). Gives a sense of how much they've been f'd with:

Edgar Church collection - CGC-grades

 

Yeah, those Church books are a wonder to behold. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lizards2

lizards2

Posted
Posted
I just want to say that I was heckled openly and heavily by a few big name dealers (who are reading these threads) a few months ago when I suggested that Marvel covers shrink over time horizontally but not vertically (as an explanation for the overhang on the top and bottom edges).

 

Do the covers shrink, or do the interiors expand? I forget. I was thinking it was the latter, but my memory may be off.

banana082.gif It depends......., on what you've been smokin', man! banana082.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MasterChief

MasterChief

Posted
Posted

And the Pressific Coast beat goes on...

 

Left is the original certified copy by Mark Arrand.

 

Right is the Cole Schave Facejobbed Costanza copy, courtesy of Doug Schmell.

 

(Hey, Dav... the worked over copy appears to have an upper "indented maverick staple". Bob, check me if I'm wrong on that term/reference...)

 

 

TOS-40-PC-compare-1.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing