Cole Schave collection: face jobs?

[originalisbest]

 

Garbage all, the lot of them!

 

 

 

 

-slym

 

Hopefully that wasn't all you got out of my post.

[comicwiz]

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...)

 

 

 

[comicwiz]

MasterChief, hope you don't mind but I'm keeping a running database of wrecked books. If I've missed any, please post them in this thread or PM me:

 

[Mark 1]

CGC should be embarrassed with the above examples.

 

[drbanner]

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...)

 

 

Ouch, not only does that book look a lot worse after being Constanza'd, the paper around the staple has obviously been damaged.

[Dano]

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...)

 

 

 

 

How can anyone possibly spin this one into a positive?

 

Dan

[Comicopolis]

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...)

 

 

 

 

How can anyone possibly spin this one into a positive?

 

Dan

 

Oh ye of little faith.

[Mr.Diggler]

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...)

 

 

 

 

How can anyone possibly spin this one into a positive?

 

Dan

Easy. It was a successful restorative press as indicated by the 9.6 on the top left of the label.

[skypinkblu]

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!

 

You keep mentioning Church books, and I pulled out one of mine, Masters #92, it must have been at the top of the stack, because it's definitely not a pancake.I couldn't get a good picture through the slab.

 

However, given that one pedigree has been naturally flattened, that's ONE Pedigree....that was naturally flattened, does that somehow allow for every other book to be un-naturally flattened in an effort to artificially mimic that one pedigree?

 

I've seen lots of damaged books with ripples pressed, with spine rolls fixed, also wonderful...I saw the Sistine Chapel after the ceiling was restored, it's wonderful, but I don't see every painting restored, there is no need...nor do I see a need to "fix" every comic...and I still think that pressing is something that should be disclosed.

 

 

Many collectors, not on this forum still have no knowledge of the practice. I was talking to one at dinner last night, he's 40 years old, buys on eBay, goes to shows, he's been collecting since he was a kid. He had no idea what I was talking about...and this is someone who is well educated with a good job, but he has no knowledge of this forum. He was mystified when I told him. He called it cheating.

 

I'm sure there are lots of other people who would be mystified as well.

 

 

So...press, shrink, irradiate.. .if you own the book, it's yours, but if you sell it..don't hide what you did.

 

I've always looked to CGC as a place that would disclose work that was done by other less honest individuals...I'm very disappointed after reading that these grades are "accurate" and seeing that nothing about "shrinkage" was noted on the labels.

 

You can spin it anyway you want, but it's pretty obvious these books were not purchased in July or August...whenever the deal went down, with already shrunken covers.

 

There were changes made to the books in order to sell them for a higher amount and those changes were not disclosed nor was anything noted by the grading company..

 

In light of the past few months and the "face job" scandal, it's something I would have hoped would have been noted when grading.

 

The reason cited seems to be that it could have been a manufacturing defect.

 

CGC made a change as far as tape, perhaps they need to change their standards on possible "manufacturing defects"

 

If the book doesn't look wonderful because of a shrunken cover, fanned pages, or a production crease...a weird color register, etc...Grade it lower

 

[faster friends]

Now way that 9.4 looks better than when it was a 9.2

 

Why is it these books are coming back with a grade bump when they look worse??

[DR.X]

Now way that 9.4 looks better than when it was a 9.2

 

Why is it these books are coming back with a grade bump when they look worse??

 

Because there's a ton of money involved.

[Spiderphill]

It does make you question the "integrity" of books submitted by their usual "big $$$ submitters." For instance, how many times does the xmen 1 9.6 get subbed until its a 9.8. They know the book, they know who owns it, and it still gets bumped into a 9.8 eventually. That little bump was a huge price difference. Yet it still gets submitted multiple times, risking damage and a grade drop.

[drbanner]

Why is it these books are coming back with a grade bump when they look worse??

Because why would anyone pay CGC to press their books before grading them if the grade doesn't stand a good chance of going up? Many of these books are documented to have been presse...oops, I mean to have been resubmitted, at least 3 times, and probably more. When CGC presses and grades a 4/5-figure book 2-3-4 times, that's easy $$ for them, and easy money for Schme...I mean, the submitter.

[Comicopolis]

Now way that 9.4 looks better than when it was a 9.2

 

Why is it these books are coming back with a grade bump when they look worse??

 

Because CGC graders think so.

[faster friends]

OMG

[originalisbest]

Now way that 9.4 looks better than when it was a 9.2

 

Why is it these books are coming back with a grade bump when they look worse??

 

Because CGC graders think so.

 

That's tellin' 'em! Except... CGC graders aren't grading with dossiers for every book placed in front of them, to tell them what it's been through since the day it rolled off the presses. They grade the book that's in front of them -- not a difficult concept to understand, but apparently, one that is easier to willfully ignore.

[Park]

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...)

 

 

 

This one looks like the top staple has popped or is about to pop.

[originalisbest]

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...)

 

 

Ouch, not only does that book look a lot worse after being Constanza'd, the paper around the staple has obviously been damaged.

 

Hmm. Perhaps, so far as can be seen from medium-sized, before and after scans. But you know what they say about grading from a scan... can't be a substitute for holding the book in hand.

 

I would say shrinkage is regrettable, as would be of course any staple damage that wasn't there prior. But how then can the book go from 9.2 to 9.4? Perhaps there were ncb bends or dimples, front or back cover, that were pressed out even as the cover unfortunately shrunk a bit, or a staple tear was introduced. But then, without having a prior knowledge of a book's history nor any scans of a "before" state to guide, grading the book as it stands, 9.4 seems reasonable to me, especially since the graders weren't grading scans, but an actual, physical book. YMMV (obviously.)

[originalisbest]

Why is it these books are coming back with a grade bump when they look worse??

Because why would anyone pay CGC to press their books before grading them if the grade doesn't stand a good chance of going up? Many of these books are documented to have been presse...oops, I mean to have been resubmitted, at least 3 times, and probably more. When CGC presses and grades a 4/5-figure book 2-3-4 times, that's easy $$ for them, and easy money for Schme...I mean, the submitter.

 

Sounds about like par for the course in all collectibles that are graded. With coins, it's "if the grade don't fit - you must resubmit." On any given day the grade may get the bump, because graders are human. So if you have a really, really, really nice 9.2 that looks to you like it should be a 9.4, then you might keep submitting it, until you get graders' notes and find out about a flaw that limits the grade you overlooked -- so you stop trying and sell the book in a 9.2 holder, to a buyer who happily says "wow, what a 9.2!" without benefit of the little limiting factor, and off it goes to be graded again. Nothing about this scenario seems particularly sinister to me.

[originalisbest]

Now way that 9.4 looks better than when it was a 9.2

 

Why is it these books are coming back with a grade bump when they look worse??

 

Because there's a ton of money involved.

 

From fallacies of Assumption:

 

"...when what is taken for granted or assumed is allowed to function in any part of an argument as an assertion or judgment, or when the assumption on which an argument proceeds is ambiguous, the resulting fallacy is one of assumption."

 

A book may look worse in a scan, especially if compared to the same book in a previous scan, but in person, the book itself may not look worse when taking into consideration, all flaws that a scan may not make evident.