Cole Schave collection: face jobs?

[Bookery]

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

 

We now get to see the minty-white pages!!!

 

[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.

 

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.

 

Of course - and they never make mistakes.

[drbanner]

Hmmm, not only does the book have damage at the upper staple that wasn't there before, but since the spine isn't as tight to the interior as it used to be, the interior pages are now protruding from the bottom of the front cover (or perhaps the spine has been twisted by the shoddy press job?). With the pages shifted downward, that stand-at-attention-like-a-teenage-boy-reading-his-1st-Playboy top edge is even more prone to Shaken Comic Syndrome (SCS), I certainly wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of something like this on a 5-figure book.

 

[Bomber-Bob]

Hmmm, not only does the book have damage at the upper staple that wasn't there before, but since the spine isn't as tight to the interior as it used to be, the interior pages are now protruding from the bottom of the front cover (or perhaps the spine has been twisted by the shoddy press job?).

 

You're right. I just noticed the bottom edge pages are now sticking out. And again you're right, the cause is probably not shrinkage but movement. It's not good that all of this, for whatever reason, is overlooked by the graders. I think they have become desensitized to this stuff, they probably see it so much they think it's normal or bindery.

 

 

[Davenport]

(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...)

Thanks Mitch!

 

If I'm understanding, "indented maverick staples" are what I call "maypops" because they may pop any minute. Appear to be from torquing the book-assembly during the reflattening treatment, creating pull tension on a staple.

 

I won't ask any of the obvious questions that come to mind, because I already now the PR caveat that'll justify whackerjobbing assemblies: "sometimes it occurs naturally over time or possibly from printing"

 

[Bomber-Bob]

(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...)

Thanks Mitch!

If I'm understanding, "indented maverick staples" are what I call "maypops" because they may pop any minute. And they appear to be from torquing the assembly during the reflattening treatment, creating tension in the staple area.

 

I won't ask any of the obvious questions that come to mind, because I already now the PR caveat that'll justify whackerjobbing assemblies: "sometimes it occurs naturally over time or possibly from printing"

 

Soon we may see an environment where more flaws are deemed 'natural' and allowed/ignored by graders. Marvel chipping is 'natural' ?

[mrwoogieman]

If Schmell is involved, the book has been "potentialized". Proceed accordingly.

 

 

[VintageComics]

I won't ask any of the obvious questions that come to mind, because I already now the PR caveat that'll justify whackerjobbing assemblies: "sometimes it occurs naturally over time or possibly from printing"

 

The fact that it does occur without any pressing is irrelevant in this discussion, but you can continue to try and antagonize, spin, etc.

 

 

[Davenport]

(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...)

Thanks Mitch!

 

If I'm understanding, "indented maverick staples" are what I call "maypops" because they may pop any minute. Appear to be from torquing the book-assembly during the reflattening treatment, creating pull tension on a staple.

 

I won't ask any of the obvious questions that come to mind, because I already now the PR caveat that'll justify whackerjobbing assemblies: "sometimes it occurs naturally over time or possibly from printing"

 

Soon we may see an environment where more flaws are deemed 'natural' and allowed/ignored by graders. Marvel chipping is 'natural' ?

Yeah, it kinda sheds light on why Ewert would ever make such a dumbheaded play. Trimming is factory too (possibly from printing) or maybe it just shrunk back a smidge (occurs naturally over time)

[VintageComics]

Yeah, it kinda sheds light on why Ewert would ever make such a dumbheaded play. Trimming is factory too (possibly from printing) or maybe it just shrunk back a smidge (occurs naturally over time)

 

More sound bite, more sensationalism, more spin. Why?

 

Even the most pro pressing people dislike trimming, cover shrinking, etc.

[Davenport]

I won't ask any of the obvious questions that come to mind, because I already now the PR caveat that'll justify whackerjobbing assemblies: "sometimes it occurs naturally over time or possibly from printing"

 

The fact that it does occur without any pressing is irrelevant in this discussion, but you can continue to try and antagonize, spin, etc.

 

Well, here's a question, and maybe you know the answer.

If hyper-flat paper is such the be-all-end-all across a surface, corners and edges, why doesn't it count around staples? It's a paper area too.

[VintageComics]

I won't ask any of the obvious questions that come to mind, because I already now the PR caveat that'll justify whackerjobbing assemblies: "sometimes it occurs naturally over time or possibly from printing"

 

The fact that it does occur without any pressing is irrelevant in this discussion, but you can continue to try and antagonize, spin, etc.

 

Well, here's a question, and maybe you know the answer.

If hyper-flat paper is such the be-all-end-all across a surface, corners and edges, why doesn't it count around staples? It's a paper area too.

 

I genuinely have no idea what you are asking me.

[VintageComics]

...and because it's noon, I need to run.

 

I will check back later though.

[Davenport]

Yeah, it kinda sheds light on why Ewert would ever make such a dumbheaded play. Trimming is factory too (possibly from printing) or maybe it just shrunk back a smidge (occurs naturally over time)

 

More sound bite, more sensationalism, more spin. Why?

 

Even the most pro pressing people dislike trimming, cover shrinking, etc.

Man, just stop it.

 

It's not sensationalism or spin. Just considering how much cover skilled Paper Mechanics have going in. Why they would even attempt something that seems so stupid to most people.

 

I'm just guessing if Paper Mechanics think they start out more than halfway home, they're going to go for it. I mean, why wouldn't they, with the paydays involved?

 

[originalisbest]

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

 

 

Thanks for your thoughts, skypinkblu!

 

Taking as an example, your Church Masters #92, which you note isn't a "flat" book -- I have no problem accepting that, but feel reasonable people would have to agree that the Church books as a whole, perhaps at least half if not a larger majority, were wondrously flat, as discovered by Chuck in 77 or 78, given the descriptions of neat stacks what, 7 feet high? It's well documented in the introductions by Gerber within his photojournals.

 

I extrapolated that it couldn't be just the Church pedigree which is the source of high-grade, nice flat GA books that were kept in stacks. The same is true of the Rockford books (discovered in tall, beautiful stacks) and so too the Oaklands (a more modern pedigree that comes to mind.) But of course it isn't just pedigrees that produced high-grade books from flattened stacks -- it has to be pretty much any high-grade GA book, pedigree or no, as that's how books were kept if found in high-grade -- nice neat stacks. Days well before bags and boards and short and long boxes. Of course some other books were kept scattered about in barbershops, hot attics, moldy basements and outdoor chicken coops, but generally those aren't the ones in discussion here. Maybe Lamont's books that were kept in the barn, but I believe even these were carefully stacked too.

 

You differentiate between naturally flattened vs unnaturally flattened, claim that one is artificial and one is not, but I think there is no perceptible difference, IF done correctly. As Roy said, it's the tree in the forest. And because of this, if one's perception of "as published" being the most desirable state, discounts any flattened book as somehow less than "as published", then the baby is out with the bathwater, because the flatter Church books would have to be considered rejects. My point being, that this flies in the face of both logic and the market reality. There are some who love flattened books just fine, even when it becomes evident that they were pressed (identifiably same book was a 9.2, now a 9.4, etc.) IF no perceptible changes or harm were accidentally introduced in the pressing. I am one of those folks.

 

There's probably no need to fix some comics, but in pursuit of a profit and perhaps the irresistible desire to make them just look "a bit better", sometimes they are pressed anyway. In the best case scenario, the grade either stays the same or improves a tad, but the book's appearance doesn't negatively change. Sometimes it does change for the worse, but that's a case of stuff happens/too bad. When it changes for the worse because of intent to deceive (face jobbing) that falls under the category of bad/deceitful pressing. Don't get too mad at those pursuing profits ethically though please, because if there were no profit motivation, it wouldn't be impossible to collect your favorite titles, but it would be a great deal harder, probably exponentially.

 

If the someone you explained pressing to was truly mystified by the concept, and called it "cheating" based on your explanation, that's an opinion, as valid as any one opinion can be, but an opinion doesn't equate to a provable fact. And the mystification of one can of course be true of many others as well; it might also be false consensus bias at play.

 

In my opinion, if pressing is cheating, I would claim someone taking a book with a folded-back cover corner, reversing that bend and tucking it into a mylar would have to be considered cheating as well. Both treatments make a book look better than the condition in which it was found, with physical manipulation being the only thing done.

 

Some seem to be under the impression that "shrinkage" is easily identifiable, but I would claim it isn't all that evident, not in all cases. Certainly not without before and after scans to guide you. And that alone is testament to CGC graders' impartiality, they grade the book as it sits in front of them and assume no prior knowledge of the book. That's what they told us on this thread, and I take them at their word on that. Telling me that I can "spin" something anyway I want seems an ad hominem approach.

 

You assume that a shrinkage issue is as equally identifiable as (and perhaps equivalent to) a face job, and I find that to be materially incorrect. It is acceptable that you think a book with extended page overhang, whether through cover shrinkage as manufactured, over time in storage, or via a side effect of a well-intentioned press, should be penalized by CGC, but their standards appear to disagree. As long as they apply their standards consistently, the market can decide whether to be accepting or not of books that "look" as though they've suffered shrinkage, and it seems like that's already been the case (a couple of Spideys mentioned from the Schave collection got mediocre results compared to GPA for their respective grades.)

 

So, while I find it unlikely that CGC will alter its standards for high-grade books based on some peoples' negative perception of what can happen as part of the manufacturing process, you can take heart, in that those who press will likely be taking pains to make for a good result, without introducing shrinkage, if at all possible, based on recent auction results. You might consider their reasoning "base" (they want to maximize return) but the end result will be better for the book (assuming one doesn't approve of shrinking covers.)

 

I appreciate your taking the time to reply!

 

[originalisbest]

Yeah, it kinda sheds light on why Ewert would ever make such a dumbheaded play. Trimming is factory too (possibly from printing) or maybe it just shrunk back a smidge (occurs naturally over time)

 

More sound bite, more sensationalism, more spin. Why?

 

Even the most pro pressing people dislike trimming, cover shrinking, etc.

Man, just stop it.

 

It's not sensationalism or spin. Just considering how much cover skilled Paper Mechanics have going in. Why they would even attempt something that seems so stupid to most people.

 

I'm just guessing if Paper Mechanics think they start out more than halfway home, they're going to go for it. I mean, why wouldn't they, with the paydays involved?

 

Hi Dav! You wondered where I got your new nickname from, right?

 

"...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."

 

Have a good day, Petitio!

[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.

 

Of course - and they never make mistakes.

 

No one ever claimed graders were infallible or a machine. If they were, there would be no point in resubmitting, for you would hope they made a mistake prior to your resubmission, and graded whatever book you were sending in too low.

 

No one ever complains about a book coming back graded obviously too high, but that doesn't necessarily equate to a high asking price as a given. A book sitting in such a holder is unlikely to be cracked out -- in coins they refer to such a piece as having found its "final resting place."

[originalisbest]

Hmmm, not only does the book have damage at the upper staple that wasn't there before, but since the spine isn't as tight to the interior as it used to be, the interior pages are now protruding from the bottom of the front cover (or perhaps the spine has been twisted by the shoddy press job?). With the pages shifted downward, that stand-at-attention-like-a-teenage-boy-reading-his-1st-Playboy top edge is even more prone to Shaken Comic Syndrome (SCS), I certainly wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of something like this on a 5-figure book.

 

 

Yep, that happens. Too bad about SCS, but not to worry -- that can be pressed out. Hoo boy....

[originalisbest]

(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...)

Thanks Mitch!

If I'm understanding, "indented maverick staples" are what I call "maypops" because they may pop any minute. And they appear to be from torquing the assembly during the reflattening treatment, creating tension in the staple area.

 

I won't ask any of the obvious questions that come to mind, because I already now the PR caveat that'll justify whackerjobbing assemblies: "sometimes it occurs naturally over time or possibly from printing"

 

Soon we may see an environment where more flaws are deemed 'natural' and allowed/ignored by graders. Marvel chipping is 'natural' ?

 

Shouldn't bother you at all, unless you're given to buying books with your eyes closed, and never opening them to look at it.

[originalisbest]

Yeah, it kinda sheds light on why Ewert would ever make such a dumbheaded play. Trimming is factory too (possibly from printing) or maybe it just shrunk back a smidge (occurs naturally over time)

 

More sound bite, more sensationalism, more spin. Why?

 

Even the most pro pressing people dislike trimming, cover shrinking, etc.

Man, just stop it.

 

It's not sensationalism or spin. Just considering how much cover skilled Paper Mechanics have going in. Why they would even attempt something that seems so stupid to most people.

 

I'm just guessing if Paper Mechanics think they start out more than halfway home, they're going to go for it. I mean, why wouldn't they, with the paydays involved?

 

 

Also:

 

"....something that seems so stupid to most people."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False-consensus_effect