Cole Schave collection: face jobs?

[Davenport]

Can anyone give me a synopsis (A Run Down) on this thread?

A comic book with bad shrink-prone Marvel weakazz coverstock avoided shrinking FOR FIFTY YEARS.

 

Then its cover shrank. Due to bad shrink-prone Marvel weakazz coverstock, resulting in a goodly-amount of interior pages becoming visible. The shrink-effect, after 50 years of resistance, was so powerful it twisted the whole assembly and indented a staple.

 

Kinda like Marvel chipping.

 

People wanted answers, which harms the hobby.

 

It's all "naturally occurring", so the rest is just white-noise discussion stuff.

[Ghost Town]

Also note that three books that are likely to have natural cover shrinkage posted by Ghost_Town, Peter_In_Portugal, and glasgap earlier in the thread all have 3/32" to 1/8" right-edge shrinkage yet none of them are miswrapped on the left.

I suspect those books just left the printer looking that way. If it were shrinkage, I think many more books from the same time period would look like that.

 

I'm not denying that natural shrinkage happens, but I'd be surprised if it were that noticeable.

[Gotham Kid]

Am I the only one that went through all of the offerings from this collection in the last Pedigree auction?

 

While the scans are no longer available on the Pedigree website, the shrunken covers were on a high proportion of the SA that was pressed and graded recently. Essentially all of the books that were part of the 119771... submission suffered from exposed interior pages. It wasn't a problem with the books from the collection that had been graded awhile ago.

All 68 of them?

 

No, Richard, many of Cole's books were slabbed and graded much earlier.

 

The 119771 submission included JIM #83, 88, and 93, TOS #39, Avengers #4, and ASM #10 and 14, among others.

I'm sorry if these questions sound inane but in the interest of getting it close to exact...about how many books were in this submission and what percentage of them had shrinkage?

 

Without current access to the scans, I can't answer you except with estimates: I recall seeing about a dozen books from this submission, and they all had shrunken covers.

 

I looked through all of the books before the auction was taken down, and this is what I found:

 

67 books listed as being from the Cole Schave collection (I'm not sure if I missed one, or if one just wasn't in the auction)

 

51 books were from the 119771 submission:

- 1197715001 - 5008, 1197715013 - 5025 (Express tier)

- 1197716001 - 6029 (Walk-through tier)

- 1197717001 (Standard tier)

 

The other 16 were from other submissions.

 

I didn't save any scans, but I don't recall seeing any of the 119771 books that did not have a shrunken cover.

 

Before I go back to lurking, I'd just like to say thank you to the board members that brought this problem to light. I was going to bid on the Avengers #4 and I didn't notice the exposed pages due to the white cover. I don't know whether I would have won or just made it more expensive for the winner, but I would have been very disappointed if I had won and a Constanza book showed up at my doorstep.

 

I just wanted to take a second and thank you for taking the time to record this information.

 

I too had shown interest in a book, a JIM pedigree copy, however my previously stored scan alerted me early on that the book had been altered.

Since i am currently focused solely on JIM/Thor pedigrees i was not aware the extent of the damage done to other Cole books until Bob started this thread.

 

To those that have spent much time and effort gathering information, before and after scans, thank you as well.

 

To the few that for some reason have no issue with the shrunken covers and the mystifying corresponding grades assigned to books that clearly have lost their visual appeal, feel free to collect and add these books to your personal collections and take them out of circulation. To endlessly post how you don't understand where the problem lies is disingenuous at best and to continually attempt to deflect away from the topic at hand by introducing non related issues calls into question your motives, and, in the end, your character. The books have been structurally altered, it is plain to see, and the eye appeal the books once displayed is lost.

 

To the individual responsible for the damage done to the books, and specifically pedigree copies in general, please stop. You have either made a technical error that you refuse to acknowledge or you have made an error in judgement that unfortunately was rewarded by CGC. How CGC graders came to the final conclusion when visually grading these books in hand i will never know and will not speculate.

 

 

Thank You !

[Kreton]

To the few that for some reason have no issue with the shrunken covers and the mystifying corresponding grades assigned to books that clearly have lost their visual appeal, feel free to collect and add these books to your personal collections and take them out of circulation. To endlessly post how you don't understand where the problem lies is disingenuous at best and to continually attempt to deflect away from the topic at hand by introducing non related issues calls into question your motives, and, in the end, your character. The books have been structurally altered, it is plain to see, and the eye appeal the books once displayed is lost.

 

 

This portion of your post is not an accurate characterization of what "the few" have been saying. It's an emotional attack on a few people who would rather have a discussion on the topic than a witch burning or a finger pointing session. And to be fair to witches and fingers, if they deserve to be burned then by all means go ahead, but nobody has endlessly posted a lack of understanding or anything disingenuous. If anything, everyone has repeatedly been saying how they don't agree with the practice of damaging books to increase grades but a few have agreed that they can also understand how it came to be.

 

I just spent a few minutes flipping through old scans of books I've sold through the years and many Marvels from '63 - '68 have either the effect of fanned pages (most common in '67 - '68 books although I have noticed that it's common on ASM #1 and the 1968 1st issue books as well), or overhang / peekthrough (common on most 60's Marvels).

 

The fact that someone understands why the books turned out the way they did, why the grades turned out the way they did and why this has never been brought up before even though it existed to varying degrees doesn't necessarily mean that they are OK with it. I'm quite sure everyone in this thread would prefer the books were not shrunken.

 

Since CGC apparently can't differentiate between a cover that shrinks naturally over 40 years or one that shrank because a book was pressed improperly (short of scanning all books and comparing them) the only solution I see is that whoever did the pressing job just not repeat what they did.

 

Is there another solution I'm missing?

 

Since CGC indicates that they cannot tell if it is natural or the result of pressing then it should not be assumed that it is a printing/paperstock issue. As Plitch indicated earlier, a grading company that guesses is not what anyone wants.

[Mark 1]

Even if the shrinking is natural it is still a defect that should be taken into account for the grade.

 

CGC knows what a non shrunken cover looks like so why not grade accordingly on a book that has had shrinkage naturally or artificially?

 

I have over 100 SA slabs and NONE look like these books.

 

CGC can surely differentiate books with shrunken covers and grade accordingly

[seanfingh]

 

Since CGC apparently can't differentiate between a cover that shrinks naturally over 40 years or one that shrank because a book was pressed improperly (short of scanning all books and comparing them) the only solution I see is that whoever did the pressing job just not repeat what they did.

 

This will never happen because money. So what you are saying is like it or lump it.

[fantastic_four]

Even if the shrinking is natural it is still a defect that should be taken into account for the grade.

 

And everyone in the thread appears to be avoiding offering an opinion about just how much of a deduction it should be. I believe Batman_fan suggested knock it down three notches. Agree? If so, why? Aesthetically, it looks similar to but less distracting than a miswrap which similary is barely downgraded for at all by both CGC and the hobby as a whole.

[InvstmntComcSuply]

Even if the shrinking is natural it is still a defect that should be taken into account for the grade.

 

CGC knows what a non shrunken cover looks like so why not grade accordingly on a book that has had shrinkage naturally or artificially?

 

I have over 100 SA slabs and NONE look like these books.

 

CGC can surely differentiate books with shrunken covers and grade accordingly

 

Of course they can. Although, I am not sure why a storage defect would be considered "natural" in the first place.

 

However, they also consider it a "printing defect" and of course they can't punish the 1/20 of 1% of books that exhibit this "manufacturer's" defect.

[VintageComics]

 

Since CGC apparently can't differentiate between a cover that shrinks naturally over 40 years or one that shrank because a book was pressed improperly (short of scanning all books and comparing them) the only solution I see is that whoever did the pressing job just not repeat what they did.

 

This will never happen because money. So what you are saying is like it or lump it.

 

That's not what I'm saying, it's what they're saying.

[seanfingh]

 

Since CGC apparently can't differentiate between a cover that shrinks naturally over 40 years or one that shrank because a book was pressed improperly (short of scanning all books and comparing them) the only solution I see is that whoever did the pressing job just not repeat what they did.

 

This will never happen because money. So what you are saying is like it or lump it.

 

That's not what I'm saying, it's what they're saying.

 

I'm sorry. I must have mistaken the meaning of the word "I."

[fantastic_four]

Also note that three books that are likely to have natural cover shrinkage posted by Ghost_Town, Peter_In_Portugal, and glasgap earlier in the thread all have 3/32" to 1/8" right-edge shrinkage yet none of them are miswrapped on the left.

I suspect those books just left the printer looking that way. If it were shrinkage, I think many more books from the same time period would look like that.

 

I'm not denying that natural shrinkage happens, but I'd be surprised if it were that noticeable.

 

Some yes, some no. Peter's Iron Man and Sub-Mariner #1 looks like it has a slightly angled right-edge trim such that the cover and top pages are about 1/8" narrower than the back cover and bottom pages. Your Spidey #42 MIGHT have an angled side cut, but I really can't tell from the scan. Are the interior pages all of equal length? It'd be easier to tell with book in hand. Glasgap's Fantastic Four 42 below has the classic right-edge pokethrough I'm used to seeing, and it's doubtful it came off the press that way. But I'm also not sure it's due to shrinkage. I wonder if this book was towards the bottom of a stack and the stack shifted at some point pulling the cover and top-most pages away from the bottom-most pages and back cover:

 

[fantastic_four]

Of course they can. Although, I am not sure why a storage defect would be considered "natural" in the first place.

 

However, they also consider it a "printing defect" and of course they can't punish the 1/20 of 1% of books that exhibit this "manufacturer's" defect.

 

Their reasoning has been stated a dozen times at least--because Silver Marvels are printed on crappier paper than later and earlier Marvels and Timelys. It's also the reason that Silver Marvels are subject to right-edge chipping and top/bottom edge overhang due to vertical cover expansion.

[Mike's Rack]

Even if the shrinking is natural it is still a defect that should be taken into account for the grade.

 

CGC knows what a non shrunken cover looks like so why not grade accordingly on a book that has had shrinkage naturally or artificially?

 

I have over 100 SA slabs and NONE look like these books.

 

CGC can surely differentiate books with shrunken covers and grade accordingly

This. For some reason, CGC is missing the forest for the trees. The first thing I consider when grading a book is how the book looks overall. The obvious flaws are taken into account right away. Pages sticking out is a pretty obvious flaw. The reasonable person/comic collector would account for it. However, it appears that CGC has adopted a philosophy that dictates that these flaws are either not considered or are not as detrimental as other flaws. I'm not opposed to pressing but when the final product is graded, the grade should account for all of the flaws in the book. If the cover has shrunk then the grade should reflect that, no matter the reason.

[VintageComics]

Even if the shrinking is natural it is still a defect that should be taken into account for the grade.

 

And everyone in the thread appears to be avoiding offering an opinion about just how much of a deduction it should be. I believe Batman_fan suggested knock it down three notches. Agree? If so, why? Aesthetically, it looks similar to but less distracting than a miswrap which similary is barely downgraded for at all by both CGC and the hobby as a whole.

 

We could all start posting books that have sold on this chat forum with interior peeking through / overhangs and fanned pages - most of the books probably got a "nice book, GLWTS" comment at the time. Now they need to be downgraded.

 

I'm going to bring up the same thing I brought up earlier because it's germane to the discussion - peek through and overhang go hand in hand...I don't think you can have one without the other. So do we down grade for Marvel overhang too, even though it's been accepted for decades as normal?

 

Since not all peek through / overhang is the same how much do you downgrade them for? 1 point for each 1/16" of shrinkage?

 

What if a book shrinks naturally an extra 1/16" within the holder? Does that book get sent in for a downgrade after 5 or 10 years?

 

It's easy to say "This needs to be downgraded for" but it's something else entirely different to understand how it affects the rest of the hobby. Changing one rule doesn't happen in a vacuum. It is connected to and affects everything else around it.

 

 

[fantastic_four]

This. For some reason, CGC is missing the forest for the trees. The first thing I consider when grading a book is how the book looks overall. The obvious flaws are taken into account right away. Pages sticking out is a pretty obvious flaw. The reasonable person/comic collector would account for it. However, it appears that CGC has adopted a philosophy that dictates that these flaws are either not considered or are not as detrimental as other flaws. I'm not opposed to pressing but when the final product is graded, the grade should account for all of the flaws in the book. If the cover has shrunk then the grade should reflect that, no matter the reason.

 

Would you deduct more for right-edge pokethrough than left-edge miswraps? The aesthetic impact is similar.

[Rip]

Even if the shrinking is natural it is still a defect that should be taken into account for the grade.

 

And everyone in the thread appears to be avoiding offering an opinion about just how much of a deduction it should be. I believe Batman_fan suggested knock it down three notches. Agree? If so, why? Aesthetically, it looks similar to but less distracting than a miswrap which similary is barely downgraded for at all by both CGC and the hobby as a whole.

 

I agree FF, if you were grading these books yourself, what would you do. Its not an easy answer. At what degree of poke-though do you lower the grade, and by how much.

 

So far the best solution is for the person(s) who started this recent trend to STOP pressing books using this technique. If they are pressing the same book numerous times, then stop doing it. NOW!! Its clearly a lot of books in a very short time!

 

I still think CGC should test out a database of scans with graders notes as a paid service. It might fill in a void for collectors to continue to make their own better informed decisions.

[fantastic_four]

I'm going to bring up the same thing I brought up earlier because it's germane to the discussion - peek through and overhang go hand in hand...I don't think you can have one without the other. So do we down grade for Marvel overhang too, even though it's been accepted for decades as normal?

 

I'm pretty sure that's not right, but I'll browse around some scans and see what I find. Memory is telling me that I see top/bottom overflash far more than right-edge pokethrough.

 

 

Since not all peek through / overhang is the same how much do you downgrade them for? 1 point for each 1/16" of shrinkage?

 

What if a book shrinks naturally an extra 1/16" within the holder? Does that book get sent in for a downgrade after 5 or 10 years?

 

It's easy to say "This needs to be downgraded for" but it's something else entirely different to understand how it affects the rest of the hobby. Changing one rule doesn't happen in a vacuum. It is connected to and affects everything else around it.

 

Before the earlier facejob threads, I'd say not much--about as much as you'd downgrade for left-edge miswrap, but less. Now, I'm reserving judgment waiting for an balanced opinion from the thread as to why the right-edge pokethrough is as bad as people are screaming that it is. The raging grading nerd in me is in a hungry, unfulfilled state until someone puts the defect into a better and broader overall grading perspective instead of just generally complaining about it in an entirely isolated, hyperbolic manner.

[VintageComics]

 

Since CGC apparently can't differentiate between a cover that shrinks naturally over 40 years or one that shrank because a book was pressed improperly (short of scanning all books and comparing them) the only solution I see is that whoever did the pressing job just not repeat what they did.

 

This will never happen because money. So what you are saying is like it or lump it.

 

That's not what I'm saying, it's what they're saying.

 

I'm sorry. I must have mistaken the meaning of the word "I."

 

And I'm having too many conversations at once. I'm a poor multi tasker.

 

What CGC says is that they can't detect why it happened.

What I am saying is the only solution I personally see is with the person who pressed the books, not CGC.

 

[InvstmntComcSuply]

Of course they can. Although, I am not sure why a storage defect would be considered "natural" in the first place.

 

However, they also consider it a "printing defect" and of course they can't punish the 1/20 of 1% of books that exhibit this "manufacturer's" defect.

 

Their reasoning has been stated a dozen times at least--because Silver Marvels are printed on crappier paper than later and earlier Marvels and Timelys. It's also the reason that Silver Marvels are subject to right-edge chipping and top/bottom edge overhang due to vertical cover expansion.

 

Of course, and I have restated it in the second line of my post. With only the slightest bit of hyperbole to illustrate the ludicrousness of that position considering the percentage of this particular defect that is actually production related.

[VintageComics]

 

So far the best solution is for the person(s) who started this recent trend to STOP pressing books using this technique. If they are pressing the same book numerous times, then stop doing it. NOW!! Its clearly a lot of books in a very short time!

 

That's how I see it too.