Cole Schave collection: face jobs?

[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.

 

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.

 

So you then believe shrinkage can happen on any book of any age, not just Silver Marvels as Matt has suggested? If Joey can figure out how it happens, then the experiment can be replicated on books from other ages to test that hypothesis.

[VintageComics]

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.

 

I'm pretty much 99.9% sure that they are directly related to each other. They'd have to be since as the paper contracts horizontally it expands vertically.

 

 

[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.

 

I'm pretty much 99.9% sure that they are directly related to each other. They'd have to be since as the paper contracts horizontally it expands vertically.

 

I get what you're thinking--that the amount that the cover shrunk has to go SOMEWHERE, so perhaps where it goes is up and down causing overflash. However, grinin provided a link earlier in the thread which suggests that humidification and drying of paper might cause some gaps in the fibers that are a result of the original manufacture of the paper to contract and partially or fully go away. If that's the case, it's possible for shrinkage to occur without expansion necessarily occurring. I haven't thought about this relationship before nor have I heard other opinions about it prior to this thread, so it's all hypothetical at this point.

[fantastic_four]

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.

 

As I said before, not much prior to this thread. The worst example in the thread was the FF 25 CGC 9.2 Namisgr posted, and before this thread, I'd rate it like I do miswraps--it should keep the book from the nosebleed grades, i.e. 9.6 and up, but at 9.2, I don't see that it deserves a downgrade for that defect alone. I'm reserving judgment on the best way to factor the defect into overall grade until the thread has run its course.

[Rip]

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.

 

So you then believe shrinkage can happen on any book of any age, not just Silver Marvels as Matt has suggested? If Joey can figure out how it happens, then the experiment can be replicated on books from other ages to test that hypothesis.

From my understanding shrinkage doesn't just happen to Silver Age Marvels just more frequently. Its not the first time I have seen this discussion come up. But I have never seen it this bad before either.

[InvstmntComcSuply]

Miswraps are 100% production related

 

There is a significant benefit to penalizing defects that are "introduced" rather than production related. It will make them far less likely to be introduced in the future.

 

[Mike's Rack]

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.

Personally, I don't like either and it would depend on the severity. I'm not saying they should kill the book but the books look better without them.

[fantastic_four]

From my understanding shrinkage doesn't just happen to Silver Age Marvels just more frequently. Its not the first time I have seen this discussion come up. But I have never seen it this bad before either.

 

I'm entirely undecided and have no opinion. I have always noted that top and bottom edge overflash doesn't appear to occur on anything except Silver Marvels, but I haven't paid as much attention to right-edge shrinkage on other ages. What's behind your understanding that shrinkage occurs on all ages of books?

[Mike's Rack]

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.

 

As I said before, not much prior to this thread. The worst example in the thread was the FF 25 CGC 9.2 Namisgr posted, and before this thread, I'd rate it like I do miswraps--it should keep the book from the nosebleed grades, i.e. 9.6 and up, but at 9.2, I don't see that it deserves a downgrade for that defect alone. I'm reserving judgment on the best way to factor the defect into overall grade until the thread has run its course.

I agree with this take.

[fantastic_four]

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.

 

As I said before, not much prior to this thread. The worst example in the thread was the FF 25 CGC 9.2 Namisgr posted, and before this thread, I'd rate it like I do miswraps--it should keep the book from the nosebleed grades, i.e. 9.6 and up, but at 9.2, I don't see that it deserves a downgrade for that defect alone. I'm reserving judgment on the best way to factor the defect into overall grade until the thread has run its course.

I agree with this take.

 

And it's important to note that my take on both miswraps AND right-edge pokethrough is not shared by CGC. They don't downgrade as much as I think they should for miswraps, either, presumably because of their more general stance of being more forgiving of production defects.

[blazingbob]

If you want to prevent shrinkage use warm water.

 

As far as pokethrough goes I would say that you need to make sure the flap is closed before you go out.

 

 

[Bomber-Bob]

If you want to prevent shrinkage use warm water.

 

As far as pokethrough goes I would say that you need to make sure the flap is closed before you go out.

 

 

Bob, while CGC could probably care less about most of the Board members participating in this discussion, you are probably the exception. Your opinion matters, both with CGC and on the Boards. I know you've been following all this, even making calls to CGC (much appreciated). Do you see a solution here. What, in your opinion, should be done ?

[Rip]

From my understanding shrinkage doesn't just happen to Silver Age Marvels just more frequently. Its not the first time I have seen this discussion come up. But I have never seen it this bad before either.

 

I'm entirely undecided and have no opinion. I have always noted that top and bottom edge overflash doesn't appear to occur on anything except Silver Marvels, but I haven't paid as much attention to right-edge shrinkage on other ages. What's behind your understanding that shrinkage occurs on all ages of books?

 

The last discussion I had about cover shrinkage was a few months ago. While working out a large deal with a local dealer, he stated I should be careful about pressing some of the golden age books because of possible cover shrinkage and causing further stress around the staples. I can't say I know for sure, but it's not the first time I've heard about covers shrinking.

 

[VintageComics]

From my understanding shrinkage doesn't just happen to Silver Age Marvels just more frequently. Its not the first time I have seen this discussion come up. But I have never seen it this bad before either.

 

I'm entirely undecided and have no opinion. I have always noted that top and bottom edge overflash doesn't appear to occur on anything except Silver Marvels, but I haven't paid as much attention to right-edge shrinkage on other ages. What's behind your understanding that shrinkage occurs on all ages of books?

 

I've seen it on SA DC's as well. From what I understand DC and Marvel shared printers, and quite possibly then would have shared paper as well.

 

 

[blazingbob]

My opinion has been communicated to CGC via emails/phone calls.

 

Yes, there are guys on the boards who want to start trouble. Some are still carrying a torch for Matt from his Worldwide shill issue. Others are non-pressing and they bring an agenda to the table. I understand that takes a little more work on CCS/CGC's part when trying to respond to them but I prefer to confront the posts than ignore them. I've read all of CGC/CCS posts. Yes it is disheartening when people create paranoia but that generally happens when people don't know what is going on. And who is going to tell them the truth? CGC/CCS? Has CCS/CGC done a good job in the past at cutting something off before it runs out of control. The answer is No. To defend CCS a bit would any of the other "amateur" pressers have the balls to come on and defend their mistakes? I've seen plenty of pretty bad pressing, I haven't seen any threads throwing them under the bus and I could easily do that.

 

I have customers who are not happy with the responses CGC/CCS have given. These are very stable customers who I would not define as "paranoid". If one customer is emailing me then who isn't? There are a lot of big ticket lurkers who "disappear" from buying when stuff like this goes on. If people continue to see these "Facejobs as they call them" or "Costanza's as I do" they think CCS doesn't care what they are turning out. But rest assured CCS has now put a "This has been pressed" stamp on the book where one did not exist before. The problem is that if "Costanza's" still come out people will think CGC is doing nothing.

 

Here is my issue with the Spine Realignment press. If the Spine realignment is being downgraded is the "submitter" still being rewarded with a higher grade because he removed other defects or is the grade lower than it was before it was sent in? Clearly in the case of the Batman #23 the submitter still got a higher grade. Now I know that CGC doesn't know the grade of the book before it was sent in so how can they grade it lower than it was before to discourage this practice. In the case of the Batman #23 I probably would have stated that without the spine realignment this book would have gotten a 8.0. But without a "Before" picture there is no way to financially discourage the submitter. So it will still be possible to get an upgrade from a spine realignment process, just not as great an upgrade. A very drastic response to get it to stop is to cut the submitter off who is doing it which I would have threatened.

 

I continue to remind CCS/CGC that I am the one that sells your "Pressing and Grading". If CCS/CGC loses the integrity part of grading than CGC and I have nothing.

[InvstmntComcSuply]

 

So you then believe shrinkage can happen on any book of any age, not just Silver Marvels as Matt has suggested? If Joey can figure out how it happens, then the experiment can be replicated on books from other ages to test that hypothesis.

 

Paper shrinkage in the horizontal dimension of these books is related to an introduced defect which affects the original grain of the cover stock. Since all cover stocks have a grain, I guess it is theoretically possible to introduce a similar defect on other stocks, although clearly the cover stock of the Silver Marvels is far more susceptible than average.

[fantastic_four]

 

So you then believe shrinkage can happen on any book of any age, not just Silver Marvels as Matt has suggested? If Joey can figure out how it happens, then the experiment can be replicated on books from other ages to test that hypothesis.

 

Paper shrinkage in the horizontal dimension of these books is related to an introduced defect which affects the original grain of the cover stock. Since all cover stocks have a grain, I guess it is theoretically possible to introduce a similar defect on other stocks, although clearly the cover stock of the Silver Marvels is far more susceptible than average.

 

So I can see both sides--it's a production defect in that the cheaper paper Silver Marvels is on is more susceptible, yet it's not a production defect in that all ages are susceptible, just not as much as Silver Marvels.

 

I barely care which side of that coin someone wants to land on because I've always detested splitting that hair to begin with when it comes to grading. A defect is a defect no matter who introduced it or when--the whole concept of forgiving production defects is just wrong.

[Bomber-Bob]

Bob, thanks for the response. I seriously feel a little better after reading your comments. Regarding the Bats 23, it's interesting to note that even Timely came out and said that was simply bad grading on CGC's part. Some major defects were still there.

[InvstmntComcSuply]

I can accept the argument of forgiving production defects that are entirely visual, such as miswraps. Physical structural defects are a different matter entirely.

[fantastic_four]

Bob, thanks for the response. I seriously feel a little better after reading your comments. Regarding the Bats 23, it's interesting to note that even Timely came out and said that was simply bad grading on CGC's part. Some major defects were still there.

 

Timely's comments were indeed extremely interesting given that he used to work as a grader. Not downgrading for defects moved to the back cover on reverse spine rolls always did seem like a mistake. I say that from the point of view of pure consistency with regards to the assumed idea that CGC downgrades for front and back cover defects equally.

 

I've always thought back-cover defects should count for less, personally. Grading shouldn't ignore the function of a comic, and indeed it doesn't because the interior isn't graded the same way by anyone that the cover is. Just considering the cover, the front and back serve entirely different functions. The biggest difference is that the back cover is barely viewed as much as the front. Comic book companies know this and design the art to follow this function--the front cover tries to sell the book, whereas the back cover typically tries to sell another product assuming you've already bought the book. I'd estimate back covers get about 10% to 20% of the total viewing time that the front cover does, so to weigh back cover defects equally with front cover defects doesn't seem in line with the way comics are designed, used, or even appreciated in reality. Who hangs a comic on their wall with the back cover facing outwards, or who scans in back covers and displays those on their wall? Who puts scans of their scintillating collection of back covers in their sig lines around here? Pretty much nobody--it just isn't anywhere near as interesting.