Cole Schave collection: face jobs?

[Kreton]

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

 

Treating it as a defect would eliminate any guesswork. It is known to happen both naturally and through improper pressing. Instead of guessing the origin simply punish the defect. Add a short cover deduction (no matter how it happened) to the magical formula when determining grade.

[fantastic_four]

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

 

Shouldn't grading be about both visual aesthetics and physical function? This is particularly true for the cover versus the interior--the cover is graded more for presentation, whereas the interior is graded more for the function of turning the pages and reading the comic's story.

 

But let's take the pages poking out of the right edge as an example. There is no measurable functional defect with that defect at all--nothing. The comic is just as readable with or without that defect. We know that theoretically this defect occurs due to improper environmental conditions, i.e. too much humidity and/or heat, but we don't have ANY way to measure that impact. I realize some people equate the effects of humidity and heat via pressing or improper storage to the extremes of page quality, but they're not at all comparable. 1/8" of right-edge pokethrough caused by a press on a white-paged book does not mean the state of preservation, i.e. the effective lifetime, of that book is shortened by an amount equivalent to the shortened lifespan that IS measurable in books that have tan or brittle pages. However, that right-edge interior showing does detract from the visual appearance of appreciating the cover because it distracts from the cover art. But it's a fairly minor effect. Left-edge miswraps detract as well, but in many or even most cases, they detract far more than right-edge pokethrough because the art is partially gone, hidden on the spine or the back. Or there is a very large white stripe down the left edge of the book, which at times creates quite a distinctly visual contrast with the cover art. Whether the bad wrap is to the front or back, the end effect is always more distracting than a right-edge pokethrough of 1/16" to the worst shown in the thread of around 3/16".

[blazingbob]

So basically you feel we should be cover grading? I'm sure Showcase New England is enjoying this post quite a bit since I'm not sure that he ever cracks a book out of the bag.

 

 

[fantastic_four]

So basically you feel we should be cover grading?

 

I certainly don't think so, no. As I said, you grade the cover for aesthetics and presentation and the interior for the function of reading the book. This follows the entire physical design of a comic with the cover being of that thicker, glossier stock and the interior being a much cheaper grade of pulp.

[blazingbob]

Unless some new grading standards have been established that I missed the memo on front/cover defects are still the same to me.

 

 

[fantastic_four]

Unless some new grading standards have been established that I missed the memo on front/cover defects are still the same to me.

 

I missed that same memo when the forum first uncovered the facejob or as Timely suggested we call them "spine realignment" books many months ago. I always assumed CGC downgraded less for back cover defects because it just made more sense to me, but the thread made me question that notion. I was too busy at that time to research or discuss ideas to the contrary back then, so I'm glad you're re-questioning it here.

 

Have you seen evidence that CGC does downgrade less for the back cover than the front? If they don't, I think they should. The fact that the spine realignments seemed to work at raising the grade suggests they do indeed downgrade less for back cover defects.

[MisterX]

I thought this was a joke thread.

 

"Cole Schave" is a real name?

 

I finally clicked on it today.

 

[blazingbob]

Or maybe that there is such a rush to grade a book that why bother adhering to standards. I've stated before that the minute you "raise a question" about the look of a book you are slowing down. Being backed up makes you want to do a "Quick flip grade".

[Drummy]

Thanks, Bob, for your input here.

 

As far as the name of the collector goes, I cannot help but read "Close Shave" instead of "Cole Schave" whenever I see this thread title. Seems appropriate.

 

Dan

[fantastic_four]

Or maybe that there is such a rush to grade a book that why bother adhering to standards. I've stated before that the minute you "raise a question" about the look of a book you are slowing down. Being backed up makes you want to do a "Quick flip grade".

 

Yea, I'm not sure. I'd need to research some books with almost no front cover defects and no major interior defects whose grade was lowered entirely due to back cover defects. I've only owned one book like that I can recall, an FF Annual 1 with a front cover I'd call a 9.4 but a 4-inch hard crease on the back--CGC gave the book a 7.5. I suspect it would have received a 7.0 at best if that crease were on the front, so I presumed they grade the back differently with that book, but a 7.5 and 7.0 are close enough for me to be unsure. I've heard the Pacific Coast Hulk 1 was an 8.5, later downgraded to an 8.0, entirely due to a back cover crease, but I've never seen the back cover so I don't know how long or hard the crease was.

[MrBedrock]

as the paper contracts horizontally it expands vertically.

 

My mom says I was a fat little baby. I guess over time this has happened to me as well.

[blazingbob]

I had the Hulk #1 Pacific coast in hand raw and graded so I can assure you that it was downgraded for the back cover crease. Every "upgrader" that has tried to buy it sees the front cover and goes 9.0, flip it over and it is a 8.0.

 

My opinion will not change on that.

 

I have seen countless examples of staining on back covers that CGC downgrades for. Full grades. If the staining wasn't such a big deal on the back cover why is CGC downgrading so heavily for it.

 

 

 

 

[blazingbob]

Yeah you are quite a porker now

[fantastic_four]

I had the Hulk #1 Pacific coast in hand raw and graded so I can assure you that it was downgraded for the back cover crease. Every "upgrader" that has tried to buy it sees the front cover and goes 9.0, flip it over and it is a 8.0.

 

My opinion will not change on that.

 

I have seen countless examples of staining on back covers that CGC downgrades for. Full grades. If the staining wasn't such a big deal on the back cover why is CGC downgrading so heavily for it.

 

To reverse-engineer their standard, you'd have to look for equivalent examples of exceptional books with an equivalently-sized stain on the front. Do you think they downgraded for those stains on the back the same way they would have on the front?

 

How long is the crease on the back of the Pacific Coast Hulk 1? Is it a hard crease that breaks color, or is it difficult to tell how hard it is because it perhaps is entirely within the white area on the back?

[blazingbob]

5-6" long, you have to angle the book to see the color break. It's there and no press is going to remove it.

 

I bought and sold it in 2009

 

Bob

[batman_fan]

5-6" long, you have to angle the book to see the color break. It's there and no press is going to remove it.

 

I bought and sold it in 2009

 

Bob

 

Lord knows, I am sure people have tried.

[Sqeggs]

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?

 

The only solution I think is for CGC to begin downgrading for page fanning. Whatever the argument in favor of ignoring it when page fanning was an artifact of the production process has to be undermined know that we now that high-grade Marvel SA books are suffering from it because of pressing.

 

I don't see how "whoever did the pressing job just not repeat what they did" will work because, after all, the pressing got the desired result -- a higher grade. Until CGC changes the incentives by downgrading for page fanning, it is hard to see why it would stop.

[Bomber-Bob]

Or maybe that there is such a rush to grade a book that why bother adhering to standards. I've stated before that the minute you "raise a question" about the look of a book you are slowing down. Being backed up makes you want to do a "Quick flip grade".

 

This is an excellent point. I'm sure the graders feel rushed, overworked, stressed out, etc. with the current volume of work. I can see the quick flip grade being applied to many books. There's been many examples of QC problems presented on the Boards. Maybe the Bats 23 is just another example.

[Sqeggs]

A few (I think!) indisputable points:

 

1. Nearly all collectors prefer books without page fanning and would prefer the lower grade (pre-press) books to the higher grade (post-press) books shown in this thread.

 

2. Because CGC doesn't downgrade for page fanning, dealers have been having books pressed multiple times, which for SA Marvels appears likely to result in page fanning.

 

3. Although Matt Nelson indicates his shop is taking steps to avoid page fanning, other pressers may not follow suit. At this point, with CGC not downgrading for page fanning, they have no clear incentive to.

 

The (disputable) conclusion:

 

Unless CGC changes its policy on page fanning, increasing numbers of high-grade SA Marvels that do not currently have this defect will eventually have it pressed into them.

 

I have seen no evidence that your points 2 and 3 are correct--earlier in the thread Joey clearly stated he has never seen a cover shrink. Nobody has established it happening before very recently. The presser of the Cole Schave books with shrinkage appears to have done something different--my guess is cranking up the heat and humidity higher.

 

Joey, did you ever get a chance to try to duplicate the shrinkage effect?

 

For 2. I was relying on the post by Joey (I think it was) who ventured the opinion that page fanning was not due to poor technique, as such, but to multiple presses. But perhaps I misunderstood.

 

For 3., I'm not sure what you are disputing. My impression was that people are uncovering other cases of page fanning in recently pressed books, apart from the CS collection.

 

If it really is just Nelson and he actually does mend his ways, then presumably the problem has already been resolved. My guess is, though, that whatever Nelson was doing to cause the problem other pressers can do. To keep our eye on the ball here, this technique -- whatever it is -- worked in the sense that it delivered higher grades.

[namisgr]

Like with other defects, it should be a matter of degree and of common sense.

 

A tiny exposure of the interior pages detracts very little from the eye appeal of a book, and probably could be considered as deduction-worthy only on an otherwise 9.8 or better. Maybe not at all. A much worse exposure of the interior pages, such as seen with the Constanzas posted earlier in this thread (JIM 88, JIM 93, and ASM 14) or the notorious Avengers 1 with the nasty spine realignment, probably could be considered deduction worthy on an otherwise 9.6 or 9.4 and perhaps even on an otherwise 9.2, 9.0, or 8.5. Like chipping, it's ugly and shouldn't be ignored in the grading, and its impact should depend on its severity. And also like chipping, CGC is perfectly capable of considering it in their numerical grading, evaluating its severity, and developing standards to deal with it. I think a refusal to do so is bad for SA collectors and for the hobby.

 

There's no doubting that the JIM 93 looked better as a never pressed/9.2 and a pressed once/9.4 with a normal-sized cover than it does now as a pressed twice/9.6 with an obviously shrunken cover and an exposure of the interior pages that is far worse than what typically occurs naturally. And that's not good for the company that assigned those grades.