Cole Schave collection: face jobs?

[adamstrange]

Plitch comments

 

One last thing I forgot to add - BOTH of these things, RSR & Cover Shrinkage are NOT that prevalent in our hobby. Out of over 2 million certified books by CGC, both are very rare.

Best,

-Paul

 

Good morning all,

 

This might be the only chance I’ll get to post today, so I’ll take advantage of it. First and foremost cover shrinkage comes back to the burden of proof. Reverse Spine Roll (RSR) (man-made with possible intent) and cover shrinkage (naturally occurring or man-made without intent) are two different things. RSR we treat as handling damage and cover shrinkage we view as a printing or storage defect. I do not see that changing; the burden of proof is there with RSR, not with cover shrinkage. If we can’t prove how it happened, then we are guessing. A certification company that guesses is something no one wants.

 

We (the graders) have no way of knowing if a book was previously certified or who sent it in. Would you prefer a system where we have access to all of that information before we grade the book? That would hardly be impartial. We are paid to grade the book in front of us with no prior knowledge of its history beyond verifying a pedigree. To be impartial means you should not be allowed outside influence when grading.

 

It is possible to press a book and get an up-grade if the major defects are out; even if you use RSR (however RSR will now keep you out of the higher grades) or there is cover shrinkage.

 

RSR attempts to hide defects located on the spine, yet the fact remains that the stress lines are still there whether they are on the front or back cover and an unnatural reverse spine roll was added, but if a large defect was removed it could outweigh the downgrading for RSR (again, RSR will now keep you out of higher grades).

 

For example, if a book started with a major defect (perhaps it counted for 2 steps on the grading scale), that defect is removed and something was added (that might minus 1 step) the book can still get an upgrade. The same holds true for cover shrinkage, except that it is graded as a storage or production defect.

 

To answer a few stray questions:

Yes, Mark Zaid is still on retainer with CGC.

 

CGC does not press comic books.

CGC graders do not know when a comic book comes from CCS.

 

CGC employees can buy all the raw books they want. All CGC graders love comics; most collect them, some more aggressively then others. I personally do not collect comics as I view it as a conflict for the Primary Grader to collect. That is by choice, not by instruction.

 

Hope everyone has a great day.

-Paul

[Bomber-Bob]

My apologies for not being present in this discussion as of yet. As was mentioned somewhere, I was out of the country and alas I have been swamped with dealing with continuing legal issues arising out of, among other things, the Manning and Snowden cases, as well as now the Navy Yard tragedy.

 

I am reading through the thread and will discuss the situation with CGC and respond where appropriate.

 

(thumbs u

[Moondog]

Plitch comments

 

One last thing I forgot to add - BOTH of these things, RSR & Cover Shrinkage are NOT that prevalent in our hobby. Out of over 2 million certified books by CGC, both are very rare.

Best,

-Paul

 

Good morning all,

 

This might be the only chance I’ll get to post today, so I’ll take advantage of it. First and foremost cover shrinkage comes back to the burden of proof. Reverse Spine Roll (RSR) (man-made with possible intent) and cover shrinkage (naturally occurring or man-made without intent) are two different things. RSR we treat as handling damage and cover shrinkage we view as a printing or storage defect. I do not see that changing; the burden of proof is there with RSR, not with cover shrinkage. If we can’t prove how it happened, then we are guessing. A certification company that guesses is something no one wants.

 

We (the graders) have no way of knowing if a book was previously certified or who sent it in. Would you prefer a system where we have access to all of that information before we grade the book? That would hardly be impartial. We are paid to grade the book in front of us with no prior knowledge of its history beyond verifying a pedigree. To be impartial means you should not be allowed outside influence when grading.

 

It is possible to press a book and get an up-grade if the major defects are out; even if you use RSR (however RSR will now keep you out of the higher grades) or there is cover shrinkage.

 

RSR attempts to hide defects located on the spine, yet the fact remains that the stress lines are still there whether they are on the front or back cover and an unnatural reverse spine roll was added, but if a large defect was removed it could outweigh the downgrading for RSR (again, RSR will now keep you out of higher grades).

 

For example, if a book started with a major defect (perhaps it counted for 2 steps on the grading scale), that defect is removed and something was added (that might minus 1 step) the book can still get an upgrade. The same holds true for cover shrinkage, except that it is graded as a storage or production defect.

 

To answer a few stray questions:

Yes, Mark Zaid is still on retainer with CGC.

 

CGC does not press comic books.

CGC graders do not know when a comic book comes from CCS.

 

CGC employees can buy all the raw books they want. All CGC graders love comics; most collect them, some more aggressively then others. I personally do not collect comics as I view it as a conflict for the Primary Grader to collect. That is by choice, not by instruction.

 

Hope everyone has a great day.

-Paul

 

Thanks, Alan.

[adamstrange]

Matt's comments

 

First off, both I and CGC are fully aware of the issues being posted here, and do take them very seriously. It is inevitable that many changes are happening since the merger. We see so many possibilities open up that will improve services for everyone now and in the future, but we also recognize that these changes cannot occur without scrutiny, reassessment, and the changing of perceptions.

 

Since this thread came to light a couple weeks ago, I have been heavily researching how and when cover shrinkage occurs. I've been aware of it for years, first learning about it when I was restoring comics, and noticed how SA Marvel covers would shrink side to side and expand top to bottom when water cleaned. Some changed dimension considerably, others not at all. When I started pressing, I noticed it happen on a book here and there, but the occurrences were rare. I also noticed it on books that were not pressed, and on books that were pressed by others before being sent to me.

 

I've poured over a couple hundred books the past two weeks, and here are my observations: many upressed SA Marvels exhibit covers that fall short of the outer edge of the interior, either a tiny bit (1/64" or 1/32"), and in some cases more noticeable. I've also observed that an aggressive pressing or multiple pressings can cause shrinkage, but sometimes it does not. It appears that shrinkage occurs through one, two, or a combination of these three things; the quality of printing of that book, storage conditions during the course of the book's life, and the process used to press it.

 

While I don't believe anything can be done about natural shrinkage, we have been working on ways to avoid shrinkage from pressing, and have made a number of breakthroughs. The problem is 99% in the SA Marvels, particularly between the years 1960 and 1968, when their printing quality was atrocious. Marvel paper and printing changed over and over during those years (sometimes month to month). The huge variance of how books age from exposure to heat, pressure and humidity during their life of storage is also a big factor in aniticipating shrinkage.

 

While I don't believe anything can be done about natural shrinkage, we have been working on ways to avoid shrinkage from pressing, and have made a number of breakthroughs. The problem is 99% in the SA Marvels, particularly between the years 1960 and 1968, when their printing quality was atrocious. Marvel paper and printing changed over and over during those years (sometimes month to month). The huge variance of how books age from exposure to heat, pressure and humidity during their life of storage is also a big factor in aniticipating shrinkage.

 

Is one of the breakthroughs to keep the humidity and temperature of the presses that CCS does at reasonable levels no matter what Doug Schmell (or anyone else) calls you up and asks you to do?

 

No one has any input as to how we press books. We don't press books less or more based on who submits. The evolution of the process over the past decade has simply been to improve results with the greatest efficiency, all within the confines of safety for the book and maintaining it's natural feel.

 

The standards of pressing that are being released in the monthly newsletter are the same ones I was held to by CGC many years ago. I was informed of improper side effects of pressing, and warned that my books would be downgraded if they exhibited those effects. I had to revamp my process to avoid things like flaring, pebbling and warping. At the time there were only a handful of guys pressing. Now that pressing is widespread, CGC has noticed an influx of books exhibiting these same problems, so it made sense to release these standards to the public. The intention is not to run other pressers out of business. If that were the case, CGC would simply not say anything, downgrade the books, and let things run its course. Inevitably, people who are doing improper pressing will evolve their process the same way I had to.

 

I'm held to the same standards everyone else is. And I've had my fair share of bad press jobs over the years. it's a natural part of the learning process, which never ends.

 

 

Is this the result of a different pressing process being used to attain uber high grades? Perhaps one that involves disassembling the book before being pressed?

 

I haven't disassembled a book for pressing in nearly 10 years. Not only do I think it's risky and unnatural for the book, but it's an enormous waste of time. There are ways to press a book perfectly without resorting to that.

 

What I don't understand is that this seems to be a recent phenomenon. We weren't seeing this even just a year ago, and if it were happening, we would have noticed.

 

So what's changed?

 

It's not a recent phenomenon, like I mentioned in the post. But multiple pressings are more commonplace as time goes on, which is one factor.

 

What I don't understand is that this seems to be a recent phenomenon. We weren't seeing this even just a year ago, and if it were happening, we would have noticed.

 

So what's changed?

 

It's not a recent phenomenon, like I mentioned in the post. But multiple pressings are more commonplace as time goes on, which is one factor.

Given these more commonplace factors,

Is CGC looking into changing their grading standards for books that have been pressed (perhaps multiple times) and have shrunk?

 

CGC doesn't know whether a short cover is natural or caused by pressing. A short cover might be treated the same as a manufacturing defect, like bindary tears, overspray, miscuts, etc., depending on the severity and how the rest of the book grades.

 

@Matt Nelson

 

So if all these "factors", natural or not, result in lesser eye appeal for the books, why are they getting grade bumps ?

 

The removal of pressable defects would be significant enough to warrant the bump. You have to take the whole book into consideration.

 

@Matt Nelson

 

So if all these "factors", natural or not, result in lesser eye appeal for the books, why are they getting grade bumps ?

 

The removal of pressable defects would be significant enough to warrant the bump. You have to take the whole book into consideration.

 

Matt, thanks for participating in this discussion. It means a lot. Accepting the fact you do not whether a book will shrink upon commencing a press and recognizing that CGC, when grading, does not know a book has shrunk from a press are you saying nothing can or should be done ? Is this simply the new look of high grade books and everyone should accept it. This hobby is about the books and they aren't looking good. Can we be offered any hope for a resolution ?

 

As I said in the earlier post, we've already made strides to eliminate any possibility of shrinkage in the future. This should be a goal for everyone who presses books right now.

 

 

If it was his shop, we don't know if he ran the press or someone else did.

 

 

This is something that I've gotten questions about for years, so I want to address it. No book ever leaves my place without me checking it. I brought my best people with me to Sarasota, who have been with me many years (longer than most other people have been pressing), and hired more people here that are very talented. They work within the process I've developed, and we all work together closely each day. In fact, since I've shaken off the responsibilities of Worldwide and other daily tasks, I've been able to devote much more of my time to the pressing process.

 

Kenny is a superb restorer, the best in the business. If he can be this good through our relationship over the past five years, is this not possible with others who work with me in Sarasota?

 

Hey Matt --

 

Thanks to you and Paul for your posts and the information you've provided. Much appreciated.

 

Concerning your comment about paranoia and trashing other people's books, however, please understand that folks are legitimately concerned about how particular restorative processes may be *damaging* books, either in structure (staple stress) or eye appeal, or both. I, for one, am not on a witch hunt, but have tried to understand more clearly how the pressing process affected these particular books, as I hate to see pedigree or high-grade books warped in this way.

 

So from my perspective, it's the potential damage from the process that's being trashed, I think, moreso than the books themselves.

 

Thanks again,

 

Dan

 

Hi Dan, yes, that's fine and how it should be. But not all people here subscribe to that notion.

 

 

Complaining may be the wrong word. Doomsayers?

 

I re-read my post. I did not mean that cover shrinkage from pressing is not a big deal. Nor RSR. The point was that it's not widespread as one may think, based on what they see in this thread.

[Mark Zaid]

I should also state that given how lengthy this thread is, if anyone wishes to highlight (like Adam has - thank you) certain statements or issues that they believe remain in contention, or wishes to post specific questions they desire answered, please do.

[Spiderphill]

Does anyone have examples like this that aren't slabbed? To make the case fully, you have to consider potential effects of the slabbing process. Exactly how are the books oriented when they're inserted into the inner well? More examples of non-slabbed books with this apparent structural issue would make this consideration less pertinent, if not totally moot.

unreal based on the FC alone and today's grading standards. Those are all shoe in 9.8s. Holy moly.

[namisgr]

Of course there have been plenty of early SA Marvels showing a tiny bit of the interior pages, but not nearly to the degree seen along the entire length of the spine on the Cole Schave books after pressing. As pointed out long ago in the thread and apparent with Barton's terrific ASMs 15,27,28, and 33, a tiny bit of interior page exposure is common with early SA Marvels that have some front-to-back cover miswrapping. They are easily distinguished from these members of the 119771... certification series, however:

 

 

 

 

[comicwiz]

They are easily distinguished from these members of the 119771... certification series, however:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: These are all accessible through Google's cache feature - tagged as "Cole Schave" in the PC listings. These 31 are all I could access through the cache feature. If needed, back these up as I'm not certain how long they will be available.

[Spiderphill]

Sigh if that ASM 9 is a 9.2 my entire collection should be bumped 1 full point.

[drbanner]

I have no idea if these covers shrunk or if it's just the way the books were assembled and originally cut. (I'm not posting these to defend the Costanza'd books. I'm posting them to point out that many books show similar traits.)

 

Sweet books, but the covers on these have not shrunk and look nothing like the Costanza'd Comics Syndrome (CCS) books.

 

These are what early SA Marvels commonly look like - pages extending slightly beyond the cover at the top (with the centerfold pages extending the most) tapering to be flush even with the cover at the bottom.

[GACollectibles]

That is so consistent among those books that I wonder how much of it MAY be due to the encapsulation process, pressure causing a fanning that wouldn't be present if the books were sitting raw/flat. I'm not discounting pressing/shrinkage, but it may be a combination of things.

 

Do any of these have the defective inner wells that could be putting pressure on the books to exacerbate the issue?

 

They are easily distinguished from these members of the 119771... certification series, however:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: These are all accessible through Google's cache feature - tagged as "Cole Schave" in the PC listings. These 31 are all I could access through the cache feature. If needed, back these up as I'm not certain how long they will be available.

[drbanner]

They are easily distinguished from these members of the 119771... certification series, however:

 

 

Note: These are all accessible through Google's cache feature - tagged as "Cole Schave" in the PC listings. These 31 are all I could access through the cache feature. If needed, back these up as I'm not certain how long they will be available.

Ouch, I think I need to visit the chiropractor! You rarely see overflash on both the top and bottom of the book like this...what the heck happened here?

[etanick]

I will say nil since the pressure/tightness of the inner well isn't more than my raw books in Mylar that are in my short boxes. Personally, I don't even categorize the interior as fanning because the interior of these facejob books are the same as before, the front cover just get realigned by just enough to let the interiors be more visible. I have no idea what to call it but spine realignment as Timely pointed out is definitely a better description than RSR.

[fantastic_four]

 

"Sorry sir, you're $250,000 Marvel key is now worth $50,000"

 

That's going to go over really well.

 

 

 

 

Then don't shrink the covers of $250000 books trying to wring another .2 out of it, presumably so you can get more money out of someone else.

 

My point (which you might have missed) wasn't that someone might want to shrink one of them for extra dough, it's that many of these big dollar SA Marvels already exhibit this phenomenon.

 

 

I haven't seen too many that look like this. It's unusual.

 

 

[fantastic_four]

 

My point (which you might have missed) wasn't that someone might want to shrink one of them for extra dough, it's that many of these big dollar SA Marvels already exhibit this phenomenon.

 

 

No they don't. Look at the books from the Cole Schave collection posted in this thread. The exposure of the interior pages is greater than seen on just about any early SA Marvel comic (so long as it hasn't been subjected to a spine realignment, that is).

 

 

Greater, lesser, equal - not really the point of what I was saying but you are right that these were extreme examples. I could probably pull 100 scans right now of books that were not shrunken that exhibit similar, if not exact appearances though and if people are looking to ding "peek through / overhang" then most SA Marvels will suffer in varying degrees.

 

You could, but it would be difficult. I think right-edge pokethrough that is 1/8" as we're seeing on some of the Schave books is pretty rare, perhaps 1 in 100 or 1 in 200 books. But as some scans have shown, they do exist. And I suspect they're not even always due to cover shrinkage.

[namisgr]

 

"Sorry sir, you're $250,000 Marvel key is now worth $50,000"

 

That's going to go over really well.

 

 

 

 

Then don't shrink the covers of $250000 books trying to wring another .2 out of it, presumably so you can get more money out of someone else.

 

My point (which you might have missed) wasn't that someone might want to shrink one of them for extra dough, it's that many of these big dollar SA Marvels already exhibit this phenomenon.

 

 

I haven't seen too many that look like this. It's unusual.

 

 

 

Nope. It lacks the Costanza appearance along the bottom third of the book, as well as the unusual degree of top right edge overhang.

[fantastic_four]

It's bordering on McCarthyism now.

 

Seriously?

 

That was a bit melodramatic. But it was inspired by the melodrama already present in the thread, so I understood why he said it even though I winced as he did.

[namisgr]

While it's true that the thread has its fair share of melodrama and overstatement (hey, it's the Boards), it's also the case that CCS pressing of a series of dozens of early high grade Marvels caused their covers to shrink to a degree rarely seen under natural circumstances, and to the point that the books look worse for having been pressed. It's also the case that the books were graded as if this marked loss in eye appeal through cover shrinkage had never happened.

[fantastic_four]

Incredible books. However, I don't want to disappoint you but these are no where near the extent of a Constanza. Yes, a lot of books have a moderate peekaboo on the right edge, so what. The Constanzas are much larger and exagerated.

 

Talk in terms of exact numbers here, because my eyes tell me to describe the Costanzas as "much worse" is itself an exaggeration. They're absolutely, positively worse than most pokethrough I see. Most of the Costanzas look to be 2/16" to 3/16", whereas Ghost Town's appear to be 1/16" to 2/16". And just the fact that I'm having to go to sixteenths of an inch is indicative of how slight these differences are.

[VintageComics]

It's bordering on McCarthyism now.

 

Seriously?

 

That was a bit melodramatic. But it was inspired by the melodrama already present in the thread, so I understood why he said it even though I winced as he did.

 

Bingo. Of course I realize it was over the top.

 

There's so much over the top melodrama coming from the discussion that it's disheartening. As soon as someone tries to discuss something rather join in the attack you're labelled as being against the crowd. It's crazy.

 

Rather than jump up and down and continue to scream and throw stones I'd rather find a solution.

 

It happened.

It's not good.

Now we can discuss how to deal with the fallout