Cole Schave collection: face jobs?

[Matt Nelson]

I'd like to expand more on what I said earlier to answer some concerns raised the past day. First, Paul and I do take people's concerns over shrinkage very seriously. It's obvious that no one likes it, so as I said in a previous post, I've already taken steps to make sure this kind of thing does not happen with books submitted to CCS. Conversations will continue about this topic at CGC. In regards to a delay in response, time is needed to research and decide on these type of things. For RSR, there were several phone calls, meetings, the examination of books, and the ultimate decision on CGC's stance. Same with the new standards on tape. In every case our end goal is to resolve the issue, not ignore it.

 

I see my clarification on my comment suggesting that shrinkage and RSR are "not a big deal" was ignored. My fault for typing too quickly and giving ammunition to some posters. Again, my point was the number of books affected is very small. The same can be said about RSR, and even Ewert's trimming from years ago (although it's important to recognize that in both of those cases there was intent to deceive, unlike shrinkage). The reason is because of the diligence of the boards. Without these discoveries, many more books could have been affected before it was caught.

 

While some will claim that CGC should have discovered these things themselves, the fact that so few incidents like these have occurred over the course of 13 years and 2 million graded books lends credence to the qualify of service they are offering. Some look to CGC to act as the police in the hobby, but I tend to view these diligent board members as the police, and CGC the judge.

 

The problem I was trying to express is the doomsayers that inevitably come out of the woodwork when these situations arise. I remember the boards went crazy when Ewert's trimming was uncovered. But there never came the flood of trimmed books that everyone was fearing. For RSR, one creative individual came up with this, and very few books got through. No one in their right mind would attempt RSR after the exposure.

 

CGC has a responsibility to provide accuracy and consistency. But the posters have a responsibility too. Lots of people read these boards and take comments very seriously. If you don't like CGC, that's you prerogative. But some of the posts I've seen on this thread are disturbing. While CGC is not for everyone, it does provide an invaluable service for many serious collectors, warts and all.

 

I've known the people at CGC for years, and they care very much about comic books and the hobby. It's a difficult job to grade books all day; they do it because they love it. I care very much about the hobby. This isn't just a job for me, not even a career. It's something I've lived and breathed since I was a kid, and I plan on doing everything I can to help this hobby grow until I drop dead.

 

There will always be someone trying to game the system. Pressing is an ever-evolving process. Grading is an ever-evolving process, and subjective. There is no end, and no ultimate answer to it all. Accept that, try not to get too stressed about it, and work towards solutions when problems arise.

 

What I wish for is more unity between CGC and the posters who are active on the boards. We all want a healthy hobby. I am always open for a productive conversation with anyone about how to make things better.

[VintageComics]

Glad I am a DC guy.

 

It happens to DC books too. The universe is just Marvel - centric and so those examples are most common but I've seen it on SA DC books as well.

 

 

[fantastic_four]

I clearly know which book I would like to own and which one I would not

 

Given those two scans at any point between 2000 when CGC brought page quality to the forefront and a month ago before this thread, I bet most people would have picked the Costanza'ed book simply because the page quality was better. There are a significant number of nosebleed collectors who simply won't buy a book with off-white pages. Now, I suppose, anyone who detests pressing will avoid any book with more than 1/32" right-edge pokethrough for fear of getting a pressed book.

[VintageComics]

Further more, why do SA Marvels seem to have more of a reverse V effect at the top of the book and often little to none at the bottom?

 

We discussed this a few years ago in the grading/resto forum with Kenny (Ze man) and it was mystifying at the time.

 

We know almost beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are trimmed on 3 edges. That's what all the evidence points to at this time.

 

Nothing is actually static in real life. Even the strongest, stiffest man made structures change shape a little bit over time depending on conditions (insert Dale Roberts joke here ). We know that paper changes size based on humidity, time, etc.

 

The only explanation is left that I can personally see is that the leaves changed in size at different rates top to bottom. Why?

 

Maybe because of the way the book was held when it was trimmed (tighter at one end than the other)?

Maybe one side of the book was a different temperature while it was trimmed.

Maybe one end of the book was warmer during the packaging process.

 

Because we know that age/temp/humidity affect the pages the most I can only think it's something related to that in some way.

 

That single detail (why the top peeks out more than the bottom) has been the one question everyone I've spoken to does not have an answer to.

 

[VintageComics]

I clearly know which book I would like to own and which one I would not

 

Given those two scans at any point between 2000 when CGC brought page quality to the forefront and a month ago before this thread, I bet most people would have picked the Costanza'ed book simply because the page quality was better. There are a significant number of nosebleed collectors who simply won't buy a book with off-white pages. Now, I suppose, anyone who detests pressing will avoid any book with more than 1/32" right-edge pokethrough for fear of getting a pressed book.

 

And that is my worry and Bob Storm's worry (and any dealer's worry) with a thread like this.

 

Painting a scarlet letter on a book that shouldn't have one will affect business greatly - especially when the majority of books exhibit this characteristic to some degree.

[Dr. Balls]

What I wish for is more unity between CGC and the posters who are active on the boards.

 

I believe today, of all days, is the best day to make that happen. GO FRIDAY!

[drbanner]

Given those two scans at any point between 2000 when CGC brought page quality to the forefront and a month ago before this thread, I bet most people would have picked the Costanza'ed book simply because the page quality was better.

Why do you keep implying that before this thread, nobody cared about this defect? I sure did, and I bet most people would pick the better looking copy, which is not the one with the shrunken cover. And that includes 'ole Cole himself, since, as Doug told us, he went after books with "superior structure, centering and presentation". I mean, who wouldn't?

[VintageComics]

For Chris (Beyonder) as promised.

 

I removed the CGC labels because I didn't think it was fair to post them on books that I no longer own. Some books were pressed, some weren't and some were bought in the holder, so unknown history. Nothing out of the ordinary on these books - until this thread popped up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Straw-Man]

Glad I am a DC guy.

 

yup, they don't have any s.a. books worth the cost of a press.

[VintageComics]

Given those two scans at any point between 2000 when CGC brought page quality to the forefront and a month ago before this thread, I bet most people would have picked the Costanza'ed book simply because the page quality was better.

Why do you keep implying that before this thread, nobody cared about this defect? I sure did, and I bet most people would pick the better looking copy, which is not the one with the shrunken cover. And that includes 'ole Cole himself, since, as Doug told us, he went after books with "superior structure, centering and presentation". I mean, who wouldn't?

 

I'm not speaking for F_F but I have to agree with him. I've never heard a single person mention "peekthrough / overhang" as a problem before this thread started in all the years I've been here. Not one.

 

Is there a single post on this entire chat forum that references it pre this thread? Even one?

 

Now, after this thread has started I have customers asking me if the book they bought was a Cole Schave-treatment book. The answer is and will stay a unequivocal "HELL NO".

 

 

[Straw-Man]

 

 

I clearly know which book I would like to own and which one I would not

 

i'll take the top book; the slightly larger sliver of page 1 bothers me barely, whereas the brighter look and better pq wins the day.

[drbanner]

Glad I am a DC guy.

yup, they don't have any s.a. books worth the cost of a press.

DC's are safe anyway, Matt told us that shrinkage "happens most often on early Silver Age Marvels because they were printed so poorly". Those poor, poor, ever-shrinking Marvels!

[Silver Surfer]

Glad I am a DC guy.

 

yup, they don't have any s.a. books worth the cost of a press.

 

Beat me to it!

[Silver Surfer]

Given those two scans at any point between 2000 when CGC brought page quality to the forefront and a month ago before this thread, I bet most people would have picked the Costanza'ed book simply because the page quality was better.

Why do you keep implying that before this thread, nobody cared about this defect? I sure did, and I bet most people would pick the better looking copy, which is not the one with the shrunken cover. And that includes 'ole Cole himself, since, as Doug told us, he went after books with "superior structure, centering and presentation". I mean, who wouldn't?

 

I'm not speaking for F_F but I have to agree with him. I've never heard a single person mention "peekthrough / overhang" as a problem before this thread started in all the years I've been here. Not one.

 

Is there a single post on this entire chat forum that references it pre this thread? Even one?

 

Now, after this thread has started I have customers asking me if the book they bought was a Cole Schave-treatment book. The answer is and will stay a unequivocal "HELL NO".

 

Maybe because most people just thought they were fugly miswraps? You telling me no one has talked about overhang before? It's clear from some of the Cool Schave books that they were the result of pressing that has irked many because they look ugly. Roy I'm not sure why you keep harping on this point, who cares? I'm still waiting for someone to address the impacted staples issue!!!

[DiceX]

Given those two scans at any point between 2000 when CGC brought page quality to the forefront and a month ago before this thread, I bet most people would have picked the Costanza'ed book simply because the page quality was better.

Why do you keep implying that before this thread, nobody cared about this defect? I sure did, and I bet most people would pick the better looking copy, which is not the one with the shrunken cover. And that includes 'ole Cole himself, since, as Doug told us, he went after books with "superior structure, centering and presentation". I mean, who wouldn't?

 

I'm not speaking for F_F but I have to agree with him. I've never heard a single person mention "peekthrough / overhang" as a problem before this thread started in all the years I've been here. Not one.

 

Is there a single post on this entire chat forum that references it pre this thread? Even one?

 

Now, after this thread has started I have customers asking me if the book they bought was a Cole Schave-treatment book. The answer is and will stay a unequivocal "HELL NO".

 

 

I have less concern with a little page poking out past the cover than I have about the staples on these books being indented, smashed and the covers tearing on them.

Shrinkage is a problem, but introducing tears on the staples is a serious problem.

 

 

[Bronty]

 

 

I clearly know which book I would like to own and which one I would not

 

i'll take the top book; the slightly larger sliver of page 1 bothers me barely, whereas the brighter look and better pq wins the day.

 

you're just picking a scanner and not a book Billy. Barton's scans are almost as dark as his books are awesome.

[comicwiz]

I clearly know which book I would like to own and which one I would not

 

Given those two scans at any point between 2000 when CGC brought page quality to the forefront and a month ago before this thread, I bet most people would have picked the Costanza'ed book simply because the page quality was better. There are a significant number of nosebleed collectors who simply won't buy a book with off-white pages. Now, I suppose, anyone who detests pressing will avoid any book with more than 1/32" right-edge pokethrough for fear of getting a pressed book.

 

And that is my worry and Bob Storm's worry (and any dealer's worry) with a thread like this.

 

Painting a scarlet letter on a book that shouldn't have one will affect business greatly - especially when the majority of books exhibit this characteristic to some degree.

 

I don't mean to single you out Roy, but this scarlet-letter thing is really being overplayed here.

 

What about the poor stiff who is going to get stuck with these books which have been given the stamp and seal of approval by both the paper mechanic and authentication arm of NGC?

 

I think your worry can greatly be diminished by an avoidance strategy because you, and the Bob Storms, and the online dealers of this hobby - are all keeping themselves dialed-in on what's happening - thanks to this thread and the community remaining at the forefront when it comes to discovering these problems.

 

What about the worry that could potentially arise from a guy/girl who has to find out the hard way that the book they shelled out good money on will instantly be devalued because it has been a topic of discussion in this thread?

 

Or the worry associated to the next book we'll discover which as been wrecked, belonging to a person in this community?

 

Or how about the worry from the song and dance the customer receives when submitting these books and possibly ending-up with a lesser book (both condition-wise and the way it presents)?

 

I understand the sentiment shared suggesting money being the reason why it won't stop.

 

I agree.

 

The only difference being that I feel money will be the reason why it will need to stop.

 

More specifically, when it's the kind of book at a value point that could feed a small village in a developing country for decades, perhaps the inclination to seek justice, compensation and avoiding costly write-downs might supersede the worry about books mistakenly being thrown into the wrong junk pile.

[Bomber-Bob]

 

That is not such a unique(or potentially manufactured) look. Here I have an OO book, never pressed, that has the exact same characteristics(top & bottom overhang, extended pages), and suspect(without having the TOS in hand) that what you are seeing is the same thing as below- the extended pages are the back half of the book. I'm not saying it wasn't the result of a press on the TOS but you can't discount it happening naturally.

 

 

Yes, and look at the miscut on the spine. The whole book is shifted = came off the press this way. The Cole Shave books are perfectly centered yet display the exagerrated fanning = not off the press this way.

[faster friends]

Glad I am a DC guy.

 

yup, they don't have any s.a. books worth the cost of a press.

 

Or at least we have not seen a DC example yet in this thread.

[InvstmntComcSuply]

For Chris (Beyonder) as promised.

 

I removed the CGC labels because I didn't think it was fair to post them on books that I no longer own. Some books were pressed, some weren't and some were bought in the holder, so unknown history. Nothing out of the ordinary on these books - until this thread popped up.

 

There is still nothing out of the ordinary on those books