Cole Schave collection: face jobs?

[DiceX]

And machinery doesn't vary much. Maybe the color of the machine or how old it is.

They're all pretty much the exact piece of equipment.

 

That is, until the late '90s when they made them faster and they got a few changes.

They still all work the same way.

 

 

[skypinkblu]

Roy, I don't know if anyone asked this, but was the example you showed a SA or GA book? GA books were obviously not all cut the same way. I've had multiple copies of the same book and they have been slightly different sizes, and that was not because someone trimmed them after they were distributed..

 

I was told years ago some GA books were handcut.

 

I've also opened SA books, from the staple out and flattened them and the edges of all the pages meet, meaning they were the same size.

 

I've had lots of books in my life that came without covers, without staples. Sometimes there have just been boxes of pages. It would be much easier if they were all uniformly different sizes that way I could figure out how to put them back together.

Not all the publishers have page numbers on the pages.

 

I've also owned several books that were stapled out of order, a few were manufactured that way, one was restored that way. The edges were not any different when the pages were put in the correct order.

 

I'm much more familiar with DCs and they also have the V's, here is one I happen to have has next to me

 

 

Just another viewpoint from the lower collecting ranks....

 

and no comics were ever harmed while performing this experiments;)

[seanfingh]

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.

 

This is a classic red herring. There are before and after scans of these books being shrunken by excessive heat and moisture, trying to buttram another .2 out of them.

 

None of the "historic" analysis, or the presence of peekthrough in the wild will change that.

 

THESE BOOKS WERE DAMAGED.

 

BECAUSE $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

 

[skypinkblu]

Since we can't all take a tour, here's a quick example of the process. Machinery may vary.

 

EDIT: Take this as complementing Dice's video.

 

That's exactly what I wanted to show. Thanks for finding it.

 

 

That's a great example, but they don't have covers made of different stock.

When did they put the covers on?

[skypinkblu]

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.

 

This is a classic red herring. There are before and after scans of these books being shrunken by excessive heat and moisture, trying to buttram another .2 out of them.

 

None of the "historic" analysis, or the presence of peekthrough in the wild will change that.

 

THESE BOOKS WERE DAMAGED.

 

BECAUSE $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

 

You are right, I'm getting sidetracked along with everyone else

[fantastic_four]

Roy, I don't know if anyone asked this, but was the example you showed a SA or GA book? GA books were obviously not all cut the same way. I've had multiple copies of the same book and they have been slightly different sizes, and that was not because someone trimmed them after they were distributed..

 

The machines clearly have variances. I've seen multiple copies of the same Silver or Bronze book vary in width or height by as much as a half inch. I've got one raw Silver Age book that won't even fit in a Silver Age bag it's so wide--it's this one below. Usually Silver books are around 6.5" to 6.75", but this one is a shade over 7" wide at the top and a bit narrower at the bottom, so I had to bag it in a Golden Age bag.

 

[jimbo_707]

Oh, and why the centerfold would shrink less than the pages right next to it, and progressively outward, with the cover shrinking the most in relation to the pages, that would have to be because the centerfold is the most protected/least exposed to the exterior environment?

Keep in mind that since the covers are folded before trimming, the cover is actually slightly larger than the first wrap.

 

The first wrap is slightly larger than the second wrap and significantly larger than the centerfold/staple page. Shrinkage happens as a percentage, so if each wrap shrinks, say 2% naturally, the first wrap would shrink slightly more than the second wrap (because 2% of 14.2 inches is slightly more than 2% of 14.19 inches, etc.) and would appear to pull back slightly.

 

That phenomenon could create a very slight reverse V.

 

It's also possible that some of the reverse V could be from spring back, if the books are under pressure when they're being cut.

 

That's my rampant speculation for the day!

[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.

 

This is a classic red herring. There are before and after scans of these books being shrunken by excessive heat and moisture, trying to buttram another .2 out of them.

 

None of the "historic" analysis, or the presence of peekthrough in the wild will change that.

 

THESE BOOKS WERE DAMAGED.

 

BECAUSE $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

 

 

I'm sorry if I don't completely follow.

 

I wasn't trying to excuse what happened to the Schave books. If I was, then I'd understand you wanting to call my post a red herring.

 

As I remember it, yesterday (and over the last few days) we were discussing whether peekthrough should get dinged during the grading process. I think someone mentioned it being a slippery slope.

 

All I was trying to show was that peekthrough happens in varying degrees to most Silver Age books. The peekthrough on some of my examples is significant.

 

In an effort to prevent peekthrough, should the grading standards change now that someone has overpressed these books and created significant peekthrough?

 

That was the point of my post.

 

As mentioned earlier, I was still on yesterday's conversation.

 

THESE BOOKS WERE DAMAGED.

 

BECAUSE $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

 

Absolutely. Glad we cleared that up.

[VintageComics]

Roy, I don't know if anyone asked this, but was the example you showed a SA or GA book? GA books were obviously not all cut the same way. I've had multiple copies of the same book and they have been slightly different sizes, and that was not because someone trimmed them after they were distributed..

 

I used 3 books earlier in the thread (you might have only seen the quoted GA book): an Atlas early SA book, a mid 1950's GA book and a mid 1940's GA book.

 

I could have used a 1970's or a mid 1960's book and the result would have been the same, because most comics would have been produced the same way.

 

 

[seanfingh]

 

I wasn't trying to excuse what happened to the Schave books. If I was, then I'd understand you wanting to call my post a red herring.

 

 

 

Perhaps not.

 

But your thesis seems to be that we can't downgrade for Costanza covers because of the way Silver Age Marvels were produced. That may or may not be a compelling argument. It remains troublesome to me because of the damage to those amazing books. Intentional or not, the posting of all those books with peekthrough (as opposed to artificially induced Constanza effect) appears to be the comic book equivalent of OZ screaming "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."

 

 

[Bomber-Bob]

Just a reminder of what this thread is about.

Roy, if you, me, or anyone else owns a book that 'looks' like any on the right then yes everyone will think Shave. You live by the sword(pressing) you die by the sword(Shave).

 

 

Here are a few more Costanzas from the Cole Schave collection for comparison.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Davenport]

And the Pressific Coast beat goes on...

 

Left is the original certified copy by Mark Arrand.

 

Right is the Cole Schave Facejobbed Costanza copy, courtesy of Doug Schmell.

 

(Hey, Dav... the worked over copy appears to have an upper "indented maverick staple". Bob, check me if I'm wrong on that term/reference...)

 

 

I'm still trying to make sense of the SCOOP Cole Schave announcement article. There's a long string of CGC scans, none of which are 11977.

 

I was wondering why someone would promo CGC'd books they intended to juice the grades on? Doesn't make sense. Wouldn't that defeat the purpose, when they reappear?

 

It promos the JIM 88, ASM 10, Avengers 1 with scans, all pre 11977, but those grades didn't fluff. Then in text it has: "Among the issues available are...Tales of Suspense #39 9.0, #40 9.4 Pacific Coast..."

 

So The 9.4 TOS 40 PC is a 11977 incarnation. Why not use that grade-bump scan? Or any of the 11977 scans?

 

Does this show that there was some level of awareness, way ahead of this thread's firestorm reaction and its 'doomsayers'?

 

Am I misinterpreting what I'm looking at? Somebody help me out here?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ComicConnoisseur]

Books were trimmed after they have been folded.

 

Here's a pic of the Spartan Printing Company, circa 1977.

 

The guy is operating the trimming machine.

 

I wonder what ever happened to that guy?

In the age of the internet maybe he can be found and we can ask him what the hands on process was? Did he trim or not trim?

If not him, then try to find a similar employee who worked in that time period to answer the questions.

 

[drbanner]

Just a reminder of what this thread is about.

Roy, if you, me, or anyone else owns a book that 'looks' like any on the right then yes everyone will think Shave.

This is true, especially if the book has a serial number starting with "1197" and was graded in August or September of 2013...those summer months when something went terribly wrong in the manufacturing division of CGC down in hot, humid Sarasota.

[Bomber-Bob]

Paul Litch, Matt Nelson, the following needs to be answered. How did this Reverse Spine Tug receive such a bump ? Especially since it appeared after the CGC reverse spine-roll proclamation.

 

I'm intersted in what Mark has to say too.......this group needs some clarity, the pitchforks will (perhaps) retreat a bit at that time.

 

Is that what this thread is comprised of? A torch and pitchfork crowd??

 

If you truly believe that to be the case then let me throw more wood on the fire for you.

 

And I apologize in advance if it transgresses upon your innocuous reading pleasure.

 

When Mark returns he can extinguish the inferno by donning his firefighting outfit.

 

*************

 

Here's a Facejob that is comparable to those identified as being Wilson-ized a few months back.

 

Posted as a link earlier in this thread it is reimaged here for posterity so as not to dematerialize into the void once eBay cleanses the public auction record.

 

That said, some points of observation regarding book traceability.

 

– Acquired June 16, 2013 via Heritage Auctions.

 

– Remanufactured using the Facejob technique.

 

– Certified anew August 14, 2013.

 

– Liquidated by Eides Entertainment via eBay September 8, 2013.

 

This facejobbed collectable appeared after the CGC reverse spine-roll proclamation, post investigative study concerning the Wilsonization of Avengers #1 et al.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[fantastic_four]

Since we can't all take a tour, here's a quick example of the process. Machinery may vary.

 

EDIT: Take this as complementing Dice's video.

 

Awesome, thanks for the videos DeliBebek and Dice.

[fantastic_four]

Oh, and why the centerfold would shrink less than the pages right next to it, and progressively outward, with the cover shrinking the most in relation to the pages, that would have to be because the centerfold is the most protected/least exposed to the exterior environment?

Keep in mind that since the covers are folded before trimming, the cover is actually slightly larger than the first wrap.

 

The first wrap is slightly larger than the second wrap and significantly larger than the centerfold/staple page. Shrinkage happens as a percentage, so if each wrap shrinks, say 2% naturally, the first wrap would shrink slightly more than the second wrap (because 2% of 14.2 inches is slightly more than 2% of 14.19 inches, etc.) and would appear to pull back slightly.

 

That phenomenon could create a very slight reverse V.

 

This hypothesis makes some sense. (thumbs u

[Silver Surfer]

 

I wasn't trying to excuse what happened to the Schave books. If I was, then I'd understand you wanting to call my post a red herring.

 

 

 

Perhaps not.

 

But your thesis seems to be that we can't downgrade for Costanza covers because of the way Silver Age Marvels were produced. That may or may not be a compelling argument. It remains troublesome to me because of the damage to those amazing books. Intentional or not, the posting of all those books with peekthrough (as opposed to artificially induced Constanza effect) appears to be the comic book equivalent of OZ screaming "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."

 

 

Bravo, this should be the title of this thread.

[Sqeggs]

 

Well, I'm laughing but it's not funny. It's bordering on McCarthyism now.

 

 

 

I knew commies were behind this!

[VintageComics]

 

I wasn't trying to excuse what happened to the Schave books. If I was, then I'd understand you wanting to call my post a red herring.

 

 

 

Perhaps not.

 

But your thesis seems to be that we can't downgrade for Costanza covers because of the way Silver Age Marvels were produced. That may or may not be a compelling argument. It remains troublesome to me because of the damage to those amazing books. Intentional or not, the posting of all those books with peekthrough (as opposed to artificially induced Constanza effect) appears to be the comic book equivalent of OZ screaming "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."

 

 

Fair enough.

 

My thesis is based on the fact that people starting saying that peekthrough should be downgraded for. That set off my warning bells because I have noticed that most SA books have peek through.

 

My thesis is two fold...I think...I'm not very good at this thesis thing.

 

A) if we begin to downgrade for artificially produced Costanza covers, what is the real reason we are downgrading? Because they deserve to be downgraded based on eye appeal or because we are trying to prevent someone from tampering in the future. If it's because we are trying to prevent tampering is that a good reason to change grading standards?

 

B) if we decide to downgrade peekthrough based on eye appeal (something that was never even a thought before this thread), is there the possibility that all of our books end up looking like that in 100 years? Do we have an obligation to send in our slightly peekingthrough, graded in 2001 CGC 9.8 for a regrade to get a 9.2 or a 9.4 in the year 2078 because the cover has shrunken in the holder?

 

I'd like to know more about how paper shrinks, why it shrinks and if it is going to continue to shrink before I can decide whether peekthrough is worth downgrading for.

 

No Oz. No curtain.