Comic Book Spine Realignment Therapy, turn your 8.5's into 9.2's!

[rjpb]

Even if the Action 60 had only one owner and he was dyslexic, that spine break 3/4 of the way down looks so unnatural to not have spread to the front cover in a similar length and manner. Hopefully the dust shadow will help the bidders take notice that something is off.

 

That particular auction is over. The book did sell at a bargain price for the grade, but I'm sure Wilson(Thomas, not Mark), still made a profit, as who knows how low the grade was before the reverse spine roll and reattached centerfold.

 

Maybe, though the net after slabbing, ebay and paypal costs has to be somewhere under $440

[comicwiz]

Check this one out.

 

Interesting as well is that the seller proclaimed in big letters that the comic was "unrestored". And he was being very bluntly honest about that point. It had not been restored. It had been deliberately mutilated.

 

 

Sold for $300 less than the last 5.0 copy a year ago, but again, he probably made a good profit from an upgrade.

And I thought pressing wasn't restoration :shrug:

 

Not sure what your point is. My point is that the guy is bad for the market. He's creating butt-ugly books that sell for significantly less than FMV, thereby bringing down the value of all other copies to anyone that's just looking at GPA history to determine value of that particular issue.

 

If there's a concern about GPA data or how collectors interpret that data - I don't see how that's CGC's concern other than the fact that the market is too tuned in to the numbers on the slabs, that's not new.

CGC shouldn't be concerned about the "market", they should just grade accurately and consistently. That includes reducing the grade when damage arises from an allowable process AND identifying damage that may be less obvious as a result of manipulation.

 

 

 

I mostly agree, but after reading Jeff's point, the manner in which he's dangling the low-hanging fruit is just another notch on this sellers deceitful intent tally.

[MCMiles]

Check this one out.

 

Interesting as well is that the seller proclaimed in big letters that the comic was "unrestored". And he was being very bluntly honest about that point. It had not been restored. It had been deliberately mutilated.

 

 

Sold for $300 less than the last 5.0 copy a year ago, but again, he probably made a good profit from an upgrade.

And I thought pressing wasn't restoration :shrug:

 

Not sure what your point is. My point is that the guy is bad for the market. He's creating butt-ugly books that sell for significantly less than FMV, thereby bringing down the value of all other copies to anyone that's just looking at GPA history to determine value of that particular issue.

 

If there's a concern about GPA data or how collectors interpret that data - I don't see how that's CGC's concern other than the fact that the market is too tuned in to the numbers on the slabs, that's not new.

CGC shouldn't be concerned about the "market", they should just grade accurately and consistently. That includes reducing the grade when damage arises from an allowable process AND identifying damage that may be less obvious as a result of manipulation.

 

 

 

I mostly agree, but after reading Jeff's point, the manner in which he's dangling the low-hanging fruit is just another notch on this sellers deceitful intent tally.

 

Both Jeff's and bababooey's points are all good points.

[porky]

 

You're entitled to your opinion, but these books should not be allowed to be sold on the market. If the downgrade, buy-backs or value drops do not force the owners to accept a Classics play to "reverse" this MAD fold-out hack work, then they should be noted with recreated spine on the label in the same text/font size as when they write COUNTERFEIT.

 

The financial disincentive scenario discussed by Brian/Bob is the most worrisome, because even with CGC write-down and a haircut evaluation, if the seller decides he wants the book, he could still turn around and price it at a higher average than the grade normally fetches because the migration of spine wear to the rear cover still gives the appearance of a better presenting example than the hypothetical downgrade given by CGC (i.e. CGC 5.0, but presents like a 7.0).

 

IMHO, these should all be fixed by Classics or noted on the label with recreated spine (unoriginal production binding) before they are returned back to market, otherwise consumers are badly being misled.

 

 

Fixed is fixed. If these books are put back into their natural state, there will be obvious creasing damage from the creation of the second spine. If there's somehow no lasting damage done, so be it. Should it also be noted on the label if its suspected of being a bathroom book?

 

 

(Collectors_comics casually puts the large book he took into the bathroom with him on the eBay. A comicwiz notices, and approaches him)

 

Comicwiz: Excuse me, Sir. What are you doing?

 

Collectors_comics: (Acting innocent) I'm all set.

 

Comicwiz: (Pointing) Did you take that book with you into the bathroom?

 

Collectors_comics: (Not sure what the answer should be) What do you want to hear?

 

[bababooey]

BATHROOM READERS should always be identified in the Pedigree field.

[nearmint]

Check this one out.

 

Interesting as well is that the seller proclaimed in big letters that the comic was "unrestored". And he was being very bluntly honest about that point. It had not been restored. It had been deliberately mutilated.

 

 

Sold for $300 less than the last 5.0 copy a year ago, but again, he probably made a good profit from an upgrade.

And I thought pressing wasn't restoration :shrug:

 

Not sure what your point is. My point is that the guy is bad for the market. He's creating butt-ugly books that sell for significantly less than FMV, thereby bringing down the value of all other copies to anyone that's just looking at GPA history to determine value of that particular issue.

 

If there's a concern about GPA data or how collectors interpret that data - I don't see how that's CGC's concern other than the fact that the market is too tuned in to the numbers on the slabs, that's not new.

CGC shouldn't be concerned about the "market", they should just grade accurately and consistently. That includes reducing the grade when damage arises from an allowable process AND identifying damage that may be less obvious as a result of manipulation.

 

I didn't say it should be CGC's concern, but collector's should be concerned. Of course CGC should only be concerned with grading accurately and consistently.

[Artboy99]

Restoring a book in any way may as well be mutilating it to some people. To some it is not .

Pressing a book properly may be mutilating a book to some, while to others it's completely benign.

I would imagine what's going on with these books is heavily frowned upon form bothe pro and anti-pressers . Probably much the same way folding the book in half would be.

 

Hopefully the anti-pressing crowd does not see this as an "I told you so" to the pro pressing crowd and draw out the same old arguments, which will not change a thing. But, I'm already seeing signs of that, unfortunately.

 

It will be much better to recognize the fact that bad press jobs should be down graded and CGC should be more consistent with grading period. Had this book been graded more accurately with those factors in mind, it would have never received an upgrade and there would be no incintive to mutilate the books in this way.

 

 

What needs to happen is for any and all forms of pressing be detected and noted.

I personally see very little difference between the pressing of a book to realign the spine so it presents "better" or pressing to remove ripples crinkles or non color breaking creases so it "presents" better. Both versions are "realizing the full potential" of the book.

[nearmint]

Restoring a book in any way may as well be mutilating it to some people. To some it is not .

Pressing a book properly may be mutilating a book to some, while to others it's completely benign.

I would imagine what's going on with these books is heavily frowned upon form bothe pro and anti-pressers . Probably much the same way folding the book in half would be.

 

Hopefully the anti-pressing crowd does not see this as an "I told you so" to the pro pressing crowd and draw out the same old arguments, which will not change a thing. But, I'm already seeing signs of that, unfortunately.

 

It will be much better to recognize the fact that bad press jobs should be down graded and CGC should be more consistent with grading period. Had this book been graded more accurately with those factors in mind, it would have never received an upgrade and there would be no incintive to mutilate the books in this way.

 

 

What needs to happen is for any and all forms of pressing be detected and noted.

I personally see very little difference between the pressing of a book to realign the spine so it presents "better" or pressing to remove ripples crinkles or non color breaking creases so it "presents" better. Both versions are "realizing the full potential" of the book.

 

Really? I see a huge difference. One process screams "I've been pressed, and badly!" While the other is, more often than not, undetectable.

[Artboy99]

Restoring a book in any way may as well be mutilating it to some people. To some it is not .

Pressing a book properly may be mutilating a book to some, while to others it's completely benign.

I would imagine what's going on with these books is heavily frowned upon form bothe pro and anti-pressers . Probably much the same way folding the book in half would be.

 

Hopefully the anti-pressing crowd does not see this as an "I told you so" to the pro pressing crowd and draw out the same old arguments, which will not change a thing. But, I'm already seeing signs of that, unfortunately.

 

It will be much better to recognize the fact that bad press jobs should be down graded and CGC should be more consistent with grading period. Had this book been graded more accurately with those factors in mind, it would have never received an upgrade and there would be no incintive to mutilate the books in this way.

 

 

What needs to happen is for any and all forms of pressing be detected and noted.

I personally see very little difference between the pressing of a book to realign the spine so it presents "better" or pressing to remove ripples crinkles or non color breaking creases so it "presents" better. Both versions are "realizing the full potential" of the book.

 

Really? I see a huge difference. One process screams "I've been pressed, and badly!" While the other is, more often than not, undetectable.

 

Therefore if the spine realignment was less detectable it would be ok?

[comicwiz]

 

You're entitled to your opinion, but these books should not be allowed to be sold on the market. If the downgrade, buy-backs or value drops do not force the owners to accept a Classics play to "reverse" this MAD fold-out hack work, then they should be noted with recreated spine on the label in the same text/font size as when they write COUNTERFEIT.

 

The financial disincentive scenario discussed by Brian/Bob is the most worrisome, because even with CGC write-down and a haircut evaluation, if the seller decides he wants the book, he could still turn around and price it at a higher average than the grade normally fetches because the migration of spine wear to the rear cover still gives the appearance of a better presenting example than the hypothetical downgrade given by CGC (i.e. CGC 5.0, but presents like a 7.0).

 

IMHO, these should all be fixed by Classics or noted on the label with recreated spine (unoriginal production binding) before they are returned back to market, otherwise consumers are badly being misled.

 

 

Fixed is fixed. If these books are put back into their natural state, there will be obvious creasing damage from the creation of the second spine. If there's somehow no lasting damage done, so be it. Should it also be noted on the label if its suspected of being a bathroom book?

 

 

(Collectors_comics casually puts the large book he took into the bathroom with him on the eBay. A comicwiz notices, and approaches him)

 

Comicwiz: Excuse me, Sir. What are you doing?

 

Collectors_comics: (Acting innocent) I'm all set.

 

Comicwiz: (Pointing) Did you take that book with you into the bathroom?

 

Collectors_comics: (Not sure what the answer should be) What do you want to hear?

 

The best part of that Seinfeld skit is when he tries to donate it to charity and the lady behind the counter tells costanza, responding to his comment about making a deal, that if he doesn't take the book out of the store she was going to jump over the counter and punch him in the brain:

 

 

 

[porky]

Restoring a book in any way may as well be mutilating it to some people. To some it is not .

Pressing a book properly may be mutilating a book to some, while to others it's completely benign.

I would imagine what's going on with these books is heavily frowned upon form bothe pro and anti-pressers . Probably much the same way folding the book in half would be.

 

Hopefully the anti-pressing crowd does not see this as an "I told you so" to the pro pressing crowd and draw out the same old arguments, which will not change a thing. But, I'm already seeing signs of that, unfortunately.

 

It will be much better to recognize the fact that bad press jobs should be down graded and CGC should be more consistent with grading period. Had this book been graded more accurately with those factors in mind, it would have never received an upgrade and there would be no incintive to mutilate the books in this way.

 

 

 

What needs to happen is for any and all forms of pressing be detected and noted.

I personally see very little difference between the pressing of a book to realign the spine so it presents "better" or pressing to remove ripples crinkles or non color breaking creases so it "presents" better. Both versions are "realizing the full potential" of the book.

 

Huge difference. One is an attempt to return the make the book appear more like it was when it was new. The other is an attempt to move defects to a less noticeable spot in the hopes of a better grade with the added bonus of making the comic look fugly/ less like its original state.

[porky]

 

Therefore if the spine realignment was less detectable it would be ok?

 

Any spine realignment significant enough to change a grade is glaringly obvious, so that's not even a question that needs to be pondered.

[MCMiles]

Restoring a book in any way may as well be mutilating it to some people. To some it is not .

Pressing a book properly may be mutilating a book to some, while to others it's completely benign.

I would imagine what's going on with these books is heavily frowned upon form bothe pro and anti-pressers . Probably much the same way folding the book in half would be.

 

Hopefully the anti-pressing crowd does not see this as an "I told you so" to the pro pressing crowd and draw out the same old arguments, which will not change a thing. But, I'm already seeing signs of that, unfortunately.

 

It will be much better to recognize the fact that bad press jobs should be down graded and CGC should be more consistent with grading period. Had this book been graded more accurately with those factors in mind, it would have never received an upgrade and there would be no incintive to mutilate the books in this way.

 

 

What needs to happen is for any and all forms of pressing be detected and noted.

I personally see very little difference between the pressing of a book to realign the spine so it presents "better" or pressing to remove ripples crinkles or non color breaking creases so it "presents" better. Both versions are "realizing the full potential" of the book.

 

Exactly what I mean. That is your opinion and some share it, it is not everyone else's, but like I said in different words, this is going to be turned into a pressing issue and a pressing thread by anti-pressers.

 

My only other words on this, even though it will fall primarily on deaf ears, will be CGC can not detect properly pressed books. They will even have a hard time detecting poorly pressed books such as these because the final product we have here does occur naturally on occasion. What they need to do is grade more accurately and consistently, which includes down grading books that have defects that may have been a result of pressing.

 

 

[rodan57]

Just gonna start flagging books like this for no reason?

 

 

 

I want to be respectful of this book because you are probably going to tell me that you bought it from the newsstand this way or that it belonged to a pedigree with an unimpeachable provenance -- but if I saw this for sale I would be wary.

 

The way in which the paper protrudes from the side is atypical of books from this period and the fact that I can see a perfect top back edge of the back cover from the front would lead me to believe that the book had been imperfectly pressed.*

 

My suspicions may cause me to pass on good books but peace of mind allows me to enjoy my collection.

 

 

* And God knows that TTA suffered from miscuts from this period. Its printing schedule must have always put it on the wrong side of the quality control inspection.

[Artboy99]

Restoring a book in any way may as well be mutilating it to some people. To some it is not .

Pressing a book properly may be mutilating a book to some, while to others it's completely benign.

I would imagine what's going on with these books is heavily frowned upon form bothe pro and anti-pressers . Probably much the same way folding the book in half would be.

 

Hopefully the anti-pressing crowd does not see this as an "I told you so" to the pro pressing crowd and draw out the same old arguments, which will not change a thing. But, I'm already seeing signs of that, unfortunately.

 

It will be much better to recognize the fact that bad press jobs should be down graded and CGC should be more consistent with grading period. Had this book been graded more accurately with those factors in mind, it would have never received an upgrade and there would be no incintive to mutilate the books in this way.

 

 

 

What needs to happen is for any and all forms of pressing be detected and noted.

I personally see very little difference between the pressing of a book to realign the spine so it presents "better" or pressing to remove ripples crinkles or non color breaking creases so it "presents" better. Both versions are "realizing the full potential" of the book.

 

Huge difference. One is an attempt to return the make the book appear more like it was when it was new. The other is an attempt to move defects to a less noticeable spot in the hopes of a better grade with the added bonus of making the comic look fugly/ less like its original state.

 

all forms of pressing are to make defects less noticeable: therefore changing the book from one state to another. My arguement is if it is done it is done and should be noted/ detected/ disclosed.

[nearmint]

Restoring a book in any way may as well be mutilating it to some people. To some it is not .

Pressing a book properly may be mutilating a book to some, while to others it's completely benign.

I would imagine what's going on with these books is heavily frowned upon form bothe pro and anti-pressers . Probably much the same way folding the book in half would be.

 

Hopefully the anti-pressing crowd does not see this as an "I told you so" to the pro pressing crowd and draw out the same old arguments, which will not change a thing. But, I'm already seeing signs of that, unfortunately.

 

It will be much better to recognize the fact that bad press jobs should be down graded and CGC should be more consistent with grading period. Had this book been graded more accurately with those factors in mind, it would have never received an upgrade and there would be no incintive to mutilate the books in this way.

 

 

What needs to happen is for any and all forms of pressing be detected and noted.

I personally see very little difference between the pressing of a book to realign the spine so it presents "better" or pressing to remove ripples crinkles or non color breaking creases so it "presents" better. Both versions are "realizing the full potential" of the book.

 

Really? I see a huge difference. One process screams "I've been pressed, and badly!" While the other is, more often than not, undetectable.

 

Therefore if the spine realignment was less detectable it would be ok?

 

If the realignment corrects a misaligned spine, I have no problem with it.

If the realignment creates a misaligned spine, I have a big problem with it.

Correctly aligned spines are the norm, so the former is harder to detect, while the latter is glaringly obvious.

[Artboy99]

 

Therefore if the spine realignment was less detectable it would be ok?

 

Any spine realignment significant enough to change a grade is glaringly obvious, so that's not even a question that needs to be pondered.

 

There are those books out there with huge re-alignment that look ugly, and there are those that may actually look / present exceptionally well as the degree of realignment done was less so.

[nearmint]

Restoring a book in any way may as well be mutilating it to some people. To some it is not .

Pressing a book properly may be mutilating a book to some, while to others it's completely benign.

I would imagine what's going on with these books is heavily frowned upon form bothe pro and anti-pressers . Probably much the same way folding the book in half would be.

 

Hopefully the anti-pressing crowd does not see this as an "I told you so" to the pro pressing crowd and draw out the same old arguments, which will not change a thing. But, I'm already seeing signs of that, unfortunately.

 

It will be much better to recognize the fact that bad press jobs should be down graded and CGC should be more consistent with grading period. Had this book been graded more accurately with those factors in mind, it would have never received an upgrade and there would be no incintive to mutilate the books in this way.

 

 

 

What needs to happen is for any and all forms of pressing be detected and noted.

I personally see very little difference between the pressing of a book to realign the spine so it presents "better" or pressing to remove ripples crinkles or non color breaking creases so it "presents" better. Both versions are "realizing the full potential" of the book.

 

Huge difference. One is an attempt to return the make the book appear more like it was when it was new. The other is an attempt to move defects to a less noticeable spot in the hopes of a better grade with the added bonus of making the comic look fugly/ less like its original state.

 

all forms of pressing are to make defects less noticeable: therefore changing the book from one state to another. My arguement is if it is done it is done and should be noted/ detected/ disclosed.

 

Again, bad press jobs are detectable, good ones are not. So how would you like them to be noted/detected/disclosed?

[Artboy99]

Restoring a book in any way may as well be mutilating it to some people. To some it is not .

Pressing a book properly may be mutilating a book to some, while to others it's completely benign.

I would imagine what's going on with these books is heavily frowned upon form bothe pro and anti-pressers . Probably much the same way folding the book in half would be.

 

Hopefully the anti-pressing crowd does not see this as an "I told you so" to the pro pressing crowd and draw out the same old arguments, which will not change a thing. But, I'm already seeing signs of that, unfortunately.

 

It will be much better to recognize the fact that bad press jobs should be down graded and CGC should be more consistent with grading period. Had this book been graded more accurately with those factors in mind, it would have never received an upgrade and there would be no incintive to mutilate the books in this way.

 

 

 

What needs to happen is for any and all forms of pressing be detected and noted.

I personally see very little difference between the pressing of a book to realign the spine so it presents "better" or pressing to remove ripples crinkles or non color breaking creases so it "presents" better. Both versions are "realizing the full potential" of the book.

 

Huge difference. One is an attempt to return the make the book appear more like it was when it was new. The other is an attempt to move defects to a less noticeable spot in the hopes of a better grade with the added bonus of making the comic look fugly/ less like its original state.

 

all forms of pressing are to make defects less noticeable: therefore changing the book from one state to another. My arguement is if it is done it is done and should be noted/ detected/ disclosed.

 

Again, bad press jobs are detectable, good ones are not. So how would you like them to be noted/detected/disclosed?

 

Well, therein lies the problem. There are those who will disclose, there are those that won't. There has to be a way of detecting. It is heat pressed, maybe is a method of detecting that and then it can be noted on CGC labels "pressed".

[Timmay]

Cert numbers pulled from current on ebay.

 

Notice the 10569XXXXX series.

 

25 books my azz.

 

serial number range and total for that invoice number

 

 

1056932001 1056932005 5

1056940001 1056940007 7

1056943001 1056943011 11

1056945001 1056945005 5

1056946001 1056946012 12

1056947001 1056947012 12

1056954001 1056954011 11

1056956001 1056956011 11

1056963001 1056963015 15

1056967001 1056967007 7

1056969001 1056969009 9

1056970001 1056970014 14

1056971001 1056971015 15

1056972001 1056972006 6

1056973001 1056973015 15

1134925001 1134925012 12

1134926001 1134926012 12

 

total 179