• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Action 1 in next Heritage sale with new CGC resto label

Started by AnkurJ,

146 posts in this topic

mrmyst

mrmyst

Posted
Posted
I don't believe the "stigma" on restored books will ever go away. At the end of the day these books, as good as they may look, are not an original, well preserved product, and therefore should have a sizable discount. This is not necessarily a bad thing as it makes these copies more accessible to a greater pool of buyers.

 

-J.

 

"Sizable" is relative. A book with a few dots of CT is 99% original. I'm not suggesting that it should command 99% of the value of its unrestored counterpart, but it's illogical to subtract 30%, 40%, etc. as a result of the 1% of the book that is restored.

 

When we reach that point, the collecting community is being effected more negatively by "stigma" than it is positively by the love for the books. For instance: if you have two GA books, both CGC 5.0's, one blue label, another purple label with a few dots of CT. The blue label is priced at $5,000 and the purple counterpart is priced at $3,500 -- a collector who opts for the blue label for 5K is saying that 30% of the value exists within the few dots of CT. They paid $1,500 to be without those dots.

 

I believe that one of the biggest reasons buyers pay accordingly is out of the fear of that PLOD stigma. They feel, and are at present -- often times correct, that the 5K blue label book is the better investment. Stigma-effected FMV prices exist, in many cases, not from an overwhelming dissatisfaction that comes from the 1% of the book that is unoriginal, but from the fear that such books are less desirable by "x-amount."

 

Of course, extensively restored books are an entirely different story -- if you're having half of a front cover replaced and a plethora of unoriginal parts added to the books. But sloppy trimming that does not improve the condition of the book and amateur CT that makes a cover look a little sloppy does not fall into that stratosphere.

 

Like Bob said before, I do not feel that blue label books are over-valued. But in many instances, it's completely illogical for a book to lose 30-40% of it's value as a result of the 1% of the book that was restored -- often times, not even improving the condition or appearance of the book and in many cases -- not even matching Merriam-Webster's definition of what "restoration" even is.

 

As the hobby matures and puts such things into perspective, I'm not sure how "sizable" the discounts will continue to be for books that fall into that aforementioned category.

 

 

hm

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bluechip

bluechip

Posted
Posted
I don't believe the "stigma" on restored books will ever go away. At the end of the day these books, as good as they may look, are not an original, well preserved product, and therefore should have a sizable discount. This is not necessarily a bad thing as it makes these copies more accessible to a greater pool of buyers.

 

-J.

 

"Sizable" is relative. A book with a few dots of CT is 99% original. I'm not suggesting that it should command 99% of the value of its unrestored counterpart, but it's illogical to subtract 30%, 40%, etc. as a result of the 1% of the book that is restored.

 

When we reach that point, the collecting community is being effected more negatively by "stigma" than it is positively by the love for the books. For instance: if you have two GA books, both CGC 5.0's, one blue label, another purple label with a few dots of CT. The blue label is priced at $5,000 and the purple counterpart is priced at $3,500 -- a collector who opts for the blue label for 5K is saying that 30% of the value exists within the few dots of CT. They paid $1,500 to be without those dots.

 

I believe that one of the biggest reasons buyers pay accordingly is out of the fear of that PLOD stigma. They feel, and are at present -- often times correct, that the 5K blue label book is the better investment. Stigma-effected FMV prices exist, in many cases, not from an overwhelming dissatisfaction that comes from the 1% of the book that is unoriginal, but from the fear that such books are less desirable by "x-amount."

 

Of course, extensively restored books are an entirely different story -- if you're having half of a front cover replaced and a plethora of unoriginal parts added to the books. But sloppy trimming that does not improve the condition of the book and amateur CT that makes a cover look a little sloppy does not fall into that stratosphere.

 

Like Bob said before, I do not feel that blue label books are over-valued. But in many instances, it's completely illogical for a book to lose 30-40% of it's value as a result of the 1% of the book that was restored -- often times, not even improving the condition or appearance of the book and in many cases -- not even matching Merriam-Webster's definition of what "restoration" even is.

 

As the hobby matures and puts such things into perspective, I'm not sure how "sizable" the discounts will continue to be for books that fall into that aforementioned category.

 

 

hm

 

These are good points.

It's perfectly logical that two books would be valued much differently when one is a "natural" VF and another is a poor that was turned into a VF. Those examples, I agree, will not converge in value.

 

But the market has skewed to value books with greater damage more than books with less damage, based on how the damage occurred.

 

A book with color touch on a corner has been valued less than a blue label book on which the same corner has no color touch because that same corner is MISSING from the book.

 

Similarly there are many examples of books with small amounts of unobtrusive color touch valued less than books with massive amounts of obtrusive writing on the cover -- even when the writing greatly defaces the book -- all because of valuing books based on the intent behind the writing, and favoring books which are thought to have writing that occurred with the intent of defacing the book.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wayne-Tec

Wayne-Tec

Posted
Posted
It's perfectly logical that two books would be valued much differently when one is a "natural" VF and another is a poor that was turned into a VF. Those examples, I agree, will not converge in value.[/b]

 

But the market has skewed to value books with greater damage more than books with less damage, based on how the damage occurred.

 

A book with color touch on a corner has been valued less than a blue label book on which the same corner has no color touch because that same corner is MISSING from the book.

 

Similarly there are many examples of books with small amounts of unobtrusive color touch valued less than books with massive amounts of obtrusive writing on the cover -- even when the writing greatly defaces the book -- all because of valuing books based on the intent behind the writing, and favoring books which are thought to have writing that occurred with the intent of defacing the book.

 

Take this as a for instance...

 

Lets say a blue label AF #15 is priced at 10K, but a copy in the same grade with an amateur edge trimmed (which doesn't improve the appearance in any way) and a dot of CT is priced at $6,500 -- a collector could either:

 

 

A) Buy the blue label for 10K or...

 

B) Buy the purple label for 6.5K and a blue label Hulk #1 for 3.5K.

 

**Lets assume the FMV here evens out.

 

 

The collector who spends 10K on the blue label is basically saying -- "I'd throw a blue label Hulk #1 in the trash if it would make the dot of CT and the trimmed edge of my AF #15 disappear. Or in other words, "Even though the AF #15 PLOD is 99% original, that 1% of restoration brings me more dissatisfaction then a complete, blue label Hulk #1 would bring me satisfaction."

 

Such illogical thinking isn't born of common sense. It's the reality of the weight PLOD stigma carries. I find it hard to believe that ten years down the road, the majority of collectors will still subscribe to this logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rjpb

rjpb

Posted
Posted

The discount for a PLOD understandably goes up with both the grade and the amount of work done. A 2.0 with a bit of glue or color touch will frequently sell more on eye-appeal than label, and shouldn't be discounted for minor work that is far less significant than the flaws that reduced it and any other book to a 2.0 in the first place, and I'm guessing that frequently this is the case. But in the upper grades when a small corner crease can drop a book from a 9.0 to an 8.0, and its FMV by 50%, then it's completely understandable that even the most minor of resto could do the same thing. Collectors don't pay huge premiums for relatively small improvements in grade if the grade is a result of or tainted by even the slightest restoration.

 

When one gets to the more objectionable resto like trimming, it's perfectly logical that someone would expect a decent discount even on a lower grade book. Arguing that it is illogical for a Marvel Key collector to consider the difference between a 3.5 Universal AF15 and a trimmed 3.5 to be a 2.0 Hulk #1s worth of satisfaction, is like arguing that it's illogical to consider the Universal 3.5 to be worth the same premium over a 2.5 copy. Grade, restoration, eye-appeal, pedigree, "freshness", venue, seller, slabbed or raw; these are all factors that collectors weigh when considering one copy over another ( assuming they have a choice) and at times lead to paying massive premiums for what in the abstract are very small differences in condition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wayne-Tec

Wayne-Tec

Posted
Posted
When one gets to the more objectionable resto like trimming, it's perfectly logical that someone would expect a decent discount even on a lower grade book. Arguing that it is illogical for a Marvel Key collector to consider the difference between a 3.5 Universal AF15 and a trimmed 3.5 to be a 2.0 Hulk #1s worth of satisfaction, is like arguing that it's illogical to consider the Universal 3.5 to be worth the same premium over a 2.5 copy. Grade, restoration, eye-appeal, pedigree, "freshness", venue, seller, slabbed or raw; these are all factors that collectors weigh when considering one copy over another ( assuming they have a choice) and at times lead to paying massive premiums for what in the abstract are very small differences in condition.

 

You make a good point about the marginal difference, condition-wise, between a 3.5 and a 2.5 -- even though there is an understandable premium attached to the higher graded copy.

 

But the difference between a 3.5 PLOD that is 99% original and a 2.5 that is 100% original is that the 3.5 PLOD is still that much better, condition-wise, than the 2.5.

 

Most would opt for the blue label 2.5 over the 3.5 PLOD that is 99% original. As I've said, I'm not advocating for a 99% original PLOD to be valued at a rate that is 99% of its blue label counterpart. But considering the reality that the 3.5 PLOD is as well preserved as its 3.5 blue label counterpart, it's not logical to pay 2.5 blue label money because of a dot of amateur ink.

 

That's akin saying that you'd rather have a 3.5 book bent and roughed up down to a 2.5 than let a sharpie drop a dab of ink on a fractional portion of the cover's surface area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jaybuck43

jaybuck43

Posted
Posted
When one gets to the more objectionable resto like trimming, it's perfectly logical that someone would expect a decent discount even on a lower grade book. Arguing that it is illogical for a Marvel Key collector to consider the difference between a 3.5 Universal AF15 and a trimmed 3.5 to be a 2.0 Hulk #1s worth of satisfaction, is like arguing that it's illogical to consider the Universal 3.5 to be worth the same premium over a 2.5 copy. Grade, restoration, eye-appeal, pedigree, "freshness", venue, seller, slabbed or raw; these are all factors that collectors weigh when considering one copy over another ( assuming they have a choice) and at times lead to paying massive premiums for what in the abstract are very small differences in condition.

 

You make a good point about the marginal difference, condition-wise, between a 3.5 and a 2.5 -- even though there is an understandable premium attached to the higher graded copy.

 

But the difference between a 3.5 PLOD that is 99% original and a 2.5 that is 100% original is that the 3.5 PLOD is still that much better, condition-wise, than the 2.5.

 

Most would opt for the blue label 2.5 over the 3.5 PLOD that is 99% original. As I've said, I'm not advocating for a 99% original PLOD to be valued at a rate that is 99% of its blue label counterpart. But considering the reality that the 3.5 PLOD is as well preserved as its 3.5 blue label counterpart, it's not logical to pay 2.5 blue label money because of a dot of amateur ink.

 

That's akin saying that you'd rather have a 3.5 book bent and roughed up down to a 2.5 than let a sharpie drop a dab of ink on a fractional portion of the cover's surface area.

Wayne, let's make it akin to cars instead of comics. Im a Mercedes dealer now. I have two amg's (150k car) both just came to me from the dealer. As they were taking one of the cars off the hitch the scraped the side, just a small scratch. I go and fill it in with aftermarket paint that looks 99.9% original. By law I have to tell you this when you come in and I'm charging the same price for both cars. Do you take the car with the scratch or the one without and why? Second question. I offer you both cars the regular one is full price and the repaired is 1%off because its 99% correct but one percent not. Which are you buying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wayne-Tec

Wayne-Tec

Posted
Posted
When one gets to the more objectionable resto like trimming, it's perfectly logical that someone would expect a decent discount even on a lower grade book. Arguing that it is illogical for a Marvel Key collector to consider the difference between a 3.5 Universal AF15 and a trimmed 3.5 to be a 2.0 Hulk #1s worth of satisfaction, is like arguing that it's illogical to consider the Universal 3.5 to be worth the same premium over a 2.5 copy. Grade, restoration, eye-appeal, pedigree, "freshness", venue, seller, slabbed or raw; these are all factors that collectors weigh when considering one copy over another ( assuming they have a choice) and at times lead to paying massive premiums for what in the abstract are very small differences in condition.

 

You make a good point about the marginal difference, condition-wise, between a 3.5 and a 2.5 -- even though there is an understandable premium attached to the higher graded copy.

 

But the difference between a 3.5 PLOD that is 99% original and a 2.5 that is 100% original is that the 3.5 PLOD is still that much better, condition-wise, than the 2.5.

 

Most would opt for the blue label 2.5 over the 3.5 PLOD that is 99% original. As I've said, I'm not advocating for a 99% original PLOD to be valued at a rate that is 99% of its blue label counterpart. But considering the reality that the 3.5 PLOD is as well preserved as its 3.5 blue label counterpart, it's not logical to pay 2.5 blue label money because of a dot of amateur ink.

 

That's akin saying that you'd rather have a 3.5 book bent and roughed up down to a 2.5 than let a sharpie drop a dab of ink on a fractional portion of the cover's surface area.

Wayne, let's make it akin to cars instead of comics. Im a Mercedes dealer now. I have two amg's (150k car) both just came to me from the dealer. As they were taking one of the cars off the hitch the scraped the side, just a small scratch. I go and fill it in with aftermarket paint that looks 99.9% original. By law I have to tell you this when you come in and I'm charging the same price for both cars. Do you take the car with the scratch or the one without and why? Second question. I offer you both cars the regular one is full price and the repaired is 1%off because its 99% correct but one percent not. Which are you buying?

 

I said in my previous post that I'm not advocating for a 99% original PLOD to be valued at 99% of it's blue label counterpart. So we can't go by the above mentioned analogy.

 

But if the car with the scratch repair was discounted by an entire 30-40% (dropping the price by $45,000-$60,000 because of it) as many 99% original PLODs are, that too would be illogical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rjpb

rjpb

Posted
Posted

Nice copy, looks even better than 7.0 and resto is minimal. I would still imagine that collectors would rather have an unrestored 6.0, but I could see this being more desirable than your average unrestored 4.0. I have no idea what current FMV is for these grades, but I'd imagine this to sell for somewhere in between in a logical world, but you never know with restored books. The price differentials are far more volatile than with blue labels.

 

 

One of the most insane prices I've seen on a Heritage auction was a restored Superman #11 2.5 that sold for about 3X what an unrestored copy usually goes for, but then you'll see another auction where a 4.0 (SP) comic sells for less than half what one would expect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nearmint

nearmint

Posted
Posted
What was this book pre restoe?

6.0?

heck even 6.5?

 

how much will it be discounted?

 

probably 50% or 60%

 

book is the HA 7.0 slight

 

Link:

 

http://comics.ha.com/itm/golden-age-1938-1955-/batman-1-dc-1940-cgc-apparent-fn-vf-70-slight-p-off-white-to-white-pages/p/7097-33122.s

 

 

Nice book. I doubt it was a 6.0 or 6.5. A wet cleaning, color touch, and reinforcing the cover can cure a lot of ills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
G.A.tor

G.A.tor

Posted
Posted
Gator was it you or filter who had the tec 31 purple label at nycc last year?

I think we sold it

 

Gator, do you refer to yourself in the plural? We enjoy doing that

He mentioned us and filter. Since I think "we"'co owned it, "we" would have sold it. I believe proper pronoun usage :headbang:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing