Action Comics #2 CGC 9.4

[cheetah]

Isn't the whole point of the restored market to give greater access to books that would normally be out of reach for those who do not mind restored?

 

-J.

There is no restored market. There is a comic book market. There are restored comic books books. The point of restoration is to make ugly books more presentable. When disclosed and labeled it really doesn't have anything to do with price. All of the talk about restoration vs. price in this thread seems to be in direct correlation to the views of collectors who tend to poo poo on books with restoration because they don't view those books as worthy of being in their collections. Those same collectors generally also do not collect low grade books, yet they don't come on and rag on those books because of the defects. In this case the book is clearly labeled as to what has been done to it. So why is it even a discussion? The comic market will decide its value, not the restored market...or the conserved market...or any other subset which is looked on as inferior by the high grade collecting purists who love to bash restoration.

 

I never know to whom these broad statements are directed towards so I will chime in like it was directed at me.

 

I don't really care what the book goes for, who buys it, or how rare it is. I don't collect DCs and never will. I'm more concerned about CGC calling cover cleaning 'restoration' without stating how the cover was cleaned in the first place. Tear seals, de-acidification and things like that are clearly conservation. Placing a book in a tub of clorox to make the cover whiter is clearly NOT conservation.

 

I am struggling to understand what kind of cover cleaning warrants mention on the label of a brilliantly white 9.4, that could have saved the book from further degradation when it doesn't look degraded at all. My concern is that it was pushed into a conserved label for monetary reasons and not for technical reasons. I don't like the perception that things that are bad for books, like chemical cleaning, are now being touted as conservation, when they are clearly not.

[Jaydogrules]

Isn't the whole point of the restored market to give greater access to books that would normally be out of reach for those who do not mind restored?

 

-J.

There is no restored market. There is a comic book market. There are restored comic books books. The point of restoration is to make ugly books more presentable. When disclosed and labeled it really doesn't have anything to do with price. All of the talk about restoration vs. price in this thread seems to be in direct correlation to the views of collectors who tend to poo poo on books with restoration because they don't view those books as worthy of being in their collections. Those same collectors generally also do not collect low grade books, yet they don't come on and rag on those books because of the defects. In this case the book is clearly labeled as to what has been done to it. So why is it even a discussion? The comic market will decide its value, not the restored market...or the conserved market...or any other subset which is looked on as inferior by the high grade collecting purists who love to bash restoration.

 

Your post presumes quite a lot. The main problem is that you do not recognize that there can exist more than one sub-set of "markets" within a hobby. There are some collectors who only collect restored comics because they are less expensive. There are some people who collect low grade comics because they don't like restored, but also because they are less expensive. There are some people who collect signature series books because they are into that. And of course there are those who have the deepest pockets to demand the highest graded copy possible, regardless of the book.

 

Do you really think that the majority of the people that are "restoration bashing" are a part of the latter group ? And what exactly is "restoration bashing" about someone lamenting that a book has been manipulated and wondering what might have been had the book simply been left alone ? Because I think that's really what we are talking about here- leaving the book alone. Regardless of what time has done prior to coming into our hands, we are only temporary custodians of these artifacts. So leave the book alone. Okay so little Johnny wrote his name on the cover 60 years ago, that wasn't originally part of the book. But it is how it was when you got it. So leave it alone. Now we're talking about a book that got a chemical bath at some point in its existence, and that's how it will be when the new owner takes possession. That's not his fault, he didn't do it to the book. So he'll get a big discount off the book than he otherwise would have and he will have a really nice looking restored comic book. But why then hate the larger market for not co-signing the work that was done to this book to "make it look better" and get angry and defensive that your book isn't "worth as much" as an "ugly" book that is perhaps lower grade but never treated with chemicals to make it "look pretty" ? You got the book you wanted at a great price, shouldn't that be enough?

 

People are free to buy whatever you want, and you're right, people will decide with their wallets. There will just be much less wallets doing the decision making, because the restored market is small compared to the "un restored" market. My 2 cents.

 

-J.

You presume that I haven't been selling comics as my profession for more than thirty years.

I have never met anyone who only collects restored comics. I have never met anyone who only collects low grade. But everyone I have met in this hobby is subject to some kind of budget restraint and collects within the parameters of what they can afford. Therefore some or most of their purchases may be restored or low grade. But all of that is beside the point.

 

What we are talking about is given the choice what would you prefer...a completely untouched ugly, stained, and/or damaged book or a book that has been cleaned or repaired? You are from the camp that says never under any circumstances mess with the paper. I respect that. I also disagree with it. There are many instances where I would prefer that the paper was messed with.

 

It has nothing to do with value to me, other than the aesthetic value of the look of the book.

 

I respect all opinions and collections on these boards. I have also noticed that a friendly debate is often less about changing minds and more about reinforcing opinions we already have. (thumbs u

 

-J.

[woowoo]

When i had my books restored late 70s early 80s it was to increase the value . and it did for me and others.

The 80s it would sell for double what a unrestored was going for.

 

Now this was with all the dealers i new back than.

 

Action 1 or Tec 27 did not break the 50gs. I passed on a copy of Action 1 in Hayward ca con the guy wanted 3 grand and it was ok copy with tape falling off spine.

I had talked to E gerber and bought his Tec 27 Fair to good for 1300.

 

I had book restored for 350 and could have sold it for 3500 but i had a copy of 1 and 3 and Tec 28-29-33-34- and Bat 1 3 copys unrestored till i got to them.

 

Restoration was ok with a lot of people. The only guy who did not want Resto was The Doctor Dave.

I told him i just got a copy. and he said he got a nmint 1 never sunk in who he was or that the book was nm.

We learn from our mistakes it just took to long for me

[Red_Hood]

I just got in a collection of big logo golden age DC. Most are mid-grade with very nice paper but many have a sticker with the original owners name stuck right in the middle of the cover, right in the middle of the art. Purists would say "leave the sticker there.It has historical significance. It is the way it is and should remain for eternity!" Unfortunately most of those same purists wouldn't want these books because they have a big sticker in the middle of the cover. If the stickers were properly removed the books would be much more presentable and desirable to a vast majority of collectors. Properly removing the stickers would involve using chemicals. They would be restored. In this perverse market they would be considered to have a lower value being restored even though more people would consider buying them without the sticker than with. It just doesn't make much sense.

 

I'm not a purist, get out your scissors and cut out those pesky original owner stickers. Who cares about provenance and history.

[Silver Surfer]

Isn't the whole point of the restored market to give greater access to books that would normally be out of reach for those who do not mind restored?

 

-J.

There is no restored market. There is a comic book market. There are restored comic books books. The point of restoration is to make ugly books more presentable. When disclosed and labeled it really doesn't have anything to do with price. All of the talk about restoration vs. price in this thread seems to be in direct correlation to the views of collectors who tend to poo poo on books with restoration because they don't view those books as worthy of being in their collections. Those same collectors generally also do not collect low grade books, yet they don't come on and rag on those books because of the defects. In this case the book is clearly labeled as to what has been done to it. So why is it even a discussion? The comic market will decide its value, not the restored market...or the conserved market...or any other subset which is looked on as inferior by the high grade collecting purists who love to bash restoration.

 

I never know to whom these broad statements are directed towards so I will chime in like it was directed at me.

 

I don't really care what the book goes for, who buys it, or how rare it is. I don't collect DCs and never will. I'm more concerned about CGC calling cover cleaning 'restoration' without stating how the cover was cleaned in the first place. Tear seals, de-acidification and things like that are clearly conservation. Placing a book in a tub of clorox to make the cover whiter is clearly NOT conservation.

 

I am struggling to understand what kind of cover cleaning warrants mention on the label of a brilliantly white 9.4, that could have saved the book from further degradation when it doesn't look degraded at all. My concern is that it was pushed into a conserved label for monetary reasons and not for technical reasons. I don't like the perception that things that are bad for books, like chemical cleaning, are now being touted as conservation, when they are clearly not.

 

I don't think his comments were directed at you but you do bring up a good point [re: chemical bath]. However, I believe Richard reads his books in the bathroom so perhaps a bit of clorox every now and then is good for all involved.

 

Obviously completely unrestored would be the best case scenario but you could wait 30 years and never see a high grade copy of this issue come to market so owning this book wouldn't be such a bad thing.

[MrBedrock]

Isn't the whole point of the restored market to give greater access to books that would normally be out of reach for those who do not mind restored?

 

-J.

There is no restored market. There is a comic book market. There are restored comic books books. The point of restoration is to make ugly books more presentable. When disclosed and labeled it really doesn't have anything to do with price. All of the talk about restoration vs. price in this thread seems to be in direct correlation to the views of collectors who tend to poo poo on books with restoration because they don't view those books as worthy of being in their collections. Those same collectors generally also do not collect low grade books, yet they don't come on and rag on those books because of the defects. In this case the book is clearly labeled as to what has been done to it. So why is it even a discussion? The comic market will decide its value, not the restored market...or the conserved market...or any other subset which is looked on as inferior by the high grade collecting purists who love to bash restoration.

 

I never know to whom these broad statements are directed towards so I will chime in like it was directed at me.

 

I don't really care what the book goes for, who buys it, or how rare it is. I don't collect DCs and never will. I'm more concerned about CGC calling cover cleaning 'restoration' without stating how the cover was cleaned in the first place. Tear seals, de-acidification and things like that are clearly conservation. Placing a book in a tub of clorox to make the cover whiter is clearly NOT conservation.

 

I am struggling to understand what kind of cover cleaning warrants mention on the label of a brilliantly white 9.4, that could have saved the book from further degradation when it doesn't look degraded at all. My concern is that it was pushed into a conserved label for monetary reasons and not for technical reasons. I don't like the perception that things that are bad for books, like chemical cleaning, are now being touted as conservation, when they are clearly not.

Jeff,

I think your post really gets to the crux of the issue. I believe that CGC's reason for putting the book in a conserved label is simply because, other than the cleaning, no work was done which added to or removed any physical elements of the book. In general the conserved label will not comment at all on the type of cleaning as far as I know.

 

I am curious about the perception that chemical cleaning is bad for paper over the long term. I'm not saying it isn't, or is. I really do not know. I do know that bleaching is bad for the simple reason that it leaves the paper looking unnatural. It can also be used to cover the presence of brittle paper from the eye test. But once you feel the paper you quickly realize that the brittleness is still there. But I have never really seen any proof that all chemical cleanings are bad for paper. What if some particular chemicals or combinations being used by restorers and conservators are actually non harmful to the paper in either the short term or the long term? Again, I don't have any clue whether there are any safe wet cleaning methods or if all of them can cause problems. If they are all harmful to the paper then placing them in a conserved label is incorrect. But if there are any methods that are safe then maybe the perception the hobby has towards them (that they are all bad) needs to be changed.

[bluechip]

Isn't the whole point of the restored market to give greater access to books that would normally be out of reach for those who do not mind restored?

 

-J.

There is no restored market. There is a comic book market. There are restored comic books books. The point of restoration is to make ugly books more presentable. When disclosed and labeled it really doesn't have anything to do with price. All of the talk about restoration vs. price in this thread seems to be in direct correlation to the views of collectors who tend to poo poo on books with restoration because they don't view those books as worthy of being in their collections. Those same collectors generally also do not collect low grade books, yet they don't come on and rag on those books because of the defects. In this case the book is clearly labeled as to what has been done to it. So why is it even a discussion? The comic market will decide its value, not the restored market...or the conserved market...or any other subset which is looked on as inferior by the high grade collecting purists who love to bash restoration.

 

I never know to whom these broad statements are directed towards so I will chime in like it was directed at me.

 

I don't really care what the book goes for, who buys it, or how rare it is. I don't collect DCs and never will. I'm more concerned about CGC calling cover cleaning 'restoration' without stating how the cover was cleaned in the first place. Tear seals, de-acidification and things like that are clearly conservation. Placing a book in a tub of clorox to make the cover whiter is clearly NOT conservation.

 

I am struggling to understand what kind of cover cleaning warrants mention on the label of a brilliantly white 9.4, that could have saved the book from further degradation when it doesn't look degraded at all. My concern is that it was pushed into a conserved label for monetary reasons and not for technical reasons. I don't like the perception that things that are bad for books, like chemical cleaning, are now being touted as conservation, when they are clearly not.

Jeff,

I think your post really gets to the crux of the issue. I believe that CGC's reason for putting the book in a conserved label is simply because, other than the cleaning, no work was done which added to or removed any physical elements of the book. In general the conserved label will not comment at all on the type of cleaning as far as I know.

 

I am curious about the perception that chemical cleaning is bad for paper over the long term. I'm not saying it isn't, or is. I really do not know. I do know that bleaching is bad for the simple reason that it leaves the paper looking unnatural. It can also be used to cover the presence of brittle paper from the eye test. But once you feel the paper you quickly realize that the brittleness is still there. But I have never really seen any proof that all chemical cleanings are bad for paper. What if some particular chemicals or combinations being used by restorers and conservators are actually non harmful to the paper in either the short term or the long term? Again, I don't have any clue whether there are any safe wet cleaning methods or if all of them can cause problems. If they are all harmful to the paper then placing them in a conserved label is incorrect. But if there are any methods that are safe then maybe the perception the hobby has towards them (that they are all bad) needs to be changed.

 

Good points.

 

And I would add that there need be no confusion about what was done if the label uses words instead of colors.

 

Why use the word "cleaned" and then presume or expect the buyer will know that "cleaned" means one thing in a blue label, something else in a "conserved" purple label and then yet another thing in a "restored" purple label.

 

Why not just use words that say "dry cleaned" or "water cleaned" or "solvent cleaned"?

 

Same question regarding words like "color touch" and "glue" when the same words appear on blue labels and purple labels (sometimes the same book getting a blue label one time and then a purple label another time).

 

If one has more than the other, then words describing the amount of it do a much better service to the buyer than a colored label which is then supposed to mean that the level in one book is okay whereas in the other it means the book is "desecrated" -- or just supposed to be cheaper. Even if it made sense for a grading company to say one book is "okay" while another is "not okay" because that made some books cheaper and that it was somehow a legitimate service of a grading company to make some books cheaper, it is, as mentioned before, utterly and absolutely impossible to draw that line fairly, consistently, without favor or disfavor, and without any possible appearance of a lack of one or more of those things.

 

 

[cheetah]

Isn't the whole point of the restored market to give greater access to books that would normally be out of reach for those who do not mind restored?

 

-J.

There is no restored market. There is a comic book market. There are restored comic books books. The point of restoration is to make ugly books more presentable. When disclosed and labeled it really doesn't have anything to do with price. All of the talk about restoration vs. price in this thread seems to be in direct correlation to the views of collectors who tend to poo poo on books with restoration because they don't view those books as worthy of being in their collections. Those same collectors generally also do not collect low grade books, yet they don't come on and rag on those books because of the defects. In this case the book is clearly labeled as to what has been done to it. So why is it even a discussion? The comic market will decide its value, not the restored market...or the conserved market...or any other subset which is looked on as inferior by the high grade collecting purists who love to bash restoration.

 

I never know to whom these broad statements are directed towards so I will chime in like it was directed at me.

 

I don't really care what the book goes for, who buys it, or how rare it is. I don't collect DCs and never will. I'm more concerned about CGC calling cover cleaning 'restoration' without stating how the cover was cleaned in the first place. Tear seals, de-acidification and things like that are clearly conservation. Placing a book in a tub of clorox to make the cover whiter is clearly NOT conservation.

 

I am struggling to understand what kind of cover cleaning warrants mention on the label of a brilliantly white 9.4, that could have saved the book from further degradation when it doesn't look degraded at all. My concern is that it was pushed into a conserved label for monetary reasons and not for technical reasons. I don't like the perception that things that are bad for books, like chemical cleaning, are now being touted as conservation, when they are clearly not.

Jeff,

I think your post really gets to the crux of the issue. I believe that CGC's reason for putting the book in a conserved label is simply because, other than the cleaning, no work was done which added to or removed any physical elements of the book. In general the conserved label will not comment at all on the type of cleaning as far as I know.

 

I am curious about the perception that chemical cleaning is bad for paper over the long term. I'm not saying it isn't, or is. I really do not know. I do know that bleaching is bad for the simple reason that it leaves the paper looking unnatural. It can also be used to cover the presence of brittle paper from the eye test. But once you feel the paper you quickly realize that the brittleness is still there. But I have never really seen any proof that all chemical cleanings are bad for paper. What if some particular chemicals or combinations being used by restorers and conservators are actually non harmful to the paper in either the short term or the long term? Again, I don't have any clue whether there are any safe wet cleaning methods or if all of them can cause problems. If they are all harmful to the paper then placing them in a conserved label is incorrect. But if there are any methods that are safe then maybe the perception the hobby has towards them (that they are all bad) needs to be changed.

 

Good points.

 

And I would add that there need be no confusion about what was done if the label uses words instead of colors.

 

Why use the word "cleaned" and then presume or expect the buyer will know that "cleaned" means one thing in a blue label, something else in a "conserved" purple label and then yet another thing in a "restored" purple label.

 

Why not just use words that say "dry cleaned" or "water cleaned" or "solvent cleaned"?

 

Same question regarding words like "color touch" and "glue" when the same words appear on blue labels and purple labels (sometimes the same book getting a blue label one time and then a purple label another time).

 

If one has more than the other, then words describing the amount of it do a much better service to the buyer than a colored label which is then supposed to mean that the level in one book is okay whereas in the other it means the book is "desecrated" -- or just supposed to be cheaper. Even if it made sense for a grading company to say one book is "okay" while another is "not okay" because that made some books cheaper and that it was somehow a legitimate service of a grading company to make some books cheaper, it is, as mentioned before, utterly and absolutely impossible to draw that line fairly, consistently, without favor or disfavor, and without any possible appearance of a lack of one or more of those things.

 

 

Ultimately, you've reached the thing that bothers me the most. CGC has gone to great lengths to describe restoration and conservation, yet here, with a possible six-figure book, they provide a description that could mean anything froma a few swips with a piece of Wonder Bread to a thorough soaking in chlorine bleach. Why in the hell would they do something so assinine with a book when there are so many dollar signs attached to it? It is always either incompetance or money. Unfortunately, CGC has demonstrated both of these tendencies over the years and I wonder if someone is going to be left holding a $100,000 book that turns brown and brittle in10 years.

 

[woowoo]

I dont think they know 100% how it was cleaned.Who knows what chemicals was used to the paper in 1938 ?.Who knows what chemicals was on the ink used in 1938 ?

Back then they used tons of things not knowing what long term ill would happen.

Bedrock said it best who knows what was done? I know that we dont seem to know anymore than CGC or they would have said it.

[Mmehdy]

The book is RESTORED.....or Conserved ....or cooked or tweeted or whatever....eliminate the COLOR of the label for God's sake....

[cheetah]

I dont think they know 100% how it was cleaned.Who knows what chemicals was used to the paper in 1938 ?.Who knows what chemicals was on the ink used in 1938 ?

Back then they used tons of things not knowing what long term ill would happen.

Bedrock said it best who knows what was done? I know that we dont seem to know anymore than CGC or they would have said it.

 

Then why is it labeled as conserved?

[tth2]

Isn't the whole point of the restored market to give greater access to books that would normally be out of reach for those who do not mind restored?

 

-J.

There is no restored market. There is a comic book market. There are restored comic books books. The point of restoration is to make ugly books more presentable. When disclosed and labeled it really doesn't have anything to do with price. All of the talk about restoration vs. price in this thread seems to be in direct correlation to the views of collectors who tend to poo poo on books with restoration because they don't view those books as worthy of being in their collections. Those same collectors generally also do not collect low grade books, yet they don't come on and rag on those books because of the defects. In this case the book is clearly labeled as to what has been done to it. So why is it even a discussion? The comic market will decide its value, not the restored market...or the conserved market...or any other subset which is looked on as inferior by the high grade collecting purists who love to bash restoration.

 

I never know to whom these broad statements are directed towards so I will chime in like it was directed at me.

Nah, pretty sure Richard's comments were directed at me.

 

Truth is, I would never have even looked into this thread if it hadn't been misleadingly titled "CGC 9.4" with no indication that it wasn't a "real" 9.4, leading me to believe that a miraculous find had been made.

 

I rag on restored/conserved/whatever books because someone made a conscious decision at some point to restore/conserve/whatever the book, which I don't agree with. I don't rag on low grade books because by and large the defects that make them low grade were just happenstance, and not a deliberate decision to try to make the book into something that it's not.

[woowoo]

I dont think they know 100% how it was cleaned.Who knows what chemicals was used to the paper in 1938 ?.Who knows what chemicals was on the ink used in 1938 ?

Back then they used tons of things not knowing what long term ill would happen.

Bedrock said it best who knows what was done? I know that we dont seem to know anymore than CGC or they would have said it.

 

Then why is it labeled as conserved?

 

Have NO idea and dont know anyone who does 100% thats what this is all A

[comicdonna]

I dont think they know 100% how it was cleaned.Who knows what chemicals was used to the paper in 1938 ?.Who knows what chemicals was on the ink used in 1938 ?

Back then they used tons of things not knowing what long term ill would happen.

Bedrock said it best who knows what was done? I know that we dont seem to know anymore than CGC or they would have said it.

 

A few questions

 

Would CGC say how it was cleaned on the label?

Has it been confirmed whether the cleaning was done recently or long ago?

Has anyone asked for graders notes?

Are notes available from the resto lab, for conserved books?

[hhwolfman]

Isn't the whole point of the restored market to give greater access to books that would normally be out of reach for those who do not mind restored?

 

-J.

There is no restored market. There is a comic book market. There are restored comic books books. The point of restoration is to make ugly books more presentable. When disclosed and labeled it really doesn't have anything to do with price. All of the talk about restoration vs. price in this thread seems to be in direct correlation to the views of collectors who tend to poo poo on books with restoration because they don't view those books as worthy of being in their collections. Those same collectors generally also do not collect low grade books, yet they don't come on and rag on those books because of the defects. In this case the book is clearly labeled as to what has been done to it. So why is it even a discussion? The comic market will decide its value, not the restored market...or the conserved market...or any other subset which is looked on as inferior by the high grade collecting purists who love to bash restoration.

 

I never know to whom these broad statements are directed towards so I will chime in like it was directed at me.

 

I don't really care what the book goes for, who buys it, or how rare it is. I don't collect DCs and never will. I'm more concerned about CGC calling cover cleaning 'restoration' without stating how the cover was cleaned in the first place. Tear seals, de-acidification and things like that are clearly conservation. Placing a book in a tub of clorox to make the cover whiter is clearly NOT conservation.

 

I am struggling to understand what kind of cover cleaning warrants mention on the label of a brilliantly white 9.4, that could have saved the book from further degradation when it doesn't look degraded at all. My concern is that it was pushed into a conserved label for monetary reasons and not for technical reasons. I don't like the perception that things that are bad for books, like chemical cleaning, are now being touted as conservation, when they are clearly not.

Jeff,

I think your post really gets to the crux of the issue. I believe that CGC's reason for putting the book in a conserved label is simply because, other than the cleaning, no work was done which added to or removed any physical elements of the book. In general the conserved label will not comment at all on the type of cleaning as far as I know.

 

I am curious about the perception that chemical cleaning is bad for paper over the long term. I'm not saying it isn't, or is. I really do not know. I do know that bleaching is bad for the simple reason that it leaves the paper looking unnatural. It can also be used to cover the presence of brittle paper from the eye test. But once you feel the paper you quickly realize that the brittleness is still there. But I have never really seen any proof that all chemical cleanings are bad for paper. What if some particular chemicals or combinations being used by restorers and conservators are actually non harmful to the paper in either the short term or the long term? Again, I don't have any clue whether there are any safe wet cleaning methods or if all of them can cause problems. If they are all harmful to the paper then placing them in a conserved label is incorrect. But if there are any methods that are safe then maybe the perception the hobby has towards them (that they are all bad) needs to be changed.

 

Good points.

 

And I would add that there need be no confusion about what was done if the label uses words instead of colors.

 

Why use the word "cleaned" and then presume or expect the buyer will know that "cleaned" means one thing in a blue label, something else in a "conserved" purple label and then yet another thing in a "restored" purple label.

 

Why not just use words that say "dry cleaned" or "water cleaned" or "solvent cleaned"?

 

Same question regarding words like "color touch" and "glue" when the same words appear on blue labels and purple labels (sometimes the same book getting a blue label one time and then a purple label another time).

 

If one has more than the other, then words describing the amount of it do a much better service to the buyer than a colored label which is then supposed to mean that the level in one book is okay whereas in the other it means the book is "desecrated" -- or just supposed to be cheaper. Even if it made sense for a grading company to say one book is "okay" while another is "not okay" because that made some books cheaper and that it was somehow a legitimate service of a grading company to make some books cheaper, it is, as mentioned before, utterly and absolutely impossible to draw that line fairly, consistently, without favor or disfavor, and without any possible appearance of a lack of one or more of those things.

 

 

Ultimately, you've reached the thing that bothers me the most. CGC has gone to great lengths to describe restoration and conservation, yet here, with a possible six-figure book, they provide a description that could mean anything froma a few swips with a piece of Wonder Bread to a thorough soaking in chlorine bleach. Why in the hell would they do something so assinine with a book when there are so many dollar signs attached to it? It is always either incompetance or money. Unfortunately, CGC has demonstrated both of these tendencies over the years and I wonder if someone is going to be left holding a $100,000 book that turns brown and brittle in10 years.

 

There have been books that have been chemically cleaned over 30 years ago. Maybe a peak at these could give some insight. I know that the Recil Macon Sensation #1 was cleaned a pressed by Susan. I lost track of who has it, but that would be a good example.

[G.A.tor]

I see this book going between $350k to $400k

um. No. Not even close

(Re action 13 in 8.0)

 

If referring to the action 2 low 6 figs is probable

[MrBedrock]

I see this book going between $350k to $400k

um. No. Not even close

(Re action 13 in 8.0)

 

Wow Gator. Do you really think it could go for a ton more than $400K? What, like a million?

[comicdonna]

[ciorac]

Cleaning the cover does not actually or necessarily "conserve" anything, but it has indeed "restored" it to a more pristine state. Comic books are not one of a kind paintings on canvas by great masters. They are mass produced, disposable items, regardless of how old they are. They are more like antiques and will always be far more desirable and pricey the closer they are naturally to their original state as possible. This is not a knock against this book, but it has been bidding or remain on the sideline altogether.

 

-J.

(thumbs u

"They are more like antiques and will always be far more desirable and pricey the closer they are naturally to their original state as possible."

restored, and while CGC has clearly tried to do it a favor by dropping it into this holder with this kind of label, it is still a restored book nonetheless, and the price will reflect that, as many potential suitors will choose to temper their

 

Their natural original state did not include soiling on the cover, or staining, or buggers, or any other foreign substance. Seems to me by this logic a well executed wet cleaning which returns the cover to its natural original state should increase value.

 

Nope. The books that survived all these things are worth more. Making books that didn't, look like they did, is restoration. They are worth less.

Why? Which would be more aesthetically pleasing, and thus desirable...a cover with stains, dirt and scribbles...or the same book with the cover cleaned and presentable? Obviously either of those would be worth less than a copy that never had any of those problems. But why is a book that has had those problems cleaned off worth less than a copy that still has them, especially given that having them cleaned off creates a much more presentable copy? That, to me, is one of the great conundrums of the current marketplace, and ultimately one area where I predict there will be drastic changes in perception over the coming years.

 

Excellent post. I agree with your prediction

[ciorac]

The biggest reason why I like to collect GA is to own something that is old and rare. Something that has survived time. If a book was soiled at some point, chances are, that copy isn't the right book for my collection. If it was the only copy that existed, I would want to buy it soiled, not cleaned. I'm not the only person who feels this way. That's why this book won't sell for full 9.4 value.

You know I also collect high grade books and therefore prefer books that have never had any damage. The reason I collect high grade is for the look. I want something that looks as close to newsstand fresh as possible. Mile Highs, Allentowns, Spokanes, those books have been handled very little and have colors that pop. I love them for the way they look. It isn't primarily about value for me, other than the inherent value I derive from looking at a beautiful book.

 

Since the eye appeal of the book is so important to me I would much prefer a book that had a clean cover than a book that was all stained and dirty if I had to make that choice.

 

Give me your cleaned, your scribbled on, your restored and huddled masses. I like COMICS! Plain and simple folks