Superman 14 - To Conserve or Leave it Alone?

[Red84]

Hi Everyone,

I recently purchased a Superman 14 and I am torn (pun intended) on what to do with it. The books visually looks like a 7.0+; however, the cover is detached and split in two pieces. Should I leave the book as is or have the book conserved (spine split sealed and cover re-attached)?

Thanks

 

 

Rest of pictures in spoilers

 

 

 

[piper]

I would conserve it.

[faster friends]

I would conserve it.

 

+1

 

If you don't go with a full restoration then this is a cheap fix to just have the spine repaired.

[Jaydogrules]

I must diverge from the prior two boardies ' opinions (as well respected as they rightfully are) and say leave it alone.

 

You will enjoy the book much better in a blue holder, and a nice presenting book like that in a blue holder will command a sizable premium over other copies in grade and certainly over a restored one.

 

Meanwhile a restored book ("conserved", whatever, same diff) will turn off more prospective buyers in the future. My 2 cents.

 

-J.

[faster friends]

I don't think he said anything about having it encapsulated?

[rjpb]

Because I am lazy, if I owned it I'd probably leave it alone, snug in a mylar. But it seems the ideal resto/conservation candidate. I think it would also increase resale potential. A restored midgrade will generally sell for more than a book in pieces, regardless of the eye-appeal.

[Sauce Dog]

Personally I would get it conserved, in order to prevent any future damage (such as more pieces chipping off the ripped areas or possibly folding/bending). Conservation in this case is reversible if done by a professional. This will allow you to actually read the book without risking more damage if you plan to keep it raw.

 

If you plan to get it encapsulated then I still recommend conservation as if you plan to sell it the grade will most certainly be higher than a universal (and cover detatch / completly split is one of the worst label notations IMHO) also people who are in the market for GA books should know the difference between conservation and restoration (and thusly recognize the true value of a book).

[Hero Restoration]

Maybe this will help you decide.

 

[Jaydogrules]

Personally I would get it conserved, in order to prevent any future damage (such as more pieces chipping off the ripped areas or possibly folding/bending). Conservation in this case is reversible if done by a professional. This will allow you to actually read the book without risking more damage if you plan to keep it raw.

 

If you plan to get it encapsulated then I still recommend conservation as if you plan to sell it the grade will most certainly be higher than a universal (and cover detatch / completly split is one of the worst label notations IMHO) also people who are in the market for GA books should know the difference between conservation and restoration (and thusly recognize the true value of a book).

 

What's the difference?

 

-J.

[Sauce Dog]

Personally I would get it conserved, in order to prevent any future damage (such as more pieces chipping off the ripped areas or possibly folding/bending). Conservation in this case is reversible if done by a professional. This will allow you to actually read the book without risking more damage if you plan to keep it raw.

 

If you plan to get it encapsulated then I still recommend conservation as if you plan to sell it the grade will most certainly be higher than a universal (and cover detatch / completly split is one of the worst label notations IMHO) also people who are in the market for GA books should know the difference between conservation and restoration (and thusly recognize the true value of a book).

 

What's the difference?

 

-J.

 

"Conservators work to physically save our works of art from the ravages of time, the threats of pollution, and the devastation of natural disasters. A conservator can achieve this by carrying out treatments on an object such as cleaning, stabilization, or compensation for loss. Preventive conservation emphasizes proper handling, storage, exhibition, transportation, and packing techniques. (Such as correcting the papers acidity levels, stopping tiny rips & tears from growing in size over time due to stress, colour loss, parts flaking off, staple rusting...)

 

Restoration, on the other hand, is the process that attempts to return a damaged work of art back to its “original” condition. Restoration is a type of conservation treatment considered “compensation for loss”. Often restoration strives to make an object look “better” or “new” through cleaning, repairs, or reconstruction. "

 

[Jaydogrules]

Personally I would get it conserved, in order to prevent any future damage (such as more pieces chipping off the ripped areas or possibly folding/bending). Conservation in this case is reversible if done by a professional. This will allow you to actually read the book without risking more damage if you plan to keep it raw.

 

If you plan to get it encapsulated then I still recommend conservation as if you plan to sell it the grade will most certainly be higher than a universal (and cover detatch / completly split is one of the worst label notations IMHO) also people who are in the market for GA books should know the difference between conservation and restoration (and thusly recognize the true value of a book).

 

What's the difference?

 

-J.

 

"Conservators work to physically save our works of art from the ravages of time, the threats of pollution, and the devastation of natural disasters. A conservator can achieve this by carrying out treatments on an object such as cleaning, stabilization, or compensation for loss. Preventive conservation emphasizes proper handling, storage, exhibition, transportation, and packing techniques. (Such as correcting the papers acidity levels, stopping tiny rips & tears from growing in size over time due to stress, colour loss, parts flaking off, staple rusting...)

 

Restoration, on the other hand, is the process that attempts to return a damaged work of art back to its “original” condition. Restoration is a type of conservation treatment considered “compensation for loss”. Often restoration strives to make an object look “better” or “new” through cleaning, repairs, or reconstruction. "

 

In legal parlance, the above would be characterized as "a distinction without a difference".

 

-J.

[Sauce Dog]

Personally I would get it conserved, in order to prevent any future damage (such as more pieces chipping off the ripped areas or possibly folding/bending). Conservation in this case is reversible if done by a professional. This will allow you to actually read the book without risking more damage if you plan to keep it raw.

 

If you plan to get it encapsulated then I still recommend conservation as if you plan to sell it the grade will most certainly be higher than a universal (and cover detatch / completly split is one of the worst label notations IMHO) also people who are in the market for GA books should know the difference between conservation and restoration (and thusly recognize the true value of a book).

 

What's the difference?

 

-J.

 

"Conservators work to physically save our works of art from the ravages of time, the threats of pollution, and the devastation of natural disasters. A conservator can achieve this by carrying out treatments on an object such as cleaning, stabilization, or compensation for loss. Preventive conservation emphasizes proper handling, storage, exhibition, transportation, and packing techniques. (Such as correcting the papers acidity levels, stopping tiny rips & tears from growing in size over time due to stress, colour loss, parts flaking off, staple rusting...)

 

Restoration, on the other hand, is the process that attempts to return a damaged work of art back to its “original” condition. Restoration is a type of conservation treatment considered “compensation for loss”. Often restoration strives to make an object look “better” or “new” through cleaning, repairs, or reconstruction. "

 

In legal parlance, the above would be characterized as "a distinction without a difference".

 

-J.

 

That isn't correct, as there are major difference, i'm just giving a quick synopsis above. Restoration may not actually offer the effects of conservation and may only be 'skin deep'.

 

Another quick read that might offer some better explanation: http://www.sflac.net/blog/2012/06/03/conservation-vs-restoration/

 

This is why complete records of what was done to a book is valuable (so one can tell if it was conserved, or restored). Conservation also leaves the book with it's original pieces, whereas a restoration might replace lost pieces with reproductions (though if pieces are added in the sake of conservation then they would be made to be reversible and not damage / impact the original material.

 

Crazy examples for the hell of it!

 

Buying a car, is there a difference if the entire car was original stock parts (which were taken care of and maintained - conserved - in perfect working order to prevent future degradation) or if the parts inside, while looking the same, were all reproduced newly manufactured parts? Difference between the original paint being kept in good condition or just spraying on a new coat?

 

Is there no difference between taking an old victorian house, which left alone the framing will rot/decay and fall down in a few years, and making sure the problems are addressed allowing it to stand (home is VISUALLY the same though). Versus taking the same home and gutting it and renovating it to look like it was as brand new the day it was build a century ago?

[Jaydogrules]

The above examples are simply not appropriate. A comic book does not need to be "maintained" like a house or a car. It has either been well preserved in the first place or it has not. When it has not been, some collectors choose to restore it. It cannot be "conserved" after the fact. No matter how one strains to parse the English language to attempt to differentiate the processes that are involved with "conservation" and "restoration", the reality is that, when it comes to comic books at least, the terms are not mutually exclusive.

 

-J.

[cryptics]

My understanding is Conserved is work done to restore stability to a book that has issues. Restoration deals with returning the look to original. So I have a FF52 that the cover is detached and split right now. To get it conserved they would reattach the cover and seal any tears. The split may even need some leafcasting for missing paper. Conserved would make the book stable but you would still see where the book was damaged. Restored would fill in the the leafcasting and other color loss with color to make the book look new. The other important distinction is it would have to be done by a professional. It's a difference and in my opinion an important one. These books have been around a long time in some cases and while there are numerous ones that were treated properly there are a lot that hasn't been. We need to make sure that as many as possible survive on.

[Jaydogrules]

What you just described is simply a difference in degree and type of restoration. But it is still restoration.

 

-J.

[Sauce Dog]

The above examples are simply not appropriate. A comic book does not need to be "maintained" like a house or a car. It has either been well preserved in the first place or it has not. When it has not been, some collectors choose to restore it. It cannot be "conserved" after the fact. No matter how one strains to parse the English language to attempt to differentiate the processes that are involved with "conservation" and "restoration", the reality is that, when it comes to comic books at least, the terms are not mutually exclusive.

 

-J.

 

Conservation:

preservation, repair, and prevention of deterioration of archaeological, historical, and cultural sites and artifacts.

 

Restoration:

the action of returning something to a former owner, place, or condition.

 

I don't understand why this is hard to see. One prevents future degradation, the other attempts to undo existing degradation. Some practices and techniques can be used in either case, and certain actions have a different effect (and stigma) attached.

 

There is a BIG difference between a book that has tear seals, staples cleaned, deacidification of pages and another book which has colour touch, pieces added / reproduced.

[Jaydogrules]

By CGC's own definition and application of the terms, "conservation" also attempts to return a book to a prior state (ie improving it, regardless of the intent of the person doing it).

Replacing staples, reinforcing the spine, etc those are adding foreign material to the book. And cleaning the book most assuredly attempts to "restore" the book to a more pristine state.

 

Once a book has been damaged or decayed from improper storage, that damage is done. Period. Anything a person does to "un-do" such improper care and /or storage is "restoration". You cannot "conserve" a book after the fact. You can restore it. Some books have been preserved better than others. Those don't need anything done to them. Anything being done to the ones that have not been, is always- always- restoration.

 

-J.

 

[Sauce Dog]

By CGC's own definition and application of the terms, "conservation" also attempts to return a book to a prior state (ie improving it, regardless of the intent of the person doing it).

Replacing staples, reinforcing the spine, etc those are adding foreign material to the book. And cleaning the book most assuredly attempts to "restore" the book to a more pristine state.

 

Once a book has been damaged or decayed from improper storage, that damage is done. Period. Anything a person does to "un-do" such improper care and /or storage is "restoration". You cannot "conserve" a book after the fact. You can restore it. Some books have been preserved better than others. Those don't need anything done to them. Anything being done to the ones that have not been, is always- always- restoration.

 

-J.

 

Can you post where CGC says conservation is an attempt to return the book to a prior state? Thus far I can find them saying the following (very recent post 5/23/2014)

 

"Specific repairs done to improve the structural integrity and long-term preservation of a comic book will now be classified as “conservation” and designated with a blue / purple label. These repairs include tear seals, support, staple replacement, piece reattachment and certain kinds of cleaning."

 

I think you might be confused about the timing and intent of the terms. The use of the term conservation isn't about trying to UN-DO (as you put it) damage. It is about mitigating possible future damage. This is the difference and the reason for the new conservation grade since they also understand there is a difference (I think they realized how much confusing simply having a 'restored' label was causing)

 

A comic that has been damaged from improper storage that is going to be conserved simply helps it endure future entropy. It would be restoration if the person is trying to UNDO the original damage and make it's appearance better / different then the state it is in (when you re-attach a cover it still technically looks the same as before when displayed, but it can now handle the correct stress and handling. However if you colour touched up the cover and add pieces then it would look different/better than originally displayed). If I find a book that was in storage, even with damage, that I would like to keep then I would go a CONSERVE it. If I wanted to make it look better than how I found it then I would RESTORE it.

 

 

[Jaydogrules]

By CGC's own definition and application of the terms, "conservation" also attempts to return a book to a prior state (ie improving it, regardless of the intent of the person doing it).

Replacing staples, reinforcing the spine, etc those are adding foreign material to the book. And cleaning the book most assuredly attempts to "restore" the book to a more pristine state.

 

Once a book has been damaged or decayed from improper storage, that damage is done. Period. Anything a person does to "un-do" such improper care and /or storage is "restoration". You cannot "conserve" a book after the fact. You can restore it. Some books have been preserved better than others. Those don't need anything done to them. Anything being done to the ones that have not been, is always- always- restoration.

 

-J.

 

Can you post where CGC says conservation is an attempt to return the book to a prior state? Thus far I can find them saying the following (very recent post 5/23/2014)

 

"Specific repairs done to improve the structural integrity and long-term preservation of a comic book will now be classified as “conservation” and designated with a blue / purple label. These repairs include tear seals, support, staple replacement, piece reattachment and certain kinds of cleaning."

 

I think you might be confused about the timing and intent of the terms. The use of the term conservation isn't about trying to UN-DO (as you put it) damage. It is about mitigating possible future damage. This is the difference and the reason for the new conservation grade since they also understand there is a difference (I think they realized how much confusing simply having a 'restored' label was causing)

 

A comic that has been damaged from improper storage that is going to be conserved simply helps it endure future entropy. It would be restoration if the person is trying to UNDO the original damage and make it's appearance better / different then the state it is in (when you re-attach a cover it still technically looks the same as before when displayed, but it can now handle the correct stress and handling. However if you colour touched up the cover and add pieces then it would look different/better than originally displayed). If I find a book that was in storage, even with damage, that I would like to keep then I would go a CONSERVE it. If I wanted to make it look better than how I found it then I would RESTORE it.

 

 

As I said, the "intent" of the person doing the work is irrelevant. That really seems to be the only difference in your interpretation. The only real way to "conserve" a book that has already been mistreated or improperly stored in the past is to care for it and store it properly going forward.

 

Anything more "done" to the book after that is restoration, and I am referring to the type of work that CGC lists as "conservation" now. This semantic change in policy to placate collectors of restored books has not changed what the books themselves are- which is restored.

 

-J.

[rjpb]

I've got no problem with labeling some kinds of work conservation, but it is a semantic game.

 

Really, I don't care what people call it as long as it's disclosed.