Fantastic Comics #3 Conflict of Restoration

[PovertyRow]

The more I think about this the more I am leaning to a form of trimmed designation. A key issue for me is that those straight edges and 90 degree corners no longer exist on a candidate for this type of leaf casting. Leaf casting provides the material needed to recreate the original edges and corners.

 

Now in all fairness the actual book pages/covers themselves may not have been trimmed, just the cast material. So, as Kenny says, the actual book is not trimmed. But, especially with color touch out to the edges, the book now appears in a much closer to original state.

 

In this instance I feel a designation like "leafcast edges/corners trimmed to original size" or "leafcast edges/corners CTd and trimmed to original size" would be the fairest designation. Provided, of course, a restorer of Kenny's caliber did the work to insure the trim did not include some of the original paper.

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=8637260#Post8637260

[Junkdrawer]

trimming reduces the original material to some extent. By adding with leaf casting and then reducing the cast overage to make the book appear correct shouldn't group it with notoriously trimmed books. I agree "leaf casting should be noted on the label.

[koollectablz]

I've looked fairly heavily into leaf casting as I've always thought it was an exceptional technique.

 

Now I understand all of your reasoning as to the addition or none addition of a trimmed notation and that's why I made my analogy quite specifically in that I included a stage where the comic had been trimmed, keep that in mind...

 

We can now take the same AF15 and put it through the same thought process but let's not include the stage where someone had trimmed out the chips, but still sent it to be leafcast to fix the chipped edge. The resultant comic ends up at exactly the same stage, it's been leafcasted and the excess material is then trimmed.

 

Hence the trimmed notation.

 

The fact remains that no grading company is at all accurate is detecting trimming or indeed in noting trimming where it hasn't even taken place.

 

The one time I and anyone can detect trimming is when it's had the edges fixed by being cast, because the process demands that then it has to have been trimmed.

 

That's fundamentally my point. Not all cast comics have their edges trimmed. But some do.

 

If all cast comics did have their edges trimmed back to original material, fine. It's taked as read and the trimmed notation doesn't need to appear. But as some don't then the trimmed notation should be included on those that have been.

 

As with anything, it's just my opinion.

[koollectablz]

In fact, put it this way.

 

Say you have an AF15 with horrid marvel chipping, someone trims it to make it more presentable. It's now a trimmed comic. No argument there.

 

Ok, so then say it's leaf casted to add back the trimmed part to make it a whole cover again. The edge is trimmed in line with where it looks best.

 

It's been leaf casted but by some reckoning it's now not a trimmed comic?

 

Nope, it's been trimmed, it'll always have been trimmed, it should say it on the label.

The problem with your analogy is that the AF 15 was not considered restored prior to the trimming. With leaf casting it will always be considered restored. So no matter what you do after the trimming is considered resto...right?

 

Well wrong actually. What if you then carefully tore the cover along the original trim line? The book would be downgraded heavily but would be a blue label with no mention of the trim job because CGC could not tell that it had ever been trimmed.

 

I think a lot of folks make assumptions about leaf-casting without really knowing what the process involves. It isn't exactly the same as reattaching paper. Certainly not the same as reattaching a piece of original paper to the book. Think of leaf casting as building out new liquid paper to fill missing areas. It that sense any trimming of the rebuilt areas is inconsequential as far as necessity to be notated on a grading label. That can be taken care by simply mention that leaf-casting occurred. Almost all leaf-casting requires trimming of the rebuilt areas, but never original paper, and therefore to list the book as trimmed is not only misleading but essentially redundant.

 

Furthermore the wonderful thing about leaf-casting, as opposed to older more invasive forms of resto, is that the cast areas are completely reversible. If you only want original paper just add water and the cast areas will fall away. So again, labeling the whole book as trimmed on the label is misleading, and labeling the leaf-casting procedure as trimmed is redundant.

 

It's important to remember that isn't true.

 

You can leaf cast very specific areas without touching the rest of the comic. For instance you can rebuild just a missing chunk from the middle of the cover and not need to trim anything whatsoever.

[Ze-man]

In fact, put it this way.

 

Say you have an AF15 with horrid marvel chipping, someone trims it to make it more presentable. It's now a trimmed comic. No argument there.

 

Ok, so then say it's leaf casted to add back the trimmed part to make it a whole cover again. The edge is trimmed in line with where it looks best.

 

It's been leaf casted but by some reckoning it's now not a trimmed comic?

 

Nope, it's been trimmed, it'll always have been trimmed, it should say it on the label.

The problem with your analogy is that the AF 15 was not considered restored prior to the trimming. With leaf casting it will always be considered restored. So no matter what you do after the trimming is considered resto...right?

 

Well wrong actually. What if you then carefully tore the cover along the original trim line? The book would be downgraded heavily but would be a blue label with no mention of the trim job because CGC could not tell that it had ever been trimmed.

 

I think a lot of folks make assumptions about leaf-casting without really knowing what the process involves. It isn't exactly the same as reattaching paper. Certainly not the same as reattaching a piece of original paper to the book. Think of leaf casting as building out new liquid paper to fill missing areas. It that sense any trimming of the rebuilt areas is inconsequential as far as necessity to be notated on a grading label. That can be taken care by simply mention that leaf-casting occurred. Almost all leaf-casting requires trimming of the rebuilt areas, but never original paper, and therefore to list the book as trimmed is not only misleading but essentially redundant.

 

Furthermore the wonderful thing about leaf-casting, as opposed to older more invasive forms of resto, is that the cast areas are completely reversible. If you only want original paper just add water and the cast areas will fall away. So again, labeling the whole book as trimmed on the label is misleading, and labeling the leaf-casting procedure as trimmed is redundant.

 

It's important to remember that isn't true.

 

You can leaf cast very specific areas without touching the rest of the comic. For instance you can rebuild just a missing chunk from the middle of the cover and not need to trim anything whatsoever.

 

That's why Richie said "almost all leaf casting"

 

Regardless, ever since people applied non original material to comics to restore them, if that non original material hangs over an outer edge...it was trimmed back to size.

 

Sealing a tear, some japan tissue hangs over the outer edge...you trim it off.

 

Piece Fill in a missing chunk with donor, or archival material, it hangs over the outer edge, you let it dry and trim it off.

 

Piece fill a missing corner, you trim it back to make a corner, sharp or rounded.

 

Japan tissue is glued to an entire outer brittle edge to reinforce it.....once dried it is trimmed to size. you simply cannot seal it properly without it being glued up to, and hanging over the original edge.

 

As Stronguy said earlier, its always been this way. Not just with comics, but conservation labs everywhere.

So basically every book that had non original material applied to any edge, be it a single tear, piece fill, or an entire outer edge... that material has always been trimmed back to size.

 

Yet these procedures have never been labeled as trimmed by definition, or even questioned.

 

Leaf casting is no different, you are adding paper pulp to reinforce, fill in, missing, weak areas. And trimming it back to original size.

 

I use all these aforementioned methods, and don't consider any of them to be "trimming" as our hobby understand the definition to be.

 

Which is removing ratty original material in an effort to make a book look better.

 

People hate the word trimming, because it is associated with an intent to deceive, by mutilating comics. So to try and pigeon hole leaf casting from every other known conservation, restoration technique of piece fill, and reinforcement seems wrong.

 

In the case of this Fantastic 3, it was brittle, the entire cover was a chippy mess that needed reinforcing. How it was labeled, or mislabeled by different grading companies, I honestly have no idea. The book changed hands multiple times once it left mine to say either way.

 

If somebody determines original material is missing, that's fine, and subjective.

 

But to just label leaf casting as trimmed en masse, seems like a step backwards. Because it is more an evolution of the standard piece fill process, then a complete reinvention of what it inherently does.

 

Which is adding paper to reinforce, or fill in missing bits, and trimming it back to size.

 

Same as it ever was.

 

[PovertyRow]

...Japan tissue is glued to an entire outer brittle edge to reinforce it.....once dried it is trimmed to size. you simply cannot seal it properly without it being glued up to, and hanging over the original edge...So basically every book that had non original material applied to any edge, be it a single tear, piece fill, or an entire outer edge... that material has always been trimmed back to size.

 

So simple and obvious that it flew right over my head. I have to agree with this assessment 100%, Now to correct my earlier post.

[koollectablz]

In fact, put it this way.

 

Say you have an AF15 with horrid marvel chipping, someone trims it to make it more presentable. It's now a trimmed comic. No argument there.

 

Ok, so then say it's leaf casted to add back the trimmed part to make it a whole cover again. The edge is trimmed in line with where it looks best.

 

It's been leaf casted but by some reckoning it's now not a trimmed comic?

 

Nope, it's been trimmed, it'll always have been trimmed, it should say it on the label.

The problem with your analogy is that the AF 15 was not considered restored prior to the trimming. With leaf casting it will always be considered restored. So no matter what you do after the trimming is considered resto...right?

 

Well wrong actually. What if you then carefully tore the cover along the original trim line? The book would be downgraded heavily but would be a blue label with no mention of the trim job because CGC could not tell that it had ever been trimmed.

 

I think a lot of folks make assumptions about leaf-casting without really knowing what the process involves. It isn't exactly the same as reattaching paper. Certainly not the same as reattaching a piece of original paper to the book. Think of leaf casting as building out new liquid paper to fill missing areas. It that sense any trimming of the rebuilt areas is inconsequential as far as necessity to be notated on a grading label. That can be taken care by simply mention that leaf-casting occurred. Almost all leaf-casting requires trimming of the rebuilt areas, but never original paper, and therefore to list the book as trimmed is not only misleading but essentially redundant.

 

Furthermore the wonderful thing about leaf-casting, as opposed to older more invasive forms of resto, is that the cast areas are completely reversible. If you only want original paper just add water and the cast areas will fall away. So again, labeling the whole book as trimmed on the label is misleading, and labeling the leaf-casting procedure as trimmed is redundant.

 

It's important to remember that isn't true.

 

You can leaf cast very specific areas without touching the rest of the comic. For instance you can rebuild just a missing chunk from the middle of the cover and not need to trim anything whatsoever.

 

That's why Richie said "almost all leaf casting"

 

Regardless, ever since people applied non original material to comics to restore them, if that non original material hangs over an outer edge...it was trimmed back to size.

 

Sealing a tear, some japan tissue hangs over the outer edge...you trim it off.

 

Piece Fill in a missing chunk with donor, or archival material, it hangs over the outer edge, you let it dry and trim it off.

 

Piece fill a missing corner, you trim it back to make a corner, sharp or rounded.

 

Japan tissue is glued to an entire outer brittle edge to reinforce it.....once dried it is trimmed to size. you simply cannot seal it properly without it being glued up to, and hanging over the original edge.

 

As Stronguy said earlier, its always been this way. Not just with comics, but conservation labs everywhere.

So basically every book that had non original material applied to any edge, be it a single tear, piece fill, or an entire outer edge... that material has always been trimmed back to size.

 

Yet these procedures have never been labeled as trimmed by definition, or even questioned.

 

Leaf casting is no different, you are adding paper pulp to reinforce, fill in, missing, weak areas. And trimming it back to original size.

 

I use all these aforementioned methods, and don't consider any of them to be "trimming" as our hobby understand the definition to be.

 

Which is removing ratty original material in an effort to make a book look better.

 

People hate the word trimming, because it is associated with an intent to deceive, by mutilating comics. So to try and pigeon hole leaf casting from every other known conservation, restoration technique of piece fill, and reinforcement seems wrong.

 

In the case of this Fantastic 3, it was brittle, the entire cover was a chippy mess that needed reinforcing. How it was labeled, or mislabeled by different grading companies, I honestly have no idea. The book changed hands multiple times once it left mine to say either way.

 

If somebody determines original material is missing, that's fine, and subjective.

 

But to just label leaf casting as trimmed en masse, seems like a step backwards. Because it is more an evolution of the standard piece fill process, then a complete reinvention of what it inherently does.

 

Which is adding paper to reinforce, or fill in missing bits, and trimming it back to size.

 

Same as it ever was.

 

That's my point, I wouldn't, precisely because only some comics that are leafcasted are subsequently trimmed. If they all were then fine, no notation needed, but some aren't.

 

I totally agree, however, that the word 'Trimmed' has such negative connotations within the hobby that i can understand not wanting to have the notation on the label. I personally think that leafcasting is such an extraordinary technique that to categorise it with other methods of adding 'after the fact' material does it a bit of a disservice. Being able to take a brittle document and stablize it to such an extent as to make it easy to handle without fear of more damage is a level up in conservation techniques.

 

Its an interesting discussion, and as ever different people will have different opinions.

[Ze-man]

If you want to label leaf casted covers that encompass outer edges as "trimmed." Then you would also have to do the same thing with restored, conserved comics that had outer edge work done, be it tears sealed, pieces filled, or edges reinforced.

 

While the applications are different, the process of trimming off the excess material back to the original cover is not. The original comic itself is never trimmed, the added material is.

 

And who cares what is done to excess material added to a comic!!

 

I guess we will just have to disagree on this one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MrBedrock]

In fact, put it this way.

 

Say you have an AF15 with horrid marvel chipping, someone trims it to make it more presentable. It's now a trimmed comic. No argument there.

 

Ok, so then say it's leaf casted to add back the trimmed part to make it a whole cover again. The edge is trimmed in line with where it looks best.

 

It's been leaf casted but by some reckoning it's now not a trimmed comic?

 

Nope, it's been trimmed, it'll always have been trimmed, it should say it on the label.

The problem with your analogy is that the AF 15 was not considered restored prior to the trimming. With leaf casting it will always be considered restored. So no matter what you do after the trimming is considered resto...right?

 

Well wrong actually. What if you then carefully tore the cover along the original trim line? The book would be downgraded heavily but would be a blue label with no mention of the trim job because CGC could not tell that it had ever been trimmed.

 

I think a lot of folks make assumptions about leaf-casting without really knowing what the process involves. It isn't exactly the same as reattaching paper. Certainly not the same as reattaching a piece of original paper to the book. Think of leaf casting as building out new liquid paper to fill missing areas. It that sense any trimming of the rebuilt areas is inconsequential as far as necessity to be notated on a grading label. That can be taken care by simply mention that leaf-casting occurred. Almost all leaf-casting requires trimming of the rebuilt areas, but never original paper, and therefore to list the book as trimmed is not only misleading but essentially redundant.

 

Furthermore the wonderful thing about leaf-casting, as opposed to older more invasive forms of resto, is that the cast areas are completely reversible. If you only want original paper just add water and the cast areas will fall away. So again, labeling the whole book as trimmed on the label is misleading, and labeling the leaf-casting procedure as trimmed is redundant.

 

It's important to remember that isn't true.

 

You can leaf cast very specific areas without touching the rest of the comic. For instance you can rebuild just a missing chunk from the middle of the cover and not need to trim anything whatsoever.

you even highlighted the word "almost". When used with the word "all" it means...wait for it...

 

ALMOST ALL.

 

 

[koollectablz]

Yuppers, agree to disagree. To me a trimmed comic is a trimmed comic is a trimmed comic.

 

YMMV.

[Sqeggs]

In fact, put it this way.

 

Say you have an AF15 with horrid marvel chipping, someone trims it to make it more presentable. It's now a trimmed comic. No argument there.

 

Ok, so then say it's leaf casted to add back the trimmed part to make it a whole cover again. The edge is trimmed in line with where it looks best.

 

It's been leaf casted but by some reckoning it's now not a trimmed comic?

 

Nope, it's been trimmed, it'll always have been trimmed, it should say it on the label.

The problem with your analogy is that the AF 15 was not considered restored prior to the trimming. With leaf casting it will always be considered restored. So no matter what you do after the trimming is considered resto...right?

 

Well wrong actually. What if you then carefully tore the cover along the original trim line? The book would be downgraded heavily but would be a blue label with no mention of the trim job because CGC could not tell that it had ever been trimmed.

 

I think a lot of folks make assumptions about leaf-casting without really knowing what the process involves. It isn't exactly the same as reattaching paper. Certainly not the same as reattaching a piece of original paper to the book. Think of leaf casting as building out new liquid paper to fill missing areas. It that sense any trimming of the rebuilt areas is inconsequential as far as necessity to be notated on a grading label. That can be taken care by simply mention that leaf-casting occurred. Almost all leaf-casting requires trimming of the rebuilt areas, but never original paper, and therefore to list the book as trimmed is not only misleading but essentially redundant.

 

Furthermore the wonderful thing about leaf-casting, as opposed to older more invasive forms of resto, is that the cast areas are completely reversible. If you only want original paper just add water and the cast areas will fall away. So again, labeling the whole book as trimmed on the label is misleading, and labeling the leaf-casting procedure as trimmed is redundant.

 

It's important to remember that isn't true.

 

You can leaf cast very specific areas without touching the rest of the comic. For instance you can rebuild just a missing chunk from the middle of the cover and not need to trim anything whatsoever.

you even highlighted the word "almost". When used with the word "all" it means...wait for it...

 

ALMOST ALL.

 

 

I use it to mean "every last one."

 

Is that wrong? Should I not do that?

[PovertyRow]

Yuppers, agree to disagree. To me a trimmed comic is a trimmed comic is a trimmed comic.

 

YMMV.

 

As Kenny says, anytime material is added to an edge, even for a tear seal, the excess is trimmed. It is inherent in the process. And it IS redundant. If they follow that then they should be making notations like Amateur Color Touch using markers or Pro Color Touch using acrylics (or water colors or printers ink) but they don't.

[Davenport]

I called Matt, confirmed that they had not been trimmed, and mailed them to him (by this time CI was part of CGC). He was able to show the graders exactly what had been done and the TRIMMED notation was removed. Mistakes happen... they can be corrected.

That seems the simplest approach. It comes across as an 'incorrect label problem'. Label states "Amateur", it's not. It states "Cover Trimmed", it's not. So if printed labels are about communicating, that one's in error.

 

Seems like contacting the company, phone or email, and getting authorized for a correction-return would be the 1st play. And if the company digs their heels in with some bizarre reasoning, move on to plan-B (blacklist, spread the word, use another service provider).

[PovertyRow]

 

Seems like contacting the company, phone or email, and getting authorized for a correction-return would be the 1st play. And if the company digs their heels in with some bizarre reasoning, move on to plan-B (blacklist, spread the word, use another service provider).

 

This has to be one of the most spooned up things I have read here. I did a search on your name and things like "+cgc +mistake" or "+cgc +error"" etc. Found several replies you made. Never saw you offer a contingency if the CGC mistake wasn't worked out. Here you make a contingency response like your Plan B on the first go around. "Blacklist". "Spread the word." You know the folks involved here. It is sickening. Actually beyond sickening.

 

Edit update: there is a chance this may not remain so I PDFd and scrn-printed my response in case it poofs.

[rodan57]

1. A book is trimmed at the factory and is not restoration. OK.

 

2. A book is restored with leaf casting and the new material is trimmed to match the original dimensions of the book. OK.

 

3. The book is trimmed removing paper and reducing the dimensions of the cover or pages. Not good at all.

 

Seems clear to me. The definition #3 is what should be noted on a label as trimming.

 

 

[PovertyRow]

1. A book is trimmed at the factory and is not restoration. OK.

 

2. A book is restored with leaf casting and the new material is trimmed to match the original dimensions of the book. OK.

 

3. The book is trimmed removing paper and reducing the dimensions of the cover or pages. Not good at all.

 

Seems clear to me. The definition #3 is what should be noted on a label as trimming.

 

 

I agree since the trimming impacted the original book. But that takes it out of a pure leaf casting thing.

[Davenport]

 

Seems like contacting the company, phone or email, and getting authorized for a correction-return would be the 1st play. And if the company digs their heels in with some bizarre reasoning, move on to plan-B (blacklist, spread the word, use another service provider).

 

This has to be one of the most spooned up things I have read here. I did a search on your name and things like "+cgc +mistake" or "+cgc +error"" etc. Found several replies you made. Never saw you offer a contingency if the CGC mistake wasn't worked out. Here you make a contingency response like your Plan B on the first go around. "Blacklist". "Spread the word." You know the folks involved here. It is sickening. Actually beyond sickening.

 

Edit update: there is a chance this may not remain so I PDFd and scrn-printed my response in case it poofs.

What the hell?

 

No clue what triggered your response. Thread reads like it's a printing mistake, a labeling error, something correctable by contacting the provider. No resistance expected, with high odds you'd be made whole. The plan-B stuff would go for any service provider you discover you can't work with. Right? You avoid, tell people, and find someone else. Right? Just common sense. So not sure why the vitriol.

 

edit: "Cover Trimmed" has never ever ever meant "Restoratives Trimmed To Match". Who would read it that way? No one. It's a mistake. And the professional restorer, Kenny, is right here in the thread. So "Amateur" is a mistake too, obviously. So keep the grade and let them fix the notations. All I was saying.

[PovertyRow]

 

Seems like contacting the company, phone or email, and getting authorized for a correction-return would be the 1st play. And if the company digs their heels in with some bizarre reasoning, move on to plan-B (blacklist, spread the word, use another service provider).

 

This has to be one of the most spooned up things I have read here. I did a search on your name and things like "+cgc +mistake" or "+cgc +error"" etc. Found several replies you made. Never saw you offer a contingency if the CGC mistake wasn't worked out. Here you make a contingency response like your Plan B on the first go around. "Blacklist". "Spread the word." You know the folks involved here. It is sickening. Actually beyond sickening.

 

Edit update: there is a chance this may not remain so I PDFd and scrn-printed my response in case it poofs.

What the hell?

 

No clue what triggered your response. Thread reads like it's a printing mistake, a labeling error, something correctable by contacting the provider. No resistance expected, with high odds you'd be made whole. The plan-B stuff would go for any service provider you discover you can't work with. Right? You avoid, tell people, and find someone else. Right? Just common sense. So not sure why the vitriol.

 

edit: "Cover Trimmed" has never ever ever meant "Restoratives Trimmed To Match". Who would read it that way? No one. It's a mistake. And the professional restorer, Kenny, is right here in the thread. So "Amateur" is a mistake too, obviously. So keep the grade and let them fix the notations. All I was saying.

 

I did explain my reaction but to repeat. I have seen you involved in "CGC made a mistake" threads. Never have you said if they don't fix the mistake we should blacklist CGC and spread the word (Plan B). So why now? Its not like those involved are unknowns in the CGC/comic book world,.

[Davenport]

 

Seems like contacting the company, phone or email, and getting authorized for a correction-return would be the 1st play. And if the company digs their heels in with some bizarre reasoning, move on to plan-B (blacklist, spread the word, use another service provider).

 

This has to be one of the most spooned up things I have read here. I did a search on your name and things like "+cgc +mistake" or "+cgc +error"" etc. Found several replies you made. Never saw you offer a contingency if the CGC mistake wasn't worked out. Here you make a contingency response like your Plan B on the first go around. "Blacklist". "Spread the word." You know the folks involved here. It is sickening. Actually beyond sickening.

 

Edit update: there is a chance this may not remain so I PDFd and scrn-printed my response in case it poofs.

What the hell?

 

No clue what triggered your response. Thread reads like it's a printing mistake, a labeling error, something correctable by contacting the provider. No resistance expected, with high odds you'd be made whole. The plan-B stuff would go for any service provider you discover you can't work with. Right? You avoid, tell people, and find someone else. Right? Just common sense. So not sure why the vitriol.

 

edit: "Cover Trimmed" has never ever ever meant "Restoratives Trimmed To Match". Who would read it that way? No one. It's a mistake. And the professional restorer, Kenny, is right here in the thread. So "Amateur" is a mistake too, obviously. So keep the grade and let them fix the notations. All I was saying.

 

I did explain my reaction but to repeat. I have seen you involved in "CGC made a mistake" threads. Never have you said if they don't fix the mistake we should blacklist CGC and spread the word (Plan B). So why now? Its not like those involved are unknowns in the CGC/comic book world,.

For some reason you're reading too much into it. Maybe it's that word 'blacklist' that yanked your chain. I'm saying the plan-B stuff is generic, goes for every service provider on the face of the planet. If a mistake is made and a reasonable request for its correction is bizarrely refused, if you discover they're operating from some intolerable and unusual playbook, you drop them like a hot rock and move on. (rarely the case, since most unreasonable companies don't last too long)

[ComicsMV]

In fact, put it this way.

 

Say you have an AF15 with horrid marvel chipping, someone trims it to make it more presentable. It's now a trimmed comic. No argument there.

 

Ok, so then say it's leaf casted to add back the trimmed part to make it a whole cover again. The edge is trimmed in line with where it looks best.

 

It's been leaf casted but by some reckoning it's now not a trimmed comic?

 

Nope, it's been trimmed, it'll always have been trimmed, it should say it on the label.

The problem with your analogy is that the AF 15 was not considered restored prior to the trimming. With leaf casting it will always be considered restored. So no matter what you do after the trimming is considered resto...right?

 

Well wrong actually. What if you then carefully tore the cover along the original trim line? The book would be downgraded heavily but would be a blue label with no mention of the trim job because CGC could not tell that it had ever been trimmed.

 

I think a lot of folks make assumptions about leaf-casting without really knowing what the process involves. It isn't exactly the same as reattaching paper. Certainly not the same as reattaching a piece of original paper to the book. Think of leaf casting as building out new liquid paper to fill missing areas. It that sense any trimming of the rebuilt areas is inconsequential as far as necessity to be notated on a grading label. That can be taken care by simply mention that leaf-casting occurred. Almost all leaf-casting requires trimming of the rebuilt areas, but never original paper, and therefore to list the book as trimmed is not only misleading but essentially redundant.

 

Furthermore the wonderful thing about leaf-casting, as opposed to older more invasive forms of resto, is that the cast areas are completely reversible. If you only want original paper just add water and the cast areas will fall away. So again, labeling the whole book as trimmed on the label is misleading, and labeling the leaf-casting procedure as trimmed is redundant.

 

Couldnt agree more with this