Does anybody know ebay user igb.corp

[Sqeggs]

From what I've heard his technique involves excessive amounts of color and fixatives applied directly to the paper, creating an incredible appearance but a very unnatural look and feel. These books tend to look great in a holder but definitely do not have any kind of originality to them. I would think, because of Matt's and Chris's restoration backgrounds, CGC grades the technique and the results, CBCS simply grades the appearance. That has to be the primary reason these books work with CBCS's grading process and not CGC's.

 

Very interesting.

[Gotham Kid]

Isn't this just the reason why the market has treated restored books so harshly - especially those with extensive work done? Sure, it looks great, but you don't really know what you're buying.

 

For what it's worth, I agree - but I hate to say, this may be the tipping point - unrestored books have become so expensive that a secondary market in 'frankensteins' might be 'timely' (no pun intended).

 

 

This

[Johnny545]

From what I've heard his technique involves excessive amounts of color and fixatives applied directly to the paper, creating an incredible appearance but a very unnatural look and feel. These books tend to look great in a holder but definitely do not have any kind of originality to them. I would think, because of Matt's and Chris's restoration backgrounds, CGC grades the technique and the results, CBCS simply grades the appearance. That has to be the primary reason these books work with CBCS's grading process and not CGC's.

 

Very interesting.

 

Interesting and scary.

[Mmehdy]

From what I've heard his technique involves excessive amounts of color and fixatives applied directly to the paper, creating an incredible appearance but a very unnatural look and feel. These books tend to look great in a holder but definitely do not have any kind of originality to them. I would think, because of Matt's and Chris's restoration backgrounds, CGC grades the technique and the results, CBCS simply grades the appearance. That has to be the primary reason these books work with CBCS's grading process and not CGC's.

 

Very interesting.

 

 

Let the grade shopping begin...and that is the danger of restored books.....and the other company...flooding the market with over hyped/over graded restored books...thanks...steve

[Mmehdy]

Fascinating business model. If he is able to get high enough prices, I imagine he will attract a lot of people who own keys that look restorable to these types of grades.

 

exactly...open the floodgates...I would avoid investing large sums of money given this development or sell my restored keys....now while the census is low

[Peter G]

i love comic books but this type of stuff makes my head spin while looking for an exit

[ciorac]

From what I've heard his technique involves excessive amounts of color and fixatives applied directly to the paper, creating an incredible appearance but a very unnatural look and feel. These books tend to look great in a holder but definitely do not have any kind of originality to them. I would think, because of Matt's and Chris's restoration backgrounds, CGC grades the technique and the results, CBCS simply grades the appearance. That has to be the primary reason these books work with CBCS's grading process and not CGC's.

 

well that is darned interesting.

 

I had a comic restored by someone else a few years ago, just for expediency sake. Regretted it. It came back as you've described above. Looked fantastic in a mylar, but felt fake in hand.

[Mmehdy]

i love comic books but this type of stuff makes my head spin while looking for an exit

 

if you look at e-bay and the CC books...this gonna start adding up, this deserves every board members attention..I feel sorry for the persons purchasing these books..they stand the most to lose when the market gets flooded. I would not bid on those franken books

[Sqeggs]

i love comic books but this type of stuff makes my head spin while looking for an exit

 

if you look at e-bay and the CC books...this gonna start adding up, this deserves ever board members attention..I feel sorry for the persons purchasing these books..they stand the most to lose when the market gets flooded.

 

Will the issue be discussed in your end-of-year missive?

[Mmehdy]

i love comic books but this type of stuff makes my head spin while looking for an exit

 

if you look at e-bay and the CC books...this gonna start adding up, this deserves ever board members attention..I feel sorry for the persons purchasing these books..they stand the most to lose when the market gets flooded.

 

Will the issue be discussed in your end-of-year missive?

 

I am gonna need help this year....any board members in san diego county let me know if you can help...just pm me if you can...thanks.

 

this is a major mistake for the other grading service..short term profit....at some point when does a comic book not become a comic book but a recreation.

[lou_fine]

From what I've heard his technique involves excessive amounts of color and fixatives applied directly to the paper, creating an incredible appearance but a very unnatural look and feel. These books tend to look great in a holder but definitely do not have any kind of originality to them. I would think, because of Matt's and Chris's restoration backgrounds, CGC grades the technique and the results, CBCS simply grades the appearance. That has to be the primary reason these books work with CBCS's grading process and not CGC's.

 

You are most probably right as this would go a long way to explaining why there are so many beautiful looking PLOD's relative to their grade and yet you can have an fugly looking blue label copy of the exact same book with a much higher CGC grade.

 

Seems strange since I thought CGC's new restoration rating system was supposed to take into account the quality and extent of the restoration work being done while the CGC grade was for the condition of the book.

 

I guess they must also be factoring in "unnatural look and feel" as part of the condition grade then, even though this may have already been taken into account in their restoration rating. A double whammy I guess on extensively restored books then.

[MrBedrock]

From what I've heard his technique involves excessive amounts of color and fixatives applied directly to the paper, creating an incredible appearance but a very unnatural look and feel. These books tend to look great in a holder but definitely do not have any kind of originality to them. I would think, because of Matt's and Chris's restoration backgrounds, CGC grades the technique and the results, CBCS simply grades the appearance. That has to be the primary reason these books work with CBCS's grading process and not CGC's.

 

You are most probably right as this would go a long way to explaining why there are so many beautiful looking PLOD's relative to their grade and yet you can have an fugly looking blue label copy of the exact same book with a much higher CGC grade.

 

Seems strange since I thought CGC's new restoration rating system was supposed to take into account the quality and extent of the restoration work being done while the CGC grade was for the condition of the book.

 

I guess they must also be factoring in "unnatural look and feel" as part of the condition grade then, even though this may have already been taken into account in their restoration rating. A double whammy I guess on extensively restored books then.

It's pretty obvious that for CGC the "apparent grade" is not solely based on visual appearance. If a cover feels like cardboard then it should be graded down, no matter how nice the book looks at arm's length. I think that is the correct way to approach extensively restored books. There has to be a limit, otherwise we could reach a point where a xeroxed cover, completely recolored, could end up in a fully graded holder.

[lou_fine]

From what I've heard his technique involves excessive amounts of color and fixatives applied directly to the paper, creating an incredible appearance but a very unnatural look and feel. These books tend to look great in a holder but definitely do not have any kind of originality to them. I would think, because of Matt's and Chris's restoration backgrounds, CGC grades the technique and the results, CBCS simply grades the appearance. That has to be the primary reason these books work with CBCS's grading process and not CGC's.

 

You are most probably right as this would go a long way to explaining why there are so many beautiful looking PLOD's relative to their grade and yet you can have an fugly looking blue label copy of the exact same book with a much higher CGC grade.

 

Seems strange since I thought CGC's new restoration rating system was supposed to take into account the quality and extent of the restoration work being done while the CGC grade was for the condition of the book.

 

I guess they must also be factoring in "unnatural look and feel" as part of the condition grade then, even though this may have already been taken into account in their restoration rating. A double whammy I guess on extensively restored books then.

It's pretty obvious that for CGC the "apparent grade" is not solely based on visual appearance. If a cover feels like cardboard then it should be graded down, no matter how nice the book looks at arm's length. I think that is the correct way to approach extensively restored books. There has to be a limit, otherwise we could reach a point where a xeroxed cover, completely recolored, could end up in a fully graded holder.

 

I would definitely agree with the extensively restored books where a large portion of the cover or any other part of the book has to be recreated from foreign material.

 

What's your thinking on slightly restored books and should CGC also partially factor in the pre-restoration defects as though they were still there?

[MrBedrock]

 

What's your thinking on slightly restored books and should CGC also partially factor in the pre-restoration defects as though they were still there?

It really depends on what the restoration is. A lot of slightly restored books are due to things like cleaning, tear seals, or minor color touch, so the pre-restoration defects are probably already taken into account. Spine reinforcement can hide significant splits and sometimes still be considered slight with a really nice appearance. But in general I like CGC's approach to slight and moderately graded books and haven't seen many where I would have graded them much differently.

[lou_fine]

 

What's your thinking on slightly restored books and should CGC also partially factor in the pre-restoration defects as though they were still there?

 

It really depends on what the restoration is. A lot of slightly restored books are due to things like cleaning, tear seals, or minor color touch, so the pre-restoration defects are probably already taken into account.

 

Richard;

 

I was always under the impression that CGC are supposed to be grading the book that is in front of them.

 

Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying here. You appear to be saying that books which have been cleaned, sealed, or color touched are graded as though the dirt, tears, and color touch were still present on the book even though they have been supposedly "fixed" through restoration.

 

This does not make sense to me since CGC would now no longer be grading the book that is in front of them, but rather their opinion as to what the book was prior to all of the restoration work.

[MrBedrock]

 

What's your thinking on slightly restored books and should CGC also partially factor in the pre-restoration defects as though they were still there?

 

It really depends on what the restoration is. A lot of slightly restored books are due to things like cleaning, tear seals, or minor color touch, so the pre-restoration defects are probably already taken into account.

 

Richard;

 

I was always under the impression that CGC are supposed to be grading the book that is in front of them.

 

Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying here. You appear to be saying that books which have been cleaned, sealed, or color touched are graded as though the dirt, tears, and color touch were still present on the book even though they have been supposedly "fixed" through restoration.

 

This does not make sense to me since CGC would now no longer be grading the book that is in front of them, but rather their opinion as to what the book was prior to all of the restoration work.

It has more to do with structural defects. CGC does grade the book that is in front of them but they make determinations predominately based on structural issues. When you asked if CGC should evaluate slight resto books based on defects present both before and after I was trying to make the point that most books with the slight resto designation really haven't had any significant improvement to the defects already present. In other words a cover cleaning, while removing dirt and improving eye appeal, does not cover up creases or tears or pieces missing. A tear seal doesn't hide the tear. Minor color touch up doesn't cover much space so it doesn't mask a significant defect. So when CGC grades those books after restoration a majority of the defects that were present before restoration are still visible.

[lou_fine]

 

What's your thinking on slightly restored books and should CGC also partially factor in the pre-restoration defects as though they were still there?

 

It really depends on what the restoration is. A lot of slightly restored books are due to things like cleaning, tear seals, or minor color touch, so the pre-restoration defects are probably already taken into account.

 

Richard;

 

I was always under the impression that CGC are supposed to be grading the book that is in front of them.

 

Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying here. You appear to be saying that books which have been cleaned, sealed, or color touched are graded as though the dirt, tears, and color touch were still present on the book even though they have been supposedly "fixed" through restoration.

 

This does not make sense to me since CGC would now no longer be grading the book that is in front of them, but rather their opinion as to what the book was prior to all of the restoration work.

It has more to do with structural defects. CGC does grade the book that is in front of them but they make determinations predominately based on structural issues. When you asked if CGC should evaluate slight resto books based on defects present both before and after I was trying to make the point that most books with the slight resto designation really haven't had any significant improvement to the defects already present. In other words a cover cleaning, while removing dirt and improving eye appeal, does not cover up creases or tears or pieces missing. A tear seal doesn't hide the tear. Minor color touch up doesn't cover much space so it doesn't mask a significant defect. So when CGC grades those books after restoration a majority of the defects that were present before restoration are still visible.

 

Gotcha!

 

I guess that goes a long way to explain why most of the restored books presents better than their grade when looking at a scan. It's because these kinds of defects are sometimes hard to see on a scan, yet quite evident with the book in hand.

[VintageComics]

I guess that goes a long way to explain why most of the restored books presents better than their grade when looking at a scan. It's because these kinds of defects are sometimes hard to see on a scan, yet quite evident with the book in hand.

 

That's exactly it. Creases don't always show up as well on GA books like they do on SA books.

 

It's also one reason these books are achieving such high grades. As Bedrock said, if the person performing the work is painting over the artwork heavily, he is likely filling in wear that would normally be prominent, causing the covers to look better but not feel realistic.

[goldust40]

I guess that goes a long way to explain why most of the restored books presents better than their grade when looking at a scan. It's because these kinds of defects are sometimes hard to see on a scan, yet quite evident with the book in hand.

 

That's exactly it. Creases don't always show up as well on GA books like they do on SA books.

 

It's also one reason these books are achieving such high grades. As Bedrock said, if the person performing the work is painting over the artwork heavily, he is likely filling in wear that would normally be prominent, causing the covers to look better but not feel realistic.

 

So what we are witnessing is something resembling a comic book.

[MrBedrock]

I guess that goes a long way to explain why most of the restored books presents better than their grade when looking at a scan. It's because these kinds of defects are sometimes hard to see on a scan, yet quite evident with the book in hand.

 

That's exactly it. Creases don't always show up as well on GA books like they do on SA books.

 

It's also one reason these books are achieving such high grades. As Bedrock said, if the person performing the work is painting over the artwork heavily, he is likely filling in wear that would normally be prominent, causing the covers to look better but not feel realistic.

 

So what we are witnessing is something resembling a comic book.

Looks like it.