There's a Restored 9.4 Tec 33 Blowing up on Ebay

[Aman619]

Matterus, sorry I came to the wrong conclusion you were the restorer... Silly of me to see both Matts and think you'd come here hiding but using the same name!

 

I smelled smoke in your posts. but missed the fire.

[lou_fine]

...

 

The point of professional restoration is to return a book back to as close to its original state as possible using reversible materials. When work becomes so extensive that it becomes hard to tell what is real and what is recreated, it is impossible to accurately and fairly represent a grade to the market.

 

I'm intrigued by this comment. I know you're using some shorthand here, but if it is hard to tell the difference between original and recreated, surely that's the definition of successful restoration?

 

And if it really is that hard to tell, why does anyone have a problem with any grading company assigning a high apparent grade with accompanying notes of extensive restoration?

 

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, if perfect recreation becomes possible so that there is no way to tell, does the difference between blue and purple become moot?

 

These are unsettling possibilities.

 

Exactly what I was thinking also!

 

There seems to be a concern here by both CGC and some of the board members that the restoration is done so well that they cannot tell what has been restored from what has not been restored. To me, this makes no sense at all as long as the book has clearly been identified as being restored, which they supposedly have in each and every one of these cases. And clearly designated as Extensively Restored at that.

 

It almost makes me wonder if CGC is more worried about possible lost business in the future if CCS cannot perform this same type of restoration to this same level of expertise. Really, CGC only has itself to blame when they let the genie out of the bottle 10 years ago by allowing certain restorative techniques to be applied to books, and yet still have them designated as unrestored. No need to go though the slew of activities involved here, but CGC could have discouraged this type of activity right from the get go, instead of embracing it as "maximization of potential". This was justified with the line that it doesn't really matter anyways, as nobody could tell the difference if the work was done properly, and if it wasn't, then it would be treated as a defect by CGC

 

Now it looks like a competing company are using new and different techniques to maximize the potential of previously restored books. The concern here being that they are doing it so well that it is not possible to differentiate the restored portion from the unrestored potion. Not sure why this is causing such a fervor here this time, since all the books are clearly being designated as Extensive Restored and everybody should know what has been done to the books. Does not make sense that it's alright to allow maximization of potential for "unrestored" books, but it is not alright to allow maximization of potential for previously restored books.

 

In this particular case, the choice is very simple, if you don't like books with this type of work done on them, just don't bother bidding on them as the restoration has clearly been disclosed on all of these books. Unfortunately, this same concept of disclosure were and still are not being afforded to other books that have gone through other more subtle and hidden forms of "improvement".

[*matterus023*]

Matterus, sorry I came to the wrong conclusion you were the restorer... Silly of me to see both Matts and think you'd come here hiding but using the same name!

 

I smelled smoke in your posts. but missed the fire.

 

No problem at all. Still appreciate you saying it though :-

 

Plus as someone else said there were dots to be joined so understandable

[sacentaur]

This is a cgc 9.4 unrestored back cover from HA.

 

 

http://comics.ha.com/itm/golden-age-1938-1955-/cartoon-character/walt-disney-s-comics-and-stories-1-dell-1940-cgc-nm-94-off-white-pages/a/830-91192.s?ic4=OtherResults-SampleItem-071515

 

Big diff in blue.

 

 

That is fair but you mentioned the blue, Just showing that another copy looks darker :-)

 

We call that even

 

I call that "busted".

[comicdonna]

Yep.

[nearmint]

Now it looks like a competing company are using new and different techniques to maximize the potential of previously restored books.

 

I didn't see any "new and different techniques" in what she listed.

[*matterus023*]

Now it looks like a competing company are using new and different techniques to maximize the potential of previously restored books.

 

I didn't see any "new and different techniques" in what she listed.

 

Of course you didn't. If they mentionted they didn't want to use cgc as much incase of their techniques becoming more public I doubt they would give away trade secrets on here

 

Stands to reason they are though as no one else seems to be hitting the high 9.0's in restoration. So whether people will argue the techniques are good or bad (again doesn't seem like anyone on here has actually seen their work) surely they are new and different as BOTH companies have graded in a way to back this up

[MrBedrock]

Now it looks like a competing company are using new and different techniques to maximize the potential of previously restored books.

 

I didn't see any "new and different techniques" in what she listed.

 

Of course you didn't. If they mentionted they didn't want to use cgc incase of their techniques becoming more public I doubt they would give away trade secrets on here

It is because their "new and different" techniques are applications that no trained conservator would ever use, since most of the present restoration techniques were developed by those who wish to preserve paper.

 

I would love for Emily and Matt to come on here and explain to me what fixatives they are applying to create their cover gloss and how it could possibly be reversible.

[Jaydogrules]

...

 

The point of professional restoration is to return a book back to as close to its original state as possible using reversible materials. When work becomes so extensive that it becomes hard to tell what is real and what is recreated, it is impossible to accurately and fairly represent a grade to the market.

 

I'm intrigued by this comment. I know you're using some shorthand here, but if it is hard to tell the difference between original and recreated, surely that's the definition of successful restoration?

 

And if it really is that hard to tell, why does anyone have a problem with any grading company assigning a high apparent grade with accompanying notes of extensive restoration?

 

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, if perfect recreation becomes possible so that there is no way to tell, does the difference between blue and purple become moot?

 

These are unsettling possibilities.

 

I don't think Matt was saying "the work was so good we couldn't tell there was any work at all".

 

I think Matt was actually politely saying "the work is so pervasive and invasive there is not enough of the original book left to be graded at all".

 

So instead of meeting or addressing CGC's concerns (which, given the work done, was probably impossible anyway) igb said "Good bye CGC, hello CBCS!".

 

-J.

[MrBedrock]

(again doesn't seem like anyone on here has actually seen their work)

Go back and read Matt Nelson's post.

[*matterus023*]

Now it looks like a competing company are using new and different techniques to maximize the potential of previously restored books.

 

I didn't see any "new and different techniques" in what she listed.

 

Of course you didn't. If they mentionted they didn't want to use cgc incase of their techniques becoming more public I doubt they would give away trade secrets on here

It is because their "new and different" techniques are applications that no trained conservator would ever use, since most of the present restoration techniques were developed by those who wish to preserve paper.

 

I would love for Emily and Matt to come on here and explain to me what fixatives they are applying to create their cover gloss and how it could possibly be reversible.

 

I am sure they will get to all the questions when they have time :-)

[MrBedrock]

Now it looks like a competing company are using new and different techniques to maximize the potential of previously restored books.

 

I didn't see any "new and different techniques" in what she listed.

 

Of course you didn't. If they mentionted they didn't want to use cgc incase of their techniques becoming more public I doubt they would give away trade secrets on here

It is because their "new and different" techniques are applications that no trained conservator would ever use, since most of the present restoration techniques were developed by those who wish to preserve paper.

 

I would love for Emily and Matt to come on here and explain to me what fixatives they are applying to create their cover gloss and how it could possibly be reversible.

 

I am sure they will get to all the questions when they have time :-)

Wanna bet?

[*matterus023*]

(again doesn't seem like anyone on here has actually seen their work)

Go back and read Matt Nelson's post.

 

Go back and read countless other posts where myself and others have put that rival companies could have an agenda. I am not going to take the word of Matt as gospel based on 1: common sense and 2: like I have also pointed out before I will make up my own mind once/if I actually have a comic of theirs to hand.

 

I would advise you to do the same

 

[Sqeggs]

I'm curious if creating things that weren't there originally should be considered restoration?

For instance...

 

 

WDC&S 1 8.5 from Heritage http://comics.ha.com/itm/golden-age-1938-1955-/walt-disney-s-comics-and-stories-1-dell-1940-cgc-apparent-vf-85-moderate-a-3-off-white-to-white-pages/a/7147-91167.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515

 

Notice that the 9.8 has a black line down the spine. Emily and Matt created a spine line where none originally existed. It looks nice. But it isn't original. The red on the front and the blue on the back simply met and bled together, but there was never a black spine line. It must have helped them achieve the goal of a higher grade though. And that, in a nutshell, is why I have a problem with all of this.

 

This example makes me wonder whether what the Meyers are doing might be a game changer for how both companies evaluate heavily restored books. I'm not sure the "we grade the book in front of us" approach still works when the restoration is this extensive.

 

Perhaps the grading companies will eventually decide that people submitting extensively restored books will have to provide documentation of what was done, along with before and after photos, and so on.

 

In any event, you would think in this case the black line added to the spine should have been counted as a defect, bringing the grade down from 9.8.

[AJD]

...

 

The point of professional restoration is to return a book back to as close to its original state as possible using reversible materials. When work becomes so extensive that it becomes hard to tell what is real and what is recreated, it is impossible to accurately and fairly represent a grade to the market.

 

I'm intrigued by this comment. I know you're using some shorthand here, but if it is hard to tell the difference between original and recreated, surely that's the definition of successful restoration?

 

And if it really is that hard to tell, why does anyone have a problem with any grading company assigning a high apparent grade with accompanying notes of extensive restoration?

 

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, if perfect recreation becomes possible so that there is no way to tell, does the difference between blue and purple become moot?

 

These are unsettling possibilities.

 

I don't think Matt was saying "the work was so good we couldn't tell there was any work at all".

 

I think Matt was actually politely saying "the work is so pervasive and invasive there is not enough of the original book left to be graded at all".

 

So instead of meeting or addressing CGC's concerns (which, given the work done, was probably impossible anyway) igb said "Good bye CGC, hello CBCS!".

 

-J.

 

Ah.. that's why he said "it becomes hard to tell what is real and what is recreated" rather than "the work is so pervasive and invasive there is not enough of the original book left to be graded at all". Gotcha. I think your agenda is showing.

 

[*matterus023*]

If we can just pick and chose who to believe then without ever seeing the comics for oursleves I will go with Matt and Emma from this comment

 

''We use only professional, archival, conservation level materials. We don't use Xerox. In fact we constantly remove Xerox from previously restored books.''

 

Sounds like they know what they are doing to me and not the amateurs or destroyers of comics that it seems you would like all to believe. From the start you have been very anti them which leads me to believe you are the one with an agenda.

 

Before you say I have been very pro them I actualy haven't. I have always said and kept to my point that until I had one to hand I wouldn't go around slating their work publicially.

 

Tbh it is very unprofessional and discourteous to do so

[Sqeggs]

If we can just pick and chose who to believe then without ever seeing the comics for oursleves I will go with Matt and Emma from this comment

 

''We use only professional, archival, conservation level materials. We don't use Xerox. In fact we constantly remove Xerox from previously restored books.''

 

Sounds like they know what they are doing to me and not the amateurs or destroyers of comics that it seems you would like all to believe. From the start you have been very anti them which leads me to believe you are the one with an agenda.

 

Before you say I have been very pro them I actualy haven't. I have always said and kept to my point that until I had one to hand I wouldn't go around slating their work publicially.

 

Tbh it is very unprofessional and discourteous to do so

 

Since you are replying to one of your own posts, I'm not sure who the "you" is.

[Jaydogrules]

...

 

The point of professional restoration is to return a book back to as close to its original state as possible using reversible materials. When work becomes so extensive that it becomes hard to tell what is real and what is recreated, it is impossible to accurately and fairly represent a grade to the market.

 

I'm intrigued by this comment. I know you're using some shorthand here, but if it is hard to tell the difference between original and recreated, surely that's the definition of successful restoration?

 

And if it really is that hard to tell, why does anyone have a problem with any grading company assigning a high apparent grade with accompanying notes of extensive restoration?

 

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, if perfect recreation becomes possible so that there is no way to tell, does the difference between blue and purple become moot?

 

These are unsettling possibilities.

 

I don't think Matt was saying "the work was so good we couldn't tell there was any work at all".

 

I think Matt was actually politely saying "the work is so pervasive and invasive there is not enough of the original book left to be graded at all".

 

So instead of meeting or addressing CGC's concerns (which, given the work done, was probably impossible anyway) igb said "Good bye CGC, hello CBCS!".

 

-J.

 

Ah.. that's why he said "it becomes hard to tell what is real and what is recreated" rather than "the work is so pervasive and invasive there is not enough of the original book left to be graded at all". Gotcha. I think your agenda is showing.

 

What's my agenda ? I'm not selling or buying anything here.

 

But I still believe Matt was being diplomatic with his choice of words as the fact that CGC rejected the books for grading actually speaks for itself.

 

-J.

[*matterus023*]

If we can just pick and chose who to believe then without ever seeing the comics for oursleves I will go with Matt and Emma from this comment

 

''We use only professional, archival, conservation level materials. We don't use Xerox. In fact we constantly remove Xerox from previously restored books.''

 

Sounds like they know what they are doing to me and not the amateurs or destroyers of comics that it seems you would like all to believe. From the start you have been very anti them which leads me to believe you are the one with an agenda.

 

Before you say I have been very pro them I actualy haven't. I have always said and kept to my point that until I had one to hand I wouldn't go around slating their work publicially.

 

Tbh it is very unprofessional and discourteous to do so

 

Since you are replying to one of your own posts, I'm not sure who the "you" is.

 

Good point. That was aimed at Mr Bedrock

[MrBedrock]

If we can just pick and chose who to believe then without ever seeing the comics for oursleves I will go with Matt and Emma from this comment

 

''We use only professional, archival, conservation level materials. We don't use Xerox. In fact we constantly remove Xerox from previously restored books.''

 

Sounds like they know what they are doing to me and not the amateurs or destroyers of comics that it seems you would like all to believe. From the start you have been very anti them which leads me to believe you are the one with an agenda.

 

Before you say I have been very pro them I actualy haven't. I have always said and kept to my point that until I had one to hand I wouldn't go around slating their work publicially.

 

Tbh it is very unprofessional and discourteous to do so

But you had them do work for you. How can we believe you when you obviously have something to gain financially from your association with them. They said they don't have clients. What they do is find folks with previously restored books and offer to do additional work to improve the grade then split the profits on whatever the book sells for. A partnership in the book. You were partners with them on your Strange Tales. You are the one here with an agenda. But I really do appreciate the advice you gave me in the earlier post. Thanks.