Showcase #4 9.8 on Comic Connect - sold for 15k

[*matterus023*]

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.

 

Which is why restored books should have 2 grades. What the book is at now (9.8) and what the book was at before the work was done (3.0).

 

I really like that idea

 

Would be good but if it has been re restored like 4 times it couldn't be on the label. But should be in the notes for sure

[Jaydogrules]

I'd like to clarify a few things that Emily brought up concerning CGC's position. CGC did have a concern with several of the books submitted to us earlier this year for reasons previously posted in this thread. I gave Matt and Emily time and advice to guide them in the right direction. Up to the point we stopped receiving submissions there were issues with the work, reflected in our assigning either B or C classifications. A decision was going to be made whether to stop taking books that exhibited questionable work, but submissions ceased.

 

In most cases, CBCS gave higher grades and a professional designation. We have not seen the recent restoration outside of the CBCS holders, so I am not sure our issues with earlier work has been resolved.

 

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.

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=9068016&fpart=5

 

 

'' A decision was going to be made whether to stop taking books that exhibited questionable work, but submissions ceased. ''

 

So like I say nothing has been said about it. Easy to say oh we were just about to say no more but then they stopped using us.

 

No decision was made so people should stop going on about it. That is the business of CGC not some fools on here. Some think they are supporting CGC with their comments. Trust me people....you are coming off rather immature. Not the type of people I would want representing/defending me anyway

 

Matt Nelson was being diplomatic.

 

I think we are all capable of reading between the lines when it comes to CGC's position on those igb books...

 

-J.

[VintageComics]

I think we are all capable of reading between the lines when it comes to CGC's position on those igb books...

 

If it supports your position you're happy to read between the lines.

 

If it doesn't support your position you must have just the facts.

 

Just saying.

[VintageComics]

It's just that with these IGB restored books little is known about them as they are new and as which many new things that not much is known about, many people tend to focus on the negative.

 

Roy, you make it sound like the negativity is coming from ignorance and I'm afraid that you have it backwards.

 

For a variety of reasons, the IGB books are being seen as recreations (and in some notable cases, inaccurate recreations), not restorations.

 

Steve, I don't have a dog in the race but I do agree that some of the books appeared to be recreations based on artwork changing.

 

Then to have the books marketed as "Better than new!" is both disingenuous and insulting, reeking of snake-oil salesmanship.

 

Sure, but that's the auction house.

 

 

 

[VintageComics]

CGC has made the call not to legitimatize these recreations, and "many people" tend to agree (including me).

 

That's where I'm not so sure. See Tony's point below.

 

I'd like to clarify a few things that Emily brought up concerning CGC's position. CGC did have a concern with several of the books submitted to us earlier this year for reasons previously posted in this thread. I gave Matt and Emily time and advice to guide them in the right direction. Up to the point we stopped receiving submissions there were issues with the work, reflected in our assigning either B or C classifications. A decision was going to be made whether to stop taking books that exhibited questionable work, but submissions ceased.

 

In most cases, CBCS gave higher grades and a professional designation. We have not seen the recent restoration outside of the CBCS holders, so I am not sure our issues with earlier work has been resolved.

 

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.

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=9068016&fpart=5

 

 

Good job, Peter. That's the key post as I remember from reading that thread.

 

A couple of points:

 

1. If I'm reading Matt's comments correctly, CGC did initially grade some igb books, although they didn't give them a professional designation as CBCS has done.

 

2. Matt does not state categorically that CGC would not grade the current igb books because none have been submitted and he hasn't seen the books out of their CBCS slabs.

 

So, the statements that CGC has rejected these books appear to be incorrect, at least so far as is publicly known.

[Jaydogrules]

I think we are all capable of reading between the lines when it comes to CGC's position on those igb books...

 

If it supports your position you're happy to read between the lines.

 

If it doesn't support your position you must have just the facts.

 

Just saying.

 

PM sent.

 

-J.

[Aman619]

+1

 

It's pretty obvious what happened from Matts post. Yes it is true that CGC has never publicly stated that would not grade the books anymore (and once the Myers chose not to test CGC again after they found a warm welcome from the other guys) but it's clear what CGCs decision was going to be if given the chance... IF the next batch was like the previous ones Matt discussed with them.

[bluechip]

I'd like to clarify a few things that Emily brought up concerning CGC's position. CGC did have a concern with several of the books submitted to us earlier this year for reasons previously posted in this thread. I gave Matt and Emily time and advice to guide them in the right direction. Up to the point we stopped receiving submissions there were issues with the work, reflected in our assigning either B or C classifications. A decision was going to be made whether to stop taking books that exhibited questionable work, but submissions ceased.

 

In most cases, CBCS gave higher grades and a professional designation. We have not seen the recent restoration outside of the CBCS holders, so I am not sure our issues with earlier work has been resolved.

 

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.

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=9068016&fpart=5

 

 

'' A decision was going to be made whether to stop taking books that exhibited questionable work, but submissions ceased. ''

 

So like I say nothing has been said about it. Easy to say oh we were just about to say no more but then they stopped using us.

 

No decision was made so people should stop going on about it. That is the business of CGC not some fools on here. Some think they are supporting CGC with their comments. Trust me people....you are coming off rather immature. Not the type of people I would want representing/defending me anyway

 

Matt Nelson was being diplomatic.

 

I think we are all capable of reading between the lines when it comes to CGC's position on those igb books...

 

-J.

 

No, we aren't.

 

Or, even if we are, I don't think we should expect others to read between the lines.

 

It seems so often, when the subject is resto that imprecise words are supposed to be enough and that we shouldn't even ask for more precise words. We are instead supposed to "read between the lines" to know what is "good" and what is bad." What is "acceptable" and what is "questionable." Those words sounds as precise as a puffs of smoke, and yet they are all bandied about like they must be used as ironclad proof of whether a book is an "investment" or not.

 

Don't just tell me that the restoration to a book is "questionable" -- tell me what the MF'in' hell was DONE to it. What did it look like before?

 

Anything else sounds like b.s. no matter who is saying it, pro or con. Either someone doesn't want to say what was done or someone is trying to inflate and exaggerate what was done. And neither of those sounds better to me than the other.

 

 

 

[nmtg9]

Is this a case of 'what I restore rocks, what you restore sucks'?

 

 

[LordRahl]

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.

 

Which is why restored books should have 2 grades. What the book is at now (9.8) and what the book was at before the work was done (3.0).

 

This would be great. Problem is that it would be complete guesswork most of the time. Probably pretty easy to extrapolate previous grade if it was just a little CT but for extensive resto, unless you have either seen the book in hand or have really good scans of the original condition, there is no way you can know if it was a 2.0 or 3.0 or whatever.

[LordRahl]

+1

 

It's pretty obvious what happened from Matts post. Yes it is true that CGC has never publicly stated that would not grade the books anymore (and once the Myers chose not to test CGC again after they found a warm welcome from the other guys) but it's clear what CGCs decision was going to be if given the chance... IF the next batch was like the previous ones Matt discussed with them.

 

That's a really big IF given that from what was posted by some, the new books are not like the old books and don't have that stiff/fake feel to them. So we really have NO IDEA what CGC would have done, despite some people's claims to the contrary.

[Hulksdaddy1]

Seems to me the only real question being asked here: how much resto is TOO much resto?

 

And since that is entirely subjective, there is no right or wrong regarding these books.

 

Don't like them, don't buy them. Do, then do.

[VintageComics]

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.

 

Which is why restored books should have 2 grades. What the book is at now (9.8) and what the book was at before the work was done (3.0).

 

This would be great. Problem is that it would be complete guesswork most of the time. Probably pretty easy to extrapolate previous grade if it was just a little CT but for extensive resto, unless you have either seen the book in hand or have really good scans of the original condition, there is no way you can know if it was a 2.0 or 3.0 or whatever.

 

Agreed. It's unrealistic to expect that sort of detail.

 

It's possible but you'd need more than just the human eye and an ultraviolet light. You'd need equipment that can differentiate between and quantify materials (as I said earlier in the discussion). I don't think we're there yet in this hobby.

[VintageComics]

+1

 

It's pretty obvious what happened from Matts post. Yes it is true that CGC has never publicly stated that would not grade the books anymore (and once the Myers chose not to test CGC again after they found a warm welcome from the other guys) but it's clear what CGCs decision was going to be if given the chance... IF the next batch was like the previous ones Matt discussed with them.

 

That's a really big IF given that from what was posted by some, the new books are not like the old books and don't have that stiff/fake feel to them. So we really have NO IDEA what CGC would have done, despite some people's claims to the contrary.

 

I spoke to Borock in Seattle yesterday. He specifically said that IGB have been talking to Steve (as they did with Matt) and have been adapting what they do to their books, so they are not likely the same as they were when they first started.

 

What that means I have no idea as I didn't go into much detail as it was obvious that Steve was busy, but without actually holding these books in my hands or speaking in detail to people who are examining them closely we can only 'know' so much.

 

 

[VintageComics]

Seems to me the only real question being asked here: how much resto is TOO much resto?

 

It's a question of not only how much resto but what sort of resto.

 

As technology changes all fields have to adapt. We're now seeing that happy in as it adapts.

 

 

[*matterus023*]

I'd like to clarify a few things that Emily brought up concerning CGC's position. CGC did have a concern with several of the books submitted to us earlier this year for reasons previously posted in this thread. I gave Matt and Emily time and advice to guide them in the right direction. Up to the point we stopped receiving submissions there were issues with the work, reflected in our assigning either B or C classifications. A decision was going to be made whether to stop taking books that exhibited questionable work, but submissions ceased.

 

In most cases, CBCS gave higher grades and a professional designation. We have not seen the recent restoration outside of the CBCS holders, so I am not sure our issues with earlier work has been resolved.

 

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.

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=9068016&fpart=5

 

 

'' A decision was going to be made whether to stop taking books that exhibited questionable work, but submissions ceased. ''

 

So like I say nothing has been said about it. Easy to say oh we were just about to say no more but then they stopped using us.

 

No decision was made so people should stop going on about it. That is the business of CGC not some fools on here. Some think they are supporting CGC with their comments. Trust me people....you are coming off rather immature. Not the type of people I would want representing/defending me anyway

 

Matt Nelson was being diplomatic.

 

I think we are all capable of reading between the lines when it comes to CGC's position on those igb books...

 

-J.

 

No, we aren't.

 

Or, even if we are, I don't think we should expect others to read between the lines.

 

It seems so often, when the subject is resto that imprecise words are supposed to be enough and that we shouldn't even ask for more precise words. We are instead supposed to "read between the lines" to know what is "good" and what is bad." What is "acceptable" and what is "questionable." Those words sounds as precise as a puffs of smoke, and yet they are all bandied about like they must be used as ironclad proof of whether a book is an "investment" or not.

 

Don't just tell me that the restoration to a book is "questionable" -- tell me what the MF'in' hell was DONE to it. What did it look like before?

 

Anything else sounds like b.s. no matter who is saying it, pro or con. Either someone doesn't want to say what was done or someone is trying to inflate and exaggerate what was done. And neither of those sounds better to me than the other.

 

 

 

+1

[*matterus023*]

+1

 

It's pretty obvious what happened from Matts post. Yes it is true that CGC has never publicly stated that would not grade the books anymore (and once the Myers chose not to test CGC again after they found a warm welcome from the other guys) but it's clear what CGCs decision was going to be if given the chance... IF the next batch was like the previous ones Matt discussed with them.

 

That's a really big IF given that from what was posted by some, the new books are not like the old books and don't have that stiff/fake feel to them. So we really have NO IDEA what CGC would have done, despite some people's claims to the contrary.

 

I spoke to Borock in Seattle yesterday. He specifically said that IGB have been talking to Steve (as they did with Matt) and have been adapting what they do to their books, so they are not likely the same as they were when they first started.

 

What that means I have no idea as I didn't go into much detail as it was obvious that Steve was busy, but without actually holding these books in my hands or speaking in detail to people who are examining them closely we can only 'know' so much.

 

 

+1

[*matterus023*]

Be great if many were able to go and feel the comics themselves. I for one would be very interested to hear from people. Especially from those who are clued up on resto before hand

[G.A.tor]

I've only held one. Earlier work I believe. Action 7. Fc appeared 100% color touched over. I'm assuming they've adapted since then and reduced in some instances? But this cover was so colored it looked and felt "fake".

[*matterus023*]

I've only held one. Earlier work I believe. Action 7. Fc appeared 100% color touched over. I'm assuming they've adapted since then and reduced in some instances? But this cover was so colored it looked and felt "fake".

 

Thanks

 

You should go see one now to compare