SUPERMAN #1 SALE?

[esquirecomics]

Hmm, cue entrance from Mark Zaid...

 

Thank you, thank you.

 

I am going to fall in the middle of ActionKid and FFB.

 

Personally, I have absolutely no problem with restoration being removed, and I agree that it deserves a blue label. The book is no longer restored. It may possibly suffer damage in the process and, if so, the grade will reflect it. However, as with the Kid, I also believe disclosure is appropriate, and frankly required if known.

 

As many of you know, the More Fun #52 I own falls exactly into this catagory. I would have been extremely perturbed had I purchased it without being told of the restoration being removed, and it concerns me that the second label neither reflected the fact that the book was from the Nic Cage collection or the Rockford copy.

 

Why on earth someone would not want the pedigree designation (and I refer to the Rockford, not Cage!) on the label is beyond me except to possibly hide the fact that the book had undergone a transformation. And why hide something except for the fact a concern existed that it would impact the market value?

 

To some extent, if this theory is accurate, the mere existence of the attempt to hide the truth - which was publicly exposed before the Heritage Auction was completed - probably did effect the market value (the book did not sell at auction) when to have been upfront might not have had the same impact and generated a respectable sale. It just proves once again what we know in Washington D.C. so well, it is the cover-up that usually causes far more harm than the underlying deed.

 

Still, I am not complaining. I have the book now and purchased it at a very fair price!

 

At some time perhaps we should have a discussion on the impact of restoration on GA books, and possibly revise the current thinking in the community as to the degree to which certain stages of restoration should have on a book's value, if any.

[adamstrange]

i know that of the 28 known copies of action 1 on the cgc census,,about 18 of them are blue lable and 10 are plod...but did you know that a 3rd of the blue lable action 1s have at least some degree of resto on them or at least a sub caption..

i challange you to find me an action 1 above 6.5 blue lable that has no resto AT ALL,,and no sub caption..or one that simply says

ACTION COMICS # 1 cgc 7.0

off white pages

 

aint gonna happen

 

TOTALLY unrestored virgin,,no resto removed,,now thats gonna be RARE,,youll see..

 

I personally don't get all that excited about the captions. In the early days CGC gave captions for a variety of defects that no longer consider important enough to note (for example, mis-cuts). If that's the kind of caption some of these have (which wouldn't surprise me) then I suspect you'll see some captions disappear when books are re-submitted.

 

The defects that CGC typically notes now are those not viewable without de-slabbing the book. The rusty staple is noted, I assume, so that you know the extent of the rust. Missing pieces from pages or loose centerfolds would also qualify. Now these are defects like any other defect that affects the grade of the book, but that doesn't necessarily make them any worse than say a tear or crease or abrasion somewhere on the cover. I think there is a world of difference between these captions and the glue or color touch that you mention.

[tth2]

i challange you to find me an action 1 above 6.5 blue lable that has no resto AT ALL,,and no sub caption..or one that simply says

ACTION COMICS # 1 cgc 7.0

off white pages

 

aint gonna happen

 

TOTALLY unrestored virgin,,no resto removed,,now thats gonna be RARE,,youll see..

Action, you've provided some interesting insights, but why do you keep sounding like you're trying to pick a fight? I don't think anyone here is disagreeing with you that a totally virgin Action #1, as you put it, with no work of any kind (including "permitted" blue label glue, color touch) and no notable defects (e.g., rusted staples), is going to be rare and highly coveted. Point made. Move on.

[Aman619]

yes we are talking about the mile high superman # 1.....

EVEN IF THE RESTO WAS REMOVED FROM THE MILE SUPERMAN # 1..

i think it should be said on the blue lable that the resto was removed!

I MEAN,WOULDNT YOU WANT TO KNOW THAT WORK HAD BEEN DONE TO IT..WETHER IT GETS A BLUE OR PLOD,,,,,,,NOTHING CAN TAKE AWAY FROM THE FAC T THAT work has been done to it!! and it should be noted on that blue lable..anyone agree???its not worth the same as a virgin sups 1 that has never been touch......,blue lable,sub captioned,,resto removed...cant list it as virgin,

the buyer has the right to know the resto was removed..it should be noted

 

As long as the apparent damage from the removal of the prior restoration is factored into the grade, I couldn't care less.

 

If the book was slightly restored and all of the restoration is completely removed, it's no longer a restored book. It is irrelevant that it used to be restored, because all of the work has been removed and the book is no longer a higher "apparent" grade from what it was before. It is an unrestored book with defects.

 

Besides, how is CGC supposed to know that restoration was removed if it's entirely gone? Are they supposed to guess whether every abrasion is from regular wear or from restoration removal?

 

I think this "once a restored book, ALWAYS a restored book" viewpoint is borne out of an irrational fear and hatred of restoration. (No offense meant to you personally.) Restoration isn't the scarlet letter. If it can be safely and completely reversed (reversibility is one of the guiding principles of professional conservation, although things like cleaning cannot be "reversed"), then there is nothing to worry about from the standpoint of the owner.

 

FFB you are speaking here in perfect 20/20 CGC hindsight. That is, now that the CGC blue label is all that matters, you are correct. But, the MH Superman #1 is WIDELY known and acknowledged to have had work done to it AND later removed. For such a well-known book, certainly we can all look beyond the blue label which merely represents CGCs opinion of the comic's state when last submitted for grading. They DID NOT and DO NOT at this time have a place in their system where they note a particular comic's history. And in this case (as with Marks More Fun 52,) its kinda ludicrous, dont you think?? Like having a starlet denying she had breast implants when there is ample evidence from close friends that she used to be flatchested.

[Aman619]

there is no way that there are 5 action 1s that are 7.5 or higher in TOTALLY UNRESTORED CONDITION!...IM WRITING TOTALLY UNRESTORED BECAUSE I CONSIDER THE SLIGHTEST OF GLUE OR COLOR TOUCH[RESTORATION..

oh yea,,you will get your blue lables,but they will say slight this and slight that..

you will never get 5 action 1s TOTALLY unrestored with no captions..the totally unrestored action 1 is the true rarity..even the cgc census,,the top 2 action 1s have captions,,,,the 8.5 has the caption[rusted staples]]the 7.5 has slight resto]\the 6.5 is the hihest grade with no captions at all and totally unrestored...cgc 6.5 off white pages..that all it says..you mark my words,,when those 8.5s and 9.0s action 1s ungraded as of yet come out of the wood work youll get your blue lables but most if not all, of em will have sub captions,,slight this or that,rusted this..but totally unrestored with no captions over 7.5,,no way theres 5 of em..time will prove me out..

 

if that many had work done to them, then it's a shame that so many copies passed through a certain persons hands at one time or another, You sound like someone who knows an awful lot about Action 1s. Care to elaborate?

[action1kid]

i am referring to cgc,s designations[what they actually have reported

[adamstrange]

BTW, Welcome to the boards.

 

We don't usually deal with life or death issues here so most of us take the whole comics thing in stride.

 

Relax, have a beer, and keep posting as the mood strikes.

[FFB]

Hmm, cue entrance from Mark Zaid...

Personally, I have absolutely no problem with restoration being removed, and I agree that it deserves a blue label. The book is no longer restored. It may possibly suffer damage in the process and, if so, the grade will reflect it. However, as with the Kid, I also believe disclosure is appropriate, and frankly required if known.

 

Where does it stop though? What if the "color touch" removed was a dot of black acrylic on the spine? Even worse, what if an "innocent" owner buys an unrestored book that used to have a dot of acrylic on the spine that was safely and professionally removed at some point? If it comes to light later that the book used to have that dot of acrylic, does that justify an inquisition into the motives of the seller? I don't think so. The acrylic dot is gone with no trace of it ever having been there. The book is 100% original and is in exactly the same state as it was before the acrylic dot was placed there to begin with. Why on earth would anyone care that there used to be an acrylic dot there, other than out of blind, ignorant fear that somehow all restored books are "bad forever"?

 

What if instead of an archival-quality acrylic dot, there used to be a fly speck or a speck of dirt there that was wiped away harmlessly? No one would say that a seller has to disclose that, would they? Why the acrylic but not the fly speck or the dirt? Taking this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, shouldn't the seller have to disclose the cause of any defects that were inflicted upon the book while in his possession?

 

Or perhaps the whole point of this is for the seller to describe the grade of the book at the time of the sale, and note any restoration existing at that time that alters the appearance of the book from its "unrestored" state (removal of restoration that previously made the book look better does not qualify because the removal doesn't improve the grade or appearance of the book). The point of disclosure is for the buyer not to be misled about the condition of the book. If the seller grades it accurately taking into account any defects left by the scraping away of a dot of acrylic, I don't think it is incumbent upon the seller to say that there used to be a dot of acrylic there.

[action1kid]

i opologize,i did not realize i was sounding antagonistic..i was just trying to make a strong point,,,,,,and im not a poor speller,i just have FAT fingers

[FFB]

yes we are talking about the mile high superman # 1.....

EVEN IF THE RESTO WAS REMOVED FROM THE MILE SUPERMAN # 1..

i think it should be said on the blue lable that the resto was removed!

I MEAN,WOULDNT YOU WANT TO KNOW THAT WORK HAD BEEN DONE TO IT..WETHER IT GETS A BLUE OR PLOD,,,,,,,NOTHING CAN TAKE AWAY FROM THE FAC T THAT work has been done to it!! and it should be noted on that blue lable..anyone agree???its not worth the same as a virgin sups 1 that has never been touch......,blue lable,sub captioned,,resto removed...cant list it as virgin,

the buyer has the right to know the resto was removed..it should be noted

 

As long as the apparent damage from the removal of the prior restoration is factored into the grade, I couldn't care less.

 

If the book was slightly restored and all of the restoration is completely removed, it's no longer a restored book. It is irrelevant that it used to be restored, because all of the work has been removed and the book is no longer a higher "apparent" grade from what it was before. It is an unrestored book with defects.

 

Besides, how is CGC supposed to know that restoration was removed if it's entirely gone? Are they supposed to guess whether every abrasion is from regular wear or from restoration removal?

 

I think this "once a restored book, ALWAYS a restored book" viewpoint is borne out of an irrational fear and hatred of restoration. (No offense meant to you personally.) Restoration isn't the scarlet letter. If it can be safely and completely reversed (reversibility is one of the guiding principles of professional conservation, although things like cleaning cannot be "reversed"), then there is nothing to worry about from the standpoint of the owner.

 

FFB you are speaking here in perfect 20/20 CGC hindsight. That is, now that the CGC blue label is all that matters, you are correct. But, the MH Superman #1 is WIDELY known and acknowledged to have had work done to it AND later removed. For such a well-known book, certainly we can all look beyond the blue label which merely represents CGCs opinion of the comic's state when last submitted for grading. They DID NOT and DO NOT at this time have a place in their system where they note a particular comic's history. And in this case (as with Marks More Fun 52,) its kinda ludicrous, dont you think?? Like having a starlet denying she had breast implants when there is ample evidence from close friends that she used to be flatchested.

 

The problem with your analogy is that your starlet still has fake breasts. A book that used to have a dot of acrylic on the spine and then had that dot removed does not STILL have "fake breasts" to borrow from your analogy.

 

I recognize that with the Church Superman #1 everyone knows about the restoration and the removal. To treat the book as though it is still restored when the restoration has been completely removed is silly. To claim that the owner of that book and every successive owner of that book for all eternity must disclose the fact that it once had restoration is equally silly.

[tth2]

To treat the book as though it is still restored when the restoration has been completely removed is silly. To claim that the owner of that book and every successive owner of that book for all eternity must disclose the fact that it once had restoration is equally silly.

Why? Perhaps there are people who feel that a previously-restored unrestored book is inferior to a never-restored book? I know that if I had 2 copies of an otherwise identical book in front of me, and the only difference was that one had previously been restored and then restored, I would take the "virgin" copy every time, and would appreciate having been provided all the facts so that I could make an informed decision. How is more information a bad thing?

[Aman619]

okay, you just bought the MH Supes #1 as a Blue label 8.0 for $275K, a new record since its a higher grade than the 7.5 that sold. And you had NO IDEA of that particular copy's history vis-a-vis restoration and removal.

 

So you get home and post a scan of your new grail like you did with that pretty BB25 for all of us to cheer and drool. And you then learn of its past as poster after poster says didnt you know?? Werent you told?

 

How do you feel?

 

If youre still cool with finding out AFTER you bought it, fine. More power to ya!

 

Id be pissssed. Anyone else?

[Aman619]

To treat the book as though it is still restored when the restoration has been completely removed is silly. To claim that the owner of that book and every successive owner of that book for all eternity must disclose the fact that it once had restoration is equally silly.

Why? Perhaps there are people who feel that a previously-restored unrestored book is inferior to a never-restored book? I know that if I had 2 copies of an otherwise identical book in front of me, and the only difference was that one had previously been restored and then restored, I would take the "virgin" copy every time, and would appreciate having been provided all the facts so that I could make an informed decision. How is more information a bad thing?

 

thats what Im saying and how I feel too. I think FFB feels its all water under the bridge.

[esquirecomics]

I don't view this discussion as a black or white issue. My position on disclosure as been more generic thus far than an articulation of every facet of my beliefs.

 

To be sure there could be varying degrees of "issues" with a book, such as you describe, that perhaps might not require, in my opinion, a need for disclosure. No doubt we could draft standards that the community could adopt or apply if the interest was there (and I think it is).

 

For example, as we know, CGC does allow for a small amount of color touch or glue to be present but will still assign a blue lable to the book. Frankly, I have no objection to that. But what I would like to know is what is the standard that is applied. Is it objective or subjective? Is it meant to be consistent? All I have ever heard is that it is discretionary. That, to me, is unacceptable and unprofessional.

 

I personally view the issue probably somewhat similiar to you FFB that if the "issue" involved could have an impact on that book's value, than it should/must be disclosed. For now, however, there may be a disagreement as to what an "issue" is and the degree to which that particular "issue" may impact a book's valuet. That discussion, though legitimate and necessary, is for a different thread.

[esquirecomics]

i am referring to cgc,s designations[what they actually have reported

 

I am confused now though. I've appreciated your insight and clear knowledge of the history of some of these Superman #1 copies, but you made a very bold statement about 1/3 of the CGC blue label copies actually having restoration.

 

Is your comment then above agreeing with the assessment I made in my previous post that you were originally referring to information that CGC placed on the blue labels that you (and perhaps others) believe is restoration?

 

And, yes, welcome to the boards.

[action1kid]

in a paragraph you eloquently said what i was trying to say in the novel i wrote!

thank you for your well chosen words

[FFB]

To treat the book as though it is still restored when the restoration has been completely removed is silly. To claim that the owner of that book and every successive owner of that book for all eternity must disclose the fact that it once had restoration is equally silly.

Why?

 

Because the restoration is no longer there. There is nothing on the book that is deceptively making it look nicer than it is.

 

Perhaps there are people who feel that a previously-restored unrestored book is inferior to a never-restored book? I know that if I had 2 copies of an otherwise identical book in front of me, and the only difference was that one had previously been restored and then restored, I would take the "virgin" copy every time, and would appreciate having been provided all the facts so that I could make an informed decision. How is more information a bad thing?

 

I didn't say more information was a bad thing. If the seller wants to disclose the fact that the book used to have a dot of acrylic and no longer does, that is fine and good.

 

What I said was, I do not think that it is obligatory for a seller to disclose that the book USED to be restored but no longer is. A defect is a defect regardless of how it got there. If the defect is factored into the grade, I do not think that a seller has an obligation to state HOW it got there or whether it used to be "covered up" with a restorative process that is no longer present.

 

And what is this "virgin" copy business? I don't even know what "virgin" means in this context. Does it mean "has no restoration"? If so, then both books are "virgin" copies once you flake off the dot of acrylic. If it means "has a defect," then any book with defects is no longer a "virgin" copy.

 

I think that it is important to recognize a distinction between those books that can have prior restoration safely reversed and those that can't. If the book has had any kind of piece replacement that involved removal of the cover or any kind of washing, then the book cannot be unrestored.

 

On the other hand, if the book had a 1/16th inch tear sealed, then that is easy to remove. If it was taped shut with archival tape, you just mechanically lift off the piece of tape, and voila, tear seal reversed. You are honestly telling me that if you had two 9.0 copies of the same book with exactly the same 1/16th inch tear along the top edge of the cover, the fact that one of the books used to have the tear sealed with a tiny piece of archival tape that was then lifted off by hand would cause you to pay less for that copy?

[FFB]

okay, you just bought the MH Supes #1 as a Blue label 8.0 for $275K, a new record since its a higher grade than the 7.5 that sold. And you had NO IDEA of that particular copy's history vis-a-vis restoration and removal.

 

So you get home and post a scan of your new grail like you did with that pretty BB25 for all of us to cheer and drool. And you then learn of its past as poster after poster says didnt you know?? Werent you told?

 

How do you feel?

 

If youre still cool with finding out AFTER you bought it, fine. More power to ya!

 

Id be pissssed. Anyone else?

 

Yes, I'd feel fine. It's an unrestored 8.0. I don't care that there used to be a dot of acrylic that isn't there anymore.

[rob_react]

 

Yes, I'd feel fine. It's an unrestored 8.0. I don't care that there used to be a dot of acrylic that isn't there anymore.

 

It had work done to interior pages. Some sort of paper repair- tears sealed/paper added?

[action1kid]

hi im sorry if i made you think i was referring to the sups 1s,,i was referring to the action 1s,,im saying that a 3rd of the blue lables have at least tiny resto or and either a sub caption or simply stated, 2/3 of the blue lable action 1s are totally unrestored and have no subcaptions...for example

 

fine+6.5

off white pages

this is the highest i can find TOTALLY unrestored with no sub captions

 

the larsons, kansis city and mile high copies have yet to prove themselves...