SUPERMAN #1 SALE?

[esquirecomics]

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

thank you for your well chosen words

 

Yet another example of why law school was worth the education and expense!

 

Keep the posts coming Action1Kid!

[greggy]

 

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?

I believe S. Fishler mentioned that there a piece added to the centerfold page which was eventually removed. There may have been some glue of the cover as well.

[esquirecomics]

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

thank you for your well chosen words

 

Yet another example of why law school was worth the education and expense!

 

Keep the posts coming Action1Kid!

 

Whoops, think I misposted. Don't think this was meant for me so my law school education wasn't worth it yet!

 

But thanks for clarifying what you meant about the Action #1s. I now follow your rationale.

[action1kid]

true,,cgc cannot tell if resto was removed,,but they can if the book was already graded as a plod..and in this particular case should be noted on the lable,this would be applicible for example to the mile high adventure 40,more fun 52,,bat1,

which we already know and have been certified with at least some degree of resto..

wouldnt you want to know that the mile high adventure 40 which is a 9.2 plod had its resto taken off and is now a blue lable 9.4,,it was documented as restored,,if your gonna give it a blue lable now you have to ethically put on the blue lable that the restoration was removed..if your spending 250k on a book,,you just have to want to know this..it has to be at least disclosed with a book that was previously graded as a plod,,at least that you have to agree,,i can see the problem with the unslabbed books spotting unrestoring it,,but the argument dosnt stand if the book was already graded...and not to mention many dealers have old grading certifcates

stating the resto on non graded cgc books thats can be referred to[that is if they were honest...i know theres a potential problem there

[action1kid]

i think that you can take to the bank that if we have the technology for example of telling who the father is of a baby by examining a tiny chromosome cell[the murry povich show]than we have the technology to find out if a book that was restored has been unrestored...its not impossible,nothings impossible...but everythings expensive.........still believe the feds assertion that theres no inflation in the economy???

[rob_react]

i think that you can take to the bank that if we have the technology for example of telling who the father is of a baby by examining a tiny chromosome cell[the murry povich show]than we have the technology to find out if a book that was restored has been unrestored...

 

I heard if you use the right frequency of light you can see the "cooties" aura that a book that once had restoration gives off.

[action1kid]

HEY ROB, WHATS UP?

[action1kid]

i heard the same thing!

but it only works on thursdays.......between 3pm to sunset

 

have a good night

 

your friend

the action1kid

[FFB]

i think that you can take to the bank that if we have the technology for example of telling who the father is of a baby by examining a tiny chromosome cell[the murry povich show]than we have the technology to find out if a book that was restored has been unrestored...its not impossible,nothings impossible...but everythings expensive.........still believe the feds assertion that theres no inflation in the economy???

 

Like I have said so many times, those most paranoid about restoration are the ones who seem to know the least about it.

 

Assume I have two copies of Action #1. Both are identical. Approximately 5.0 VG/FN. Both are nice copies, but exhibit the same main defect -- a missing 1/4 inch chip out of the lower right corner.

 

One of the books is missing a chip because the corner flaked off from normal wear.

 

The other book is missing a chip because there used to be a 1/16th inch piece of Japan paper added to square off a slightly blunted corner and a hit of acrylic paint color touch covering the Japan paper -- the missing piece is now 1/4 inch long because the person who removed it cut off more paper than he needed to.

 

There is no technology that can tell you which of the two books used to be restored, nor will there ever be such technology.

 

Why is one of these books worth less than the other?

 

And while you guys are puzzling through this one, try answering my prior question about the removal of an archival tape 1/16th inch tear seal.

[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?

 

One more question -- since when does restoration removal INCREASE the grade? Removing restoration will uncover defects and will DECREASE the grade.

 

And since we're talking about the Edgar Church Superman #1, let's just say that there isn't much that could pisss me off if I bought this book.

 

[rob_react]

There is no technology that can tell you which of the two books used to be restored, nor will there ever be such technology.

 

You could dust the book for Matt Nelson or Susan Cicconi's fingerprints!

 

Or just use my patented Restored Book Cootie Detector.

[rob_react]

And since we're talking about the Edgar Church Superman #1, let's just say that there isn't much that could pisss me off if I bought this book.

 

It's a really nice looking book.

[tth2]

There is no technology that can tell you which of the two books used to be restored, nor will there ever be such technology.

 

Why is one of these books worth less than the other?

 

And while you guys are puzzling through this one, try answering my prior question about the removal of an archival tape 1/16th inch tear seal.

Scott, you've answered your own question. The fact that there is no way to detect that the restoration ever took place is all the more reason why a seller should disclose if de-restoration took place. Same principle applies to your archival tape example.

 

I can't figure out why you have such a problem with some of us having a different position than you. If a book had a flaw that was restored and then de-restored to a lower grade, then yes, that book has a lower value to me than an identical book that naturally degraded to such a condition. Basically, the former had work done on it TWICE, and the other book has never had any work INTENTIONALLY done on it. Perfectly logical? No. But what is?

[FFB]

There is no technology that can tell you which of the two books used to be restored, nor will there ever be such technology.

 

Why is one of these books worth less than the other?

 

And while you guys are puzzling through this one, try answering my prior question about the removal of an archival tape 1/16th inch tear seal.

Scott, you've answered your own question. The fact that there is no way to detect that the restoration ever took place is all the more reason why a seller should disclose if de-restoration took place. Same principle applies to your archival tape example.

 

Nice use of the non sequitur. Why does it need to be disclosed? The book has no trace of ever having been restored. There is no foreign material on the book at all. You would never know or be able to detect whether someone previously "restored" a piece of the book that is now gone. You don't even know whether the person "disclosing" the prior restoration is even telling you the truth or not. Maybe he got hungry and ATE the corner of his Action #1 and is too ashamed to tell you that so he's just making up the whole "it used to be restored" bit. (You know, while we're skirting the boundaries of absurdity like this, I thought I might as well pop a toe over the line.)

 

Seriously though, can you give a reason why it should have to be disclosed and/or what difference it makes? Anything more substantive than "Because I said so!"?

 

I can't figure out why you have such a problem with some of us having a different position than you. If a book had a flaw that was restored and then de-restored to a lower grade, then yes, that book has a lower value to me than an identical book that naturally degraded to such a condition. Basically, the former had work done on it TWICE, and the other book has never had any work INTENTIONALLY done on it. Perfectly logical? No. But what is?

 

I don't "have such a problem" with your disagreement. I am enjoying the discussion. Why do you have such a problem with the fact that I don't agree with you and your knee-jerk, hillbilly IQ attitude toward "restoration" reversal?

[FFB]

There is no technology that can tell you which of the two books used to be restored, nor will there ever be such technology.

 

You could dust the book for Matt Nelson or Susan Cicconi's fingerprints!

 

Or just use my patented Restored Book Cootie Detector.

 

Or I could spend 40 years sniffing rubber cement fumes and eventually I'd be convinced that such a technology already exists and that it's being kept in Area 51 in Elvis' armoire.

[tth2]

Seriously though, can you give a reason why it should have to be disclosed and/or what difference it makes? Anything more substantive than "Because I said so!"?

That's like asking someone to quantify why they like a particular Monet over another, or why they prefer Monet to Manet. Sometimes, they just do. All the art criticism in the world pro or con won't change that. A de-restored book is less attractive to me than a never-restored book. I don't like people tampering with books, and tampering with it again to remove the original evidence of tampering, no matter how expertly, is still tampering. Perhaps that de-restored book is worth more than the restored copy, but in my opinion it's not worth the same amount as the never-restored copy.

 

I don't understand your "no harm no foul" position in this particular argument. That's like saying the following scenario is okay: a trader who is getting crushed because he's made the wrong call keeps fraudulently diverting money to support his position, even though he's well exceeded all of the various authorized limits, BUT, finally the market starts turning in his favor on Dec 10, so that by Dec 31, he's made up all his losses and maybe even made a little profit, and no one's the wiser.

 

I don't "have such a problem" with your disagreement. I am enjoying the discussion. Why do you have such a problem with the fact that I don't agree with you and your knee-jerk, hillbilly IQ attitude toward "restoration" reversal?

I have no problem with your position on restoration. I simply don't understand why you can't seem to understand why some of us would want full disclosure in these types of circumstances. You seem to keep saying that we don't need full disclosure because it's not important for us to know, and my response is that it's not for you to tell me what is important and what is not.

[FFB]

Seriously though, can you give a reason why it should have to be disclosed and/or what difference it makes? Anything more substantive than "Because I said so!"?

That's like asking someone to quantify why they like a particular Monet over another, or why they prefer Monet to Manet. Sometimes, they just do. All the art criticism in the world pro or con won't change that. A de-restored book is less attractive to me than a never-restored book. I don't like people tampering with books, and tampering with it again to remove the original evidence of tampering, no matter how expertly, is still tampering. Perhaps that de-restored book is worth more than the restored copy, but in my opinion it's not worth the same amount as the never-restored copy.

 

I don't understand your "no harm no foul" position in this particular argument. That's like saying the following scenario is okay: a trader who is getting crushed because he's made the wrong call keeps fraudulently diverting money to support his position, even though he's well exceeded all of the various authorized limits, BUT, finally the market starts turning in his favor on Dec 10, so that by Dec 31, he's made up all his losses and maybe even made a little profit, and no one's the wiser.

 

What a lame analogy. Restoring a comic book is akin to fraudulently diverting funds? I may have dipped a toe over the absurdity line, but you just jumped across it. Restoration isn't evil or wrong in and of itself. Knowingly selling a restored book as a higher grade unrestored copy is. That isn't what we're talking about here though, is it? We're talking about professional removal of restorative processes that were specifically performed in such a manner that they could be reversed completely, bringing the book back to its pre-restoration state. Or in layman's terms, taking off the piece of archival tape that you put on there to hold shut the 1/16th inch tear, or taking a piece of metal and flaking off the dot of archival acrylic paint that was sitting on the spine, in both cases returning the book to exactly the same state that it was in when you started.

 

My position isn't "no harm no foul" either, because I don't view restoration as "harmful" if it is done professionally. My position is "disclose all existing restoration, especially if it makes a book look better than it is." If you cut away a portion of the book that is restored, leaving a defect behind that is in many cases far worse in appearance than the bit of restoration that was there in the first place, I don't think you need to tell anyone that the piece of geniune comic book you cut away had some restoration on it. The restoration is gone. The book is whatever condition it is and that condition is clearly visible. You just seem to have an irrational fear and loathing of restoration. Fine. That's your right. There are probably other people who have notions of what needs to be disclosed that are a million times more extreme. But I don't think that everyone has satisfy the most neurotic collector in the marketplace in order to avoid being accused of deceptive practices.

 

I don't "have such a problem" with your disagreement. I am enjoying the discussion. Why do you have such a problem with the fact that I don't agree with you and your knee-jerk, hillbilly IQ attitude toward "restoration" reversal?

I have no problem with your position on restoration. I simply don't understand why you can't seem to understand why some of us would want full disclosure in these types of circumstances. You seem to keep saying that we don't need full disclosure because it's not important for us to know, and my response is that it's not for you to tell me what is important and what is not.

 

No, Tim. I was asking you to tell me why it matters to you that there used to be restoration there when the restoration is removed completely, leaving no remaining work that might or might not even cause the book to appear to be a higher grade than it is. Your answer ("I just don't like any restoration, even restoration that isn't there anymore") is your answer and you're entitled to it. It doesn't make sense to me, but you're right -- it doesn't have to. It's not up to me to tell you how to collect. But it's not up to you to force your weird notions of what needs to be disclosed on me either.

[Aces]

i think that you can take to the bank that if we have the technology for example of telling who the father is of a baby by examining a tiny chromosome cell[the murry povich show]than we have the technology to find out if a book that was restored has been unrestored...

 

I heard if you use the right frequency of light you can see the "cooties" aura that a book that once had restoration gives off.

 

 

Maybe the comics absorb the body order of Comic-Keys when he works on them!

 

edit:

 

Comic sniffing...

 

[JohnBull]

i think that you can take to the bank that if we have the technology for example of telling who the father is of a baby by examining a tiny chromosome cell[the murry povich show]than we have the technology to find out if a book that was restored has been unrestored...its not impossible,nothings impossible...but everythings expensive.........still believe the feds assertion that theres no inflation in the economy???

 

Like I have said so many times, those most paranoid about restoration are the ones who seem to know the least about it.

 

Assume I have two copies of Action #1. Both are identical. Approximately 5.0 VG/FN. Both are nice copies, but exhibit the same main defect -- a missing 1/4 inch chip out of the lower right corner.

 

One of the books is missing a chip because the corner flaked off from normal wear.

 

The other book is missing a chip because there used to be a 1/16th inch piece of Japan paper added to square off a slightly blunted corner and a hit of acrylic paint color touch covering the Japan paper -- the missing piece is now 1/4 inch long because the person who removed it cut off more paper than he needed to.

 

There is no technology that can tell you which of the two books used to be restored, nor will there ever be such technology.

 

Why is one of these books worth less than the other?

 

And while you guys are puzzling through this one, try answering my prior question about the removal of an archival tape 1/16th inch tear seal.

 

The best argument for disclosure is so that you and I can go buy the derestored book for half the price of the identical never-restored copy.

 

Just remember everybody, restoration is evil. Make sure these horrible books stay at rock bottom prices.

[Aman619]

No, Tim. I was asking you to tell me why it matters to you that there used to be restoration there when the restoration is removed completely, leaving no remaining work that might or might not even cause the book to appear to be a higher grade than it is. Your answer ("I just don't like any restoration, even restoration that isn't there anymore") is your answer and you're entitled to it. It doesn't make sense to me, but you're right -- it doesn't have to. It's not up to me to tell you how to collect. But it's not up to you to force your weird notions of what needs to be disclosed on me either.

 

I think in my mind we are getting closer to the nub of the matter. Not all collectors agree as to what makes a book desirable or valuable in this instance. You have no problem with an un-restored book. Cool. Tim and I do. So for us, knowing a (significant?) portion of the potential buyers for the book feel it is worth LESS than a naturally degraded copy makes it a tougher sell. Not to everybody, but to that % of buyers who agree with us. Id be curious just what % that is, maybe 50%?? But, any "large" % of potential buyers who will balk at the book affects the price getting out of the book. I feel (and assume TTH does too) that this factors the price I am willing to pay.

 

Of course now we get to the "why we collect" argument: for love, or money. But for a HG GA key like we are discussing here, why buy a "tainted" copy that will hurt you when its time to sell? I'd ask you, like my last question, but Im afraid youll just boldly state "No problem". But of 10 people agree with us that it's "tainted", thats ten customers who will be a hard sell at full price.

 

I will admit that your simple argument to ignore what just doesnt exist anymore is valid and makes sense. But more in a sophistic sense IMO than in the real world of comics values and shady undisclosed restoration.