Detective Comics #35 (Larson Pedigree) no longer PLOD 1 1

[sfcityduck]

1 hour ago, adamstrange said:

Regardless of the intent or result, if the process used involves water to clean the book, then it will dissolve the sizing on the cover and the book will look and feel different.  You can re-size it but it can never get back to it's original state.

If you consider this process conservation, it's a pretty harsh one given the extent of the damage and irreversibility of the process.

I suspect the impact that a "wet cleaning" will have on a book depends upon what liquid is used, the technique (immersion, blotter, etc.) and the skill of the conservator. 

[batman_fan]

3 hours ago, Timely said:

Cleaning does not conserve.

 

Cleaning makes the book "look better", just like other restoration does.

[N e r V]

19 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

"Cleaning" a book to stabilize or redress foxing would prevent further deterioration of the book.

 

I found this from our older more established market of rare book collectors:

 

Strategies to Remove Foxing
Removing the marks of foxing should generally be left to a skilled book conservator or preservationist. Experts may choose one of two approaches to reverse foxing:

Using a reducing agent, such as sodium borohydride, on the paper. These agents are mild enough that they dont have to be rinsed from the paper after treatment, but they may not remove the marks completely.
Treating the paper with an oxidizing agent like sodium tetraborate. Slightly stronger than reducing agents, oxidizing agents must be washed out of the paper after treatment.

The strength of the agent used depends on the weight of the book's paper, so the chemicals must be mixed and applied properly. You'll find that most rare booksellers opt to leave foxing alone and simply strive to prevent further damage.
 

 

Are either one of these methods used in comics?

[TheFifthHorseman]

Honestly I don't see either label affecting the sale price of this book in an auction.

Clearly it's a beautiful book. People looking to buy THIS book aren't buying the label.

[adamstrange]

35 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

I suspect the impact that a "wet cleaning" will have on a book depends upon what liquid is used, the technique (immersion, blotter, etc.) and the skill of the conservator. 

When I read that a comic is cleaned, I assume that is the cover was detached and soaked in water because that's what has typically been done.  In that case, the sizing is dissolved. 

Edited October 17, 2017 by adamstrange

[Senormac]

Wow !!  That is some  news !!

[Senormac]

24 minutes ago, adamstrange said:

1 hour ago, sfcityduck said:

I suspect the impact that a "wet cleaning" will have on a book depends upon what liquid is used, the technique (immersion, blotter, etc.) and the skill of the conservator. 

When I read that a comic is cleaned, I assume that is the cover was detached and soaked in water because that's what has typically been done.  In that case, the sizing is dissolved. 

Anyone care to explain what "sizing" is in laymans terms ?

[The-Collector]

This is old news. 

 

Also, it isn't the least bit surprising. If a classification system changes it should come as no surprise that the categories into which some things fall should also change. 

[adamstrange]

31 minutes ago, Senormac said:

Anyone care to explain what "sizing" is in laymans terms ?

Sizing or size is any one of numerous substances that is applied to, or incorporated into, other materials — especially papers and textiles — to act as a protective filler or glaze.

[Sqeggs]

56 minutes ago, adamstrange said:

1 hour ago, sfcityduck said:

I suspect the impact that a "wet cleaning" will have on a book depends upon what liquid is used, the technique (immersion, blotter, etc.) and the skill of the conservator. 

When I read that a comic is cleaned, I assume that is the cover was detached and soaked in water because that's what has typically been done.  In that case, the sizing is dissolved. 

From CGC's definition:  Specific repairs done to improve the structural integrity and long-term preservation of a comic book will now be classified as “conservation” and designated with a blue / purple label. These repairs include tear seals, support, staple replacement, piece reattachment and certain kinds of cleaning. Not sure what that means. 

[Sqeggs]

4 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

FALSE. 

In the fine art world, where I have experience with paper conservators, immersive and blotter techniques are used to clean pieces as a form of conservation to stabilize foxing.  Foxing, if not treated, can spread.  In some cases, these techniques will lighten the paper and make the images brighter.  But this is not always true.  These techniques are viewed as gentle, and are used on pieces as delicate as sumi watercolors.  More restorative treatments, such as application of bleach to lighten or remove foxing spots, which can harm the paper, are viewed entirely different by paper conservators.

IMHO, the opinions of the comic book collecting community towards conservation are shaped by experiences with conservators who were not at the height of their field.  The conservators I use are some of the best around, working predominantly for fine art institutions.  In fact, I just dropped off a watercolor for treatment to stabilize foxing last week. 

I don't know what the book looked like prior to cleaning, but a problem with foxing -- which plagues some Larsons -- came to mind when reading this thread.  Removing foxing can accurately be called "conservation," imo.

[Sqeggs]

4 hours ago, Red_Hood said:

So CGC has shifted it's view and the hobby is affected by it.  How can the standards just be changed by a company.  Who decided the rule change? Was there input from reputable experts in the hobby or does a company have the power to change the rule for the hobby.  I would love for there to actually be a true standard in the hobby.  Not one created and adjusted by a private company.

But can't you say that about everything they've done since they opened their doors?  They hit upon a grading scale, the details of which they've never made public.  You could say they changed the standards of the hobby away from the Overstreet grading scale, just as Overstreet changed (or maybe "codified" is a better word) the grading scales that dealers had been using before the Guide was first published.

Clearly most of CGC's decisions have been ratified, at least implicitly, by the hobby, but not all of them.  For instance, I think a perusal of AF 15 prices would lead to the conclusion that the hobby dings more for Marvel chipping than CGC does.  Similarly, there are books with tiny stains that sell for well above other books in grade because CGC dings more for such stains than do most collectors.

In this case, CGC decided to moved books with some types of cleaning (which types of cleaning could stand some clarification) from the Restored category into the Conserved category -- in their grading scale. The hobby's standards haven't changed; CGC's standards have changed.

If the average collector still thinks a book with any cleaning should be considered Restored, not Conserved, we should see that conclusion reflected in the prices of cleaned Conserved books selling for no more than cleaned Restored books did before the change.  

There's no denying that CGC has an outsized role in the hobby, but collectors are free to accept or reject CGC's decisions. In this instance, I think CGC was responding to the widespread belief that there is a useful distinction to be made between Restoration and Conservation.  The point was discussed for a long time in multiple threads on these boards, before CGC announced the change.

[Primetime]

3 hours ago, Electron said:

CGC didn't change the rule for the hobby,they changed it for the product they're selling. You don't have to buy their product if you don't agree with the rule change.

It is still simply CGC's professional opinion as to what color the label is and what notes are printed on their label. It's still up to the owner to be knowledgable about what they are getting inside the plastic tomb. I do know the Larson Tec 35 is a beautiful book that was recently owned by a board member for some time. Not sure who owns it now. I do think it is a shame to have any pedigree mark (ie Larson/Lamont penciled name) cleaned off from a book's cover. The Larson Marvel Mystery 9 also had it's name cleaned off. 

[Tbone911t]

Conserved books are ok to have married pages? Doesn't seem right me.

[Gotham Kid]

2 minutes ago, Primetime said:

I do know the Larson Tec 35 is a beautiful book that was recently owned by a board member for some time. Not sure who owns it now.

Still Adam. On consignment to HGC.

Edited October 17, 2017 by Gotham Kid

[Primetime]

Just now, Gotham Kid said:

Adam. On consignment.

that's the last owner that I knew of  

[Gotham Kid]

Just now, Primetime said:

1 minute ago, Gotham Kid said:

Adam. On consignment.

that's the last owner that I knew of  

HGC has his 31 2.0 brittle and 35 3.5 as sold so the consignments have been doing well.

[Primetime]

Just now, Gotham Kid said:

HGC has his 31 2.0 brittle and 35 3.5 as sold so the consignments have been doing well.

yah, I have seen a handful of those books on HGC with success....

[Tony S]

Cleaning of a book IMHO opinion is conservation, not restoration. The new label more accurately reflects the books grade and status. 

We don't have a clear picture  -  yet - as to if the collector market will value conserved books higher than restored. But there is a difference and I'm glad CGC has the conserved label

 

[Larryw7]

Who's the seller?