Just picked up this Avengers #2

[divad]

thanks divadrabnud, I was confused when I came across this auction when they said it could get a blue label if the color touch was removed? The erased anchor stamps seem like amateur resto to me:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=35751&item=6534927881&rd=1

 

The erasures are more likely to be forgiven on a book such as this, but not on anything post 1965 the color touch I can't speak to.

[FFB]

is erasure considered resto if it removes most of the ink as well (for example, erasing away a stamp and erasing the ink as well)?

 

Yes, reeeeeeeeeealy BAD resto! Amateur!!!

 

Wrong. Not by CGC anyway. Dry cleaning is not considered restoration, no matter how much of a mess you make of the book. It can result in a heavy defect, but it won't get the purple label. There is a CGC 6.5 BLUE Captain America #1 with two large letters erased over the logo that shows this. The same book (before slabbing) was used in the 6.5 section of the Overstreet Grading Guide (page 226) to show how much of a deduction this would get. The book is now in a blue labeled slab and was offered for sale as a slabbed 6.5 on ComicLink last year.

[divad]

is erasure considered resto if it removes most of the ink as well (for example, erasing away a stamp and erasing the ink as well)?

 

No.

 

Obviously, we disagree. Perhaps now you should actually look at the book in question . . .

[divad]

is erasure considered resto if it removes most of the ink as well (for example, erasing away a stamp and erasing the ink as well)?

 

Yes, reeeeeeeeeealy BAD resto! Amateur!!!

 

Wrong. Not by CGC anyway. Dry cleaning is not considered restoration, no matter how much of a mess you make of the book. It can result in a heavy defect, but it won't get the purple label. There is a CGC 6.5 BLUE Captain America #1 with two large letters erased over the logo that shows this. The same book (before slabbing) was used in the 6.5 section of the Overstreet Grading Guide (page 226) to show how much of a deduction this would get. The book is now in a blue labeled slab and was offered for sale as a slabbed 6.5 on ComicLink last year.

 

I still obstinately disagree, and the logic is not only flawed, but inconsistent as well.

 

I'm havin' the chile verde!

[FFB]

thanks divadrabnud, I was confused when I came across this auction when they said it could get a blue label if the color touch was removed? The erased anchor stamps seem like amateur resto to me:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=35751&item=6534927881&rd=1

 

The erasures are more likely to be forgiven on a book such as this, but not on anything post 1965 the color touch I can't speak to.

 

There is no "forgiveness" about it, regardless of when the book was printed. If the book is only dry cleaned with no other restorative processes having been performed (except for pressing without disassembly), it won't get a purple label regardless of how old it is.

 

As for that book in particular, if Matt Nelson (of Classics Incorporated) can scrape off the acrylic, and if that's the only restoration on the book, the book can get a blue label once the acrylic is removed.

[FFB]

Just for the sake of clarity, here is a thread where Steve says that dry cleaning and pressing without disassembly are not considered restoration by CGC.

[FFB]

is erasure considered resto if it removes most of the ink as well (for example, erasing away a stamp and erasing the ink as well)?

 

No.

 

Obviously, we disagree. Perhaps now you should actually look at the book in question . . .

 

It doesn't matter whether we disagree. I personally think that dry cleaning and pressing are "restoration," but what I was talking about (and what I think the original poster was talking about) was whether CGC considers dry cleaning to be restoration. And as my link to Steve's old post shows, CGC does not consider it restoration.

[divad]

is erasure considered resto if it removes most of the ink as well (for example, erasing away a stamp and erasing the ink as well)?

 

No.

 

Obviously, we disagree. Perhaps now you should actually look at the book in question . . .

 

It doesn't matter whether we disagree. I personally think that dry cleaning and pressing are "restoration," but what I was talking about (and what I think the original poster was talking about) was whether CGC considers dry cleaning to be restoration. And as my link to Steve's old post shows, CGC does not consider it restoration.

 

I don't think that's a definitive statement, but rather a casual reference in context. Steve?

[FFB]

is erasure considered resto if it removes most of the ink as well (for example, erasing away a stamp and erasing the ink as well)?

 

No.

 

Obviously, we disagree. Perhaps now you should actually look at the book in question . . .

 

It doesn't matter whether we disagree. I personally think that dry cleaning and pressing are "restoration," but what I was talking about (and what I think the original poster was talking about) was whether CGC considers dry cleaning to be restoration. And as my link to Steve's old post shows, CGC does not consider it restoration.

 

I don't think that's a definitive statement, but rather a casual reference in context. Steve?

 

 

Just admit you were wrong and move on.

[comicdonna]

I own 2 books with a small amount of glue on the cover. one is blue label and one is purple label. It is going to depend on how CGC sees the book.

[divad]

is erasure considered resto if it removes most of the ink as well (for example, erasing away a stamp and erasing the ink as well)?

 

No.

 

Obviously, we disagree. Perhaps now you should actually look at the book in question . . .

 

It doesn't matter whether we disagree. I personally think that dry cleaning and pressing are "restoration," but what I was talking about (and what I think the original poster was talking about) was whether CGC considers dry cleaning to be restoration. And as my link to Steve's old post shows, CGC does not consider it restoration.

 

I don't think that's a definitive statement, but rather a casual reference in context. Steve?

 

 

Just admit you were wrong and move on.

 

That, I can readily do . . . can you

[themegoguy]

Hey guys, thanks for the replys. I've gathered that the conclusion is that CGC does not consider it resto, but whether or not its resto in another's eyes is up to them. It definately detracts from the condition of the book.

[divad]

Hey guys, thanks for the replys. I've gathered that the conclusion is that CGC does not consider it resto, but whether or not its resto in another's eyes is up to them. It definately detracts from the condition of the book.

 

[uclapeterg]

is erasure considered resto if it removes most of the ink as well (for example, erasing away a stamp and erasing the ink as well)?

 

No.

 

Obviously, we disagree. Perhaps now you should actually look at the book in question . . .

 

It doesn't matter whether we disagree. I personally think that dry cleaning and pressing are "restoration," but what I was talking about (and what I think the original poster was talking about) was whether CGC considers dry cleaning to be restoration. And as my link to Steve's old post shows, CGC does not consider it restoration.

 

I don't think that's a definitive statement, but rather a casual reference in context. Steve?

 

 

Just admit you were wrong and move on.

 

[Aces]

6.0/6.5

 

I think that tape goo would keep it out of 7.0 country...

 

Nice book!

[Silver Surfer]

Nice book for $200 tape/glue or not. You could easily flip that for more money if you had to. Put it in a slabb and if you can get a 6.0 you are laughing.

[Nefaria]

Thanks Everybody. But for now it's for my personal collection unslabbed (for now) It's Hard to fondle your books if their all wrapped up.

[FFB]

I own 2 books with a small amount of glue on the cover. one is blue label and one is purple label. It is going to depend on how CGC sees the book.

 

Glue on the cover is completely different than dry cleaning. Sheesh.

[FFB]

is erasure considered resto if it removes most of the ink as well (for example, erasing away a stamp and erasing the ink as well)?

 

No.

 

Obviously, we disagree. Perhaps now you should actually look at the book in question . . .

 

It doesn't matter whether we disagree. I personally think that dry cleaning and pressing are "restoration," but what I was talking about (and what I think the original poster was talking about) was whether CGC considers dry cleaning to be restoration. And as my link to Steve's old post shows, CGC does not consider it restoration.

 

I don't think that's a definitive statement, but rather a casual reference in context. Steve?

 

 

Just admit you were wrong and move on.