What really is restoration??? 2 2

[jcjames]

23 hours ago, namisgr said:

Books are disassembled in order to be worked on.  Disassembly-reassembly has long been considered in the hobby as part of restorative processes.

There are plenty of other manipulations being done to improve the appearance of comics that aren't always detectable in addition to pressing, that don't involve adding to a book, and that would fall under the generally accepted notion of restoration that were pointed out by Bomber-Bob and me.

I guess I'm missing your point.

 

Let me try to refocus my comments to the original post.

Pressing is not disassembly/realignment/reassembly which is not color-touch which is not patching tears which is not married wraps which is not..... and on... it's a continuum.

Where do you draw the line for restoration/conservation? Is manually unfolding a dog-eared corner of a page considered restoration/conservation deserving a PLOD label?

I think that's the original question - where does CGC draw its line and why? Clearly there are various opinions (grading is always subjective) and in the highest grades, there is probably far more subjectivity because there's so little room for leeway  in very HG books - not much arguments over how many spine-creases should be allowed on a FN vs a FNVF book.

 

Edited March 20, 2018 by jcjames

[namisgr]

9 hours ago, jcjames said:

I think that's the original question - where does CGC draw its line and why? 

 

Let's be blunt: they draw the line on detectability.  Any manipulation that can't be detected with an extremely high degree of certainty isn't flagged as restoration because to do so would undermine the third party restoration detection service they offer.  And remember, in the early days of the business, dealers and seasoned collectors were confident they could continue to grade books at least pretty well and consistently using the methods they had before the advent of CGC, but the restoration detection service was a major draw especially for doing commerce on big ticket books, where it is a huge determinant of market value.  It still is a major draw for third party grading.

As for me personally, my admittedly minority opinion would draw the line as follows: anything done by human hand alone isn't restoration.  Any manipulation done using a machine, device, or material is restoration/conservation.

 

 

Edited March 20, 2018 by namisgr

[jcjames]

2 hours ago, namisgr said:

Let's be blunt: they draw the line on detectability.  Any manipulation that can't be detected with an extremely high degree of certainty isn't flagged as restoration because to do so would undermine the third party restoration detection service they offer.  And remember, in the early days of the business, dealers and seasoned collectors were confident they could continue to grade books at least pretty well and consistently using the methods they had before the advent of CGC, but the restoration detection service was a major draw especially for doing commerce on big ticket books, where it is a huge determinant of market value.  It still is a major draw for third party grading.

As for me personally, my admittedly minority opinion would draw the line as follows: anything done by human hand alone isn't restoration.  Any manipulation done using a machine, device, or material is restoration/conservation.

 

Reliably-detectable is the key I think for everyone. Wouldn't any manipulation not done by human hand (to use your criterion) and that IS reliably detectable considered resto by both you AND CGC (flawed/missed examples such as AV1 notwithstanding)?

Does CGC generally overlook certain forms of reliably-detectable resto methods?

There are some detectable signs of a book that was improperly pressed (sunken staples for example), but that could also appear from long-term tight-storage so should one always assume those books with those defects were pressed/restored when it's also possible they just came from storage? Hopefully the Avengers 1 example given is an example of flawed grading, not an example of the CGC policy of not hammering all examples of obvious manipulation.

As far as your "human hand" line, what about some of the methods to remove the acidic smell from pages such as using baking-soda and a closed plastic bin for a few days/weeks? Do you consider that resto/conservation?

 

[namisgr]

4 minutes ago, jcjames said:

As far as your "human hand" line, what about some of the methods to remove the acidic smell from pages such as using baking-soda and a closed plastic bin for a few days/weeks? Do you consider that resto/conservation?

Do you apply the baking soda to the comic?  My guess is no.

Trust me, it doesn't matter what I consider restoration/conservation except to me, since it has influenced in several major ways my own collecting habits and decisions.

[joeypost]

11 minutes ago, namisgr said:

Do you apply the baking soda to the comic?  My guess is no.

Trust me, it doesn't matter what I consider restoration/conservation except to me, since it has influenced in several major ways my own collecting habits and decisions.

Well said, and that where most discussions should end. 

[jcjames]

12 minutes ago, namisgr said:

Do you apply the baking soda to the comic?  My guess is no.

Trust me, it doesn't matter what I consider restoration/conservation except to me, since it has influenced in several major ways my own collecting habits and decisions.

It's just a conversation, not an interrogation.

You seem a bit defensive, don't know why, I just want to understand various folks' perspectives - so it appears you draw the line that at any contact to the book with a non-human hand (regardless of whether it can be reliably-detectable or not) is restoration including pressing (whether the pressing is intentional with a press or unintentional with tight-storage in mylar and boards). Is that a fair understanding of your perspective?

 

 

[jcjames]

17 minutes ago, joeypost said:

Well said, and that where most discussions should end. 

People come to conclusions based on experiences and conversations and sometimes their understanding evolves over time. Why is it improper to share ideas and especially to share why others have come to their conclusions about certain things like this?

Simply saying "I think XYZ and nevermind why" really doesn't foster understanding of other's viewpoints.

 

ETA: I'm still trying to learn and my understanding and perspective is still evolving... Does CGC generally overlook certain forms of reliably-detectable resto methods? 

Edited March 20, 2018 by jcjames

[namisgr]

 

1 hour ago, jcjames said:

It's just a conversation, not an interrogation.

You seem a bit defensive, don't know why, I just want to understand various folks' perspectives - so it appears you draw the line that at any contact to the book with a non-human hand (regardless of whether it can be reliably-detectable or not) is restoration including pressing (whether the pressing is intentional with a press or unintentional with tight-storage in mylar and boards). Is that a fair understanding of your perspective?

Nope.  And I don't know what you mean by 'non-human hand' - like the hand of a robot?  And it's sure beginning to feel like an interrogation.  

 

Edited March 20, 2018 by namisgr
Double copied the quotation the first time.

[Mr. Zipper]

I haven't been as active here in the past few years, but I see the same points / counterpoints from 10 years ago. 

CGC's definition of restoration is a politically convenient one that was concocted with the input of their most valuable stakeholders. You can choose to buy it as gospel or not... but it's a moot point. It's the business reality of the hobby, like it or not.

In terms of "what is really restoration," I will share one of my pet peeves...

Why do they PLOD mid to low grade books that have small marker hits or glue when the "restoration" does NOT improve the grade of the book? 

 

[jcjames]

3 minutes ago, namisgr said:

 

Nope.

 

Well I'm trying to understand, and I think I understand your non-human hand manipulation perspective. It's the reliably-detectable part that you prefaced it with that is not clear to me though.

You said " As for me personally, my admittedly minority opinion would draw the line as follows: anything done by human hand alone isn't restoration.  Any manipulation done using a machine, device, or material is restoration/conservation." This was in then context of you mentioning "reliably-detectable", which appeared to be where you differed with CGC (maybe I'm wrong about that). This all led me to think and to ask, does it matter to you if the resto is reliably-detectable? and are there forms of resto that ARE reliably-detectable that ARE overlooked by CGC?

 

[jcjames]

8 minutes ago, Mr. Zipper said:

I haven't been as active here in the past few years, but I see the same points / counterpoints from 10 years ago. 

CGC's definition of restoration is a politically convenient one that was concocted with the input of their most valuable stakeholders. You can choose to buy it as gospel or not... but it's a moot point. It's the business reality of the hobby, like it or not.

In terms of "what is really restoration," I will share one of my pet peeves...

Why do they PLOD mid to low grade books that have small marker hits or glue when the "restoration" does NOT improve the grade of the book? 

 

This is history that I don't know about, but am trying to learn about.

The pressing services done through/for CGC that they advertise to "enhance" the appearance of the very books that they grade (and then charge grade-based value-fees for high-$$ books) calls into question the impartiality of their third-party grading status.

This is what I'm trying to learn more about also - is CGC saying pressing is NOT restoration merely because CGC says they can't reliably detect it (yet they know it happened because they made money off it)??? That doesn't really make sense (but I guess it makes them dollars).

 

Edited March 20, 2018 by jcjames

[Get Marwood & I]

5 minutes ago, Mr. Zipper said:

I haven't been as active here in the past few years, but I see the same points / counterpoints from 10 years ago. 

CGC's definition of restoration is a politically convenient one that was concocted with the input of their most valuable stakeholders. You can choose to buy it as gospel or not... but it's a moot point. It's the business reality of the hobby, like it or not.

Sadly, that sounds quite likely to me Mr Z, and supports the theory I expressed earlier that bindery tears on moderns are 'ignored' to allow the 9.8 factory to chug merrily away.

7 minutes ago, Mr. Zipper said:

Why do they PLOD mid to low grade books that have small marker hits or glue when the "restoration" does NOT improve the grade of the book? 

 

Here's one for you Mr Z.

I have to say upfront that I don't follow discussions about pressing, so I may be about to repeat old views or talk uninformed rot. If a book could 'benefit from a press' then that can only mean that there is something structurally wrong with it that can be seen with the naked eye. If so, and the press improves the appearance of the book, that can only mean that it has hidden or reduced the previously visible flaw. The flaw still exists at molecular level presumably. How does that increase the grade, and not represent restoration? 

[jcjames]

50 minutes ago, namisgr said:

 

  And I don't know what you mean by 'non-human hand'.  And it's sure beginning to feel like an interrogation.  

 

 

Okay that was a clunky restatement by me. I guess any manipulation by an object other than the human hand is what you were saying.

And I'm not trying to get you or anyone else in a "gotcha", I'm sincerely trying to understand and develop a sound basis for what *I* would conclude to be improper manipulation of a book to improve its appearance. Personally, I have, in the past, used pressing services of a highly-regarded member here, and was very pleased with the final results. At the time, the fact that CGC doesn't deem it restoration was all I understood, but I'm learning there are other viewpoints regarding this and so I'm trying to understand those views also - so I probe with questions to learn, not to put anyone on a hot seat. If it comes across that way, understand that's not my intention.

[Get Marwood & I]

On 20/03/2018 at 3:32 PM, Get Marwood & I said:

Sadly, that sounds quite likely to me Mr Z, and supports the theory I expressed earlier that bindery tears on moderns are 'ignored' to allow the 9.8 factory to chug merrily away.

Here's one for you Mr Z.

I have to say upfront that I don't follow discussions about pressing, so I may be about to repeat old views or talk uninformed rot. If a book could 'benefit from a press' then that can only mean that there is something structurally wrong with it that can be seen with the naked eye. If so, and the press improves the appearance of the book, that can only mean that it has hidden or reduced the previously visible flaw. The flaw still exists at molecular level presumably. How does that increase the grade, and not represent restoration? 

Sorry, but I'm going to have to press you for an answer 

[Bomber-Bob]

On 3/20/2018 at 10:16 AM, Mr. Zipper said:

I haven't been as active here in the past few years, but I see the same points / counterpoints from 10 years ago. 

CGC's definition of restoration is a politically convenient one that was concocted with the input of their most valuable stakeholders. You can choose to buy it as gospel or not... but it's a moot point. It's the business reality of the hobby, like it or not.

 

Good post ! The ship has sailed, pressing is acceptable and an integral part of the business. I have always said, from day one, that a proper press to a 'proper' flaw, done by someone that knows what they are doing, is fine. However, in the past 10 years we have seen the proliferation of amateur pressers, using aggressive techniques, attempting to go beyond what most consider a normal press. This is why I still participate in these discussions. I'm not against pressing, I'm against bad pressing.

[Get Marwood & I]

1 hour ago, Bomber-Bob said:

Good post ! The ship has sailed, pressing is acceptable and an integral part of the business. I have always said, from day one, that a proper press to a 'proper' flaw, done by someone that knows what they are doing, is fine. However, in the past 10 years we have seen the proliferation of amateur pressers, using aggressive techniques, attempting to go beyond what most consider a normal press. This is why I still participate in these discussions. I'm not against pressing, I'm against bad pressing.

What's a 'proper' flaw Bob? 

[Bomber-Bob]

1 hour ago, Get Marwood & I said:

What's a 'proper' flaw Bob? 

Good question, I didn't want to elaborate in the post and couldn't think of  a better word. What I had in mind is light, non coloring breaking folds and bends. Something that can be pressed out without the use of extensive heat and hydration. I've seen 'proper' 9.0's turned into 9.6's, amazing results. However, trying to take a 9.6 with a deep spine tic and pressing the spine into a communion wafer to get a 9.8 is not, IMO, proper.

Edited March 24, 2018 by Bomber-Bob

[Get Marwood & I]

15 minutes ago, Bomber-Bob said:

Good question, I didn't want to elaborate in the post and couldn't think of  a better word. What I had in mind is light, non coloring breaking folds and bends. Something that can be pressed out without the use of extensive heat and hydration. I've seen 'proper' 9.0's turned into 9.6's, amazing results. However, trying to take a 9.6 with a deep spine tic and pressing the spine into a communion wafer to get a 9.6 is not, IMO, proper.

It's all gone wrong hasn't it. I still prefer the 'putting them under 15 encyclopaedias for a week' approach myself. 

[Bomber-Bob]

13 minutes ago, Get Marwood & I said:

It's all gone wrong hasn't it. I still prefer the 'putting them under 15 encyclopaedias for a week' approach myself. 

It actually works ! But takes a lot more time. 

[Get Marwood & I]

2 minutes ago, Bomber-Bob said:

It actually works ! But takes a lot more time. 

Does it? Oh well, back to the ironing board. 

Sorry, I meant drawing board.

 

Hey, wait a minute.....