Glue on the spine; is it restoration?

[divad]

It makes a difference whether it was a spill, or used to seal a tear.

 

Glue spill? On a comic? What was the glue even doing near enough to the book? Do people sniff glue and read comics?

 

It's not chocolate ice cream fergawdsake - if glue is on a comic, it is there intentionally

 

Didn't they used to glue the spines back when comics were 52 pages?

 

Yes, all of the square-bound covers are glued to the spines of pre-stapled books.

 

But I believe we're talking about other glue, not errantly placed production glue are we not?

[nik]

Its funny that you mention Scotch tape because, I recently received a FF 59 in a Blue Label with a small note stating "tape stain on cover"

[PovertyRow]

Its funny that you mention Scotch tape because, I recently received a FF 59 in a Blue Label with a small note stating "tape stain on cover"

 

According to Mister B, scotch tape is not considered restoration as it was a commonish thing for some collectors to do - actually pre-reinforce some areas (like staples) and also to "seal" tears. Of course, the (especially older) cellophane tapes can be very harmful to a book, leaving difficult to remove stains and actually degrading the paper lying beneath it.

 

And yes, if truly archival tape is applied in the exact same way, archival tape that is reversable and does no harm to the paper - well that is considered restoration.

 

The end result? The harmful cellophane tape has the potential to make a nook "appear" more valuable than a book with similarly applied yet benign archival tape.

 

<ames absolutely no sense to me. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

[FFB]

The end result? The harmful cellophane tape has the potential to make a nook "appear" more valuable than a book with similarly applied yet benign archival tape.

 

<ames absolutely no sense to me. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

 

That's only true if the tape is on the inside of the cover and if you're only looking at the outside of the cover though, isn't it? Cellophane tape isn't invisible and it looks really ugly. Most archival tape like Filmoplast P is extremely thin, transparent, and fairly invisible unless you look very closely. Plus, a book with cellophane tape will usually get a grade of VG 4.0 or worse, whereas a book that has archival tape can get a higher "apparent" grade. It makes perfect sense to me. I suppose you could argue that a book "repaired" with cellophane tape should get an "apparent VG 4.0" restored grade, but that would just add insult to injury.

[PovertyRow]

The end result? The harmful cellophane tape has the potential to make a nook "appear" more valuable than a book with similarly applied yet benign archival tape.

 

<ames absolutely no sense to me. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

 

That's only true if the tape is on the inside of the cover and if you're only looking at the outside of the cover though, isn't it? Cellophane tape isn't invisible and it looks really ugly. Most archival tape like Filmoplast P is extremely thin, transparent, and fairly invisible unless you look very closely. Plus, a book with cellophane tape will usually get a grade of VG 4.0 or worse, whereas a book that has archival tape can get a higher "apparent" grade. It makes perfect sense to me. I suppose you could argue that a book "repaired" with cellophane tape should get an "apparent VG 4.0" restored grade, but that would just add insult to injury.

 

I don't actually care where the cello tape is. It is destructive. And yes, if it is on the inside it may well do better by CGC terms than on the outside. Which is actually even more insidious because tape on the inside, and especially on the newsprint itself, will be more destructive as it has no barrier at all to the paper. Tape on the inside cover has little ink as a barrier, as the inside covers are pretty much all plain paper with black text for an ad. Or duo-tone if the story, as on some Fox (and other publishers) books carry page 1 of the story on the inside front cover.

 

I feel quite storngly that a cello-repaired book should get a Restored Amateur appelation. I mean, what better example of amateur restoration than cello tape (and, of course, marker retouch).

[FFB]

The end result? The harmful cellophane tape has the potential to make a nook "appear" more valuable than a book with similarly applied yet benign archival tape.

 

<ames absolutely no sense to me. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

 

That's only true if the tape is on the inside of the cover and if you're only looking at the outside of the cover though, isn't it? Cellophane tape isn't invisible and it looks really ugly. Most archival tape like Filmoplast P is extremely thin, transparent, and fairly invisible unless you look very closely. Plus, a book with cellophane tape will usually get a grade of VG 4.0 or worse, whereas a book that has archival tape can get a higher "apparent" grade. It makes perfect sense to me. I suppose you could argue that a book "repaired" with cellophane tape should get an "apparent VG 4.0" restored grade, but that would just add insult to injury.

 

I don't actually care where the cello tape is. It is destructive. And yes, if it is on the inside it may well do better by CGC terms than on the outside. Which is actually even more insidious because tape on the inside, and especially on the newsprint itself, will be more destructive as it has no barrier at all to the paper. Tape on the inside cover has little ink as a barrier, as the inside covers are pretty much all plain paper with black text for an ad. Or duo-tone if the story, as on some Fox (and other publishers) books carry page 1 of the story on the inside front cover.

 

I feel quite storngly that a cello-repaired book should get a Restored Amateur appelation. I mean, what better example of amateur restoration than cello tape (and, of course, marker retouch).

 

I agree with you from a semantical standpoint that cello tape is the worst form of amateur restoration, but since the books are downgraded so heavily for cello tape (i.e., treated as a defect rather than as "restoration" that makes the book look better), I guess I don't have a strong feeling the other way as long as the tape is disclosed on the label. My biggest problem with CGC's policy on cello tape is when I see an otherwise nice book that gets a grade of FN 6.0 or better with a notation of something like "three small pieces of tape on interior cover." That is just nuts.

[PovertyRow]

The end result? The harmful cellophane tape has the potential to make a nook "appear" more valuable than a book with similarly applied yet benign archival tape.

 

<ames absolutely no sense to me. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

 

That's only true if the tape is on the inside of the cover and if you're only looking at the outside of the cover though, isn't it? Cellophane tape isn't invisible and it looks really ugly. Most archival tape like Filmoplast P is extremely thin, transparent, and fairly invisible unless you look very closely. Plus, a book with cellophane tape will usually get a grade of VG 4.0 or worse, whereas a book that has archival tape can get a higher "apparent" grade. It makes perfect sense to me. I suppose you could argue that a book "repaired" with cellophane tape should get an "apparent VG 4.0" restored grade, but that would just add insult to injury.

 

I don't actually care where the cello tape is. It is destructive. And yes, if it is on the inside it may well do better by CGC terms than on the outside. Which is actually even more insidious because tape on the inside, and especially on the newsprint itself, will be more destructive as it has no barrier at all to the paper. Tape on the inside cover has little ink as a barrier, as the inside covers are pretty much all plain paper with black text for an ad. Or duo-tone if the story, as on some Fox (and other publishers) books carry page 1 of the story on the inside front cover.

 

I feel quite storngly that a cello-repaired book should get a Restored Amateur appelation. I mean, what better example of amateur restoration than cello tape (and, of course, marker retouch).

 

I agree with you from a semantical standpoint that cello tape is the worst form of amateur restoration, but since the books are downgraded so heavily for cello tape (i.e., treated as a defect rather than as "restoration" that makes the book look better), I guess I don't have a strong feeling the other way as long as the tape is disclosed on the label. My biggest problem with CGC's policy on cello tape is when I see an otherwise nice book that gets a grade of FN 6.0 or better with a notation of something like "three small pieces of tape on interior cover." That is just nuts.

 

Honestly I see nothing semantical about it. Cello tape is destructive and should be included under Amateur Resto. And the book should be sufficiently downgraded for the tape. Putting cello tape, even under a lower grade, under the Universal label just adds to the considerable confusion already surrounding restoration.