They're Still Out There! 22 22

[VintageComics]

11 hours ago, GreatCaesarsGhost said:

15 hours ago, VintageComics said:

You guys are assuming CCS depressed the staples. Any before pics of the book available to confirm?

Apparently, from what I saw (or thought I remembered seeing) one of the Promise books had depressed staples that CCS fixed. Or am I remembering that wrong?

You are remembering right. But right or wrong, I can’t get it out of my head that the depressed staples generally found in these books are due to pressing. Maybe the feeling will pass, but strong within this one, it is.

Thanks. Yes, that was the book I remembered.

Your feeling stems from online chatter but the reality is that it's not all that common in my experience. There have now been literally 10,000's if not 100,000's of books pressed over the years and it's still a rare defect to see on ANY book so I certainly wouldn't say it's common and especially not exclusive just to pressed books.

As I've repeatedly stated over the years (and did last night as well) we have NO way of knowing if the pressing caused the defect on any specific book unless we've documented the book's progress from the time it left someone's hands to the time it was slabbed to make sure the defect didn't happen during handling or shipping and ONLY happened during pressing.

How many staples pop, simply from shipping a book. We've almost all had it happen.

I would say it's far more likely if there is a weakness in the paper in that area from publishing that handling and shipping the book can just as easily cause a staple pull, staple pop or a staple indentation (the interior trying to pull out of the guts of the book) than it is from a stationary pressing where there is little to no movement of the paper.

Some books just have an 'Achilles Heel' from production - I can literally name a dozen books known just for their specific production defects which seem to plague the entire printing run of the book.

I think for the most part, this is just one of those things.

11 hours ago, GreatCaesarsGhost said:

The doctoring of the Catman #28 is particularly interesting, in my opinion. The structure of that book has been altered from its original conditional state as discovered, to that of a perceived appearance post-print production book from the 40s. As mentioned, the book perked my curiosity so much so I sprung for the grader notes. There is no mention of work performed on the book in the notes. Just the typical obtuse annotations. The exception being, the "pedigree coding" (whatever that means) for the distributor mark.

You'll never find mention of CCS work unless it's what they consider restoration.

But consider this: The book is now more structurally sound than it was before it was pressed. In conservation circles, that would be considered a benefit that will prolong the life of the product.

I wrote about this years ago....while pressing received a very negative stigma early on mainly because people were leaving money on the table, there are instances where straightening out a book through pressing and putting it into a 'better state of equilibrium' or rest than before pressing left the book more structurally sound...say removing a spine roll tugging on the staples.

This Catman book is another example of that.

8 hours ago, jimbo_7071 said:

And Thoth's copy of the Archie book shows what looks to me like post-production damage—not necessarily from pressing but possibly from careless handling of a book that had weak paper around the staple due to what initially may have been a slightly impacted staple.

The real point of the discussion is that people have grown to associate the defect with pressing based on a few correlated incidents when in fact it's ALWAYS been related to production and handling IMO.

We just never really focused on them pre internet and pre pressing debates and likely because we never had so many visual scans available online or the ability to discuss them in such great detail until now.

 

 

 

[VintageComics]

8 hours ago, ThothAmon said:

In support of this, my experience is that a staple recessed at production has actually squashed the cover so that it will deteriorate differently than the paper that wasn’t impacted. Any handling let alone pressing can exacerbate this damage. I’ve had quite a few pre-screens for pressing rejected for staple issues. 

Absolutely, but the book is more likely to get damaged from shipping across the country and being thrown around 20 times.

No matter how tightly you pack a box, that book still feels the impacts and experiences the inertia of all of those impacts.

Placing a book into a press primarily places equal pressure across the entire surface of the front and rear covers (and very little, relatively speaking, on the spine alone) and I have a hard time believing pressing does more damage to a book than shipping, handling, admiring your books with a gin and tonic or dropping it in a Mylar behind the desk.

[VintageComics]

4 hours ago, Cat-Man_America said:

Roy, you have a legitimate point, to a point.  There's always room for differences of opinion where eye-of-the-beholder is concerned.  That said, it's entirely reasonable for collectors to assume a minimum standard in sales advertising and promotion.  And it's always on the end-seller to provide as accurate a representation as possible, whether it's auction house, dealer or private seller.  

Also, every book in inventory is a far cry from what we're talking about with high grade pedigree books being sold at Fort Knox prices.  That said, my rule of thumb is it's always better to avoid pumping-up the image of a book being offered for sale.

This is a struggle I often have.

Digital images, taking a live subject, reducing it to a series of 1s and 0s and then recreating the original image from 1s and 0s has it's limitations and will NEVER recreate the original to a 100% accuracy.

It's particularly frustrating as a seller. I've been involved in the sales of some really big 6 figure books recently but I had trouble capturing images properly. I tried scans, I tried pictures and in the end, sometimes I had to convey that the actual book looked somewhere in between.

Another thing to keep in mind is that everyone favors different things. For example, see the two images below of the same book that I sold recently. Which image makes the book look better?

It all depends on what YOU prefer in a book. The top is a high quality scan, the bottom is a cell phone photo taken in the sun.

Either image would be 'fine' but neither is exact.

I would say that MOST images look close to the book but none will be 100%.

I agree that NOBODY should be pumping scans to make the book look better than it is just to facilitate the sale.
 

 

[jimbo_7071]

36 minutes ago, VintageComics said:

Placing a book into a press primarily places equal pressure across the entire surface of the front and rear covers (and very little, relatively speaking, on the spine alone) [.]

The pressure might be equal if the staples are actually on the spine of the book and not off center. If you have staples that are sticking up from the front or back cover, than the pressure from the press is going to be concentrated on those staples until the top surface of the staple is flush with the rest of the book—hence the damage to the staple areas.

Quote

I have a hard time believing pressing does more damage to a book than shipping, handling, admiring your books with a gin and tonic or dropping it in a Mylar behind the desk.

It does different kinds of damage. Do you remember to Cole Schave thread? I believe that slight cover shrinkage is detectable with most pressed books—certainly with most books pressed with CCS's high-heat/high-humidity/low-cycle-time process.

Back to staples, though. Someone posted side-by-side pictures of an issue of Action Comics that had been pressed and upgraded multiple times. After the second pressing, there were noticable stress lines around the staples that hadn't been there originally. (I'll try to dig up the post later.) Even though the book looked trashed after the second pressing, the grade went up nevertheless.

Books with staples that are not aligned with the spine seem to be the ones prone to pressing damage; they're the ones where  the staples get pressed into the books.

Edited July 2, 2021 by jimbo_7071

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

5 minutes ago, VintageComics said:

This is a struggle I often have.

Digital images, taking a live subject, reducing it to a series of 1s and 0s and then recreating the original image from 1s and 0s has it's limitations and will NEVER recreate the original to a 100% accuracy.

It's particularly frustrating as a seller. I've been involved in the sales of some really big 6 figure books recently but I had trouble capturing images properly. I tried scans, I tried pictures and in the end, sometimes I had to convey that the actual book looked somewhere in between.

Another thing to keep in mind is that everyone favors different things. For example, see the two images below of the same book that I sold recently. Which image makes the book look better?

It all depends on what YOU prefer in a book. The top is a high quality scan, the bottom is a cell phone photo taken in the sun.

Either image would be 'fine' but neither is exact.

I would say that MOST images look close to the book but none will be 100%.

I agree that NOBODY should be pumping scans to make the book look better than it is just to facilitate the sale.
 

 

Wow. Cell phone pic, hands down

(I know that’s not the point you’re making, but it’s crazy a cell phone pic would be preferable to a scan)

Edited July 2, 2021 by GreatCaesarsGhost

[VintageComics]

4 minutes ago, GreatCaesarsGhost said:

Wow. Cell phone pic, hands down

Yeah, but the cell phone pic was a little 'too bright'.

Just look at the CGC label in the 2nd pic and see how it almost glows in the cell phone pic while the scanned image makes the CGC label look normal.

So the actual look of the book was somewhere in between.

See the dilemma?

No image does it all very well and if I'd sold that book just on the cell phone image alone some pundits would accuse the image as being 'tweaked' to make the book look better based on the CGC label as a baseline when in fact it was just a simple pic with no tweaking.

 

Edited July 2, 2021 by VintageComics

[Cat-Man_America]

5 hours ago, VintageComics said:

Yeah, but the cell phone pic was a little 'too bright'.

Just look at the CGC label in the 2nd pic and see how it almost glows in the cell phone pic while the scanned image makes the CGC label look normal.

So the actual look of the book was somewhere in between.

See the dilemma?

No image does it all very well and if I'd sold that book just on the cell phone image alone some pundits would accuse the image as being 'tweaked' to make the book look better based on the CGC label as a baseline when in fact it was just a simple pic with no tweaking.

 

Sorry Roy, borrowed your image (I seem to recall doing this once before, long ago, ...probably in a different galaxy far far away).

This is what I was able to achieve in a couple of minutes via Photobucket editor (shadows -40, saturation +5, contrast +20 and exposure +15).

This may be a little closer to in-hand clarity given current holder's deep lip.

It's still guesswork and not perfect.  I think the green banner and blurb is too dark and the Pb editor reduced the image size.  

...but you be the judge (here's the original scan)...

 

[VintageComics]

2 minutes ago, Cat-Man_America said:

Sorry Roy, borrowed your image (I seem to recall doing this once before, long ago, ...probably in a different galaxy far far away).

This is what I was able to achieve in a couple of minutes via Photobucket editor (shadows -40, saturation +5, contrast +20 and exposure +15).

This may be a little closer to in-hand clarity given current holder's deep lip.

You assume people KNOW how to tweak their images or have the time to do so.

Imagine an auction house or a dealer 'spending a few minutes' on every book they sell when they have 1000's to list each month? Sorry, it's not realistic.

I think collectors are just going to have to realize that each digital device is going to represent each book differently and no dealer is going to spend as much time tweaking their scans as a collector may of their own books.

 

 

 

[lou_fine]

16 hours ago, Funnybooks said:

That Depends...

Yes, that really Depends on how much you Pamper it and the amount of little Huggies you give to your book.  

[lou_fine]

17 hours ago, jimjum12 said:

What grade did this one receive with the 1/2 inch staple tear ? GOD BLESS...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

 

17 hours ago, GreatCaesarsGhost said:

 

This Promise Collection pedigree is really starting to build a name for itself with some of the collectors in the know who don't drink the CGC juice on a regular basis, and unfortunately for the hobby place, it's not the one that @Mmehdy and all of the hype meisters at Heritage would want to have us believe.  

When I first heard about this Promise Collection pedigree, I thought it would certainly be nice to add one of these books into my still work in progress collection of at least one sample book from each one of the major GA pedigrees.  Although I am certain that it's really a case of to each, their own, as I am sure that many collectors will indeed still want to add a book or two from this Promise pedigree into their personal collection, it would appear that I've pretty much lost interest in this pedigree for now. 

Although I am sure that the high grades assigned to some of these books have certainly enhanced the reputation of this pedigree in the eyes of some as clearly evident by the aggressive biddding that we are seeing for these books here.  For me personally though, the blatant inconsistent and biased grading in terms of seeing the various visual flaws as so-called "production related defects" and hence to be given a free pass and then also wholeheartedly rationalized as such by many of the boardies here has certainly damaged the reputation of what could have been a great GA pedigree and one to avoid for now.  

With what CGC has done to the Promise Collection books, from my own POV, it's really much safer to be going after the established long term pedigrees like the Church, Allentown's, and the Reilly books if you really want a true quality pedigree book in your personal collection. 

[jimbo_7071]

3 hours ago, lou_fine said:

 

This Promise Collection pedigree is really starting to build a name for itself with some of the collectors in the know who don't drink the CGC juice on a regular basis, and unfortunately for the hobby place, it's not the one that @Mmehdy and all of the hype meisters at Heritage would want to have us believe.  

When I first heard about this Promise Collection pedigree, I thought it would certainly be nice to add one of these books into my still work in progress collection of at least one sample book from each one of the major GA pedigrees.  Although I am certain that it's really a case of to each, their own, as I am sure that many collectors will indeed still want to add a book or two from this Promise pedigree into their personal collection, it would appear that I've pretty much lost interest in this pedigree for now. 

Although I am sure that the high grades assigned to some of these books have certainly enhanced the reputation of this pedigree in the eyes of some as clearly evident by the aggressive biddding that we are seeing for these books here.  For me personally though, the blatant inconsistent and biased grading in terms of seeing the various visual flaws as so-called "production related defects" and hence to be given a free pass and then also wholeheartedly rationalized as such by many of the boardies here has certainly damaged the reputation of what could have been a great GA pedigree and one to avoid for now.  

With what CGC has done to the Promise Collection books, from my own POV, it's really much safer to be going after the established long term pedigrees like the Church, Allentown's, and the Reilly books if you really want a true quality pedigree book in your personal collection. 

I care more about page quality than grades, but if we can't trust CGC on the grades, how can we trust them on the page quality, especially when we've been told that the books spent decades in someone's attic, yet the page quality is coming back as WHITE on many of the books?

[Funnybooks]

5 hours ago, lou_fine said:

Yes, that really Depends on how much you Pamper it and the amount of little Huggies you give to your book.  

[Cat-Man_America]

15 hours ago, VintageComics said:

You assume people KNOW how to tweak their images or have the time to do so.

Imagine an auction house or a dealer 'spending a few minutes' on every book they sell when they have 1000's to list each month? Sorry, it's not realistic.

I think collectors are just going to have to realize that each digital device is going to represent each book differently and no dealer is going to spend as much time tweaking their scans as a collector may of their own books.

 

 

 

My thoughts on this are that anyone selling high dollar books should consider providing as accurate a representation of the book being sold as possible just as a cost of doing business.  I know there are cases where winners of books have refused or returned them as not representing what the bidder observed.  It’s an imperfect system and there are lots of variables are involved including the device on the user’s end, but where big investment is involved I’d think the weight of responsibility should always fall on the seller and deference given to the buyer.

Digital devices aren’t a good excuse for big catalogue sellers as the images reproduced ...at least in the past... often reflected excess boosting to make the books more appealing.  That isn’t fair to bidders who may lack the opportunity to view those books in person prior to the auction.  From my perspective, both as a buyer and seller, the “silk purse from sower’s ear” defense doesn’t hold up.

i agree with you on spending an infinite amount of time tweaking images.  The minutia is a monotonous task and isn’t critical for the average mid-grade comic or lower end investment book.  High dollar pedigrees and six figure keys are a different animal altogether.  I’d think expectations are higher for big ticket books and should be, if they aren’t there’s something wrong.  That’s just my opinion, other’s mileage will scan differently. 

Edited July 3, 2021 by Cat-Man_America

[buttock]

19 hours ago, jimbo_7071 said:

OK, let's look at it side by side with the Cap 46.

I made it through a quarter of a box and stopped because of how common it is to see this type of defect at the staple.  These are from old label holders or never certified. I know the ownership history of most, and represent books from Church, Larson, Lost Valley, and 2 other small known OO collections.  I was going to show some SFs also, but it became obvious that it wasn't necessary.  None have been pressed.  
 

Again, if you haven't seen this, you simply haven't looked.  

[jimbo_7071]

4 minutes ago, buttock said:

I made it through a quarter of a box and stopped because of how common it is to see this type of defect at the staple.  These are from old label holders or never certified. I know the ownership history of most, and represent books from Church, Larson, Lost Valley, and 2 other small known OO collections.  I was going to show some SFs also, but it became obvious that it wasn't necessary.  None have been pressed.  
 

Again, if you haven't seen this, you simply haven't looked.  

None of those resemble the staple on the Cap 46.

[Scrooge]

Is this a game where we have to guess which comic?

Edited July 3, 2021 by Scrooge

[buttock]

21 minutes ago, jimbo_7071 said:

None of those resemble the staple on the Cap 46.

I can't tell if you're being obtuse or dense. 

[Funnybooks]

7 minutes ago, buttock said:

I can't tell if you're being obtuse or dense. 

[jimbo_7071]

59 minutes ago, buttock said:

I can't tell if you're being obtuse or dense. 

I can't tell whether you're visually impaired or cognitively impaired. Or maybe you just need a good hard spanking.

The staple on the Cap 46 is far off the spine and is embedded so deeply that it's nearly invisible.

You showed several pictures of run-of-the-mill slightly-imapcted staples. The only one that's embedded nearly as deeply as the Cap 46 is the last one, and that one's aligned on the spine. Even with that one, the embedded appearance of the staple may be from the pulling away of the covers; it's difficult to say without seeing the whole book.

None of your examples showed an off-center staple deeply embedded into the back cover—not the spine—of the book.

Tearing around off-center staples is common, but I have never seen an off-center staple embedded into a book so deeply as to be nearly invisible.

[MrBedrock]

21 minutes ago, jimbo_7071 said:

I can't tell whether you're visually impaired or cognitively impaired. Or maybe you just need a good hard spanking.

The staple on the Cap 46 is far off the spine and is embedded so deeply that it's nearly invisible.

You showed several pictures of run-of-the-mill slightly-imapcted staples. The only one that's embedded nearly as deeply as the Cap 46 is the last one, and that one's aligned on the spine. Even with that one, the embedded appearance of the staple may be from the pulling away of the covers; it's difficult to say without seeing the whole book.

None of your examples showed an off-center staple deeply embedded into the back cover—not the spine—of the book.

Tearing around off-center staples is common, but I have never seen an off-center staple embedded into a book so deeply as to be nearly invisible.

One of the things I have come to loath about these boards, and the primary reason I now only pipe in with snarky posts, is the rapidly growing number of uninformed BS comments like these, which are meant only to support a narrative that only exists in the poster's already biased brain.