Is removing marker from the cover considered restoration? 0

[paul -]

So, looking at this video of removing marker from the cover of a Thor comic - if the end comic were submitted to CGC, would it get a green label?   [edit: I meant purple label for restoration]

 

Edited June 30, 2021 by paul -

[divad]

No, it would get whatever color label they give amateur restored junk - sorry. 

Edited June 29, 2021 by divad

[theCapraAegagrus]

Yes.

[joeypost]

I can see the benefit to this if you are keeping your books raw, but if you are grading them, your time and money would be better spent elsewhere. 

[KCOComics]

My understanding is,  as soon as you add chemicals, it's restoration. So the marker removal would most certainly be amateur restoration.  Probably classified as "cover cleaned". 

I wouldn't recommend it.

[joeypost]

40 minutes ago, KCOComics said:

My understanding is,  as soon as you add chemicals, it's restoration. So the marker removal would most certainly be amateur restoration.  Probably classified as "cover cleaned". 

I wouldn't recommend it.

Some cleaning is now considered "conserved". 

[paul -]

I meant to ask if it would get a purple label for restoration (not green), so I just edited my question.  (Sorry about that...)

It seems that dry cleaning a book will generally not trigger a "restored" label, but many people say that wet cleaning will.  I am trying to find the "bright line" between what cleaning is considered restoration, and what cleaning isn't.  From what I have gathered, if anything is added to a comic book to change it from its original composition, then it is "restored."  So, if any chemicals are added, that is restoration.  But if it is just purified water on a q-tip, then that is not restored.  But I don't know if this is correct.

Which brings up the issue of restoration removal - if someone uses chemicals to remove restoration (like color touch), why is the use of chemicals to remove restoration not considered restoration itself? (or maybe restoration removal does not use chemicals other than water?  I don't really know much about removal.)

[divad]

The general rule is that if it looks like doo-doo before cleaning and still looks like doo-doo after cleaning  . . . you've lost time in your life that you will never recover. 

[divad]

5 hours ago, joeypost said:

Some cleaning is now considered "conserved". 

By someone like you, but not Joe Blow. 

[joeypost]

2 hours ago, Really? said:

Not restored but now water damaged?

Unfortunately from what I've seen CCS either scrapes off the CT or cuts it out completely. The end product looks like a hack job.

I wonder if CCS would even take on a book like this.

[KCOComics]

7 hours ago, paul - said:

 

Which brings up the issue of restoration removal - if someone uses chemicals to remove restoration (like color touch), why is the use of chemicals to remove restoration not considered restoration itself? (or maybe restoration removal does not use chemicals other than water?  I don't really know much about removal.)

Resto removal doesn't involve chemicals or water. It's the process of scraping off color touch.  

You can't undue things chemical cleanings and trimming. 

[Qalyar]

I suppose you could argue that "restoration" is supposed to make a book at least look better, but the after-process pictures are worse  than it started! 

But no. This is restoration and would get a purple label from CGC. My guess is C-3 "cover cleaned".

I'd like to think CCS would decline restoration removal on the original state of this book; if they accepted it, they'd almost certainly razor-blade off all the green marker (and the text under it). They'd 100% decline restoration removal on the book as it is now, since that's no longer possible.

[paul -]

On 6/30/2021 at 9:23 PM, KCOComics said:

Resto removal doesn't involve chemicals or water. It's the process of scraping off color touch.  

You can't undue things chemical cleanings and trimming. 

Ah, ok that makes sense.  Thanks for clearing this up for me.