Is CGC's definition of "Conserved" getting to broad? 0

[miraclemet]

Saw this book recently

How the heck is a married back cover considered "Conserved?" 

Is it because there's no such thing as Conserved/Qualified? (I assume a married back cover would typically get a "Qualified" grade with a "Married" notation on the label. Or it would get a full on "Restored" label, since adding a back cover would definitely count as "adding pieces" (a REALLY big piece! :D) 

I also assume the "pieces added to cover, interior" were leaf casting to attach and reinforce the married back cover. So again I ask how is that conservation and not restoration?!?!

Also it's a little weird to consider a book "conserved" when it has only been partially conserved. The amount of staining (maybe mold) on the cover would make me think this a prime candidate for cover cleaning to limit the possibility of further damage from the mold/staining, which would be conservation. I could be wrong on this, someone may have assessed the book and determined that the staining was such that there were no conservation to be done. 

I was thrilled with the addition of the "Conserved" designation to delineate vs Restored, but now Im seeing examples of work being done on books that I would think counts as restoration instead getting a conservation label and not being able to understand the rationale...

[Sauce Dog]

On 1/4/2022 at 9:21 AM, miraclemet said:

I also assume the "pieces added to cover, interior" were leaf casting to attach and reinforce the married back cover. So again I ask how is that conservation and not restoration?!?!
 

Leaf casting in of itself isn't restoration if that is all that was done - as in no color touch was applied afterwards to hide it. From a purely structural standpoint I'm fine with leaf casting being Conservation so long as the piece fill isn't a large amount of the book.

Married back cover however, not sure what I feel about it. I can see the argument being made for marrying a page would increase the stability of the that wrap and fall under the intent of conservation (since weight isn't all on one side of the staple) but for some reason it feels 'off' to me and as you said feels more like restoration / qualified would be a better label for this work.

[The Lions Den]

Not a big fan... 

[MattTheDuck]

I know literally nothing about this general subject, but it would seem like defining things that are done to "conserve" a book in its present condition and things that are done to "restore" a book to a previous condition should be pretty easy.

[PovertyRow]

To me "pieces added" should not cover leaf casting. It should state "leafcasting" on cover and interior pages. One does not add "pieces" when leaf casting. This leaves (pun not intended) things way too open to misinterpretation.

[miraclemet]

On 1/4/2022 at 1:12 PM, PovertyRow said:

To me "pieces added" should not cover leaf casting. It should state "leafcasting" on cover and interior pages. One does not add "pieces" when leaf casting. This leaves (pun not intended) things way too open to misinterpretation.

I swear I remember them specifying leaf casting in the past on labels, but dont know if they still specify it or if it all gets lumped in to "pieces added" (since one of the ways the piece can be added is by leafcasting the piece back on, but I guess "pieces added" could be added using tape as well...

[theCapraAegagrus]

To answer the question presented as the topic: Yes. CGC seems to be confusing restoration and conservation more and more as the days go on.

[PovertyRow]

On 1/4/2022 at 10:41 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

To answer the question presented as the topic: Yes. CGC seems to be confusing restoration and conservation more and more as the days go on.

Yes, this has been an ongoing issue that just gets worse as time goes by. It kind of started some years ago with cello tape vs wheat paste/Japan paper. I made the case a few times there is no difference between the two - both are a backing with an adhesive. That created a most vigorous back and forth but finally CGC accepted Japan paper/wheat paste and also document tape in the Conserved umbrella. But now it seems the umbrella has opened a bit too much!

[Qalyar]

On 1/4/2022 at 12:41 PM, theCapraAegagrus said:

To answer the question presented as the topic: Yes. CGC seems to be confusing restoration and conservation more and more as the days go on.

A Conserved grade is a good idea. The real problem is that CGC launched their Conserved grade before coming up with a solid set of criteria to which it applied. The longer it goes with no formal definition (even an internal one, as there obviously isn't one!), the worse the problem gets.

Which is a shame. Because I strongly support the idea of a legitimate Conservation grade that stands separate from Restoration grades. That will only grow more important as GA books age.

[rjpb]

I have a bigger problem with calling that book a 3.5 than what sort of label it gets, especially as it would clearly have a completely split spine if not for the "conservation" 

[Phill the Governor]

On 1/4/2022 at 9:21 AM, miraclemet said:

Saw this book recently

How the heck is a married back cover considered "Conserved?" 

Is it because there's no such thing as Conserved/Qualified? (I assume a married back cover would typically get a "Qualified" grade with a "Married" notation on the label. Or it would get a full on "Restored" label, since adding a back cover would definitely count as "adding pieces" (a REALLY big piece! :D) 

I also assume the "pieces added to cover, interior" were leaf casting to attach and reinforce the married back cover. So again I ask how is that conservation and not restoration?!?!

Also it's a little weird to consider a book "conserved" when it has only been partially conserved. The amount of staining (maybe mold) on the cover would make me think this a prime candidate for cover cleaning to limit the possibility of further damage from the mold/staining, which would be conservation. I could be wrong on this, someone may have assessed the book and determined that the staining was such that there were no conservation to be done. 

I was thrilled with the addition of the "Conserved" designation to delineate vs Restored, but now Im seeing examples of work being done on books that I would think counts as restoration instead getting a conservation label and not being able to understand the rationale...

I did the work on this book.

As far as I can tell, the reason married pieces falls under the Conserved label is because they are original pages/pieces. The important part is there are printing variables that experts can use to determine the piece is not original to the particular copy. If added using archival means, the piece is being used to make the book whole again. The big, bold letters on the label notes should be sufficient for letting anyone know the provenance of the marriage. You don't have to understand why CGC decided to make this call (I don't totally understand it) but the label alone discloses the work done. Nothing is being hidden and all the work is archival, reversible, and the piece married is original.

The "pieces added" on this particular book were done using archival mending tissues & only at the spine for structural support. Today, CGC has changed their stance where any piece can be added to the cover, but it has to be leafcasted, otherwise they deem it Restoration. This is the part that I do not understand. However, it's my job to try and adapt techniques. And Leafcasting is a very cool, reversible technique used in conservation labs all over the world. So Leafcasting has become a far more common thing done to conserve comics.

From what I can tell, it's a little weird to say the book is "partially conserved" all because of the foxing, especially since you do not know what it looked like prior to just posting a photo of it in a slab. You should have seen the amount of tape on the front cover that was removed.

 

[The Lions Den]

I understand that the work met their standards for a Conserved book, so it received the Conserved label. But for me, as the cover would suggest, this one wavers into the "Frankenstein" category...

[Phill the Governor]

On 4/12/2022 at 9:32 AM, The Lions Den said:

I understand that the work met their standards for a Conserved book, so it received the Conserved label. But for me, as the cover would suggest, this one wavers into the "Frankenstein" category...

Depending on your perspective, sure. Perhaps with the advent of proper conservation on comics there should be a delineation between a "franken book" with married parts, amateur color touch, non-leafcasted pieces, tape, glue, etc..  and a "franken book" that was professionally conserved and happens to have married parts. They are two separate things. One is done with the intention to deceive it's actual state, and the other is done to preserve what is there. And if the latter included using unrestored original parts, why not? As long as it's disclosed on the label there shouldn't be an issue. More importantly, the price always reflects this in comparison to a complete all original copy- even one that's had work done.

[Inaflash]

I would like some clarification as I have seen books with the label “married cover” and the cover is not the original from the book. In fact my understanding has always been that the term “married” means from another book. Otherwise would CGC not state “reattached back cover” if it’s original? I’m not saying you didn’t use the original back cover in your work but I’m confused about the CGC language.

[Yorick]

Green label?

[Phill the Governor]

On 5/20/2022 at 8:45 PM, Inaflash said:

I would like some clarification as I have seen books with the label “married cover” and the cover is not the original from the book. In fact my understanding has always been that the term “married” means from another book. Otherwise would CGC not state “reattached back cover” if it’s original? I’m not saying you didn’t use the original back cover in your work but I’m confused about the CGC language.

The notes on the top read "Married Back Cover".. not sure what's confusing about that language..?

Marriage always means a piece from a different copy was joined with the copy. "Re-attached Back Cover" would imply the back cover is original.

 

On 5/21/2022 at 2:34 AM, Yorick said:

Green label?

ehh? The book above is in a Conserved label which the modern version of is a grey strip at the top of a blue label. Not sure where you're getting green from?

[Inaflash]

On 5/21/2022 at 7:17 AM, Phill the Governor said:

The notes on the top read "Married Back Cover".. not sure what's confusing about that language..?

Marriage always means a piece from a different copy was joined with the copy. "Re-attached Back Cover" would imply the back cover is original.

 

ehh? The book above is in a Conserved label which the modern version of is a grey strip at the top of a blue label. Not sure where you're getting green from?

It’s the language you chose that’s confusing. You’re using the word “original” when referring to a married back cover…

“As far as I can tell, the reason married pieces falls under the Conserved label is because they are original pages/pieces.”

…and then stating a “reattached back cover would imply the cover is original” 

There is no confusion now. A misunderstanding. 👍

Edited May 21, 2022 by Inaflash

[Phill the Governor]

On 5/21/2022 at 10:27 AM, Inaflash said:

It’s the language you chose that’s confusing. You’re using the word “original” when referring to a married back cover…

“As far as I can tell, the reason married pieces falls under the Conserved label is because they are original pages/pieces.”

…and then stating a “reattached back cover would imply the cover is original” 

There is no confusion now. A misunderstanding. 👍

Gotcha, I can understand how that comes across as confusing. There is definitely a degree of nuance in all of this. So while they are original pieces, the whole point of the notation under the Conserved label is to delineate that it is just not original to the book.

 

[Sauce Dog]

I think I'm now fine with Married being part of conservation so long as it is clearly labeled, as repairing a wrap or replacing a cover page 100% helps with the stability of the book overall - for example the book I just worked on needed a back cover which I got from another book, and since it was a square bound I noticed that without the back cover the spine seal would have lifted off easier and be prone to detachment after the fact (I tried a few techniques on these square bound books before doing this issue, and those without a married back cover raised concerns over the durability over a long term when handling the book)


At least it is more 'original' to that book (as mentioned above not exactly belonging to that exact book, but consists of material from the original print run for that comic) compared to other materials like tear seals and leaf casting which are completely foreign.

[Yorick]

On 5/21/2022 at 7:17 AM, Phill the Governor said:

Not sure where you're getting green from?

All of my Married books are in green labels.