Label Modifications

[action1kid]

I think it is the opinion of a few dozen specifically choosen men whos ideas and wills are going to be [attempted] to be forced upon us.I do not believe that this is the majority consensus of the comic collecting fans and collectors.

[Flaming_Telepath]

I think it is the opinion of a few dozen specifically choosen men whos ideas and wills are going to be [attempted] to be forced upon us.I do not believe that this is the majority consensus of the comic collecting fans and collectors.

 

Totally agree.

 

But when did the opinions of 'comic collecting fans and collectors' ever matter when there was $$$ at stake?

[awe4one]

As I said before, this transition will be EASIER for the unseasoned collector. They're not used to 6 years of the old way.

 

I disagree...but that's fine, disagreement makes for great debate...

 

Jim

[lou_fine]

[i just don't see this change as bad for new or old collectors...

 

Sure it is...any new collector that looks at a slab is more than likely to be attracted by, and understand, the colors than a complicated numbering scheme. CGC is catering to die-hard collectors with this change. And if limiting the appeal of their slabs is the goal? They've succeeded tremendously...

 

Jim

 

Jim;

 

Based upon your analysis of the situation here, I guess CGC should also switch away from their current complicated 10-point 24 level numerical grading system since this must be totally confusing to new collectors trying to enter the marketplace. Yes, it's much better to have a two colour label grading system whereby all books considered to be in NM 9.4 or above condition would be in one universal colour label while all books in less than NM 9.4 condition would be in another defective colour label.

 

Yes, this system would be so much easier for collectors since they would only have to look at the colour of the grading label, instead of being totally confused and possibly taken advantage of by unscrupulous sellers foisting convoluted 9.6 and 6.0 graded label books to them. And in your own words, only truly die-hard collectors would be able to understand a complicated 10-point 24 level numerical condition grading system. I guess CGC must have really limited the appeal of slabs ever since they came into business.

[whetteon]

I don't mind the extra information on the label but I don't understand the color change or anything listed as "CONSERVATION". Either it had work done on it or it didn't. "CONSERVATION" means nothing to me.

 

Conservation is work that is undertaken by Chris Friesen. Chris only 'conserves' books, never restores them. Other amateurs 'restore' books.

 

No matter how many times I analyze the reason behind a conservation label as being something OTHER than "work that is undertaken by Chris Friesen" I come up empty handed. This is a slap in the face to all collectors. I'm not against Chris personally nor the services his company is trying to market, but to integrate that into our hobby and pretend like we wouldn't notice is just juvenile.

[whetteon]

Yes, it's much better to have a two colour label grading system whereby all books considered to be in NM 9.4 or above condition would be in one universal colour label while all books in less than NM 9.4 condition would be in another defective colour label.

 

With the new proposed system they still have a two color label grading system,one for signature books and one for everything else. Why seperate out signature books? Surely they can add that type of information to a blue label or incorporate it into their point system somewhere.

[tth2]

No matter how many times I analyze the reason behind a conservation label as being something OTHER than "work that is undertaken by Chris Friesen" I come up empty handed. This is a slap in the face to all collectors.

I think you're being overly paranoid. The request for a distinction between conservation (preservation) and restoration (making a book look better purely for aesthetic reasons) has been made by more than a few collectors. I don't understand why people are making a big fuss over this particular issue. Let the market decide whether in fact a conserved book will command higher value than a restored book. If you don't think it should, then don't buy the conserved book at the higher price. If you're like me and will avoid both, then it's all irrelevant anyway.

[uclapeterg]

Are CGC 9.9 and 10.0 books still going to be in gold? or are they going to be in blue too?

[Ze-man]

 

As I said before, this transition will be EASIER for the unseasoned collector. They're not used to 6 years of the old way.

 

Realistically how many NEW unseasoned collectors will enter the slabbed market "post label change"?

I imagine alot of new Modern Age fans will become unseasoned slab buyers, but arent the vast majority of people chasing back issue slabs ALREADY chasing them?

 

Of course there is always the exception..like myself. when just 2-3 years ago I became aware that I liked SA and BA much more then the newer stuff, and became immersed in this racket we all love. But wont most of the proposed label changes affect older books rather then Moderns? I think those who are ALREADY collecting back issue slabs are the ones who will have to adjust their current way of thinking, rather then a large number of new folks jumping onboard the back issue market during/after this new wrinkle in our hobby.

 

 

Just a thought, I hope I am dead wrong

 

Ze

[PovertyRow]

No matter how many times I analyze the reason behind a conservation label as being something OTHER than "work that is undertaken by Chris Friesen" I come up empty handed. This is a slap in the face to all collectors.

I think you're being overly paranoid. The request for a distinction between conservation (preservation) and restoration (making a book look better purely for aesthetic reasons) has been made by more than a few collectors. I don't understand why people are making a big fuss over this particular issue. Let the market decide whether in fact a conserved book will command higher value than a restored book. If you don't think it should, then don't buy the conserved book at the higher price. If you're like me and will avoid both, then it's all irrelevant anyway.

 

For me the problem is there is really no difference between some "conserved" and "restored" techniques. It is actually a ridiculous thing to call a tear seal that supports the book's structure "conserved" and one that enhances the appearance "restored". Bottom line? Both books had the identical thing done to them, using the identical materials and identical procedures. Both books underwent the same procedure. I really don;t give a dang WHERE on the book the procedure took place. It is the same thing. There is no difference.

 

You say "let the market decide whether a conserved book will command higher value than a restored book." The real implication of this that the market is now going to decide that restoration to point A is conserved and restoration to point B is restored. And I have to wonder on what knowledge and experience that market bases such a decision.

 

::edited for last paragrab (to quote Poe) inclusion.

[nearmint]

You say "let the market decide whether a conserved book will command higher value than a restored book." The real implication of this that the market is now going to decide that restoration to point A is conserved and restoration to point B is restored. And I have to wonder on what knowledge and experience that market bases such a decision.

 

I think people are going to ignore the conserved vs. restored designations. They'll focus on the "apparent" label, and the 10-point scale. Conserved books WILL sell better than restored, but I don't think it will be because the label says "conserved". It will be because those books will achieve a lower number on the scale.

[divad]

For me the problem is there is really no difference between some "conserved" and "restored" techniques. It is actually a ridiculous thing to call a tear seal that supports the book's structure "conserved" and one that enhances the appearance "restored". Bottom line? Both books had the identical thing done to them, using the identical materials and identical procedures. Both books underwent the same procedure. I really don't give a dang WHERE on the book the procedure took place. It is the same thing. There is no difference.

 

You say "let the market decide whether a conserved book will command higher value than a restored book." The real implication of this that the market is now going to decide that restoration to point A is conserved and restoration to point B is restored. And I have to wonder on what knowledge and experience that market bases such a decision.

 

Pov - I agree whole-heartedly

 

[tth2]

You say "let the market decide whether a conserved book will command higher value than a restored book." The real implication of this that the market is now going to decide that restoration to point A is conserved and restoration to point B is restored. And I have to wonder on what knowledge and experience that market bases such a decision.

 

I think people are going to ignore the conserved vs. restored designations. They'll focus on the "apparent" label, and the 10-point scale. Conserved books WILL sell better than restored, but I don't think it will be because the label says "conserved". It will be because those books will achieve a lower number on the scale.

I totally agree with Jeff. I think the conserved/restored distinction will become meaningless. The implication of my statement "let the market decide whether a conserved book will command higher value than a restored book" was that I personally think the market will decide it doesn't care and will lump everything together.

[UnDeadChihuahua-migration]

I think people are going to ignore the conserved vs. restored designations. They'll focus on the "apparent" label, and the 10-point scale. Conserved books WILL sell better than restored, but I don't think it will be because the label says "conserved". It will be because those books will achieve a lower number on the scale.

 

I apologize in advance if I am wrong, but I believe you misunderstand the new system.

 

A conserved book will not necessarily have a lower number on the scale than a restored book.

 

A conserved book will be rated 0 to 10 based on the level of conservation work. A restored book will be rated 0 to 10 based on the level of restoration work. There is no relative relationship between restoration numbers and conservation numbers.

 

For example, a book with slight professional restoration could be P Level 1. A book with extensive professional conservation could be a P Level 9. So collectors will have to pay attention to the Conserved/Restored designation.

[UnDeadChihuahua-migration]

The overlap on the restoration / conservation numerical chart seems off.

 

Does it make sense that a book with slight / moderate professional restoration with a poor asthetic appearance is given the same P Level 4 rating as a book with moderate professional restoration with an excellent asthetic appearance?

 

There is no designation on the label to say exactly why that rating was chosen. I would like to know if the restoration / conservation asthetics on the P Level 4 book are excellent or poor, especially if buying from a scan.

 

Instead of the table with overlap, how about using the format:

X Level Y(Z)

 

Where X is P or A (for Professional or Amateur)

Y is a number from 1 to 5 (1 = Slight, 2 = Slight / Moderate, 3 = Moderate, 4 = Moderate / Extensive, 5 = Extensive)

Z is Ex, Av, or Pr (for an asthetic value of Excellent, Average, or Poor.)

 

So the P Level 4 would become a:

P Level 2(Pr) or a P Level 3(Ex)

 

The collector would know the level of restoration / conservation and the asthetic appearance.

 

(Trying to add a bit of constructive criticism to balance out my negative posts a bit...)

[awe4one]

Based upon your analysis of the situation here, I guess CGC should also switch away from their current complicated 10-point 24 level numerical grading system since this must be totally confusing to new collectors trying to enter the marketplace. Yes, it's much better to have a two colour label grading system whereby all books considered to be in NM 9.4 or above condition would be in one universal colour label while all books in less than NM 9.4 condition would be in another defective colour label.

 

No...you are totally missing the point....

 

Restored and unrestored comics have been separated by collectors for the last 15-20 years and CGC, rightly, made a distinction between the two. Clearly noting the difference by giving both a different color label. Now, it appears, they are trying to hide the restored books in labels previously colored for unrestored comics. Why introduce this into the hobby? Why at this time? The collectors I've talked to, and they are many to include a couple of high rollers, are universal in their belief that the separation should be distinct and never asked for this change. They DON'T want the change. They were perfectly happy with the old system. It seems CGC every couple of years are changing the ground rules solely to attract the resub crowd. If that's their business model, to continuely squeeze money from prior customers, then CGC is in a much more dire financial position than we are led to believe. Catering to the "prior" crowd is a self defeating business model that'll fail quicker than Worldcom's crumbling house of cards...

 

Jim

[Red Hook]

 

No matter how many times I analyze the reason behind a conservation label as being something OTHER than "work that is undertaken by Chris Friesen" I come up empty handed. This is a slap in the face to all collectors. I'm not against Chris personally nor the services his company is trying to market, but to integrate that into our hobby and pretend like we wouldn't notice is just juvenile.

 

That's a pretty good summary of how I feel. It's not personal. It's just insulting.

[namisgr]

 

No matter how many times I analyze the reason behind a conservation label as being something OTHER than "work that is undertaken by Chris Friesen" I come up empty handed. This is a slap in the face to all collectors. I'm not against Chris personally nor the services his company is trying to market, but to integrate that into our hobby and pretend like we wouldn't notice is just juvenile.

 

That's a pretty good summary of how I feel. It's not personal. It's just insulting.

 

DITTO

[Forbush-Man]

 

No matter how many times I analyze the reason behind a conservation label as being something OTHER than "work that is undertaken by Chris Friesen" I come up empty handed. This is a slap in the face to all collectors. I'm not against Chris personally nor the services his company is trying to market, but to integrate that into our hobby and pretend like we wouldn't notice is just juvenile.

 

That's a pretty good summary of how I feel. It's not personal. It's just insulting.

 

DITTO

 

Me too. Manipulation of the market for ulterior motives ($$$).

[skybolt]

So will Friesen list the conservation work he's performed on each book, or will CGC have to play a guessing game?