If you were Steve Borock, What would you do?

[marvelcollector]

 

- incorporate a system by which every book submitted to CGC has a serial number stamped somewhere inside. This serial number would be stamped in ink that's only visible under UV light or etc., so as not to harm the aesthetic qualities of the book. Each such stamp would be in the same place, so checking to see if a book is a resub becomes a 5-second process. If the book in question IS a resub, and is not acknowledged as such by the submitter, CGC can then search its dbase for both visual and text-based info pertaining to the book in question.

 

 

I think marking books in any way is an absolutely horrible idea. Let's take a collectible that we're obsessed with keeping as "pure" as possible, and add an invisible mark to it that could possibly affect the page quality in the future? I don't think so.

 

Depends on the type of invisible mark. Many certified HG diamonds now come with a micro engraved cert. # on them and it hasn't hurt the HG diamond sales (in fact it's boosted them). May be a micro-sized invisible ink # could be done. I don't know as it's not an expertise of mine, but it's a worthy idea for discussing.

 

Maybe a technology will emerge that will enable a serial number to be placed on the staples...

[Scheradon]

 

- incorporate a system by which every book submitted to CGC has a serial number stamped somewhere inside. This serial number would be stamped in ink that's only visible under UV light or etc., so as not to harm the aesthetic qualities of the book. Each such stamp would be in the same place, so checking to see if a book is a resub becomes a 5-second process. If the book in question IS a resub, and is not acknowledged as such by the submitter, CGC can then search its dbase for both visual and text-based info pertaining to the book in question.

 

 

I think marking books in any way is an absolutely horrible idea. Let's take a collectible that we're obsessed with keeping as "pure" as possible, and add an invisible mark to it that could possibly affect the page quality in the future? I don't think so.

 

Depends on the type of invisible mark. Many certified HG diamonds now come with a micro engraved cert. # on them and it hasn't hurt the HG diamond sales (in fact it's boosted them). May be a micro-sized invisible ink # could be done. I don't know as it's not an expertise of mine, but it's a worthy idea for discussing.

 

Maybe a technology will emerge that will enable a serial number to be placed on the staples...

 

Actually, that's a great idea! If it can be put on a diamond so small that it's invisible to the naked eye, why not a staple?

[divad]

"Re: If you were Steve Borock, What would you do?"

 

listen to the dead whilst drinking a glass of red wine, dirty martini, or single malt scotch.

 

Just a cup of Rock 'n Rye, Here's to you old Southern Sky, I'm on my way . . .On my Waaaaaaaaaaay . . . Half-Step . . .

[divad]

 

- incorporate a system by which every book submitted to CGC has a serial number stamped somewhere inside. This serial number would be stamped in ink that's only visible under UV light or etc., so as not to harm the aesthetic qualities of the book. Each such stamp would be in the same place, so checking to see if a book is a resub becomes a 5-second process. If the book in question IS a resub, and is not acknowledged as such by the submitter, CGC can then search its dbase for both visual and text-based info pertaining to the book in question.

 

 

I think marking books in any way is an absolutely horrible idea. Let's take a collectible that we're obsessed with keeping as "pure" as possible, and add an invisible mark to it that could possibly affect the page quality in the future? I don't think so.

 

Depends on the type of invisible mark. Many certified HG diamonds now come with a micro engraved cert. # on them and it hasn't hurt the HG diamond sales (in fact it's boosted them). May be a micro-sized invisible ink # could be done. I don't know as it's not an expertise of mine, but it's a worthy idea for discussing.

 

Maybe a technology will emerge that will enable a serial number to be placed on the staples...

 

Actually, that's a great idea! If it can be put on a diamond so small that it's invisible to the naked eye, why not a staple?

 

Uh, cuz staples can be easily swapped?

[Scheradon]

 

- incorporate a system by which every book submitted to CGC has a serial number stamped somewhere inside. This serial number would be stamped in ink that's only visible under UV light or etc., so as not to harm the aesthetic qualities of the book. Each such stamp would be in the same place, so checking to see if a book is a resub becomes a 5-second process. If the book in question IS a resub, and is not acknowledged as such by the submitter, CGC can then search its dbase for both visual and text-based info pertaining to the book in question.

 

 

I think marking books in any way is an absolutely horrible idea. Let's take a collectible that we're obsessed with keeping as "pure" as possible, and add an invisible mark to it that could possibly affect the page quality in the future? I don't think so.

 

Depends on the type of invisible mark. Many certified HG diamonds now come with a micro engraved cert. # on them and it hasn't hurt the HG diamond sales (in fact it's boosted them). May be a micro-sized invisible ink # could be done. I don't know as it's not an expertise of mine, but it's a worthy idea for discussing.

 

Maybe a technology will emerge that will enable a serial number to be placed on the staples...

 

Actually, that's a great idea! If it can be put on a diamond so small that it's invisible to the naked eye, why not a staple?

 

Uh, cuz staples can be easily swapped?

 

Aren't books with replaced staples supposed to fall under restored? Or is this just something else that's not caught?

[garthgantu]

Scheradon:

 

My understanding is that CGC views staple replacement as restoration. Apparently, manual staple manipulation doesn't qualify as resto, which seems odd to me, but then again it would be awfully hard to KNOW that staples have been manually bent, and we know CGC doesn't like to guess when it comes to determining resto.

 

As for the notion of putting a microscopic, invisible-to-the-naked-eye serial number in each book, I was thinking that the place for it would be in the margins of a page, maybe the cfold or last page or even back cover.

 

Yes, it would "add" something to the book that wasn't there at the time of production, and I understand why this might bother some people. But we're now talking about books which in many cases are worth thousands or tens of thousands of dollars - at some point, protecting the lifespan of such books, and preserving them in as close to their original state as possible, means taking extreme measures.

 

I'm guessing that a UV-sensitive (-responsive ?) ink could be found that would not damage the paper.

 

Which would you rather have, a book with an invisible, tiny 9-digit number stamped in it, or a book that's been trimmed or etc. ? Those might be your only choices somewhere down the line.

 

It would certainly be easy enough for CGC to dismiss this idea, pointing to customer concerns and/or feasibility issues. But we're now at a stage where CGC may have to break an egg or two to make sure the omelette is edible. Sorry for the bad analogy!

[FFB]

As I said in the other thread, CGC does NOT consider replacement of staples to be restoration. They consider it a special defect and give books with staple cleaning and/or replacement (but no other restoration) the green Qualified label. If other restoration work is done to the book, then the purple Restored label trumps all.

 

As for the invisible ink idea, it's one that I floated way back in early 2004 when I first joined here and Ashley Rudd had floated it a year before then. I have come to believe that it would be a bad idea and that most people would not go for it. I personally would not go for it on my books.

 

Scheradon:

 

My understanding is that CGC views staple replacement as restoration. Apparently, manual staple manipulation doesn't qualify as resto, which seems odd to me, but then again it would be awfully hard to KNOW that staples have been manually bent, and we know CGC doesn't like to guess when it comes to determining resto.

 

As for the notion of putting a microscopic, invisible-to-the-naked-eye serial number in each book, I was thinking that the place for it would be in the margins of a page, maybe the cfold or last page or even back cover.

 

Yes, it would "add" something to the book that wasn't there at the time of production, and I understand why this might bother some people. But we're now talking about books which in many cases are worth thousands or tens of thousands of dollars - at some point, protecting the lifespan of such books, and preserving them in as close to their original state as possible, means taking extreme measures.

 

I'm guessing that a UV-sensitive (-responsive ?) ink could be found that would not damage the paper.

 

Which would you rather have, a book with an invisible, tiny 9-digit number stamped in it, or a book that's been trimmed or etc. ? Those might be your only choices somewhere down the line.

 

It would certainly be easy enough for CGC to dismiss this idea, pointing to customer concerns and/or feasibility issues. But we're now at a stage where CGC may have to break an egg or two to make sure the omelette is edible. Sorry for the bad analogy!

[Red Hook]

I'm with you on that one and always have been. No additional marking should be put on books. That would open up a whole new can of worms.

 

 

[Aman619]

I have no problem with it. Many artworks and artifacts are similarly "marked" or catalogued. But, my issue revolves more aroung th eeasy counterfeiting of ANY chosen marking system. I fear that no matter what precautions CGC came up with as to ink, color, placement, content, coding etc, would be broken or duplicated pretty quickly, rendering it useless and a "What were we thinking" view from the future.

[drice6900]

I have no problem with it. Many artworks and artifacts are similarly "marked" or catalogued. But, my issue revolves more aroung th eeasy counterfeiting of ANY chosen marking system. I fear that no matter what precautions CGC came up with as to ink, color, placement, content, coding etc, would be broken or duplicated pretty quickly, rendering it useless and a "What were we thinking" view from the future.

 

Agreed. Marking would be a nice touch, but someone would figure out a way around it. I guess the best method at the moment is still a visual database.

[Shield]

She blushes when I remind her of that and then says something like"Oh you guys are just so silly with all your slang talk" giggling away. It must be nice to be pure and wholesome in a good kinda way. I lost that so many years ago that it's just good to be around it.

 

I think we have posted something funny in a thread that's too serious.

[burntboy]

 

- incorporate a system by which every book submitted to CGC has a serial number stamped somewhere inside. This serial number would be stamped in ink that's only visible under UV light or etc., so as not to harm the aesthetic qualities of the book. Each such stamp would be in the same place, so checking to see if a book is a resub becomes a 5-second process. If the book in question IS a resub, and is not acknowledged as such by the submitter, CGC can then search its dbase for both visual and text-based info pertaining to the book in question.

 

 

I think marking books in any way is an absolutely horrible idea. Let's take a collectible that we're obsessed with keeping as "pure" as possible, and add an invisible mark to it that could possibly affect the page quality in the future? I don't think so.

 

I don't think it's that

 

Jimm - i'm with david on this one.

 

i understand what you're saying but just can't figure out why a tiny invisible mark would be such a problem for so many if it ultimately was part of the cure for what ails us....................