Tell The Overstreet Comic Book Grading Guide How To Define "Restoration"

[Forbush-Man]

yup. as for cleaning and deacidification, I think the latter should get a pass as it preserves the books. But its still work and isnt disassembly required? SO thats too radical for me. Maybe in 30 years as the GA books are really in danger Id change my mind. (If Ill care at that point!)

 

Disassembled = disclosure. The book had to be disassembled to do the conservation, therefore disclosure is required. Does it deserve to be labeled restored? I think that is too harse, IMHO.

 

[Forbush-Man]

Here's a nice example: I have a Human Torch # 2 (# 1): There is a bindery tear seal (bindery tear is acceptable as it is a manufacturing product) and a tear seal to one page of a centerfold (not a cosmetic enhancement, as this is on the centerfold. It was obviously done to protect the book from further damage.)

 

How would you asses the grade of this book?

 

 

The question is not exactlly for you, Aman, but for anyone who cares.

 

[Forbush-Man]

Scenerio # 2:

 

I have a Captain America Comics # 1: The book was cleaned. I imagine (well I'm sure it was) pressed as well. That's it. Conservation or restoration?

 

CGC would put the book in a PLOD. CGC would've put it in a Blue Conservation suppposedly???

 

Now, Color touch, pieces added, re-inforcement.......I understand.

[Aman619]

Here's a nice example: I have a Human Torch # 2 (# 1): There is a bindery tear seal (bindery tear is acceptable as it is a manufacturing product) and a tear seal to one page of a centerfold (not a cosmetic enhancement, as this is on the centerfold. It was obviously done to protect the book from further damage.)

 

How would you asses the grade of this book?

 

 

The question is not exactlly for you, Aman, but for anyone who cares.

 

 

My orthodox view is that any work done is restoration. But in this case, I have an open miond that if the bbok is downgraded for the original flaws, and the restoration (work) cand be said solely to prevent further damage, then no problem. But, work has been done to the book, which to the purist in me says Restored.

[Forbush-Man]

Both examples would, in my mind, require I disclose work done to the books. Conservation or restoration are the battlefield in today's market.

 

Pressing, on the other hand...to me, is the pure alteration of the physical grade for a monetary purpose: it serves NO conservation purpose & should be disclose AT ALL TIMES. Let the buyer decide the value. Knowingly pressing and selling a book UNDISCLOSED is a form of nondisclosure. This is what I want to prevent any definition of restoration from allowing. The unneccasary improvement of a paper coolectible for purely cosmetic appearance. $$$

[Aman619]

think of it this way. A book such as yours is not going tosufer further damage anyway. It wonr be read anymore, nor will it ever leave its mylar or slab. So the work done to it is of no structural preventive use... merely cosmetoc by closing the tears. Restoration!

[gpanalysis]

IMO, Restoration for both (for scenario 1 that would be harsh, but I think there needs to be a definite line between Restoration/Conservation)

[gpanalysis]

think of it this way. A book such as yours is not going tosufer further damage anyway. It wonr be read anymore, nor will it ever leave its mylar or slab. So the work done to it is of no structural preventive use... merely cosmetoc by closing the tears. Restoration!

 

[Forbush-Man]

Here's a nice example: I have a Human Torch # 2 (# 1): There is a bindery tear seal (bindery tear is acceptable as it is a manufacturing product) and a tear seal to one page of a centerfold (not a cosmetic enhancement, as this is on the centerfold. It was obviously done to protect the book from further damage.)

 

How would you asses the grade of this book?

 

 

The question is not exactlly for you, Aman, but for anyone who cares.

 

 

My orthodox view is that any work done is restoration. But in this case, I have an open miond that if the bbok is downgraded for the original flaws, and the restoration (work) cand be said solely to prevent further damage, then no problem. But, work has been done to the book, which to the purist in me says Restored.

 

We are, in fact, in agreement: the same grade book in grade with no outside manipulation will always be more desirable than the same grade with manipulation. The Key point will always be DISCLOSURE.

 

I beleieve there are restoration experts & BSD's who want to avoid the disclosure priciple, just pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. In particular: "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, because XYZ say's the book is what it is".........as in a non-partial grader......of some type (Arch, I made no mention to anyone here.)

[Forbush-Man]

think of it this way. A book such as yours is not going tosufer further damage anyway. It wonr be read anymore, nor will it ever leave its mylar or slab. So the work done to it is of no structural preventive use... merely cosmetoc by closing the tears. Restoration!

 

 

Now wait GPA & Aman: this book is not intumbed. It's a "free-range" book, as in raw.

[Forbush-Man]

IMO, Restoration for both (for scenario 1 that would be harsh, but I think there needs to be a definite line between Restoration/Conservation)

 

I am in FULL agreement. There SHOULD be a difference between the two.

[gpanalysis]

think of it this way. A book such as yours is not going tosufer further damage anyway. It wonr be read anymore, nor will it ever leave its mylar or slab. So the work done to it is of no structural preventive use... merely cosmetoc by closing the tears. Restoration!

 

 

Now wait GPA & Aman: this book is not intumbed. It's a "free-range" book, as in raw.

 

I guess it raise the questions, how do you know the work ... "was obviously done to protect the book from further damage", and who decided this was the case?

[Forbush-Man]

think of it this way. A book such as yours is not going tosufer further damage anyway. It wonr be read anymore, nor will it ever leave its mylar or slab. So the work done to it is of no structural preventive use... merely cosmetoc by closing the tears. Restoration!

 

 

Now wait GPA & Aman: this book is not intumbed. It's a "free-range" book, as in raw.

 

I guess it raise the questions, how do you know the work ... "was obviously done to protect the book from further damage", and who decided this was the case?

 

 

.....it was me.

 

 

[Forbush-Man]

think of it this way. A book such as yours is not going tosufer further damage anyway. It wonr be read anymore, nor will it ever leave its mylar or slab. So the work done to it is of no structural preventive use... merely cosmetoc by closing the tears. Restoration!

 

 

Now wait GPA & Aman: this book is not intumbed. It's a "free-range" book, as in raw.

 

I guess it raise the questions, how do you know the work ... "was obviously done to protect the book from further damage", and who decided this was the case?

 

 

But, to be fair to me (and we ALL should be, because I've had a beer) let's revisit the Human Torch # 2 (# 1)

 

For your review:

 

Exhibit A: A bindery tear was resealed. Why do this? A bindery tear is understood to be part of the manufacture of the book and is accepted. This leads me to believe it was done for conservation, ie...to protect the tear from further damage.

 

Exhibit B: A tear seal to an interior page, the centerfold. Normal handling would not increase the tear. It's interior, therefore it is not a cosmetic enhancement.

 

[gpanalysis]

think of it this way. A book such as yours is not going tosufer further damage anyway. It wonr be read anymore, nor will it ever leave its mylar or slab. So the work done to it is of no structural preventive use... merely cosmetoc by closing the tears. Restoration!

 

 

Now wait GPA & Aman: this book is not intumbed. It's a "free-range" book, as in raw.

 

I guess it raise the questions, how do you know the work ... "was obviously done to protect the book from further damage", and who decided this was the case?

 

 

.....it was me.

 

 

 

Joking aside, without having some concrete industry "10 commandments" (so to speak) on what restoration is and isn't, and what conservation constitutes, etc, raw or CGC, and that everyone abides by and accepts, then this will always come up as an issue.

 

In this example though it can be argued that with careful handling, and with the kind of book it is (i.e. rare/age/high value), then it should not require the work to be done.

 

At the end of the day, you need to look at whether this kind of work would have improved the grade of the book - if yes, then in a black and white answer, it would be restoration. IMO.

[Forbush-Man]

I'm going for the Gold folks (Total Newbie), so bare with me.....

[gpanalysis]

But, to be fair to me (and we ALL should be, because I've had a beer)

 

Be fairer to me, I'm on my third glass of Shiraz...

[Forbush-Man]

Joking aside, without having some concrete industry "10 commandments" (so to speak) on what restoration is and isn't, and what conservation constitutes, etc, raw or CGC, and that everyone abides by and accepts, then this will always come up as an issue.

 

Hey!!! I'm the one who's having a beer right now, not you!

 

 

Here's the thing: Aren't they right now asking for our input on what is/isn't restoration???

 

We are at a turning point, in my opinion. We have had XXX number of "Pressing Treads" and whatever else. Speak up now!

[Forbush-Man]

But, to be fair to me (and we ALL should be, because I've had a beer)

 

Be fairer to me, I'm on my third glass of Shiraz...

 

"Ha, Ha.....Shiraz you are!" - Pink Floyd............kinda

 

 

Edited for dramatic effect.

[Forbush-Man]

But, to be fair to me (and we ALL should be, because I've had a beer)

 

Be fairer to me, I'm on my third glass of Shiraz...

 

"Ha, Ha.....Shiraz you are!" - Pink Floyd............kinda

 

 

Edited for dramatic effect.

 

 

 

 

FUELMAN: Party of one.