How About This As A Definition For Restoration Pertaining To Comic Books?

[esquirecomics]

Mark, could you explain why you feel this definition is better than Tracey's?

 

I never said that.

 

No comments from me yet. I'd like more people to comment on this suggested definition and what they think is right or wrong with it.

 

All good things come to those who wait. There is an intent to to my madness.

I'll turn in my detailed opinion tomorrow afternoon.

 

Why put off tomorrow what you can do today!

[weirdling-migration]

Would you say that I successfully wrote a definition that would include pressing and dry cleaning?

 

Yes, but it arguably excludes some of the more invisible or structural forms of restoration such as deacidifying paper or reinforcing weak parts of the book to prevent further damage. This could of course make sense if you're going to draw a line between restoration and conservation.

[esquirecomics]

Would you say that I successfully wrote a definition that would include pressing and dry cleaning?

 

Yes, but it arguably excludes some of the more invisible or structural forms of restoration such as deacidifying paper or reinforcing weak parts of the book to prevent further damage. This could of course make sense if you're going to draw a line between restoration and conservation.

 

Ok, something to think about. Keep it coming folks. Don't hold back.

 

This could be the intrepretation that sticks!

[RCComix]

Lets compare:

 

1) Any attempt, amateur or professional, to enhance the appearance of a comic book.

 

2)Restoration, whether it be in comics, fine-art, coins, movie posters, vintage cars or any other form of "collectible" should be defined by the same universal standards and not be situational. No less an authority as the International Institute of Conservation (IIC) has defined restoration as "any attempt to return an object to its original form and purpose, in the attempt to recreate an earlier known state or condition".- Tracey Heft, restoration expert

 

Both are broad, and both seem to entail just about anything that is done to the comic to change the appearance. Does the word attempt imply intent??

 

The difference seems to be that #1 would seem to include making the comic better or grade higher, and 2) seems to only contemplate recreation of the earlier state or back to the original form. Perhaps #1 allows for making the comic better than its original state??

 

I have tried to follow this debate through the numerous threads. I think the articles were great and that education is fabulous. Do we really think we can get to definition that all will agree to?

 

My education continues...

[LordRahl]

Bad definition. It doesn't include any work done that is trying to preserve the structural integrity of the book regardless of the effect of that work on the appearance of the book.

[esquirecomics]

Lets compare:

 

1) Any attempt, amateur or professional, to enhance the appearance of a comic book.

 

2)Restoration, whether it be in comics, fine-art, coins, movie posters, vintage cars or any other form of "collectible" should be defined by the same universal standards and not be situational. No less an authority as the International Institute of Conservation (IIC) has defined restoration as "any attempt to return an object to its original form and purpose, in the attempt to recreate an earlier known state or condition".- Tracey Heft, restoration expert

 

Both are broad, and both seem to entail just about anything that is done to the comic to change the appearance. Does the word attempt imply intent??

 

The difference seems to be that #1 would seem to include making the comic better or grade higher, and 2) seems to only contemplate recreation of the earlier state or back to the original form. Perhaps #1 allows for making the comic better than its original state??

 

I have tried to follow this debate through the numerous threads. I think the articles were great and that education is fabulous. Do we really think we can get to definition that all will agree to?

 

My education continues...

 

Excellent points. I appreciate the input.

 

Keep watching this thread to really receive an education. I think the end result will be quite intriguing.

 

Perhaps someone will identify the mystery challenge of this thread before I feel it is time to do so.

[MCMiles]

For the record, I agree that any attempt to enhance the appearance of a comic by permanently altering it from a previous state is restoration.

 

Give the comic collectors some credit though, for crying out loud. Let each individual decide for themself what he or she considers to be restoration or to what degree certain types of restoration effect the value of a comic. I highly agree that dealers should disclose any known manipulation of a comic. Still -buyer beware. Do the research. Know who you are dealing with, ask questions, use your brain.

 

Again, I agree that disclosure is a worthy debate and a worthwhile cause to get behind, but who gives a flip about the definition of restoration. Neither Overstreet, CGC, nor any person on these boards is the authority on the matter. Sure you can start an association that could set up guide lines. I would be eager to be a part of it. That still does not make it the law of the land. To each his own. If you don't like DC, no one says you should buy a Showcase #4 because of its signifigance. If you don't like restored comics ,(including pressed comics) make an educated effort not to purchase any.

 

Why can't some of you guys quit trying to shove your opinion on the matter down everyones throat. Especially on these boards where most of the users are serious collectors and have drawn their own conclusion on the matter. Some of you guys are starting to be like those people that show up at my front door from time to time trying to push their brand of religion on me. Sure, I don't have to answer the door but it is still annoying.

 

Yeah, yeah, I know, "if you don't like the subject then don't read the thread or participate." I am just saying, the definition of restoration is not the issue.

 

On another note, If you don't like the fact that CGC will not consider pressing restoration, then quit using their services, better yet, quit selling slabbed comics.

[maxstuf]

You might also want a stipulation to cover future discoveries and improvements, not yet discovered or revealed, which could be utilized to restore the item to its original condition.

[esquirecomics]

For the record, I agree that any attempt to enhance the appearance of a comic by permanently altering it from a previous state is restoration.

 

Give the comic collectors some credit though, for crying out loud. Let each individual decide for themself what he or she considers to be restoration or to what degree certain types of restoration effect the value of a comic. I highly agree that dealers should disclose any known manipulation of a comic. Still -buyer beware. Do the research. Know who you are dealing with, ask questions, use your brain.

 

Again, I agree that disclosure is a worthy debate and a worthwhile cause to get behind, but who gives a flip about the definition of restoration. Neither Overstreet, CGC, nor any person on these boards is the authority on the matter. Sure you can start an association that could set up guide lines. I would be eager to be a part of it. That still does not make it the law of the land. To each his own. If you don't like DC, no one says you should buy a Showcase #4 because of its signifigance. If you don't like restored comics ,(including pressed comics) make an educated effort not to purchase any.

 

Why can't some of you guys quit trying to shove your opinion on the matter down everyones throat. Especially on these boards where most of the users are serious collectors and have drawn their own conclusion on the matter. Some of you guys are starting to be like those people that show up at my front door from time to time trying to push their brand of religion on me. Sure, I don't have to answer the door but it is still annoying.

 

Yeah, yeah, I know, "if you don't like the subject then don't read the thread or participate." I am just saying, the definition of restoration is not the issue.

 

On another note, If you don't like the fact that CGC will not consider pressing restoration, then quit using their services, better yet, quit selling slabbed comics.

 

Wow, I don't know where to begin. You make a great comment, and then you literally advocate the creation of the wild, wild west environment for comics. Leave it up to each individual to decide what is or is not restoration? C'mon, you can't be serious in making such a statement. Do you actually believe that could work or would be beneficial for any hobby or industry? No rules?

 

Overstreet is here to stay. CGC might be here to stay. For now, both are powerful and are impacting our hobby. What they say many people listen to and follow. It has nothing to do with whether or not one uses CGC's services or purchases their product. If someone does not purchase an Overstreet Guide, it doesn't mean no one will apply the standards set forth therein. They sure as heck will. Your statements far too simplify these issues.

 

And it is these boards where there are serious collectors abounding that discussions like these, regardless of whether people have made up their minds (which is not entirely true), is most important. For one thing, new forumites join all the time. And this is all about education. I could not disagree more with your sentiments, especially the references to religious fanatics, which is frankly insulting.

 

But thank you for your post.

[The Brain]

How about this as a proposed definition for restoration as it relates to comic books:

 

Any attempt, amateur or professional, to enhance the appearance of a comic book.

 

 

 

 

Like yours here is mine:

 

Any attempt done by an amateur or professional, who's intent is

 

to enhance the appearance of a comic book.

[weirdling-migration]

Perhaps someone will identify the mystery challenge of this thread before I feel it is time to do so.

 

Is it the fact that Overstreet's definition still encompasses pressing even though the word "pressing" has been mysteriously omitted?

[esquirecomics]

Perhaps someone will identify the mystery challenge of this thread before I feel it is time to do so.

 

Is it the fact that Overstreet's definition still encompasses pressing even though the word "pressing" has been mysteriously omitted?

 

Nope, the Overstreet Guide's definition is:

 

Any attempt, whether professional or amateur, to enhance the appearance of an aging or damaged comic book. These procedures may include all or any of the following techniques: recoloring, adding missing paper, stain, ink, dirt or tape removal, whitening, pressing out wrinkles, staple replacement, trimming, re-glossing, etc.

[weirdling-migration]

Oops, I scanned through your article again quickly and misunderstood which quote was the new Overstreet definition and which was the old.

[esquirecomics]

Oops, I scanned through your article again quickly and misunderstood which quote was the new Overstreet definition and which was the old.

 

The "new" Overstreet definition, which turned out to be a draft version included in error, was:

 

Treatments intended to return the comic book to a known or assumed state through the addition of non-original material. Examples of restoration include color touch, piece replacement, cleaning, reglossing.

[Darthdiesel]

Why can't some of you guys quit trying to shove your opinion on the matter down everyones throat. Especially on these boards where most of the users are serious collectors and have drawn their own conclusion on the matter. Some of you guys are starting to be like those people that show up at my front door from time to time trying to push their brand of religion on me. Sure, I don't have to answer the door but it is still annoying.

 

I love this guy! He's got you guys pegged

[MCMiles]

 

Wow, I don't know where to begin. You make a great comment, and then you literally advocate the creation of the wild, wild west environment for comics. Leave it up to each individual to decide what is or is not restoration? C'mon, you can't be serious in making such a statement. Do you actually believe that could work or would be beneficial for any hobby or industry? No rules?

 

Overstreet is here to stay. CGC might be here to stay. For now, both are powerful and are impacting our hobby. What they say many people listen to and follow. It has nothing to do with whether or not one uses CGC's services or purchases their product. If someone does not purchase an Overstreet Guide, it doesn't mean no one will apply the standards set forth therein. They sure as heck will. Your statements far too simplify these issues.

 

And it is these boards where there are serious collectors abounding that discussions like these, regardless of whether people have made up their minds (which is not entirely true), is most important. For one thing, new forumites join all the time. And this is all about education. I could not disagree more with your sentiments, especially the references to religious fanatics, which is frankly insulting.

 

But thank you for your post.

 

I did not say leave it up to the individual to decide if a book has had work done on it. Leave it up to them to decide what they think the value is or if they think an amature color touch or pressing is restoration at all. Obviously some do not and will not think so.

 

I agree CGC and Overstreet are here to stay and have a large impact on the hobby. I study the Overstreet daily. Obviously both have different views on pressing as being restoration though. Which is why I said, people should try to make educated decisions for themselves. Pressing, cleaning, color touch, all of these exist. I did not say leave it up to the individual to discover them for themselves. I said give the collector some credit. A comic collector should learn about all of these issues. Your vague definition of restoration does not educate anyone, and, sorry if I am wrong, but It just seems like you want to make sure it encompasses pressing, which seems to be your whole agenda. When more important issues are the existance of pressing and disclosure of it.

 

I also made it clear in my post that disclosure is a serious issue. I also said an association to set up guide lines would be a good thing. This is to prevent a wild west enviroment in this hobby. I don't agree that the first public statement should be " pressing is restoration"

 

Your reply to me is as if you are taking the stance of the Champion of the comic collector. This bugs me because I remember in discussions on this board about the DD #1 that was resubbed and recieved a 9.6, which of course led to more pressing discussion, A board member wrote -you may remember- this is more about money and less about principle to me. My reply was, It should be more about principle. If the principle is in place, then none need worry, wether wanting or wealthy. I appologize if the quote was not exact but I think I got the idea of it correct.

 

Mark,

I have read enough of your posts to realize that you are an extremely intelligent individual, and by know means do I want to have a debate with someone with your stature. Why don't you put some of this effort in to creating an associaton with members who can vote on issues and publish guidelines for collecting, buying and/or investing in comics.

[esquirecomics]

 

Wow, I don't know where to begin. You make a great comment, and then you literally advocate the creation of the wild, wild west environment for comics. Leave it up to each individual to decide what is or is not restoration? C'mon, you can't be serious in making such a statement. Do you actually believe that could work or would be beneficial for any hobby or industry? No rules?

 

Overstreet is here to stay. CGC might be here to stay. For now, both are powerful and are impacting our hobby. What they say many people listen to and follow. It has nothing to do with whether or not one uses CGC's services or purchases their product. If someone does not purchase an Overstreet Guide, it doesn't mean no one will apply the standards set forth therein. They sure as heck will. Your statements far too simplify these issues.

 

And it is these boards where there are serious collectors abounding that discussions like these, regardless of whether people have made up their minds (which is not entirely true), is most important. For one thing, new forumites join all the time. And this is all about education. I could not disagree more with your sentiments, especially the references to religious fanatics, which is frankly insulting.

 

But thank you for your post.

 

I did not say leave it up to the individual to decide if a book has had work done on it. Leave it up to them to decide what they think the value is or if they think an amature color touch or pressing is restoration at all. Obviously some do not and will not think so.

 

Actually, you did. You wrote:

 

Let each individual decide for themself what he or she considers to be restoration or to what degree certain types of restoration effect the value of a comic.

 

It looked to me that the "or" separated the two possible decisions for individuals to make. They can decide what is restoration, and they can also decide how that effects value.

 

Based on your recent post I assume that either I am misreading it or you typed that part in error. I absolutely 100% agree with you about the value part. We're totally on the same page on that one.

 

I agree CGC and Overstreet are here to stay and have a large impact on the hobby. I study the Overstreet daily. Obviously both have different views on pressing as being restoration though. Which is why I said, people should try to make educated decisions for themselves. Pressing, cleaning, color touch, all of these exist. I did not say leave it up to the individual to discover them for themselves. I said give the collector some credit. A comic collector should learn about all of these issues. Your vague definition of restoration does not educate anyone, and, sorry if I am wrong, but It just seems like you want to make sure it encompasses pressing, which seems to be your whole agenda. When more important issues are the existance of pressing and disclosure of it.

 

That is not my definition. You're misunderstanding what the purpose of this thread is about, which is entirely understandable because it is hidden. It was my intent that everyone would miss the true purpose for awhile and continue to post comments about this definition. And I encourage comments until such time I announce the true purpose, and I am pretty confident everyone will then understand my intent, or someone else figures it out beforehand.

 

Obviously, if you've read the article I wrote you know how detailed I was about the topic. That article will serve to educate people. But in our community I think it is also clear we need to bring the temple to Mohammed rather than waiting for Mohammed to bring the temple to us.

 

From reading these boards you should also know that I have been staunch about promoting disclosure, and am a founding member of the Network of Disclosure, which is getting very close to going public.

 

I also made it clear in my post that disclosure is a serious issue. I also said an association to set up guide lines would be a good thing. This is to prevent a wild west enviroment in this hobby. I don't agree that the first public statement should be " pressing is restoration"

 

An association is also in the works, as you probably know. But as I said back in January/February when this was first discussed, it will take time. Those of us who are trying to put it together do have day jobs to deal with. We are always looking for more people to assist us so if you are interested, definitely join in.

 

I am not sure where you got the idea regarding any proposed "first public statement."

 

Your reply to me is as if you are taking the stance of the Champion of the comic collector. This bugs me because I remember in discussions on this board about the DD #1 that was resubbed and recieved a 9.6, which of course led to more pressing discussion, A board member wrote -you may remember- this is more about money and less about principle to me. My reply was, It should be more about principle. If the principle is in place, then none need worry, wether wanting or wealthy. I appologize if the quote was not exact but I think I got the idea of it correct.

 

Well, you and I fundamentally agree.

 

Mark,

I have read enough of your posts to realize that you are an extremely intelligent individual, and by know means do I want to have a debate with someone with your stature. Why don't you put some of this effort in to creating an associaton with members who can vote on issues and publish guidelines for collecting, buying and/or investing in comics.

 

I appreciate that. It is in the works. Foolkiller is taking the lead at the moment and we are waiting on him for some additional guidance. I am also planning a meeting for anyone interested to hold a discussion in San Diego. Be patient.

[esquirecomics]

Why can't some of you guys quit trying to shove your opinion on the matter down everyones throat. Especially on these boards where most of the users are serious collectors and have drawn their own conclusion on the matter. Some of you guys are starting to be like those people that show up at my front door from time to time trying to push their brand of religion on me. Sure, I don't have to answer the door but it is still annoying.

 

I love this guy! He's got you guys pegged

 

Kissaas.

[FlyingDonut]

Hulk head hurt. Hulk read Marvel Two In One now.

[Darthdiesel]

Why can't some of you guys quit trying to shove your opinion on the matter down everyones throat. Especially on these boards where most of the users are serious collectors and have drawn their own conclusion on the matter. Some of you guys are starting to be like those people that show up at my front door from time to time trying to push their brand of religion on me. Sure, I don't have to answer the door but it is still annoying.

 

I love this guy! He's got you guys pegged

 

Kissaas.

 

I'm coming over tomorrow. Let's talk Dianetics!

 

 

I appreciate the good informative reads lately from both sides. Much to ponder.