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

[Aces]

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 have no idea who said this, but is the first part a good idea?

I mean should each individual decide what "NM" is too?

The whole point of getting a comic professionally graded is to get a "universal standard" assigned to the book correct?

 

I should know better than to get into this with the BDSer's.

[HeyMoe]

Hey!? Isn't that CGC's own definition of restoration!

"Comic Book Restoration. Any attempt, amateur or professional, to enhance the appearance of a comic book."

 

(Just luv watching you guys go at it! Fun viewing for a humble collector from Down Under !)

[shadroch]

For myself,I don't consider a light Wonder Bread treatment to be any form of restoration.I also don't really care if pressing is called restoration,conservation,or Charlie,just as long as the person selling a pressed book discloses that fact.

[Scheradon]

Hey!? Isn't that CGC's own definition of restoration!

"Comic Book Restoration. Any attempt, amateur or professional, to enhance the appearance of a comic book."

 

(Just luv watching you guys go at it! Fun viewing for a humble collector from Down Under !)

 

Correct! And for some reason they feel the need to include "Comic Book Restoration" in addition to just "Restoration" in their glossary:

 

"Comic Book Restoration. Any attempt, amateur or professional, to enhance the appearance of a comic book."

 

Here is the "Restoration" definition in CGC's glossary:

 

"Restoration. The repairing of a comic book so it will appear as it did when it was in its original condition."

 

Interestingly here is the definition just below it for a Rolled Spine and further down for Spine Roll:

 

"Rolled Spine. A defect caused to the spine of a comic book due to readers folding back pages."

 

"Spine Roll. A defect of a comic book caused by improper storage that results in uneven pages and the bowing of the spine."

 

 

These are conditions commonly fixed by pressing. Interesting that when reading these glossary definitions, one would logically assume that pressing this type of "defect" out would certainly be an act of repairing the book so that it "appears" as it did in it's original condition as well as an attempt to enhance the appearance of the book.

 

[Jokerman]

 

 

Hoist on their own petard?

 

 

Joker--

[The_End_At_Last]

I think yours is the best, because it covers the case where someone attempts to enhance a comic book but makes a bad job of it and makes it worse. Now some people might think that to lower the book's grade can't be restoration. But lets take an example. A book initially grades at 8.0 but a careless slip drops it to just 5.0. Now suppose then a second attempt (lets say by somebody else) succeeds in raising it to 7.0. Now is that restoration ? It is still below the original 8.0 so some people might still stick to saying it hasn't raised the grade. But here's the rub: without knowing about the first botched job, all you can say is that the grade has been raised !

 

Clearly the use of the phrase 'intent to enhance' then covers all possibilities....I think !

[mica]

As I said in the other thread, I slip comics into mylars to "enhance their appearance."

Ho Ho Ha that'll slap us into reality.

Nice try Jeff. Many things look good behind crystal clear glass; plastic; or Mylar.

And looking through a pair of binoculars make far away details seem clear and vibrant and enhances your perception.

But the binoculars didn't change the landscape (or hot babe) you were looking at. Once you put down your binoculars (or Mylar) the actual physical object (the book) hasn't been changed.

 

You're just playing games with words. Nicely done, but games none the less.

But I have always wondered why do we like things when viewed behind a shiny surface.

Even Fair condition and Coverless seems to instantly look better behind glass. Why is that? Now I'm thinking too hard.

[nearmint]

As I said in the other thread, I slip comics into mylars to "enhance their appearance."

 

Ho Ho Ha that'll slap us into reality.

Nice try Jeff. Many things look good behind crystal clear glass; plastic; or Mylar.

And looking through a pair of binoculars make far away details seem clear and vibrant and enhances your perception.

But the binoculars didn't change the landscape (or hot babe) you were looking at. Once you put down your binoculars (or Mylar) the actual physical object (the book) hasn't been changed.

 

You're just playing games with words. Nicely done, but games none the less.

But I have always wondered why do we like things when viewed behind a shiny surface.

Even Fair condition and Coverless seems to instantly look better behind glass. Why is that? Now I'm thinking too hard.

 

Mica,

You illustrate my point perfectly. You say my mylar example doesn't work because the mylar in my example, or the binoculars in yours, doesn't change the actual physical object.

That's EXACTLY my problem with the definition Esquire has presented us with. It does not mention anything about changing or altering the physical object. Rather than "changing" or "altering", the definition uses the word "enhance". Further, the defintion does not call for the object to be enhanced, but merely the "appearance" of the object. The appearance of an object can be enhanced in many ways without any change to the object itself. For example, just about any object's appearance will be enhanced under good lighting rather than under harsh lighting. No change to the object itself, just an enhancement of its appearance.

So, my point was that the definition should clearly state some kind of change or alteration to the book itself, not merely its appearance.

So, no Mica, I was not playing games with words. I was making a legitimate point about what I think is lacking in the definition.

Jeff

[mica]

My comments were along the lines that I believed you knew what you were saying was splitting hairs. And I sort of complimented the ease in which you undertook it.

 

But deep down you knew the intent of the basic words used.

Deep down you KNEW what he meant.

In a sense you twisted them. Clever, but a twist.

 

So to make the wording better how about we add "to the physical book/or page with the intent to"

in front of the words "enhance their appearance"

 

Then that would remove your Mylar analogy. (Unless you glued it to the book or encased in such a way that it became attached or part of the book) Which could still be possible I suppose but the hair splitting at that point would be scalping.

[Timulty]

How about

 

Restoration = The process of modifying a book's current state with the intent of enhancing aesthetics.

 

Conservation = The process of modifying a book's current state with the intent of enhancing structural integrity.

[Darthdiesel]

Now some people might think that to lower the book's grade can't be restoration.

 

It can't be. It's destruction/deterioration. If an attempt at restoration is botched, the end result is a lower grade, thus deterioration, not restoration or conservation

 

But lets take an example. A book initially grades at 8.0 but a careless slip drops it to just 5.0. Now suppose then a second attempt (lets say by somebody else) succeeds in raising it to 7.0. Now is that restoration ?

 

Yes, because the same can be said for any book that supposedly started out at 9.4 or higer off the presses.

 

It is still below the original 8.0 so some people might still stick to saying it hasn't raised the grade.

 

The original grade off the press was 9.4+; but you should be taking it from the perspective of the 5.0 enhanced to a 7.0; nothing else matters if we are going by the resto definitions being bandied about

 

But here's the rub: without knowing about the first botched job, all you can say is that the grade has been raised !

 

knowledge of the 1st botched job is irrelevant IMO. If this book is sold on Heritage, once at a 5.0 and then subsequently as a 7.0, folks here will be suspicious of "restoration" regardless of whether they were aware that this books was an 8.0 when first submitted to CGC. bottom line is thru the book's history, it was a 5.0 at some point in its life and so improving on that would probably be considered by most on here as resto.

 

Clearly the use of the phrase 'intent to enhance' then covers all possibilities....I think !

 

'intent to enhance from its present condition' might be what I'm thinking more along the lines of

[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.

Because you may have missed it.

[nearmint]

My comments were along the lines that I believed you knew what you were saying was splitting hairs. And I sort of complimented the ease in which you undertook it.

 

I appreciate the compliment, and I don't know what Mark's true goal is with this thread, but since resto is such a controversial subject, I think it would be best to use a definition specific enough that it would be very difficult to split hairs. The one that Mark started this thread with,which we now know was CGC's original definition, is too general, and too easy to split hairs over. I think the IIC definition is more appropriate.

 

But deep down you knew the intent of the basic words used.

Deep down you KNEW what he meant.

In a sense you twisted them. Clever, but a twist.

 

A lemon twist.

 

So to make the wording better how about we add "to the physical book/or page with the intent to"

in front of the words "enhance their appearance"

 

Then that would remove your Mylar analogy. (Unless you glued it to the book or encased in such a way that it became attached or part of the book) Which could still be possible I suppose but the hair splitting at that point would be scalping.

 

That's better, although I still like the IIC's definition posted in several board members' sigs. I don't believe that the comics community should taylor a definition of resto specific to comics. Resto is resto, whether we're talking fine art or funny books.

[comicdonna]

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.

 

 

 

I think, that a definition for restoration, needs to be pages long. I believe, that if a true definition of restoration is going to be created and accepted in the comic book collecting world each form of restoration, such as COLOR TOUCH, TEAR SEAL, PIECES ADDED, CLEANED, TRIMMED, PRESSED, TAPE REMOVAL, WHITENING, RE-GLOSSING, STAPLE REPLACEMENT ect.are going to have to be defined individually.

 

As far as Pressing, I would define it as:

 

Any attempt to remove creases, spine roll, wrinkles, cockling, dent, dimple, dog-eared, manufacturing fold, off-center folding, stress lines, or other defects, that can be minimized or removed, by means of a tool, such as a tacking iron, flat iron, or any other tool, that can minimize or remove these defects. (NOTE: folding over a corner crease with your fingers or storing a comic under heavy objects, is not considered pressing).

[esquirecomics]

Hey!? Isn't that CGC's own definition of restoration!

"Comic Book Restoration. Any attempt, amateur or professional, to enhance the appearance of a comic book."

 

(Just luv watching you guys go at it! Fun viewing for a humble collector from Down Under !)

 

Moe, you are the man (assuming of course you are a man, otherwise you are a woman!). Excellent job!

 

CGC, which proudly and publicly proclaims that pressing is not restoration, defines comic book restoration as certainly including pressing. I wonder how they reconcile this snafu? Hopefully it will be addressed in their forthcoming reply to my article because their definitions are:

 

(1) as many have noted, completely vague and unprofessional of an expert grading entity; and

(2) inconsistent with their own policy, which is also not very reassuring.

 

Of course, CGC will now find itself in the same position Gemstone is in - how do we modify our definition, which has existed probably for years, on a whim simply because we realize it doesn't suit our financial interests? Kind of a pickle there, some would say.

[esquirecomics]

Hey!? Isn't that CGC's own definition of restoration!

"Comic Book Restoration. Any attempt, amateur or professional, to enhance the appearance of a comic book."

 

(Just luv watching you guys go at it! Fun viewing for a humble collector from Down Under !)

 

Correct! And for some reason they feel the need to include "Comic Book Restoration" in addition to just "Restoration" in their glossary:

 

"Comic Book Restoration. Any attempt, amateur or professional, to enhance the appearance of a comic book."

 

Here is the "Restoration" definition in CGC's glossary:

 

"Restoration. The repairing of a comic book so it will appear as it did when it was in its original condition."

 

Interestingly here is the definition just below it for a Rolled Spine and further down for Spine Roll:

 

"Rolled Spine. A defect caused to the spine of a comic book due to readers folding back pages."

 

"Spine Roll. A defect of a comic book caused by improper storage that results in uneven pages and the bowing of the spine."

 

 

These are conditions commonly fixed by pressing. Interesting that when reading these glossary definitions, one would logically assume that pressing this type of "defect" out would certainly be an act of repairing the book so that it "appears" as it did in it's original condition as well as an attempt to enhance the appearance of the book.

 

 

 

[esquirecomics]

That's EXACTLY my problem with the definition Esquire has presented us with. It does not mention anything about changing or altering the physical object. Rather than "changing" or "altering", the definition uses the word "enhance". Further, the defintion does not call for the object to be enhanced, but merely the "appearance" of the object. The appearance of an object can be enhanced in many ways without any change to the object itself. For example, just about any object's appearance will be enhanced under good lighting rather than under harsh lighting. No change to the object itself, just an enhancement of its appearance.

 

Now that you know I had NOTHING to do with this definition, I accept your apology. You can direct your criticism of the definition, which is legitimate, to CGC.

[esquirecomics]

and I don't know what Mark's true goal is with this thread

 

I promised a great surprise when the mystery emerged, and I would like to think I delivered. Thie intent of this thread was to demonstrate two particular points, one more important than the other.

 

First, that every entity and person who has acted in a professional capacity (i.e., restoration experts and relevant corporations/associations) and has something to do with either comics or archival restoration define restoration in a way that encompasses pressing, until apparently they consider the financial ramifications it might have on their business. That is my personal opinion and I believe is supported by the facts.

 

Two, that this demonstrates yet again that CGC needs to conduct a very close examination of the standards it applies to its business in grading comics and detecting restoration and ensure it acts professionally and consistently. Indeed, it should do so publicly, particularly to engender trust within the community (and potential customers). Sadly, I do not believe it has, as some like to say, reached its true or full potential.

[nearmint]

That's EXACTLY my problem with the definition Esquire has presented us with. It does not mention anything about changing or altering the physical object. Rather than "changing" or "altering", the definition uses the word "enhance". Further, the defintion does not call for the object to be enhanced, but merely the "appearance" of the object. The appearance of an object can be enhanced in many ways without any change to the object itself. For example, just about any object's appearance will be enhanced under good lighting rather than under harsh lighting. No change to the object itself, just an enhancement of its appearance.

 

Now that you know I had NOTHING to do with this definition, I accept your apology. You can direct your criticism of the definition, which is legitimate, to CGC.

 

I was criticizing the definition, not you, and not CGC. It's a stupid, meaningless definition, and I would criticize CGC had they abided by it in the same manner you seem to be criticizing them for ignoring it.

 

So, I'll take back the apology that I never offered to begin with.

[shadroch]

That is your great surprise?That people change when money is involved,and that CGC stanmdards are nebulous,at best?

 

 

On another issue,has anyone taken the time to really read that Tracey Heft quote?Does anyone really believe a vintage car and a work of fine art can be held to the same standard?I know a coin is worth less if it is cleaned.Is my Jensen-Healy really worth less because its been washed?Would CGC give the Sistine Chapel a PLOD?Can a coverless Action 1 be held to the same standards as Michelangelos David? As the means of grading are not standard to each subgroup of "collectible",why does it not follow that the standards of restoration would be different as well?Because Tracey Heft,restoration expert,says so?