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

[Timulty]

You guys are going to love the following statement:

 

The reason PLODs exist is because there are enough mint copies of most books that picking a restored book is not preferable. Once this ceases to be the case the restored stigma will cease to be an issue.

[Red Hook]

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.

 

 

Hate to tell you Mark, but this is kinda' old news. We were exploring the irony of this six months ago...

 

CGC's Glossary definition of Restoration

[nearmint]

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?

 

That's not Tracey's definition. He's quoting the IIC.

 

Interesting point, though.

[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.

 

 

Hate to tell you Mark, but this is kinda' old news. We were exploring the irony of this six months ago...

 

CGC's Glossary definition of Restoration

 

Uh, actually, with all due respect, no you weren't. I participated in that thread. You referenced the CGC definition for "restoration", not "comic book restoration". I am discussing the latter. They are very different.

 

Why are there two definitions, and how can they be reconciled? I have no clue. This confounds me. Frankly, it appears as if amateurs penned these definitions. Either that or professionals who didn't feel like devoting any time to the thought process.

 

In any event, I never claimed that I "discovered" this CGC definition. But clearly, given the comments in this thread, few knew about it, notwithstanding the fact that I also discussed it in my article. The comments this thread brought about were very illuminating.

[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.

 

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.

 

Too late.

[esquirecomics]

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?

 

Shad, one cannot compare one of kind works of art that receive restoration with comic books. So, no, I don't think these analogies play out.

 

And, as NearMint stated, the sig line is not Heft's definition. It is from one of the leading organizations worldwide that deal with the issue of restoration.

[shadroch]

Fine,lets compare vintage cars to comics.In many cases,the numbers are fairly similar.

 

"Any attempt to return an object to its original form and purpose,in an attempt to recreate an earlier known state or condition.

 

In a car,tires,wipers,even oil and gas need to be replaced-yet using IICs terms would mean a car was restored. Obviously,historic car collectors don't fault a car for having new tires,nor would they consider it restoration.Cars need to be washed,polished,waxes,cleaned-thats not restoration.Polishing a chrome grill isn't restoration. Removing the grill and having it rechromed is.

[esquirecomics]

Fine,lets compare vintage cars to comics.In many cases,the numbers are fairly similar.

 

"Any attempt to return an object to its original form and purpose,in an attempt to recreate an earlier known state or condition.

 

In a car,tires,wipers,even oil and gas need to be replaced-yet using IICs terms would mean a car was restored. Obviously,historic car collectors don't fault a car for having new tires,nor would they consider it restoration.Cars need to be washed,polished,waxes,cleaned-thats not restoration.Polishing a chrome grill isn't restoration. Removing the grill and having it rechromed is.

 

Shad, for one thing, you're still focusing on this vague, garbage definition proferred by CGC. Ignore it. My prediction is it won't be on their website for much longer. Don't focus on it.

 

Secondly, you are not talking about a difference in definition of restoration, you seem to be talking about how a different community views restoration from a value standpoint. And the comic community does have different values for different levels of restoration.

 

Thirdly, the definitions I have provided primarily apply to paper, not cars or boats or sewing machines. To make the comparison worthwhile would be to examine how other paper collectibles view certain types of restoration.

[shadroch]

I have no idea which garbage definition you are referring to. I'm addressing the quote in your signature line.You are the one that is beginning to seem obsessed with a throw away line on some obscure website.

 

You have a quote in your signature line that says that all forms of collectibles should be defined by the same standards,yet you state that your defininitions should be applied to paper goods,not the wide spectrum of collectibles.You have me confused. Do you support the IIC stance of universal standards or do you agree with me that each collectible should have its own standards?

 

 

Some people think pressing is restoration,others don't. Almost everyone thinks it should be disclosed,whatever you call it. Lets work on uniting with our agreements instead on dividing over semantics.

[esquirecomics]

No, actually my fault. My apologies. I was the who was confused.

 

I actually need to give the broader context more thought. I believe that part of the sig line that you quote is actually Tracey's personal opinion and not that of the IIC. I will investigate that further. In the interim, I've removed that part of the quote from my signature line.

[nearmint]

I believe that part of the sig line that you quote is actually Tracey's personal opinion and not that of the IIC. I will investigate that further. In the interim, I've removed that part of the quote from my signature line.

 

You just restored that quote!

[The Brain]

Fine,lets compare vintage cars to comics.In many cases,the numbers are fairly similar.

 

"Any attempt to return an object to its original form and purpose,in an attempt to recreate an earlier known state or condition.

 

In a car,tires,wipers,even oil and gas need to be replaced-yet using IICs terms would mean a car was restored. Obviously,historic car collectors don't fault a car for having new tires,nor would they consider it restoration.Cars need to be washed,polished,waxes,cleaned-thats not restoration.Polishing a chrome grill isn't restoration. Removing the grill and having it rechromed is.

 

"....Now there are many differant levels of "Restoration", but generally, the scoop is to bring the vehicle back to an

 

"as new" condition, in which only parts that need replacing are changed and good original parts are retained."

 

 

www.classiccarpartsgiant.com/restorationparts.html

[esquirecomics]

I believe that part of the sig line that you quote is actually Tracey's personal opinion and not that of the IIC. I will investigate that further. In the interim, I've removed that part of the quote from my signature line.

 

You just restored that quote!

 

Edited.

[FFB]

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?

 

Since when does the definition of what is "restoration" turn on the issue of the effect that restoration has on the value of the item being restored? You are talking about two different issues here.

[FFB]

Here are some interesting definitions from the American Institute of Conservation:

 

==============================================

 

Conservation: The profession devoted to the preservation of cultural property for the future. Conservation activities include examination, documentation, treatment, and preventive care, supported by research and education.

 

Education: The investigation of the structure, materials, and condition of cultural property including the identification of the extent and causes of alteration and deterioration.

 

Documentation: The recording in a permanent format of information derived from conservation activities.

 

Treatment: The deliberate alteration of the chemical and/or physical aspects of cultural property, aimed primarily at prolonging its existence. Treatment may consist of stabilization and/or restoration.

 

Stabilization: Treatment procedures intended to maintain the integrity of cultural property and to minimize deterioration.

 

Restoration: Treatment procedures intended to return cultural property to a known or assumed state, often through the addition of nonoriginal material.

 

Preventive Care (also referred to as preventive conservation): The mitigation of deterioration and damage to cultural property through the formulation and implementation of policies and procedures for the following: appropriate environmental conditions; handling and maintenance procedures for storage, exhibition, packing, transport, and use; integrated pest management; emergency preparedness and response; and reformatting/duplication.

 

Cultural Property: Objects, collections, specimens, structures, or sites identified as having artistic, historic, scientific, religious, or social significance.

 

Preservation: The protection of cultural property through activities that minimize chemical and physical deterioration and damage and that prevent loss of informational content. The primary goal of preservation is to prolong the existence of cultural property.

 

 

[jbud73]

Thanks for posting this Scott

[divad]

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.

 

 

 

 

Objection, vague and ambiguous as to "any", "attempt", "amateur", "enhance" and "appearance" . . .

 

[1koko]

Interesting reading.

 

My 2 cents:

 

Restoration - any action taken to improve a comic from its existing state at the time that the action was taken.

 

Conservation - any action taken to maintain the comic in its existing state at the time that the action was taken.

 

Putting a comic in a mylar, the papers added in CGC holders to maintain page quality etc are conservation as maintaining existing state.

 

Pressing, color touch etc are restoration as they improve the existing state of the comic.

 

Just received my Overstreet guide (in UK so probably got it later than you). The advert on page 17 advertises a "conservation service" that corrected "numerous defects, such as dents bends and spine stresses" which lead to an improvement by 2 points from an 8.0 to a 9.0 and a "several thousand dollar increase in value". This is accompanied by pictures of teh before and after in CGC universal holders.

 

The suggestion is that the pressing and other "conservation" techniques can make a seller thousands of dollars.

 

The fact that this advert is in Overstreet plus the universal grading is of serious concern to all high grade collectors and must be detrimental to the hobby. It also makes comments by Overstreet re its definition of restoration and the adverts allowed inconsistent!

 

Thoughts?

 

Key problem however is even if pressing is agreed by everyone to be restoration, how do you detect it!

[Aman619]

welcome to the war!

[Aman619]

Restoration: Treatment procedures intended to return cultural property to a known or assumed state, often through the addition of nonoriginal material.

 

this piece is a good benchmark for the discussions we have about whether a restored item had to have had something added in the process.

By inserting OFTEN in the sentence, they are stating that the addition of materials is NOT a defining characteristic of restoration. Restoration can occur, therefore, WITHOUT anything added to a comic book, according to the American Institute of Conservation.