• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Glue or Color Touch on Unrestored Books, disclosure or not??

Started by QuasarComics,

23 posts in this topic

QuasarComics

QuasarComics

Posted
Posted

Newerthannew quoted this item from Scoop (not as something he agreed with):

 

"it has been commonly accepted that on comic books prior to approximately 1950, a very minor amount of glue and/or a very minor amount of color touch is acceptable as "unrestored""

 

I think it would be a good idea to hear everyone's reaction to this type of statement. Do you agree? Disagree?

 

My take:

Any glue or color touch, no matter how small must be disclosed.

A miniscule amount of glue or color touch can be construed as "unrestored" but the book is certainly not unaffected. Therefore, it MUST be disclosed.

 

Disclosure is the key. The book can be in an unrestored slab (if slabbed) but the glue or color touch should be disclosed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
QuasarComics

QuasarComics

Posted
  • Author
Posted

My take is that if glue is accidental or deliberate is must be disclosed. I think your point is that if it is clearly deliberate (such as a drop to seal a tear) then it would be classified as restored. My first reaction is that I have to agree with that if that is what you meant.

 

The overall theme of my opinion for anything minor, deliberate or not, is that it must be disclosed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuperBird

SuperBird

Posted
Posted

ridiculous. Either it has color touch or glue, or it does not. The amount is inconsequential. The time period the book came from is inconsequential. Anything done to a book to make it look better = restoration. There is no gray area here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PovertyRow

PovertyRow

Posted
Posted

Of oucrse they would be restored. But this brings up the concept I have been pushing since day one: that the way restoration is percieved, the attitude towards it, has to change or we will always have these kinds of discussions.

 

Right now there are tendencies to think "If it is a very small dot of color (etc) then it is not restoration", or "If it is undetctable it is not restoration." But of course these things are restoration. What people really seem to be tending toward is almost a "if it is acceptable to me it is not restoration."

 

(BTW Quasar - this is not directed at you specifically - just a trend I have seen developing here)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
QuasarComics

QuasarComics

Posted
  • Author
Posted

To clarify (redundantly perhaps):

 

Color touch or glue that was done to "improve" the appearance must be disclosed and should properly be classified as restoration.

 

A very small drop of glue or ink that accidentally landed on the book (say as a reader was doing his homework) would not be restored but the glue or color MUST be disclosed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
QuasarComics

QuasarComics

Posted
  • Author
Posted

A point that is key to me that I think seems to be overlooked:

 

No matter if it is "restored or not" it MUST be disclosed. FULL DISCLOSURE of what you know about the book MUST be done if, as a seller, you are going to be ethical and above board.

 

That is not to say that I have not missed things (I have), but if I know about something, I always disclose it.

 

What about other sellers - Is there a seller who will admit to knowing about a small bit of glue, color touch, etc. and not disclosing it because they think it does not matter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PovertyRow

PovertyRow

Posted
Posted

No matter if it is "restored or not" it MUST be disclosed. FULL DISCLOSURE of what you know about the book MUST be done if, as a seller, you are going to be ethical and above board.

 

Naturally no argument here. The real problem is how to insure the continued disclosure once it leaves your hands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
QuasarComics

QuasarComics

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Naturally no argument here. The real problem is how to insure the continued disclosure once it leaves your hands.

 

Good point. It seems that is a problem that at least sometimes has been absolutely proven to exist by forum participants with eagle eyes checking ebay and other places.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
krazy_kenny1

krazy_kenny1

Posted
Posted
My take is that if glue is accidental or deliberate is must be disclosed. I think your point is that if it is clearly deliberate (such as a drop to seal a tear) then it would be classified as restored. My first reaction is that I have to agree with that if that is what you meant.

 

The overall theme of my opinion for anything minor, deliberate or not, is that it must be disclosed.

 

That is what I meant. ANYTHING about the book that makes it different than the day it came off the press should be fully disclosed. If someone accidentally drips some glue on the book, then that isn't restoration, but I, as a buyer, would want to know about it. If glue is used to intentionally repair the book in any way, then it's restoration and should be noted as such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comic_lot

comic_lot

Posted
Posted

I agree that glue color touch should absolutely be disclosed. What I have noticed, especially in pre-1950 books, is that a seller will list some books as restored, with a deeper discount from the unrestored price for the restored grade, and list other books as having "minor glue" or "minor color touch", with little or no discount. This appears especially true for glue. It seems as if a minor amount of glue does not bother people that much as far as paying full guide or more for an older book. Bruce, or any other dealers, would you deeply discount a book or pay less for a book with a minor glue spot, as compared to an unrestored book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
QuasarComics

QuasarComics

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I agree that glue color touch should absolutely be disclosed. What I have noticed, especially in pre-1950 books, is that a seller will list some books as restored, with a deeper discount from the unrestored price for the restored grade, and list other books as having "minor glue" or "minor color touch", with little or no discount. This appears especially true for glue. It seems as if a minor amount of glue does not bother people that much as far as paying full guide or more for an older book. Bruce, or any other dealers, would you deeply discount a book or pay less for a book with a minor glue spot, as compared to an unrestored book.

 

Yes, this is becoming the reality. Truly minor glue or color is a small issue with me (as far as buying or selling price) but not a big one.

 

The related issue is that, even if this is the current reality, it does not logically follow that not mentioning this as a seller (or as CGC) is O.K.. These things mut be disclosed.

 

So, that is something that really bothers me that a book can be in a blue slab and not note minor color touch or glue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cd4ever

cd4ever

Posted
Posted
I agree that glue color touch should absolutely be disclosed. What I have noticed, especially in pre-1950 books, is that a seller will list some books as restored, with a deeper discount from the unrestored price for the restored grade, and list other books as having "minor glue" or "minor color touch", with little or no discount. This appears especially true for glue. It seems as if a minor amount of glue does not bother people that much as far as paying full guide or more for an older book. Bruce, or any other dealers, would you deeply discount a book or pay less for a book with a minor glue spot, as compared to an unrestored book.

 

Yes, this is becoming the reality. Truly minor glue or color is a small issue with me (as far as buying or selling price) but not a big one.

 

The related issue is that, even if this is the current reality, it does not logically follow that not mentioning this as a seller (or as CGC) is O.K.. These things mut be disclosed.

 

So, that is something that really bothers me that a book can be in a blue slab and not note minor color touch or glue.

 

I think CGC will note the restoration on the blue label, even if the restoration is not enough to warrant a purple label. I know I've seen this although I have no examples.

 

But I agree with your point, any restoration, however slight needs to get the PLOD and be noted on the label. Or by the seller if it's raw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Member
plitch

plitch

Posted
  • Member
Posted
I am glad CGC notes the restoration. Can someone confirm that CGC will always note the restoration even if in a Blue label? If so, that is great!

 

CGC will always note on the label any restoration found. Even if we feel the restoration is small enough to garner the universal label.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rjpb

rjpb

Posted
Posted

Glue, color touch, any writing other than unobtrusive dates or distribution codes, significant spine splits and tears should all be disclosed on all but very low grade books

Link to comment
Share on other sites
burntboy

burntboy

Posted
Posted
My take is that if glue is accidental or deliberate is must be disclosed. I think your point is that if it is clearly deliberate (such as a drop to seal a tear) then it would be classified as restored. My first reaction is that I have to agree with that if that is what you meant.

 

The overall theme of my opinion for anything minor, deliberate or not, is that it must be disclosed.

 

That is what I meant. ANYTHING about the book that makes it different than the day it came off the press should be fully disclosed. If someone accidentally drips some glue on the book, then that isn't restoration, but I, as a buyer, would want to know about it. If glue is used to intentionally repair the book in any way, then it's restoration and should be noted as such.

 

up to this quote, i was pretty much on board with the concept that both minor glue or color touch used to "repair/restore" a book should be decreed resto regardless of amount or date, etc.

 

BUT, the spilling of a drop of glue on a book accidentally needs to be no more disclosed than one of my few ice cream/coffee, soda, etc stained books. it's a defect and can be seen and needn't be disclosed................IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing