Should Restoration Removal Be Disclosed?

[esquirecomics]

I obviously believe yes. As does the Network of Disclosure.

 

I raise the question because it was recently pointed out to me that in the Comic Buyers Guide #1442 (July 6th, 2001), CGC announced that it would be adding "restoration removal" to their services. The article stated:

 

"CGC will only remove repair work from copies that have been previously

graded as having "Slight" restoration, given the likelihood of further

damaging comics with greater amounts of restoration. The service is

designed, Borock said, for the removal of small amounts of color touch

and certain adhesives."

 

"If CGC determines that a comic book sent in for the service fits its

definition, Borok and Chris Friesen, CGC's restoration specialist, will

make the corrections and send the copy through for encapsulation with a

UNIVERSAL label, just as if the comic book had been initially judged to

have no restoration at all."

 

"Asked if this might not mislead collectors as to the history of their

comics, Borock told CBG that there wasn't any reason to announce on the

slab label that work had been done on the comic."

 

As far as I know, this still remains CGC policy (unless someone can correct me).

 

How does everyone feel about this?

 

And I can speak from personal experience because I have a blue label CGC 5.5 copy of More Fun #52 that used to be a slightly restored CGC 6.5. I purchased the book knowing this to be the case (I have no problem with an unrestored previously restored book) but if I had not known and found out afterwards, well ....

[ciorac]

Yes it should be disclosed. Even un-restoring a comic is restoring it, so it should be disclosed. Perhaps the qualified label would suffice?

[KingOfRulers]

I don't think it should be disclosed if the seller does not want to, and I do not think it should be disclosed on a slab either. They should in no way feel obligated to disclose it.

 

What would be the point of having the restoration removed? If the book is unrestored, it is unrestored. There is no need for more information because it is irrelavent. It seems like people are now wanting a log book of the entire book's history from its humble beginnings as a young tree sapling to the present date. It just becomes ridiculous to me at some point. Next I expect to hear, "Has this book ever been within 300 feet of a Wal-mart? I don't approve of Wal-mart's business practices, so I really need to know". All of these pressing arguements and trimming arguements are enough, without trying to bring officially unrestored books into the realm of being what they are not. Why can't we just buy our books and go home happy?

[PovertyRow]

I don't think it should be disclosed if the seller does not want to, and I do not think it should be disclosed on a slab either. They should in no way feel obligated to disclose it.

 

What would be the point of having the restoration removed? If the book is unrestored, it is unrestored. There is no need for more information because it is irrelavent. It seems like people are now wanting a log book of the entire book's history from its humble beginnings as a young tree sapling to the present date. It just becomes ridiculous to me at some point. Next I expect to hear, "Has this book ever been within 300 feet of a Wal-mart? I don't approve of Wal-mart's business practices, so I really need to know". All of these pressing arguements and trimming arguements are enough, without trying to bring officially unrestored books into the realm of being what they are not. Why can't we just buy our books and go home happy?

 

It is rare for an unrestored book to be brought back to the exact same condition it was prior to the restroation that was removed. In effect, the book is still impacted but now by both the restoration and the "unrestoration" processes.

[rjpb]

In effect, the book is still impacted but now by both the restoration and the "unrestoration" processes.

 

True, but this would be reflected in the grade assigned to the book, would it not.

[KingOfRulers]

I don't think it should be disclosed if the seller does not want to, and I do not think it should be disclosed on a slab either. They should in no way feel obligated to disclose it.

 

What would be the point of having the restoration removed? If the book is unrestored, it is unrestored. There is no need for more information because it is irrelavent. It seems like people are now wanting a log book of the entire book's history from its humble beginnings as a young tree sapling to the present date. It just becomes ridiculous to me at some point. Next I expect to hear, "Has this book ever been within 300 feet of a Wal-mart? I don't approve of Wal-mart's business practices, so I really need to know". All of these pressing arguements and trimming arguements are enough, without trying to bring officially unrestored books into the realm of being what they are not. Why can't we just buy our books and go home happy?

 

It is rare for an unrestored book to be brought back to the exact same condition it was prior to the restroation that was removed. In effect, the book is still impacted but now by both the restoration and the "unrestoration" processes.

 

Well, then don't give it a blue label. If it can be detected by the methods they would use on any other book, give it a purple label. If it can still be detected, the it obviously not "unrestored" by nature of still having restoration on it.

[PovertyRow]

In effect, the book is still impacted but now by both the restoration and the "unrestoration" processes.

 

True, but this would be reflected in the grade assigned to the book, would it not.

 

I don;t know. Would the removal be indicated in the grade or just a grade to reflect the condition? Some collectors appreciate a "natural" detioration as opposed to an artificial one.

[FFB]

I don't think restoration removal is restoration, and nor do I think it should have to be disclosed. What you're usually talking about when you hear about restoration removal on comic books is the flaking off of a dot or two of professional color touch or pulling apart a tear seal, or perhaps even scraping away the underlying paper if you're removing amateur color touch (though various conservators would argue about the ethics of doing so, since what you're doing is actually destructive to the original artifact).

 

I do not believe you are restoring the book if you are merely scraping away professional color touch or opening up a tear seal. You're removing "reversible" professional restoration. If the restoration is completely reversible such that the book can be returned to its pre-restoration state with no foreign material left behind and all pre-restoration defects being visible, then I do not think you can really call restoration removal "restoration" except under the most cluelessly anal-retentive, tunnel-visioned interpretation of the term.

 

If you have a book that is completely unrestored except for a 1/16th inch dot of acrylic paint on a stress line on the spine and you flake that dot of paint completely away with a pin or other similar tool, I do not think that you are now looking at a "restored" book.

 

If you have a book with 1/16th inch of color touch on a corner and you cut away the paper with the color touch on it, in my opinion, you now have a damaged, unrestored book.

 

If you have a book that is completely unrestored except for a 1/8th inch edge tear that is sealed shut with a tiny piece of archival tape, and then you mechanically remove the tape by scraping it away with your finger (leaving no residue), I do not think you are now looking at a restored book.

 

There are points at which an overly literal interpretation of the dictionary definition of "restoration" gets to be asinine. This is one of them.

[burntboy]

If the restoration is completely reversible such that the book can be returned to its pre-restoration state with no foreign material left behind and all pre-restoration defects being visible, then I do not think you can really call restoration removal "restoration" except under the most cluelessly anal-retentive, tunnel-visioned interpretation of the term.

 

Scott; the entire response was both interesting and informative, but this sentence is why i love you man (in that Viking kind of way..................)....

[Psiknight]

 

If you have a book with 1/16th inch of color touch on a corner and you cut away the paper with the color touch on it, in my opinion, you now have a damaged, unrestored book.

 

 

I want to see someone argue against this...

 

Obviously, some people are so restoration phobic that they would want disclosure that the book has been restored, even if any and all restoration has been removed. I guess this is because the mere notion of restoration is so unappealing that, even though removed, they would see the book as tainted.

[FFB]

If the restoration is completely reversible such that the book can be returned to its pre-restoration state with no foreign material left behind and all pre-restoration defects being visible, then I do not think you can really call restoration removal "restoration" except under the most cluelessly anal-retentive, tunnel-visioned interpretation of the term.

 

Scott; the entire response was both interesting and informative, but this sentence is why i love you man (in that Viking kind of way..................)....

 

[uclapeterg]

If the restoration is completely reversible such that the book can be returned to its pre-restoration state with no foreign material left behind and all pre-restoration defects being visible, then I do not think you can really call restoration removal "restoration" except under the most cluelessly anal-retentive, tunnel-visioned interpretation of the term.

 

Scott; the entire response was both interesting and informative, but this sentence is why i love you man (in that Viking kind of way..................)....

 

How did Viking men love each other?

[esquirecomics]

I don't think restoration removal is restoration, and nor do I think it should have to be disclosed. What you're usually talking about when you hear about restoration removal on comic books is the flaking off of a dot or two of professional color touch or pulling apart a tear seal, or perhaps even scraping away the underlying paper if you're removing amateur color touch (though various conservators would argue about the ethics of doing so, since what you're doing is actually destructive to the original artifact).

 

I do not believe you are restoring the book if you are merely scraping away professional color touch or opening up a tear seal. You're removing "reversible" professional restoration. If the restoration is completely reversible such that the book can be returned to its pre-restoration state with no foreign material left behind and all pre-restoration defects being visible, then I do not think you can really call restoration removal "restoration" except under the most cluelessly anal-retentive, tunnel-visioned interpretation of the term.

 

If you have a book that is completely unrestored except for a 1/16th inch dot of acrylic paint on a stress line on the spine and you flake that dot of paint completely away with a pin or other similar tool, I do not think that you are now looking at a "restored" book.

 

If you have a book with 1/16th inch of color touch on a corner and you cut away the paper with the color touch on it, in my opinion, you now have a damaged, unrestored book.

 

If you have a book that is completely unrestored except for a 1/8th inch edge tear that is sealed shut with a tiny piece of archival tape, and then you mechanically remove the tape by scraping it away with your finger (leaving no residue), I do not think you are now looking at a restored book.

 

There are points at which an overly literal interpretation of the dictionary definition of "restoration" gets to be asinine. This is one of them.

 

Thank you so much for responding in your typical fashion Scott. I was so hoping you would not disappoint me with your iluminating use of language, particularly with a hint of something of a personal "in your face" as an undertone.

 

I particularly enjoyed your designation of "assine" to those who presumably would answer the question I raised in a manner contrary to yours (and I should note that I never asserted that restoration removal was restoration, just that it should be disclosed). Why don't we now examine who those might be, shall we?

 

At the 2001 San Diego Comic Con International, in response to the CGC statement I reprinted above, the American Association of Comic Book Collectors circulated a petition on this topic which read:

 

WE THE UNDERSIGNED,BELIEVE THAT IN THE GRADING, BUYING OR SELLING OF A

COMICBOOK THAT THERE SHOULD BE FULL DISCLOSURE OF ALL KNOWN WORK

PERFORMED ON THE BOOK.

 

THIS INCLUDES ALL FORMS OF WORK INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO

RESTORATION, REPAIR OF [or] "RESTORATION REVERSAL"

 

The AACC Board of Directors publicly announced it disagreed with CGC. While I do not know the final tally of those who signed the petition above, the AACC President Bruce Edwards announced it included the following reputable and distinguished individuals of our comic book community:

 

Bob Overstreet, Gary Carter, John K. Snyder, Joe and Nadia Mannarino, Michael Naiman, Jon Berk, Mick Rabin, Bruce Edwards, Tim Collins,Terry O'Neill, Robert Roter, Ted Van Liew, Tom Gordon, Ed Jaster, Dan Ripoll, Mike Dalessandro, Tom Horvitz, West Stephan, Chris Kettler, and Pat Calhoun.

 

I guess if I am assine in my position that the work should be disclosed, I am in damn good company!

[PovertyRow]

There are points at which an overly literal interpretation of the dictionary definition of "restoration" gets to be asinine. This is one of them.

 

I cannot disagree more strongly (surprise!)

 

What I see happening more and more is that the PROCESSES are becoming more important than the BOOKS.

 

Two or three years ago I posted here that the simple reason why truly high grade books (as in GA) commaded so much is that they somehow survived decades in pristine condition. That means nothing was done to them except the sirendipity of good stgorage with good climate. And I am not talking about many of the so-called "File Copies" which translates to Warehouse Finds, because their PQ is often less than the overall condition dictates.

 

The idea of taking a book, restoring, then removing the restoration and feeling it should not be disclosed is - well - troubling. The book has been twice-modified from the original condition.

 

To me the real issue is not if the book has been restored or restored/unrestored. The real issue is people finally having a true understanding of the restorative and unrestorative processes, and being able to make an unbiased, non-knee jerk reaction to such a book. THAT is the real problem with restoration today...the knee-jerk reaction.

 

But to not disclose unrestoration? For shame! It basically belies the true history of the book.

[FFB]

I don't think restoration removal is restoration, and nor do I think it should have to be disclosed. What you're usually talking about when you hear about restoration removal on comic books is the flaking off of a dot or two of professional color touch or pulling apart a tear seal, or perhaps even scraping away the underlying paper if you're removing amateur color touch (though various conservators would argue about the ethics of doing so, since what you're doing is actually destructive to the original artifact).

 

I do not believe you are restoring the book if you are merely scraping away professional color touch or opening up a tear seal. You're removing "reversible" professional restoration. If the restoration is completely reversible such that the book can be returned to its pre-restoration state with no foreign material left behind and all pre-restoration defects being visible, then I do not think you can really call restoration removal "restoration" except under the most cluelessly anal-retentive, tunnel-visioned interpretation of the term.

 

If you have a book that is completely unrestored except for a 1/16th inch dot of acrylic paint on a stress line on the spine and you flake that dot of paint completely away with a pin or other similar tool, I do not think that you are now looking at a "restored" book.

 

If you have a book with 1/16th inch of color touch on a corner and you cut away the paper with the color touch on it, in my opinion, you now have a damaged, unrestored book.

 

If you have a book that is completely unrestored except for a 1/8th inch edge tear that is sealed shut with a tiny piece of archival tape, and then you mechanically remove the tape by scraping it away with your finger (leaving no residue), I do not think you are now looking at a restored book.

 

There are points at which an overly literal interpretation of the dictionary definition of "restoration" gets to be asinine. This is one of them.

 

Thank you so much for responding in your typical fashion Scott. I was so hoping you would not disappoint me with your iluminating use of language, particularly with a hint of something of a personal "in your face" as an undertone.

 

I particularly enjoyed your designation of "assine" to those who presumably would answer the question I raised in a manner contrary to yours (and I should note that I never asserted that restoration removal was restoration, just that it should be disclosed). Why don't we now examine who those might be, shall we?

 

At the 2001 San Diego Comic Con International, in response to the CGC statement I reprinted above, the American Association of Comic Book Collectors circulated a petition on this topic which read:

 

WE THE UNDERSIGNED,BELIEVE THAT IN THE GRADING, BUYING OR SELLING OF A

COMICBOOK THAT THERE SHOULD BE FULL DISCLOSURE OF ALL KNOWN WORK

PERFORMED ON THE BOOK.

 

THIS INCLUDES ALL FORMS OF WORK INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO

RESTORATION, REPAIR OF [or] "RESTORATION REVERSAL"

 

The AACC Board of Directors publicly announced it disagreed with CGC. While I do not know the final tally of those who signed the petition above, the AACC President Bruce Edwards announced it included the following reputable and distinguished individuals of our comic book community:

 

Bob Overstreet, Gary Carter, John K. Snyder, Joe and Nadia Mannarino, Michael Naiman, Jon Berk, Mick Rabin, Bruce Edwards, Tim Collins,Terry O'Neill, Robert Roter, Ted Van Liew, Tom Gordon, Ed Jaster, Dan Ripoll, Mike Dalessandro, Tom Horvitz, West Stephan, Chris Kettler, and Pat Calhoun.

 

I guess if I am assine in my position that the work should be disclosed, I am in damn good company!

 

The word is "asinine."

 

Although my "asinine" comment was not directed at you, your response sure makes it seem like it should have been. Like Learned_Hand pointed out recently, you seem almost incapable of addressing an argument using anything other than sanctimonious platitudes with little or no real substance. I'm supposed to agree with you because a bunch of dealers and collectors in 2001 said that restoration removal should be disclosed? Why not address the merits of the argument instead of hiding behind the opinions of those who came before you and might actually know what they're talking about? Your stand on the moral high ground would be a lot firmer if you could back it up with anything more than fire and brimstone.

[FFB]

There are points at which an overly literal interpretation of the dictionary definition of "restoration" gets to be asinine. This is one of them.

 

I cannot disagree more strongly (surprise!)

 

What I see happening more and more is that the PROCESSES are becoming more important than the BOOKS.

 

Two or three years ago I posted here that the simple reason why truly high grade books (as in GA) commaded so much is that they somehow survived decades in pristine condition. That means nothing was done to them except the sirendipity of good stgorage with good climate. And I am not talking about many of the so-called "File Copies" which translates to Warehouse Finds, because their PQ is often less than the overall condition dictates.

 

The idea of taking a book, restoring, then removing the restoration and feeling it should not be disclosed is - well - troubling. The book has been twice-modified from the original condition.

 

To me the real issue is not if the book has been restored or restored/unrestored. The real issue is people finally having a true understanding of the restorative and unrestorative processes, and being able to make an unbiased, non-knee jerk reaction to such a book. THAT is the real problem with restoration today...the knee-jerk reaction.

 

But to not disclose unrestoration? For shame! It basically belies the true history of the book.

 

I don't know what to make of this. On the one hand (how people think about restoration), you're saying "Don't treat all processes as though they're the same." Then on the other hand (disclosure), you're saying "Treat all processes as though they're the same."

 

Exactly how do you expect anyone to educate the collecting public about the difference in restoration processes, when the majority of collectors don't know the first thing about restoration, and those who do almost overwhelmingly have an irrational fear of it?

 

And barring such industry-wide education, what good does it do to treat a book as "restored" when it currently is not visibly augmented by any restorative process? And what sense does it make, if all you're doing is removing prior restoration and making apparent the very original defects that were being hidden by the restoration?

 

I live in the real world. Here in the real world, if there is a book that has a 1/8 inch tear seal that was "sealed" with a tiny piece of archival tape, if I remove the archival tape and return the book to its pure, "unrestored" state, leaving no foreign material on the book, only the most anal-retentive and/or most restoration-ignorant collector is going to say that I have to disclose that to someone.

 

The same goes for a book that had a dot of acrylic paint completely scraped off or cut away, leaving no trace of foreign matter behind.

 

As for whether it "belies the true history of the book," the same could be said for any book that is sold without every one of its defects being chronicled. "How did that crease get there?" It might be historically important information. Are we now to hold sellers responsible for not knowing every detail of a book's past?

 

[thedarkknight]

Even though I have no problem with restored books. People restore cars and old paintings, why not? But, I think CGC removing slight restoration and not notating it is dishonest. It seems like they are trying to service the sellers and not the buyers.

 

If they remove restoration, are they still an "impartial third party"?

[Davenport]

I once had a tiny speck of color touch on a CGC'd comic professionally removed as an experiment. My mind-set back then was that I was "rescuing" the book from it's plod stigma, a fun thing to attempt. It came back Blue with no change in grade, I was pleased and I put it away. Later on it went the way of eBay along with other books, and "disclosure" never even crossed my mind.

 

Today, with all the chicanery I've seen since then and the obvious PUSH in today's market for using profit-maximizing preditory tactics and hide-for-profit manipulation services, I would absolutely add that information to any eBay listing. My reasoning:

1) Now I know better, I should do better.

2) The information is nuetral anyway, until the person making their buying decision can give it value.

3) It doesn't matter what I think, pro or con. The Golden Rule applies. It's that simple.

[Psiknight]

WE THE UNDERSIGNED,BELIEVE THAT IN THE GRADING, BUYING OR SELLING OF A

COMICBOOK THAT THERE SHOULD BE FULL DISCLOSURE OF ALL KNOWN WORK

PERFORMED ON THE BOOK.

 

THIS INCLUDES ALL FORMS OF WORK INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO

RESTORATION, REPAIR OF [or] "RESTORATION REVERSAL"

 

The AACC Board of Directors publicly announced it disagreed with CGC. While I do not know the final tally of those who signed the petition above, the AACC President Bruce Edwards announced it included the following reputable and distinguished individuals of our comic book community:

 

Bob Overstreet, Gary Carter, John K. Snyder, Joe and Nadia Mannarino, Michael Naiman, Jon Berk, Mick Rabin, Bruce Edwards, Tim Collins,Terry O'Neill, Robert Roter, Ted Van Liew, Tom Gordon, Ed Jaster, Dan Ripoll, Mike Dalessandro, Tom Horvitz, West Stephan, Chris Kettler, and Pat Calhoun.

 

I guess if I am assine in my position that the work should be disclosed, I am in damn good company!

 

Do you honestly believe that the dealers listed would go out of their way to disclose restoration removal, knowing that they will most likely receive less (and in some cases, much less) money for the book? I can see why some collectors might support some of these disclosure practices, but I think it is unlikely that most dealers will disclose this information if they feel they can get away with it. That goes for pressing, too. Don't you think it is at least equally likely that they would sign off on such a document simply to pay lip service to the big collectors?

 

You're a lawyer. You know that ethics often take a backseat to financial gains. Obviously, I'm not referring to you, as you are probably as far on the other side of that as possible. But I don't think there are too many Mark Zaids out there. I do think there are quite a few dealers that would put on a "disclosure facade" all the while hiding the "truth" from potential buyers.

[Comicdey]

I don't think it should be disclosed if the seller does not want to, and I do not think it should be disclosed on a slab either. They should in no way feel obligated to disclose it.

 

What would be the point of having the restoration removed? If the book is unrestored, it is unrestored. There is no need for more information because it is irrelavent. It seems like people are now wanting a log book of the entire book's history from its humble beginnings as a young tree sapling to the present date. It just becomes ridiculous to me at some point. Next I expect to hear, "Has this book ever been within 300 feet of a Wal-mart? I don't approve of Wal-mart's business practices, so I really need to know". All of these pressing arguements and trimming arguements are enough, without trying to bring officially unrestored books into the realm of being what they are not. Why can't we just buy our books and go home happy?

 

It is rare for an unrestored book to be brought back to the exact same condition it was prior to the restroation that was removed. In effect, the book is still impacted but now by both the restoration and the "unrestoration" processes.

 

I typically think of un-restoration as "damage" that effects the grade downward. If you scrape off some color touch up, and it now has deep scuffs, you grade it as if it's scuffed. I'd tell anyone that it's been done, but I really don't see the big deal about it as it's just now a lower grade book. If the process of removal also includes some sort of cleaning up, pressing, or other "restoration" method, then I'd see it as more of a big deal.