Should Restoration Removal Be Disclosed?

[FFB]

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.

 

Fair enough Kevin, but what you're talking about is what you would do, and I have no problem with that. My issue is what we as a community are going to tell sellers they must do to avoid being branded as unethical. Where do you stand on the issue of what a seller must do to avoid being accused of unethical conduct by the NOD or others?

 

Would you accuse a seller of being unethical if he removed a piece of archival tape that was holding a tear seal closed and didn't affirmatively disclose the fact that this very visible tear used to be held together with a piece of archival tape that is now completely gone? What about a seller who scraped off a dot of color touch, leaving a completely unrestored book behind? Would you call him unethical if he did not affirmatively disclose the fact that the spine stress staring him in the face used to be covered up by a dot of acrylic that is now completely gone?

[Davenport]

 

Fair enough Kevin, but what you're talking about is what you would do, and I have no problem with that. My issue is what we as a community are going to tell sellers they must do to avoid being branded as unethical. Where do you stand on the issue of what a seller must do to avoid being accused of unethical conduct by the NOD or others?

 

Would you accuse a seller of being unethical if he removed a piece of archival tape that was holding a tear seal closed and didn't affirmatively disclose the fact that this very visible tear used to be held together with a piece of archival tape that is now completely gone? What about a seller who scraped off a dot of color touch, leaving a completely unrestored book behind? Would you call him unethical if he did not affirmatively disclose the fact that the spine stress staring him in the face used to be covered up by a dot of acrylic that is now completely gone?

Whew. Tough questions Scott. Very tough.

Personally I've come to believe the ethical line is where "my fist meets your face". You know what I mean? I can swing my arms around like a wild man all I want, but it crosses the line if I hit someone. So, when someone sells a used comic book as a collectible, that selling process impacts another human being. With me?

 

Jump to the part where the only reason I can think of to withhold firsthand information about alterations is fear that it may lower the desirability, the price. Withholding the information does what? It cheats the other guy, invited to have a mutually satisfying transaction, out of his chance to make a decision for himself. True?

 

Because one party (seller) cannot know for certain how the other party (buyer) will process nuetral information, a (preditory, fear based) choice is made to withhold that information. That's the exact moment the information ceases to be nuetral. One party has placed a (negative) value on it, and decides the other party will not be allowed to process it.

 

That seems to be where the line is. The point of impact.

[uclapeterg]

 

Fair enough Kevin, but what you're talking about is what you would do, and I have no problem with that. My issue is what we as a community are going to tell sellers they must do to avoid being branded as unethical. Where do you stand on the issue of what a seller must do to avoid being accused of unethical conduct by the NOD or others?

 

Would you accuse a seller of being unethical if he removed a piece of archival tape that was holding a tear seal closed and didn't affirmatively disclose the fact that this very visible tear used to be held together with a piece of archival tape that is now completely gone? What about a seller who scraped off a dot of color touch, leaving a completely unrestored book behind? Would you call him unethical if he did not affirmatively disclose the fact that the spine stress staring him in the face used to be covered up by a dot of acrylic that is now completely gone?

 

Yes, if they know about it.

[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!

 

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.

 

So sue me for my misspelling.

 

The merits against your position have been spelled out many, many times before. Just read the articles I have written concerning disclosure. For one thing, again, you turned the debate into one of "is it restoration or not" when that was never the question. The issue was one of disclosure, not "restoration".

 

In any event, let me again list the "bunch of dealers in collectors in 2001" (and are you insinuating that their positions in 2006 are different?) you so easily push to the side.

 

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.

 

Now I don't know all of these people but I see either the individual top leaders in our industry or those who work for the organizations doing the trailblazing including Overstreet, Gemstone, CGC and Heritage - not to mention the entire AACC Board of Directors at the time.

 

I chose to side with them. No other response to your position is really needed. If you want to persuade others to what you view as the "ethical" position regarding this issue, that is your perrogative to chose to do so.

[esquirecomics]

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.

 

Difficult to argue either way without specific knowledge of when people violate their word but you obviously identify a very real problem. But this is a problem with human society in general. We expect law enforcement officials to enforce the law but sometimes they break it. We expect politicians to fulfil the ethical obligations they assume, but it seems like they often break them.

 

We can only expect people to stand by their word and if they don't try to enforce whatever rules or remedies, if any, may exist in the specific context.

 

And by no means do I hold myself out to be Mr. Ethical. There is a certain line I follow, but that line can wave, particularly when there is a gray area. But I try to abide by the rules that exist and I always try not to be a hyprocrite. Consistency means something at least.

 

BTW, I thought the legal ethics class we are required to take in law school was a joke. How does one teach ethics? Especially to a group of 22-30 year olds who have already had their personalities and social skills primarily develop years before. One can teach the rules and how to follow them, but not really how to be ethical. We are, or we are not. Of course, these are simply generic comments. There are always exceptions.

[PovertyRow]

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."

 

Close Scott, but not my meaning, and I am SURE you know my meaning. You have elected to use the word "treat" as the common denominator. That allows your argument but ignores my intent. Very slickly done.

 

I am saying that restoration should be PERCEIVED differently, based on the quality, nature and extent of the restoration. THAT has to do with education. And the more educated one becomes, the better understanding there will be.

 

This understanding can then be applied to unrestoration. This has nothing to do with treating things the same. Never said that and never will.

[FFB]

 

Fair enough Kevin, but what you're talking about is what you would do, and I have no problem with that. My issue is what we as a community are going to tell sellers they must do to avoid being branded as unethical. Where do you stand on the issue of what a seller must do to avoid being accused of unethical conduct by the NOD or others?

 

Would you accuse a seller of being unethical if he removed a piece of archival tape that was holding a tear seal closed and didn't affirmatively disclose the fact that this very visible tear used to be held together with a piece of archival tape that is now completely gone? What about a seller who scraped off a dot of color touch, leaving a completely unrestored book behind? Would you call him unethical if he did not affirmatively disclose the fact that the spine stress staring him in the face used to be covered up by a dot of acrylic that is now completely gone?

Whew. Tough questions Scott. Very tough.

Personally I've come to believe the ethical line is where "my fist meets your face". You know what I mean? I can swing my arms around like a wild man all I want, but it crosses the line if I hit someone. So, when someone sells a used comic book as a collectible, that selling process impacts another human being. With me?

 

Jump to the part where the only reason I can think of to withhold firsthand information about alterations is fear that it may lower the desirability, the price. Withholding the information does what? It cheats the other guy, invited to have a mutually satisfying transaction, out of his chance to make a decision for himself. True?

 

No, not necessarily true. I think there is no shortage of sellers who would consider the complete removal of very minor, superficial repair to be truly "no big deal," and may not even think to make note of it when reselling the book. For them, it would be no more important (and perhaps even less important!) than the fact that the book was stored in a humid environment for a few years or something like that. You're not looking at a restored book with masked flaws. You're looking at a book with all of its flaws apparent.

 

Because one party (seller) cannot know for certain how the other party (buyer) will process nuetral information, a (preditory, fear based) choice is made to withhold that information. That's the exact moment the information ceases to be nuetral. One party has placed a (negative) value on it, and decides the other party will not be allowed to process it.

 

That seems to be where the line is. The point of impact.

 

That is a very nebulous answer and I think that's where this discussion breaks down -- not the point of impact, but "where the rubber meets the road" so to speak. Where do we draw the line such that dealers will know what to do or not do? What does need to be disclosed and what doesn't? The line needs to be defined in real, concrete terms or it'll never be anything more than a few people bittching about it on the internet. And it needs not to be defined just by the buyers -- it also needs to be defined by dealers in the industry who actually have real knowledge and real influence, not just by a noisy bunch on a chat board.

[Ze-man]

Where do we draw the line such that dealers will know what to do or not do? What does need to be disclosed and what doesn't?

 

To me it is simple, if a dealer does something to a book intentionally they should disclose it. If a dealer removes something from a book,same thing disclose it. (If they know about it firsthand of course) To do otherwise is well, deceptive.

 

I cannot really say wether on not flicking off a speck of glue or paint with your fingernail, or removing loose debris with a towel should be disclosed. well, actually of course not, thats silly But if a Dealer/CGC/Resto person works on a book, really WORKS on it to improve or remove previous restoration. Well, I think that is the fine line everyone knows when they cross it.

 

The book may be returned to a close semblance of it's original state, but it aint the same really. It has been to the body shop twice. I dont call that original condition.

 

CGC offering resto removal service, and not mentioning it on the label appears to just be a nifty solution to the unintended stigma their PLOD label created.

"Dont like that purple label? Send it to us and we can remove that tape, and CT for you"

 

How does one really know ALL the previous resto is actually removed? To the naked eye it is? If viewed through a loupe? How bout a microscope? I imagine people who really, "REALLY" hate tape, or CT would not like to find out a book they paid high dollar for was once taped up, or had paint on it and was in a PLOD only a month ago. Even if the dealer tells them .." No, really..it's all gone now ,it is unrestored now."

 

How really gone is gone? I obviously cannot say for sure.

 

More information is better right? So let the people decide wether or not resto removal is a bad thing. Not telling them doesn't help anyone but those selling the books.

 

Ze-

[awe4one]

My issue is what we as a community are going to tell sellers they must do to avoid being branded as unethical. Where do you stand on the issue of what a seller must do to avoid being accused of unethical conduct by the NOD or others?

 

Where did you find anything to suggest the NOD is going to point fingers at dealers and classify them as unethical? If that's your impression of NOD then you're sadly mistaken...

 

Jim

[Davenport]

 

That is a very nebulous answer and I think that's where this discussion breaks down -- not the point of impact, but "where the rubber meets the road" so to speak. Where do we draw the line such that dealers will know what to do or not do? What does need to be disclosed and what doesn't? The line needs to be defined in real, concrete terms or it'll never be anything more than a few people bittching about it on the internet. And it needs not to be defined just by the buyers -- it also needs to be defined by dealers in the industry who actually have real knowledge and real influence, not just by a noisy bunch on a chat board.

As simplistic as the Golden Rule may sound, that may be as concrete as it can get. Remember when Stephen Fishler posted "everyone's a dealer", well everyone's a buyer too, and he certainly didn't like discovering a CGC 9.0 he purchased was a former CGC 8.0. So maybe the best thing a dealer can do is put themselves in the buyer's shoes, and if it's information they themselves would want to know, then disclose it. Or better yet, since they can't be mindreaders, disclose it to the buyer anyway, and let them decide.

 

When selling it's presenting a comic for the buyer's approval. It's inviting the buyer to pass judgement on everything about it. And if a seller is withholding information to prevent it from being included in the buyer's approval process, it's taking advantage. It's being less than honest. It's "what not to do".

 

BTW, whatever happened to "the customer is always right"?

Maybe the "dealers in the industry" with "real knowledge and real influence" need to remember...if your selling it, then you don't get to decide what's acceptable. That privilege shifts to the buyer.

[KingOfRulers]

As simplistic as the Golden Rule may sound, that may be as concrete as it can get. Remember when Stephen Fishler posted "everyone's a dealer", well everyone's a buyer too, and he certainly didn't like discovering a CGC 9.0 he purchased was a former CGC 8.0. So maybe the best thing a dealer can do is put themselves in the buyer's shoes, and if it's information they themselves would want to know, then disclose it. Or better yet, since they can't be mindreaders, disclose it to the buyer anyway, and let them decide.

 

When selling it's presenting a comic for the buyer's approval. It's inviting the buyer to pass judgement on everything about it. And if a seller is withholding information to prevent it from being included in the buyer's approval process, it's taking advantage. It's being less than honest. It's "what not to do".

 

You are not withholding information though. It hard to be holding information on a slabbed book. The infomation is right in front of them. Information that might have influenced the book in the past is irrelavent, if it does not influence the book now. Why should a sell be based on what a book "used to be"? For that matter, my X-men #1 used to be a 9.6 even though its a 2.5 now, so I hope a buyer takes that into consideration.

 

BTW, whatever happened to "the customer is always right"?

Maybe the "dealers in the industry" with "real knowledge and real influence" need to remember...if your selling it, then you don't get to decide what's acceptable. That privilege shifts to the buyer.

 

The customer is not always right. That custmomer can be wrong. Nonetheless, you try and make the customer happy so that they buy from you again.

[awe4one]

You are not withholding information though. It hard to be holding information on a slabbed book. The infomation is right in front of them. Information that might have influenced the book in the past is irrelavent, if it does not influence the book now.

 

If work has been performed on a book that has influenced the grade then it should be revealed. Just because it's now hidden in a slab doesn't negate the right for the buyer to know the work performed.

 

Why should a sell be based on what a book "used to be"? For that matter, my X-men #1 used to be a 9.6 even though its a 2.5 now, so I hope a buyer takes that into consideration.

 

Again...if work was performed on the comic, it should be revealed. Saying the comic "used" to be pristine when new is irrelevent. And really isn't what is being discussed here...

 

Jim

[KingOfRulers]

 

If work has been performed on a book that has influenced the grade then it should be revealed. Just because it's now hidden in a slab doesn't negate the right for the buyer to know the work performed.

 

Well, if the "work" has truly been removed it has no influence on the grade and therefore is irrelavent for the entire transaction

 

 

Again...if work was performed on the comic, it should be revealed. Saying the comic "used" to be pristine when new is irrelevent. And really isn't what is being discussed here...

 

Jim

 

And again, you should not be obligated to do so. If it is no longer apart of the book, or influences the grade then it should not have to be revealed. Saying a comic used to be pristine is not what we are talking about, but the point was to show you principle is the same. Both are irrelavent NOW, and completely meaningless.

[Davenport]

 

Well, if the "work" has truly been removed it has no influence on the grade and therefore is irrelavent for the entire transaction

 

What page is that on?

 

 

[awe4one]

Well, if the "work" has truly been removed it has no influence on the grade and therefore is irrelavent for the entire transaction

 

But work was done nonetheless which makes it completely relevent.

 

And again, you should not be obligated to do so. If it is no longer apart of the book, or influences the grade then it should not have to be revealed.

 

I'm not sure what's so hard to understand here...work was performed on the comic. Thus it's on the seller to reveal the work...not plead ignorance because the purpose of the work is gone...

 

Are there no morals left in this hobby? Hell, I'm starting to think they never were there in the first place the way people make excuses for this stuff. I guess some people's standard of "common sense" differs. Especially when they see cash involved...

 

Jim

[Aces]

 

Well, if the "work" has truly been removed it has no influence on the grade and therefore is irrelavent for the entire transaction

 

What page is that on?

 

 

 

I want one of those!

Where do they sell'em?

[thedarkknight]

If you are a seller, please let me know who you are. I will NEVER buy from you.

[Psiknight]

Well, if the "work" has truly been removed it has no influence on the grade and therefore is irrelavent for the entire transaction

 

But work was done nonetheless which makes it completely relevent.

 

 

IMO, this is only important to people that find restoration to be some sort of blight on a book. If I bought a book and later found that restoration was removed I wouldn't throw a fit like some here might. I think that's why I wouldn't consider it relevant.

[KingOfRulers]

 

But work was done nonetheless which makes it completely relevent.

 

How is that when there is no work present on the book? We disclose when there IS work on the book, not when there is none.

 

I'm not sure what's so hard to understand here...work was performed on the comic. Thus it's on the seller to reveal the work...not plead ignorance because the purpose of the work is gone...

 

Are there no morals left in this hobby? Hell, I'm starting to think they never were there in the first place the way people make excuses for this stuff. I guess some people's standard of "common sense" differs. Especially when they see cash involved...

 

Jim

 

If there is work still on the book, then of course it should be disclosed. I think we are all on the same page on that one. But that's not what you or I are talking about. What we are talking about is restoration that is no longer present on a book, and in my opinion what you say is next to ridiculous. Disclosing work that is no longer on a book

[KingOfRulers]

If you are a seller, please let me know who you are. I will NEVER buy from you.

 

That's okay, I prefer dealing with sensible people anyway.