Should Restoration Removal Be Disclosed?

[KingOfRulers]

 

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?

 

 

 

Page of what?

[thedarkknight]

I prefer honest people who will tell me things that might/would devalue the book. Also, unless I am mistaken, nondisclosure of something that would effect value is illegal. At least in the state I live in.

[Psiknight]

I prefer honest people who will tell me things that might/would devalue the book. Also, unless I am mistaken, nondisclosure of something that would effect value is illegal. At least in the state I live in.

 

There are a number of lawyers on here. I'm willing to bet that each one would concede that there would be no case in trying to show that not disclosing restoration removal is a form of legal misrepresentation. The fact is that the book is original in that is has no restoration currently on the book and it would garner a blue label. An argument might be made that the book could be devalued in the eyes of some collectors, but I'm thinking it'd be tough to get your money back in a court of law.

 

Any lawyer want to tell me I'm wrong? I'm willing to admit it if I am.

[FFB]

I prefer honest people who will tell me things that might/would devalue the book. Also, unless I am mistaken, nondisclosure of something that would effect value is illegal. At least in the state I live in.

 

There are a number of lawyers on here. I'm willing to bet that each one would concede that there would be no case in trying to show that not disclosing restoration removal is a form of legal misrepresentation. The fact is that the book is original in that is has no restoration currently on the book and it would garner a blue label. An argument might be made that the book could be devalued in the eyes of some collectors, but I'm thinking it'd be tough to get your money back in a court of law.

 

Any lawyer want to tell me I'm wrong? I'm willing to admit it if I am.

 

I agree with you. This is more a question of "ethics" and industry standards because I don't think there's a legal duty to disclose the fact that an unrestored book used to have minor restoration that was completely removed.

[awe4one]

This is more a question of "ethics" and industry standards because I don't think there's a legal duty to disclose the fact that an unrestored book used to have minor restoration that was completely removed.

 

Would that change if moderate or extensive restoration was removed?

 

Jim

[Ze-man]

 

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

 

I am trying hard to understand the logic in this line of thinking KOR, I guess I will beat the dead horse with a stick one more time.

 

To me this comes down to more of an issue that the book was flat out WORKED on in some fashion. Not what TYPE of work was done to it.Or how invasive it was.

 

It comes down to the fact that it was worked on, two times.

 

So the restoration is totally gone, well yeah that might be true, but only AFTER it was worked on.

 

The book was worked on 2 times in its life.Once to have resto CT, tape,applied to it... and a second time to have that work removed. The book was worked on 2 times. I dont consider that a trivial ,or minor thing.

 

Not to keep going back to the lame car analogy, but if a car had work done on it wouldnt you want to know about it? No matter how minor it was. It was still worked on,regardless of the end result. It was worked on, period. Sure removal of restoration on a comic is different then working on a broken, damaged car. But to me the simple act of "doing the work" itself is the same thing.

 

It was worked on by a person to improve it's appearance, therefor allowing them to sell it for more money.

 

As a consumer I would want to know this. Apparently you dont?

 

So I will put me down for one..

 

Disclose it.

 

And you one..

 

No Disclose.

 

We have all talked about ethics , morals, golden rules. To me these all apply to this issue in spades. Why on earth the people who work on books, and try to pawn them off without disclosing it are welcomed with open arms by some honestly baffles me. We can discuss what levels of disclosure need to be used all we want. But I guess it comes down to personal beliefs. I want the money grabbers to be forced to disclose what they are doing becasue I know why they are doing it..nothing more then money.

 

If a person wants to remove restoration themselves and keep the book for whatever reason, Fine. If a person wants to remove restoration to possibly recieve a Blue label Slab with albiet a lower grade in most case...Fine, just disclose it. Label it as such. But then that would just be a "mini- me plod" wouldn't it?

 

The book was worked on, it CANNOT be exactly the same as it was before the restoration was applied. That is impossible to say for sure. So I would rather err on the side of caution.

 

Ze-

 

 

 

 

 

[Davenport]

We have all talked about ethics , morals, golden rules. To me these all apply to this issue in spades. Why on earth the people who work on books, and try to pawn them off without disclosing it are welcomed with open arms by some honestly baffles me. We can discuss what levels of disclosure need to be used all we want. But I guess it comes down to personal beliefs. I want the money grabbers to be forced to disclose what they are doing becasue I know why they are doping it..nothing more then money.

Ze-

I think a lot of sellers would be surprised if they'd just put the info on the table. It may not devalue a book as much as they think, and perhaps not at all, depending on what procedure was done. And even if it did, and a buyer declined that particular purchase, he'll walk away with a higher sense of trust.

 

On the other hand I don't think "disrespectful selling" is the biggest concern. The current climate is dealing with sellers who're consciously hiding alterations as a profiteering tactic. They know exactly what they're doing. The Ewert fiasco didn't happen in a vaccum. The waters were chummed with ridiculous amounts of cash for HG CGC'd books, and some chose teeth over trust. Non-disclosure increases the bite radius, a very good thing, if one's goal is to feast with abandon.

[Comicdey]

This thread is like all other areas of collecting, collectors will disagree no matter what the issue.

 

How close does this whole argument come to someone scraping off some crud that protrudes from the cover with their fingernail. You get the dullness of the gloss by scratching and possibly remove some gunk. Isn't color touch like "gunk" to some people. I agree that disclosure is a nice idea and I've told people in the past that I've scratched off some protruding gunk from a cover with my fingernail before. I've never had anyone ever say....leave the gunk on...most people don't want to see oatmeal on an interior page or cover from 1950.

 

I guess my lack of concern is that I don't play in the 10-50K book arena. In that area, it would be nice to know, but again I can't see why it would effect the purchase price. If you have two similar GA books with similar grades, you look at the defects and make a personal choice on which one you like better. One may have a spine scratch scuff from glue "removal" and another might have a spine scratch from the neighbors cat. Which one is worse?

 

Ze...I understand your point about wanting to know "all work", but isn't the damage to the book penalty enough. We can never even begin to guess what has happened to a comic throughout it's life, and restoration removal (damage) is just one more thing that lowers the grade from the initial newstand freshness.

 

I personally would buy a book with restoration removed if it was something I was looking for and wouldn't value it any different from a similar book in similar grade, as long as the grade reflected the damage. Normally the books that I"m looking for are not found in equal pairs to compare side by side.

 

My 3 cents.

[Ze-man]

 

Ze...I understand your point about wanting to know "all work", but isn't the damage to the book penalty enough. We can never even begin to guess what has happened to a comic throughout it's life, and restoration removal (damage) is just one more thing that lowers the grade from the initial newstand freshness.

 

 

My 3 cents.

 

And a good 3 cents it is. My only point is I dont expect a dealer to know or pass on the entire history of a given book. Only what he knows firsthand, especially if HE was the one who did the work.

 

But that gets into the same quandry as disclosing pressing. As it stands now dealers for the most part wont disclose because if seller "A" discloses, and buyer "B" buys the book and resells it without disclosing, well.. we all know how that story ends.

 

Same thing here I suppose. If CGC is paid to remove resto, and as a result a plod becomes a blue, and they note it in the label. Then Seller "A" who slabbed the book, sells the book. Then buyer "B" cracks it, resubs it and the book becomes an true blue, no notation. Then he sells it for more money..and so on and so on.

 

I understand the process, I understand the motivations. I also understand there is no real answer to be had. I at least wanted to go on the record that I dont care for it too much. It is a loophole that has tempted way too many people to do way too many things to books that should just be left alone for the most part.

 

Others have mentioned if education levels rose en masse the stigma surrounding many of these issues might soften , and that might lead the way towards less of an "us" vs "them" atmosphere between dealers and buyers.

 

Or will the dealers just get mad that we ask soo many questions!

 

Ze-

[FFB]

This is more a question of "ethics" and industry standards because I don't think there's a legal duty to disclose the fact that an unrestored book used to have minor restoration that was completely removed.

 

Would that change if moderate or extensive restoration was removed?

 

Jim

 

It's a good question and I worded it that way on purpose. I seriously question whether moderate or extensive restoration even could be completely reversed, because in almost 100% of those cases, the book will have been disassembled and cleaned. You can't "reverse" an aqueous or solvent cleaning. In that case, the restoration would have to be disclosed. I don't think anyone would actually try to reverse the restoration on a moderate/extensive job though, as it would make a mess of things and wouldn't be able to be completely reversed.

 

Let's deal with a specific example that I don't think we'll ever actually encounter, for obvious reasons: Suppose you had an extensively (or even moderately) restored book that was disassembled, solvent and aqueous cleaned and pressed, and had a significant (1-inch triangle) piece added to a corner of the cover. Let's say that the owner takes an X-Acto blade and neatly cuts off the corner that was replaced (along with a 1/8-inch "buffer" area of original paper so that no residue is left from the replacement piece), leaving no trace of the replaced corner (just a big chunk out of the cover where it used to be). I do not think that the fact that the corner piece used to be there needs to be disclosed. But the disassembly, cleaning, and pressing would need to be disclosed as they cannot be reversed.

 

The reason I say that you're not likely to encounter extensive or moderate restoration being reversed is because some of the treatments cannot be reversed. Begin with the notion that the ideal goal of conservators when restoring something is to be able to reverse certain of the processes completely to return the object to its unrestored state. Although this is the ideal goal, it is sometimes impossible to attain if certain treatments, such as cleaning, resizing, or reglossing, are necessary. If the book can't be brought completely back to its original "unrestored" state, then no one is going to remove a replaced piece that isn't aesthetically problematic or otherwise harmful to the item (such as if non-archival materials were used). The only time that it is even economically feasible to remove restoration from a book is if the restoration is minor and superficial and can be removed without damaging the original paper of the book too much or, hopefully, at all. For this reason, I don't think that disclosure of "restoration removal" will ever been an issue on moderately or extensively restored books.

[FFB]

 

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

 

I am trying hard to understand the logic in this line of thinking KOR, I guess I will beat the dead horse with a stick one more time.

 

To me this comes down to more of an issue that the book was flat out WORKED on in some fashion. Not what TYPE of work was done to it.Or how invasive it was.

 

It comes down to the fact that it was worked on, two times.

 

So the restoration is totally gone, well yeah that might be true, but only AFTER it was worked on.

 

The book was worked on 2 times in its life.Once to have resto CT, tape,applied to it... and a second time to have that work removed. The book was worked on 2 times. I dont consider that a trivial ,or minor thing.

 

Not to keep going back to the lame car analogy, but if a car had work done on it wouldnt you want to know about it? No matter how minor it was. It was still worked on,regardless of the end result. It was worked on, period. Sure removal of restoration on a comic is different then working on a broken, damaged car. But to me the simple act of "doing the work" itself is the same thing.

 

So, using the "car" analogy, let's assume that I am selling an old, classic Rolls Royce. The car is and always has been in perfect shape, except for a scratch on the hood ornament. I get a replacement hood ornament, unscrew the original, and put the replacement ornament on there in place of the old one. I then decide that the scratch on the original ornament isn't that big of a deal and I unscrew the replacement hood ornament a few minutes later and put the original one back before I sell it. You honestly think I need to disclose that the car used to have a replacement hood ornament for a few minutes? Please.

 

 

The book was worked on, it CANNOT be exactly the same as it was before the restoration was applied. That is impossible to say for sure. So I would rather err on the side of caution.

Ze-

 

Sure it can. My archival tape example (put a piece on, take it right off) is a perfect example of this. Let's say that I have a 9.0 unrestored copy of Amazing Fantasy #15 with only one defect -- a 1/8 inch tear on the front cover. Let's say I take a tiny piece of archival tape and put it over the tear on the inside cover. Then let's say I take the piece of tape right off, immediately. The book is now a "worked on" book? I need to disclose that the tear was held closed for 6.5 seconds with a piece of archival tape?

 

Ridiculous!

[qualitycomix]

Sure it can. My archival tape example (put a piece on, take it right off) is a perfect example of this. Let's say that I have a 9.0 unrestored copy of Amazing Fantasy #15 with only one defect -- a 1/8 inch tear on the front cover. Let's say I take a tiny piece of archival tape and put it over the tear on the inside cover. Then let's say I take the piece of tape right off, immediately. The book is now a "worked on" book? I need to disclose that the tear was held closed for 6.5 seconds with a piece of archival tape?

 

Ridiculous!

 

Hi Scott,

 

You can take any argument to it's extreme as in most ethical questions there is some gray area to allow dealers wiggle room to wiggle out of disclosure. In the end, it boils down to trust. There's been a lack of trust in sellers in the past few years, because of various scandals and skeletons being dragged out of the closet. You can argue the 1% of all cases if you want, it's the other 99% that I'm concerned about.

 

And I don't consider restoration removal (or pressing) to be restoration. Disclosure is what's important because of the work done to a book.

 

Brent

[FFB]

Sure it can. My archival tape example (put a piece on, take it right off) is a perfect example of this. Let's say that I have a 9.0 unrestored copy of Amazing Fantasy #15 with only one defect -- a 1/8 inch tear on the front cover. Let's say I take a tiny piece of archival tape and put it over the tear on the inside cover. Then let's say I take the piece of tape right off, immediately. The book is now a "worked on" book? I need to disclose that the tear was held closed for 6.5 seconds with a piece of archival tape?

 

Ridiculous!

 

Hi Scott,

 

You can take any argument to it's extreme as in most ethical questions there is some gray area to allow dealers wiggle room to wiggle out of disclosure. In the end, it boils down to trust. There's been a lack of trust in sellers in the past few years, because of various scandals and skeletons being dragged out of the closet. You can argue the 1% of all cases if you want, it's the other 99% that I'm concerned about.

 

And I don't consider restoration removal (or pressing) to be restoration. Disclosure is what's important because of the work done to a book.

 

Brent

 

Hey Brent,

 

Of course you can take any argument to its extreme. It's at the extremes where most bad ideas with surface appeal break down.

 

What we're talking about here is all a matter of degree. As with pressing, I would have no problem disclosing the 6.5 seconds of tape contact if someone asked me. But what I am really getting at is whether a dealer can or should be flogged or publicly castigated because he did not affirmatively disclose the 6.5 seconds of tape contact (or 6.5 months of tape contact, as the case may be -- I don't view the "difference in length of time of tape contact" to be significant, if archival tape is used and there is no remaining residue from the tape after removal). Because that is inevitably where this discussion is leading, as all such discussions have. This is not to say that you'd go there with it -- I consider you one of the good guys who is not interested in tearing down your fellow dealers just for the sake of tearing them down -- it's the other people who seem to delight in making a public spectacle of everything they don't like that I am concerned with here.

 

Sorry to have missed you in San Diego this year.

 

Scott

[Davenport]

 

So, using the "car" analogy, let's assume that I am selling an old, classic Rolls Royce. The car is and always has been in perfect shape, except for a scratch on the hood ornament. I get a replacement hood ornament, unscrew the original, and put the replacement ornament on there in place of the old one. I then decide that the scratch on the original ornament isn't that big of a deal and I unscrew the replacement hood ornament a few minutes later and put the original one back before I sell it. You honestly think I need to disclose that the car used to have a replacement hood ornament for a few minutes? Please.

Anyone ever tell you you'd make a damn fine lawyer?

[qualitycomix]

Sure it can. My archival tape example (put a piece on, take it right off) is a perfect example of this. Let's say that I have a 9.0 unrestored copy of Amazing Fantasy #15 with only one defect -- a 1/8 inch tear on the front cover. Let's say I take a tiny piece of archival tape and put it over the tear on the inside cover. Then let's say I take the piece of tape right off, immediately. The book is now a "worked on" book? I need to disclose that the tear was held closed for 6.5 seconds with a piece of archival tape?

 

Ridiculous!

 

Hi Scott,

 

You can take any argument to it's extreme as in most ethical questions there is some gray area to allow dealers wiggle room to wiggle out of disclosure. In the end, it boils down to trust. There's been a lack of trust in sellers in the past few years, because of various scandals and skeletons being dragged out of the closet. You can argue the 1% of all cases if you want, it's the other 99% that I'm concerned about.

 

And I don't consider restoration removal (or pressing) to be restoration. Disclosure is what's important because of the work done to a book.

 

Brent

 

Hey Brent,

 

Of course you can take any argument to its extreme. It's at the extremes where most bad ideas with surface appeal break down.

 

What we're talking about here is all a matter of degree. As with pressing, I would have no problem disclosing the 6.5 seconds of tape contact if someone asked me. But what I am really getting at is whether a dealer can or should be flogged or publicly castigated because he did not affirmatively disclose the 6.5 seconds of tape contact (or 6.5 months of tape contact, as the case may be -- I don't view the "difference in length of time of tape contact" to be significant, if archival tape is used and there is no remaining residue from the tape after removal). Because that is inevitably where this discussion is leading, as all such discussions have. This is not to say that you'd go there with it -- I consider you one of the good guys who is not interested in tearing down your fellow dealers just for the sake of tearing them down -- it's the other people who seem to delight in making a public spectacle of everything they don't like that I am concerned with here.

 

Sorry to have missed you in San Diego this year.

 

Scott

 

No, and I agree with you that no dealer should be publicly flogged, that's downright humiliating! There is some middle ground, I would hope, that we as collectors and dealers, can move the hobby in a positive direction.

 

I guess my take is that I am not at all happy with the direction this hobby has taken and applying a standard of disclosure is a solution, although nowhere close to perfect, that I'm hoping the hobby will move towards.

 

Are you happy with the status quo? It's not a baiting question, I promise.

 

Yeah, we'll have to catch up in SF next year!

 

Brent

[Ze-man]

 

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

 

I am trying hard to understand the logic in this line of thinking KOR, I guess I will beat the dead horse with a stick one more time.

 

To me this comes down to more of an issue that the book was flat out WORKED on in some fashion. Not what TYPE of work was done to it.Or how invasive it was.

 

It comes down to the fact that it was worked on, two times.

 

So the restoration is totally gone, well yeah that might be true, but only AFTER it was worked on.

 

The book was worked on 2 times in its life.Once to have resto CT, tape,applied to it... and a second time to have that work removed. The book was worked on 2 times. I dont consider that a trivial ,or minor thing.

 

Not to keep going back to the lame car analogy, but if a car had work done on it wouldnt you want to know about it? No matter how minor it was. It was still worked on,regardless of the end result. It was worked on, period. Sure removal of restoration on a comic is different then working on a broken, damaged car. But to me the simple act of "doing the work" itself is the same thing.

 

So, using the "car" analogy, let's assume that I am selling an old, classic Rolls Royce. The car is and always has been in perfect shape, except for a scratch on the hood ornament. I get a replacement hood ornament, unscrew the original, and put the replacement ornament on there in place of the old one. I then decide that the scratch on the original ornament isn't that big of a deal and I unscrew the replacement hood ornament a few minutes later and put the original one back before I sell it. You honestly think I need to disclose that the car used to have a replacement hood ornament for a few minutes? Please.

How is replacing an external screw on accessory with its original car part the same thing as adding foreign, unintended material to a comic cover, then removing that work afterwards the same thing? Or for that matter how is that even considered "working" on the car. Lest can I forget you are a lawyer.. I did not define the parameters of "working" Sue me.

If you want to split hairs this finely to try and prove your point it will be a very short conversation, I cannot imagine you dont know what I was getting at, you just choose to run that single point into the ground.

The book was worked on, it CANNOT be exactly the same as it was before the restoration was applied. That is impossible to say for sure. So I would rather err on the side of caution.

Ze-

 

Sure it can. My archival tape example (put a piece on, take it right off) is a perfect example of this. Let's say that I have a 9.0 unrestored copy of Amazing Fantasy #15 with only one defect -- a 1/8 inch tear on the front cover. Let's say I take a tiny piece of archival tape and put it over the tear on the inside cover. Then let's say I take the piece of tape right off, immediately. The book is now a "worked on" book? I need to disclose that the tear was held closed for 6.5 seconds with a piece of archival tape?

 

Ridiculous!

You are right, that example is totally ridiculus. Once again you miss, or choose to ignore my point. Is this what you think I am really after? No, of course you dont have to disclose what you propose, same as if I remove a piece of tape carefully to prevent a tape pull. I would not say that needs to be disclosed. On the other hand, If you were to recieve an AF #15 with a piece of old tape already on it that was "set" and THEN you decide to remove it yourself by means OTHER then simply "pulling" it off by hand , or pay Matt, or CGC to remove it.... That is the fine line Scott. That is what needs to be disclosed. I cannot figure out why you choose not to focus on that, instead of some hypothetical situation that is only meant to further a hypothetical point.. A book made of paper retains certain aspects of whatever it comes in contact with. So when I say a book that is worked on and has that work removed tthrough chemicals, or other process's is not the same as it was before it was worked on. To some that may be VERY important. Do you agree with that point?

 

This is not a matter of brushing off dirt with your hand, or unbending a corner with your finger, or removing tape right after it goes on. It is about the manipulation of comics with the sole purpose of improving them for resale. I have come to grips this is the way it is, and cannot be stopped. The book is what it is afterwards. And is up to the buyer to decide it's worth(if they knew about it that is) As I said before .. I just dont like it.

 

NOD has a really tough road trying to bridge the gap between the two camps(dealers and everyone else), and must be careful not push them farther apart by demanding a dealers first born, and blood oath to proove them innocent. Nobody likes the idea of money being taken from them, dealers, OR buyers.

 

[FFB]

So, using the "car" analogy, let's assume that I am selling an old, classic Rolls Royce. The car is and always has been in perfect shape, except for a scratch on the hood ornament. I get a replacement hood ornament, unscrew the original, and put the replacement ornament on there in place of the old one. I then decide that the scratch on the original ornament isn't that big of a deal and I unscrew the replacement hood ornament a few minutes later and put the original one back before I sell it. You honestly think I need to disclose that the car used to have a replacement hood ornament for a few minutes? Please.

How is replacing an external screw on accessory with its original car part the same thing as adding foreign, unintended material to a comic cover, then removing that work afterwards the same thing? Or for that matter how is that even considered "working" on the car. Lest can I forget you are a lawyer.. I did not define the parameters of "working" Sue me.

If you want to split hairs this finely to try and prove your point it will be a very short conversation, I cannot imagine you dont know what I was getting at, you just choose to run that single point into the ground.

 

No, you're not replacing the screw -- you're replacing the hood ornament, which is a very important part of the design and aesthetics of a classic Rolls Royce. I see no difference between that and adding a dot of color touch to a comic to cover a spine stress, and then flaking the dot off completely. It's no different at all in my mind.

 

 

The book was worked on, it CANNOT be exactly the same as it was before the restoration was applied. That is impossible to say for sure. So I would rather err on the side of caution.

Ze-

 

Sure it can. My archival tape example (put a piece on, take it right off) is a perfect example of this. Let's say that I have a 9.0 unrestored copy of Amazing Fantasy #15 with only one defect -- a 1/8 inch tear on the front cover. Let's say I take a tiny piece of archival tape and put it over the tear on the inside cover. Then let's say I take the piece of tape right off, immediately. The book is now a "worked on" book? I need to disclose that the tear was held closed for 6.5 seconds with a piece of archival tape?

 

Ridiculous!

You are right, that example is totally ridiculus. Once again you miss, or choose to ignore my point. Is this what you think I am really after? No, of course you dont have to disclose what you propose, same as if I remove a piece of tape carefully to prevent a tape pull. I would not say that needs to be disclosed.

 

Removing a piece of tape that catches on the surface of the cover while unbagging a comic book is not "restoration removal." The tape wasn't there to restore the book, so that isn't what we're talking about at all. It might be "restoration" to remove the tape, however, because the tape attached to the book is a defect. The answer is still "no, you don't have to disclose it" because no one cares if a piece of tape is stuck to a book for a couple of minutes as long as it comes off without leaving anything behind. So why is it a different answer if the piece of tape you're removing is archival tape that used to be holding a tear closed?

 

On the other hand, If you were to recieve an AF #15 with a piece of old tape already on it that was "set" and THEN you decide to remove it yourself by means OTHER then simply "pulling" it off by hand , or pay Matt, or CGC to remove it.... That is the fine line Scott. That is what needs to be disclosed.

 

So you say -- but you don't explain why this is the case. Understand, I agree with you that disclosure is necessary if the book is treated with a solvent in order to remove the tape, because that is restoration of the kind that people, by and large, expect to be disclosed. But then you say tape removal by hand does not need to be disclosed? Why the distinction? What about if the tape is removed by hand after using a blowdryer to warm the tape a little bit first? Now does it need to be disclosed? Or does the remaining tape stain simply need to be disclosed? If (according to you, if I've read you correctly) I don't have to disclose the fact that I pulled a piece of tape off by hand, do I really have a sudden duty of disclosure if I used a blowdryer to warm it first? Where do we draw this fine line?

 

I cannot figure out why you choose not to focus on that, instead of some hypothetical situation that is only meant to further a hypothetical point.. A book made of paper retains certain aspects of whatever it comes in contact with. So when I say a book that is worked on and, and has that work removed tthrough chemicals, or other process is not the same as it was before it was worked on. To some that may be VERY important. Do you agree with that point?

 

Unless we're talking about a specific book, it's always a hypothetical point that is being made. What's wrong with using clear hypotheticals to test a general proposition?

 

As for the book being "worked on," I still don't know what you mean. A book with a tear sealed with a tiny piece of archival tape is "worked on." A book with some gunk scraped off the cover by hand/fingernail/butterknife/microspatula is "worked on." Professional conservators do this all the time when dry cleaning paper artifacts. Do we need to disclose that level of "worked on" too? Scraping gunk off a cover?

 

As for the tape removal for an old piece of tape that is stuck to the book -- if solvents are used to remove the tape, you're talking about restoration (not "restoration removal") and that kind of restoration must be disclosed IMO because you're using chemicals. But that, again, is not what we're talking about here. We're talking about using strictly mechanical means to remove superficial restoration that, when removed, leaves no trace on the book whatsoever and leaves only 100% original material behind. You're not removing "defects" when you remove the restoration, you're removing only the restoration and making the original, covered-up defects completely visible again.

 

This is not a matter of brushing off dirt with your hand, or unbending a corner with your finger, or removing tape right after it goes on. It is about the manipulation of comics with the sole purpose of improving them for resale.

 

Which is also what happens when you brush off dirt/dry clean a book, flatten a bent corner (whether with your hand or with a tool), or remove tape that would dramatically drop the grade of a book if left on there. Why aren't all of those the same thing? Because you say so?

 

I have come to grips this is the way it is, and cannot be stopped. The book is what it is afterwards. And is up to the buyer to decide it's worth(if they knew about it that is) As I said before .. I just dont like it.

 

Fine, but we're still at the point of talking about what, on the truly lower end of "worked on," needs to be disclosed. It sounds like you've got your ideas, I've got mine, thousands of other collectors have theirs. Who decides? And, more importantly in my opinion, how do we act toward people with whom we disagree until a clear consensus is formed? Call them greedy criminals? Because that's what I see too many people doing.

 

NOD has a really tough road trying to bridge the gap between the two camps(dealers and everyone else), and must be careful not push them farther apart by demanding a dealers first born, and blood oath to proove them innocent. Nobody likes the idea of money being taken from them, dealers, OR buyers.

 

 

I agree it's a tough road, but unless I've read things wrong, I don't think NOD is about bridging the gap between dealers on the one hand and collectors on the other. This isn't an "us (collectors) vs. them (dealers)" debate. You've got several dealers who think the way that you do and plenty of collectors who see things the way I do. It is certainly convenient to try to cast this as a "greedy dealers v. collectors who get the shaft" argument, but that just isn't how it is in reality. I am sure that a lot of Matt Nelson's business comes from collectors who are having their own books dry cleaned and pressed, and though they may intend to keep those books in their collections for a long time, eventually most collectors are going to try to sell them. If they weren't, none of them would care what the books were worth on resale and none of this would be an issue.

 

But beyond all that, what really bothers me about this debate, to be honest with you, is the way in which certain members of the pro-disclosure crowd insist on branding as unethical/dishonest/thieving/greedy/criminal every dealer or collector who doesn't do things the way they want. For all the good that could be done with a less emotional and less accusatory debate on the topic, I think we're instead going to see people being less inclined to be forthcoming if what they expect to get at the end of the day is the kind of treatment Metropolis got here when Stephen Fishler wrote his lengthy post about his past experiences with pressing. He should have been applauded for it (and by some he was) so as to encourage others to be more forthcoming, but the reaming he got from several people was totally counterproductive and sent the message that being forthcoming will get you a nice punch in the nutz.

[FFB]

No, and I agree with you that no dealer should be publicly flogged, that's downright humiliating! There is some middle ground, I would hope, that we as collectors and dealers, can move the hobby in a positive direction.

 

I guess my take is that I am not at all happy with the direction this hobby has taken and applying a standard of disclosure is a solution, although nowhere close to perfect, that I'm hoping the hobby will move towards.

 

Are you happy with the status quo? It's not a baiting question, I promise.

 

Yeah, we'll have to catch up in SF next year!

 

Brent

 

Brent,

 

No, I am not entirely happy with the status quo either. There are too many collectors spending too much money without sufficient knowledge. That is not good because if those collectors spend a ton of money and then get spooked by a bunch of "doom and gloom" and "this dealer X is a crook and no one should buy from him," the collector's natural reaction is the freak the F out, dump his books onto the market, and leave the hobby forever after telling several other people about how crooked the hobby is. Very unhealthy for future sales, my friend, as well as for the value of everyone's collections.

 

My preference is that, instead on focusing on outing dealers who don't do things that certain people like, I wish people would focus on educating collectors in a neutral, unemotional, informative, and accurate fashion about what to look for -- and do it in a way that people can make up their own minds on the subject, rather than using loaded words like "manipulation" and "greed" and "sqeezing every last dollar out of the poor, unsuspecting buyers." That way, informed collectors can make up their own minds about what matters and what doesn't, and they will know what they're dealing with and those who care about certain things will know to ask about it, and hopefully, be able to spot it on their own.

 

Also, I think dealers should be encouraged to answer truthfully and honestly when someone asks them whether a book has been pressed, and even if restoration has been removed from a book. I am not advocating non-disclosure; I'm advocating a method of disclosure that I believe will work and will be adhered to by most.

 

I don't think that at this point, any kind of industry-wide consensus (and, perhaps more importantly, widespread adoption and participation) will be achieved by demanding that everyone disclose pressing or "restoration removal" affirmatively without being asked about it. If I thought it had a realistic chance of working, I'd say "go for it." But I think that unbending demands will not win the day and will only serve to drive the two sides further apart. Compromise requires giving on both sides and I'm not seeing that. And it kind of sucks to see constant fighting about these issues when there is so much more to like about the hobby than this. All that said, Brent, I have a pretty good sense about what you, personally, are about and where your heart is on the matter, and I have never had any reservations about your role in the NOD. Your presence on the committee is the one thing that makes me think that there may be a level head in the room when the three of you make decisions on NOD policy.

 

Scott

[Davenport]

 

But beyond all that, what really bothers me about this debate, to be honest with you, is the way in which certain members of the pro-disclosure crowd insist on branding as unethical/dishonest/thieving/greedy/criminal every dealer or collector who doesn't do things the way they want. For all the good that could be done with a less emotional and less accusatory debate on the topic, I think we're instead going to see people being less inclined to be forthcoming if what they expect to get at the end of the day is the kind of treatment Metropolis got here when Stephen Fishler wrote his lengthy post about his past experiences with pressing. He should have been applauded for it (and by some he was) so as to encourage others to be more forthcoming, but the reaming he got from several people was totally counterproductive and sent the message that being forthcoming will get you a nice punch in the nutz.

Reading this I thought What?, Is that true?

I remember starting a "Wow, Post Of The Year" thread over on STL about the Metropolis post. Anyway, I hope he didn't get too much grief.

 

Here's that thread: Would like to relate a story

The first couple of pages afterward are people applauding and thanking him, then yeah, it starts getting challenged.

Still one of the best post EVER imho.

[qualitycomix]

 

Brent,

 

No, I am not entirely happy with the status quo either. There are too many collectors spending too much money without sufficient knowledge. That is not good because if those collectors spend a ton of money and then get spooked by a bunch of "doom and gloom" and "this dealer X is a crook and no one should buy from him," the collector's natural reaction is the freak the F out, dump his books onto the market, and leave the hobby forever after telling several other people about how crooked the hobby is. Very unhealthy for future sales, my friend, as well as for the value of everyone's collections.

 

My preference is that, instead on focusing on outing dealers who don't do things that certain people like, I wish people would focus on educating collectors in a neutral, unemotional, informative, and accurate fashion about what to look for -- and do it in a way that people can make up their own minds on the subject, rather than using loaded words like "manipulation" and "greed" and "sqeezing every last dollar out of the poor, unsuspecting buyers." That way, informed collectors can make up their own minds about what matters and what doesn't, and they will know what they're dealing with and those who care about certain things will know to ask about it, and hopefully, be able to spot it on their own.

 

Also, I think dealers should be encouraged to answer truthfully and honestly when someone asks them whether a book has been pressed, and even if restoration has been removed from a book. I am not advocating non-disclosure; I'm advocating a method of disclosure that I believe will work and will be adhered to by most.

 

I don't think that at this point, any kind of industry-wide consensus (and, perhaps more importantly, widespread adoption and participation) will be achieved by demanding that everyone disclose pressing or "restoration removal" affirmatively without being asked about it. If I thought it had a realistic chance of working, I'd say "go for it." But I think that unbending demands will not win the day and will only serve to drive the two sides further apart. Compromise requires giving on both sides and I'm not seeing that. And it kind of sucks to see constant fighting about these issues when there is so much more to like about the hobby than this. All that said, Brent, I have a pretty good sense about what you, personally, are about and where your heart is on the matter, and I have never had any reservations about your role in the NOD. Your presence on the committee is the one thing that makes me think that there may be a level head in the room when the three of you make decisions on NOD policy.

 

Scott

 

Scott,

 

I agree with you on a number of points and disagree on others. To me, there's a balance to be made from the doom and gloom rantings and the "nothing is wrong with the hobby" sugarcoatings. When the former rantings are on display, you are absolutely right that many will leave the hobby. On the other hand, if the rosy scenario is presented, then when they find out truths, they may be completely disillusioned (sic). This is evident by many forum members. The reality is somewhere in the middle. Because of the internet, the comic collecting community is able to share information as never before - being both a blessing and a curse. This has caused the so called underbelly of the hobby to be exposed. The question is what do we do with this knowledge? Do we bury our heads in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist? Do we rant and rave about what's going on but doing nothing substantive about it? Or do we work towards a solution to the best of our abilities to devise one? I choose option c as does the NOD.

 

Disclosure is a black and white issue to many. To others, there are shades of gray to be dissected and shot back and forth much like cannon shots across another ship's bow. The focus of the NOD, for instance, will never be on attacking other dealers reputations or business practices. Rather, we are trying to put out a positive message by 1) attempting to educate newer/uniformed collectors in an unbiased manner 2) promoting full disclosure by creating a network of dealers and collectors that all disclose to the best of their abilities what has been done to a book. 3) providing an additional layer of security for transactions within the network. Any dealer that chooses not to be in the network will not be disparaged in any way by the NOD.

 

The NOD and specifically, the committee members, Mark, Jim and myself have been working extremely hard to promote many of the things that you mention and the things that I have mentioned above. The NOD is attempting to bring forth a brighter day for the hobby or at least for those who would choose to be in the network. The NOD is bigger than Brent Moeshlin or Mark Zaid or Jim Wilkerson. Mark, Jim and I and the rest of the members of the NOD all realize this and want to contribute what we can to the hobby that we all love.

 

As far as widespread adoption, we hope that we can at the very least provide a reference for newer collectors to go to so they know the right things to look for in a book and the right questions to ask sellers along the way. At the very most, we hope to provide a solid network of dealers and collectors who will excercise due diligence when conducting comic book transactions.

 

The NOD is willing to listen any and all input to grow as an organization and meet the needs of the hobby. There are only a few tenets that we must adhere to and that is in the name of the organization - disclosure. The other things such as how to educate new collectors or how long a return policy should be or how much to charge for membership dues are all up for discussion. The issue of whether sellers within the NOD should disclose or not will not be a NOD guideline that will be modified otherwise there will be no NOD.

 

Where you (and others) differ from the NOD is that you don't mind if a seller doesn't disclose as long as they tell you when you ask them. That is certainly better than no disclosure at all, but it's a poor substitute for full disclosure. The question that I always ask is why do sellers not want to disclose? The primary reason is the $$$ they feel they will lose if they do disclose. For those that are "in the know", it's no problem, because these people (like yourself) know the right questions to ask. For the uneducated collector, the learning curve is great if they don't have a fellow collector or responsible dealer/seller showing them the way. I respect your viewpoint and I hope that you and I and others can discuss contentious issues on the boards and elsewhere without it devolving into mindless prattle.

 

Brent