Should Restoration Removal Be Disclosed?

[FFB]

Brent,

 

That's all very nice to hear. I don't think you and I disagree about much and I will certainly grant you that "your way" is the best way to go in an ideal world -- if you can get most people to agree to do it. That's the sticky part.

 

I view my "compromise" position as more of a "baby step" that most people would agree to do right now, and may eventually lead to the full disclosure option that you're hoping to achieve (especially as sellers realize that disclosure of pressing on blue label books doesn't seem to affect realized sales prices). It'll just take more time to get there. Such is the nature of progress.

 

I hope you aren't reading my post as calling for a Pollyanna-ish "nothing is wrong with the hobby" attitude. All I am suggesting and hoping for is that the information being presented when educating collectors about pressing, restoration, restoration removal, whatever, is done in a neutral way so that people can make up their own minds. In my opinion, restoration (especially extremely minor restoration) carries a huge stigma in this hobby that I do not believe would exist if people were more educated about restoration and what it entails.

[Ze-man]

My old replies in blue, new replies in red,

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? .

 

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.

 

I agree, that is why I said " an external screw on accessory" We can just leave this one alone, I dont totally disagree with you about the CT aspect , so lets let this wonderful car analogy I originally brought up can just lay down and die.

 

 

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?

honestly?..it isnt if we are talking about the archival tape you used in your "put it on", take it right off" example..that is why I thought it was a bad example to use in relation to more severe resto removal (invasivness,and who is doing it) I am coming more from a point of how, and who might be doing it. Those who are flaking off tiddly bits of CT with a spat are not the devil. I dont mean to come off that they are.. So how about this, if you have a book"worked on" (meaning to pay someone in the restoration profession) then I feel THAT needs to be passed along to the buyer. I understand there are too many shades of grey when it comes to determining what actually is, and what might not be "disclosure worthy" But paying someone to work on a book.... personally I think that needs to be passed along to the buyer, I know it isn't likely to happen. I am just stating what I would like to see happen

 

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?

Once again, the grey area is very big. So I will whittle down my stance to a level that would be feasible. If you pay somebody to work on a book, you should disclose that. Now where does that leave all the semi pro dealers who might work some magic on a book, or the people IN the restoration field who work on their own books. I dunno.. It is too big for me to tackle in one sitting that is for sure. But it is fun to at least give it a go.

 

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?

 

I think I already tried to cover this above. But again, accross the board disclosure is not going happen and if it did I can see your point, at what level should it be disclosed? Well in a perfect world all of it should, but who can keep track of every book, and what minor things have happened to it over the years. So once again, If you pay somebody to work on a book then you should disclose it, pass along that information. The future buyer(s) be they educated or not will probably dictate how much the book sells for. So as you said educating the public is the best bet towards a more open relationship with those who feel they cannot disclose what they are doing because they will not realize top dollar.

 

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.

 

 

Call them greedy criminals? Because that's what I see too many people doing.

 

Well Scott, people can call them what we like, I suppose we could be less "offensive" but in the end how else would you label a person who is working the system , tweaking, and pushing the current loopholes in that system for personal gain I call it greedy, and on another level deceitful. The criminal part depends on your personal viewpoint I suppose. I dont think them criminals, I hope you dont think I do, I do happen to find it unethical to a degree, but they are not breaking any laws, just taking people for a ride.

 

 

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.

 

Scott, it is what it is. I am not making up what certain people are doing in this hobby. And I for sure dont want somebody calling a spade anything other then a spade. Are all dealers the same, NO, should they all be lumped into the same pot, NO.

Are there dealers out there who fit the description you made above?.. to a certain degree, YES.

 

The argument that bothers me the most is made by those who are not disclosing because they say nothing is wrong with what they are doing. Well if that is the case then why not disclose it.

 

It drives me batty.

 

 

Batty, batty, batty.

 

Just like this long post. I will go get my gun, and put her down.

 

Ze-

 

[FFB]

What drives me batty is your insistence on using colors instead of the quote function. Makes it hard to see what you wrote and what you're responding to!

[PovertyRow]

What drives me batty is your insistence on using colors instead of the quote function. Makes it hard to see what you wrote and what you're responding to!

 

Hey Scott! In this we are in agreement!

 

Zee

[Red Hook]

I like it.

[Ze-man]

Why are we talking about the color of my font instead of how Scott thought I meant a screw, when I clearly said screw on accessory.

 

Insert bad screw on puns at will.

 

 

Ze-

[Red Hook]

If you'd written "screw-on" with a hyphen, it would have been much clearer.

[Ze-man]

In BLUE or RED ?

[Comicdey]

Was it a factory original hood ornament, or a replacement piece by others?

[FFB]

If you'd written "screw-on" with a hyphen, it would have been much clearer.

 

I seriously read that as just swapping out the screw.

[Red Hook]

In BLUE or RED ?

 

Doesn't matter. Your color-coding of the different voices speaking helps me to keep track....

 

....and remember to hyphenate properly.

[uclapeterg]

What drives me batty is your insistence on using colors instead of the quote function. Makes it hard to see what you wrote and what you're responding to!

 

I think the colors make it easier. Face it, Scott, you don't like when someone writes more than you do.

[uclapeterg]

If you'd written "screw-on" with a hyphen, it would have been much clearer.

 

I seriously read that as just swapping out the screw.

 

I think SOME people in this thread have a couple screws loose. .....

 

 

[FFB]

What drives me batty is your insistence on using colors instead of the quote function. Makes it hard to see what you wrote and what you're responding to!

 

I think the colors make it easier. Face it, Scott, you don't like when someone writes more than you do.

 

It's not the color per se. It's that he doesn't also use the quote function and has colored text interspersed with same-level text that I wrote, so it's hard to tell who wrote what. Hey, even Povertyrow agreed with me!

 

Er wait . . . I forget, is that a good thing?

[PovertyRow]

...Hey, even Povertyrow agreed with me!

 

Er wait . . . I forget, is that a good thing?

 

 

[Ze-man]

What drives me batty is your insistence on using colors instead of the quote function. Makes it hard to see what you wrote and what you're responding to!

 

I think the colors make it easier. Face it, Scott, you don't like when someone writes more than you do.

 

It's not the color per se. It's that he doesn't also use the quote function and has colored text interspersed with same-level text that I wrote, so it's hard to tell who wrote what. Hey, even Povertyrow agreed with me!

 

Er wait . . . I forget, is that a good thing?

 

Hey, I said I was going to get my gun and put that post out of it's misery. I know it was a bit of a train-wreck. But hey, you try and put your thoughts down and type a sensible post with a 3 year old constantly informing you that "Daddy is not supposed to be on the computer "working" right now."

 

Let alone try and hold a debate with a lawyertype with the help of your toddler typing. I was doomed from the start, but all my points still stand, if you can find them that is!

 

 

Ze-

[LearnedHand]

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 couldn’t agree more that people should support their contentions with fact and substance:

 

Mark:

 

In short, here’s your correction - I called Steve Borock at CGC today. He confirmed that CGC does NOT remove restoration. You saw Steve in San Diego at the forum dinner, and you could have called him on any weekday to ask him directly. Borock also will be at WW Chicago. Maybe it would have been prudent to discuss this with the accused before creating a thread to perpetuate misinformation that stems from an out-of-date statement made 5 years ago?

[drbanner]

I didn't think CGC's restoration removal services ever got off the ground after they received feedback on the idea from dealers/collectors/etc? As I recall, they completely dropped their plans for this service before ever implementing it...

[esquirecomics]

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 couldn’t agree more that people should support their contentions with fact and substance:

 

Mark:

 

In short, here’s your correction - I called Steve Borock at CGC today. He confirmed that CGC does NOT remove restoration. You saw Steve in San Diego at the forum dinner, and you could have called him on any weekday to ask him directly. Borock also will be at WW Chicago. Maybe it would have been prudent to discuss this with the accused before creating a thread to perpetuate misinformation that stems from an out-of-date statement made 5 years ago?

 

Thank you so much for jumping on the bandwagon Peter. Seems to be a habit now with you.

 

First, you have no idea what you are talking about so perhaps you should read my post before commenting. This was brought to my attention AFTER San Diego, BTW.

 

Second, I never accused CGC of doing anything wrong and I asked in my post whether, in fact, anyone knew whether they even had this policy in effect. Had their current policy been relevant to the question or a concern of mine I would have called Steve up directly or HIS BOSS and simply asked, as I always do when it matters.

 

Third, the question I raised stands alone regardess of CGC. Do you not see the question above? "Should Restoration Removal Be Disclosed?" It doesn't say "Why Doesn't CGC Think Restoration Removal Should Be Disclosed?" It makes little difference whether CGC did or did not still maintain this position. Indeed, why would it matter? I think pressing should be disclosed and CGC does not feel this way. So I should simply drop that line of thought? :screwy

 

As as been said, in fact, CGC did back away from implementing this service after the AACC position (and perhaps others) was expressed.

 

I asked the question because I found it (1) very, very interesting to see the illuminaries in our hobby who signed the petition in FAVOR of disclosure and (2) because the NOD requires its members to disclose restoration removal and I was curious as to what board members thought. Almost everyone, BTW, supported disclosure.

 

Plain and simple. But thank you so much for your contribution to this thread.

 

[Flaming_Telepath]

I didn't think CGC's restoration removal services ever got off the ground after they received feedback on the idea from dealers/collectors/etc? As I recall, they completely dropped their plans for this service before ever implementing it...

 

PCS