How does this get an Blue label?

[VintageComics]

Is it just me or does the LRC on the BC appear to have SCS?

 

Ze-

 

 

The book looks pressed to me...

[the blob]

so, a book can have no staples and still be a VG?

 

Personally, I don't really view replaced staples as restoration. The book should be graded as if it had no staples at all. Why PLOD a book when it would take 3 seconds just to remove those staples? Should a book be a PLOD or greeny if, let's say, there's a piece of dried snot on the back that could easily be scraped off

?

[DCman]

i was just wondering why a book that has its staples removed and replaced with different staples recieves a qualied or restored grade, regardless of grade (usually). But this book for all intensive purposes has had the same procedure done to it, albeit the staples were not replaced to their original location, and it received a blue label.

[awe4one]

Technically, isn't replacing the staples ADDING something foreign to the book? A PLOD would seem the appropriate label...

 

Jim

[VintageComics]

Technically, isn't replacing the staples ADDING something foreign to the book? A PLOD would seem the appropriate label...

 

Jim

 

There is a difference between trying to hide the fact that they were replaced (or making them look original) and someone taking an office stapler and just jamming two new staples into the book, whether the originals are there or not...right?

 

I thought it was pretty simple myself.

[awe4one]

Technically, isn't replacing the staples ADDING something foreign to the book? A PLOD would seem the appropriate label...

 

Jim

 

There is a difference between trying to hide the fact that they were replaced (or making them look original) and someone taking an office stapler and just jamming two new staples into the book, whether the originals are there or not...right?

 

I thought it was pretty simple myself.

 

Not really...in both cases something was added to the book thus deserving of a PLOD. But that's just my opinion...

 

Jim

[Bat-Hound]

This book received a qualified grade and has an early label. I wonder if there are examples of Blue, Green and Purple labeled books only concerning staple replacements from CGC

[VintageComics]

Technically, isn't replacing the staples ADDING something foreign to the book? A PLOD would seem the appropriate label...

 

Jim

 

There is a difference between trying to hide the fact that they were replaced (or making them look original) and someone taking an office stapler and just jamming two new staples into the book, whether the originals are there or not...right?

 

I thought it was pretty simple myself.

 

Not really...in both cases something was added to the book thus deserving of a PLOD. But that's just my opinion...

 

Jim

 

In the purest sense, i suppose it is, as the book was modified. But for the reason of slabbing, (ie. best represent the book) it would be a shame to slab the book as a VG if it was an apparant VF. It would also be a shame to give it a PLOD because there was no attempt to make the book look like it did before the repair. I would not call it restoration. For example the Fight Comics issue had an EXTRA set of staples. They did not replace the originals. So in fact there was not an attempt to "restore the book to a previous condition". More likely, the owner was trying to maintain readability.

A classic case of conservation, actually.

[FFB]

Books with replaced or cleaned staples and no other restorative work always get a green label if detected.

 

This book received a qualified grade and has an early label. I wonder if there are examples of Blue, Green and Purple labeled books only concerning staple replacements from CGC

[FFB]

Technically, isn't replacing the staples ADDING something foreign to the book? A PLOD would seem the appropriate label...

 

Jim

 

There is a difference between trying to hide the fact that they were replaced (or making them look original) and someone taking an office stapler and just jamming two new staples into the book, whether the originals are there or not...right?

 

I thought it was pretty simple myself.

 

Not really...in both cases something was added to the book thus deserving of a PLOD. But that's just my opinion...

 

Jim

 

It's not restoration though if it isn't attempting to return the book to a prior known or assumed state. The added staples are just extra defects that are to be graded accordingly. If I add maple syrup to a book, it doesn't get a PLOD for example.

[Wally's Comics]

This book received a qualified grade and has an early label. I wonder if there are examples of Blue, Green and Purple labeled books only concerning staple replacements from CGC

 

That's a cool cover!

 

It took me awhile to figure out that was a slingshot robin got a double ace with.

 

 

[VintageComics]

Technically, isn't replacing the staples ADDING something foreign to the book? A PLOD would seem the appropriate label...

 

Jim

 

There is a difference between trying to hide the fact that they were replaced (or making them look original) and someone taking an office stapler and just jamming two new staples into the book, whether the originals are there or not...right?

 

I thought it was pretty simple myself.

 

Not really...in both cases something was added to the book thus deserving of a PLOD. But that's just my opinion...

 

Jim

 

It's not restoration though if it isn't attempting to return the book to a prior known or assumed state. The added staples are just extra defects that are to be graded accordingly. If I add maple syrup to a book, it doesn't get a PLOD for example.

 

Is there an echo in here?

[awe4one]

It's not restoration though if it isn't attempting to return the book to a prior known or assumed state. The added staples are just extra defects that are to be graded accordingly.

 

You could make the argument the extra staples were used to bolster the deteriorating structure of the comic. So it could be argued that the work was performed to "restore" some concrete structure that had been lost...

 

I understand your point...but think these type calls by CGC is splitting hairs a bit. Either way, isn't CGC trying to move away from the Qualified label in favor of blue or purple?

 

Jim

[FFB]

It's not restoration though if it isn't attempting to return the book to a prior known or assumed state. The added staples are just extra defects that are to be graded accordingly.

 

You could make the argument the extra staples were used to bolster the deteriorating structure of the comic. So it could be argued that the work was performed to "restore" some concrete structure that had been lost...

 

I understand your point...but think these type calls by CGC is splitting hairs a bit. Either way, isn't CGC trying to move away from the Qualified label in favor of blue or purple?

 

Jim

 

Generally, I think they are moving away from the green in situations where they used to use it, but I don't know if they're abandoning it wholesale. Personally, I'd prefer that they handle it in "high grade books with weird defect" cases the way PGX does, which is to give the book the "big number" grade of whatever condition it is in (say a 6.5, for example), and then in the notes on the label, state "Would be a 9.0 if not for 2" tear on back cover."

[esquirecomics]

If I add maple syrup to a book, it doesn't get a PLOD for example.

 

If it is being used for glue purposes it would. Sticky stuff.

[Ze-man]

Technically, isn't replacing the staples ADDING something foreign to the book? A PLOD would seem the appropriate label...

 

Jim

 

There is a difference between trying to hide the fact that they were replaced (or making them look original) and someone taking an office stapler and just jamming two new staples into the book, whether the originals are there or not...right?

 

I thought it was pretty simple myself.

 

Not really...in both cases something was added to the book thus deserving of a PLOD. But that's just my opinion...

 

Jim

 

It's not restoration though if it isn't attempting to return the book to a prior known or assumed state. The added staples are just extra defects that are to be graded accordingly. If I add maple syrup to a book, it doesn't get a PLOD for example.

 

 

To Scott, or anyone...

Aren't the new staples "non original " material? And where should the line be drawn as to wether or not they "add" aesthetic appeal? They do improve the look of the book do they not?

 

Following CGC's own glossary definition of restoration, shouldn't adding new staples fall under restoration?

 

Restoration. Treatment that returns the comic book to a known or assumed state through the addition of non-original material for aesthetic enhancement.

 

 

To me the ASM book is restored, no matter what label CGC decides to slap on it. But I all along have felt a book should be judged by itself , not what color label it happens to have.

 

 

Ze-

 

[VintageComics]

Restoration. Treatment that returns the comic book to a known or assumed state through the addition of non-original material for aesthetic enhancement.

 

Ze, the staples do not enhance the aesthetics of the book...they look horrible. And the book was not returned to an assumed state (There is no assuming the satples may be original). The Material may be non original, but like Scott said, neither is a food stain...the entire definition needs to be applyed for it to follow CGC's rules and not just a portion of it.

[FFB]

Technically, isn't replacing the staples ADDING something foreign to the book? A PLOD would seem the appropriate label...

 

Jim

 

There is a difference between trying to hide the fact that they were replaced (or making them look original) and someone taking an office stapler and just jamming two new staples into the book, whether the originals are there or not...right?

 

I thought it was pretty simple myself.

 

Not really...in both cases something was added to the book thus deserving of a PLOD. But that's just my opinion...

 

Jim

 

It's not restoration though if it isn't attempting to return the book to a prior known or assumed state. The added staples are just extra defects that are to be graded accordingly. If I add maple syrup to a book, it doesn't get a PLOD for example.

 

 

To Scott, or anyone...

Aren't the new staples "non original " material? And where should the line be drawn as to wether or not they "add" aesthetic appeal? They do improve the look of the book do they not?

 

Following CGC's own glossary definition of restoration, shouldn't adding new staples fall under restoration?

 

Restoration. Treatment that returns the comic book to a known or assumed state through the addition of non-original material for aesthetic enhancement.

 

 

To me the ASM book is restored, no matter what label CGC decides to slap on it. But I all along have felt a book should be judged by itself , not what color label it happens to have.

 

 

Ze-

 

Like I said before -- if you are taking out the old staples and putting in clean, new (vintage) ones in the same staple holes, then I believe you're restoring the book.

 

If you staple two new staples through the entire book in such a position and in such a manner as staples are not usually put into a book at the bindery, then you're not returning the book to a known or assumed state because the book wasn't manufactured with two extra staples that penetrate the book in a non-saddle-stitched manner. You're adding defects and making the book look less like it did when it came off the machines at the bindery. That isn't restoration in my opinion.

[Ze-man]

Restoration. Treatment that returns the comic book to a known or assumed state through the addition of non-original material for aesthetic enhancement.

 

Ze, the staples do not enhance the aesthetics of the book...they look horrible. And the book was not returned to an assumed state (There is no assuming the satples may be original). The Material may be non original, but like Scott said, neither is a food stain...the entire definition needs to be applyed for it to follow CGC's rules and not just a portion of it.

 

 

That is an awful lot of hairs to split in ordrer for it to not be considered restoration if you ask me. A food stain was not placed on the book deliberately. Adding NEW staples was. I guess intent ,and invasiveness play a large in how I define restoration.

 

Adding 2 tiny dots to a book with a fine tip black marker puts a book in a purple label, replacing staples does not. To ME that is crazy. Mind you I understand why, I just dont happen to agree with it.

 

We all seem to interpret restoration definitions differently.

 

But hey, I learn alot from disecting things this way. Helps to define,even redefine how I feel about the subject.

 

 

Ze-

[Ze-man]

 

If you staple two new staples through the entire book in such a position and in such a manner as staples are not usually put into a book at the bindery, then you're not returning the book to a known or assumed state because the book wasn't manufactured with two extra staples that penetrate the book in a non-saddle-stitched manner. You're adding defects and making the book look less like it did when it came off the machines at the bindery. That isn't restoration in my opinion.

 

 

I hear ya Scott, and ageee about adding damage and downgrading for it.

 

 

But what if the person who added the staples did not mean for it to be so badly placed. They just botched the job. Does it matter where they were placed, or how well they were placed?

 

When is BAD a attempt at working on a comic book not considered restoration? When does it become just damage to the book?

 

This is the reason why I lean towards it as a form of resto, BAD resto yes, but still a form of it.

 

 

Ze-

 

BTW, I owe you some Scuba pix from Mad Magazine dont I?