How does this get an Blue label?

[FFB]

 

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 restoration, not considered resto? 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?

 

Here's the problem, Kenny. Your argument is circular. You say "bad resto is still resto, isn't it?" The answer to that is "yes," but you still haven't shown that the added staples constitute "restoration" in the first place.

 

The ASM#1 is a saddle-stitched book. If someone replaced the original staples with new staples and put them into the book in a saddle-stitched method, even if they made a mess of things, accidentally split the spine while putting the new staples in, whatever, then it would meet the definition of restoration.

 

But these added staples on the ASM#1 are not saddle stitched. They are side stitched. As such, they do not return the book to a formerly known or assumed condition, and thus, are not restoration.

[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 restoration, not considered resto? 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?

 

Here's the problem, Kenny. Your argument is circular. You say "bad resto is still resto, isn't it?" The answer to that is "yes," but you still haven't shown that the added staples constitute "restoration" in the first place.

 

The ASM#1 is a saddle-stitched book. If someone replaced the original staples with new staples and put them into the book in a saddle-stitched method, even if they made a mess of things, accidentally split the spine while putting the new staples in, whatever, then it would meet the definition of restoration.

 

But these added staples on the ASM#1 are not saddle stitched. They are side stitched. As such, they do not return the book to a formerly known or assumed condition, and thus, are not restoration.

 

To some it is not restoration.

 

Am I not allowed to feel differently then others when interpreting what I feel constitutes restoration?

 

It aint THAT far off the path is it?

 

 

Ze-

[FFB]

 

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 restoration, not considered resto? 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?

 

Here's the problem, Kenny. Your argument is circular. You say "bad resto is still resto, isn't it?" The answer to that is "yes," but you still haven't shown that the added staples constitute "restoration" in the first place.

 

The ASM#1 is a saddle-stitched book. If someone replaced the original staples with new staples and put them into the book in a saddle-stitched method, even if they made a mess of things, accidentally split the spine while putting the new staples in, whatever, then it would meet the definition of restoration.

 

But these added staples on the ASM#1 are not saddle stitched. They are side stitched. As such, they do not return the book to a formerly known or assumed condition, and thus, are not restoration.

 

To some it is not restoration.

 

Am I not allowed to feel differently then others when interpreting what I feel constitutes restoration?

 

It aint THAT far off the path is it?

 

 

Ze-

 

Sure, you can call it a chocolate taco for all I care.

[Ze-man]

 

Sure, you can call it a chocolate taco for all I care.

 

It is a Restored Chocolate Flavor Taco..

[VintageComics]

 

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 restoration, not considered resto? 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?

 

Here's the problem, Kenny. Your argument is circular. You say "bad resto is still resto, isn't it?" The answer to that is "yes," but you still haven't shown that the added staples constitute "restoration" in the first place.

 

The ASM#1 is a saddle-stitched book. If someone replaced the original staples with new staples and put them into the book in a saddle-stitched method, even if they made a mess of things, accidentally split the spine while putting the new staples in, whatever, then it would meet the definition of restoration.

 

But these added staples on the ASM#1 are not saddle stitched. They are side stitched. As such, they do not return the book to a formerly known or assumed condition, and thus, are not restoration.

 

To some it is not restoration.

 

Am I not allowed to feel differently then others when interpreting what I feel constitutes restoration?

 

It aint THAT far off the path is it?

 

 

Ze-

 

Ze, I'm just going to chime in and say that if you feel different that is fine, but if we are going go by the definition you gave, your feeling does not match what is written...if the book was restored, you may not be able to see it with the untrained eye at a quick glance. This is what is meant by returning to an assumed or previous state. In these cases there was attempt to hide the resto to make it look original. Those staples are damn ugly and simply hold the book together for functionality, not aesthetics. The book is not even close to it's original state.

[Ze-man]

 

Ze, I'm just going to chime in and say that if you feel different that is fine, but if we are going go by the definition you gave, your feeling does not match what is written...if the book was restored, you may not be able to see it with the untrained eye at a quick glance. This is what is meant by returning to an assumed or previous state. In these cases there was attempt to hide the resto to make it look original. Those staples are damn ugly and simply hold the book together for functionality, not aesthetics. The book is not even close to it's original state.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I understand what their definition is. I suppose I just dont feel as they do. You said what I feel ,and what they wrote dont match up. That is probably because I was trying to match up how I felt, to their definition.

I should have said "In addition to their definition I would include things other then just work done to return a book to its "known previous assumed condition"

 

Why do does all restoration have to be assumed to be done correctly? CGC is 100% sure of the intent of the person who did it? Because the work was poorly dosn't mean it was meant to be that way.

Poorly done resto, even pressing is downgraded accordingly as it should be. But it is still a form of restoration and should be labeled as such(to me anyways)

 

Regarding the ASM book, I simply see a book with added staples. .A treatment was done to the book to try and improve it. Even if it was just a few poorly placed staples to hold it together. No matter how badly it was done, or how unattractive it is, or how easy it is to see.

 

I think it falls under some form of restoration.

 

That I think is my main difference of opinon regarding how this book was graded.

 

I certainly didnt wake up today expecting to have to define all of this, nor have the time to convey it properly. It can become confusing. I just wrote what I felt about the book I was looking at.

 

 

 

 

 

Ze-

[the blob]

i wish i still had the photo, but i sold a superman 11 that had a bunch of yellowed/browned tape on the spine and about 15 staples (copper colored ones too!). is that restored or just fugly?

[LordRahl]

Is drawing on the cover of a book with a magic marker restoration? How about coloring in the logo? I'm not talking about trying to color touch some defect but just some kid drawing on his books.

[Ze-man]

Is drawing on the cover of a book with a magic marker restoration? How about coloring in the logo? I'm not talking about trying to color touch some defect but just some kid drawing on his books.

 

 

No it is a Chocolate Taco

 

 

Seriously though, staples, be they misplaced or not, are supposed to be there. It took a deliberate effort to do replace them in an effort to fix the book for whatever reason.

 

Writing on a book in the manner you speak of took an effort too I suppose. But it is material that is obviously was never meant to be there.

 

My head hurts.

 

I will stick with a Chocolate Taco.

 

Ze-

[FFB]

 

Ze, I'm just going to chime in and say that if you feel different that is fine, but if we are going go by the definition you gave, your feeling does not match what is written...if the book was restored, you may not be able to see it with the untrained eye at a quick glance. This is what is meant by returning to an assumed or previous state. In these cases there was attempt to hide the resto to make it look original. Those staples are damn ugly and simply hold the book together for functionality, not aesthetics. The book is not even close to it's original state.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I understand what their definition is. I suppose I just dont feel as they do. You said what I feel ,and what they wrote dont match up. That is probably because I was trying to match up how I felt, to their definition.

I should have said "In addition to their definition I would include things other then just work done to return a book to its "known previous assumed condition"

 

Why do does all restoration have to be assumed to be done correctly? CGC is 100% sure of the intent of the person who did it? Because the work was poorly dosn't mean it was meant to be that way.

Poorly done resto, even pressing is downgraded accordingly as it should be. But it is still a form of restoration and should be labeled as such(to me anyways)

 

Regarding the ASM book, I simply see a book with added staples. .A treatment was done to the book to try and improve it. Even if it was just a few poorly placed staples to hold it together. No matter how badly it was done, or how unattractive it is, or how easy it is to see.

 

I think it falls under some form of restoration.

 

That I think is my main difference of opinon regarding how this book was graded.

 

I certainly didnt wake up today expecting to have to define all of this, nor have the time to convey it properly. It can become confusing. I just wrote what I felt about the book I was looking at.

 

 

 

 

 

Ze-

 

If the label tells the prospective purchaser that the extra staples are not original and that the original staples are missing, and if the non-original staples are visibly side-stitched instead of saddle-stitched like the original ones were, and if the book has been downgraded heavily for the damage caused by the extra staples and the fact that the originals are missing, what good does it do to put the book in a purple label? All of the disclosure is there. Are you interested in disclosure or is what you're really after the stigmatization caused by the purple label? Would you feel better if the book were an 8.0 Slight (A) PLOD?

[Ze-man]

or is what you're really after the stigmatization caused by the purple label? Would you feel better if the book were an 8.0 Slight (A) PLOD?

 

In a nutshell, yes.

 

What if the buyer is not savy. What if they do not even know how a book was supposed to be stitched? Some people do not know to even look. We have all seen books with staples all over the place before straight from the factory.

 

If a buyer sees a Purple label, they run away in most cases.

They see a Blue label with a possible downgrade(which is unknown exactly how much was taken off) Many times that is all they see.

 

Why this book got a Blue and another gets a Purple is what I guess bothers me. To me Purple labels are not bad. It is an easy way to tell if a book has had work done to it. And you can make up your own mind if what was done to the book is something you can live with. A Blue label with notes on it is fine,if you know to look closely. But alot of times people only see the Blue Label, and dont read everything on it.

 

 

I gotta run. Been fun

 

Ze-

[burntboy]

i wish i still had the photo, but i sold a superman 11 that had a bunch of yellowed/browned tape on the spine and about 15 staples (copper colored ones too!). is that restored or just fugly?

 

i was thinking about tape when i read Kenny/Scott's discussion.

 

not that i necessarily agree with the Blue label side of the argument, but i can see where adding tape or adding/replacing staples (in the manner displayed on the ASM #1) is a fairly analogus situation (niether return the book to it's original condition) and both are considered by CGC to be Unrestored.

 

the tape and the staples are considered defects and taken into consideration in the grade.....................

 

and, yes, i'm still confused over any/all Green labels............

[FFB]

or is what you're really after the stigmatization caused by the purple label? Would you feel better if the book were an 8.0 Slight (A) PLOD?

 

In a nutshell, yes.

 

What if the buyer is not savy. What if they do not even know how a book was supposed to be stitched? Some people do not know to even look. We have all seen books with staples all over the place before straight from the factory.

 

If a buyer sees a Purple label, they run away in most cases.

They see a Blue label with a possible downgrade(which is unknown exactly how much was taken off) Many times that is all they see.

 

Why this book got a Blue and another gets a Purple is what I guess bothers me. To me Purple labels are not bad. It is an easy way to tell if a book has had work done to it. And you can make up your own mind if what was done to the book is something you can live with. A Blue label with notes on it is fine,if you know to look closely. But alot of times people only see the Blue Label, and dont read everything on it.

 

 

I gotta run. Been fun

 

Ze-

 

If you have a buyer who is that naive/ignorant and yet has thousands of dollars burning a hole in his pocket and a jones for Amazing Spider-Man, he is going to make bad decisions -- whether on this book or on any number of other books that would be far worse buying decisions than this one might be. I do not think it is incumbent upon CGC to cater to the stupidest collector on the market, nor do I think the overly paternalistic attitude toward such collectors is justified. We all had to learn lessons the hard way. To me, it seems to be the cost of ignorance for these mythical rich/incredibly stupid collectors that some people seem so hell bent on protecting. A responsible person wouldn't invest thousands of dollars on collectibles without having some rudimentary knowledge. Those who do cannot expect everyone else in the industry to protect them from making bad decisions.

 

P.S. Has anyone ever met someone who was in the market for a copy of ASM#1, and who was so stupid that if he were looking at this particular book, wouldn't understand what he was buying based on what the label notes say? I haven't and can't imagine such a person exists. I've seen comic collectors who are that stupid before, but they're usually the guys who are looking for the rattiest copy they can find just to fill out a run -- and they usually don't care if their FR copy has a little color touch or five extra staples or whatever.

[Ze-man]

or is what you're really after the stigmatization caused by the purple label? Would you feel better if the book were an 8.0 Slight (A) PLOD?

 

In a nutshell, yes.

 

What if the buyer is not savy. What if they do not even know how a book was supposed to be stitched? Some people do not know to even look. We have all seen books with staples all over the place before straight from the factory.

 

If a buyer sees a Purple label, they run away in most cases.

They see a Blue label with a possible downgrade(which is unknown exactly how much was taken off) Many times that is all they see.

 

Why this book got a Blue and another gets a Purple is what I guess bothers me. To me Purple labels are not bad. It is an easy way to tell if a book has had work done to it. And you can make up your own mind if what was done to the book is something you can live with. A Blue label with notes on it is fine,if you know to look closely. But alot of times people only see the Blue Label, and dont read everything on it.

 

 

I gotta run. Been fun

 

Ze-

 

If you have a buyer who is that naive/ignorant and yet has thousands of dollars burning a hole in his pocket and a jones for Amazing Spider-Man, he is going to make bad decisions -- whether on this book or on any number of other books that would be far worse buying decisions than this one might be. I do not think it is incumbent upon CGC to cater to the stupidest collector on the market, nor do I think the overly paternalistic attitude toward such collectors is justified. We all had to learn lessons the hard way. To me, it seems to be the cost of ignorance for these mythical rich/incredibly stupid collectors that some people seem so hell bent on protecting. A responsible person wouldn't invest thousands of dollars on collectibles without having some rudimentary knowledge. Those who do cannot expect everyone else in the industry to protect them from making bad decisions.

 

P.S. Has anyone ever met someone who was in the market for a copy of ASM#1, and who was so stupid that if he were looking at this particular book, wouldn't understand what he was buying based on what the label notes say? I haven't and can't imagine such a person exists. I've seen comic collectors who are that stupid before, but they're usually the guys who are looking for the rattiest copy they can find just to fill out a run -- and they usually don't care if their FR copy has a little color touch or five extra staples or whatever.

 

I was under the assumption we were talking in general terms Scott.

 

Nevermind.

 

Ze-

[FFB]

or is what you're really after the stigmatization caused by the purple label? Would you feel better if the book were an 8.0 Slight (A) PLOD?

 

In a nutshell, yes.

 

What if the buyer is not savy. What if they do not even know how a book was supposed to be stitched? Some people do not know to even look. We have all seen books with staples all over the place before straight from the factory.

 

If a buyer sees a Purple label, they run away in most cases.

They see a Blue label with a possible downgrade(which is unknown exactly how much was taken off) Many times that is all they see.

 

Why this book got a Blue and another gets a Purple is what I guess bothers me. To me Purple labels are not bad. It is an easy way to tell if a book has had work done to it. And you can make up your own mind if what was done to the book is something you can live with. A Blue label with notes on it is fine,if you know to look closely. But alot of times people only see the Blue Label, and dont read everything on it.

 

 

I gotta run. Been fun

 

Ze-

 

If you have a buyer who is that naive/ignorant and yet has thousands of dollars burning a hole in his pocket and a jones for Amazing Spider-Man, he is going to make bad decisions -- whether on this book or on any number of other books that would be far worse buying decisions than this one might be. I do not think it is incumbent upon CGC to cater to the stupidest collector on the market, nor do I think the overly paternalistic attitude toward such collectors is justified. We all had to learn lessons the hard way. To me, it seems to be the cost of ignorance for these mythical rich/incredibly stupid collectors that some people seem so hell bent on protecting. A responsible person wouldn't invest thousands of dollars on collectibles without having some rudimentary knowledge. Those who do cannot expect everyone else in the industry to protect them from making bad decisions.

 

P.S. Has anyone ever met someone who was in the market for a copy of ASM#1, and who was so stupid that if he were looking at this particular book, wouldn't understand what he was buying based on what the label notes say? I haven't and can't imagine such a person exists. I've seen comic collectors who are that stupid before, but they're usually the guys who are looking for the rattiest copy they can find just to fill out a run -- and they usually don't care if their FR copy has a little color touch or five extra staples or whatever.

 

I was under the assumption we were talking in general terms Scott.

 

Nevermind.

 

Ze-

 

Then why did you ask the question "What if the buyer is not savvy?"

[drbanner]

P.S. Has anyone ever met someone who was in the market for a copy of ASM#1, and who was so stupid that if he were looking at this particular book, wouldn't understand what he was buying based on what the label notes say? I haven't and can't imagine such a person exists. I've seen comic collectors who are that stupid before, but they're usually the guys who are looking for the rattiest copy they can find just to fill out a run -- and they usually don't care if their FR copy has a little color touch or five extra staples or whatever.

 

In the case of Batman 1, yes, but as far as ASM 1, no.

[FFB]

P.S. Has anyone ever met someone who was in the market for a copy of ASM#1, and who was so stupid that if he were looking at this particular book, wouldn't understand what he was buying based on what the label notes say? I haven't and can't imagine such a person exists. I've seen comic collectors who are that stupid before, but they're usually the guys who are looking for the rattiest copy they can find just to fill out a run -- and they usually don't care if their FR copy has a little color touch or five extra staples or whatever.

 

In the case of Batman 1, yes, but as far as ASM 1, no.

 

Hope Filter doesn't see this thread.

[the blob]

I've always wondered why the magic marker type CT is some evil for of resto deserving of a PLOD (and demolishing the book) when a bunch more writing with that magic marker on the cover would just downgrade it.

 

In this world, the PLOD VF wih two tiny CTs from a magic marker is probably worth less than the blue lable VG with writing on the cover, all else being equeal, and that just doesn't make sense to me.

[skybolt]

As long as we're discussing blue vs. purple labels, what amount of color touch would still get you a universal grade?. Are a few dots vs. shading in allowed for certain GA books to receive the blue label designation?!

 

For instance, I've seen books in blue instead of purple holders, but have the exact same notation "very small amount of color touch on cover". "How small" is really the question. Here's one of my examples that received a PLOD:

 

[FFB]

As long as we're discussing blue vs. purple labels, what amount of color touch would still get you a universal grade?. Are a few dots vs. shading in allowed for certain GA books to receive the blue label designation?!

 

For instance, I've seen books in blue instead of purple holders, but have the exact same notation "very small amount of color touch on cover". "How small" is really the question. Here's one of my examples that received a PLOD:

 

<img src="http://img301.echo.cx/img301/4628/zago2rcgc92l28ab.jpg" alt="Image Hosted by ImageShack.us" />

<img src="http://img301.echo.cx/img301/6165/zago2rcgc92f1dn.jpg" alt="Image Hosted by ImageShack.us" />

 

I seem to recall hearing and/or reading that the litmus test is whether the CT bumped up the apparent grade of the book more than one grade. If it didn't, then they downgrade for the CT one grade level and give it a blue label with the notation. If it did bump the grade more than one level, they PLOD the book and give it the full apparent grade.