Which one would you choose ???? 2 2

[action1kid]

One of the wisest things in life that anyone ever told me [and I apply it to many things in life is

 

"""kEEP IT SIMPLE ""

[lou_fine]

Found it...

 

 

Proposed Label Modifications...

 

 

what a cluster this would have been....glad the idea was scrapped!

We all would have needed reading glasses and a note pad/pen to try to decifer all the small print and figure out what CGC was trying to say....and just imgaine all the eBay ads where Joe Schmoe is selling a graded book and has cheesy pics.....you'd have to email him 15 times to get all the info you needed just to understand what he was offering. I'll take good old blue and purple numeric labels all day long over this train wreck....looks like it was designed by the US Government, not private industry.

Steve

 

I agree. Let's keep things dumbed down for the general masses to understand. I mean why in the world would we ever want to put too much information on the labels? Could you imagine if we actually wasted time trying to educate casual hobbyists with the added information CGC could provide? Then they might get too informed and realize that there are some real values out there in the restored comic world. Then where would we be? We would probably have to pay more for those books that have slipped by in the past. BRRRRRRR!

 

ahhhhhhh, but Richard...

if this was such a great, informative and much needed change, why was there overwhelming lack of support by our very own educated fellow Forumites??

 

From my point of view, the major reasons why it fail were threefold:

 

1) This system CGC was proposing was far too convoluted and too complicated for most collectors to understand as it was trying to separate work between restoration (bad), conservation (good), professional (good), amateur (bad), slight, moderate, extensive, and all the possible permutations of these factors.

 

2) CGC was trying to implement this system in association with their parent company setting up a sister company (PCS) to provide conservation and restoration removal services to the marketplace. Big red flag here as this was seen as a direct conflict of interest and possible manipulation of the marketplace. Especially since the new services lined up so nicely with CGC's new definition for restoration vis-a-vis conservation.

 

3) Marketplace was starting to question CGC policies in light of some of the controversies they seem to be embroiled in at the time such as Ewertgate, the Heritage resubmits, crack and press, PCS, etc.

 

I still believe such a system could have and still would be able to work if CGC had simply stuck to a simple stand-alone 10-point Restoration Rating System where books were rated from a scale of R-0 (no restoration) to R-10 (extensive restoration) as the long-term collectors had been asking for.

[MrBedrock]

From my point of view, the major reasons why it fail were threefold:

 

1) This system CGC was proposing was far too convoluted and too complicated for most collectors to understand as it was trying to separate work between restoration (bad), conservation (good), professional (good), amateur (bad), slight, moderate, extensive, and all the possible permutations of these factors.

 

2) CGC was trying to implement this system in association with their parent company setting up a sister company (PCS) to provide conservation and restoration removal services to the marketplace. Big red flag here as this was seen as a direct conflict of interest and possible manipulation of the marketplace. Especially since the new services lined up so nicely with CGC's new definition for restoration vis-a-vis conservation.

 

3) Marketplace was starting to question CGC policies in light of some of the controversies they seem to be embroiled in at the time such as Ewertgate, the Heritage resubmits, crack and press, PCS, etc.

 

I still believe such a system could have and still would be able to work if CGC had simply stuck to a simple stand-alone 10-point Restoration Rating System where books were rated from a scale of R-0 (no restoration) to R-10 (extensive restoration) as the long-term collectors had been asking for.

 

Great points!

[showcase4]

a simple stand-alone 10-point Restoration Rating System where books were rated from a scale of R-0 (no restoration) to R-10 (extensive restoration)

 

Works for me.....that would make me an R-O collector (thumbs u !

[lou_fine]

I've said all along there should be a restoration scale just like a grading scale. It should be much more complex than the three simple categories we now have.

 

Bill;

 

In total agreement with you on the concept of a formal restoration scale as I have been harping about this every since I first came onto these boards back in 2003. (thumbs u

 

Not sure about how complex I would want this scale to be since I felt the one that CGC was proposing was far too complicated. I believe a simple 10-point restoration rating system should be good enough since collectors are already used to a 10-point condition grading system.

 

I actually don't buy the story that a dual colour label system is required and that a move to a one-colour label restoration rating system would only result in collectors being scammed in the marketplace. If this true, then we should probably ask CGC to institute a two-colour label system for the condition grades in order to segregate near-mint books from non-near mint books. After all, would we want some poor unsupsecting collector to buy a blue label 5.0 graded book thinking he was getting a NM copy.

 

If collectors can understand the 10-point grading system, I don't see why they can't figure out a 10-point restoration rating system. Why, they even seen to know that a 9.4 MA book is no good, while a 9.2 SA book is good, and a 8.0 GA book is highly desireable. We don't seem to need a purple label to tell them what is good and what is not good when it comes to condition grading.

 

 

[action1kid]

Remember the root of restoration in comicbooks was not [conservation] which is a noble cause. The exact root of restoration on comicbooks was a greedy cause [profit] It is that greedy cause that put that touch of color on those cherished books. Not a noble conserving cause.Now that very greed has come back to bite collectors and dealers on the as@ in the exact reverse of its origanal intent.

This is a reason[just 1] why I look down on slightly restored books. I dont want to cover up that lack of nobility with a blue label for an everything slight party. No matter how slight , the book has been tampered with. Even if you take the resto off, the book has been tampered with. How will I know ? That Mile High More Fun 52 has slight work on it. Its documented on the cgc label. Take the glue off and its new label is clean. Im not gonna know that.? Thank goodness for certification.The book is now unrestored but everyone will always know it was tampered with. You can never erase that......Keep it simple !

[ciorac]

 

I still believe such a system could have and still would be able to work if CGC had simply stuck to a simple stand-alone 10-point Restoration Rating System where books were rated from a scale of R-0 (no restoration) to R-10 (extensive restoration) as the long-term collectors had been asking for.

 

Lou, you are right on the money. Many, many of us have been asking for this for quite some time. I don't think it would complicate the label at all, in reality it will simplify it by providing clarity and representing the book for what it is.

 

I truly hope this comes to pass one day.

[ciorac]

Remember the root of restoration in comicbooks was not [conservation] which is a noble cause. The exact root of restoration on comicbooks was a greedy cause [profit] It is that greedy cause that put that touch of color on those cherished books. Not a noble conserving cause

 

You may be right about why resto was created, but perhaps not. Some of us like restoration for many, well documented reasons, most of which could not be ascribed to greed. Since resto lowers the price, one can hardly call losing money greedy.

 

Now conservation on the other hand.....

 

It seems to me the "conservation" term came around as an attempt to do an end around on the devaluation brought about by restoration.

 

For example:

 

"Sure I sealed that tear, but I did that to CONSERVE the book, you know keep it from tearing worse. It's not RESTORED! I did the book a favor."

 

Sounds like salesmanship to me at worst, semantics at best.

[showcase4]

Remember the root of restoration in comicbooks was not [conservation] which is a noble cause. The exact root of restoration on comicbooks was a greedy cause [profit] It is that greedy cause that put that touch of color on those cherished books. Not a noble conserving cause

 

You may be right about why resto was created, but perhaps not. Some of us like restoration for many, well documented reasons, most of which could not be ascribed to greed. Since resto lowers the price, one can hardly call losing money greedy.

 

Now conservation on the other hand.....

 

It seems to me the "conservation" term came around as an attempt to do an end around on the devaluation brought about by restoration.

 

For example:

 

"Sure I sealed that tear, but I did that to CONSERVE the book, you know keep it from tearing worse. It's not RESTORED! I did the book a favor."

 

Sounds like salesmanship to me at worst, semantics at best.

 

yes, conservation is indeed restoration for the purpose of prolonging a books life and structual integrity. Restoration is a procedure to enhance a books appearance...period. Both are clearly restoration....only the intent seperates them into 2 categories.

[action1kid]

I wasnt speaking in absolutes. I dont think everyone likes it for greeds purpose of course but ALOT DO !

[Ze-man]

Bill I think he meant resto was founded on greed because so much early resto went undetected for so many years in the hobby because it was based on deception(greed) to try and fool people into seeing something other then what was really there when selling a book.

 

And I will disagree with you about the conso , resto thing. (neither term is bad to me) But both describe specific actions taken when working on a book. All of the procedures obviously fall under the resto umbrella definition, but if somebody decides to opt out of doing piece fill and CT, dont you think that should be looked upon in a different light then what people consider to be a frankenbook?

 

Not trying to split hairs with you because I see many of you just prefer to call resto.. resto which I respect , but it seems like it is still a grey area in today's market worth discussing

 

Ze-

[Socratic Wonder]

Remember the root of restoration in comicbooks was not [conservation] which is a noble cause. The exact root of restoration on comicbooks was a greedy cause [profit] It is that greedy cause that put that touch of color on those cherished books. Not a noble conserving cause

 

You may be right about why resto was created, but perhaps not. Some of us like restoration for many, well documented reasons, most of which could not be ascribed to greed. Since resto lowers the price, one can hardly call losing money greedy.

 

Now conservation on the other hand.....

 

It seems to me the "conservation" term came around as an attempt to do an end around on the devaluation brought about by restoration.

 

For example:

 

"Sure I sealed that tear, but I did that to CONSERVE the book, you know keep it from tearing worse. It's not RESTORED! I did the book a favor."

 

Sounds like salesmanship to me at worst, semantics at best.

 

I do see your point ciorac but surely there are some exceptions. Rusty staples for example.

 

Someone might be willing to leave rusty staples if they didn't think it would spread and, in the long run, destroy the book. I have a comic right now with this problem. I am fine with how the book presents even with this defect and would not consider restoring it. I will consider conserving it though because I fear the rust further migrating into the pages.

 

Now there is some salesmanship for ya!

[Socratic Wonder]

I wasnt speaking in absolutes. I dont think everyone likes it for greeds purpose of course but ALOT DO !

 

"Greed is good" "Greed works"

 

- Who said it? What movie?

 

Thought I would lighten the mood with a little trivia

[showcase4]

I wasnt speaking in absolutes. I dont think everyone likes it for greeds purpose of course but ALOT DO !

 

"Greed is good" "Greed works"

 

- Who said it? What movie?

 

Thought I would lighten the mood with a little trivia

 

Gordon Gecko/ Wall Street...speaking to the stock holders of Teldar Paper zzz

[action1kid]

Alot of people are gonna be confused between the two. Coservation and Restoration. I think that keepin iy simp-le

[Socratic Wonder]

I wasnt speaking in absolutes. I dont think everyone likes it for greeds purpose of course but ALOT DO !

 

"Greed is good" "Greed works"

 

- Who said it? What movie?

 

Thought I would lighten the mood with a little trivia

 

Gordon Gecko/ Wall Street...speaking to the stock holders of Teldar Paper zzz

 

I guess I will have to make it harder next time

 

Well done Steve!

 

Bonus points for knowing it was Teldar Paper (thumbs u

[action1kid]

To br exact

 

The point is, ladies and gentlemen, that: Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right; greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms, greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge — has marked the upward surge of mankind and greed, you mark my words — will not only save Teldar Paper but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA.

 

[Ze-man]

Alot of people are gonna be confused between the two. Coservation and Restoration. I think that keepin iy simp-le

 

I normally subscribe to the less is more adage, but in this case I disagree with you. I think collectors who dabble in the restored market are smart enough to figure out a few new wrinkles.

 

 

Ze-

[ciorac]

Bill I think he meant resto was founded on greed because so much early resto went undetected for so many years in the hobby because it was based on deception(greed) to try and fool people into seeing something other then what was really there when selling a book.

 

And I will disagree with you about the conso , resto thing. (neither term is bad to me) But both describe specific actions taken when working on a book. All of the procedures obviously fall under the resto umbrella definition, but if somebody decides to opt out of doing piece fill and CT, dont you think that should be looked upon in a different light then what people consider to be a frankenbook?

 

Not trying to split hairs with you because I see many of you just prefer to call resto.. resto which I respect , but it seems like it is still a grey area in today's market worth discussing

 

Ze-

 

Kenny, I am all for splitting hairs. In fact, I'd like to split the resto hair into 10 parts. That would keep the frankenbooks from being lumped in with a book that has a great deal less resto, but is still categorized as extensive. There is a world of difference between the "extensives" I have seen.

 

As long as conservation and restoration fall neath the same umbrella then I am on board with that. The notion of making a third category between restored and unrestored is the one I can't fathom.

[ciorac]

Remember the root of restoration in comicbooks was not [conservation] which is a noble cause. The exact root of restoration on comicbooks was a greedy cause [profit] It is that greedy cause that put that touch of color on those cherished books. Not a noble conserving cause

 

You may be right about why resto was created, but perhaps not. Some of us like restoration for many, well documented reasons, most of which could not be ascribed to greed. Since resto lowers the price, one can hardly call losing money greedy.

 

Now conservation on the other hand.....

 

It seems to me the "conservation" term came around as an attempt to do an end around on the devaluation brought about by restoration.

 

For example:

 

"Sure I sealed that tear, but I did that to CONSERVE the book, you know keep it from tearing worse. It's not RESTORED! I did the book a favor."

 

Sounds like salesmanship to me at worst, semantics at best.

 

I do see your point ciorac but surely there are some exceptions. Rusty staples for example.

 

Someone might be willing to leave rusty staples if they didn't think it would spread and, in the long run, destroy the book. I have a comic right now with this problem. I am fine with how the book presents even with this defect and would not consider restoring it. I will consider conserving it though because I fear the rust further migrating into the pages.

 

Now there is some salesmanship for ya!

 

I have a similar book. It is real nice, but has rusty staples. I'd like to swap them out to keep the rust from deteriorating the pages underneath them. Yes, I agree it will conserve the pages by employing a restorative technique.