Golden Age Collector's And The Hatred Of Restoration

[action1kid]

quote://

Showcase, I'm still waiting for you to show one example that evidences what you say is an "all day long" rule for restored books with a dot of professional color touch.

 

You sound just like a Lawyer. Ya know that!

[FFB]

Showcase, I'm still waiting for you to show one example that evidences what you say is an "all day long" rule for restored books with a dot of professional color touch.

 

I just did a semi-thorough search of Heritage's archives, as you can sort by things including "slight restoration" due to "color touch", and then compare them to similar graded unrestored identical books.

 

One of the characteristics of integrity, which I am proud to say is the basis of all my dealings, is to publically admit if I said something incorrect. My own research as of today has shown the average sales price of "slightly" restored books, and "slightly" restored ONLY is approx 1/3 of unrestored value, and not 1/5 as I previously stated.

 

FFB...you were correct to challenge me on this, and I stand corrected . My 20% figure is apparently focused on heavily restored books, and I was lumping them all together, and giving them universally credit for "worst case scenerio".... the market is stronger than I have implied for "slightly" restored books .

 

As for extensive restoration...that's where my 20% I'm sure will prove to be extremely accurate, and there will be no apologies for that one

 

Showcase, I respect that you didn't cling to your position in the face of irrefutable evidence and good sense.

 

For extensively restored books, I don't think that even 20% FMV will always bear out if it is an extensively restored, apparent high grade book. For example, an unrestored Detective #27 in CGC 9.2 would command what, about $500,000 (maybe more?) on the open market? An extensively restored Detective #27 in apparent CGC 9.2 that started out as an unrestored GD 2.0 would not command $100,000. Maybe it would get $50,000 to $60,000, best case scenario. But for a different book (not a super-key, but a valuable book) restored from GD 2.0 to apparent CGC 9.2 might get more than 20% of unrestored FMV, less than 20% FMV, or exactly 20% FMV.

 

When dealing with extensively or even moderately restored books, that is where I think it makes the most sense to ignore the "percentage of unrestored FMV" calculation and instead use the original, unrestored grade of the book as the starting point of value (or a reasonable approximation of what it used to be based upon the visible restoration work), and just add the reasonable value of the restoration work, plus a small premium, if the work is done really well. Otherwise, you're valuing one book that was restored from GD 2.0 up to Apparent 9.2 the same as you would a book that started out VG/FN 5.0 and was restored up to Apparent 9.2. They're both probably going to be "extensively restored," but I'd take the former 5.0 any day instead of the former GD 2.0.

[CW]

And then there is always the factor of a book that doesn't show up either restored or unrestored for years at a time (as a result the guide doesn't have any data to come up with an accurate price). I think the rules go out the window on those, but then again my experience is limited there.

[bluechip]

[quote

Otherwise, you're valuing one book that was restored from GD 2.0 up to Apparent 9.2 the same as you would a book that started out VG/FN 5.0 and was restored up to Apparent 9.2. They're both probably going to be "extensively restored," but I'd take the former 5.0 any day instead of the former GD 2.0.

 

Absolutely. When dealing with restored, the most important question is what did it start at, then what needed to be done to get it where it appears to be now?

[G.A.tor]

 

For extensively restored books, I don't think that even 20% FMV will always bear out if it is an extensively restored, apparent high grade book. For example, an unrestored Detective #27 in CGC 9.2 would command what, about $500,000 (maybe more?) on the open market? An extensively restored Detective #27 in apparent CGC 9.2 that started out as an unrestored GD 2.0 would not command $100,000. Maybe it would get $50,000 to $60,000, best case scenario.

hello all...

I believe the exact above scenario played out last year, with filter81 having a restored 9.2 that sold for $79,000, if I remember correctly (at one time, bidding was into the 80's, but I don't remember why it didn't sell there)?...so, that is a good 20% more than the above quoted prices, but still less than 20% of FMV on an unrestored copy...

just a fyi

rick

ps-Metro has a mod restored 8.0 right now for $61 K list, and to be honest, if I had not already secured one earlier this year, I would have paid $50k-$55k+ for it (so I would easily have paid $75K for a 9.2, I just didn't know about it at the time)....

[ciorac]

Excellent discussion guys! Very informative. Personally I love a nicely restored book. If it can go from a 2.0 to a 6.0 or 7.0 I am very pleased. If it is 4.0 or higher, I wouldn't get it restored. Particularly if it was a big key book. I would much rather have a nice 4.5 Detective 27 than a heavily restored 8.0 or something around that range. But, finances dictate otherwise.

 

I know it was brought up either earlier in this thread or in another one about making a more graduated scale for categorizing restoration. To me that sounds like a decent idea. Slight, Moderate and Heavy is rather broad. Some heavily restored books get that connotation with considerably less work than others, it is an unfair disadvantage to the book.

 

Just a thought.

[CW]

To me that sounds like a decent idea. Slight, Moderate and Heavy is rather broad. Some heavily restored books get that connotation with considerably less work than others, it is an unfair disadvantage to the book.

I agree. additionally It seems like a book with a large quantity of small fixes(Say CT's Tear Seals and small pieces added to a spine) that is called extensive should be treated a bit different from a book that has 3/4 of the cover recreated and is also called extensive.

[FFB]

To me that sounds like a decent idea. Slight, Moderate and Heavy is rather broad. Some heavily restored books get that connotation with considerably less work than others, it is an unfair disadvantage to the book.

I agree. additionally It seems like a book with a large quantity of small fixes(Say CT's Tear Seals and small pieces added to a spine) that is called extensive should be treated a bit different from a book that has 3/4 of the cover recreated and is also called extensive.

 

Agreed, and that's what I am getting at with my valuation model. If you have a book that has had half of the back cover recreated that was originally a FR 1.0 on the one hand, and another book that has had a one-inch chunk filled in on the back cover plus some tear seals that was originally a VG- 3.5 on the other hand, the second book should be "worth" more than the first, even if they both wind up in the same apparent grade with the same "Extensive (P)" notation. My suggested model accounts for that. A "chart" like the one in Overstreet treats both books with the same broad brush.

[ciorac]

To me that sounds like a decent idea. Slight, Moderate and Heavy is rather broad. Some heavily restored books get that connotation with considerably less work than others, it is an unfair disadvantage to the book.

I agree. additionally It seems like a book with a large quantity of small fixes(Say CT's Tear Seals and small pieces added to a spine) that is called extensive should be treated a bit different from a book that has 3/4 of the cover recreated and is also called extensive.

 

Totally agree. It is time for modification.

[ciorac]

To me that sounds like a decent idea. Slight, Moderate and Heavy is rather broad. Some heavily restored books get that connotation with considerably less work than others, it is an unfair disadvantage to the book.

I agree. additionally It seems like a book with a large quantity of small fixes(Say CT's Tear Seals and small pieces added to a spine) that is called extensive should be treated a bit different from a book that has 3/4 of the cover recreated and is also called extensive.

 

Agreed, and that's what I am getting at with my valuation model. If you have a book that has had half of the back cover recreated that was originally a FR 1.0 on the one hand, and another book that has had a one-inch chunk filled in on the back cover plus some tear seals that was originally a VG- 3.5 on the other hand, the second book should be "worth" more than the first, even if they both wind up in the same apparent grade with the same "Extensive (P)" notation. My suggested model accounts for that. A "chart" like the one in Overstreet treats both books with the same broad brush.

 

Well, let's see if we can't make it happen!

[CW]

How would you go about implementing such a change?

 

I felt that the best chance was when cgc was talking about adding a second number to the slab for restored books and creating a 10 point restoration assesment. That would result in an upgrade from the current 3 "point scale" that could resolve a large number of these issues. I believe that all of these examples could be seperated properly from one another within 10 (or put in .5's and have 20) different levels of restoration classification.

 

Grading in general has become very accurate and detailed with the 10 point grading system while restoration ratings are still lagging immensly. It may appear an inappropriate comparison but it looks to me like the restoration classifications used today (Slight Moderate Extensive) would reflect as Good Fine NM if they were a grading standard. Think of the minutiae lost between Fine and Nearmint while grading books and how that might correlate to Moderate and Extensive restoration.

 

CGC takes great care in listing all of the various restorations they find on a book. It seems logical to use those to establish a much more detailed scale. As it stands now the consumer is left with the task of interpreting the list on the label and discerning how slight, how moderate, or how extensive a book is restored. As a result, in my opinion, the value of the extensively restored book that FFB points out as having the 1" piece added (was a 3.5) is hurt dramatically by the company it keeps in the extensive column with the Franken-books. The same could be said for the very slight CT versus slight CT and Tear Seals.

 

The point of my mumblings is that a more detailed scale 1-10 (just like the grades) would allow the buyer to quickly interpret just how much resto is on the book and stop the worst in each category (slight moderate extensive) from negatively impacting the image and value of the other books that currently share the titles.

[innocuous]

I was just looking through the CL auction and noticed that the Flash #10 closed at $485. And I thought to myself that I could have gotten this issue really cheap. But, I was put off by "Extensive" restoration. So, to myself . . .

[ciorac]

How would you go about implementing such a change?

 

I felt that the best chance was when cgc was talking about adding a second number to the slab for restored books and creating a 10 point restoration assesment. That would result in an upgrade from the current 3 "point scale" that could resolve a large number of these issues. I believe that all of these examples could be seperated properly from one another within 10 (or put in .5's and have 20) different levels of restoration classification.

 

Grading in general has become very accurate and detailed with the 10 point grading system while restoration ratings are still lagging immensly. It may appear an inappropriate comparison but it looks to me like the restoration classifications used today (Slight Moderate Extensive) would reflect as Good Fine NM if they were a grading standard. Think of the minutiae lost between Fine and Nearmint while grading books and how that might correlate to Moderate and Extensive restoration.

 

CGC takes great care in listing all of the various restorations they find on a book. It seems logical to use those to establish a much more detailed scale. As it stands now the consumer is left with the task of interpreting the list on the label and discerning how slight, how moderate, or how extensive a book is restored. As a result, in my opinion, the value of the extensively restored book that FFB points out as having the 1" piece added (was a 3.5) is hurt dramatically by the company it keeps in the extensive column with the Franken-books. The same could be said for the very slight CT versus slight CT and Tear Seals.

 

The point of my mumblings is that a more detailed scale 1-10 (just like the grades) would allow the buyer to quickly interpret just how much resto is on the book and stop the worst in each category (slight moderate extensive) from negatively impacting the image and value of the other books that currently share the titles.

 

Total agreement with you CW. I know that Matt Nelson started something like this a while back, but it never took hold. I am going to the Dallas show in a couple weeks and will be crashing at Matt's. I hope to come away with something to submit to Steve Borock as a 10 point scale to level the playing field for restored books. Wish me luck!

[CW]

Good Luck! And say Hi to Steve for me.

[G.A.tor]

 

Total agreement with you CW. I know that Matt Nelson started something like this a while back, but it never took hold. I am going to the Dallas show in a couple weeks and will be crashing at Matt's. I hope to come away with something to submit to Steve Borock as a 10 point scale to level the playing field for restored books. Wish me luck!

hello all...

I too, would love to see some progress made here...good luck

rick

[ciorac]

Thanks guys. All I can do is try.

[CentaurMan]

Thanks guys. All I can do is try.

 

Try not. Do or do not, there is no 'try'.

[ciorac]

Thanks guys. All I can do is try.

 

Do, or do not. There is no 'try'.

 

I'll submit the scale, it will be up to Steve to adopt it or not.

[CentaurMan]

Thanks guys. All I can do is try.

 

Do, or do not. There is no 'try'.

 

I'll submit the scale, it will be up to Steve to adopt it or not.

 

Grave danger you are in. Impatient you are.

[ciorac]

Thanks guys. All I can do is try.

 

Do, or do not. There is no 'try'.

 

I'll submit the scale, it will be up to Steve to adopt it or not.

 

Grave danger you are in. Impatient you are.

 

I know, wise Yoda.