Larson Marvel Mystery Comics #9

[action1kid]

I would assert they do so because they know some buyers don't like handwriting on the covers but still want the pedigree designation.

 

I completely disagree. I've never met a pedigree collector that didn't want the markings. Even if there are a few, why limit your buying pool to that tiny % of collectors?

 

Ditto.

 

We joke about "isolated incidents", but I think this might be one. This was just a very misguided move.

 

Ditto.

I dont always agree with FFB but I do this time.

[ciorac]

As an aside note no one should ever erase pedigree codes. It serves no logical purpose!

 

West

 

Dead on West!

 

I can't believe any of the true comic collectors at CGC who care about this hobby (which I presume is the majority if not everyone) would disagree with you, which is why you and the others can play such an important internal role in STOPPING this practice. Implement a policy that discourages such submissions. Publicize it as a stated policy - if a book is discovered to have a pedigree designation removed, especially if CGC previously slabbed it with such designation, CGC will REFUSE to regrade or reslab. We are not talking about a lot of books here. Maintain a pedigree database that can be checked. Of course, it is likely not even necessary as so many of these brazen greed-mongers who are participating in this practice want CGC to slab the pedigree designation on it so they tell you outright it is a pedigree. This is a NO-BRAINER!

 

Otherwise CGC is simply part of the problem because it knows this practice is ongoing and it allows itself to be used for laundering purposes.

 

Do people agree or disagree with me on this?

 

Personally I don't think CGC should have to compare new submissions to a database or refuse to certify certain books. I think it would be very difficult for CGC to be able to continue to function properly if they ever had to abandon their policy of simply grading the book that is in front of them.

 

But I sure would love it if every time they found a book to be manipulated they noted "Cleaned and pressed" on the label. They can keep the label blue, just note it the same way they note all other work found on a book (glue, extra staples, tape on the interior etc) that they don't consider to be restoration. By noting the books that are cleaned and pressed, that right there should stop the people who are trying to lose the pedigree designations in order to hide the work that has been done. Because with the information right on the label, there is no longer a reason to hide anything.

 

The dealers who take part in these practices could still have books worked on and get the higher graded blue labels that they want. The buyers would then have all the information in front of them. And many pedigree designations would probably be saved as a result.

 

I also think it would promote more trust in the hobby and be very beneficial long-term. By preventing people from being deceived into buying something that they might (emphasis on might) not have otherwise bought, it could sure prevent a lot of problems from coming up down the road.

 

I wonder if this is something CGC might consider if it turned out that the majority of the hobby supported the idea? Seems like a compromise that could work for everybody...

 

Anyway thats my opinion..

 

In my opinion Filter is right on target with this!! I support it 100%. I think cleaning and pressing is restoration, but that is another battle. But if they don't, then in the interest of full disclosure and honesty, put it on the label. Keep it blue if you want, but put it there. The precedent has been set with glue, etc.

 

Especially cleaning, which is usually more obvoious than pressing. Unless you can see disassembly evidence. Or have before and after examples to compare.

 

But, it may be difficult for CGC to accomplish this without access to direct comparisons. So, I would recommend that if they can clearly see the book has been altered in any way, note it. Otherwise, caveat emptor.

[The Black Hand ®]

I agree with a lot of what Ciorac has to say and of course I agree that C&P is restoration. I actually have nothing against restoration as a tool for preservation and conservation. I think that if full disclosure had always been in effect resto wouldn't have such a bad name and perhaps there wouldn't have been as much unnecessary work done. I also can't fault restoration pro's for doing the work they've been asked to do, which is why I felt bad whenever people went after Matt Neson who is great at what he does and a nice guy too. It's just when people try to slip things by in the name of not just profit, but greed, that I get ticked off. It's the whole disclosure aspect that bothers me the most and although the book we've been looking at is not in itself such a big deal, it seems to me that we need to draw a line somewhere. It's unfortunate that the "investment aspect of collecting has driven most of these books that we're talking about well out of my price range and that CGC,IMO, has made collecting slabs more important than collecting comics and that major auction houses like Heritage has condoned, along with CGC, the "tweak and resubmit " game. But I do think it's healthy to talk about these things, although I do think there are a lot of people who wish we'd just keep quiet and not stir thinks up, as evidenced by some of the arguments.

[jbcomicbox]

The resubbed book was labeled as a Larson. Seems like they had no problem identifying it. I'm not saying I'm in favor of erasing markings like that (I'm not), but to say that CGC missed restoration because they didn't tag the dry cleaning is wrong.

 

So the book may have been dry cleaned, pressed, and had its pedigree identifier erased (which is rather common for Larsons, actually). Anything else?

 

The fact that the book has been monkeyed with in such an apparent deceptive manner is what really turned me off when I saw it come up...and as most of you know, I just love Larsons.

 

STEVE (make mine Larson, except for this manipulated copy)

 

The dry cleaning and the erasure of the pedigree marker are the same thing. Dry cleaning just means "using an eraser to remove surface grime, pencil marks, etc." Apart from that, the book was pressed and the small dot of glue was scraped off.

 

As a Larson collector, does it really bother you that this book was pressed and the small spot of old glue scraped off? It's still Lamont Larson's old copy of MMC#9. Serious question. If I were a Larson collector, this wouldn't keep me from buying the book, so I am just having a hard time understanding why it would stop you.

 

Like Steve, to a large extent I am a "larson collector". I will buy a book, because it is a larson (althought not the big ticket items) just because it is a larson. I have been known to DOWNGRADE a book I have just to get the larsons...

 

 

When the books first came on the market i believe Calvin Slobodian purchased a bunch of them and erased the name and number. But that was before it was a pedigree. I remember when Bill and Matt purchased the More Fun collection telling them exactly where to look in the name/number had been erased to see if there was a Larson there....(that is how i got the Wonderworld 11)

 

 

yes i am different than some out there, no this 'restoration' does not bother me....But "The Marketplace" says these books are 'worth less"

 

Back to the beginning of where this thread began, I find it hard to believe that the prior grading of a pedigree was missed.....maybe it was just "unrestored" in their eyes, but CGC (here read my lips) HAD to know about the previous grading. No organization as professional as them did not know......

 

 

Yes i agree with everyone...."its all about disclosure"....jb

[Harvey Dude]

Someone move this to the General forum where I won't see it.

 

 

But I have to agree.

[Harvey Dude]

This stuff is exactly what has caused me to take a long hard pause in my buying and try to decide how to proceed. I have so far passed on two Heritage Auctions and one CLINK auctions. I just don't have time to research copies to the level I think you need to before spending money. People use to say it only happens on the high grade stuff, but I think some of the post have shown that this is not the case. Given CGC's recent disclosure that disassembling a book is not considered restoration has really given me reason to step back and take a long hard look at the hobby. I really think one has to assume everything in a CGC holder is tainted in some way until they can verify otherwise. Stop and think about how many books are upgraded that you don't have before and after pictures.

 

Definitely discouraging to me ...

 

I emulate your position.

[Aman619]

emulate???

[adamstrange]

emulate???

 

At least he can spell!

[The Black Hand ®]

emulate???

 

I think it means to moisturize...

[Aman619]

emulate???

 

At least he can spell!

 

I can spell... !

I just cant type or proofread!

sheesh.

[ciorac]

emulate???

 

At least he can spell!

 

I can spell... !

I just cant type or proofread!

sheesh.

 

But you can elucidate! You have proven that!

 

[Aman619]

only when the kids are asleep!

[ciorac]

only when the kids are asleep!

 

[Silver Surfer]

Been away so I'm just catching up on this thread. Can someone tell me if its normal for a simple dry eraser to remove the tanning/foxing(?) along the spine? Granted the original scan appears to be darker but a lot of the dark blotches appear to be removed. I am certainly no expert on resto techinques but the cover looks like it had some form of cleaning done beyond a simple dry eraser procedure. There are no streaks, cover gloss is even and not faded. I have taken a white eraser to a GA book to remove small pencil marks before and its difficult to avoid removing some of the color gloss, especially with bright reds.

[FFB]

Been away so I'm just catching up on this thread. Can someone tell me if its normal for a simple dry eraser to remove the tanning/foxing(?) along the spine? Granted the original scan appears to be darker but a lot of the dark blotches appear to be removed. I am certainly no expert on resto techinques but the cover looks like it had some form of cleaning done beyond a simple dry eraser procedure. There are no streaks, cover gloss is even and not faded. I have taken a white eraser to a GA book to remove small pencil marks before and its difficult to avoid removing some of the color gloss, especially with bright reds.

 

Dry cleaning (erasure) will not remove foxing or tanning. It will remove a dust shadow. The only ways to remove foxing that I know of are through bleaching or through laser treatment (no Jerky Boys jokes, please ).