How do you feel about blue labels with "minor color touch" ??

[skybolt]

As far as the glue:

If it is used for a tear seal, It's restoration. I used to have two books that had glue. One was Restored and one was Universal. The Universal had a small amount of glue, (I presumed spilled on the cover) The Restored had a small amount of glue on the spine of the cover.

 

As far as Color Touch: It's Restoration end of story.

 

Agreed.

[Forbush-Man]

I have far less problem with "small amount of glue on cover" than I do with "small amount of color touch on cover". Color touch is cosmetic improvement, small amount of glue is more conservation.

[bluechip]

Ok...it's been a little while, and we were due for a robust resto debate! I am a huge fan of CGC, especially since I have been collecting since the "pre-CGC" days when no one really knew what they were getting, and buying had to be done in part based on "good faith" disclosures from a seller. Now with CGC, resto questions are backed by science....I trust science alot more!

 

However....... I am frustrated with the "gray area" created by blue labels with graders notes regarding " very minor glue" or "very minor color touch"...which is restoration....which should IMO trigger a purple label, etc etc

 

How do you guys feel about this "not really blue and not really purple" hybrid situation ? As far as I'm concerned, you can't be a little pregnant.

 

 

For me it comes down to a very simple question:

 

 

If a person abhors books with any amount of color touch, then how would they be duped by a label that clearly and unambiguously states it has color touch?

 

I don't think it's too much to expect somebody to be able to read a label.

[showcase4]

Ok...it's been a little while, and we were due for a robust resto debate! I am a huge fan of CGC, especially since I have been collecting since the "pre-CGC" days when no one really knew what they were getting, and buying had to be done in part based on "good faith" disclosures from a seller. Now with CGC, resto questions are backed by science....I trust science alot more!

 

However....... I am frustrated with the "gray area" created by blue labels with graders notes regarding " very minor glue" or "very minor color touch"...which is restoration....which should IMO trigger a purple label, etc etc

 

How do you guys feel about this "not really blue and not really purple" hybrid situation ? As far as I'm concerned, you can't be a little pregnant.

 

 

For me it comes down to a very simple question:

 

 

If a person abhors books with any amount of color touch, then how would they be duped by a label that clearly and unambiguously states it has color touch?

 

I don't think it's too much to expect somebody to be able to read a label.

 

whether I can read a label or not is missing the point Bob,,,,the point is a blue label with notations of color touch is misleading, and I am seeking the opionins of others to see if they agree. restored is restored....it should have a puprle label

[bluechip]

Ok...it's been a little while, and we were due for a robust resto debate! I am a huge fan of CGC, especially since I have been collecting since the "pre-CGC" days when no one really knew what they were getting, and buying had to be done in part based on "good faith" disclosures from a seller. Now with CGC, resto questions are backed by science....I trust science alot more!

 

However....... I am frustrated with the "gray area" created by blue labels with graders notes regarding " very minor glue" or "very minor color touch"...which is restoration....which should IMO trigger a purple label, etc etc

 

How do you guys feel about this "not really blue and not really purple" hybrid situation ? As far as I'm concerned, you can't be a little pregnant.

 

 

For me it comes down to a very simple question:

 

 

If a person abhors books with any amount of color touch, then how would they be duped by a label that clearly and unambiguously states it has color touch?

 

I don't think it's too much to expect somebody to be able to read a label.

 

whether I can read a label or not is missing the point Bob,,,,the point is a blue label with notations of color touch is misleading, and I am seeking the opionins of others to see if they agree. restored is restored....it should have a puprle label

 

I'm not missing a point, showcase, I'm making one.

 

The person who wants to avoid a book with color touch can do so by reading that it has color touch. Whether the buyer believes slight color touch is restoration or not restation is entirely up to him, or her. They have all the information they need in the words and have no need of a colot to tell them anything.

 

That;s not my opinion, it's a fact. Now, as to what they want is another thing.

 

Are you asking if we should consider it restoration, or whether we want to make it so everybody else has to call it restoration?

 

I think it makes little sense to care about what somebody else calls it -- so long as you have all the information you need so you can call it what you like. And that includes pressing, so far as I'm concerned. Put that on the label, too. And once it's on the label, you can call it restoration and you don't need a color to tell you how you should feel about it.

 

Either you don't mind color touch, or you do.

 

Why would a person who doesn't mind color touch want it to be in a purple label?

 

And why would a person who does mind color need or want to have it in purple label? If they're not interested in buying it at any price because it has color touch, they should be coimpletely disinterested. If you're not going to buy it, what';s it to you so lontg as it's disclosed?

 

So long as the words describe and disclose the work, I can't see any reason why a person who's not going to buy it anyway would care about the color of the label unless they're concerned with what other people buy or don't buy.

[FFB]

Ok...it's been a little while, and we were due for a robust resto debate! I am a huge fan of CGC, especially since I have been collecting since the "pre-CGC" days when no one really knew what they were getting, and buying had to be done in part based on "good faith" disclosures from a seller. Now with CGC, resto questions are backed by science....I trust science alot more!

 

However....... I am frustrated with the "gray area" created by blue labels with graders notes regarding " very minor glue" or "very minor color touch"...which is restoration....which should IMO trigger a purple label, etc etc

 

How do you guys feel about this "not really blue and not really purple" hybrid situation ? As far as I'm concerned, you can't be a little pregnant.

 

I think the purple label is stupid and that all the labels should be the same color. There are ways to indicate the restoration on a label (and even to make it obvious from a small scan) without using a different label color.

 

I disagree with the "can't be a little pregnant" comment. When you're pregnant, you're pregnant. You can't equate a book with a dot of color touch with an extensively restored book the way you can equate one pregnant woman with another.

[Mad Dog]

Restoration in my definition doesn't always have to improve the book, but the attempt to improve it. You screw with the book to try to make it not original ( wether it did the book good or bad ), it should be disclosed with a bright purple label.

 

This is the type of emotional response to which I referred.

 

You are treating a PLOD as a punitive device, when in fact it should be an emotionally neutral tool used to identify books that have been enhanced. If the book is the same technical grade with or without the drop of glue or pinhead sized color touch, why issue it a PLOD "apparent grade?" To lash out at the practice and "teach someone a lesson?"

 

Bear in mind, I'm not suggesting ignoring the technique... as I stated, it should be factored in as a flaw accordingly.

 

 

If the book has been messed with even a tiny bit I'd like to know about it. My only concern is when I look at a cgc'ed book if it's in a universal label, I just look at the grade + PQ and not notes. PLOD, I look closely to see what's up. I can certainly see where you are coming from but I just believe any bit of 'screwing' done with the book should be upfront and center, IF it was intentional.

 

If there is a blotch of red droplet on the green car on the cover of Action #1, I would expect that in a Universal Label counted as a defect, since that is obviously not intentional. But if there is even a chance of enhancement to be intentional, such as slightly different shades of green on the car where color lifts had happened, it should get a PLOD. It hurt the grade, sure, was it intentional attempt at a horrible restore job, Yep.

 

How about looking at the book firstly, rather than the label? its not label collection we are all into is it?

[lou_fine]

futhermore, one definition (which i am fond of) of resto goes along the line of any attempt to restore a piece of paper back to its original condition. I find it likely that the Blue labels with notes such as "very minor colour touch" or "minor glue" are indeed not examples of "intentions to restore a book to its original state" but instead just "accidents" from back in the day where the hobby was less anal ..

 

MD;

 

As far as I can tell, CGC's policy with respect to placing a "restored" book in a blue label or a purple label really does not center around intention. Instead, it is really based upon the extent or amount of the colour touch or glue.

 

A "tiny" amount such as on the Church copy of More Fun #52 allows it to stay in a CGC blue label while a "small" amount such as on the Church copy of Adventure #40 is enough to relegate it to a purple label.

 

This decsion as to the colour of the label is critical since one "restored" book will sell for a discount to guide while the other "restored" book will still be able to fetch a premium to guide.

 

Unfortunately, it's really more to do with the colour of the label as opposed to the actual book itself.

[Aman619]

Ive never minded purple labels. One of CGCs primary goals was to identify restored books because so many collectors were unable to do so themselves. There was a clear need to label them so that buyers would have no trouble spotting them. Its not the purple label that causes these books to be shunned...its the restoration. No matter what label solution CGC went with, if it was clearly labeled as a restored book, the end result would be the same as we have now.

 

Restored books were never for everyone. Its a shame they are so easily identified in their PLODs, I guess, but here we are.

[FFB]

By the way, here is the same topic last time it was discussed.

[Aman619]

its sure getting to be deja vu here all over again huh?

[FFB]

Ive never minded purple labels. One of CGCs primary goals was to identify restored books because so many collectors were unable to do so themselves. There was a clear need to label them so that buyers would have no trouble spotting them. Its not the purple label that causes these books to be shunned...its the restoration. No matter what label solution CGC went with, if it was clearly labeled as a restored book, the end result would be the same as we have now.

 

Restored books were never for everyone. Its a shame they are so easily identified in their PLODs, I guess, but here we are.

 

I believe I demonstrated some pretty strong evidence in a prior thread, using blue-with-notes sales and purple-(slight)-labels-with-similar-notes sales, that the purple label itself has a significant result on the sales price of a comic book.

[FFB]

Restoration in my definition doesn't always have to improve the book, but the attempt to improve it. You screw with the book to try to make it not original ( wether it did the book good or bad ), it should be disclosed with a bright purple label.

 

This is the type of emotional response to which I referred.

 

You are treating a PLOD as a punitive device, when in fact it should be an emotionally neutral tool used to identify books that have been enhanced. If the book is the same technical grade with or without the drop of glue or pinhead sized color touch, why issue it a PLOD "apparent grade?" To lash out at the practice and "teach someone a lesson?"

 

Bear in mind, I'm not suggesting ignoring the technique... as I stated, it should be factored in as a flaw accordingly.

 

 

If the book has been messed with even a tiny bit I'd like to know about it. My only concern is when I look at a cgc'ed book if it's in a universal label, I just look at the grade + PQ and not notes. PLOD, I look closely to see what's up. I can certainly see where you are coming from but I just believe any bit of 'screwing' done with the book should be upfront and center, IF it was intentional.

 

If there is a blotch of red droplet on the green car on the cover of Action #1, I would expect that in a Universal Label counted as a defect, since that is obviously not intentional. But if there is even a chance of enhancement to be intentional, such as slightly different shades of green on the car where color lifts had happened, it should get a PLOD. It hurt the grade, sure, was it intentional attempt at a horrible restore job, Yep.

 

No offense, but whenever I see someone use a term like "messed with" or "manipulated" to lump all restoration methods under the same umbrella, all it tells me is that (a) they don't really know much about restoration and (b) they have spent too much time reading posts written by people for whom (a) is also true.

[tth2]

No offense, but whenever I see someone use a term like "messed with" or "manipulated" to lump all restoration methods under the same umbrella, all it tells me is that (a) they don't really know much about restoration and (b) they have spent too much time reading posts written by people for whom (a) is also true.

I take exception to your comment. Some of us who know about restoration (although perhaps not as knowledgeable as others) still don't like it and reserve the right to use pejorative terms when describing it.

[lou_fine]

Ok...it's been a little while, and we were due for a robust resto debate! I am a huge fan of CGC, especially since I have been collecting since the "pre-CGC" days when no one really knew what they were getting, and buying had to be done in part based on "good faith" disclosures from a seller. Now with CGC, resto questions are backed by science....I trust science alot more!

 

However....... I am frustrated with the "gray area" created by blue labels with graders notes regarding " very minor glue" or "very minor color touch"...which is restoration....which should IMO trigger a purple label, etc etc

 

How do you guys feel about this "not really blue and not really purple" hybrid situation ? As far as I'm concerned, you can't be a little pregnant.

 

 

For me it comes down to a very simple question:

 

 

If a person abhors books with any amount of color touch, then how would they be duped by a label that clearly and unambiguously states it has color touch?

 

I don't think it's too much to expect somebody to be able to read a label.

 

whether I can read a label or not is missing the point Bob,,,,the point is a blue label with notations of color touch is misleading, and I am seeking the opionins of others to see if they agree. restored is restored....it should have a puprle label

 

S4;

 

Since you are relatively new here, you are probably not aware of many of the previous heated discussions that have already taken place on this particular topic. I believe FFB has a link to just one of the many earlier discussions on this particualar topic.

 

Since I have already voiced my opinion on this subject many times, I'll try to keep it short. As I stated way back when I first came onto these boards here, I strongly believe CGC should do away with the colour labels and adopt a uni-colour label system with a formal restoration rating on all books.

 

We should let the marketplace decide the value of a book based upon the type and extent of restoration, as opposed to the colour of a label. Collectors should be intelligent and mature enough to understand restoration, instead of expecting CGC to tell them what is good and what is bad, based upon the use of colour flash cards.

 

After all, we certainly don't need a colour label to tell us that a CGC 9.0 copy of Spawn #1 is a bad buy at any price, while a CGC 4.0 copy of 'Tec #35 is a highly desireable book to buy. Similarly, with a formal restoration rating system in place, a Modern book with a R-1 rating is a bad buy at any price, whereas a rare GA book with a R-5 restoration rating might still be good buy given the right price.

 

Right now, the marketplace has effectively placed a stigma on ALL purple slabbed books by painting them all with the same purple brush and treating them all as equally bad. Hard to remove this stigma as most collectors are taking the easy route and simply dismissing any books with purple labels without even bothering to read the restoration notes.

 

And for anybody that doesn't believe the colour of the label has any impact on prices, just go back and look at some of the historical prices for "blue restored" books as opposed to "purple restored" books.

 

If a uni-colour system with a formal restoration rating is good enough for Jon Berk to propose all those years ago, then it's good enough for me.

[tth2]

How about looking at the book firstly, rather than the label?

This sounds great in theory, but terrible in practice if 90% of the rest of the market is focused on the label. Who wants to be the sucker that paid some blue label-type price for a purple label restored book because his inspection showed it's a great book notwithstanding the restoration? When it's his turn to sell, I can guarantee that unless he can find some like-minded sucker, everyone in the market is going to tell him that a purple label is a purple label is a purple label, and they're only going to pay him a purple label price, no matter how many arguments he makes supporting why it deserves a blue label price.

[showcase4]

I think the purple label is stupid and that all the labels should be the same color. There are ways to indicate the restoration on a label (and even to make it obvious from a small scan) without using a different label color.

 

I disagree with the "can't be a little pregnant" comment. When you're pregnant, you're pregnant. You can't equate a book with a dot of color touch with an extensively restored book the way you can equate one pregnant woman with another.

 

I think the purple label is great, and that you can equate a dot of color touch to a pregnant woman, which I did thru this thread.....ain't America grand!

 

My apologies to all who know this has come up before thru XXXX number of threads.....must have been before I got here. But even if some hearty debates were previously hashed out, attitudes change, and the market changes with it. What was OK 1 year ago may not be OK now. What our hobby values and accepts today will certainly be different in just 3 to 5 years.

 

My point with regards to labeling is the present practice of restored blue labels AND restored purple lables, as it causes problems in the marketplace when buying/selling blue label restored books.....problems you ask....what kind of problems? OK, let's say I sold you a raw book as unrestored VF for $4,000. You say "how do I know it's unrestored?" and I say "send it to CGC....if they find it to be restored, I'll give you a full refund". We complete our transaction and the book comes back from CGC with a blue Universal label and graders notes " very minor color touch on the spine ". So you know what happens next......you ask for your $4k back due to the color touch, and I say "the book is in a blue label....it has been found to be unrestored....no refund." ( I would never do this to you guys..I would always issue a refund if you bought from me and were not happy for any reason...this is just an example )

 

If someone placed a little dot of red pigment to color in a tiny chip on a books red spine......then a blue label is issued with "very minor color touch" graders notes. If the same thing happens but the chip reaches a certain size...then a purple label is issued. This is what I have a problem with. Using the same scenerio from above, what if we were dealing with the sale of a $40,000 comic instead of $4,000?

 

This is exactly like a pregnant woman......a book has either been visually enhanced/improved upon thru any number of condition improving/changing techniques or not. My point is, it seems that the blue "except for....." label is creating a 3rd uneeded category that can and does cause problems when buying and selling....even though that is not CGC's function...they do their job great -- grade and give resto info.....it's the way the info is delivered and packaged that is the concern.

 

This is what we presently have now, and I believe it can be approved upon:

 

blue label - no graders notes - unrestored

purple label - restored

blue label with "color touch" graders notes ---well, kinda somewhat unrestored-ish in between thingy....good luck buying and selling this one guys!

[gifflefunk]

And what about the case where the "color touch" was professional restoration (i.e. reversible). The tiny pinpoint of color touch didn't change the grade, but does mask a visual defect, and with or without that pinpoint of color the grade doesn't change.

 

What is your reaction to this type of restoration? Does it warrant a refund from the seller? Are you truly going to be that upset over something that can be professionally removed without altering the grade?

 

Does the book deserve to be in a PLOD when it could easily be "fixed"?

[showcase4]

And what about the case where the "color touch" was professional restoration (i.e. reversible). The tiny pinpoint of color touch didn't change the grade, but does mask a visual defect, and with or without that pinpoint of color the grade doesn't change.

 

What is your reaction to this type of restoration? Does it warrant a refund from the seller? Are you truly going to be that upset over something that can be professionally removed without altering the grade?

 

Does the book deserve to be in a PLOD when it could easily be "fixed"?

 

to answer your great questions in order Gifflefunk:

 

1.this type of work does warrant a refund from the seller (with the exception of my next answer), as a pinpoint of color touch is clearly restoration, no matter how minor. Unrestored books DO NOT have color touch...microscopic or not.

 

2. if this minor work can be removed without effecting the grade, and the seller is willing to handle the removal / pay for the removal, then I would not be upset, and be OK to proceed with buying the book, as the end result would be a 100% unrestored book in the grade originally offered, with no addtional expenses incurred by me.....and ultimately the book would receive a Universal blue label with no graders notes upon resubmission.

 

3. yes, the book with the work done you describe does deserve a PLOD...maybe a new category could be created .. ES / P ...."extremely slight / professional". The fact that the resto work can be easily removed is irrevelant to the fact that the color touch is there presently. You can't call me naked if I'm still wearing my clothes.

[gifflefunk]

You can't call me naked if I'm still wearing my clothes.

 

Hmmm.... perhaps you are right (then again...)