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

[FFB]

I'm part of the crowd that would like to abolish the PLOD, and the GLOD as well.

 

But, since we live in a rainbow label world, here's my opinion. Any amount of color touch is restoration, period.

 

Glue, on the other hand, is a repair, not restoration. Just as CGC gives a book with tape a blue label, they should give a book with glue a blue label, and note the glue on the label. In a perfect world, they would also note where the glue is on the cover, but I suppose one could always call in for that info.

 

Why can't it be both repair AND restoration? The two terms don't seem mutually exclusive to me.

 

I view a repair as an attempt to halt further damage, like sealing a tear because you're afraid it'll tear further. No attempt is made to disguise the fact that the tear is still there, it's just sealed.

 

Resto would include masking the fact that the tear was ever there at all.

 

But if you use the "glue" (whether it be wheat paste, PVA, whatever) carefully enough on certain kinds of tears, it can be almost invisible. And in any case, is the tear is sealed shut, it looks more like a crease than an actual tear. That is my point -- it can be both repair and restoration.

[The Black Hand ®]

It's obvious that the hobby needs to set some serious definitions with regard to restoration. The stigma of it affects too many books that needn't be affected. CGC should lead the way in this. I need to add that it's a big task and I for one would not know where to begin.

[showcase4]

It's obvious that the hobby needs to set some serious definitions with regard to restoration. The stigma of it affects too many books that needn't be affected. CGC should lead the way in this. I need to add that it's a big task and I for one would not know where to begin.

 

we could begin by seperating books which have had NO restoration at all from books that have had ANY restoration at all. We could place the unrestored ones in a blue holder, and the restored ones in a purple holder. With this approach, there are no blue labels with graders notes about "minor color touch" or "minor glue".

 

It would be a fine place to begin indeed

[bluechip]

I'm part of the crowd that would like to abolish the PLOD, and the GLOD as well.

 

But, since we live in a rainbow label world, here's my opinion. Any amount of color touch is restoration, period.

 

Glue, on the other hand, is a repair, not restoration. Just as CGC gives a book with tape a blue label, they should give a book with glue a blue label, and note the glue on the label. In a perfect world, they would also note where the glue is on the cover, but I suppose one could always call in for that info.

 

Why can't it be both repair AND restoration? The two terms don't seem mutually exclusive to me.

 

I view a repair as an attempt to halt further damage, like sealing a tear because you're afraid it'll tear further. No attempt is made to disguise the fact that the tear is still there, it's just sealed.

 

Resto would include masking the fact that the tear was ever there at all.

 

But if you use the "glue" (whether it be wheat paste, PVA, whatever) carefully enough on certain kinds of tears, it can be almost invisible. And in any case, is the tear is sealed shut, it looks more like a crease than an actual tear. That is my point -- it can be both repair and restoration.

 

FFB is correct. Something can be both repair and restoration if it's hidden. The idea behind spotting restoration is to spot things that are not obvious -- i.e. to let you know that a book only appears to be vf, or whatever. If the repair is obvious, and doesn't improve the apparent grade, it's not restoration. If it is hidden, either intentionally or unintentionally, and it improves the apparent grade, then it's restoration regardless of the intent.

[Sid]

It's obvious that the hobby needs to set some serious definitions with regard to restoration. The stigma of it affects too many books that needn't be affected. CGC should lead the way in this. I need to add that it's a big task and I for one would not know where to begin.

 

we could begin by seperating books which have had NO restoration at all from books that have had ANY restoration at all. We could place the unrestored ones in a blue holder, and the restored ones in a purple holder. With this approach, there are no blue labels with graders notes about "minor color touch" or "minor glue".

 

It would be a fine place to begin indeed

 

[bluechip]

It's obvious that the hobby needs to set some serious definitions with regard to restoration. The stigma of it affects too many books that needn't be affected. CGC should lead the way in this. I need to add that it's a big task and I for one would not know where to begin.

 

we could begin by seperating books which have had NO restoration at all from books that have had ANY restoration at all. We could place the unrestored ones in a blue holder, and the restored ones in a purple holder. With this approach, there are no blue labels with graders notes about "minor color touch" or "minor glue".

 

It would be a fine place to begin indeed

 

Separating books sounds good in theory, but when you take it all the way to putting them in colored holders, then it sounds not like you're suggesting a place to begin but a place to end. .

 

The standards and practives should be decided upon and then let people know what they are so they can decide to submit a book or not (or resubnit it.

 

In the meantime, very little is accomplished simply by putting things in colored holders. The best thing to do in the meantime is to make sure there is as much information as possible on all books -- blue or purple.

 

If you have the information, colored labels are not necessary for your to know what you want to avoid. They are only useful if you want other people to avoid them,

 

If the CGC were to tell you in more detail why every book gets the designation (including the grade itself), then all books -- blue or people -- will be better served.

 

It is not label colors but information the buyers need to make the right determination about how they feel. An unbiased and fact-based grading service is supposed to provide facts so you can determine how you feel -- not to try to make you feel the way others feel

 

 

 

 

 

[FFB]

It's obvious that the hobby needs to set some serious definitions with regard to restoration. The stigma of it affects too many books that needn't be affected. CGC should lead the way in this. I need to add that it's a big task and I for one would not know where to begin.

 

Definitions already exist. What terms do you think need to be defined? Or did you mean that the hobby needs serious education about what certain restoration techniques entail, in order to demystify the processes involved? There, I agree with you.

[FFB]

It's obvious that the hobby needs to set some serious definitions with regard to restoration. The stigma of it affects too many books that needn't be affected. CGC should lead the way in this. I need to add that it's a big task and I for one would not know where to begin.

 

we could begin by seperating books which have had NO restoration at all from books that have had ANY restoration at all. We could place the unrestored ones in a blue holder, and the restored ones in a purple holder. With this approach, there are no blue labels with graders notes about "minor color touch" or "minor glue".

 

It would be a fine place to begin indeed

 

I fail to see how "dumbing down" the process would help matters, nor do I see how your suggestion addresses Black Hand's concerns.

[showcase4]

 

If the CGC were to tell you in more detail why every book gets the designation (including the grade itself), then all books -- blue or people -- will be better served.

 

 

here here Blue Chip.....I will drink to that! ....(and it won't be my 1st tonight )

[showcase4]

we could begin by seperating books which have had NO restoration at all from books that have had ANY restoration at all. We could place the unrestored ones in a blue holder, and the restored ones in a purple holder. With this approach, there are no blue labels with graders notes about "minor color touch" or "minor glue".

 

It would be a fine place to begin indeed

 

I fail to see how "dumbing down" the process would help matters

 

I do not believe there is anything dumb about 1st seperating books into 2 categories...restored and unrestored. From that foundation, you can build a very tall information tree for both sets of books....graders notes for a summary of an assigned grade, resto description in detail.......info, info, info.

 

But without the seperation into 2 clear categories, you get a hode podge of conflicting facts and opinions.....like we have now....if you have a book with minor color touch and it can be Universal or Restored....that is a weak foundation...hard to build on that one

[The Black Hand ®]

It's obvious that the hobby needs to set some serious definitions with regard to restoration. The stigma of it affects too many books that needn't be affected. CGC should lead the way in this. I need to add that it's a big task and I for one would not know where to begin.

 

Definitions already exist. What terms do you think need to be defined? Or did you mean that the hobby needs serious education about what certain restoration techniques entail, in order to demystify the processes involved? There, I agree with you.

 

 

That would be a good start, along with full disclosure and the acceptance by CGC of pressing and dry cleaning as restoration.

[tth2]

I think you and everybody else has the right to use pejorative terms, but it's rarely if ever constructive. And if you do so then you need to allow others to use pejorative terms for the things you value. But I bet if they did you wouldn't like it,

 

But the purple label and restoration debate seems to go beyond whethe ryou or anyone else is allowed to use pejorative terms. What I hear from some people is not that they want to use pejorative terms (and labels), but they want to force other people to use pejorative terms (and labels).

 

Big difference.

 

If the information is there and everything is disclosed, there is absolutely no need or justification for the insistence upon pejorative terms.

Why? Some of us think that restoration in general is BAD. We are taking a position on how people treat their comics and trying to stop the apparent acceleration in the rate of attrition of "virgin" books. This is different from criticizing someone because they like Timelys, just because I like DCs.

 

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to be browbeaten into accepting some politically correct line that restoration is acceptable so long as it's disclosed (whether on a blue, red, purple, green or whatever label). It's not. The fact is that the vast majority of restoration is solely to make the book more aesthetically appealing. In some cases, restoration can be reversed, and in others it can't (although some of us take the position that a de-restored book can never really be as good as an unrestored book). I think restoration purely for aesthetic purposes is WRONG.

 

If you want a sharp copy of a book, save up your money or be prepared to live with a grubby copy. It's like saying "Gee, no one has been able to break Roger Maris' record since 1961, so what say we pump our players full of steroids so we can finally break than damn record." So someone hits more than 61 homers, but where is the achievement in that? Apparently, very little. Similarly, someone can now own a VF-looking copy of Detective 27, but so what, it's an artificial VF. There's no defiance of the odds to have survived for over 60 years in that kind of shape, there's only paying some money to Susan or Matt or some other restorer to make it LOOK like it was a book that had defied the odds. BFD.

[bluechip]

I think you and everybody else has the right to use pejorative terms, but it's rarely if ever constructive. And if you do so then you need to allow others to use pejorative terms for the things you value. But I bet if they did you wouldn't like it,

 

But the purple label and restoration debate seems to go beyond whethe ryou or anyone else is allowed to use pejorative terms. What I hear from some people is not that they want to use pejorative terms (and labels), but they want to force other people to use pejorative terms (and labels).

 

Big difference.

 

If the information is there and everything is disclosed, there is absolutely no need or justification for the insistence upon pejorative terms.

Why? Some of us think that restoration in general is BAD. We are taking a position on how people treat their comics and trying to stop the apparent acceleration in the rate of attrition of "virgin" books. This is different from criticizing someone because they like Timelys, just because I like DCs.

 

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to be browbeaten into accepting some politically correct line that restoration is acceptable so long as it's disclosed (whether on a blue, red, purple, green or whatever label). It's not. The fact is that the vast majority of restoration is solely to make the book more aesthetically appealing. In some cases, restoration can be reversed, and in others it can't (although some of us take the position that a de-restored book can never really be as good as an unrestored book). I think restoration purely for aesthetic purposes is WRONG.

 

If you want a sharp copy of a book, save up your money or be prepared to live with a grubby copy. It's like saying "Gee, no one has been able to break Roger Maris' record since 1961, so what say we pump our players full of steroids so we can finally break than damn record." So someone hits more than 61 homers, but where is the achievement in that? Apparently, very little. Similarly, someone can now own a VF-looking copy of Detective 27, but so what, it's an artificial VF. There's no defiance of the odds to have survived for over 60 years in that kind of shape, there's only paying some money to Susan or Matt or some other restorer to make it LOOK like it was a book that had defied the odds. BFD.

 

I don't think I said anything to indicate you cannot or should not have whatever position you want. But it SOUNDS like like what you're saying is that you want to make other people feel the same way, and that if they don't feel that way even with the all the information you want the hobby to take steps to force them to feel that way or at least to behave as if they feel that way.

 

Like I said, I am not ascribing attitudes to you, just saying it really feels like that's your goal. Do I interpret your attitude and goals correctly? .

[FFB]

I think you and everybody else has the right to use pejorative terms, but it's rarely if ever constructive. And if you do so then you need to allow others to use pejorative terms for the things you value. But I bet if they did you wouldn't like it,

 

But the purple label and restoration debate seems to go beyond whethe ryou or anyone else is allowed to use pejorative terms. What I hear from some people is not that they want to use pejorative terms (and labels), but they want to force other people to use pejorative terms (and labels).

 

Big difference.

 

If the information is there and everything is disclosed, there is absolutely no need or justification for the insistence upon pejorative terms.

Why? Some of us think that restoration in general is BAD. We are taking a position on how people treat their comics and trying to stop the apparent acceleration in the rate of attrition of "virgin" books. This is different from criticizing someone because they like Timelys, just because I like DCs.

 

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to be browbeaten into accepting some politically correct line that restoration is acceptable so long as it's disclosed (whether on a blue, red, purple, green or whatever label). It's not. The fact is that the vast majority of restoration is solely to make the book more aesthetically appealing. In some cases, restoration can be reversed, and in others it can't (although some of us take the position that a de-restored book can never really be as good as an unrestored book). I think restoration purely for aesthetic purposes is WRONG.

 

If you want a sharp copy of a book, save up your money or be prepared to live with a grubby copy. It's like saying "Gee, no one has been able to break Roger Maris' record since 1961, so what say we pump our players full of steroids so we can finally break than damn record." So someone hits more than 61 homers, but where is the achievement in that? Apparently, very little. Similarly, someone can now own a VF-looking copy of Detective 27, but so what, it's an artificial VF. There's no defiance of the odds to have survived for over 60 years in that kind of shape, there's only paying some money to Susan or Matt or some other restorer to make it LOOK like it was a book that had defied the odds. BFD.

 

The BFD is inherent in the fact that restored books sell for less than unrestored books. That doesn't make those books "BAD" though. Nor does it make restoration "BAD." I don't see anyone here saying that restored books should sell for as much as unrestored books. They're saying that a desirable book is not instantly transformed into a POS simply because someone added a dot of color touch on a spine stress line on an otherwise Near Mint book 20 years ago. It's just a dot of color touch. Get a grip. If it were a date stamp or grease pencil distributor mark with 100 times as much foreign matter being placed on the cover, you wouldn't care. But if there's a dot of color touch on a spine stress mark, people lose their freaking minds.

[bluechip]

I think you and everybody else has the right to use pejorative terms, but it's rarely if ever constructive. And if you do so then you need to allow others to use pejorative terms for the things you value. But I bet if they did you wouldn't like it,

 

But the purple label and restoration debate seems to go beyond whethe ryou or anyone else is allowed to use pejorative terms. What I hear from some people is not that they want to use pejorative terms (and labels), but they want to force other people to use pejorative terms (and labels).

 

Big difference.

 

If the information is there and everything is disclosed, there is absolutely no need or justification for the insistence upon pejorative terms.

Why? Some of us think that restoration in general is BAD. We are taking a position on how people treat their comics and trying to stop the apparent acceleration in the rate of attrition of "virgin" books. This is different from criticizing someone because they like Timelys, just because I like DCs.

 

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to be browbeaten into accepting some politically correct line that restoration is acceptable so long as it's disclosed (whether on a blue, red, purple, green or whatever label). It's not. The fact is that the vast majority of restoration is solely to make the book more aesthetically appealing. In some cases, restoration can be reversed, and in others it can't (although some of us take the position that a de-restored book can never really be as good as an unrestored book). I think restoration purely for aesthetic purposes is WRONG.

 

If you want a sharp copy of a book, save up your money or be prepared to live with a grubby copy. It's like saying "Gee, no one has been able to break Roger Maris' record since 1961, so what say we pump our players full of steroids so we can finally break than damn record." So someone hits more than 61 homers, but where is the achievement in that? Apparently, very little. Similarly, someone can now own a VF-looking copy of Detective 27, but so what, it's an artificial VF. There's no defiance of the odds to have survived for over 60 years in that kind of shape, there's only paying some money to Susan or Matt or some other restorer to make it LOOK like it was a book that had defied the odds. BFD.

 

I don't think I said anything to indicate you cannot or should not have whatever position you want. But it SOUNDS like like what you're saying is that you want to make other people feel the same way, and that if they don't feel that way even with the all the information you want the hobby to take steps to force them to feel that way or at least to behave as if they feel that way.

 

Like I said, I am not ascribing attitudes to you, just saying it really feels like that's your goal. Do I interpret your attitude and goals correctly? .

 

 

By the way, I have always been an advocate of restoring books MINIMALLY -- only as much as necessary to keep more damage from occuring from tears, to flatten out pages so the book can be read,to put spines back together, etc. But I have found that one of the biggest results of the anti-restoration mania is that a person gets ZERO benefit from doing as little resto as possible, and ZERO benefit from doing all they can to make sure the work is reversible.

 

If you slam all resto as BAD,BAD, BAD and insist on lumping them all together regardless of how little or how much was done,and regardless of how much effort the person tid to be honest and forthright -- then all you're doing is giving those no incentive to hold off and just go all out with the restoration to make it look VF or better.

 

You are, in short, creating the opposite of what you supposedly set out to achieve.,

[tth2]

I think you and everybody else has the right to use pejorative terms, but it's rarely if ever constructive. And if you do so then you need to allow others to use pejorative terms for the things you value. But I bet if they did you wouldn't like it,

 

But the purple label and restoration debate seems to go beyond whethe ryou or anyone else is allowed to use pejorative terms. What I hear from some people is not that they want to use pejorative terms (and labels), but they want to force other people to use pejorative terms (and labels).

 

Big difference.

 

If the information is there and everything is disclosed, there is absolutely no need or justification for the insistence upon pejorative terms.

Why? Some of us think that restoration in general is BAD. We are taking a position on how people treat their comics and trying to stop the apparent acceleration in the rate of attrition of "virgin" books. This is different from criticizing someone because they like Timelys, just because I like DCs.

 

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to be browbeaten into accepting some politically correct line that restoration is acceptable so long as it's disclosed (whether on a blue, red, purple, green or whatever label). It's not. The fact is that the vast majority of restoration is solely to make the book more aesthetically appealing. In some cases, restoration can be reversed, and in others it can't (although some of us take the position that a de-restored book can never really be as good as an unrestored book). I think restoration purely for aesthetic purposes is WRONG.

 

If you want a sharp copy of a book, save up your money or be prepared to live with a grubby copy. It's like saying "Gee, no one has been able to break Roger Maris' record since 1961, so what say we pump our players full of steroids so we can finally break than damn record." So someone hits more than 61 homers, but where is the achievement in that? Apparently, very little. Similarly, someone can now own a VF-looking copy of Detective 27, but so what, it's an artificial VF. There's no defiance of the odds to have survived for over 60 years in that kind of shape, there's only paying some money to Susan or Matt or some other restorer to make it LOOK like it was a book that had defied the odds. BFD.

 

I don't think I said anything to indicate you cannot or should not have whatever position you want. But it SOUNDS like like what you're saying is that you want to make other people feel the same way, and that if they don't feel that way even with the all the information you want the hobby to take steps to force them to feel that way or at least to behave as if they feel that way.

 

Like I said, I am not ascribing attitudes to you, just saying it really feels like that's your goal. Do I interpret your attitude and goals correctly? .

Well, sure I want other people to think badly of restoration too. That way they'll stop restoring books.

[The Black Hand ®]

This dressing up a book and resubmitting it for a higher grade is repugnant at the least. It's a form of greed plain and simple and when it's done to a pedigree thus destroying it's purity, it's downright disgusting. Now no matter what I feel, people have a right to do what they want with their books, but if they don't disclose it, then there just might be something DISHONEST taking place.

[action1kid]

Quote;

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to be browbeaten into accepting some politically correct line that restoration is acceptable so long as it's disclosed (whether on a blue, red, purple, green or whatever label)

 

I have my own views on Restoration which agrees with the above statement.

I see a Blue label with a dot of colortouch as a Purple Label. Not even trying to force my view on anyone.Call it any color you want I guess as long as that dot of colortouch gets a BIG discount in price.Knowledgible collectors know that a Blue label does not mean that a book is Unrestored in Many cases, But it does IMPLY that it is unrestored to unsuspecting and NEW collectors in the hobby.I have heard dealers say many times that this book is Unrestored except for a dot of colortouch.

I can see this being abused.Watch it Newbies.

[Sid]

Quote;

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to be browbeaten into accepting some politically correct line that restoration is acceptable so long as it's disclosed (whether on a blue, red, purple, green or whatever label)

 

I have my own views on Restoration which agrees with the above statement.

I see a Blue label with a dot of colortouch as a Purple Label. Not even trying to force my view on anyone.Call it any color you want I guess as long as that dot of colortouch gets a BIG discount in price.Knowledgible collectors know that a Blue label does not mean that a book is Unrestored in Many cases, But it does IMPLY that it is unrestored to unsuspecting and NEW collectors in the hobby.I have heard dealers say many times that this book is Unrestored except for a dot of colortouch.

I can see this being abused.Watch it Newbies.

[bluechip]

Quote;

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to be browbeaten into accepting some politically correct line that restoration is acceptable so long as it's disclosed (whether on a blue, red, purple, green or whatever label)

 

I have my own views on Restoration which agrees with the above statement.

I see a Blue label with a dot of colortouch as a Purple Label. Not even trying to force my view on anyone.Call it any color you want I guess as long as that dot of colortouch gets a BIG discount in price.Knowledgible collectors know that a Blue label does not mean that a book is Unrestored in Many cases, But it does IMPLY that it is unrestored to unsuspecting and NEW collectors in the hobby.I have heard dealers say many times that this book is Unrestored except for a dot of colortouch.

I can see this being abused.Watch it Newbies.

 

Guys, you can feel whatever you want but from these words you're still going beyiond that to insisting others feel the same way.

 

Look at this line <<<<I'm sorry, but I'm not going to be browbeaten into accepting some politically correct line that restoration is acceptable so long as it's disclosed >>>>

 

Just what does that mean? If it's not acceptable to yiou, fine. But if it's acceptable to other people it's not incumbent on you, or even acceptable, to demand they feel the way you do, or to try to punish them for feeling differently. If seller discloses the work and the buyer has no problem with it, then it's none of your business.

 

Look further at this statement.

 

<<<<Call it any color you want I guess as long as that dot of colortouch gets a BIG discount in price>>>>

 

If that means you won't buy it yourself unless it's a big discount in price, fine. But it sounds like you're insisting it get a big discount in price even when you are neityher the buyer nor the seller. If you have nothing to do with transaction, and seller has disclosed everything and buyer is okay with it -- it is not your business to tell them they have to believe otherwise or to try to make them feel otherwise.

.