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

[FFB]

it doesnt make sense, except for those few killer books, usually big $ keys from Pedigree collections that are STILL incredible specimens before the CT. meaning the ct isnt fooling anyone because its tiny, obvious and inconsequential. At least thats my view why CGC has made a few exceptions for color touch. As for glue, hasnt it usually been "tiny glue on cover", accent on "on" like its sitting there and not applied to hold a piece in place? Im puzzled how glue goton the cover, but if its sitting there not doing anything it might be benign and NOT a restoration attempt.

 

No, it's usually holding down a bindery tear that would not otherwise affect the grade at all, or would not affect it more than one grade level.

 

If there were a spot of glue in the middle of the cover that wasn't there to address a defect, it would probably just get graded as a stain and wouldn't even be mentioned on the label.

[Aman619]

By the way, does anyone know the first time CGC gave a blue label to a "dot of ct" book?

Was it right away? or after a few years when it was getting obvious that the PLOD was taking on a sinister life of its own? Did CGC always plan to exclude these books? Or later on, chose not to lump them in with "actual restored books."

[FFB]

By the way, does anyone know the first time CGC gave a blue label to a "dot of ct" book?

Was it right away? or after a few years when it was getting obvious that the PLOD was taking on a sinister life of its own? Did CGC always plan to exclude these books? Or later on, chose not to lump them in with "actual restored books."

 

The very first Heritage signature auction in November 2001 had a blue label book with very minor glue on the label (Church copy of Blue Beetle #59) and two blue label books with very minor color touch on the label (Church copy of Thrilling Comics #22 and non-pedigree More Fun #62). The text on the back of the label (which is copyright 1999) has the section in it about giving certain books blue labels even if they have very minor color touch or glue, so it's probably something that happened at the earliest stages.

[rjpb]

To borrow a concept from my other thread, I would like to here opnions from as many of you as possible on this choice..........

 

 

assuming the price and PQ were the same, and you were choosing between 2 copies of More Fun 52, which one would you choose, and why?

 

a) G/VG 3.0 Universal label - no graders notes

b) VG/F 5.0 Universal label - graders notes "very minor amount of color touch on cover"

 

It would depend on eye appeal to me. Of the book, not the label.

 

[FFB]

By the way, does anyone know the first time CGC gave a blue label to a "dot of ct" book?

Was it right away? or after a few years when it was getting obvious that the PLOD was taking on a sinister life of its own? Did CGC always plan to exclude these books? Or later on, chose not to lump them in with "actual restored books."

 

The very first Heritage signature auction in November 2001 had a blue label book with very minor glue on the label (Church copy of Blue Beetle #59) and two blue label books with very minor color touch on the label (Church copy of Thrilling Comics #22 and non-pedigree More Fun #62). The text on the back of the label (which is copyright 1999) has the section in it about giving certain books blue labels even if they have very minor color touch or glue, so it's probably something that happened at the earliest stages.

 

I tried looking up the grade dates on these, but the Thrilling Comics #22 was the only one that still showed up. It was graded on January 16, 2001.

[action1kid]

To borrow a concept from my other thread, I would like to here opnions from as many of you as possible on this choice..........

 

 

assuming the price and PQ were the same, and you were choosing between 2 copies of More Fun 52, which one would you choose, and why?

 

a) G/VG 3.0 Universal label - no graders notes

b) VG/F 5.0 Universal label - graders notes "very minor amount of color touch on cover"

 

All else being equal, I'd take b) in a heartbeat. By definition, it was no worse than a 4.5 before the color touch was added. That's three grade levels better than the "virgin" 3.0, and I have always found virginity to be highly overrated anyway.

 

Hi Scott.

 

I would take the 3.0 simply because it would be worth more being unrestored than the restored copy would be.Im uncomfortible with the dot of color touch because views are never consistant with restoration.A decade ago it was accepted. A decade later It is looked down upon. I dont want to subject myself to those constantly shifting views[affecting my investment with the 5.0] I have more peace of mind with the 3.0. Nothing can come back to bite me in the future because its untouched. Just one mans opinion.Not even trying to sway anyone.

[bluechip]

To borrow a concept from my other thread, I would like to here opnions from as many of you as possible on this choice..........

 

 

assuming the price and PQ were the same, and you were choosing between 2 copies of More Fun 52, which one would you choose, and why?

 

a) G/VG 3.0 Universal label - no graders notes

b) VG/F 5.0 Universal label - graders notes "very minor amount of color touch on cover"

 

All else being equal, I'd take b) in a heartbeat. By definition, it was no worse than a 4.5 before the color touch was added. That's three grade levels better than the "virgin" 3.0, and I have always found virginity to be highly overrated anyway.

 

Hi Scott.

 

I would take the 3.0 simply because it would be worth more being unrestored than the restored copy would be.Im uncomfortible with the dot of color touch because views are never consistant with restoration.A decade ago it was accepted. A decade later It is looked down upon. I dont want to subject myself to those constantly shifting views[affecting my investment with the 5.0] I have more peace of mind with the 3.0. Nothing can come back to bite me in the future because its untouched. Just one mans opinion.Not even trying to sway anyone.

 

Kid --

 

I understand what you're saying. But your fear of the value being less is another indication of what I've been saying, which is the hysteria 'gainst restoration has reached nonsense levels. A "dot of color touch"? You know that in order to get a 3.0 grade that gvg book could have all kinds of colored pen marks on it. Yet the value of the 5.0 which has a "DOT" of marking is something you're worried is going to be worse less than the 3.0 which is three grades lower.???

 

 

 

There needs to be an icon of a little guy in a straight jacket because he's been driven insane by the illogic around him.

[bluechip]

Let me clarify something. I feel any minute amount of restoration should be described and labeled appropriately. Whether that's a purple label or some type of similar process is up for the the collectors and CGC to decide.

 

My original 'gleeful' post is that many collectors out there feel that a small amount of color touch or a dot of glue on the spine is unacceptable for their collection and this helps poorer collectors like myself afford otherwise gorgeous books typically out of our price range. There is no attempt to 'manipulate the market'. On the contrary, the market has already made up it's mind long before I shared my views.

 

I would like to see a more detailed CGC labels in the future that describes the degree of restoration a book has acquired using a number system from 1 to 10. (I know I've seen post on this in the past and I was looking forward to the announcement which has yet to come.) Obviously a more informed collecting community might be more forgiving of a 1 (minor color touch) then a 7 ( book cleaned, pressed, reinforced and tears sealed). Generally now, we don't distinguish between a franken-book and a dot of glue other then to say 'slight restoration' and 'extensive restoration'.

 

It's this particular members opinion that the current system lumps ALL restoration into one category; bad to buy. And whether you choose to acknowledge this or dance around the definition is really none of my interest. But the reality, as I choose to perceive it, is that various restoration is 'okay' for my collection and even my first choice over something of lesser grade.

 

Golden Age books are ticking time bombs who's days are numbered. Eventually ALL of these books will need some type of restoration to keep them around for future generations. And at that point in time, a small amount of color touch will be the least of our worries.

 

You make all kinds of sense here. I am always very pleased to hear people make sense. Thank you

[tth2]

I think when CGC began, they had no idea how much prices would be driven up by blue labels and how much prices would be driven down by purple and green labels.

 

I think its a combination of Blue label high grade books increasing dramatically while green and purple have remained constant or dropped a little.

I was thinking more along the lines of restored books that had been disclosed as restored, and which had sold raw for very decent money pre-CGC, and then being sold at lower prices post-CGC, after they'd been put into PLODs.

[tth2]

I have always found virginity to be highly overrated anyway.

Seeing as you've had over 30 years of experience with that particular condition, I will defer to your greater expertise in that area.

[adamstrange]

it doesnt make sense, except for those few killer books, usually big $ keys from Pedigree collections that are STILL incredible specimens before the CT. meaning the ct isnt fooling anyone because its tiny, obvious and inconsequential. At least thats my view why CGC has made a few exceptions for color touch. As for glue, hasnt it usually been "tiny glue on cover", accent on "on" like its sitting there and not applied to hold a piece in place? Im puzzled how glue goton the cover, but if its sitting there not doing anything it might be benign and NOT a restoration attempt.

 

The initial plans for CGC did not include CT on blue labels. As you might suspect there was considerable pressure to support something like that given the Church copies that had been "touched." These were copies that were big dollar books, owned by the type of people that CGC felt necessary to woo.

[action1kid]

To borrow a concept from my other thread, I would like to here opnions from as many of you as possible on this choice..........

 

 

assuming the price and PQ were the same, and you were choosing between 2 copies of More Fun 52, which one would you choose, and why?

 

a) G/VG 3.0 Universal label - no graders notes

b) VG/F 5.0 Universal label - graders notes "very minor amount of color touch on cover"

 

All else being equal, I'd take b) in a heartbeat. By definition, it was no worse than a 4.5 before the color touch was added. That's three grade levels better than the "virgin" 3.0, and I have always found virginity to be highly overrated anyway.

 

Hi Scott.

 

I would take the 3.0 simply because it would be worth more being unrestored than the restored copy would be.Im uncomfortible with the dot of color touch because views are never consistant with restoration.A decade ago it was accepted. A decade later It is looked down upon. I dont want to subject myself to those constantly shifting views[affecting my investment with the 5.0] I have more peace of mind with the 3.0. Nothing can come back to bite me in the future because its untouched. Just one mans opinion.Not even trying to sway anyone.

 

Kid --

 

I understand what you're saying. But your fear of the value being less is another indication of what I've been saying, which is the hysteria 'gainst restoration has reached nonsense levels. A "dot of color touch"? You know that in order to get a 3.0 grade that gvg book could have all kinds of colored pen marks on it. Yet the value of the 5.0 which has a "DOT" of marking is something you're worried is going to be worse less than the 3.0 which is three grades lower.???

 

I understand what your saying too , but what your saying is not happening in the market. What Im saying is happening in the market.Scott did not say it had all kinds of colored pen marks on it.[you added that in after the fact].So my call should not be compared to that.I have seen plenty of nice 3.0s before without any pen or color marks.

[FFB]

I have always found virginity to be highly overrated anyway.

Seeing as you've had over 30 years of experience with that particular condition, I will defer to your greater expertise in that area.

 

Derrrrr, good one.

[FFB]

it doesnt make sense, except for those few killer books, usually big $ keys from Pedigree collections that are STILL incredible specimens before the CT. meaning the ct isnt fooling anyone because its tiny, obvious and inconsequential. At least thats my view why CGC has made a few exceptions for color touch. As for glue, hasnt it usually been "tiny glue on cover", accent on "on" like its sitting there and not applied to hold a piece in place? Im puzzled how glue goton the cover, but if its sitting there not doing anything it might be benign and NOT a restoration attempt.

 

The initial plans for CGC did not include CT on blue labels. As you might suspect there was considerable pressure to support something like that given the Church copies that had been "touched." These were copies that were big dollar books, owned by the type of people that CGC felt necessary to woo.

 

When they actually started slabbing books, was that plan in place?

[tth2]

I have always found virginity to be highly overrated anyway.

Seeing as you've had over 30 years of experience with that particular condition, I will defer to your greater expertise in that area.

 

Derrrrr, good one.

Couldn't help myself. This is a message board for nerds, after all.

[CentaurMan]

I have always found virginity to be highly overrated anyway.

Seeing as you've had over 30 years of experience with that particular condition, I will defer to your greater expertise in that area.

 

Derrrrr, good one.

Couldn't help myself. This is a message board for nerds, after all.

 

Hey!!!!! There are geeks here too!! Don't forget about the geeks!

[adamstrange]

it doesnt make sense, except for those few killer books, usually big $ keys from Pedigree collections that are STILL incredible specimens before the CT. meaning the ct isnt fooling anyone because its tiny, obvious and inconsequential. At least thats my view why CGC has made a few exceptions for color touch. As for glue, hasnt it usually been "tiny glue on cover", accent on "on" like its sitting there and not applied to hold a piece in place? Im puzzled how glue goton the cover, but if its sitting there not doing anything it might be benign and NOT a restoration attempt.

 

The initial plans for CGC did not include CT on blue labels. As you might suspect there was considerable pressure to support something like that given the Church copies that had been "touched." These were copies that were big dollar books, owned by the type of people that CGC felt necessary to woo.

 

When they actually started slabbing books, was that plan in place?

 

Yes -- it was announced before they started. It did not surprise me that this happened as, prior to CGC, the books had traded hands even with the color touch among some of the big name collectors and dealers. I've wondered whether the presence of the color touch on the key book Church copies was not the driving factor in the allowance made for CT on blue label books.

[tth2]

I've wondered whether the presence of the color touch on the key book Church copies was not the driving factor in the allowance made for CT on blue label books.

Of course it was.

[Aman619]

By the way, does anyone know the first time CGC gave a blue label to a "dot of ct" book?

Was it right away? or after a few years when it was getting obvious that the PLOD was taking on a sinister life of its own? Did CGC always plan to exclude these books? Or later on, chose not to lump them in with "actual restored books."

 

The very first Heritage signature auction in November 2001 had a blue label book with very minor glue on the label (Church copy of Blue Beetle #59) and two blue label books with very minor color touch on the label (Church copy of Thrilling Comics #22 and non-pedigree More Fun #62). The text on the back of the label (which is copyright 1999) has the section in it about giving certain books blue labels even if they have very minor color touch or glue, so it's probably something that happened at the earliest stages.

 

I tried looking up the grade dates on these, but the Thrilling Comics #22 was the only one that still showed up. It was graded on January 16, 2001.

 

thank you sir,

[adamstrange]

I've wondered whether the presence of the color touch on the key book Church copies was not the driving factor in the allowance made for CT on blue label books.

Of course it was.

 

You have tape recordings of the sacreligious rites of the Illuminati!