The restoration stigma

[SuperBird]

I wanted to break this post out of the original thread it came from, as PrimeTime's thread has now spiraled into other topics. The purchaser of the below book was happy with it at the time of purchase, and later returned it when it came back PLOD. (Let's assume for this thread that it actually has tear seals, although that is debateable as I understand it.) Though it struck me as very odd that tear seals would be an issue in this grade, several others echoed the sentiments that the tear seals made it undesirable.

 

So to summarize, for this particular book, those people felt that these defects were acceptable:

 

covers 100% split and detached in a ragged way

2 hole punches through entire book

extensive soiling throughout

significant tearing on at least front and back cover

extensive tape repairs to covers, which were required to keep book together

glue on spine (from it being part of a bound volume)

 

Whereas theoretically neater, more professional tear seals, done in addition to the above defects, were unacceptable.

 

The part that I do not understand is, in this grade, with the number of major structural issues present, including extensive tape and/or glue REPAIRS which were already required to merely hold the book together, why in the world would other, more minor repairs suddenly make the book less desirable? Amateur attempts had already been made to repair the comic. Why would additional, more professional attempts to repair the book make it less desirable?

 

 

 

 

So, I was dissappointed to find out that my Bat 1 (which I purchased a year ago as unrestored) had tear seals

Pre CGC:

 

 

Post CGC:

-Prime

[whomerjay]

I think most stated an unrestored version of this book is preferred to a restored version. Of course, all things equal unrestored is always better than restored. But most agree with your sentiment, that at this grade is doesn't make that much difference. But a small difference nevertheless. Personally, I'd pay maybe 10% more for this book if it was unrestored.

[Ivanko]

Some folks don't mind resto on key books, some folks do. I think it's a matter of what you can live with and what makes you happy.

[Sid]

I agree with all that you said but in that specific case I thought the issue was more about feeling cheated compared to actual dislike for restos.

[SuperBird]

To Whomeyjay and Ivanko-

I know some people are against resto. My question in this particular case, is WHY is it ok to have major amateur tape and glue repairs, but NOT much, much less significant, more professionally done tear seals.

 

I am specifically comparing these 2 attempts to repair the book. One attempt to repair it, in a major way using glue and tape is OK. Somehow this does not get the resto stigma. the other comparably insignificant attempt fix a few minorr tears using something other than tape.

 

 

Where is the line drawn between repair and restoration?

[Sid]

To Whomeyjay and Ivanko-

I know some people are against resto. My question in this particular case, is WHY is it ok to have major amateur tape and glue repairs, but NOT much, much less significant, more professionally done tear seals.

 

I am specifically comparing these 2 attempts to repair the book. One attempt to repair it, in a major way using glue and tape is OK. Somehow this does not get the resto stigma. the other comparably insignificant attempt fix a few minorr tears using something other than tape.

 

 

Where is the line drawn between repair and restoration?

 

The line is drawn once the attempt to hide comes into play, I think. I'm not making an assumption that is EVER the case, but I think that's what turns most people off. I agree that restoration shouldn't be causing sudden dives in prices but since it is that way once you get burned, it automatically plugs as something to avoid. I'm rambling through my comments but hope my point came through.

[thedarkknight]

To Whomeyjay and Ivanko-

I know some people are against resto. My question in this particular case, is WHY is it ok to have major amateur tape and glue repairs, but NOT much, much less significant, more professionally done tear seals.

 

I am specifically comparing these 2 attempts to repair the book. One attempt to repair it, in a major way using glue and tape is OK. Somehow this does not get the resto stigma. the other comparably insignificant attempt fix a few minorr tears using something other than tape.

 

 

Where is the line drawn between repair and restoration?

 

I agree, I'd prefer professional restoration to amatuer work with tape and glue. It wouldn't make any difference to me at all.

 

To be honest. I am tired of hearing people whine about this subject. No one is perfect at restoration detection. That is all there is to it. CGC is the best at it, but it's not gospel. Some collector's need to get some perspective of the rarity of these Golden Age keys and accept that restoration is likely on almost all copies and sometimes it's damn near impossible to spot.

 

 

That is not the longest run-on sentance I've ever done, but it's close.

[bluechip]

I wanted to break this post out of the original thread it came from, as PrimeTime's thread has now spiraled into other topics. The purchaser of the below book was happy with it at the time of purchase, and later returned it when it came back PLOD. (Let's assume for this thread that it actually has tear seals, although that is debateable as I understand it.) Though it struck me as very odd that tear seals would be an issue in this grade, several others echoed the sentiments that the tear seals made it undesirable.

 

So to summarize, for this particular book, those people felt that these defects were acceptable:

 

covers 100% split and detached in a ragged way

2 hole punches through entire book

extensive soiling throughout

significant tearing on at least front and back cover

extensive tape repairs to covers, which were required to keep book together

glue on spine (from it being part of a bound volume)

 

Whereas theoretically neater, more professional tear seals, done in addition to the above defects, were unacceptable.

 

The part that I do not understand is, in this grade, with the number of major structural issues present, including extensive tape and/or glue REPAIRS which were already required to merely hold the book together, why in the world would other, more minor repairs suddenly make the book less desirable? Amateur attempts had already been made to repair the comic. Why would additional, more professional attempts to repair the book make it less desirable?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Points well made.

 

No doubt there will be many people who follow saying they don't care how many defects a book has, they care more if the defects occxured during a professional attempt to fix something.

 

But that is a minority view. And the "restoration stigma" in that respect should stay where it helongs -- in their own minds.

 

It should not be extended to some specially colored label that is designed to make OTHER people avoid the book.

 

It may have been an "attempt" at improving the book. But that only makes it "restoration: while the attempt is being made.

 

(You keep seeing the Tracey Heft quote that restoration is "any attempt" to improve a book, but that refers to one definition of restoration -- the work as it is ongoing (as in, "the house is undergoing restoration").

 

Once the work is completed, howeverm If it fails to have restored the item to a "previous condition" it is not restored. It is not a "restoration' in the sense of an item that has been restored.

 

The answers to this always seem to come back to a few very vocal people who essentially revert to the same argument. That they just don't like that anyone ever tried to make a book better and they're not happy about the fact that other people don't mind it as much as they do, and they didn't like the fact that not enough people avoid books when they're simply labeled "restored" with a word instead of a colored label.

]

[agro23]

I will again state that I am happy for people to believe that non-destructive or non-additive restoration is horrible for all the while that it keeps PLOD books so very cheap.

 

Personally, I prefer my books unrestored but I can't afford unrestored GA keys and I'm trying to collect a bunch of them.

 

But to address the acceptability question...It's about intentions. You have to imagine that the origin of the amateur tape and glue comes from the fan/collector/oo not knowing that they were damaging the comic. Theoretically the taping/gluing owner was trying to simply keep the book from falling apart when they read it again and again. It was not an attempt to restore the book to add value because this imaginary owner never intended to sell it later.

 

Me, I just keep in mind that in the end ALL comics will eventually have to be conserved in some manner. The library scene from the original Time Machine comes to mind. "Oh, yes. We have books." Dust.

[MrBedrock]

Isn't it all really about whether he wants a 2.0 BLUE label (which is what he assumed it would be based on how it was described at the time of purchase) or a 1.0 Purple label (which is how CGC graded it). For better or worse it really has nothing to do with book.

[rjpb]

Pre-CGC I'm not sure collectors nitpicked over tear seals vs. tape on a GD or lower copy - but the stigma of the Purple Label seems to matter in any grade now. I don't really understand the desire to slab such a low grade copy - is even a key like that really any more liquid in that bad a shape if it's slabbed? In this case I imagine it would be easier to sell unslabbed and ungraded with a complete description of the flaws including tear seals than as a dreaded Purple 1.0.

 

As for anyone expecting that this particular book would grade a 2.0 by CGC or any disinterested party - wishful thinking.

[sacentaur]

Just returned from a very enjoyable visit with our very own 'bluechip', and the stigma of restoration was a major topic.

 

Speaking personally, some of my very favorite books in my entire collection are restored - all of them sold to me by reputable dealers and collectors who laid out all the details for me to see and decide upon.

 

No stigma attached to these books whatsoever as far as I'm concerned, and being informed of exactly what I was purchasing actually INCREASED my interest (i.e., no hidden unpleasant surprises to pop up later).

 

My perception is that the chasm between camps is widening as more and more tales of lack of Full Disclosure come to light. This cannot be good for the overall health of the hobby.

 

STEVE

[bluechip]

Just returned from a very enjoyable visit with our very own 'bluechip', and the stigma of restoration was a major topic.

 

Speaking personally, some of my very favorite books in my entire collection are restored - all of them sold to me by reputable dealers and collectors who laid out all the details for me to see and decide upon.

 

No stigma attached to these books whatsoever as far as I'm concerned, and being informed of exactly what I was purchasing actually INCREASED my interest (i.e., no hidden unpleasant surprises to pop up later).

 

My perception is that the chasm between camps is widening as more and more tales of lack of Full Disclosure come to light. This cannot be good for the overall health of the hobby.

 

STEVE

 

Enjoyable it was,Steve. And I think you've got it precisely right.

 

The answer, ultimately, has to be more disclosure and less stigma. Can't have one without the other, because failure to disclose leads to more stigma. And stigma leads to more failure to disclose.

[SuperBird]

I personally think that if there was a widely accepted guide to correctly pricing restored books- Slight, Moderate, Extensive- the stigma would be much less so. I think fear of lack of resale value is a major motivating factor.