The "Very minor amount of glue on cover" CGC Designation

[MrBedrock]

Well said Paul.

[pennynike1]

Wow, I didn't think that my question would generate such thougtful responses. Just a quick note, I would never want to have glue removed, because, as like another suggested, I would consider that, in itself, as restoration.

 

[showcase4]

Wow, I didn't think that my question would generate such thougtful responses.

 

ANY thread with the mention of anything having to do with resto is virtually guaranteed to have a large number of emotional responses, and large number of views....always a good time on the Boards when this subject comes up.

[bluechip]

I have found over the past several months that a few key books I am looking for have the "very minor glue" designation on the CGC label. The books eventually sell for big money, even with such a designation. Any one have an opinion regarding the significance/insignificance of minor glue on golden age books? In particular, FOX books?

 

Thanks for any replies.

 

 

There is no problem whatsoever with CGC putting books in a slab with a label that says minor glue on cover.

 

If that describes the defect, how could there be a problem?

 

Problems arise when there is a lack of consistency in how the books are treated -- one gets a designation AND a differently colored label.

 

The idea that it should be guessed through some psychic ability as to whether the glue was put there intentionally or not is just absurd.

 

And it raises a question -- just how did so many books "accidentally" get minor amounts of glue on the?

 

I cannot recall a single instance in which I read a comic book in a place where droplets of glue were flying around.

 

But that's just me.

 

[nearmint]

Obviously, you weren't raised in a glue factory.

[G.A.tor]

Obviously, you weren't raised in a glue factory.

[innocuous]

How is glue removal resto?

[mr.schomburg]

And it raises a question -- just how did so many books "accidentally" get minor amounts of glue on the?

 

I cannot recall a single instance in which I read a comic book in a place where droplets of glue were flying around.

 

But that's just me.

 

 

I have a comic which has the outline of what I think is a 69 Charger in competition orange, on the back cover...Is that restoration? Should it be noted large amount of CT on back cover? My guess is the intent was not to improve the book, but to paint a model car. Who is to say a teen age girl applying nail polish over a comic book in a living room 50 yrs ago didn't drip a drop of red #5 nail polish on a cover and it blended in with the same color red and is now restored? I see no need to group all things together, that is why I am for designation on minor amounts of resto, even if intent was to change appearance. It just makes more sense to me, and Yes I do have a vested interest in this as I have several high dollar books with a drop of color and a blue label, and I have absolutely no problem with the designation or the books.

 

I guess my point is that a minor repair or inadvertant color or glue should not be looked at the same way as a book that was pulled apart, pieced together, sealed, colored, and cleaned. There is really a seperate catagory for minorly "touched books", but not large enough for a new label grouping. So I see the notations to be an adequate solution to the problem.

 

Oh, and I forgot to say the Steve is handsom, charismatic, and a savvy collector!

[skybolt]

I still need a little more convincing as far as color touch is concerned, but having minor amounts of glue residue on the cover should not always constitute restoration. Since I'm a bit clutsy, there have been instances where pieces of scotch tape have gotten stuck on the front cover while removing a book from a mylar bag. Once this happens, I carefully peel off the tape without damaging the book too much. However, small amounts of glue residue do remain on the cover. Should the book be downgraded for this defect..........absolutely, but in no way is this any more restoration than a minor grease stain.

[Rob]

There is no problem whatsoever with CGC putting books in a slab with a label that says minor glue on cover.

 

If that describes the defect, how could there be a problem?

 

I think that's where the discussion should end. The slab states there is glue on the cover. If you think that's restoration, don't buy it.

 

That being said, I do think the label color helps the buyer understad the intent. I do think intent plays a major part in what should be considered restoration. If there is a small amount of glue on the cover, because someone had their comic nearby when doing a craft project, and a drop hit the cover, then I wouldn't call that restoration. Just like I wouldn't call it restoration if a comic had a small amount of ketchup or mustard on the cover. Just because glue CAN be used to seal a tear, doesn't mean that the presence of glue makes it restored. I don't want a comic that once had a torn cover, but glue is hiding the defect, because that comic was once worse than it looks today. The comic with the accidental glue drop wasn't.

 

Same goes for color touch. If someone puts a black grease pen mark on a comic, it's just been written on. However, if that mark is hiding a color-breaking crease, then the comic has been restored. I don't stay away from restored comics because of the restoration mark or glue, but because of the defect it's hiding. If the mark or glue isn't hiding a defect, then I just consider it when grading, and sleep well knowing it's a blue label.

[MrBedrock]

The issue of glue, blue vs. purple labels, and intent becomes a problem when anyone tries to make the issue black and white. For instance, in Rob's scenario a comic starts out with a tear. At some point glue is put on that tear to seal it. Is the intent to make the book look better or to keep the tear from growing? Down the road that intent cannot be determined. The way the hobby is now, that book would probably get a purple label. But, if someone decides to reopen that tear it would get a blue with notes. Is it in better shape now? I would say it is the same, but now has the potential for further damage if the tear is caught on something, therefore maybe not better off. More marketable, same book, more precarious.

 

Now, if someone can explain to me why scotch tape isn't restoration, but rice paper is.......

[showcase4]

Now, if someone can explain to me why scotch tape isn't restoration, but rice paper is.......

 

yes..........it is funny how rice paper and tape serve the same purpose, yet is one "just tape" while the other is "rice paper....the satanic sealer; manufactured in Hell"

 

Steve

[adamstrange]

Now, if someone can explain to me why scotch tape isn't restoration, but rice paper is.......

 

I'll try

 

Scotch tape = amateur and damaging to a book

Rice paper = expert and non-damaging

 

So scotch tape is really a defect and should therefore get a blue label, while rice paper is restoration and should receive a PLOD.

 

If I ever get Matt to do a tear seal for me I'm going to have him use scotch tape so I get a blue label.

[MrBedrock]

This was told to me by the original owner, and I think I have the numbers right....

A Detective 38 with an approximately seven inch spine split slabbed somewhere 2.0 to 3.0

(I know it was much less than vg). Sold. Cracked. Scotch tape applied to length of split. Resubmitted. 4.5. Reasoning is that what is under the tape can't be determined and tape is taken into consideration and noted.

[adamstrange]

This was told to me by the original owner, and I think I have the numbers right....

A Detective 38 with an approximately seven inch spine split slabbed somewhere 2.0 to 3.0

(I know it was much less than vg). Sold. Cracked. Scotch tape applied to length of split. Resubmitted. 4.5. Reasoning is that what is under the tape can't be determined and tape is taken into consideration and noted.

 

[G.A.tor]

This was told to me by the original owner, and I think I have the numbers right....

A Detective 38 with an approximately seven inch spine split slabbed somewhere 2.0 to 3.0

(I know it was much less than vg). Sold. Cracked. Scotch tape applied to length of split. Resubmitted. 4.5. Reasoning is that what is under the tape can't be determined and tape is taken into consideration and noted.

hello all...

this actually was a cgc 1.8 tec 38 with slightly brittle pages that was bought, then resubed to PGX (not cgc) and the spine was taped...PGX gave it a 4.0 with tan to offwhite pages...sold on a clink auction

gator

[lou_fine]

hello all...

I agree with sky....goes back to the "intent"...if there is very minor glue reattaching a centerfold, then it is restored....if there is a little glue residue on top of the spine, away from the staples, then I think cgc notes it, and drops the grade a little...I have a batman 5 that way...the glue is on the spine, but not there for any restorative reason...got a blue label

gator

 

I'm not aware that intent is part of the CGC equation. What I've understood is that glue is handled similarly to color touch, it's the total amount that drops you into the PLOD zone, not the intent.

 

I believe that Adam is 100% correct on this point.

 

The colour of the label really has nothing to do with intent, it really just depends on the amount of the glue or the colour touch on the book. This allowance for glue and colour touch with a blue label only applies for GA books. On the other hand, CGC might just be taking into consideration that the oldtimers always read their comic books with opened glue bottles and coloured pens laying around.

 

Of course, everybody's classic example of this distinction here would be the Church copies of More Fun #52 and Adventure #40. They both have similar types of "work" noted on the label, with the only differnce being the amount. As a result, one gets blessed with the blue label while the other gets stigmitized with the purple label. One has no problem selling for a hefty premium over guide while the other has significant problems even selling for a discount to guide.

[MrBedrock]

This was told to me by the original owner, and I think I have the numbers right....

A Detective 38 with an approximately seven inch spine split slabbed somewhere 2.0 to 3.0

(I know it was much less than vg). Sold. Cracked. Scotch tape applied to length of split. Resubmitted. 4.5. Reasoning is that what is under the tape can't be determined and tape is taken into consideration and noted.

hello all...

this actually was a cgc 1.8 tec 38 with slightly brittle pages that was bought, then resubed to PGX (not cgc) and the spine was taped...PGX gave it a 4.0 with tan to offwhite pages...sold on a clink auction

gator

 

Thanks for clearing it up, Rick. I was close on the numbers, but didn't realize it was a PGX holder.

[pennynike1]

Wow, thanks for the thoughtful comments everyone. I am really glad to see a vast array of viewpoints regarding this issue. As is to be expected, people have a really different outtake on where to draw the line on collecting books with this designation.

 

Sky has discussed that a minor glue designation could relate to a piece of scotch tape leaving residue on a cover. Personally, I would also not consider this restoration, but I would expect the grade to be significantly reduced because of such an occurence.

 

Glue to repair seal certainly sounds exactly like restoration to me, but am I to understand that removing glue from a book is not considered restoration, and then also improves the final grade?

[action1kid]

The higher the dollar amount of the book, the more important that dot of glue becomes.Regardless of how it got there.