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

[showcase4]

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?

 

glue removal is technically considered "resto removal".......but to some it would be considered resto in itself as it is an alteration/ manipulation/ attempt to enhance. If you had a CGC Universal 8.0 with the "minor glue" designation, and cracked it / had glue removal / and then resubmit, the grade should not be higher...could still be an 8.0, or a 7.5 or 7.0 may be more likely depending on the amount of damge/paper loss caused by the removal.....most glues does not give up very easily.

 

What would likely be higher would be the books value/marketability......a CGC Unviersal 8.0 with a "minor glue" designation would PROBABLY sell for less than the same book as a Universal 7.5 or even 7.0 with no glue graders notes on the label.

( as long as the book was being marketed to someone who was not aware of the previous grade/ previous glue )

 

I can't imagine my comments strking up some sort of debate, but on the resto subject, it does not take much

 

Steve

[Pirate]

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!

 

so acrylic isn't ct, non acrylic is? works for me

[lou_fine]

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 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.

 

Unfortunately, this is just never going to happen with the current mentaility that we have in the marketplace.

 

As you know, CGC already tried to implement this for the beginning of last year and was absolutely tarred and gravelled by most of the board members here. So much so, that the idea never even saw the light of day.

 

Personally, I thought the idea of a formal restoration rating system should have been implemented in the first place instead of the current stigmitizing blue and purple system which we are now stuck with. Unfortunately, by 2005 when CGC finally decided to implement some version of Jon Berk's 10-point restoration rating system idea from several years ago, it was already too late.

 

The majority of the board members here were absolutely livid as they claimed that a formal restoration rating system would simply throw total confusion into the marketplace. It was stated that trying to understand the difference between R-0, R-5, and R-10, etc. was far too difficult and it was far simply to just look at coloured labels. In addition, nobody would know what value to placed on their books anymore. But most of all, scammers would simply use this system to sell "undisclosed" restored books to a unsuspecting public who would not understand what R-8 meant even though the book also had the restoration notes right on the label.

 

Makes as much sense as CGC trying to implement a 10-point condition grading system instead of a more simple "mint and defective" grading system. Surely the marketplace is not sophisicated enought to understand a 10-point grading system. Why bother with all of the confusing nuances between a 4.0 and a 9.0 condition graded book when everybody knows in reality that both of these books are really just defective. It would be so much simpler and more informative if we just lumped all of the defective books together and kept the mint books by thmeselves.

 

After all, we certainly wouldn't want some poor collector being scammed into buying a 8.0 copy of a rare HTF GA book and thinking that he was lucky enough to actually get something of value here.