|
Even More Responses to “Making The Grade”
This week we're including even more feedback to that question, as well as feedback to "Making The Grade - Part 3," which focused specifically on the issues of staple replacement. We're still eager for your participation! Prior even to the publication in 1970 of the first edition of the Guide, Bob Overstreet sought the input of noted collectors, dealers and comics historians. As a matter of practice, soliciting new data, corrections and other feedback has been a standard activity for Bob and the staff since the first Guide started reaching readers. Additionally, the recruiting of Overstreet Advisors has continued throughout the book's entire life as well (To read more about how early the procedure developed, read "The Semi-Secret Origins of The Overstreet Comic Book Price Guide" in the March 14, 2003 edition of Scoop). So, take a read and let us know what you think! Below you'll find links to previous responses, the question topics, and this week's responses: First Responses http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/preview/scoop_article.asp?ai=11942&si=127 More Responses http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/preview/scoop_article.asp?ai=12018&si=127 Making The Grade - Part 1 http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/scoop_article.asp?ai=11884&si=122 Making The Grade - Part 2 http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/scoop_article.asp?ai=11967&si=122 Making The Grade - Part 3 http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/scoop_article.asp?ai=12041&si=122 THIS WEEK'S RESPONSES - TO PART 1 Tom Brulato Collector I really think it is this simple. Pressing is not an additive process and therefore I do not consider it restoration. If a book is pressed correctly even the experts at the CGC are not sure if in fact it was pressed. How can we label a book pressed when there is no way to tell for certain? Most of the Marvel collectors that I know do not care in the least if a book was pressed. I am constantly showed books by fellow collectors for my opinion if it (the book) can be upgraded with a pressing. This is really no longer an issue or me as I will buy pressed books at the same multiple as a non pressed book. After thirty plus years of pressing I would be impossible to identify all the books that have been pressed. Steve Lauterbach Investment Collectibles I, for many years, have felt pressing, when done properly, is a non-invasive, non-restorative process. I always use the example of books sitting between cement blocks for a long period of time. Now I also understand there are some individuals who have voiced their strong opinions that pressing should be considered restoration. Who are they in the scheme of things you should ask yourselves and what are their facts. What is their agenda? Do they really care about the overall health of the market or is it all sour grapes or self promotion? The idea of pressing with intent to deceive and nor disclosing when a books has been pressed. How do you or I know? Unless it is done incorrectly, as you have been shown, it is almost impossible to detect. I for one, if asked, will disclose pressing if I know it has been done. From a sellers stance, I have never had a problem buying a CGC or non-CGC book knowing that it has or may have been pressed. Ask the top collectors as well and I am sure you will find that many of their prized comics have in fact been pressed. I hope more collectors and dealers step up to the plate to voice their opinions on this matter. Howard Gerber Collector I have been collecting since 1963. This pressing debate seems kind of silly to me. If an expert can't tell a book has been pressed professionally how can one call it restoration? That's my opinion. Jamie Graham Graham Crackers How would you define "Restoration" in comics? Restoration is the process or attempt of trying to return a book to its original condition by adding materials back to the book such as paper, color, under this definition trimming fits because they are trying to return the look of the book back to its original state even they didn't add anything. Would you delineate between professional restoration and amateur restoration? And if so, what would be the determining factors? No, I would not delineate between the two although many times amateur restoration looks more like butchery to me! What, if any, forms of restoration are acceptable to you? Quality professional is acceptable....but it is still restored. I have seen some jobs that you could hardly tell. Our industry only has two that I know are capable of doing that kind of job. And why? Talent. A combination of artistic ability and knowledge of the processes. And under what circumstances? I think that removing spine rolls. Pressing (and, in my opinion if done carefully and with proper pieces...) [and] staples may be changed out. These don't bother me. Also preservation is vital to our books and our heritage. De-acidification is the way to go, however, if pages are washed and they come out with that greenish hue...then we know they were done poorly. Bleaching just disguises a defect that is there, brittle paper for example. Therefore, it would fall under restoration not preservation. Cleaning falls under preservation/conservation. Simple easy and does not add to the book materially, except when some of those amateurs out there manage to get the covers to shrink or even enlarge; then we have a problem. There don't seem to be simple straight forward answers all the time. Doug Schmell Pedigree Comics Restoration to me is the violative, additive means of enhancing a comic book by "restoring" its physical structure. Anything that is done to a comic that adds to its structural appearance should be deemed as restoration (i.e. use of color touch, glue, tape, tear seals, staple reinforcement, staple removal, cover cleaning, pieces added, cover removal, centerfold reattached, trimming, etc, etc.). I would not include pressing as restoration as in my opinion, pressing does not "add" anything to a comic book. Pressing is a non-violative means of "removing" non color-breaking creases, surface impressions, dings, impacts, bends and folds; it does not "add" anything to the structural integrity of the comic book as do the examples listed above for restoration. Pressing is not restoration in my opinion and should be strongly differentiated in nomenclature and status from the restoration means listed above. Pressing is a safe and non-evasive means of conserving the aesthetic appearance of a comic book without adding to its physical form. I do not buy restored books but I do buy pressed books. I really do not delineate between professional or amateur means of restoration as I consider restoration to be restoration as detailed above and I do not care for restored books. Tracey Heft Eclipse Paper Conservation You have asked readers of Scoop to include their thoughts on Restoration and sub-topics such as staple replacement. I would like to offer my viewpoints on these subjects. How would you define "Restoration" in comics? Restoration, whether it be in comics, fine-art, coins, movie posters, vintage cars or any other form of "collectible" should be defined by the same universal standards and not be situational. No less an authority as the International Institute of Conservation (IIC) has defined restoration as "any attempt to return an object to its original form and purpose, in the attempt to recreate an earlier known state or condition". This is a definition adopted and used by museums and museum professionals all over the world. It is simple and uncomplicated. However, it continues to amaze me that people are still trying to "alter" the definition to fit their situation (i.e it is restoration if it is detectable or if such and such a treatment is done but not the treatment I use). What would you include and not include? In 2005 I applied for a patent on a system and method for classifying restoration of paper collectibles. In my patent application and over the course of the last 12 years through various articles for Gemstone publishing, I have outlined the following procedures that can be implemented during the course of a comic restoration: Bleaching - the whitening of darkened pages using chemicals. Dry Cleaning - the use of soft abrasives (such as powdered erasers) to remove surface dirt from the item. Colour Matching - the use of materials to improve the aesthetic appearance of damaged areas or of repaired areas by recreating artwork, texture or colour. Consolidation - any treatment that attempts to re-adhere loose or detached pieces to the original support using adhesives or tissues coated with adhesives. Deacidification - once again, the neutralization of acids to prevent the browning of paper pages altering the current state of the item by raising acidity to a higher (if not alkaline) level (pH of 7 or greater). Infilling - the infilling of missing areas (including artwork) using matching papers and or similar materials Ink Removal the use of chemical solvents to remove ink from an item's surface Pressing - the use of pressure (usually in combination with other processes) to flatten and return an item to its original state Reglossing - the use of organic or manufactured substances to recreate surface texture. Reinforcement the addition of material to prevent or protect the item from future damage. Resizing - the use of organic or manufactured substances to recreate paper strength and flexibility. Solvent Cleaning - the use of organic solvents to remove staining or discoloration from the surface of an item. Spine Roll Removal - the use of pressure (usually in combination with other processes) to flatten and return an item to its original state by removing a rolled spine Staple Cleaning - the removal, through mechanical and solvent methods, of discoloration products found on metallic staples Staple Replacement - the removal of rusted or damaged staples in order to replace them with new stainless steel staples of a similar size and/or thickness. Tape Removal - through the use of mechanical methods or solvents, tape can be removed from the surface of an item. Tear Repairs - similar to consolidation, the repair of torn areas using adhesives or additional papers coated with adhesives Trimming/Shaving the alteration of an item's dimensions and shape using a mechanical device such as a blade, scalpel or file. Washing - similar to cleaning, uses a variety of solutions (including solvents) in an aqueous treatment of the item Of these 19 steps, some are clearly restoration while others would result in the pure conservation of the item (that is, the prevention of existing damage from proceeding further). Still others are neither conservation nor restoration unless one examines the intent behind the treatment because those procedures fulfill both a conservation and restoration requirement. Breaking them down, the analysis of each procedure results in a table:
Y1 becomes both restoration and conservation when an attempt is made to cover the repair by adding colouring materials. Would you delineate between professional restoration and amateur restoration? And if so, what would be the determining factors? I have always been uncomfortable with the terms "professional" and "amateur", mainly because they have never been defined. What are the criteria we are using to make such a value judgement? Basically, in today's hobby, the difference between pro and amateur is how the finished work looks. But it also refers to the type of materials used (e.g glue versus wheat starch paste, marker versus acrylic paint) and these are clearly two separate issues. Within the current hobby structure, it is possible to have a professional job with amateur materials or an amateur job (one that is obvious) but with professional materials - so how should one apply the labels of amateur or professional? It is important to distinguish the difference between proper restoration techniques and improper techniques as well as proper materials versus harmful materials. In the case of esthetics, the terms amateur and professional are inappropriate terms, when what is being discussed is the evidence of the work being performed. The greater the skill of the restorer, the better the end result and the less evidence there is of any work being performed. When evaluating the types of materials used, it is important to think in terms of long-term effects (when known). Materials are then either beneficial, harmful, potentially both (such dry-cleaning, but not knowing what type of eraser was used) or unknown. This eliminates the value judgement of materials as pro or amateur, since one-time professional materials are now known to be quite harmful (i.e adhesive tape, vapor-phase de-acidification, etc) and therefore, amateur. What, if any, forms of restoration are acceptable to you? Almost all forms of restoration are acceptable when they are done properly. It is not acceptable to overpaint aspects of the original cover in order to achieve a more esthetically pleasing end result. It is not acceptable to bleach a book to whiter than white, newer than new appearance. It is not acceptable to remove parts or pieces of the original so that the repair looks better or feels better. It is not acceptable to remove historically relevant information (such as names from pedigree books) without extensive documentation. And why? All of these destroy or alter the original book which is not the aim of restoration, and certainly not the aim of conservation or preservation. And under what circumstances? A book can be restored at any time. However, it is best if a book is restored because it is on the verge of destruction and to not restore it would mean the loss of the item or the loss of the use of the item. It is a decision made by the current owner, with constructive input from the restoration professional. In the latest issue of Scoop, a definition of staple replacement was put forward: "For a staple cleaning or replacement to be deemed conservation, it must have been performed to prolong the life of the book. For example, evidence on a book of rust at one of the staple areas suggests that the staple had elevated deterioration. If a staple is replaced for aesthetic reasons only, the book would be considered a "qualified" grade by many experts." Conservation is different from restoration. To reference the IIC definitions, conservation is defined as "treatments used to prevent existing damage from proceeding further, thereby maintaining an items current condition for the future." Often, in the comic hobby, conservation is used interchangeably with restoration. In recent months, the blurring the lines between conservation and restoration has become worse and worse. Replacing of staples is not maintaining an items current condition since it is altering the current condition by replacement of a component. It is restoration, since it is altering the current history of the book (i.e it has rusted staples) to "return an object to its original form and purpose, in the attempt to recreate an earlier known state or condition. (i.e a book with no rusted staples). To clarify a bit further, this is not preservation, defined as "the steps taken to ensure that an item maintains it's current condition, usually non-intrusive to the artifact or item itself.". Preservation would be changing the environmental conditions that caused the rusting of the staple. Thank you for the opportunity to respond. Richard Evans Bedrock City Comics Restoration to me is noun applying to anything (including chemicals) added to a book, that was not originally present, that is not reversible, and that improves its appearance or structural integrity. This would also include color, tape, glue, cleaning fluids etc. This would not include weight, water, or removable water soluble rice paper as these do not alter the original integrity of the paper. So much of the determination of restoration as we talk of it in our hobby goes to intent. If something is added to a book solely to improve its appearance, I will more than likely call it restoration. The one place this doesn't apply is pressing, as nothing is added to the book and frankly there is no way to tell if the intent was to deceive. Would the Edgar Church books be considered pressed? I don't delineate between professional and amateur but I would make a case for restoration vs. conservation. Any restorative processes which are reversible again should be considered conservation as they do not alter the original integrity of the book but may protect the manipulability and therefore prolong the life of the paper and the comic. This would include water soluble rice paper tear seals, rust removal from staples, and scotch tape removal. It is interesting to me that presently scotch tape is not considered restoration and rice paper is when scotch tape is infinitely more harmful to old paper! There's my two cents. James "Lon" Allen Heritage Comics How would you define "Restoration" in comics? Adding something to a book to improve it's appearance or structural integrity. What would you include and not include? Restoration includes: Color touch, tear seals, wet/chemical cleaning, piece replacement, reinforcement. Does not include: dry erasure, professional pressing. These procedures do not add anything to the book, so they cannot be restoration. Would you delineate between professional restoration and amateur restoration? And if so, what would be the determining factors? Of course. Professional materials and techniques. Markers are amateur, rice paper is professional. What, if any, forms of restoration are acceptable to you? See below. And why? And under what circumstances? For all three of these questions: I think it is fine if it is a key book that is falling apart. Putting it back together and preserving it is fine. Also, if you have some book that looks decent, but the spine is totally split, why not put it back together. So, it is fine for structural defects, but color touching a book that already looks nice it not ok. THIS WEEK'S REPONSES TO PART 3: Richard Evans Bedrock City Comics How in the world can anyone tell what someone's intent was. I think it would be wrong to say that because a book had no previous visible damage It would be call restored when staples are cleaned or changed, but it would be okay to do so if damage is visible. That would be saying that someone's intent was to deceive when in fact they could have been trying to prevent any damage from a slightly rusted staple. I know it is a matter of degrees but grading cannot become a function of intent and therefore should be either all or nothing. I personally have no problem with staple replacement as long as the same staples are used. There could be a mad rush to change staples ala pressing but again the grading issue needs to be either all or nothing and shouldn't be affected by what might happen or by what someone thinks someone else's intent is or was. Michael Naiman Collector/Dealer For a staple cleaning or replacement to be deemed conservation, it must have been performed to prolong the life of the book. For example, evidence on a book of rust at one of the staple areas suggests that the staple had elevated deterioration. If a staple is replaced for aesthetic reasons only, the book would be considered a "qualified" grade by many experts. Whatever the reason for staple replacement... it must be disclosed by seller, CGC or whoever grades the book. Terry O'Neill Terry's Comics I think it should be only of same vintage staple on any book.They should be considered qualified if the staple if replaced. John Haines Dealer Any replacement of staples vintage or otherwise is restoration and should merit a "qualified" grade. Gary Colabuono Moondog's If it is obvious that staples have been replaced then I believe the book should receive a Qualified grade. It doesn't matter why they were replaced. The fact that the book is not completely in original condition precludes it from receiving a Universal grade. Stephen Gentner Collector Staple replacement for purely cosmetic reasons seems strange. That is, why would you replace a staple that didn't need replacing? It would seem to put the book at risk of damage, or mess up the staple holes in the process. If the staples are presentable on the book as is, I don't think the CGC would ding you for a discolored staple. If [CGC's Steve] Borock is actually planning to put weight to and consequence for staples which are naturally aging and discoloring through age, the (CGC) is welcoming problems and concerns over staples for God's sake! A policy like that would open the door for lots of staple replacement. I don't think that is too swift. Or, I should say, getting too picky Unless a staple is rusting or discoloring the paper of the comic indicating a potential problem, replacement would be unnecessary. If the CGC doesn't get so fancy that a staple that is turning a color hurts the grade of a high condition book, the whole question becomes moot. Conversely, if the CGC intends to put a consequence on "grades of staples", then replacement questions will be stinking up the hobby. Bottom line....if the staple is getting rusty, replace it, no harm no foul. If the staple isn't rusty and is aging with rest of the book as it has it's whole life, don't make an issue of it and don't ding the grade for it. End of problem. Scott Bonagofsky Emison Hullverson Bonagofsky LLP This is in response to the staple replacement issue in the recent issue of Scoop. Leaving aside for a moment the issue of the changes to be made in the latest edition of the grading guide, I would like to comment on what the Grading Guide current states. I believe the current statement in The Overstreet Comic Book Grading Guide regarding grading of books with replaced staples issue misses the mark and lacks acceptance by the majority of collectors or reputable dealers. You are really dealing with two separate issues here: (1) what is the apparent grade of the book with cleaned or replaced staples, and (2) is the book restored or not? There is no reason to create an artificial ceiling for books that have replaced or cleaned staples, yet appear to be in better than 9.4 NM condition. On the grading issue: A book with replaced vintage staples will look no different from a book with original staples. An expert might be able to tell that the staples were replaced, but if the staples are vintage, this will be because the staple tines don't line up with the original staple marks on the interior book. It will not be because the replaced staples cause the book to appear to be a lower grade. In some cases, the staples can be replaced to match the original staples marks left on the centerfold, so the book will appear to be exactly the same grade as it was before the staples rusted. By artificially limiting a book with replaced staples to "9.4 NM" or lower, you are potentially going to confuse people who think that a nicer looking book should grade higher. There is no reason to create an artificial ceiling for books with replaced staples as long as the fact that the staples are replaced is disclosed, whether that be with a "restored" or "qualified" notation that is separate from the apparent grade. On the "restored" vs. "conserved" vs. "qualified" issue: If you take rusted staples and replace them with different staples, it is functionally no different than if you remove a thrashed cover and replace it with a fresh cover (maybe from an uncut factory sheet) of the same book, or replacing a missing portion of the cover with a piece from another cover from a "spare parts" copy of the same book. If you remove rusted staples and clean them with a solvent, then put them back in the book, the book will grade higher than it did before you cleaned the staples. You've removed a defect -- the rust -- from the staples. This is restoration. To call it "conservation" is an insult to the intelligence of your readers. This whole "conserved" notion is nothing more than spin-doctoring that I believe you'll regret buying into if you do it -- no collector is going to agree with you on the issue, and most dealers won't either. This new "conserved" terminology was created by a few people who want to make certain kinds of restoration more acceptable among buyers. But for the vast majority of the hobby, the issue is simple: The book is either restored from a lower grade or it is not, and it doesn't matter why the work was done. Why wouldn't solvent cleaning be considered conservation if it removes potentially harmful stains? Why isn't re-sizing considered conservation when it adds strength to the paper and is virtually undetectable? I see no good or logical reason to classify replaced or cleaned staples as conservation other than to appease those who perform such services and to confuse a segment of the collecting population into believing that replaced staples are "more acceptable" than a single hit of professional color touch along the spine. Let collectors make up their own minds on the issue by calling it what it is. Furthermore, it is irrelevant to the conservation/restoration issue whether the staple cleaning/replacement work is done to arrest further damage. To classify such work as conservation or restoration based only on the subjective intent of the person who did the work puts the grader in an impossible situation of having to guess at the intention of the person who performed the work without any basis for making that assessment. The person grading the book is almost never going to know who replaced the staples or why they did it (i.e., did they replace the staples to "save the book," or did they do it because they didn't like how the rust looked?). The one place where I could see a rational basis for calling something "conservation" is in the area of deacidification. Deacidification, where it is undetectable, serves only to arrest the gradual deterioration of the paper itself and does not improve the appearance of the book. In this case, I believe it is fair to term it "conservation" since the appearance of the book is not being changed and the only result is an arresting of further harm. I also do not believe that deacidification carries the same stigma associated with the other types of professional restoration. If detection of deacidification were possible, putting a deacidified book into a green or purple CGC label would no doubt create such a stigma. But that leads to the question of whether CGC (which I know is a different and unrelated company from Gemstone) should attempt to influence the market that way, and this question is well beyond the scope of what we're talking about here. Cleaned/replaced staples are a different animal entirely, however, and I think you will run into some serious market acceptance problems if it is classified as conservation instead of restoration. While I am no fan of the use of the "qualified" grade for replaced staples instead of the "restored" grade, at least the green CGC label clues the naive buyer in to the fact that the book is not "unrestored" with its replaced or cleaned staples, and the buyer can then make his own decision about whether or not such work is acceptable to him. To sum up: 1) Once staples have been replaced or cleaned, the book should grade at whatever the apparent grade is. If someone can replace staples really well on a 9.8 book without stressing the spine or enlarging the staple holes, then the book should get a 9.8 grade. Do not create an artificial grade ceiling when the issue is better and more clearly addressed through disclosure of the fact of the cleaning/replacement, with the book being graded appropriately with its apparent grade. 2) Staple replacement and cleaning should be termed consistently with what it is -- restoration. A cleaning to remove mold spores is also technically done for purposes of "conservation," but everyone still considers such work to be "restoration" because the apparent grade of the book is improved. Overstreet should stick with its longstanding definition of restoration, which (to paraphrase) is any work done to improve the overall appearance of the book. 3) Since there is some precedent (thanks to CGC) for giving such books a "qualified" grade, if anything, maintain this status quo. Don't change the playing field all over again by creating some new, artificial "conserved" category for a book that the vast majority of buyers (collectors and dealers alike) would view as having been restored. Thanks for your time, and I look forward to reading the new edition of the Grading Guide! |
