|
Making The Grade: Last Week to Contribute
We will continue to run feedback as long as we receive it, but this week will be the last that our respondents have the opportunity to put their views in front of the collecting public in time to impact the new edition. As you'll see, this week's replies are dominated by responses to last week's suggested changes to the definition of trimming. We're still eager for your participation, but time is running out, so please let us know what you think! D'arcy Farrell Pendragon Comics re: trimming article for the new grading guide. I agree with your revision. The word repair is totally inappropriate. It infers a correction such as prof. restoration. It is not at all a benefit, a major defect for sure. Worse than any amateur restoration, and is not restoration either!!!! Gary Colabuono Moondog's Re: trimming This change is completely acceptable to me. It's clear and concise. Steve Borock President, CGC Works for me. Robert Rogovin Four Color Comics Go with the trimmed #2. It sounds right. Michael Naiman Dealer/Collector "Trimmed - (2) A process in which defects along the edges of a comic book are removed with the use of scissors, razor blades, and/or paper cutters. Comic books that have been modified in this fashion are considered defective." Sounds good to me. John Chruscinski Tropic Comics I think the revised statement is much clear and should be easier to understand. Mike Zachary Collector Defective is a strong and negative word. Perhaps, tampered, restored or altered would be better suiting for the definition of Trimmed. Defective = Having a defect; faulty: a defective appliance (Adjective) Having an imperfection or malformation (Noun) I do not think that a trimmed book fits either definition. Maybe a book with Siamese pages is defective due to the imperfection or malformation but I think when work is performed on a book after it has left the printer, it shouldn't be labeled defective. See both alternative words below re·store ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-stôr, -str) tr.v. re·stored, re·stor·ing, re·stores To bring back into existence or use; reestablish: restore law and order. To bring back to an original condition: restore a building. See Synonyms at revive al·ter ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ôltr) v. al·tered, al·ter·ing, al·ters v. tr. To change or make different; modify: altered my will. To adjust (a garment) for a better fit. Todd McDevitt New Dimension Comics Cutting is [definitely] not repairing! I like the revision. Michael Browning Collector Recently, a collector brought into a local store more than 100 key Silver and Golden Age comics. There were some really nice books in the collection, but something just didn't seem right when the dealer looked through each issue. So, when the shop owner compared a few of the comics brought in by the collector to ones she had in stock, she noticed the collector's copies were smaller in length - and sometimes in length and width. She continued to compare her copies to his and, finally, he admitted that his dad had trimmed the books with the use of a paper cutter. So, the dealer refused to buy the comics. They're considerably smaller than untrimmed copies and many are cut into the cover images and words. The interiors are cut almost into the art on the pages. This is not repairing a comic; it's destroying a comic. So, I think the new, revised definition is absolutely correct, especially since trimming does not "repair" a comic. It helps destroy it! Tony Starks Comics Ina Flash Yes, absolutely anything you can say that makes it clear that trimming a book is a defect is a good thing. Maybe even add another (stronger) sentence that says something to the effect of: "Trimming is never considered a restoration procedure. Comic books that have been modified in this fashion are considered defective." John Haines Rare Comics I don't know that the definition needs to describe the reason for the trim job. How about: Trimmed - (2) A process in which some additional portion of the edges of a comic book are removed with the use of scissors, razor blades, and/or paper cutters. Comic books that have been modified in this fashion are considered defective/incomplete. Stephen H. Gentner Collector "Defective" seems like a strange word for trimmed books. "Altered by trimming" would get the point across, and any stigma which would then attach itself to the altered book for grading or disclosure purposes would be apparent. That being said, I have no problem with your proposed second definition. Dan Fogel Hippy Comix Although I have no problem with the original definition of trimming, I heartily endorse the revision! Joe Vereneault JHV Associates Your definition sounds good. Kevin Boyd Paradise Comics The new definition is definitely an improvement so I'm all for the update. Richard Olson Collector/Historian You're on the right track. I would take out the word "defects" as sometimes trimming is for binding, then books are unbound, etc. Also, right now, technically, if the trimming wasn't done with one of the three items you listed, it wasn't trimming. So, "A process in which the edges of a comic book are removed in any manner (e.g., scissors, razor blades, ...)." Now trimming is trimming whether for defects or for some other reason, and trimming is anytime that edges have been cut by any means. John Petty Heritage Galleries & Auctioneers I think I would modify the description a bit as follows: 2) A process in which the original edges of a comic book are removed by the use of scissors, razor blades, paper cutters or other means, typically done to enhance appearance and/or value. Comic books that have been modified in this fashion are considered damaged and/or defective. David T. Alexander Dealer How about this alteration in the definition. Trimmed - (2) A process in which defects along the edges of a comic book are removed with the use of scissors, razor blades, and/or paper cutters. Comic books that have been modified in this fashion are considered not original. Charlie Novinskie Collector I hope it's okay to raise a point or two--first, I like the change in the description, taking out the word repair, but, in the definition you refer to taking out the defect by trimming--and then describe a book that has been trimmed as "defective." Now that seems contradictory--if you start with a book that is described as having a defect--and the definition of trimming is to remove the defect--how can the trimmed book still be described as defective? Rather than say that comic books modified in this way are considered defective, wouldn't it make more sense for the book to be considered having restoration done to it? Scott Bonagofsky Emison Hullverson Bonagofsky LLP On the issue of the proposed definition of trimmed: I would phrase the second definition of trimming thus: "A cosmetically destructive process in which the edges of a comic book are removed with the use of scissors, razor blades, and/or paper cutters. Post-production trimming is considered a very serious defect, despite any aesthetically pleasing end result. While trimming is considered to be restoration by some, it is not considered an acceptable restoration practice by professional conservators." Gregory Baisden In re: Scoop's survey about refining the second definition for "trimming." I wholeheartedly support the revision. A process that may improve the cosmetic appeal of a book yet in fact damages a book, rendering it defective, should not be called a "repair." Thanks for all you do. David Matteini Collector In my humble opinion, I would propose three different definitions: Alteration - anything that is done to modify the current state or condition of the item Conservation - preventive measures applied to the item in an unobtrusive way to prevent further damage Restoration - procedures or measures applied to the item to enhance the appearance and / or structure of the item There must be evidence that the item was changed from its original state to be qualified for one of the three definitions to be introduced in reference to the item. Alteration - the broadest definition, this would encompass such things as spine creases, corner wear, etc. all normal defects that are accounted for in grading. Alteration would encompass conservation and restoration. I mention it here to highlight the importance of the degree and severity of the alteration with respect to grading. With specific regards to pressing, unless there is tangible evidence as can be determined by the item, the item in question should not be marketed as being pressed. I would not suggest that a book be labeled or marketed as pressed solely on suspicion, hearsay or other such conjecture. In this respect, I do not view pressing - when done correctly to be either conservation or restoration. Conservation - the only 2 preventive measures that I can currently think of would be sealing a spine split with the proper materials (e.g. not tape) and de-acidification of brittle pages. The most important thing to consider in conservation is that the procedure will prevent further damage. There may be other good examples of conservation but none come to mind. Conservation should be fully disclosed at all times but the market discount should be less than a book that is restored. Restoration - the traditional candidates of color touch, pieces added, etc. all fall into restoration. Tape and Trimming - I would call trimming and tape desecration as it damages a book. As such it should not fall into any of the above categories. George Panayiotou Collector I am a high grade collector of Silver Age Marvel comics and have been reading with interest the debate on the CGC boards in relation to the definition of restoration in the latest [edition of] The Overstreet Comic Book Price Guide. While I understand that the definition in the guide was a mistake it is consistent with an advert that was run in the same guide. The advert on page 17 advertises a "conservation service" that corrected "numerous defects, such as dents bends and spine stresses" which lead to an improvement by 2 points from an 8.0 to a 9.0 and a "several thousand dollar increase in value." This is accompanied by pictures of the before and after in CGC universal holders. The suggestion is that the pressing and other "conservation" techniques can make a seller thousands of dollars. The market value of a comic is currently based on a number of issues including rarity and whether a comic is restored or not. The fact that rarity is a function of the care that has been taken over the storage of a comic from its initial printing means that the definition of restoration has an important bearing. The looser the definition of restoration the more likely that opportunists will take advantage of the loopholes to improve the appearance of a comic so as to take advantage of comic collectors. This will have a negative impact on the marketplace and hence reduce the availability of back issue comics. The differentiation between conservation and restoration is key. My view is: 1) Restoration - any action taken to improve a comic from its existing state at the time that the action was taken. 2)Conservation - any action taken to maintain the comic in its existing state at the time that the action was taken. Putting a comic in a Mylar, the papers added in CGC holders to maintain page quality etc are conservation as maintaining existing state. Pressing, color touch etc are restoration as they improve the existing state of the comic. The advert on page 17 advertises a "conservation service" that corrected "numerous defects, such as dents bends and spine stresses" which lead to an improvement by 2 points from an 8.0 to a 9.0 and a "several thousand dollar increase in value". This is accompanied by pictures of the before and after in CGC universal holders. Based on my definition above this is restoration not conservation. I would be interested in being kept informed as to how the definition discussion continues. Mica Colston I'd like to cast my vote in returning the definition of restoration back to what it was before this latest price guide. Similar to the views that have been stated by Mark S. Zaid on the GPAnalysis website. [Editor's note: The return of the old definition was, of course, announced previously.] Dan Drummond Dedham, MA I'm writing briefly to let you know of my support for a change (reversal?) to a more inclusive definition of comic book restoration in your publications. I've been actively collecting comic books since my childhood, and currently collect Marvel "key" books from the Silver Age. I believe the definition of restoration must include one's intent; therefore, any purposeful effort to restore a book to its original condition, whether by adding elements (color touch, reglossing, etc.) lost over time or by subtracting defects (trimming, pressing, etc.) gained over time, should be defined as restoration. Given that all books will accumulate wear and/or degrade over time, restoration -- as an intentional process -- should have its place in the world of comic book collecting. But it must be honestly presented as well. I resist, therefore, any efforts to deny restoration because of economic or marketplace concerns. I also resist any efforts to redefine restoration because it is difficult to detect; I follow the logic that a lie is still a lie even if I can't tell that a speaker is untruthful. Fundamental truths about restoration are crucial to the collecting community's sense of stability and trust, so please encourage them in all of your definitions. I hope you will include a thorough restoration definition for all of your subsequent publications. You do an excellent job and I look forward to reading your works throughout my collecting career. Joe Grisolia Collector My name is Joe Grisolia and I have been collecting and selling comics for over 35 years. I have seen many peaks and valleys over the years but have been one of the faithful that stuck things out and boy am I glad. It is a wonderful thing to share your enthusiasm for collecting with others that are in it for the pure enjoyment of the hobby. Sadly there are those that do prey on the naive or less informed and it is the duty of those who want to keep this hobby at its purest level to be heard from time to time. Below I quotes from the article written by Mark S. Zaid, Esq. in the May 2006 edition of The Collector eNewsletter: "The importance of Overstreet's definition of restoration goes to the heart of a current and controversial debate regarding pressing which, for the first time in 36 years, is now separately defined in the Glossary as "the removal or reduction of creases, bends, spine roll, or other surface imperfections."(1) Overstreet's new 2006 definition, while commendable in that it omitted the previous value references, clearly appeared to be specifically written for the purpose of excluding pressing. Rather than restoration requiring an attempt to "enhance" the book's appearance through numerous techniques that have been utilized for years, now an "addition of non-original material" is required to meet the definition. This "addition" requirement is inconsistent with how restoration is defined throughout the archival paper community. By all known professional definitions of the term restoration the concept of pressing fits squarely within, albeit in its most minimalist form" I wholehearted agree with mark and the rest of the collecting community that pressing is a form of restoration. Unlike color touch-ups and tear seals pressing is very hard to prove. A book that has spine roll, wrinkles, etc after its initial printing has accumulated defects that will bring down its value. Lets face it, as humans we try and "press" out the wrinkles that form on our own bodies so why not a book that can increase multiples in value. Many of us (collectors) may have pressed books in our own collections without knowing about it and that frightens me, to be honest. If I purchased a book that was said to have no restoration and I found out later it had color touch-ups (generally speaking about third party grading companies like CGC) I would feel like I was robbed, let alone lied to. We are treading on dangerous ground when a seller can have a book slabbed, crack it out of the slab and then have it pressed to re-submit hoping for a .2 bump it borders on criminal intent since "alterations" have been made for the sole purpose of increasing the books appearance for a higher final sales value. To keep the hobby pure, to protect serious investors we need to keep pressing included in the definition of a restored book. Thanks, also, to Donna Wright, who forwarded Mark Zaid's articles (although we've read a lot from Mark and even run his feature article on the subject here in Scoop). Below you'll find links to previous responses and the question topics: First Responses http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/scoop_article.asp?ai=11942&si=127 More Responses http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/scoop_article.asp?ai=12018&si=127 Even More Responses http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/scoop_article.asp?ai=12114&si=127 Still More Responses http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/scoop_article.asp?ai=12139&si=127 Heading Toward Deadline http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/scoop_article.asp?ai=12258&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 Making The Grade - Part 4 http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/scoop_article.asp?ai=12261&si=122 |
