|
The Grading Guide Feedback Continues
Terry O'Neill Terry's Comics I think the updated statements on restoration are appropriate. David T Alexander David T Alexander Collectibles No consensus is the best way to characterize the situation. Barton Landsman Collector Feedback on Grading Definitions Do you favor changing the first sentence of the definition to read as follows: Any attempt, whether professional or amateur, to enhance the appearance of an aging or damaged comic book using additive procedures. Yes. Do you favor changing the second half of this definition to the following: Amateur work can actually damage a book further, and professional restoration can enhance the appearance of a book, but still is a controversial issue with some collectors. In all cases, except for some non-additive procedures, a restored book will never replace an original unrestored copy. Yes. Additionally, do you favor adding "reinforcing" and "glue" to the items recognized as restoration? Yes. Michael Naiman Dealer - Collector I favor the following: Restoration: Any attempt, whether professional or amateur, to enhance the appearance of an aging or damaged of a comic book using additive procedures. Do you favor changing the second half of this definition to the following: Amateur work can actually damage a book further, and professional restoration can enhance the appearance of a book, but still is a controversial issue with some many collectors. In all cases, except for some non-additive procedures (you need to define "non-additive procedures"), a restored book in the same condition as replace an original unrestored copy will never have an equal monetary value. Additionally, do you favor adding "reinforcing" and "glue" to the items recognized as restoration? Reinforcing and gluing is definitely Restoration! I believe that pressing, tape removal, staple replacement and non-aqueous cleaning is restoration and should be included with the definition or restoration! Brian Block WB Auction Services Wow! What a tough and sensitive question! If the book has been returned to it's natural state and no materials have been added or subtracted within it's original specs, I can understand not marking as restored and agree with that, but in all other cases it has had restoration work done to it. The determination of value is now the problem. Should a key book with very, very minor touch up work expertly done receive the same stigma as another copy of the book with moderate restoration work even though both books may look absolutely identical? No way! And that is why and how some books have slide by unmarked as restored over the years - (especially Golden Age) to maintain a fair balance of pricing. In principle I agree with this, but the problem is the practical application: Who decides where to draw the line? In some cases it has been fair and right in my opinion but in other cases it has been abused. If very specific standards can be created and fairly applied and enforced - I begrudgingly agree with this age old practice. I agree 100% with the update-change-evolution to the glue definition. The addition of the word conservation is excellent. Sometimes glue is used solely to improve the cosmetic look of a book to generate a higher price - definitely restoration and when grading the book should be taken in consideration as such, but on other occasions it is a honest attempt to preserve-conserve the book (you also want an improved cosmetic look but conserving the book is the # 1 goal). Excellent improvement of the definition. Each process should affect the grading accordingly. Good job! Jim Payette Rare Books & Comics All that you have written is okay by me except for the last paragraph. Cleaning is a form of restoration and should be disclosed. Tape removal is restoration and so is adding new staples. All these processes are adding or taking away from the original book. Anyone that does not recognize this, I question their agenda. Pressing is not restoration if the book has not disassembled, but still should be disclosed as I stated earlier. The bottom line is that every dealer should tell the buyer anything at all that has been done to the book. I realize in some cases the dealer may not know if any process has enhanced the book. In this case if you have to imagine there is a problem, to me there should not be a problem. At times we are getting to anal. Jim Brocius Cosmic Comics I think restoration basically falls into two categories. That which can be detected with the naked eye and that which can't. If I can spot the restoration it is a defect that should be graded by Overstreet criteria. If I can spot a color touch it is for all intents and purposes a stain. On the other hand, if I cannot spot restoration without the aid of special equipment than while it is technically a defect it should be considered a minor defect. It seems to me that the bottom line is "what does it look like, grade wise?" I also kind of have a problem with the use of the word "apparent" in regards to restored books because, correct me if I am missing something, aren't all grades on all books assigned based on appearance? Stephen Barrington Dealer I consider the removal of unneeded tape, a spine roll, tape residue, dirt and pressing as conservation not restoration since nothing was added to the book. Amateur restoration can be the kiss of death on any comic because it can involve techniques not used by professionals. Tear seals, color touch, and piece replacement is definitely restoration. Whitening can fall in between conservation and restoration. Staple replacement can be tricky especially in vintage comics. I would consider that in golden age comics as very minor restoration. I favor the first sentence: "Any attempt......" I also favor the second half of the definition. Glue and reinforcement should be considered as restoration though it does fall somewhat in the conservation area. On other subjects: Glue is a no-no even if it means re-gluing a dried out glued spine (squarebounds). Pressing is conservation. Tape is a hideous defect. Removing tape residue is conservation. Steven Borock President and Primary Grader, CGC Great piece, but I disagree with the pressing/trimming argument. Trimming, as you well know, has always been considered a defect and is taking away existing pieces from the comic and pressing does not take anything away. Two different animals; one is desecration and considered a defect and the other, if done correctly, enhances the comic without an additive process and without cutting up the comic book. D'Arcy Farrell Pendragon Comics The current definition of Restoration is as follows: RESTORATION - Any attempt, whether professional or amateur, to enhance the appearance of an aging or damaged comic book. These procedures may include any or all of the following techniques: recoloring, adding missing paper, stain, ink, dirt or tape removal, whitening, pressing out wrinkles, staple replacement, trimming, re-glossing, etc. Amateur work can lower the value of a book, and even professional restoration has now gained a negative aura in the modern marketplace from some quarters. In all cases, except for some simple cleaning procedures, a restored book can never be worth the same as an unrestored book in the same condition. True. Do you favor changing the first sentence of the definition to read as follows: Any attempt, whether professional or amateur, to enhance the appearance of an aging or damaged comic book using additive procedures. Yes, it is a more defined meaning, as I believe removal in foreign particles is a positive thing as long as nothing else is added! (So, if pencil can be removed without adding chemicals to the paper and so on, why not? And no restoration monicker should be applied as it implies a negative) Do you favor changing the second half of this definition to the following: Amateur work can actually damage a book further, and professional restoration can enhance the appearance of a book, but still is a controversial issue with some collectors. In all cases, except for some non-additive procedures, a restored book will never replace an original unrestored copy. I somewhat disagree. There are excellent amateurs, and some not so great professionals. Restored is restored. A professional can damage a book further as well. And an amateur can enhance the look. We should get off the amateur versus professional arguement as it has no bearing to the book itself. Whatever happens to the book is what it is, just because a professional did it, does not make it a better book. It looks the way it is once done, at that point, define the restoration for what it is. Additionally, do you favor adding "reinforcing" and "glue" to the items recognized as restoration? Yes, as it is foreignto the book. But not as negative as "pieces added" or trimmed. While there is clearly no consensus on this issue, rather than changing the definition for one that is equally challenged, we propose adding the following caveat: "There is no consensus on the inclusion of pressing, non-aqueous cleaning, tape removal, and in some cases staple replacement in this definition. Until such time as there is consensus, we encourage continued debate and interaction among all interested parties and reflection upon the standards in other hobbies and art forms." Sounds good! Note: instead of arguing about exact definitions and what is restored and what is not, we should concentrate on some numerical system (negative point grade system as I'd call it). For example, whether you agree replacing rusty staples is a restored thing or not, apply a 1/2 point grade drop (-0.5, so a vf 8.0 with replaced staples would be 7.5). We could base it on a percentage drop as well. Same book in vf, say value is $100, apply a -10% drop = $90 . Trimming could be a -75%, color touch up (minor on spine,3 spots max could be -20% or major touch up, on cover and art, many spots say -50%). These are just wacky numbers and thoughts. But i think it is worthy of debate. In this way, collectors see actual values and negatives that can be applied, and can thereby use the Overstreet guide in conjunction with the grading guide to figure out a more defined exact value to a "restored" Amazing Spider-Man #1 or other books. It would create a stable sense to the collector that the market also believes in the value of that restored key book, and they are not wasting money on an iffy item. This is why collectors avoid restored. Who knows what the value should really be on these items, so most avoid it. Really, when you think about it, I'd probably like a professionally restored Detective Comics #38 that looks 8.0, with replaced pieces and so on, than a 3.0 without, it's more impressive to show off. But I would not if the restored monicker does not define its value exactly. I would not buy it going out on a limb. Mark S. Zaid EsquireComics.com The last issue of Scoop seeks the Community's final views on the fate of the definition of the term "restoration." Frankly, on many levels, it is not as much what the definition of restoration should be that is of concern as it is why Overstreet has seen fit to propose the definition requires modification in the first place. I previously addressed the recent history of the progression of the definition of restoration in an earlier Scoop article published May 12, 2006: http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/scoop_article.asp?ai=12139&si=127 The current definition was published in the 33rd edition of the Guide in 2003. The modification prior to that, which was quite vague, existed untouched for nine years. Further research has revealed that what Overstreet viewed as restoration has undergone manipulation several times over the years. At times in the early 1980s the definition and its surrounding discussion was even contradictory. Nevertheless, for the majority of the years that Overstreet has existed, the controversial method of pressing has been considered, by the very terms of the definition, as restoration. Therein lies the rub because it is this fact that has led to much of the controversy and concern among some. In the June 9, 2006, edition of Scoop I discussed in detail the practical aspects of the restoration/pressing debate: http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/scoop_article.asp?ai=12375&si=127 Gemstone now brings the debate full circle and in the process "actively endorse[s] the concept of a renewed, spirited and civil discourse on the issue." I wholeheartedly support that sentiment, as I do on any significant issue that affects the comic community. In the latest Scoop Gemstone provided several alternative definitions to consider. The final alternative was to maintain the existing definition but include the following caveat: There is no consensus on the inclusion of pressing, non-aqueous cleaning, tape removal, and in some cases staple replacement in this definition. Until such time as there is consensus, we encourage continued debate and interaction among all interested parties and reflection upon the standards in other hobbies and art forms. I firmly believe that Overstreet should maintain the definition as written in its 33rd edition except I would suggest they remove the references to value which are noted below in italics. RESTORATION - Any attempt, whether professional or amateur, to enhance the appearance of an aging or damaged comic book. These procedures may include any or all of the following techniques: recoloring, adding missing paper, stain, ink, dirt or tape removal, whitening, pressing out wrinkles, staple replacement, trimming, re-glossing, etc. Amateur work can lower the value of a book, and even professional restoration has now gained a negative aura in the modern marketplace from some quarters. In all cases, except for some simple cleaning procedures, a restored book can never be worth the same as an unrestored book in the same condition. These last two sentences are irrelevant to the definition of restoration. They pertain to the community perception of restoration and, in fact, contribute to the negative stigma that has surrounded the art in recent years. This is something I believe our community should work to reverse and removal of this language from the "definition" would be an important first step. I completely agree that the issue of pressing (and more precisely non-disclosed pressing) is controversial within at least segments of the comic book community that are aware of the debate. However, in light of the very explicit inclusion of "pressing out wrinkles" within the existing Overstreet definition I would not suggest the caveat be worded in the proposed manner. Instead, I would suggest the following replacement: Notwithstanding our stated definition, there is an existing debate regarding the inclusion of pressing, non-aqueous cleaning, tape removal, and in some cases staple replacement in a definition of restoration. We encourage continued debate and interaction among all interested parties and reflection upon the standards in other hobbies and art forms. Furthermore, we do note there is an increasingly growing movement towards disclosure of these actions even if not considered to be a restorative technique. I believe ample evidence exists to support, in particular, the addition of the last sentence. For one thing, a group of collectors and dealers, including three Overstreet Advisors (myself among them), and noted comic book restoration expert Susan Ciccioni have recently founded the Network of Disclosure (to be online no later than July 18, 2006, at www.networkofdisclosure.com). The NOD Mission Statement adopted by its Charter Members states: The Network of Disclosure is a group of comic book dealers and collectors, who have pledged to disclose any form of restoration or enhancement, to include Intact Pressing, known to exist, on a comic book in their possession or placed by them for sale. Our objective is to create a safer and more open environment for those buying and selling comic books. By publicly sharing this type of history of each of these books with our fellow collectors and prospective customers, we seek to foster both a greater level of confidence and sense of security within the marketplace. As soon as the finishing touches on the website are completed the NOD will formally open its doors to membership from the general comic book community. Already numerous dealers, collectors and other restoration experts have indicated their interest, if not willingness, to join. In closing, I commend Overstreet and Gemstone for initiating these discussions and look forward to the continuing debate towards consensus. Bill Cole Bill Cole Enterprises Do you favor changing the first sentence of the definition to read as follows: Any attempt, whether professional or amateur, to enhance the appearance of an aging or damaged comic book using additive procedures. Take out "of an aging" and replace with "any comic book" We have seen new books being restored. Do you favor changing the second half of this definition to the following: Amateur work can actually damage a book further, and professional restoration can enhance the appearance of a book, but still is a controversial issue with some collectors. In all cases, except for some non-additive procedures, a restored book will never replace an original unrestored copy. Professional or amateur work can negatively reduce the value of a book. We have seen botched jobs from the professionals and great jobs by amateur. You do not want to discriminate. Additionally, do you favor adding "reinforcing" and "glue" to the items recognized as restoration? Gluing and reinforcing are standards in the restoration field. It should be included. Michael Tierney Dealer I'm in agreement on all three language additions. Definitely add glue and reinforcing into the mix, but leave pressing out (but I would think replacing a staple is restoration... albeit minor). The changes sound fine to me, and the caveat to leave the door open for further definition is a good idea. The only thought I'd add would be to add some sort of guidelines one how to grade a restored book. The methodology that I've always used is to consider the grade before restoration, the grade after restoration, and value the book in the middle. By using the after restoration grade as a measuring stick, it automatically adjusts for either professional or amateur restoration work. Michael Cathro Collector Hello. I have been collecting off and on since 1983 or so. Here is my opinion on the recommendations presented for the definition of Restoration. Do you favor changing the first sentence of the definition to read as follows: Any attempt, whether professional or amateur, to enhance the appearance of an aging or damaged comic book using additive procedures. I would not change it to say just "additive procedures". This implies that removal of ink, pencil, dirt, stains, etc. is not restoration. Removal of these items still increases the appearance of a book but isn't an additive procedure. Do you favor changing the second half of this definition to the following: Amateur work can actually damage a book further, and professional restoration can enhance the appearance of a book, but still is a controversial issue with some collectors. In all cases, except for some non-additive procedures, a restored book will never replace an original unrestored copy. If amateur work damages a book further then it shouldn't be considered restoration. The book is in worse shape than it was before. I would recommend having the second part say something like "While restoration can enhance the appearance of a book, the hobby currently does not put a premium on a book that has been restored over an original unrestored copy." Additionally, do you favor adding "reinforcing" and "glue" to the items recognized as restoration? Yes. While there is clearly no consensus on this issue, rather than changing the definition for one that is equally challenged, we propose adding the following caveat: There is no consensus on the inclusion of pressing, non-aqueous cleaning, tape removal, and in some cases staple replacement in this definition. Until such time as there is consensus, we encourage continued debate and interaction among all interested parties and reflection upon the standards in other hobbies and art forms. I think the caveat works fine. These are just my thoughts on the matter. Thank you for considering them. Brian G. Philbin Do you favor changing the first sentence of the definition to read as follows: Any attempt, whether professional or amateur, to enhance the appearance of an aging or damaged comic book using additive procedures. I definitely favor this change. Do you favor changing the second half of this definition to the following: Amateur work can actually damage a book further, and professional restoration can enhance the appearance of a book, but still is a controversial issue with some collectors. In all cases, except for some non-additive procedures, a restored book will never replace an original unrestored copy. I definitely favor this change. Additionally, do you favor adding "reinforcing" and "glue" to the items recognized as restoration? I definitely favor this addition. While there is clearly no consensus on this issue, rather than changing the definition for one that is equally challenged, we propose adding the following caveat: There is no consensus on the inclusion of pressing, non-aqueous cleaning, tape removal, and in some cases staple replacement in this definition. Until such time as there is consensus, we encourage continued debate and interaction among all interested parties and reflection upon the standards in other hobbies and art forms. I definitely favor this addition. And thanks for asking! Brent Moeshlin Quality Comix As a dealer who openly presses and discloses, I feel that I have a unique perspective to share with the collecting community. In my opinion, pressing is not restoration. Nothing is being added to the book except pressure and in most cases, heat. It is a common mistake to assume that heat is always used facilitate pressing books. While this is true most of the time, heat is not used in every case. Pressure on a book, no matter how concentrated, is not restoration, in my opinion. Recently, I purchased a collection in which the original owner purchased the books off the shelf and put them into banker's boxes flat on their backs and never touched them again. He did this month after month, year after year, from 1975 on. Many of the books from the late 1970s and early 1980s have the appearance of being pressed because of the weight of the books above them in the boxes over a time period of 20-30 years. This is not something that can happen with a tear seal, color touch or spine reinforcement. They don't magically appear on books. They must be done (hopefully) by a professional conservationist. On the other side of the coin, the argument is held that if pressing is not restoration, then it shouldn't be disclosed. Here I disagree completely. Trimming is not considered restoration, yet it is disclosed by reputable dealers. In addition, I don't feel that erasure should be considered restoration, but it should be disclosed as well. The dividing line on disclosure should not be whether it is restoration or not, that is a moot point. Anything that the dealer/seller has done to a comic book to enhance it's appearance whether considered restoration, conservation, or other, should be disclosed so that the buyer can make their own decisions as to what the value of the book is. I also agree with the below statement: There is no consensus on the inclusion of pressing, non-aqueous cleaning, tape removal, and in some cases staple replacement in this definition. Until such time as there is consensus, we encourage continued debate and interaction among all interested parties and reflection upon the standards in other hobbies and art forms. Chuck Rozanski Mile High Comics On most restoration issues I have no set opinion, as I review restoration in most instances as being an enhancement to the quality and value of a book. That depends, of course on the expertise employed, but I don't think that professional restoration should carry nearly the level of stigma that the market currently applies. While unrestored books are certainly more desirable than ones that have been repaired, the fact remains that when many books have been restored, they simply look far better than when they were in their original state. How could that possibly be bad? The above having been said, I do have a very set opinion about pressing. In my opinion, it is not, in any way, restoration. Even if it were to be so noted, it is practically impossible to define, or to identify. For the Grading Guide to suddenly begin stigmatizing pressing would be a serious error. Who among you could possibly identify 100% of the time when a book has been pressed? I've been a comics dealer since 1969, and I do not believe that I could, with any level of certainty, clearly identify pressed books from unpressed. Please take my advice, and keep far, far away from this contentious issue. You can cause nothing but harm by opening this can of worms. I've read the disclaimer you've included below about pressing, non-aqueous cleaning, tape removal, etc., and it seems general enough to satisfy most parties. I am certain, however, that a few rabid individuals will attempt to coerce you into shifting your position to a more extreme and restrictive point. Please do not allow yourself to be unduly influenced by the shrill and the demanding. You should be setting reasonable standards for an entire industry. Not just for a few overly fanatical individuals. All the best! Scott Bonagofsky Emison Hullverson Bonagofsky LLP As interesting as I am finding the ongoing discussion in Scoop concerning "restoration vs. conservation," I believe that this process, while informative and a very good thing, is probably not going to result in any true "industry consensus" on how to define restoration. In light of that fact, I believe that the wisest course (if you are not satisfied with the current definition of restoration) is to adopt the definitions created by professional associations for conservators. These are definitions that have been vetted at length and have been created and accepted by people who spend every waking hour thinking about nothing but Conservation. The American Institute of Conservation (AIC) is one such professional association that has developed definitions of various terms such as restoration, conservation, and preservation. Here are the definitions developed by the AIC (not all of which need necessarily be adopted officially in the Guide): Conservation: The profession devoted to the preservation of cultural property for the future. Conservation activities include examination, documentation, treatment, and preventive care, supported by research and education. Examination: The investigation of the structure, materials, and condition of cultural property including the identification of the extent and causes of alteration and deterioration. Documentation: The recording in a permanent format of information derived from conservation activities. Treatment: The deliberate alteration of the chemical and/or physical aspects of cultural property, aimed primarily at prolonging its existence. Treatment may consist of stabilization and/or restoration. Stabilization: Treatment procedures intended to maintain the integrity of cultural property and to minimize deterioration. Restoration: Treatment procedures intended to return cultural property to a known or assumed state, often through the addition of nonoriginal material. Preventive Care (also referred to as preventive conservation): The mitigation of deterioration and damage to cultural property through the formulation and implementation of policies and procedures for the following: appropriate environmental conditions; handling and maintenance procedures for storage, exhibition, packing, transport, and use; integrated pest management; emergency preparedness and response; and reformatting/duplication. Cultural Property: Objects, collections, specimens, structures, or sites identified as having artistic, historic, scientific, religious, or social significance. Preservation: The protection of cultural property through activities that minimize chemical and physical deterioration and damage and that prevent loss of informational content. The primary goal of preservation is to prolong the existence of cultural property. Conservator: A professional whose primary occupation is the practice of conservation and who, through specialized education, knowledge, training, and experience, formulates and implements all the activities of conservation in accordance with an ethical code such as the AIC Code of Ethics and Guidelines for Practice. Conservation Administrator: A professional with substantial knowledge of conservation who is responsible for the administrative aspects and implementation of conservation activities in accordance with an ethical code such as the AIC Code of Ethics and Guidelines for Practice. Conservation Educator: A professional with substantial knowledge and experience in the theory and techniques of conservation whose primary occupation is to teach the principles, methodology, and/or technical aspects of the profession in accordance with an ethical code such as the AIC Code of Ethics and Guidelines for Practice. Conservation Scientist: A professional scientist whose primary focus is the application of specialized knowledge and skills to support the activities of conservation in accordance with an ethical code such as the AIC Code of Ethics and Guidelines for Practice. Conservation Technician: An individual who is trained and experienced in specific conservation treatment activities and who works in conjunction with or under the supervision of a conservator. A conservation technician may also be trained and experienced in specific preventive care activities. Collections Care Specialist: An individual who is trained and experienced in specific preventive care activities and who works in conjunction with or under the supervision of a conservator. http://aic.stanford.edu/geninfo/defin.html I don't know that you need to adopt or even use all of these definitions, but if you are looking for "official" definitions for restoration, conservation, and preservation that actually contain distinctions that mean something, I believe that the AIC's definitions are as good as any (though you may want to tweak some of the language to make them specific to our hobby). For the collector who looks at a dot of color touch as being the same as a completely recreated cover (i.e., "all restoration is evil!"), these distinctions are probably irrelevant. For the rest of us (many of whom believe that the acceptability of various forms of restoration and conservation exists on a sliding scale, so long as appropriate disclosure is made), it is important to be accurate and precise in forming the definitions that shape the hobby. On a more pragmatic level, there is an additional benefit to be gained from adopting pre-existing definitions from professional conservation associations. From The Overstreet Comic Book Grading Guide's perspective, perhaps the most comforting thing about adopting these previously-accepted definitions is that no one will be able to accuse Gemstone of having caved in to one camp or another in determining what definitions will appear in the Guide. Richard Olson Collector-Dealer-Historian When you open Pandora's Box, you get what you got! Just for the record, I would not change the definition. Sure, the restorers and dealers want to limit the definition, but the truth is, the way it is currently written is correct--i.e., restoration is not limited to additive procedures but also includes subtractive techniques. Al Stoltz Dealer It seems that what is and isn't restoration has been on the rise in opinion as CGC has begun to devise a new sorting out of how to define what is slabbed....a good thing or bad ? For example, why do some Mile High copies still get regular labels (because purple ones are kiss of death) even if they have glue or even some color touch ? Is restoration able to be glossed over and accepted if it is a book from a certain pedigree ? Or is restoration just restoration no matter what comic it is ? Pressing: Since the great Jason Ewert scandal, this topic has been discussed endlessly! If the pressing is under a metal devise made to do just that purpose or a comic under a stack of dictionaries or smashed with clamps and wood from Home Depot, as long as it does not add or subtract from the comic, I am more than fine with pressing ! Tape: Tape of any kind I feel is a huge problem for a comic and should cause a book to be down graded more than a full grade. Glue: We are adding to a comic here, so that means this is a no-no and a comic should be down graded again more than a grade for this problem when grading. Replaced Staples: Not originally with book....so a serious no as far as accepting and grading it as if it was in original condition. Let's just call an apple and apple and grade each book regardless if it came out last week or was made in 1935 the same. Common sense has ruled pretty well for a long time, a "new" way of looking at this problem only seems to many out there as a way to manipulate a selection of books as more acceptable and more profitable. Cranky and tired after driving straight home from Disney and hope some of these comments help out in some way Matt Nelson Classics Incorporated Hi, I agree with all of your proposed changes to the restoration definition. Kevin Logan Collector My feedback to your questions: Do you favor changing the first sentence of the definition to read as follows: "Any attempt, whether professional or amateur, to enhance the appearance of an aging or damaged comic book using additive procedures." Answer: No. Trimming isn't an "additive" procedure. It's done to "enhance the appearance", to manipulate grade and value upward, to mimic a higher state of preservation. The same reasons undisclosed "pressing out wrinkles" is performed, another non-additive grade altering procedure. Do you favor changing the second half of this definition to the following: "Amateur work can actually damage a book further, and professional restoration can enhance the appearance of a book, but still is a controversial issue with some collectors. In all cases, except for some non-additive procedures, a restored book will never replace an original unrestored copy." answer: No. The "non-additive procedures" exception is a green light for further marketplace chicanery via undisclosed alterations. The unethical already slither through any loop hole they perceive, so why provide an oily caveat and some extra wiggle room? Additionally, do you favor adding "reinforcing" and "glue" to the items recognized as restoration? answer: Yes. There's nothing inherently negative about correctly applied restoration techniques, with most being both respectful and reversible. The "negative aura" is a justified reaction to covert application with intent to defraud (plus the "negative" is trumpeted to sell professional grading and restoration detection services). Restoration's bad rap has more to do with scams of non-disclosure, its impact on wallets (as opposed to any actual negative impact to the artifact). Consumers don't like getting ripped-off. Steve Sibra Dealer I read through this, makes good sense to me; I would agree that such a change is appropriate. David J. Anderson, DDS Collector-Dealer My opinion is to keep the definition of restoration like you have it and I favor adding "reinforcing" and "glue" to the definition. I do not favor changing the second half of the definition and since I feel there needs to be some closure on this subject, I do not favor adding the caveat. Scott Bonagofsky Emison Hullverson Bonagofsky LLP Do you favor changing the second half of this definition to the following: Amateur work can actually damage a book further, and professional restoration can enhance the appearance of a book, but still is a controversial issue with some collectors. In all cases, except for some non-additive procedures, a restored book will never replace an original unrestored copy. I think the last part of the last sentence is too vague, is untrue in some cases (maybe someone wants to downgrade from an unrestored copy in order to take some cash off the table, and is willing to buy a restored copy to replace the unrestored copy?) and that the way it was worded originally was better. In other words, it should say "... a restored book will never be worth the same as an unrestored book in the same condition." This phrasing means what I think you are trying to say and is more accurate than the proposed change. For the "except for some non-additive procedures" language, I think you should just specify "dry cleaning and non-disassembly pressing." Those are the only two non-additive procedures where the books are arguably worth the same following those procedures. Books with cleaned staples are always worth less in the marketplace is that work is disclosed. If you leave it as phrased, I think a lot of people will be confused or misled as to what "non-additive procedures" are referred to here. On the issue of adding reinforcement and glue, they are definitely restoration. They may also constitute conservation, but those are not mutually exclusive terms. An addendum to my response on the issue of the definition of restoration: While there is clearly no consensus on this issue, rather than changing the definition for one that is equally challenged, we propose adding the following caveat: There is no consensus on the inclusion of pressing, non-aqueous cleaning, tape removal, and in some cases staple replacement in this definition. Until such time as there is consensus, we encourage continued debate and interaction among all interested parties and reflection upon the standards in other hobbies and art forms. You should not use non-aqueous cleaning here. Solvent cleaning is "non-aqueous," and yet it is always considered restoration by virtually everyone in the hobby. Just call it "dry cleaning (erasure)" the way that everyone else does and make sure that your definition of "dry cleaning" elsewhere makes it clear that dry cleaning a comic book simply means using an eraser or other similar material to erase surface grime and other matter from a comic book. Arnie Sawyer Collector - Designer Subject: Pressing Definition-- are you kidding? Do not change the definition of restoration to include or suggest that pressing is not a form of restoration. We all know that CGC has chosen not to consider it so for their own reasons. But Overstreet/Gemstone is under no urgent financial need to follow suit. CGC has (inadvertantly?) opened the door to unscrupulous dealer/collectors who are actively improving the grades of their books and thereby the $ values of them for sale. And they are selling these copies without disclosing the work that was done to them. Are these people the ones Overstreet now wants to align their good name with? Are only micro-trimmers "bad guys" now? How different is an invisible trim job compared to an invisible press job? Has CGC caused such a sea change in the hobby that whatever they say, now goes? Is Overstreet/Gemstone/Geppi so eager to toady along after CGC's lead? Is Overstreet/Gemstone trembling in fear of falling behind CGC??? They are in the grading business... for profit. We can see how their pressing stance is convenient for their business model. But what would going along with them do for your business model? Will your publishing efforts suffer more or less by agreeing with a convenient change in the restoration definition? I say you would suffer a greater loss of confidence and further sidelining vis-avis CGC should you cave to this craven change! What will CGC force Gemstone to change next? Cmon. Stick to your guns, guys. Let there be your restoration definition which will include any and all methods of improving a books appearance and value, as you have always done. And let CGC go ahead with their exploitable and ridiculously transparent cash-grabbing "anything goes" policy. so what if there are two definitions? Yours and theirs. We long-time collectors are in your corner. CGC has been good, but they have also done some things very badly. Allowing pressers to slip their books through in squeaky clean Blue labels is one of their worst mistakes. As more and more of your audience wakes up to this reality, they/we look to you and especially Steve Geppi to hold the line against these guys who only seek to increase the values of their inventories! Think ahead a few years as word spreads what's going on. Right now it's just a few "wackos" on the CGC boards screaming bloody murder. But pressing not being restoration boggles the mind! It goes against all our collecting principles sine the hobby began: you cannot fix a damaged book without restoring it! Even undetectible restoration techniques are still restoration by definition! And you seriously want to change the definition? As word spreads I see a repetition of the '90s when Sotheby's fostered a wave of "Officially Sanctioned" restored books. Gee - -how did that all end, huh? I see this situation ending the same way: people will wake up and say "What were we thinking! D'oh!" Do you want to have voted for the war going along with the rest of the cool guys? Or be able to look back and say you stood by your principles in a tough decision? I am aware that many of our greatest collectors and top dealers are four-square behind NDP and your plans to remove pressing from your restoration definitions. Perhaps egging you on, saying pressing has always been around, nothing is added, etc etc. So I understand the pressures you are facing, the looming obselescence and loss of leadership in the field you have dominated for so long. But the solution is not to cave! But rather to stick to principles, and not facilitate further erosion of standards to the moneygrabbers. Believe me, changing this will not sell more books, or even less. But the erosion of the Overstreet name will be hastened, not reversed, if you go ahead. Steve Mortensen Colossus Comics Here's my two cents: Do you favor changing the first sentence of the definition to read as follows: Any attempt, whether professional or amateur, to enhance the appearance of an aging or damaged comic book using additive procedures. I think that new definition looks good. I'm of the agreement that restoration is an additive process although when you think about it, trimming is a subtractive process. I have a few issues with the second sentence: These procedures may include any or all of the following techniques: recoloring, adding missing paper, stain, ink, dirt or tape removal, whitening, pressing out wrinkles, staple replacement, trimming, re-glossing, etc. I would say a minor amount of stain, dirt removal would be okay (non-aqueous). What if you encounter a collection of books in an attic and they're covered with dust and you blow off the dust and wipe away the excess. I wouldn't call that restoration. Same with pressing. With most collections I buy the books have been bagged/board and stuffed snuggly into a comic box. Most are flat as pancakes. I just don't see how comic storage can be considered restoration. I also don't see a problem replicating that process by using heavy objects to flatten the comics. I find the whole pressing issue somewhat silly. Once the books are in the holder aren't they essentially being pressed? Based on the list in the second paragraph, restoration to me includes: recoloring, color touch, staple replacement, additive procedures, trimming, reglossing and whitening. Do you favor changing the second half of this definition to the following: Amateur work can actually damage a book further, and professional restoration can enhance the appearance of a book, but still is a controversial issue with some collectors. In all cases, except for some non-additive procedures, a restored book will never replace an original unrestored copy. That sounds better to me. Additionally, do you favor adding "reinforcing" and "glue" to the items recognized as restoration? Yes. There is no consensus on the inclusion of pressing, non-aqueous cleaning, tape removal, and in some cases staple replacement in this definition. Until such time as there is consensus, we encourage continued debate and interaction among all interested parties and reflection upon the standards in other hobbies and art forms. Sounds good, although I think staple replacement is restoration. Tape removal is borderline for me. Gary Colabuono Moondog's Your changes are acceptable to me and I would definitely add that reinforcing and glue are examples of restoration. Tracey Heft Eclipse Paper Conservation Another week, another round of definitions: Do you favor changing the first sentence of the definition to read as follows: Any attempt, whether professional or amateur, to enhance the appearance of an aging or damaged comic book using additive procedures. I do not favor this change as almost every procedure (restoration or conservation) includes the addition of something to the book. For example, deacidification, which almost everyone would agree is conservation, adds a chemical to the fibers of the paper. Even dry-cleaning, which removes dirt from the surface of an item, leaves behind particles in the fibers of the paper that cannot be removed. I am well-aware that the term "non-additive procedures" is designed so that procedures that do not add paper, tissues, or colorants to a book can now be called conservation. However, the term "additive procedures" attempts to differentiate between the terms of conservation and restoration using a generic, non-descript, simplified, over-generalized, "catch-all" phrase. It is not that simple, and it should not be that simple. Conservation and restoration is not defined by what is used. They are terms that plainly describe the attempt and intent of a procedure or procedures and the end results. Do you favor changing the second half of this definition to the following: Amateur work can actually damage a book further, and professional restoration can enhance the appearance of a book, but still is a controversial issue with some collectors. In all cases, except for some non-additive procedures, a restored book will never replace an original unrestored copy. There are two parts that need to be addressed. First, the whole amateur/professional designation. What is amateur and what is professional and who is qualified to make the distinction between the two? How are they defined? Do you mean amateur/professional skill or amateur/professional materials? Perhaps, a more accurate terminology that relates to the obviousness (or evidence) of the work should be adopted which would change the "proposed" definition to: "Restoration can either enhance or further damage a book, depending on how obvious the work done is or the types of materials used." The second part that needs to be addressed is the proposed statement: In all cases, except for some non-additive procedures, a restored book will never replace an original unrestored copy. This second part is an incomplete thought. Do you mean to address the concept of value with this proposed statement? If so, the inclusion of the exception, is interesting. This would allow for "non-additive procedures" to fall outside of the stigma of restoration in regards to value by changing restoration techniques and procedures to conservation (as determined by the grading guide definitions). Not only is this a very slippery slope (and it will not be long before items are irreparably harmed (under the guise of conservation)) but it is a poor attempt to educate the public on the differences between restoration and conservation. I agree, wholeheartedly, that conservation should be valued differently from restoration. However, I do not agree with trying to separate the two in a catch-all phrase (non-additive procedures). I would truly like to see the hobby embrace the concept that value is based on what was done and how much of the original book remains instead of being tied to various inadequate attempts to determine how much restoration is there and is it restoration or conservation? Additionally, do you favor adding "reinforcing" and "glue" to the items recognized as restoration? Once again, these are two separate issues. Reinforcing is not "tear repair" or "tear seals". Reinforcing is the attempt to repair a split or tear in paper using a material to "reinforce" the damaged areas. It can be considered a conservation technique, but it can also be considered a restoration technique. The difference lies in the intent. If colorant is used in an attempt to hide the reinforcement, it is restoration. If no colorant is used, leaving the reinforcing material showing, it should be considered conservation as it is an attempt to prevent further damage from occurring. Glue, on the other hand, is a substance that is used to apply reinforcing material or seal a tear (or split, etc). As I wrote last week (but the email was not published in this latest issue of Scoop): [Editor's note: Tracey - please re-send this. We believe we've published each of your notes that we've received.] If there persists a need to define a treatment as conservation and not restoration (and I believe there is a great need) then determination of restoration or conservation would be dependent upon intent of the restorer. Is the defect that was glued structural or esthetic? If structural, then perhaps it was a conservation procedure. If esthetic, then it was restoration. If both structural and esthetic, then restoration. As I have, hopefully, shown over the course of my last three emails - the current and developing list is seriously flawed as it attempts to label items as either one or the other, when there are several that can fit both and several that are misunderstood and therefore, mislabeled. While there is clearly no consensus on this issue, rather than changing the definition for one that is equally challenged, we propose adding the following caveat: There is no consensus on the inclusion of pressing, non-aqueous cleaning, tape removal, and in some cases staple replacement in this definition. Until such time as there is consensus, we encourage continued debate and interaction among all interested parties and reflection upon the standards in other hobbies and art forms. I agree that there is no consensus on what is/isn't restoration. However, do we really need a consensus amongst all of the parties? There is no consensus for grading, yet definitions of grading have been published since 1970. Some criteria are followed, some are not. So no consensus has been achieved - even after 36 years of constant changing and development. The same might eventually be true of the list of "items recognized as restoration". One thing is certain, to reach a consensus of any kind, we need a definition - one that does not depend on materials used, skill levels of the practitioners and undefined/unquantified terms. Definitions exist for restoration and conservation in other fields and other organizations (and I have presented them over an over again). The definitions from other disciplines could easily be adopted for comics, in fact, they are generic enough to fit nicely. What is causing a problem is the attempt to separate certain procedures and treatments from the stigma of restoration. It would be easier to just defeat the stigma of restoration through clear, concise language and disclosure. John Adams Scheradon@aol.com I favor leaving the current definition in place. I would have no problem with the addition of the caveat footnote, but would suggest adding a line encouraging disclosure of these items while the debate continues. Thanks. David Matteini Collector First Sentence: Agree with the addition of "using additive procedures" to the first sentence. If you are going to say that tape is destructive as well as trimming you may want to rephrase "using additive procedures" to "using additive procedures that will not lead to further deterioration in the future" (or something like that this is just a first pass off the cuff response). Second Sentence: Much improved. Listing everything, especially such controversial things as "pressing out wrinkles" is smart. Reinforcing and Glue: IMHO, it's restoration Following Caveat: Good to have; however this ignores the elephant in the room: disclosure. You may want to indicate something about disclosure without inciting speculation. How's that for stating the obvious but not giving a solution?) I might try something like this: "all of the above if done properly are impossible to detect to both the trained and the novice alike. However, to create a transparent and open marketplace sellers should disclose any alterations to the book to the best of their knowledge. This should be done in an attempt not to spur speculation but to create confidence amongst buyer and seller alike" Alteration: I also want to talk more about "alteration." IMHO, this underscores the entire debate. I would refer to the philosophical notion of the "Platonic Ideal". In this example, all books would be a 10.0 if it weren't for some sort of alteration (creases, spine stresses, wear, etc). Conservation and Restoration are simply different forms of alteration. My two cents - hope it's helpful. |
