We continue with the feedback on comic book grading this week, largely
dealing with the questions raised in last week’s issue concerning restoration
(but also covering other related topics). As always, your opinion is welcome.
Just drop us a
line!

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 33^rd 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 33^rd 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.