Last week, we posted additional responses we received to our article,
“Making The Grade – Part 1.” As we mentioned, we invited reader feedback on some
of the issues surrounding comic book grading and our work on the new edition of
The Overstreet Comic Book Grading Guide. The article was featured not
only in Scoop, but went out to all new comics retailers who get
Diamond Daily, and via email to the Overstreet Advisors.

This
week we’re including even more feedback to that question, as well as feedback to
“Making The Grade – Part 3,” which focused specifically on the issues of staple
replacement.

We’re still eager for your participation! Prior even to the
publication in 1970 of the first edition of the Guide, Bob Overstreet
sought the input of noted collectors, dealers and comics historians. As a matter
of practice, soliciting new data, corrections and other feedback has been a
standard activity for Bob and the staff since the first Guide started reaching
readers. Additionally, the recruiting of Overstreet Advisors has continued
throughout the book’s entire life as well (To read more about how early the
procedure developed, read “The
Semi-Secret Origins of The Overstreet Comic Book Price Guide” in the
March 14, 2003 edition of Scoop).

So, take a read and let us know what you
think!

Below you’ll find links to previous responses, the
question topics, and this week’s responses:

First
Responses
http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/preview/scoop_article.asp?ai=11942&si=127

More
Responses
http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/preview/scoop_article.asp?ai=12018&si=127

Making
The Grade – Part 1
http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/scoop_article.asp?ai=11884&si=122

Making
The Grade – Part 2
http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/scoop_article.asp?ai=11967&si=122

Making
The Grade – Part 3
http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/scoop_article.asp?ai=12041&si=122

THIS
WEEK’S RESPONSES – TO PART 1

Tom
Brulato
Collector
I really think it is this simple. Pressing is
not an additive process and therefore I do not consider it restoration. If a
book is pressed correctly even the experts at the CGC are not sure if in fact it
was pressed. How can we label a book pressed when there is no way to tell for
certain?

Most of the Marvel collectors that I know do not care in the
least if a book was pressed. I am constantly showed books by fellow collectors
for my opinion if it (the book) can be upgraded with a pressing.

This is
really no longer an issue or me as I will buy pressed books at the same multiple
as a non pressed book. After thirty plus years of pressing I would be impossible
to identify all the books that have been pressed.

Steve
Lauterbach
Investment Collectibles
I, for many years, have felt
pressing, when done properly, is a non-invasive, non-restorative process. I
always use the example of books sitting between cement blocks for a long period
of time. Now I also understand there are some individuals who have voiced their
strong opinions that pressing should be considered restoration. Who are they in
the scheme of things you should ask yourselves and what are their facts. What is
their agenda? Do they really care about the overall health of the market or is
it all sour grapes or self promotion?

The idea of pressing with intent
to deceive and nor disclosing when a books has been pressed. How do you or I
know? Unless it is done incorrectly, as you have been shown, it is almost
impossible to detect. I for one, if asked, will disclose pressing if I know it
has been done.

From a sellers stance, I have never had a problem buying a
CGC or non-CGC book knowing that it has or may have been pressed. Ask the top
collectors as well and I am sure you will find that many of their prized comics
have in fact been pressed. I hope more collectors and dealers step up to the
plate to voice their opinions on this matter.

Howard
Gerber
Collector
I have been collecting since 1963. This
pressing debate seems kind of silly to me. If an expert can’t tell a book has
been pressed professionally how can one call it restoration? That’s my
opinion.

Jamie Graham
Graham Crackers
How
would you define “Restoration” in comics?
Restoration is the process or
attempt of trying to return a book to its original condition by adding materials
back to the book such as paper, color, under this definition trimming fits
because they are trying to return the look of the book back to its original
state even they didn’t add anything.

Would you delineate between
professional restoration and amateur restoration? And if so, what would be the
determining factors?
No, I would not delineate between the two although
many times amateur restoration looks more like butchery to me!

What,
if any, forms of restoration are acceptable to you?
Quality professional
is acceptable….but it is still restored. I have seen some jobs that you could
hardly tell. Our industry only has two that I know are capable of doing that
kind of job.

And why?
Talent. A combination of artistic
ability and knowledge of the processes.

And under what
circumstances?
I think that removing spine rolls. Pressing (and, in my
opinion if done carefully and with proper pieces…) [and] staples may be
changed out. These don’t bother me.

Also preservation is vital to our
books and our heritage. De-acidification is the way to go, however, if pages are
washed and they come out with that greenish hue…then we know they were
done poorly. Bleaching just disguises a defect that is there, brittle paper for
example. Therefore, it would fall under restoration not
preservation.

Cleaning falls under preservation/conservation. Simple easy
and does not add to the book materially, except when some of those amateurs out
there manage to get the covers to shrink or even enlarge; then we have a
problem.

There don’t seem to be simple straight forward answers all the
time.

Doug Schmell
Pedigree Comics
Restoration
to me is the violative, additive means of enhancing a comic book by “restoring”
its physical structure. Anything that is done to a comic that adds to its
structural appearance should be deemed as restoration (i.e. use of color touch,
glue, tape, tear seals, staple reinforcement, staple removal, cover cleaning,
pieces added, cover removal, centerfold reattached, trimming, etc, etc.).

I would not include pressing as restoration as in my opinion, pressing does
not “add” anything to a comic book. Pressing is a non-violative means of
“removing” non color-breaking creases, surface impressions, dings, impacts,
bends and folds; it does not “add” anything to the structural integrity of the
comic book as do the examples listed above for restoration. Pressing is not
restoration in my opinion and should be strongly differentiated in nomenclature
and status from the restoration means listed above. Pressing is a safe and
non-evasive means of conserving the aesthetic appearance of a comic book without
adding to its physical form.

I do not buy restored books but I do buy
pressed books. I really do not delineate between professional or amateur means
of restoration as I consider restoration to be restoration as detailed above and
I do not care for restored books.

Tracey Heft
Eclipse
Paper Conservation
You have asked readers of Scoop to include
their thoughts on Restoration and sub-topics such as staple replacement. I would
like to offer my viewpoints on these subjects.

How would you define
“Restoration” in comics?
Restoration, whether it be in comics, fine-art,
coins, movie posters, vintage cars or any other form of “collectible” should be
defined by the same universal standards and not be situational. No less an
authority as the International Institute of Conservation (IIC) has defined
restoration as “any attempt to return an object to its original form and
purpose, in the attempt to recreate an earlier known state or condition”. This
is a definition adopted and used by museums and museum professionals all over
the world. It is simple and uncomplicated. However, it continues to amaze me
that people are still trying to “alter” the definition to fit their situation
(i.e it is restoration if it is detectable or if such and such a treatment is
done but not the treatment I use).

What would you include and not
include?
In 2005 I applied for a patent on a system and method for
classifying restoration of paper collectibles. In my patent application and over
the course of the last 12 years through various articles for Gemstone
publishing, I have outlined the following procedures that can be implemented
during the course of a comic restoration:

Bleaching – the
whitening of darkened pages using chemicals.
Dry Cleaning – the use
of soft abrasives (such as powdered erasers) to remove surface dirt from the
item.
Colour Matching – the use of materials to improve the aesthetic
appearance of damaged areas or of repaired areas by recreating artwork, texture
or colour.
Consolidation – any treatment that attempts to re-adhere
loose or detached pieces to the original support using adhesives or tissues
coated with adhesives.
Deacidification – once again, the
neutralization of acids to prevent the browning of paper pages altering the
current state of the item by raising acidity to a higher (if not alkaline) level
(pH of 7 or greater).
Infilling – the infilling of missing areas
(including artwork) using matching papers and or similar materials
Ink
Removal the use of chemical solvents to remove ink from an item’s
surface
Pressing – the use of pressure (usually in combination with
other processes) to flatten and return an item to its original
state
Reglossing – the use of organic or manufactured substances to
recreate surface texture.
Reinforcement the addition of material to
prevent or protect the item from future damage.
Resizing – the use of
organic or manufactured substances to recreate paper strength and flexibility.

Solvent Cleaning – the use of organic solvents to remove staining or
discoloration from the surface of an item.
Spine Roll Removal – the
use of pressure (usually in combination with other processes) to flatten and
return an item to its original state by removing a rolled spine
Staple
Cleaning – the removal, through mechanical and solvent methods, of
discoloration products found on metallic staples
Staple Replacement –
the removal of rusted or damaged staples in order to replace them with new
stainless steel staples of a similar size and/or thickness.
Tape
Removal – through the use of mechanical methods or solvents, tape can be
removed from the surface of an item.
Tear Repairs – similar to
consolidation, the repair of torn areas using adhesives or additional papers
coated with adhesives
Trimming/Shaving the alteration of an item’s
dimensions and shape using a mechanical device such as a blade, scalpel or file.

Washing – similar to cleaning, uses a variety of solutions (including
solvents) in an aqueous treatment of the item

Of these 19 steps, some are
clearly restoration while others would result in the pure conservation of the
item (that is, the prevention of existing damage from proceeding further). Still
others are neither conservation nor restoration unless one examines the intent
behind the treatment because those procedures fulfill both a conservation and
restoration requirement. Breaking them down, the analysis of each procedure
results in a table:

Procedure	Conservation?	Restoration?	Both?
Bleaching		Y
Dry Cleaning			Y
Colour Matching		Y
Consolidation	Y1
Deacidification	Y
Infilling		Y
Ink Removal		Y
Pressing			Y
Reglossing		Y
Reinforcement	Y1
Resizing		Y
Solvent Cleaning		Y
Spine Roll Removal			Y
Staple Cleaning			Y
Staple Replacement		Y
Tape Removal			Y
Tear Repairs	Y1
Trimming/Shaving		Y
Washing	Y

Y1 becomes both restoration and conservation when an attempt is
made to cover the repair by adding colouring materials.

Would you
delineate between professional restoration and amateur restoration? And if so,
what would be the determining factors?

I have always been
uncomfortable with the terms “professional” and “amateur”, mainly because they
have never been defined. What are the criteria we are using to make such a value
judgement? Basically, in today’s hobby, the difference between pro and amateur
is how the finished work looks.
But it also refers to the type of materials
used (e.g glue versus wheat starch paste, marker versus acrylic paint) and these
are clearly two separate issues.

Within the current hobby structure, it
is possible to have a professional job with amateur materials or an amateur job
(one that is obvious) but with professional materials – so how should one apply
the labels of amateur or professional?

It is important to distinguish the
difference between proper restoration techniques and improper techniques as well
as proper materials versus harmful materials.

In the case of esthetics,
the terms amateur and professional are inappropriate terms, when what is being
discussed is the evidence of the work being performed. The greater the skill of
the restorer, the better the end result and the less evidence there is of any
work being performed.

When evaluating the types of materials used, it is
important to think in terms of long-term effects (when known). Materials are
then either beneficial, harmful, potentially both (such dry-cleaning, but not
knowing what type of eraser was used) or unknown. This eliminates the value
judgement of materials as pro or amateur, since one-time professional materials
are now known to be quite harmful (i.e adhesive tape, vapor-phase
de-acidification, etc) and therefore, amateur.

What, if any, forms of
restoration are acceptable to you?
Almost all forms of restoration are
acceptable when they are done properly. It is not acceptable to overpaint
aspects of the original cover in order to achieve a more esthetically pleasing
end result. It is not acceptable to bleach a book to whiter than white, newer
than new appearance. It is not acceptable to remove parts or pieces of the
original so that the repair looks better or feels better. It is not acceptable
to remove historically relevant information (such as names from pedigree books)
without extensive documentation.

And why?
All of these destroy
or alter the original book which is not the aim of restoration, and certainly
not the aim of conservation or preservation.

And under what
circumstances?
A book can be restored at any time. However, it is best if
a book is restored because it is on the verge of destruction and to not restore
it would mean the loss of the item or the loss of the use of the item. It is a
decision made by the current owner, with constructive input from the restoration
professional.

In the latest issue of Scoop, a definition of
staple replacement was put forward:

“For a staple cleaning or replacement
to be deemed conservation, it must have been performed to prolong the life of
the book. For example, evidence on a book of rust at one of the staple areas
suggests that the staple had elevated deterioration. If a staple is replaced for
aesthetic reasons only, the book would be considered a “qualified” grade by many
experts.”

Conservation is different from restoration. To reference the
IIC definitions, conservation is defined as “treatments used to prevent existing
damage from proceeding further, thereby maintaining an items current condition
for the future.” Often, in the comic hobby, conservation is used interchangeably
with restoration. In recent months, the blurring the lines between conservation
and restoration has become worse and worse.

Replacing of staples is not
maintaining an items current condition since it is altering the current
condition by replacement of a component. It is restoration, since it is altering
the current history of the book (i.e it has rusted staples) to “return an object
to its original form and purpose, in the attempt to recreate an earlier known
state or condition. (i.e a book with no rusted staples).

To clarify a
bit further, this is not preservation, defined as “the steps taken to ensure
that an item maintains it’s current condition, usually non-intrusive to the
artifact or item itself.”. Preservation would be changing the environmental
conditions that caused the rusting of the staple.

Thank you for the
opportunity to respond.

Richard Evans
Bedrock City
Comics
Restoration to me is noun applying to anything (including
chemicals) added to a book, that was not originally present, that is not
reversible, and that improves its appearance or structural integrity. This would
also include color, tape, glue, cleaning fluids etc. This would not include
weight, water, or removable water soluble rice paper as these do not alter the
original integrity of the paper. So much of the determination of restoration as
we talk of it in our hobby goes to intent. If something is added to a book
solely to improve its appearance, I will more than likely call it restoration.
The one place this doesn’t apply is pressing, as nothing is added to the book
and frankly there is no way to tell if the intent was to deceive. Would the
Edgar Church books be considered pressed? I don’t delineate between professional
and amateur but I would make a case for restoration vs. conservation. Any
restorative processes which are reversible again should be considered
conservation as they do not alter the original integrity of the book but may
protect the manipulability and therefore prolong the life of the paper and the
comic. This would include water soluble rice paper tear seals, rust removal from
staples, and scotch tape removal. It is interesting to me that presently scotch
tape is not considered restoration and rice paper is when scotch tape is
infinitely more harmful to old paper!

There’s my two
cents.

James “Lon” Allen
Heritage
Comics

How would you define “Restoration” in comics?
Adding
something to a book to improve it’s appearance or structural integrity.

What would you include and not include?
Restoration includes:
Color touch, tear seals, wet/chemical cleaning, piece replacement,
reinforcement. Does not include: dry erasure, professional pressing. These
procedures do not add anything to the book, so they cannot be restoration.

Would you delineate between professional restoration and amateur
restoration? And if so, what would be the determining factors?
Of course.
Professional materials and techniques. Markers are amateur, rice paper is
professional.

What, if any, forms of restoration are acceptable to
you?
See below.

And why? And under what
circumstances?
For all three of these questions: I think it is fine if it
is a key book that is falling apart. Putting it back together and preserving it
is fine. Also, if you have some book that looks decent, but the spine is totally
split, why not put it back together. So, it is fine for structural defects, but
color touching a book that already looks nice it not ok.

THIS
WEEK’S REPONSES TO PART 3:

Richard Evans
Bedrock City
Comics
How in the world can anyone tell what someone’s intent was. I
think it would be wrong to say that because a book had no previous visible
damage

It would be call restored when staples are cleaned or changed, but
it would be okay to do so if damage is visible. That would be saying that
someone’s intent was to deceive when in fact they could have been trying to
prevent any damage from a slightly rusted staple. I know it is a matter of
degrees but grading cannot become a function of intent and therefore should be
either all or nothing. I personally have no problem with staple replacement as
long as the same staples are used. There could be a mad rush to change staples
ala pressing but again the grading issue needs to be either all or nothing and
shouldn’t be affected by what might happen or by what someone thinks someone
else’s intent is or was.

Michael
Naiman
Collector/Dealer
For a staple cleaning or replacement to
be deemed conservation, it must have been performed to prolong the life of the
book. For example, evidence on a book of rust at one of the staple areas
suggests that the staple had elevated deterioration. If a staple is replaced for
aesthetic reasons only, the book would be considered a “qualified” grade by many
experts.
Whatever the reason for staple replacement… it must be
disclosed by seller, CGC or whoever grades the book.

Terry
O’Neill
Terry’s Comics
I think it should be only of same
vintage staple on any book.They should be considered qualified if the staple if
replaced.

John Haines
Dealer
Any replacement of
staples vintage or otherwise is restoration and should merit a “qualified”
grade.

Gary Colabuono
Moondog’s
If it is obvious
that staples have been replaced then I believe the book should receive a
Qualified grade. It doesn’t matter why they were replaced. The fact that the
book is not completely in original condition precludes it from receiving a
Universal grade.

Stephen Gentner
Collector
Staple
replacement for purely cosmetic reasons seems strange. That is, why would
you replace a staple that didn’t need replacing? It would seem to put the book
at risk of damage, or mess up the staple holes in the process. If the staples
are presentable on the book as is, I don’t think the CGC would ding you for a
discolored staple. If [CGC’s Steve] Borock is actually planning to put weight to
and consequence for staples which are naturally aging and discoloring through
age, the (CGC) is welcoming problems and concerns over staples for God’s sake! A
policy like that would open the door for lots of staple replacement. I don’t
think that is too swift. Or, I should say, getting too picky

Unless a
staple is rusting or discoloring the paper of the comic indicating a potential
problem, replacement would be unnecessary. If the CGC doesn’t get so fancy that
a staple that is turning a color hurts the grade of a high condition book, the
whole question becomes moot. Conversely, if the CGC intends to put a consequence
on “grades of staples”, then replacement questions will be stinking up the
hobby. Bottom line….if the staple is getting rusty, replace it, no harm no
foul. If the staple isn’t rusty and is aging with rest of the book as it has
it’s whole life, don’t make an issue of it and don’t ding the grade for it. End
of problem.

Scott Bonagofsky
Emison Hullverson
Bonagofsky LLP
This is in response to the staple replacement issue in the
recent issue of Scoop.

Leaving aside for a moment the issue of
the changes to be made in the latest edition of the grading guide, I would like
to comment on what the Grading Guide current states. I believe the
current statement in The Overstreet Comic Book Grading Guide regarding
grading of books with replaced staples issue misses the mark and lacks
acceptance by the majority of collectors or reputable dealers. You are really
dealing with two separate issues here: (1) what is the apparent grade of the
book with cleaned or replaced staples, and (2) is the book restored or not?
There is no reason to create an artificial ceiling for books that have replaced
or cleaned staples, yet appear to be in better than 9.4 NM condition.

On the grading issue:

A book with replaced vintage staples will look
no different from a book with original staples. An expert might be able to tell
that the staples were replaced, but if the staples are vintage, this will be
because the staple tines don’t line up with the original staple marks on the
interior book. It will not be because the replaced staples cause the book to
appear to be a lower grade. In some cases, the staples can be replaced to match
the original staples marks left on the centerfold, so the book will appear to be
exactly the same grade as it was before the staples rusted. By artificially
limiting a book with replaced staples to “9.4 NM” or lower, you are potentially
going to confuse people who think that a nicer looking book should grade higher.

There is no reason to create an artificial ceiling for books with
replaced staples as long as the fact that the staples are replaced is disclosed,
whether that be with a “restored” or “qualified” notation that is separate from
the apparent grade.

On the “restored” vs. “conserved” vs. “qualified”
issue:

If you take rusted staples and replace them with different
staples, it is functionally no different than if you remove a thrashed cover and
replace it with a fresh cover (maybe from an uncut factory sheet) of the same
book, or replacing a missing portion of the cover with a piece from another
cover from a “spare parts” copy of the same book. If you remove rusted staples
and clean them with a solvent, then put them back in the book, the book will
grade higher than it did before you cleaned the staples. You’ve removed a defect
— the rust — from the staples.

This is restoration.

To call
it “conservation” is an insult to the intelligence of your readers. This whole
“conserved” notion is nothing more than spin-doctoring that I believe you’ll
regret buying into if you do it — no collector is going to agree with you on
the issue, and most dealers won’t either. This new “conserved” terminology was
created by a few people who want to make certain kinds of restoration more
acceptable among buyers. But for the vast majority of the hobby, the issue is
simple: The book is either restored from a lower grade or it is not, and it
doesn’t matter why the work was done.

Why wouldn’t solvent cleaning be
considered conservation if it removes potentially harmful stains? Why isn’t
re-sizing considered conservation when it adds strength to the paper and is
virtually undetectable? I see no good or logical reason to classify replaced or
cleaned staples as conservation other than to appease those who perform such
services and to confuse a segment of the collecting population into believing
that replaced staples are “more acceptable” than a single hit of professional
color touch along the spine. Let collectors make up their own minds on the issue
by calling it what it is.

Furthermore, it is irrelevant to the
conservation/restoration issue whether the staple cleaning/replacement work is
done to arrest further damage. To classify such work as conservation or
restoration based only on the subjective intent of the person who did the work
puts the grader in an impossible situation of having to guess at the intention
of the person who performed the work without any basis for making that
assessment. The person grading the book is almost never going to know who
replaced the staples or why they did it (i.e., did they replace the staples to
“save the book,” or did they do it because they didn’t like how the rust
looked?).

The one place where I could see a rational basis for calling
something “conservation” is in the area of deacidification. Deacidification,
where it is undetectable, serves only to arrest the gradual deterioration of the
paper itself and does not improve the appearance of the book. In this case, I
believe it is fair to term it “conservation” since the appearance of the book is
not being changed and the only result is an arresting of further harm. I also do
not believe that deacidification carries the same stigma associated with the
other types of professional restoration. If detection of deacidification were
possible, putting a deacidified book into a green or purple CGC label would no
doubt create such a stigma. But that leads to the question of whether CGC (which
I know is a different and unrelated company from Gemstone) should attempt to
influence the market that way, and this question is well beyond the scope of
what we’re talking about here.

Cleaned/replaced staples are a different
animal entirely, however, and I think you will run into some serious market
acceptance problems if it is classified as conservation instead of restoration.
While I am no fan of the use of the “qualified” grade for replaced staples
instead of the “restored” grade, at least the green CGC label clues the naive
buyer in to the fact that the book is not “unrestored” with its replaced or
cleaned staples, and the buyer can then make his own decision about whether or
not such work is acceptable to him.

To sum up:

1) Once staples
have been replaced or cleaned, the book should grade at whatever the apparent
grade is. If someone can replace staples really well on a 9.8 book without
stressing the spine or enlarging the staple holes, then the book should get a
9.8 grade. Do not create an artificial grade ceiling when the issue is better
and more clearly addressed through disclosure of the fact of the
cleaning/replacement, with the book being graded appropriately with its apparent
grade.

2) Staple replacement and cleaning should be termed consistently
with what it is — restoration. A cleaning to remove mold spores is also
technically done for purposes of “conservation,” but everyone still considers
such work to be “restoration” because the apparent grade of the book is
improved. Overstreet should stick with its longstanding definition of
restoration, which (to paraphrase) is any work done to improve the overall
appearance of the book.

3) Since there is some precedent (thanks to CGC)
for giving such books a “qualified” grade, if anything, maintain this status
quo. Don’t change the playing field all over again by creating some new,
artificial “conserved” category for a book that the vast majority of buyers
(collectors and dealers alike) would view as having been restored.

Thanks for your time, and I look forward to reading the new edition of the
Grading Guide!