Mark Zaid contributed this piece to GPAnalysis’s newsletter. George
Pantela of GPAnalysis kindly gave us permission to reprint it in this week’s our
as part of the ongoing solicitation of opinions regarding grading issues. To see
the rest of GPA’s newsletter, visit http://www.gpanalysis.com/gpa_newsletter_vol4no5_103174.html.

As
usual, we invite your thoughts at feedback@gemstonepub.com.

The Restoration of the Overstreet Comic Book Price Guide’s Definition
of Restoration
The Official Overstreet Comic Book Price Guide
(“Overstreet”) has been the benchmark for the comic industry for both pricing
and standards since its introduction by Robert M. Overstreet in 1970.
Information found within the book often sets policy for the entire community.
Each spring finds collector and dealer alike exploring the Guide to

review modifications and changes.

Thus it was no surprise that last month
the 36th edition of Overstreet was issued amidst the usual fanfare and
delight. One particular modification to the term restoration caught my attention
immediately. This change, though subtle, has serious connotations for the comic
book community, which has been wrestling for years to understand the definition
of restoration as well as experiencing even greater difficulty in accepting how
to view restored comic books.

The Comic Community’s Difficulty In
Grappling With The Concept Of Restoration
Restored comic books, which
for many years were tolerated by the collecting community, are generally now
stigmatized. The widespread acceptance of the Comics Guaranty Corporation
(“CGC”) within the marketplace over the past five years, and the implementation
of CGC’s grading system, contributed to the recent decrease in marketability.
Many a collector/dealer received their originally purchased “unrestored” comics
back from CGC color coded with a purple label (which has been interpreted as the
dreaded “PLOD”, or “Purple Label of Death”) denoting a restored book.

My
personal opinion, and one that is thankfully shared by many, is that the stature
of restored books will, over time, be accepted again and regain their
marketability. But that discussion is for another date, particularly because the
extent to which a stigma exists with respect to restored comics is irrelevant to
defining the term itself.

A Unexpected Definitional Change That Would
Have Wide Community Ramifications
I was, quite frankly, shocked to see an
unexpected modification to the definition of restoration in Overstreet’s 36th
edition. It now defines restoration as “Treatments intended to return the comic
book to a known or assumed state through the addition of non-original material.
Examples of restoration include color touch, piece replacement, cleaning,
reglossing.” While perhaps innocuous on its face, this definition fundamentally
shifted the policy position of the community with respect to the controversial
technique of pressing. In order to understand what almost transpired it is
crucial to review the Overstreet transition of the definition of
restoration.

In Overstreet’s 24th edition (1994) a front section entitled
“Know the Buzz Words” appeared. It was essentially a glossary of commonly used
terms. Restoration was vaguely defined as the “fine art of repairing a comic
book to look as close as possible to its original condition.” For nine years
that definition remained the same. But in the 33rd edition (2003) the definition
of restoration, now in a Glossary section at the rear of the book, was
significantly expanded by Overstreet to read as follows:

Any attempt,
whether professional or amateur, to enhance the appearance of an aging or
damaged comic book. These procedures may include all or any 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 certain negative aura in the modern
marketplace from some quarters. In all cases, except for some simply cleaning
procedures, a restored book can never be worth the same as an unrestored book in
the same condition. (emphasis added)

Had my opinion been solicited
by Overstreet I would have recommended the references to value be removed from
this definition. In my opinion that language likely served to contribute to the
unfortunate stigma that surrounds restoration. More specifically, the value of a
comic book that has been restored has nothing to do with the definition of the
term restoration. Whatever relationship restoration has to the value of a comic
book is best left to discussion in the marketplace sections in
Overstreet.

The Significance Of Overstreet’s Modification To The
Definition Of Restoration
The importance of Overstreet’s definition of
restoration goes to the heart of a current and controversial debate regarding
pressing which, for the first time in 36 years, is now separately defined in the
Glossary as “the removal or reduction of creases, bends, spine roll, or other
surface imperfections.”1 Overstreet’s new 2006 definition, while commendable in
that it omitted the previous value references, clearly appeared to be
specifically written for the purpose of excluding pressing. Rather than
restoration requiring an attempt to “enhance” the book’s appearance through
numerous techniques that have been utilized for years, now an “addition of
non-original material” is required to meet the definition. This “addition”
requirement is inconsistent with how restoration is defined throughout the
archival paper community. By all known professional definitions of the term
restoration the concept of pressing fits squarely within, albeit in its most
minimalist form.

As part of the debate on pressing many informed
individuals would often refer to Overstreet’s definition as proof positive that
pressing was a type of restoration. For one thing I cannot imagine that those
policy experts who participated in the drafting of the 2003 Overstreet
definition were not aware of the significance of what they wrote when they
clearly articulated that restoration includes “pressing out wrinkles”. Yet this
view, as many know, is in direct conflict with the position held by some, most
notably CGC, that pressing is not restoration (though CGC’s own stated
definitional terms in its glossary appear to state otherwise as discussed
further below).2

Those who support the notion that pressing is not
restoration typically argue that the technique fails to “add” anything to the
book. It is also typically argued that the process has been around for decades,
and that its subtle, if not covert use, was widely known to the “leaders” and
“experts” of the community. Another argument, especially articulated by CGC, is
that pressing cannot be detected with any degree of regularity or certainty.
Many of these arguments are irrelevant to the actual definition of the technique
of pressing.

Yet Overstreet’s revised 2006 definition, crafted a mere
three years since the last modification, could now clearly be used by CGC and
others to support the argument that pressing is not restoration. Intriguingly,
for the first time Overstreet also included a new term of conservation. This
included: “archival reinforcement, tear and spine split seals, piece
reattachment and deacidification.” There was no reference to pressing (although
the revised definition of cleaning now mentions pressing). The distinction
between conversation and restoration, and the impact this will have on the comic
book community, necessitates its own separate article.

Regardless of the
debate as to whether pressing is restoration or not, what concerned me most when
I discovered Overstreet’s definitional change, however, was the 180 degree shift
of policy from 2003 to 2006. What, or even who, prompted the modification of the
definition? This was no subtle substantive change, nor candidly did I presume it
could have been accidental in light of the high caliber of people who work with
Overstreet. What steps had Overstreet taken through discussions or solicitations
of views to arrive at this radically new definition? I was certainly not aware
of either private or public requests for advice, nor were any of the “players”
within the community I queried.

Overstreet Guide’s 2006 Definition Now
Conceded To Be A Mistake
Two weeks after I questioned those responsible
for Overstreet over the appropriateness of and justification for the
definitional change, Gemstone Publishing, which publishes Overstreet ,
issued a public retraction through its online industry e-newsletter
Scoop. On April 21, 2006, under the headline “Overstreet Correction”,
Scoop stated:

As some of our perceptive readers have noticed,
there was a mistake in the glossary section of The Overstreet Comic Book
Price Guide #36.

The entry regarding the definition of restoration
was in error and is an unedited draft version. This error has been corrected in
our files and the correct definition found in The Overstreet Comic Book Price
Guide #35 will be printed in The Big Big Overstreet Comic Book Price
Guide #36, which is due out in late May.

Since the book’s inception,
Bob Overstreet and the Guide staff have encouraged advisor and reader
input in each and every edition of the book. This has included running full-page
editorials asking for feedback, and of course reaching out via Scoop,
just as was done with the comic book ages changes made following the articles in
CBPG #33 and CBPG #34.3

While perhaps gratifying in the
sense of restoring the status quo, this public statement did little to explain
exactly what had transpired. Indeed, it seems apparent from even this correction
that something was afoot. An “unedited draft version”? Several questions
immediately jump to mind.

How had Gemstone allowed the “mistake” to
occur? Is there not a lengthy editing process for all Overstreet sections over a
period of months?

Who at Gemstone/Overstreet was working on these new
definitions?

Why was someone at Gemstone/Overstreet working on these new
definitions?

What was the basis for the draft language change for the
definitions of “restoration” and “pressing”?

Who, if anyone, was being
consulted from outside Gemstone/Overstreet for the language of these new
definitions?

Did anyone or any entity, for their own personal reasons,
influence Gemstone/Overstreet to modify the definition of restoration to
specifically exclude pressing?

What other definitions, if any, were or
are being considered for modification?

Though I posed these questions to
Gemstone editors, including through repeated postings on the CGC Message Boards
where this “mistake” was first brought to light and where Gemstone initially
announced its correction, no response has been forthcoming.4

Gemstone
Publishing Announced Solicitation Of Opinions On Definition Of
Restoration
In the same issue of Scoop, Gemstone Publishing
announced it was soliciting input on several questions surrounding the
definition of restoration. These questions were also distributed to new comics
retailers who get Diamond Daily, and via email to the Overstreet
Advisors.

So, you think you know comic book grading? We’d like to hear
from you!

We’re hard at work on this summer’s new edition of The
Official Overstreet Comic Book Grading Guide. We’ve had a lot of feedback
since the last edition was published more than three years ago, but we’re eager
for your thoughts.

This week’s question:

How would you define
“Restoration” in comics?

What would you include and not
include?

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

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

And why?

And
under what circumstances?

We’re eager for as many opinions as possible!
Let us know what you think!
.5

While both the number and consensus of the responses Gemstone received
is unknown, the last two issues of Scoop (“Responses to Making The Grade
– Part 1”, In the Limelight, Scoop, Friday, April 28, 2006,6 and “More
Responses to Making The Grade – Part 1”, In the Limelight, Scoop, Friday,
May 05, 20067) included a very small select sampling of opinions for the
consumption of its readers.

The Comic Community’s Interim Response To
The Solicitation
While both sides of the pressing debate were commendably
represented in the Scoop articles, the specific arguments of those who
claimed pressing is not restoration were not unexpected. It was the same basic
argument that contradicts the professional definitions of the term restoration.

One retailer defined restoration as generally “any work done to repair or
enhance the condition and grade of a book above its original condition.”
Although on its face this definition seemingly encompasses pressing (i.e.,
“enhance the condition”), the dealer explicitly claimed “flattening” (which I
presume is his term for pressing) should not be included in the definition
(although confusingly his answer to another question would imply he includes
pressing as restoration). The basis for his opinion: “nothing was changed as far
as the actual book itself. A book can be spine rolled from being poorly stored.
Or it can be flattened by being at the bottom of the stack.”

Still
another retailer wrote “I do not consider pressing restoration since it’s
not reversing anything it’s just bringing the book to its full potential. It’s
enhancing the book by not adding anything to it.” (emphasis original). Yet
another frequently stated justification was because “it’s too hard to
detect.”

Scoop also published a lengthy response from Matt Nelson
of Classics Incorporated, who serves as an Overstreet Advisor. Not surprisingly
Mr. Nelson rejected the notion that pressing was restoration. I single Mr.
Nelson out by name because unfortunately Scoop did not see fit to note
that Mr. Nelson’s expertise is to restore comics and his commercial enterprise
significantly includes the pressing of comic books. At the very least a serious
appearance of, if not actual, conflict of interest exists in assessing Mr.
Nelson’s definitional view of restoration. Mr. Nelson’s response:

The
dictionary’s definition of restoration is to bring something back to its
original condition. Some people may use this definition to make the argument
that pressing should be considered restoration, but it’s not that simple. Even
though pressing does remove very small defects in a book, such as non-color
breaking dents in a cover, or a slight spine roll, the same effect can be
achieved by placing a book under heavy objects. Edgar Church’s simple storing
technique of stacking his famous comic collection in six foot high piles gave
the same result as a professional would if he pressed a comic today. But the
Church books are of course not considered “restored.”

Mr. Nelson also
believes that “restoration includes anything that is traceable” or thereby
further promoting the concept of what we don’t know can’t hurt us.8 Sadly,
particularly given Mr. Nelson’s expertise in the restoration field, this
explanation does very little to contribute to the definition of either
restoration or pressing. Instead I find it intentionally misleading in light of
the true mechanics of the modern professional technique of pressing and
purposefully designed to separate the two from one other. More disturbingly, it
could be interpreted as a blatant attempt to instill fear in the comic community
that there could ever be the prospect of characterizing comics from the renowned
Church pedigree, which is the penultimate collection of comic books our hobby
has ever seen, as being restored on the basis of an adopted definition of
pressing as a form of restoration (or more generally that the manner in which a
collector stores his comics could lead to them being considered restored).

Of all people Mr. Nelson should know better given his restoration
expertise and especially his knowledge of the history of this particular
pedigree Anyone characterizing the Church books as being “pressed” is making a
mistake. The Church books were compressed (to varying degrees) by virtue of
sitting in stacks (the bottom books bearing more weight; the top books bearing
less weight) for many years. This is something quite different than subjecting a
book to the artificial and deliberate professional techniques used by Mr. Nelson
for a fee. The Church books’ condition never degraded due to their near
anaerobic storage method, as well as being handled carefully and slightly (which
were key factors in ensuring the absence of small defects and non-color breaking
creases in this collection).

Thus, nothing was ever “restored” to the
books (until some collectors/dealers shamelessly chose to intentionally press
select Church books, which had survived 50+ years in pristine condition, to
extract even the slightest increase in grade in order to sell the book for a
higher price). To the contrary, the books Mr. Nelson commercially presses have
had their condition deteriorate, even if just slightly, and require assistance
to restore them to their earlier higher-grade form.

What Are The
Accepted Definitions Of Restoration?
I’ve discussed above how
Overstreet has historically viewed restoration to include pressing for
years. But how is the term interpreted elsewhere? In the most straightforward of
definitions, Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary defines restoration as “the
act of restoring something or someone to a satisfactory state.” Another
definition for the term states it as “the act of restoring or bringing back to a
former place.”9

Perhaps most enlightening, the Society of American
Archivists, which is a renowned organization that dedicates itself to the
preservation of paper, defines restoration as “the process of rehabilitating an
item to return it as nearly as possible to its original condition.”10
Additionally, the International Institute of Conservation defines restoration as
“any attempts to return an object to its original form and purpose, in the
attempt to recreate an earlier known state or condition.”11 Clearly each of
these established definitions either would explicitly encompass pressing or can
be reasonably interpreted as doing so.

Strangely enough, notwithstanding
CGC’s very public posture on the notion of pressing not being restoration, its
own online glossary definitions invites inconsistent interpretations.12 There
one can find restoration as being “the repairing of a comic book so it will
appear as it did when it was in its original condition.” Presumably the CGC
counter to this interpretation would be that pressing a comic book is not akin
to “repairing”. Yet CGC also defines Comic Book Restoration as “any attempt,
amateur or professional, to enhance the appearance of a comic book.” What is
pressing if not the attempt to “enhance the appearance of a comic book”?

Where Does The Comic Book Community Go From Here?
The question
that should be asked is whether the comic book community desires to create a
different understanding for the term restoration, particularly setting itself
apart from other paper industries, in order to accommodate a group of people who
wish to minimize the existence and impact of pressing for whatever personal
reasons.

To me logic must dictate the path our community will take.
Changes to established policies should not be made lightly or quietly and
certainly not in order to satisfy the rich or powerful from within a community.
More importantly, definitions that impact our community should not be rewritten
for the pure sake of protecting one’s financial investments. Nor should those
engaged in the attempt at rewriting long established definitions do so by fear
mongering. The definitions we ultimately adopt and apply to our industry must
make sense. This will not be an easy task because literal definitions do impact
practical applications, and pressing falls squarely within that category.

The existence of pressing is controversial on many levels. Is it
restoration? Can it be harmful to the comic? Should it be disclosed even if not
considered restoration? Is there, or should there be, a distinction between
professional pressing and a collector simply placing a comic book under a heavy
book overnight? What do we do about all the comics that have, in fact, been
pressed in the past, even years ago, without our knowledge? Can we ever identify
with certainty those comics that have been pressed? Other than the initial
question, the answers to these other questions, though important to address and
discuss in order to determine how the community wishes to view pressing, are not
relevant to the definition of restoration. Nor should the answers to these
questions, among others, necessarily impact one another. Each has its own
separate nuances and associated debates.

Whether one believes pressing
is a good or bad thing, or is restoration or not, there are clearly divided
camps on the issue of pressing in general. Indeed some feel very strongly on
both sides of the debate. Unfortunately the opinions of the community as a whole
are generally unknown. No one, until recently, has attempted to collect
opinions, and many collectors remain unaware of the debate. However, those who
are typically viewed as setting policy for the community (such as Overstreet and
more recently CGC) are well aware of the divisions that do exist among those
engaged in the debate. Any attempt to advance a new policy position,
particularly regarding as controversial a topic as pressing, should be done
gradually and with caution, and should take into consideration the all
intelligently articulated and supported views of the community to include
dealers, collectors and restoration experts (not solely those of comics given
some have a conflict of interest with the issue), rather than the beliefs of a
few who may have their own interests in mind. Regardless of the final decision,
there must be ample stated justification to support not only the definitional
language but also the reasons for the modification in the first
place.

This article will not resolve the controversy surrounding pressing
or restoration, nor was it intended to achieve that result. Instead, I hope the
contents above encourage readers to carefully consider their views on the topic
and question those who set the community’s policies. They are, after all, the
policies that will be used to govern collectors and dealers alike.

I
encourage everyone to submit detailed views, whatever they might be, to Gemstone
Publishing at feedback@gemstonepub.com so that Overstreet can derive an
articulated and justified position on restoration and pressing, if even any
change to these terms is merited (and I have yet to see an explanation as to why
it is). This is an opportunity for everyone to play a role in shaping an
important aspect of the landscape of our hobby.

Footnotes
1 To
many people, including this writer, the pressing of a book to remove creases and
other small defects is nowadays undertaken for the primary purpose of achieving
a grade increase in order to attain a higher price upon resale. It is rarely
performed, particularly by dealers, in order to enhance a book’s appearance for
personal collecting.

2 As stated by CGC’s president and primary grader,
Steve Borock, on the CGC Message Board, “CGC’s position on this ‘matter’ has
always been the same, we do not consider pressing restoration….”
.
It should be noted that until very recently, CGC’s parent corporation, the
Certified Collectibles Group, was operating the Paper Collectibles Service
(“PCS”), which specialized in pressing books for a fee (hence a very significant
self-serving economic motivation for CGC’s official policy that pressing is not
restoration). The creation of CGC instituted a craze for grade multiples that
witnessed significant spikes in prices for higher grade books above VF/NM 9.0.
The pressing of a book even just one grade notch, which is rarely ever disclosed
to the detriment of the uninformed buyer, could lead to a cost increase of
thousands of dollars. In large part due to the perceived, if not actual,
conflict of interest raised by the work of PCS, which was headquartered under
the same roof as CGC, PCS’s enterprise was closed just days before the latest
Overstreet edition was issued (but long after the edition had gone to
print).

3 http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/scoop_article.asp?ai=11887&si=121.

4
The relevant discussion can be viewed at the
CGC message boards.

5 http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/scoop_article.asp?ai=11884&si=122.

6
http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/scoop_article.asp?ai=12018&si=127

7
http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/scoop_article.asp?ai=12018&si=127.

8
Mr. Nelson also added that the “line between what is considered restoration and
what is not is simply what can be detected.” Readers should challenge Mr. Nelson
to provide one example from a restoration professional or organization that
adopts this type of logic in determining what constitutes restoration.

9
http://dict.die.net/universal%20restoration.

10
http://www.archivists.org/glossary/list.asp.

11
This definition can be found cited in Tracey Heft’s Patent Application for a
“System and Method for Classifying Restoration of Paper Collectibles” at U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office. Heft, who runs Eclipse Paper
Conservation, also provides a pressing service. However, unlike Mr. Nelson, Mr.
Heft views pressing, which he defines as “the use of pressure (usually in
combination with other processes) to flatten and return an item to its original
state”, as restoration, albeit the most minimalist form (“little or no
discernable alteration”), as well as possibly sometimes conservation.

12
http://www.cgccomics.com/glossary.htm.

Mark
S. Zaid, a full-time attorney and part-time comic book dealer, owns and operates
www.EsquireComics.com.