|
|
|
Enthusiast
 
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 10/30/2009 12:59:46 PM
Posts: 85,
Visits: 214
|
|
I recently got into a heated debate with a colleague of mine over a "restored" issue of Daredevil #1, and since I now have access to a cadre of other fanatics here at CPG (that's you, yeah, the folks reading this), I figured it might be a good idea to tap this resource for the purposes of enhancing my position in this ongoing row (or putting me in my place as the case may be).
So there's this copy of DD #1, utterly cover-less, but man the interior pages are magnificent! - supple, almost snow-white, no scuffs, marks, stamps, cuts, coffee stains, ash marks, etc. The comic belongs to an old friend of ours who is notoriously finicky about how "complete" his runs are, and he bought this cover-less copy in order to fill the gap at the front of his lineup. Then he makes an executive decision - rebind the comic using a replica cover. So he goes and drops $40 on this excellent knock-off cover and trudges through the prolonged process of marrying his near-perfect cover-less issue with his smashing new reproduced front and back.
Now, although he claims that he will never attempt to sell his "restored" copy of DD #1 under any circumstances, the question as to whether or not it is actually "restored" remains open for us. In my opinion, the cover is not original material and therefore the comic itself is not a "restored" copy, but rather a hideous mutant of original content fused with what amounts to little more than a modern mimeograph.
Of course I can stick to my guns and lord my opinion over my buddy on this, taking the "purist high road" as it were, but having never worked with "restored" or "replicated" material myself, I'm totally out of my depth on this one.
|
|
|
|
|
Elite Collector
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 12:15:40 AM
Posts: 849,
Visits: 1,469
|
|
Very interesting indeed, I think a repo cover only increases its value up to the cost of the cover or maybe a little more. Apparently CGC would give it a green labal with a note. I don't see the harm in it but it is what it is , a coverless with some foriegn paper wraped around it. 
 My Mission : To become a respected professional paper conservator/restorer 
|
|
|
|
|
4192 Legacy Posts
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 8:38:34 PM
Posts: 763,
Visits: 2,950
|
|
| [quote][/quote] I don't consider it restored, but the book is not worth much more than it would be without the cover (ie. it does not improve the overall grade). I wouldn't consider it valueless, since one could easily remove the cover and put the book back to its original state and older keys are worth something even incomplete.
Aaron
|
|
|
|
|
Enthusiast
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 9/14/2009 3:04:11 AM
Posts: 67,
Visits: 201
|
|
|
|
|
|
Master Collector
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 1/10/2010 4:44:35 PM
Posts: 1,158,
Visits: 1,287
|
|
This topic is going to sink into a miasma of bad intentions, so before that I will offer my humble 2 lincolns.
A married cover is not restoration, it is also not original but that would not detract from the value of the book as is without the cover, it may even somewhat enhance it.
Say you had a perfect copy without a cover and it was valued at $45.00 as a good -, with a married cover it might improve it's potential value but the book is still a G-.
Where does he get those wonderful toys!
I have yet begun to surrender.
|
|
|
|
|
Elite Collector
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 9:50:32 AM
Posts: 756,
Visits: 2,213
|
|
Restored, not valueless. In my books it would be worth more than a coverless copy but less than a book in Good. Unless it is NOT an exact duplicate of the cover. By this I mean inside and out of the cover are not like and original cover and it was not finished like an original cover (ie a similar stock, glossed, well matched clours, etc). I would want my reproduction to match and original cover as much as is humanly possible. If it did not I would consider the book coverless and pay no more than I would for a coverless copy.
------------
|
|
|
|
|
Serious Collector
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 2/12/2010 7:56:20 PM
Posts: 326,
Visits: 766
|
|
| I agree with The Joker on this. However, tell your buddy not to staple the counterfeit cover to the original book. Keep that cover loose! It'll keep it's low value. Now, I'd consider any removal and replacement of the staples for any reason a destruction of the book; even if it was only to marry a cover. Deconstruction and reconstruction of a book to facilitate any cosmetic improvement should be considered restoration. Cheers, Dan
What's in my long boxes? http://www.comicspriceguide.com/world/default.asp?m=Magic%20Dan
|
|
|
|
|
Enthusiast
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 10/30/2009 12:59:46 PM
Posts: 85,
Visits: 214
|
|
I don't see the harm in it but it is what it is, a coverless with some foriegn paper wraped around it
I don't consider it restored, but the book is not worth much more than it would be without the cover
A married cover is not restoration, it is also not original but that would not detract from the value of the book as is without the cover, it may even somewhat enhance it.
Restored, not valueless. In my books it would be worth more than a coverless copy but less than a book in Good
I think it's cool that almost everyone agrees it's worth perhaps as much (or possibly a bit more) than it was when it was cover-less, yet there seems to be some disagreement over whether or not you'd actually consider this process "restoration". I was always under the impression that inpainting, re-glossing and so on were acknowledged restoration methods, but I've never heard of replica elements being considered OK by any standard.
However, tell your buddy not to staple the counterfeit cover to the original book
Too late. He had it rebound months ago. The cover is a full interior/exterior replica apparently designed to mirror the original cover exactly btw, which is the only reason I could possibly imagine this guy shelling out $40 (even for that gem). It looks good in the stack, but that doesn't change the fact that it isn't in a CGC blue label package and WOULD be if it wasn't sporting a 2009 jacket.
|
|
|
|
|
Elite Collector
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 9:50:32 AM
Posts: 756,
Visits: 2,213
|
|
Silver Age Surfer (9/12/2009)
I think it's cool that almost everyone agrees it's worth perhaps as much (or possibly a bit more) than it was when it was cover-less, yet there seems to be some disagreement over whether or not you'd actually consider this process "restoration". I was always under the impression that inpainting, re-glossing and so on were acknowledged restoration methods, but I've never heard of replica elements being considered OK by any standard.
I am not sure why it would not be restoration. Most of the the book is original all that was added was a wrap. When wraps are married to a book it is restoration, when pieces are filled, it is restoration, when a cover is married it is restoration, so why wouldn't replica cover be restoration it is like one big piece fill?
------------
|
|
|
|
