Does restoring reduce value?
rtemple
example) good then restored to F+, how does this impact value? Is the
restored book worth as much as the unrestored and then if not how is it
determined? I am lost.... How can I tell if I have a restored book? Buying
a high grade comic (my original reason for this post) for "keeping" was
something I was considering (FF#1) but it is restored. What is it worth
compared to its unrestored version...???
Help!
SgtFury1
Great discussion topic. I have no restored comics in my collection and, in
fact, only have a couple or three which may someday be candidates for
restoration. So, admittedly, my opinion may not count for a lot. At any rate, I
would say the short answer is, "No." Restoration does not reduce a comic's
value. As to any increase in value, opinions I have read vary greatly. One
theory is to use an average; i.e.: Unrestored Value + Value of the *APPARENT*
grade (after restoration) divided by two. Under this theory a G comic, restored
to an *apparent* FN, would have the "guide value" of a VG. Sounds reasonable to
me but I don't make the rules.
Karl
BFscomics
worth. That applies to Golden Age and Silver Age comics.
There are many opinions on restoration of silver age comics, and here is mine.
In many cases an unrestored Fantastic Four 1 in GD is more desirable than an
apparant FN that has been moderately or heavily restored. In the current market
restored FF 1's are selling well below their eqiuvalent guide value. In many
cases the increase in value does not even cover the difference between the cost
to buy the book and the cost of the restoration. For example I have seen
apparent NM's selling for less than the price of a VG unrestored. Of course the
amount of restoration has to be factored in as well. If you have a VG that
would look VF if it had some minor tape on it, then it may be worth having
restored. However if you have an average GD that would need extensive work my
recommendation is to forget it and enjoy the book as it is. Your best bet is to
buy a clean unrestored VG or better copy and leave it alone. Get the highest
grade unrestored books you can afford and you shouldn't go wrong.
Brian
magus
(SgtFury1) wrote:
> rte...@cnct.com (rtemple) wrote:
>
> >With a comic like FF#1 or Spiderman #1 that originally was in (for
> >example) good then restored to F+, how does this impact value? Is the
> >restored book worth as much as the unrestored and then if not how is it
> >determined? I am lost.... How can I tell if I have a restored book? Buying
> >a high grade comic (my original reason for this post) for "keeping" was
> >something I was considering (FF#1) but it is restored. What is it worth
> >compared to its unrestored version...???
>
> Great discussion topic. I have no restored comics in my collection and, in
> fact, only have a couple or three which may someday be candidates for
> restoration. So, admittedly, my opinion may not count for a lot. At any
rate, I
> would say the short answer is, "No." Restoration does not reduce a comic's
> value.
No, no, no. This isn't true. It matters on what restoration was done. Back
in the 1970's the big thing was to take black markers to colour in the
darkness on Hulk #1. Unfortunately, over the years this can be easily
detected. So, in fact, the restoration process DID lower the price of the
book.
Even more recent restoration techniques have come under scrutiny.
As to any increase in value, opinions I have read vary greatly. One
> theory is to use an average; i.e.: Unrestored Value + Value of the *APPARENT*
> grade (after restoration) divided by two. Under this theory a G comic,
restored
> to an *apparent* FN, would have the "guide value" of a VG. Sounds
reasonable to
> me but I don't make the rules.
According to Overstreet, no restored book is worth more than the original,
unrestored book in the same grade. (Of course, some idiot buyers at
Christie's need to figure this out.
--
"We're here to enforce the law for the landlords, businessmen, and [alumnus that donate more than $10,000] to [Iowa State University]...Students need to realize this before they bitch and waste our time." --paraphrased comment made by Ames Police Officer--
SgtFury1
>In article <19981129165602...@ng136.aol.com>, sgtf...@aol.com
>(SgtFury1) wrote:
>
>> rte...@cnct.com (rtemple) wrote:
>>
>> >With a comic like FF#1 or Spiderman #1 that originally was in (for
>> >example) good then restored to F+, how does this impact value? Is the
>> >restored book worth as much as the unrestored and then if not how is it
>> >determined? I am lost.... How can I tell if I have a restored book? Buying
>> >a high grade comic (my original reason for this post) for "keeping" was
>> >something I was considering (FF#1) but it is restored. What is it worth
>> >compared to its unrestored version...???
>>
>> Great discussion topic. I have no restored comics in my collection and, in
>> fact, only have a couple or three which may someday be candidates for
>> restoration. So, admittedly, my opinion may not count for a lot. At any
>rate, I
>> would say the short answer is, "No." Restoration does not reduce a comic's
>> value.
>
>No, no, no. This isn't true. It matters on what restoration was done. Back
>in the 1970's the big thing was to take black markers to colour in the
>darkness on Hulk #1. Unfortunately, over the years this can be easily
>detected. So, in fact, the restoration process DID lower the price of the
>book.
>
Certainly this would fall under the heading of "amatuer" restoration. Of
*course* this would devalue a book. After all, who would pay Susan Ciccone to
color on a comic with a magic marker? Overstreet says, "...*professionally
restored comic books* are an acceptable component of the comic book market, but
only if the following criteria are met: 1-Must be professional work. 2-Complete
disclosure of the extent and type of restoration. 3-Both parties are informed.
4-Priced accordingly depending on availability and demand." Doesn't sound like
a Hulk #1 someone has touched up with a marker and tried to pass off as a
higher grade would pass muster.
>Even more recent restoration techniques have come under scrutiny.
>
>As to any increase in value, opinions I have read vary greatly. One
>> theory is to use an average; i.e.: Unrestored Value + Value of the
*APPARENT*
>> grade (after restoration) divided by two. Under this theory a G comic,
>restored
>> to an *apparent* FN, would have the "guide value" of a VG. Sounds
>reasonable to
>> me but I don't make the rules.
>
>According to Overstreet, no restored book is worth more than the original,
>unrestored book in the same grade. (Of course, some idiot buyers at
>Christie's need to figure this out.
Overstreet's reads: "A professionally restored book, reasonably priced, while
not worth as much as the same book unrestored, will increase in value at the
same rate." I wonder if this is meant as literally as you have taken it. Or are
they saying the *apparent* grade is not worth what the equivalent *actual*
(unrestored) grade would be worth? I must admit to having interpreted it as the
latter. Why would anyone pay $70 per hour to make their prized comic worth
*less* than it was worth before?
Karl
BFscomics
>not worth as much as the same book unrestored, will increase in value at the
>same rate." I wonder if this is meant as literally as you have taken it. Or
>are
>they saying the *apparent* grade is not worth what the equivalent *actual*
>(unrestored) grade would be worth? I must admit to having interpreted it as
>the
>latter. Why would anyone pay $70 per hour to make their prized comic worth
>*less* than it was worth before?
>
Overstreet made the above statement before the current market determined that
restored comics are not worth near what their unrestored counterparts are
worth. Check out any Golden Age Captain America 1 or Detective 1 and see if
restored copies are selling anywhere near what their unrestored counterparts
are selling for. Overstreet used to acknowledge that, but for some unknown
reason he changed his position. Now we get ambiguous statements that only make
the restorers happy.
Brian
Chickenpuppet
like degree of restoration. having your pages de-acidified and/or
possibly whitened is not the same as a spine restoration or tear
re-fibering(i forget what the trade term for that process is...). the
main thing with comics is that the higher the grade, the better the
readability. i do agree with your main point though, that a
professionally done and acurately documented restoration does NOT lower
the value of a comic and does add a small increment of value(i usually
figure it at the highest percentage of the original grade). personally,
i stay away from books with heavy restoration though! BTW, there are
remarkably few people who are "pro's" at doing restorations, GET
DOCUMENTATION!
CP
SgtFury1 wrote:
>
> rte...@cnct.com (rtemple) wrote:
>
> >With a comic like FF#1 or Spiderman #1 that originally was in (for
> >example) good then restored to F+, how does this impact value? Is the
> >restored book worth as much as the unrestored and then if not how is it
> >determined? I am lost.... How can I tell if I have a restored book? Buying
> >a high grade comic (my original reason for this post) for "keeping" was
> >something I was considering (FF#1) but it is restored. What is it worth
> >compared to its unrestored version...???
>
> Great discussion topic. I have no restored comics in my collection and, in
> fact, only have a couple or three which may someday be candidates for
> restoration. So, admittedly, my opinion may not count for a lot. At any rate, I
> would say the short answer is, "No." Restoration does not reduce a comic's
> value. As to any increase in value, opinions I have read vary greatly. One
> theory is to use an average; i.e.: Unrestored Value + Value of the *APPARENT*
> grade (after restoration) divided by two. Under this theory a G comic, restored
> to an *apparent* FN, would have the "guide value" of a VG. Sounds reasonable to
> me but I don't make the rules.
>
> Karl
aj6...@pcps.edu
Take a look at a Detective 27....an unrestored VF/NM would sell for over
$100,000. But one with even minor restoration would cost you around $60,000
or even less! The biggest idea is that when someone does piece replacement
or color touch, it isnt original. The pieces replaced are not from 1940 or
whenever the book is from. I would say to leave the book as it is and not
touch it. And also...just because a restorer is listed in overstreet and CBG
does NOT mean that they are professional!! I sent a book to Sierra
Restoration and they did a HORRIBLE job! The book was actually worth more
before it was restored! So use extreme caution if you are to get a book
restored. But if it is of re-sell and not for yourself, I would not
recommend it at all.
My 2 cents
Ankur
aj6...@usip.edu
In article <19981130205105...@ng-ce1.aol.com>,
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
SgtFury1
>I would say that any type of restoration does decrease the value of a comic.
>Take a look at a Detective 27....an unrestored VF/NM would sell for over
>$100,000. But one with even minor restoration would cost you around $60,000
Why would anyone want to restore a VF or better copy of anything, let alone
Detective 27?
BFscomics
>Detective 27?
Someone color touched the Mile High Action 1. If that answers your question.
But his point is valid. Restoring does reduce value. Both as an investment and
for resale.
Alan David Doane
However, if it was YOUR Action 1, and you knew you didn't ever want to
part with it, why not restore it, if you can? I know I would.
Alan
"Now is all we have."
Delenn, "Babylon 5"
magus
(SgtFury1) wrote:
> aj6...@pcps.edu wrote (snipping message responded to):
>
> >I would say that any type of restoration does decrease the value of a comic.
> >Take a look at a Detective 27....an unrestored VF/NM would sell for over
> >$100,000. But one with even minor restoration would cost you around $60,000
>
> Why would anyone want to restore a VF or better copy of anything, let alone
> Detective 27?
So the can dupe someone into thinking it's a NM unrestored copy? ;(
BFscomics
>part with it, why not restore it, if you can? I know I would.
>
If you own it then it is your decision. I'm sure the temptation would be there
for me too. But unrestored Action 1's are far rarer than restored copies, and
that has to have an effect on value.
Brian
Steve Parker
I also collect coins, and this topic comes up alot on the coins ng. The
general opinion on the cleaning of coins is: AARGH! WHAT ARE YOU NUTS?!!
With respect to comics though, I'd only restore a poor/fair/good copy of
a book only to preserve the book, as paper deteriorates over time. With
Golden Age books, the average copy is usually a VG anyway, so why mess
with it?
Steve Parker
tr...@eclipsepaper.com
wrote:
>On 3 Dec 1998 22:55:32 GMT, bfsc...@aol.com (BFscomics) wrote:
>
>>>>.>Why would anyone want to restore a VF or better copy of anything, let alone
>>>>>Detective 27?
>>>>
>>>>Someone color touched the Mile High Action 1. If that answers your question.
>
>However, if it was YOUR Action 1, and you knew you didn't ever want to
>part with it, why not restore it, if you can? I know I would.
>
>Alan
Alan,
Why not restore it? I can give you a good reason. The color-touch
done to the Action 1 (depending, of course, on what was used) has
almost guaranteed the degradation of the book as it ages, in the spot
on which color-touch occurred. Most medium used in color-touching
books continues to age, even after it has dried. What happens is
that any area where color-touch has been applied will do one of two
things once the color-touch starts to crack and crizzle (aligatoring
which is commonly seen on old paintings).
a) This aging will cause extreme torque force on the paper
and will either tear the paper apart
or
b) the color-touch will flake off revealing the area
underneath
This, of course, assumes that the area that was color-touched was then
not reglossed to make it match the original gloss of the Action 1. I,
by the way, highly doubt that this was the case. Cracking and
crizzling occurs after a period of about 10-15 years, so that Action 1
(which I think was done in the early eighties) is due for more
restoration really soon.
The money spent on the improvement of a high-grade book is better
spent on making sure that the book stays in high-grade. Buy a mylar,
buy a humidifier and make sure the storage area works in a way to
preserve the book. Don't improve a really nice book, just so it looks
perfect.
My two cents.
Tracey Heft
Eclipse Paper Conservation
www.eclipsepaper.com
magus
bfsc...@aol.com (BFscomics) wrote:
> .>Why would anyone want to restore a VF or better copy of anything, let alone
> >Detective 27?
>
> Someone color touched the Mile High Action 1. If that answers your question.
>
> But his point is valid. Restoring does reduce value. Both as an investment and
> for resale.
Except, my understanding was that the color touch was due to an original
printing error and not due to age discoloration.
Christopher L. Tumber
> bfsc...@aol.com (BFscomics) wrote:
> Someone color touched the Mile High Action 1. If that answers your question.
magus replied:
> Except, my understanding was that the color touch was due to an original
> printing error and not due to age discoloration.
So? It's still a silly thing to do. Would anyone ever REALLY be prepared to
pay more for a "Mile High Action 1, apparent NM, colour touch" over a "Mile
High Action 1, VF, minor printing discolouration"?
I can't see it and instead they've irreperably altered an historical
artifact. And what guarantees do you have that whoever did the work didn't
use some chemical (especially bleach) that's going to weaken the fibres and
turn that area of the book brown in 10 years?
It's one thing to take a book that's not even readable because it's in
pieces or has big chunks out and turn it back into a comic book. But to
mess with a book that not only has a pedigree but is darn near NM anyway is
just soooo wrong.
BFscomics
>printing error and not due to age discoloration.
Nope. Real color touch.
magus
aa...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Christopher L. Tumber) wrote:
> > bfsc...@aol.com (BFscomics) wrote:
> > Someone color touched the Mile High Action 1. If that answers your question.
>
> magus replied:
>
> > Except, my understanding was that the color touch was due to an original
> > printing error and not due to age discoloration.
>
> So? It's still a silly thing to do. Would anyone ever REALLY be prepared to
> pay more for a "Mile High Action 1, apparent NM, colour touch" over a "Mile
> High Action 1, VF, minor printing discolouration"?
First, someone already posted that I wasn't correct. It was discolouration.
Secondly, I was stating that in my opinion having a VF/NM book and adding
two dots of colour so that you're not distracted by a misprint is the
lesser of two evils when compared to covering up age defects.