#1149742 - 04/06/06 12:30 AM
Intriguing Definitional Changes In New 2006 Overstreet Guide
|
esquirecomics
TOTAL NEWBIE
Registered: 01/20/05
Posts: 13363
Loc: Washington, D.C.
|
The Overstreet Guide has been the benchmark for many of the comic industry's standards for the last four decades. The information that is contained within its pages set policy, whether that be by way of pricing or grading. As each new Guide is issued we explore through the book to identify any modifications and to ponder why was that change made?
As an advertiser I just received my copy today and have only cursorily glanced through it. Several things have caught my attention, but one very subtle, but significantly important, change jumped out at me with tremendous force. Let me state that I know many, if not all, of the senior personnel at Gemstone. I respect them greatly and I value their friendship. As I bring the information below to the attention of the boards I shall do the same with them because I would like to understand why this modification was made, who authorized, participated and supported the modification and what supporting evidence led to the final decision to change years of thinking.
Whether one believes pressing is a good or bad thing, restoration or not restoration, clearly there are divided camps on these issues and some feel very strongly on either side of the topic. This post is neither designed nor intended to revive a debate that has been discussed ad naseum on these boards. Frankly, I have nothing further on a substantive level to add to what has already been posted before.
However, what does intrigue me is an apparent noted policy change by the Overstreet Guide that goes to the heart of this debate.
In the 24th edition (1994) of the Guide, for the first time (though I might have missed an earlier version and will check again) 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 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."
During the last two years I have had many discussions with those involved with the Guide regarding restoration and/or pressing. While I do not know what prompted those at Gemstone to modify the definition in 2003, I would have recommended the references to value be removed. They only served to perpetrate the unfortunate stigma that surrounds restoration. The value of a comic book has nothing to do with the definition of restoration. That relationship is best left to the marketplace sections to discuss and, of course, it deserves mention somewhere in the Guide, just not as part of its definition.
But the last two years have also been significant in the heightened degree of discussion concerning pressing. This is regardless of the posture or merits of the debate, but merely a statement of the recognition that the back and forth of the debate was quite active and, as noted above, passionate at times. Indeed, as part of that debate I often referred to the Overstreet definition as proof positive that pressing - regardless of whether it is good or bad - was a clear form of restoration, though IMHO the most minimalist of that artform.
Interestingly enough, though the camps on this issue would seem to be quite divided, the Overstreet Guide has modified once again the definition of "restoration". The 36th edition (2006) now defines it 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." This new definition, while commendable in that it omitted the previous value references, would appear to be specifically written to exclude pressing. Rather than restoration requiring an attempt to "enhance" the book's appearance through numerous techniques which have been utilized for years, now an "addition of non-orginal material" is required to meet the definition. As is known, those who support the notion that pressing is not restoration typically argue that the technique fails to "add" anything to the book. This change constitutes a fundamental shift in thinking a mere three years after the revised definition was included in the Guide (and it also impacts other techniques other than pressing such as trimming).
In fact, to make it even clearer that Overstreet (and I use the term generically and not necessarily to reference an individual) no longer apparently considers pressing to be a form of restoration, the term "pressing", for the first time in 36 years, is specifically defined in the Glossary as "the removal or reduction of creases, bends, spine roll, or other surface imperfections." No reference whatsoever or connection to "restoration".
We have been continually informed that pressing has been around for decades, and that its subtle, if not covert use, was widely known to the "leaders" and "experts" of our Community for many years. I cannot imagine that those who participated in the drafting of the 2003 definition were not aware of the significance of what they wrote when they clearly articulated that restoration includes "pressing out wrinkles."
There is ample room to debate whether pressing is restoration. I can absolutely understand the substance underlying both sides of the argument though I personally believe it to be a form of restoration.
What concerns me, however, is how we got from 2003 to 2006. What, or even who, prompted the modification of the definition? This was no subtle change, nor was it accidental. At no time in any discussion I have ever had with those associated with the Guide, on these boards, at conventions, or anywhere, was I even aware that the thought process regarding the definition had changed and that modifications were being considered.
I would be curious to know if anyone, particularly those who serve as Advisors to the Guide, were aware of this change in advance and, most importunately, were ever asked for their respective views on the term. I would hope that when a significant policy change is made by the leading authorities in the field that such a change is made after extensive discussions and thought within not only the institution but aspects of the community at large as well.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Featured Advertiser: Heritage Auction Galleries - Browse, Bid, Buy Now!
|
#1149744 - 04/06/06 01:05 AM
Re: Intriguing Definitional Changes In New 2006 Overstreet Guide
[Re: ronm3]
|
esquirecomics
TOTAL NEWBIE
Registered: 01/20/05
Posts: 13363
Loc: Washington, D.C.
|
Quote:
But wouldnt they all have to know about the change? They are all advisors. They all have to make that decision with the exception of the few stragglers.
if they all start playing dumb and say they didnt know about the change then there is definitely something fishy going on in the industry.
Changing a definition in restoration would mean they would have to go to all of the top people and pretty much take a survey. they cant just change it on their own.
I honestly don't know whether Advisors are informed or consulted regarding policy changes such as this. Setting prices is one thing. This is the Comic Book "Price Guide". I would imagine, though someone should correct me if this is wrong, that when Overstreet (whether the individual or the entity) came up with its grading standards, various people were consulted. Was this not the case when the ten point scale was implemented?
I would hope the same were to be true with definitional changes that significantly alter the landscape of our community, which is why who was involved in this change becomes important. Was it just those at Gemstone, or does the change reflect the sentiments of outsiders such as various dealers, collectors, etc?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1149745 - 04/06/06 01:28 AM
Re: Intriguing Definitional Changes In New 2006 Overstreet Guide
[Re: esquirecomics]
|
ronm3
I was posting here when you were in diapers.
Registered: 01/18/03
Posts: 3476
Loc: New Jersey
|
They have to consult the senior advisors before they make a change like that. There is alot of money being made in the pressing game. People have been doing it for years and it really started to pick up around 2003.
This may be an unspoken change where everyone will just shrug their arms.
I am curious to see what you come up with.
I would pick 2 senior advisors and see what they say and then go to gemstone.
Try Sulipa and Cole as they may be the easiest to get in touch with and then get in touch with Blumberg and see what he says.
He is on here so maybe you should ask him on here what the story is.
I wouldnt bother with any of the special advisors.
if they dont talk subpoena them. 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1149746 - 04/06/06 01:34 AM
Re: Intriguing Definitional Changes In New 2006 Overstreet Guide
[Re: ronm3]
|
esquirecomics
TOTAL NEWBIE
Registered: 01/20/05
Posts: 13363
Loc: Washington, D.C.
|
I should clarify that I was originally thinking of the "Special Advisors" when I used the term "Advisor". I have already contacted many of the primary Gemstone notables to include Bob Overstreet himself, as well as John Snyder, Steve Geppi, Tom Gordon and other important people regarding the change.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1149748 - 04/06/06 01:42 AM
Re: Intriguing Definitional Changes In New 2006 Overstreet Guide
[Re: esquirecomics]
|
CW
The Post-man always rings twice. Uhm... ring ring?
Registered: 10/06/04
Posts: 1890
Loc: S.F.
|
We aren't important? 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1149750 - 04/06/06 01:44 AM
Re: Intriguing Definitional Changes In New 2006 Overstreet Guide
[Re: esquirecomics]
|
Timulty
TOTAL NEWBIE
Registered: 08/05/05
Posts: 12312
Loc: Iola, KS
|
The seems to either state a shift in ideology at Overstreet or Overstreet perceives a major shift as a whole. What gets me is that if pressing is not included in definition of restoration then why is cleaning? Where is non-original material added? Just curious about that one.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: Gemma, plitch, cgcmod3, cgcmod, cgcmod2, Harshen, scaffrey, cgcmod5, cgcmod4, cgcmod6, cgcmod7
|
|
