Tuesday, May 7, 2024
Scoop is a totally free e-newsletter, produced for the benefit of the friends who share our hobby!
Group1
Group2
Group3
Group4
Search
As we have done for several weeks now, last week, we posted new responses
and links to all the previous responses we received to our articles as we work
on the new edition of The Overstreet Comic Book Grading Guide. You'll
find the links at the end of this section.
And yes, we're still eager for your participation!
So, please let us know what you think!
Dan Fogel
Hippy Comix, Inc.
How would you define "Restoration" in comics?
Any repairs or additions to the physical state of the comic in question.
What would you include and not include?
Include: Paint touch up, tear mending, paper fills, staple replacement, story, ad page or centerfold replacement, taking out spine rolls, cleaning, bleaching, pressing
Not Include: Deacidification
Would you delineate between professional restoration and amateur restoration? And if so, what would be the determining factors?
Yes absolutely! Professional restoration is verified by paperwork and/or a reputable seller, by such artists as Susan Ciccone (an old friend) or William Sarill. Anyone other than these or another reputable, known quantity restorer, is amateur restoration, and doesn't necessarily add value to the book. (BTW, About 20 years ago I was taught a few techniques, like taking out spine rolls and gluing brittle paper chips back in place)
What, if any, forms of restoration are acceptable to you?
All are acceptable in a Golden Age key
And why? And under what circumstances?
It's the only way to afford such books for the average collector.
Presently in 9.4 (Near Mint), the grading definition for staples includes the following notation: "Any staple can be replaced on books up to 6.0 (Fine), but only vintage staples can be used on books from 8.0 (Very Fine) to 9.4 (Near Mint)." The entry also specified that higher grade books must have their original staples.
To this point, it seems clear that some staple replacement has been done to prevent rust from further damaging the comic. In other cases, though, it is evident that staple replacement has been done for purely cosmetic reasons.
The revised standards would include the following statement:
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.
What do you think of this?
I think the addition is fine, although it might become arguable if a given staple replacement was aesthetic or conservatory. Also, how can one be 100% sure if a staple is vintage, if the replacement wasn't viewed and it's on a book several owners past the replacement?
Tom Moore
Architect/Comic Collector-Buyer-Seller
Pressing (NDP) Debate: Restoration or Not?
Is pressing restoration? Pressing, or NDP, that alters (i.e., enhances a comic's appearance or grade) a comic book by removing detrimental aspects of wear, or mishandling, such as indentations and creasing not breaking color, spine-roll, and other similar deleterious effects, must be considered restoration. If moisture or chemicals are used in the process to chemically alter the nature of the paper to more readily receive the pressing process' enhancing effects, then by all definition of the terms, this would have be considered restoration and most probably, more severe restoration than if only subjected to a pressing technique. While the long-term effects of pressing appear to be unknown, it could very well be expected that the full NDP process, inclusive of moisture and/or chemical agents would increase the ultimate deterioration of the comic book paper.
While it can be argued that many forms of storage constitute pressing techniques, I would argue that standard vertical storage (whereby the book housed in a mylar, or similar material, bag with a backing board stands vertically in an archival-type box), under most normal conditions, and no matter how "tightly" the books are pressing together, does not readily improve the book's appearance by removing, or pressing out, the aforementioned deleterious conditions; more accurately it should be stated that excellent storage protocol will prevent the book(s) from developing additional similar aspects of wear, and maintain their present condition, whatever that might be.
I could be wrong, but without the introduction of a moisture or chemical agent along with a pressing technique, normal storage will not remove "point-load" type indentations or severe (non-color breaking) bends and dings. Perhaps the most minor non-color breaking bends, such as a rack stress for example, could be flattened out and, in effect, "removed" by the most stringent of storage methods, but again I believe this only applies to the lightest of creasing/depressions.
The proposed tier grading of restoration I believe is an excellent movement in the hobby/industry and will ultimately be well-received. For purposes of this aspect of the discussion, I will refer to CGC graded books as the benchmark that has been established in the hobby/industry. It makes sense that, for example, a high grade 9.0 or better book with a 1/32" diameter dot of color touch on the cover being the only detectable aspect of restoration should not share what basically is the same "purple label of death" of a heavily restored book...sure the CGC notes may comment on trimming, tear-seals, pieces added, re-glossing, staples replaced, etc. etc. but until a tiered system comes along we have two, and only two, distinct categories: restored and un-restored (I have set aside "qualified" as a purely separate category and discussion).
Bottom line, and which has so eloquently was stated in Mark Zaid's article (as well as all others that have contributed), disclosure is the foundation of the hobby/industry. If a book is pressed with, of course, the express intent of improving its condition and that is not disclosed, that is fraudulent by all definitions of the term...regardless of whether or not you believe NDP to be restoration or not. This is more and more critical with the advance and proliferation of internet sales whereby the purchaser does not have the opportunity to peruse the book before purchase...even more critical when it has been encased in a CGC case! Ultimately it is no different than disclosing any other aspect of the comic's condition that is contributing to its grade, such as a 1/4-inch tear at the bottom edge of page 17 for example. That same proliferation has also obscured the ownership and history of any given book. I as well as other fellow collectors know of proven examples where books have been purchased as restored and resold as unrestored. While this is straying from the point a bit, I merely wish to reinforce the importance of integrity and disclosure as the fundamental necessity in the buying and selling of investment-level collectibles, be they antique furniture or comic books or you name it.
Restoration.
Most examples of restoration are well-defined and outside general debate. I would like to contribute thoughts regarding the more marginal aspects of restoration
I would hold up for examination what I think are some pretty debatable aspects of restoration. The first is removal of deleterious effects as an amateur/owner of the book. I will admit there is a fine line, but I will use a couple of examples to fuel the discussion. The first one is something I'm sure we've all experienced, which I will refer to as "added material removal." Let's say I was reading a book and the next day I see something, let's use some type of food as an example, has been imparted onto the cover of the book from one of my fingers. I see that the food is not overly oily, has not created in my opinion an absorbed stain all the way through the cover telegraphing on the interior cover, and that it appears that if I use a method such as a slightly dampened paper towel, I can brush off the food matter. I proceed to do so and lo and behold, I cannot detect any evidence that the food was ever there. I wait a few days and re-check the book and can still see no evidence of stain or otherwise. I would have a tendency to argue that no restoration has occurred. I certainly didn't add anything to the book.
At worst, I have simply changed one flaw into another, either miniscule/microscopic or severe, in this analysis it wouldn't change the condition proffered. Perhaps this is an issue of timing... should it matter that I set out to immediately remove the material or would it be different if I discovered it 3 years later, remembered it (or not), and removed it successfully (or otherwise)?
For that matter, I have many books that have moisture-type stains that I have no idea the nature of the cause. These are classified by CGC and by me as well as I think most everybody as an aspect of wear, not restoration. I would argue that the aforementioned example is in the same category (especially if one could detect any hint of a stain or ghost-stain).
Another example that I have first-hand experience with is an example of removing, or at least setting out to remove, something that someone has added (i.e., not a part of the original comic) and in this case a grease pencil resale mark, or re-pricing in a used comic book store. When I would first buy these books, I found the grease pencil mark to be very annoying, and I would set out to either scrape it off or erase it. Depending on many circumstances, the removal would be almost unknown to the naked eye, or would leave clear evidence of an erasure mark, and that some type of marking had been removed. Again, I would argue that this is not even amateur restoration but an example of wear...just another example that this is a copy long fallen from the highest grade rankings and has this particular feature contributing to an accumulative level of wear that is relegating a lower grade. In this case, however, I would always disclose this and inform potential buyers for them to decide for themselves whether this should move the book out of the un-restored category and into the restored or qualified category.
Perhaps there are more similar circumstances, but I would add one additional aspect that I believe should not constitute restoration...and that would be when a book owner has added (for example) tape over the staples as additional reinforcement. In other words, there was no attempt to repair damage, but I trust many of us have encountered books with this said feature, and it is clear that there was no attempt to repair or enhance the book (in fact, they have impaired the book's quality in this case). Of course this should be noted, but I believe that this does not fit the definition of restoration (I have seen Golden Age books with this feature receive the CGC universal un-restored label/grade but I'm not sure they have been consistent on this).
And yes, we're still eager for your participation!
So, please let us know what you think!
Dan Fogel
Hippy Comix, Inc.
How would you define "Restoration" in comics?
Any repairs or additions to the physical state of the comic in question.
What would you include and not include?
Include: Paint touch up, tear mending, paper fills, staple replacement, story, ad page or centerfold replacement, taking out spine rolls, cleaning, bleaching, pressing
Not Include: Deacidification
Would you delineate between professional restoration and amateur restoration? And if so, what would be the determining factors?
Yes absolutely! Professional restoration is verified by paperwork and/or a reputable seller, by such artists as Susan Ciccone (an old friend) or William Sarill. Anyone other than these or another reputable, known quantity restorer, is amateur restoration, and doesn't necessarily add value to the book. (BTW, About 20 years ago I was taught a few techniques, like taking out spine rolls and gluing brittle paper chips back in place)
What, if any, forms of restoration are acceptable to you?
All are acceptable in a Golden Age key
And why? And under what circumstances?
It's the only way to afford such books for the average collector.
Presently in 9.4 (Near Mint), the grading definition for staples includes the following notation: "Any staple can be replaced on books up to 6.0 (Fine), but only vintage staples can be used on books from 8.0 (Very Fine) to 9.4 (Near Mint)." The entry also specified that higher grade books must have their original staples.
To this point, it seems clear that some staple replacement has been done to prevent rust from further damaging the comic. In other cases, though, it is evident that staple replacement has been done for purely cosmetic reasons.
The revised standards would include the following statement:
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.
What do you think of this?
I think the addition is fine, although it might become arguable if a given staple replacement was aesthetic or conservatory. Also, how can one be 100% sure if a staple is vintage, if the replacement wasn't viewed and it's on a book several owners past the replacement?
Tom Moore
Architect/Comic Collector-Buyer-Seller
Pressing (NDP) Debate: Restoration or Not?
Is pressing restoration? Pressing, or NDP, that alters (i.e., enhances a comic's appearance or grade) a comic book by removing detrimental aspects of wear, or mishandling, such as indentations and creasing not breaking color, spine-roll, and other similar deleterious effects, must be considered restoration. If moisture or chemicals are used in the process to chemically alter the nature of the paper to more readily receive the pressing process' enhancing effects, then by all definition of the terms, this would have be considered restoration and most probably, more severe restoration than if only subjected to a pressing technique. While the long-term effects of pressing appear to be unknown, it could very well be expected that the full NDP process, inclusive of moisture and/or chemical agents would increase the ultimate deterioration of the comic book paper.
While it can be argued that many forms of storage constitute pressing techniques, I would argue that standard vertical storage (whereby the book housed in a mylar, or similar material, bag with a backing board stands vertically in an archival-type box), under most normal conditions, and no matter how "tightly" the books are pressing together, does not readily improve the book's appearance by removing, or pressing out, the aforementioned deleterious conditions; more accurately it should be stated that excellent storage protocol will prevent the book(s) from developing additional similar aspects of wear, and maintain their present condition, whatever that might be.
I could be wrong, but without the introduction of a moisture or chemical agent along with a pressing technique, normal storage will not remove "point-load" type indentations or severe (non-color breaking) bends and dings. Perhaps the most minor non-color breaking bends, such as a rack stress for example, could be flattened out and, in effect, "removed" by the most stringent of storage methods, but again I believe this only applies to the lightest of creasing/depressions.
The proposed tier grading of restoration I believe is an excellent movement in the hobby/industry and will ultimately be well-received. For purposes of this aspect of the discussion, I will refer to CGC graded books as the benchmark that has been established in the hobby/industry. It makes sense that, for example, a high grade 9.0 or better book with a 1/32" diameter dot of color touch on the cover being the only detectable aspect of restoration should not share what basically is the same "purple label of death" of a heavily restored book...sure the CGC notes may comment on trimming, tear-seals, pieces added, re-glossing, staples replaced, etc. etc. but until a tiered system comes along we have two, and only two, distinct categories: restored and un-restored (I have set aside "qualified" as a purely separate category and discussion).
Bottom line, and which has so eloquently was stated in Mark Zaid's article (as well as all others that have contributed), disclosure is the foundation of the hobby/industry. If a book is pressed with, of course, the express intent of improving its condition and that is not disclosed, that is fraudulent by all definitions of the term...regardless of whether or not you believe NDP to be restoration or not. This is more and more critical with the advance and proliferation of internet sales whereby the purchaser does not have the opportunity to peruse the book before purchase...even more critical when it has been encased in a CGC case! Ultimately it is no different than disclosing any other aspect of the comic's condition that is contributing to its grade, such as a 1/4-inch tear at the bottom edge of page 17 for example. That same proliferation has also obscured the ownership and history of any given book. I as well as other fellow collectors know of proven examples where books have been purchased as restored and resold as unrestored. While this is straying from the point a bit, I merely wish to reinforce the importance of integrity and disclosure as the fundamental necessity in the buying and selling of investment-level collectibles, be they antique furniture or comic books or you name it.
Restoration.
Most examples of restoration are well-defined and outside general debate. I would like to contribute thoughts regarding the more marginal aspects of restoration
I would hold up for examination what I think are some pretty debatable aspects of restoration. The first is removal of deleterious effects as an amateur/owner of the book. I will admit there is a fine line, but I will use a couple of examples to fuel the discussion. The first one is something I'm sure we've all experienced, which I will refer to as "added material removal." Let's say I was reading a book and the next day I see something, let's use some type of food as an example, has been imparted onto the cover of the book from one of my fingers. I see that the food is not overly oily, has not created in my opinion an absorbed stain all the way through the cover telegraphing on the interior cover, and that it appears that if I use a method such as a slightly dampened paper towel, I can brush off the food matter. I proceed to do so and lo and behold, I cannot detect any evidence that the food was ever there. I wait a few days and re-check the book and can still see no evidence of stain or otherwise. I would have a tendency to argue that no restoration has occurred. I certainly didn't add anything to the book.
At worst, I have simply changed one flaw into another, either miniscule/microscopic or severe, in this analysis it wouldn't change the condition proffered. Perhaps this is an issue of timing... should it matter that I set out to immediately remove the material or would it be different if I discovered it 3 years later, remembered it (or not), and removed it successfully (or otherwise)?
For that matter, I have many books that have moisture-type stains that I have no idea the nature of the cause. These are classified by CGC and by me as well as I think most everybody as an aspect of wear, not restoration. I would argue that the aforementioned example is in the same category (especially if one could detect any hint of a stain or ghost-stain).
Another example that I have first-hand experience with is an example of removing, or at least setting out to remove, something that someone has added (i.e., not a part of the original comic) and in this case a grease pencil resale mark, or re-pricing in a used comic book store. When I would first buy these books, I found the grease pencil mark to be very annoying, and I would set out to either scrape it off or erase it. Depending on many circumstances, the removal would be almost unknown to the naked eye, or would leave clear evidence of an erasure mark, and that some type of marking had been removed. Again, I would argue that this is not even amateur restoration but an example of wear...just another example that this is a copy long fallen from the highest grade rankings and has this particular feature contributing to an accumulative level of wear that is relegating a lower grade. In this case, however, I would always disclose this and inform potential buyers for them to decide for themselves whether this should move the book out of the un-restored category and into the restored or qualified category.
Perhaps there are more similar circumstances, but I would add one additional aspect that I believe should not constitute restoration...and that would be when a book owner has added (for example) tape over the staples as additional reinforcement. In other words, there was no attempt to repair damage, but I trust many of us have encountered books with this said feature, and it is clear that there was no attempt to repair or enhance the book (in fact, they have impaired the book's quality in this case). Of course this should be noted, but I believe that this does not fit the definition of restoration (I have seen Golden Age books with this feature receive the CGC universal un-restored label/grade but I'm not sure they have been consistent on this).
Tom Moore’s end note: I am an Architect and Vice-President of a
medium-sized firm specializing in educational facilities architecture for the
past 21 years. I have been a comic book reader and collector since the early
1960s. I have participated as a buyer and seller on eBay over the last 4 years.
I am a great supporter of the hobby and now find myself vacillating between am I
more of a collector or an investor...a fine line to be sure. Most strongly, I
want to be known as someone who brought the highest ethics and integrity to my
collecting experience that I bring to my life, my family and my
profession.
Gary Colabuono
Moondog's
Pressing For Profit or Pressing For Pleasure?
There has been much debate about whether pressing is restoration or not. The views of those who believe it is restoration are based on the belief that they will pay more for the same book, after it's been pressed, than before. This "pressing for profit" inflates prices and therefore is negative for the collecting community. It also seems to be a "collector vs dealer" issue since the opinion of the pro-restoration group is that only dealers press books - and only for increased profit.
There's no question that dealers are more likely to have books pressed than collectors. But the facts are that many collectors have books pressed to increase their eye-appeal. I've done it and I've been very pleased with the results. Now, I may sell a pressed book in the future, and if I do, I expect to make more money since it's pressed (because it's going to look just about as good as it can). This just makes sense to me. I want items in my collection to look as good as possible and if I decide to sell them, I want to maximize my gain.
Is pressing restoration? I can't see how it can be. If done properly there's really no way to detect it (and if done improperly, the book will be obviously damaged). I don't want anyone "guessing" on whether a book I submit has been pressed or not. So until CGC can undeniably and definitively detect pressing - and it can be found to be detrimental to the book - then I'm just going to continue having books pressed and enjoying them for what they are: pop culture artifacts in their original condition looking as good as they can!
Stu Cathell
Plainfield, CT
You know, I've been reading your "Making the Grade" articles in the weekly Scoop, and one question comes to mind: could you guys be more biased???
Who decided who should be asked these questions? You've stacked the deck sooo bad! You're asking people who press books to get a 0.2 bump to make thousands of dollars extra if pressing is restoration???? Who are you kidding!!!???
You're asking Tom Brulato is he thinks pressing is restoration? Of course he doesn't, he's been pressing his comics for years, not disclosing it, and making tons of money off the upgrades!!! (Why did you call him a "collector"? You know he's a big-time dealer). Why don't you ask him real questions, like what his involvement in the Ewert trimming scandal was???
Same goes for Steve Lauterbach (his company name Investment Collectibles isn't too obvious, is it?), Doug Schmell, who has admitted on the CGC Board to pressing a bunch of comics and was disbarred as a lawyer for unethical conduct (fact), Tracy Heft (no comments needed here, he's a Restorer!), Matt Nelson, who is the King of Pressing Comics and will not disclose it, AND he himself sells the comics he works on!!! (spectre52), Lon Allen from Heritage (via Matt Nelson) - anyone from Heritage is going to say pressing is not restoration, Steve Mortensen, the Monthly Subscription to 9.8 comics king, etc, etc.
Did you choose to ask these people, or did they volunteer the info? Because if you're choosing, then I'd definitely say the rumor that Overstreet is catering to CGC and the Pressing/PCS crowd is no rumor. Nevermind the entire fiasco with this year's [edition of] The Overstreet Comic Book Price Guide and the changing of Restoration terms.
Please, we have had enough CGC bullspit. We need a company that looks out for the collector. We have CGC to look out for the Speculators, can we have Overstreet stick up for the true collectors???? If you really want to know the opinion of true collectors, check out the Ebay Comics Board (both of them) and the CGC Board, where people are finally waking up.
Are you guys doing any articles on the Great Pressing Experiment that Matt Nelson cooked up to deflect attention away from his unethical selling of comics?
"Pressing is not restoration because nothing is added" is the biggest cop-out I've ever heard. These people are intentionally manipulating books with machinery and heat/moisture and they say it's not restoration?? C'mon, don't insult the comic book industry!
Gary Colabuono
Moondog's
Pressing For Profit or Pressing For Pleasure?
There has been much debate about whether pressing is restoration or not. The views of those who believe it is restoration are based on the belief that they will pay more for the same book, after it's been pressed, than before. This "pressing for profit" inflates prices and therefore is negative for the collecting community. It also seems to be a "collector vs dealer" issue since the opinion of the pro-restoration group is that only dealers press books - and only for increased profit.
There's no question that dealers are more likely to have books pressed than collectors. But the facts are that many collectors have books pressed to increase their eye-appeal. I've done it and I've been very pleased with the results. Now, I may sell a pressed book in the future, and if I do, I expect to make more money since it's pressed (because it's going to look just about as good as it can). This just makes sense to me. I want items in my collection to look as good as possible and if I decide to sell them, I want to maximize my gain.
Is pressing restoration? I can't see how it can be. If done properly there's really no way to detect it (and if done improperly, the book will be obviously damaged). I don't want anyone "guessing" on whether a book I submit has been pressed or not. So until CGC can undeniably and definitively detect pressing - and it can be found to be detrimental to the book - then I'm just going to continue having books pressed and enjoying them for what they are: pop culture artifacts in their original condition looking as good as they can!
Stu Cathell
Plainfield, CT
You know, I've been reading your "Making the Grade" articles in the weekly Scoop, and one question comes to mind: could you guys be more biased???
Who decided who should be asked these questions? You've stacked the deck sooo bad! You're asking people who press books to get a 0.2 bump to make thousands of dollars extra if pressing is restoration???? Who are you kidding!!!???
You're asking Tom Brulato is he thinks pressing is restoration? Of course he doesn't, he's been pressing his comics for years, not disclosing it, and making tons of money off the upgrades!!! (Why did you call him a "collector"? You know he's a big-time dealer). Why don't you ask him real questions, like what his involvement in the Ewert trimming scandal was???
Same goes for Steve Lauterbach (his company name Investment Collectibles isn't too obvious, is it?), Doug Schmell, who has admitted on the CGC Board to pressing a bunch of comics and was disbarred as a lawyer for unethical conduct (fact), Tracy Heft (no comments needed here, he's a Restorer!), Matt Nelson, who is the King of Pressing Comics and will not disclose it, AND he himself sells the comics he works on!!! (spectre52), Lon Allen from Heritage (via Matt Nelson) - anyone from Heritage is going to say pressing is not restoration, Steve Mortensen, the Monthly Subscription to 9.8 comics king, etc, etc.
Did you choose to ask these people, or did they volunteer the info? Because if you're choosing, then I'd definitely say the rumor that Overstreet is catering to CGC and the Pressing/PCS crowd is no rumor. Nevermind the entire fiasco with this year's [edition of] The Overstreet Comic Book Price Guide and the changing of Restoration terms.
Please, we have had enough CGC bullspit. We need a company that looks out for the collector. We have CGC to look out for the Speculators, can we have Overstreet stick up for the true collectors???? If you really want to know the opinion of true collectors, check out the Ebay Comics Board (both of them) and the CGC Board, where people are finally waking up.
Are you guys doing any articles on the Great Pressing Experiment that Matt Nelson cooked up to deflect attention away from his unethical selling of comics?
"Pressing is not restoration because nothing is added" is the biggest cop-out I've ever heard. These people are intentionally manipulating books with machinery and heat/moisture and they say it's not restoration?? C'mon, don't insult the comic book industry!
Editor's note: As we have clearly documented publicly, we have sent our
questions to all Scoop readers, our Overstreet Advisors, and to comics
retailers served by Diamond Comic Distributors, inviting everyone to respond. We
have run every response we have received that dealt with the topics at hand,
thus far excluding precisely one off-topic reply.
Below you'll find links to previous responses and the question
topics:
First Responses
http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/scoop_article.asp?ai=11942&si=127
More Responses
http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/scoop_article.asp?ai=12018&si=127
Even More Responses
http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/scoop_article.asp?ai=12114&si=127
Still More Responses
http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/scoop_article.asp?ai=12139&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
First Responses
http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/scoop_article.asp?ai=11942&si=127
More Responses
http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/scoop_article.asp?ai=12018&si=127
Even More Responses
http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/scoop_article.asp?ai=12114&si=127
Still More Responses
http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/scoop_article.asp?ai=12139&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
