LearnedHand

Agree that the books Bangzoom (BZ) has been displaying are impressive and that this is the best thread I’ve encountered in a long while (positive and dazzling!). And yes, I would like to own some of them. But pedigree status? In my opinion, not at this point. As one of Jon Berk’s arguments in his article indicates (with which I agree), a pedigree is not just a bunch of high-grade OO books (and one doesn’t lobby to have a collection receive pedigree status). These factors are simply indicators of an impressive collection. And, these factors can propel a collection to pedigree status. Mark Wilson said it well when he offered the Rockford collection. After consulting with Overstreet, Geppi, and others about what consistutes pedigree status, he concluded that it is a function of market acceptance – meaning the collection is regarded by the hobby as something special and, due to this, people are willing to pay more for these books (irrespective of grade) than they would for the same books in the same grades from nondescript sources. And “willing to pay more” relates to what people are willing to pay in secondary market sales. If the collection is revered as special, resale prices will reflect this. Unfortunately, two factors help cloud the issue: First, dealers offering new collections to the market at over-Guide initial asking prices and dubbing them to be (named) pedigrees. Sorry, this is simply creative marketing. Second, CGC dictating what collections deserve pedigree status. Again, this is the tail attempting to wag the dog. Call a cache of books a “collection” or “pedigree,” call it “Fred.” Affix a label with a collection name to the slab (“From the Collection of Nicholas Cage,” etc.). All are irrelevant to anybody with common sense or that’s been in the hobby longer than CGC. Isn’t this why so many so-called pedigrees or named collections routinely sell for no more than their same-grade nondescript counterparts? Clearly, the market knows what collections are special, irrespective of dealer marketing or grading company opinions. In the case of the BZ books, from what I’ve seen, many of the books seem very nice. But do we know there really are 1,000 books? That it’s OO? That they are unrestored? That more books grade like the Adventure #40 than the Peps? Looking at the collection in the most favorable light, let’s assume what seems to be the case – that it is an OO collection, all are unrestored, there are more than a handful of key/important books, and the vast majority are in better-than-VF. Even assuming all this, none have been offered for sale and, more importantly, there are no secondary market sales from which to gauge market acceptance. Frankly, call it whatever you’d like, it has not achieved pedigree status. In fact, no collection ever obtained pedigree status while sitting in its respective OO’s home (or thereabouts). As such, the BZ collection might be worthy of pedigree status, but at this point, it’s no more than a pedigree-to-be, or a pedigree in hibernation. In any event, I’m entranced by this thread and will now sit back and continue to enjoy the show.

Hi Mark, Appreciate your comments and look forward to your (any everyone else’s) further comments. As I’m a big fan of the Socratic method (and as I found about 1/2 free hour today), I’d like to explore some of your statements: I don’t read these Boards very often anymore, but based on what I know, I think you believe pressing is restoration and, like me, I know you support disclosure. I can’t imagine, however, that anyone would seriously take the position (I’m not inferring that you are) that a stronger definition, or pushing the voluntary disclosure issues, will make any difference under the current market dynamics (inability to easily detect pressing) – outside of an abstract discussion. Because of this, I’ve wondered aloud why some people are so absolutely vehement over things that make no practical difference. It led me to a creative little conspiracy theory – and the reasons in my theory for the vehemence are far from altruistic. I’m not sure if I should share it, however, as this thread may turn ugly (or the theory may undermine the point of this thread). Without pressing defined as restoration, there is no disclosure argument (read this in conjunction with my comments to the next quoted item). And, as I stated in “Taking the disclosure point to a logical conclusion,” the current market realties provide clear evidence that the definition of pressing will have very little (if any) effect without a method of easy detection. It seems like you’re saying that the consumer might want to know about pressing irrespective of whether pressing is defined as restoration. Maybe you should consider this a little more before coming to this conclusion. Here’s some food for thought: History dictates (35+ years of it) that consumers don’t put this standard of disclosure on anything not defined as restoration (such as the unfolding of folded pages, white bread being rubbed across a cover, etc.). Everyone knows these things go on, and they fit within my definition of “tampering,” but they are not considered restoration and there has never been public outcry for their disclosure. If pressing is not to be classified as restoration, agendas aside, is there any logic argument why it would be held to a different standard? The one creative argument I’ve heard for holding pressing (if not classified as restoration) to a different disclosure standard is if pressing is ultimately determined to hurt the books. This argument also has no merit. Simply, if pressing were found to hurt books, it would immediately have a very different connotation, making the current discussions moot. Mark, as you’re hedging both sides of the issue, I’m not sure if I see a clear point here, but you’ve (inadvertently) created an artificial limit to the meaning of “ill-effects on sales.” Ill-effects on sales means a whole lot more: To claim that there is clear evidence of ill-effects means that you can point to a body of objective data sufficient to comprise a true test sample. This data would need to be comprised of: (a) known CGC pressed and CGC non-pressed books; (b) books in both categories of the same exact title, number, and grade; © sales data for a very similar period; and (d) apples to apples – meaning 9.0 to 9.0 or 4.0 to 4.0 comparisons. I would love to see the clear evidence for this, as it might help me come to a conclusion. “Ill-effects on sales” also means that the volume of transactions on pressed books is down – again, based on a true test sample (and a further criteria for a test sample in this category would be to assess the trending for sales volume for a specific period, and then see how pressed books and non-pressed books track against that overall trending data). So, if you (or some people you know) decide to buy or not buy a book is evidence of virtually nothing. Again, I would love to see the clear evidence on this too. Also, assuming your claims can be supported by clear evidence, which remains to be seen, I’ll also point out that even under the nonsensical notion that the buying habits of a few individuals has any affect on sales in the market, I could immediately point to objective and well-publicized data that supports the opposite side of this argument. And on a broader level, if your stance on this point had any categorical merit, you wouldn’t even need to make it. The intent behind most pressing is to realize higher prices. Said differently, a lot of the books worth pressing for the fractional grade increase (and resultant higher value) are the higher end books, many of which are well-known and floating around. If these books were bought, pressed, offered for resale, and regularly realized lower sales prices, this would absolutely herald the death of the incentive for people to press. No one would be pressing any of those books to attempt to achieve a higher grade if it typically meant less money – this would be ridiculous! Logically, your statements must be relative to the other area of books – the ones that are not well-known and not floating around. No need to discuss this area, however, as it’s already covered by the points in my original post and above. And even if many of us would like to protect these treasures from the same fate as their pressed-for-dollars brethren, to paraphrase a poignant comment made by someone else on this thread - disclosure is only as good as the seller. Even if I disclosed that I pressed a book I sell you, there is no guarantee that you’ll pass that knowledge to the person to whom you sell this book. And, with no easy objective way for a hobbyist to inspect a book and detect pressing, I see no panacea for halting NDP or forcing its disclosure. Again, I appreciate your comments as they help challenge (and maybe even dispel) some of the strong opinions and arguments that seem to have major holes in them. I’ll look forward to follow up and your response to my third facet (if I don't reply, it's because I'm in on business travel all next week).

I know pressing is discussed daily and that there are some very strong opinions. My intent here is to challenge some of those with the strong opinions to look at more than just the in-a-vacuum issues. As such, I would appreciate it if we could make a concerted effort to keep all posts on point and not end up in side-conversations or in polarized debates that rehash the same old dogmatic pontification. I’ll start by saying that I am still in a data-gathering mode, so my comments here are not driven by any other agenda. I will also say that I think the issue is not really with pressing at all and that the “issue of pressing” is a bit of a misnomer. The real issue has three facets, two of which (the first two discussed below) comprise a house of cards, as they are very dependent on each other: Facet 1: Is pressing restoration? Ironically, this should be a settled issue, as the authority in the hobby, Overstreet, says it is restoration (the maverick decision made by Overstreet relative to this year’s Guide definitions, to which many of us vehemently objected, is a wholly discrete topic – so let’s keep it out of this discussion please). But CGC says it is not. This schism is at the core of the in-a-vacuum issue. Some would argue that CGC, a for-profit grading company has eclipsed its own purpose. Instead of simply doing what it’s paid to do - grade comic books for a fee - CGC has decided to follow its own rule on this issue, thus, supplanting Overstreet’s respected and time-honored position. CGC can do this, however, as it serves no master but itself. Nothing wrong with that – that’s corporate America. But why has the hobby allowed this? Maybe it’s because people feel Overstreet is becoming more and more irrelevant, or maybe it’s because people are using CGC’s stance to promote selfish agendas. I don't know. In any event the result is that CGC does not give pressed books the PLOD. The natural progeny of this decision is that CGC does not identify or note pressing. The wild-card is that some people (CGC included) believe not all pressing can be detected. If true, then even if CGC reversed its stance, it’s ability to do anything might be limited. Facet 2: Disclosure The definition of pressing is crucial to both sides and, therefore, so hotly debated. Each side of the pressing debate needs a definition to support their view because if it does not, then their argument logically falls apart: If pressing is restoration - then those who do not disclose known (or suspected) pressing are committing a serious ethical violation – identical to not disclosing any other form of restoration. And CGC’s shortcoming on this issue should not absolve anyone for consciously disregarding basic ethical obligations. If pressing is not restoration - then in absolute terms, there is nothing that requires disclosure. Taking the disclosure debate to a logical conclusion: Based on current market realities, there is no objective means by which to detect pressing. And, no one can force disclosure. Within this framework, if pressing is classified as restoration, what does this mean for the hobby? Well, that’s sort of where we are today. It is considered restoration, yet is rampant and has no ill effects on sales. And, if pressing is deemed not to be restoration, what does this mean for the hobby? Well, I think it’s obvious that things would be just as they are now. There are no constraints to pressing today, so to assume a revised definition would change anything makes no sense. The problem is that pressing is probably one of the very few things that in some cases is next to impossible to detect. If the hobby truly wants to know whether books are pressed, the solution is to develop an objective means by which to unequivocally determine it. Facet 3: Market Acceptance Outside the in-a-vacuum issues discussed above, the bigger picture is – even if pressing could be detected, under current market conditions, would it really matter? I believe that many of the debates that rage over whether pressing is or is not restoration may be a waste of time unless we can honestly answer “yes” to the following questions: if (a) pressing were universally resolved by the hobby as restoration, and (b) the grading companies could detect pressing 99% of the time, and © the so-called experts gave pressed books the PLOD (minor) label - would a pressed book, with no other tampering whatsoever, really sell at prices consistent with those at which other PLOD (minor) books sell? And, more importantly, would you pay no more than restored (minor) prices for books that come with PLOD (minor) labels when the books have only been pressed (with no other tampering whatsoever)? Maybe the answer to the first question is – we don’t know today because of current circumstances…maybe. Even so, everyone can answer the second question - and unless your answer is a resounding “yes,” then maybe you don’t see pressing as the equivalent of other forms of minor restoration. As a practical matter, I know that MANY people wish that the answer to the above questions were yes for the hobby at large. In today’s prohibitive market, many people would gladly pay restored prices for books that are only pressed. Example - the Larson Detective Comics #35, a CGC9.2 could not sell in a Heritage Signature Auction at about $13K because it has a PLOD for minor restoration (cover professionally solvent cleaned – meaning no evidence of the cleaning even remains in the book’s paper). If, instead, this book had only been pressed (intact/staples on), can anyone say with a straight face that it still wouldn’t and shouldn’t have sold at that price? And would anyone in the market for a Detective Comics #35 honestly say they would have hesitated for an instant in pulling the trigger at about $13K if this CGC9.2 pedigree copy of a very tough classic covered book had only been pressed?