Matt Nelson to set up at Baltimore

[EastCoastExchange-migratio]

Could someone please define restoration for me? I was always under the assumption that restoration involved processes that physically added components (in scientific terms - mass) to a book. Color touch has mass. Pieces added adds mass. Rice paper has mass. Glue has mass. Solvent cleaning removes sizing thus removing original mass. I don't think that mashing a book flat actually adds anything to it (or takes any mass away from it).

 

Now I have only been involved in this hobby for a few years, so I could be wrong. If I am, please enlighten me.

 

Mkay so if you,"don't think that mashing a book flat actually adds anything to it" then why would you have it pressed to begin with?

 

I know your answer. CGC might give the book a higher grade. Then you must ask yourself, why they are giving a higher grade if nothing has been added or taken away from it?

 

I know this sounds silly, but I swear to God if the argument of pressing ≠ restoration ever made its way into a court of law there is no way in hell it would be accepted by either a judge or a grand jury. This is coming from someone who is the son of a former U.S. magistrate who has served on 5 jury's including one rape & 2 homicides.

 

-CC

 

I totally disagree with that line of thought and I believe it would completely be upheld in a court of law. This comes from a lawyer who's tried multi million dollar cases and tried thousands of criminal trials including multiple first degree felony juries . Don't worry, there are plenty of lawyers who would totally disagree with me on the issue of pressing. But the point is, I think your last paragraph and its assertion are based on ,and trying to sound like, it has a kind of legal foundation. That line of reasoning and foundation for position is essentially worthless. It's more likely the court would analyze it -- as I have mentioned before -- from a value standpoint. Is a pressed book worth less in the comic book collecting community right now? No. And there's a mountain of evidence to demonstrate that. The leading third party grading system does not consider it to be restoration. The only definition that we has true "value" is CGC's -- and that is likely the first that a court would look to in order to settle any dispute. Forget the disclosure issue, you'd never even get to court in the first place because nobody could ever prove that if they bought a book that had been pressed without disclosure that there was any real personal damages.

 

I really hate pressing threads and tire of listening to the same people giving their anti or pro pressing opinions and I know people are sick of me rolling out the same arguments. I don't discourage the discussion -- but I personally tire of getting involved.

 

You are totally missing the ball you state,"Is a pressed book worth less in the comic book collecting community right now?" I am not talking about this at all. You must examine the other end of the spectrum. It is irrelevant whether the book is "worth less" , however it is relavent if the book is worth more. Why because capital is a stake. The fact of the matter is no one can rationally justify how a book a the undergoes pressing is essentially organic yet it can be graded as well as sold for multiples as it counterpart.

 

Can you clarify a little bit more about what you are trying to say in the last part of your statement?

 

Yes you can completely justify how the two can be worth the same. Not everyone collects "just" because the book is original and unaltered. For many, it's aesthetic. And so some alteration is going to continue make it as valuable as it's "unpressed" counterpart. It isn't worth less -- it's worth the same. If someone said to me, you can have a pressed copy or an unpressed, you know what? I don't care which one I get.

 

Please re-read my post and think about it. I have 3 girls over at the house right now all lined up to take me out to dinner.

 

CC

[Foolkiller]

Could someone please define restoration for me? I was always under the assumption that restoration involved processes that physically added components (in scientific terms - mass) to a book. Color touch has mass. Pieces added adds mass. Rice paper has mass. Glue has mass. Solvent cleaning removes sizing thus removing original mass. I don't think that mashing a book flat actually adds anything to it (or takes any mass away from it).

 

Now I have only been involved in this hobby for a few years, so I could be wrong. If I am, please enlighten me.

 

Mkay so if you,"don't think that mashing a book flat actually adds anything to it" then why would you have it pressed to begin with?

 

I know your answer. CGC might give the book a higher grade. Then you must ask yourself, why they are giving a higher grade if nothing has been added or taken away from it?

 

I know this sounds silly, but I swear to God if the argument of pressing ≠ restoration ever made its way into a court of law there is no way in hell it would be accepted by either a judge or a grand jury. This is coming from someone who is the son of a former U.S. magistrate who has served on 5 jury's including one rape & 2 homicides.

 

-CC

 

I totally disagree with that line of thought and I believe it would completely be upheld in a court of law. This comes from a lawyer who's tried multi million dollar cases and tried thousands of criminal trials including multiple first degree felony juries . Don't worry, there are plenty of lawyers who would totally disagree with me on the issue of pressing. But the point is, I think your last paragraph and its assertion are based on ,and trying to sound like, it has a kind of legal foundation. That line of reasoning and foundation for position is essentially worthless. It's more likely the court would analyze it -- as I have mentioned before -- from a value standpoint. Is a pressed book worth less in the comic book collecting community right now? No. And there's a mountain of evidence to demonstrate that. The leading third party grading system does not consider it to be restoration. The only definition that we has true "value" is CGC's -- and that is likely the first that a court would look to in order to settle any dispute. Forget the disclosure issue, you'd never even get to court in the first place because nobody could ever prove that if they bought a book that had been pressed without disclosure that there was any real personal damages.

 

I really hate pressing threads and tire of listening to the same people giving their anti or pro pressing opinions and I know people are sick of me rolling out the same arguments. I don't discourage the discussion -- but I personally tire of getting involved.

 

1. There are too many defense attorney's out there as well as Ambulance chasers. This is why our legal system is so up. Dad started his own tax firm 12 years ago then merged 3 years ago with Moore and Van Allen here in Charlotte. Anyways...enough ing.

 

You are totally missing the ball you state,"Is a pressed book worth less in the comic book collecting community right now?" I am not talking about this at all. You must examine the other end of the spectrum. It is irrelevant whether the book is "worth less" , however it is relavent if the book is worth more. Why because capital is a stake. The fact of the matter is no one can rationally justify how a book a the undergoes pressing is essentially organic yet it can be graded as well as sold for multiples as opposed to its counterpart.

 

Incidentally, there are far too many civil defense attorneys. I spent years as a prosecutor and left essentially for financial reasons. I agree -- in the sense that if there were fewer civil defense lawyers -- the litigation would be more efficient. And I also agree I'd eliminate some plaintiffs' lawyers too. There's a lot out there on both sides that ought to go.

[ciorac]

Could someone please define restoration for me? I was always under the assumption that restoration involved processes that physically added components (in scientific terms - mass) to a book. Color touch has mass. Pieces added adds mass. Rice paper has mass. Glue has mass. Solvent cleaning removes sizing thus removing original mass. I don't think that mashing a book flat actually adds anything to it (or takes any mass away from it).

 

Now I have only been involved in this hobby for a few years, so I could be wrong. If I am, please enlighten me.

 

I find it quite amusing that, whilst the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of 'restoration' has served society extremely well for hundreds of years, a bunch of vested interest comic dealers think it needs a rework...

 

FT has hit the nail on the head. All this discussion about value, taking away mass, etc, is just smoke and mirrors. And quite frankly silliness.

 

From the dictionary in my desk drawer:

 

restore: to bring back to a former, original, or normal condition, as a building, statue, or painting (or comic)

 

The methodology is not the limiting factor. To assume otherwise is to introduce bias into the discussion.

 

If the hobby decides to dictate that pressing is not restoration in terms of what color label it should receive..........then so be it.

 

However, turning a blind eye to the reality, does not make it less real.

 

Does that make pressing evil? Of course not. Neither is piece replacement, cleaning, color touch or other forms of restoration. They make comics look nicer and more like they originally did. Cool by me.

 

But, let's call a spade a spade.

[Harvey Dude]

The seller ought to determine whether to disclose or not to disclose..

 

I am surprised to hear this from you. . I applaud those individuals who took a stand against unethical practices to include going up against those individuals with a vested interest to muddy the waters when it comes to discussions to better this hobby. To not disclose work knowingly performed on books is unethical. No need to comment as I will take my “morale high horse” elsewhere. I will bring my comic collecting to a virtual halt as I am turned off by the shenanigans going on all in the name of squeezing dollars out of the unsuspecting. Consider this my DQE.

[burntboy]

I would wager to say that most high grade collectors have pressed books in their collections (unless they own all original owner books) and they are looking at them and enjoying them and will never know that they were pressed. If one day you found out they were, you would suddenly lose enjoyment? I think not.

 

an interesting point of view and a question that i haven't heard before.

 

see Brian, even you can come up with some thing new on the pressing issue...........

[The Black Hand ®]

Could someone please define restoration for me? I was always under the assumption that restoration involved processes that physically added components (in scientific terms - mass) to a book. Color touch has mass. Pieces added adds mass. Rice paper has mass. Glue has mass. Solvent cleaning removes sizing thus removing original mass. I don't think that mashing a book flat actually adds anything to it (or takes any mass away from it).

 

Now I have only been involved in this hobby for a few years, so I could be wrong. If I am, please enlighten me.

 

I find it quite amusing that, whilst the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of 'restoration' has served society extremely well for hundreds of years, a bunch of vested interest comic dealers think it needs a rework...

 

FT has hit the nail on the head. All this discussion about value, taking away mass, etc, is just smoke and mirrors. And quite frankly silliness.

 

From the dictionary in my desk drawer:

 

restore: to bring back to a former, original, or normal condition, as a building, statue, or painting (or comic)

 

The methodology is not the limiting factor. To assume otherwise is to introduce bias into the discussion.

 

If the hobby decides to dictate that pressing is not restoration in terms of what color label it should receive..........then so be it.

 

However, turning a blind eye to the reality, does not make it less real.

 

Does that make pressing evil? Of course not. Neither is piece replacement, cleaning, color touch or other forms of restoration. They make comics look nicer and more like they originally did. Cool by me.

 

But, let's call a spade a spade.

 

 

 

My sentiments also. Very well stated.

[burntboy]

[quote=cioracFT has hit the nail on the head. All this discussion about value, taking away mass, etc, is just smoke and mirrors. And quite frankly silliness.

 

From the dictionary in my desk drawer:

 

restore: to bring back to a former, original, or normal condition, as a building, statue, or painting (or comic)

 

The methodology is not the limiting factor. To assume otherwise is to introduce bias into the discussion.

 

If the hobby decides to dictate that pressing is not restoration in terms of what color label it should receive..........then so be it.

 

However, turning a blind eye to the reality, does not make it less real.

 

Does that make pressing evil? Of course not. Neither is piece replacement, cleaning, color touch or other forms of restoration. They make comics look nicer and more like they originally did. Cool by me.

 

But, let's call a spade a spade.

 

i respect your point of view and ask this next question in all sincerity; is any of the following restoration to you??

 

1. bending back a bent corner with just your hands.

 

2. placing the same book into an encyclopedia with other volumes piled on top for some lengthy period.

 

3. placing the same book in a tight Mylar/fullback combo and jamming into a tightly packed comic box for a lengthy period.

 

and here's the reason i ask; because i seem to recall many in the pressing-is-resto group having stated in these pressing threads that none of these scenarios are restoration.

 

yet they clearly (to me at least) would fall under your dictionary's definition....

[EastCoastExchange-migratio]

Could someone please define restoration for me? I was always under the assumption that restoration involved processes that physically added components (in scientific terms - mass) to a book. Color touch has mass. Pieces added adds mass. Rice paper has mass. Glue has mass. Solvent cleaning removes sizing thus removing original mass. I don't think that mashing a book flat actually adds anything to it (or takes any mass away from it).

 

Now I have only been involved in this hobby for a few years, so I could be wrong. If I am, please enlighten me.

 

Mkay so if you,"don't think that mashing a book flat actually adds anything to it" then why would you have it pressed to begin with?

 

I know your answer. CGC might give the book a higher grade. Then you must ask yourself, why they are giving a higher grade if nothing has been added or taken away from it?

 

I know this sounds silly, but I swear to God if the argument of pressing ≠ restoration ever made its way into a court of law there is no way in hell it would be accepted by either a judge or a grand jury. This is coming from someone who is the son of a former U.S. magistrate who has served on 5 jury's including one rape & 2 homicides.

 

-CC

Forget the disclosure issue, you'd never even get to court in the first place because nobody could ever prove that if they bought a book that had been pressed without disclosure that there was any real personal damages..

 

This statement isn't 100% accurate. One can certainly tell a press book from a non-pressed book. Even your boys @ CGC. If you doubt my blatant honesty on this issue you call them up and see for yourself. If someone sells a book and doesn't disclose that it has been pressed, particularly if the buyer inquires, it is nothing more than sheer dishonesty. How? Its no different than buying a used car, and the dealer not disclosing to you that it has been involved in several collisions. Nevertheless- I like Harvey dude, was a bit shocked when you made the statement,"The seller ought to determine whether to disclose or not to disclose". "The seller ought to determine whether to disclose?" Come on Brian we all know how lewd and dissipated this would truly be. I agree with Harvey in that this concept in essence deprives and cheats others out of knowing the history of their collectibles. One's that often times are worth lots of money. If this isn't enough search the forums for Mr. Zaid and his Mad #1.

 

-CC

 

 

[ciorac]

[quote=cioracFT has hit the nail on the head. All this discussion about value, taking away mass, etc, is just smoke and mirrors. And quite frankly silliness.

 

From the dictionary in my desk drawer:

 

restore: to bring back to a former, original, or normal condition, as a building, statue, or painting (or comic)

 

The methodology is not the limiting factor. To assume otherwise is to introduce bias into the discussion.

 

If the hobby decides to dictate that pressing is not restoration in terms of what color label it should receive..........then so be it.

 

However, turning a blind eye to the reality, does not make it less real.

 

Does that make pressing evil? Of course not. Neither is piece replacement, cleaning, color touch or other forms of restoration. They make comics look nicer and more like they originally did. Cool by me.

 

But, let's call a spade a spade.

 

i respect your point of view and ask this next question in all sincerity; is any of the following restoration to you??

 

1. bending back a bent corner with just your hands.

 

2. placing the same book into an encyclopedia with other volumes piled on top for some lengthy period.

 

3. placing the same book in a tight Mylar/fullback combo and jamming into a tightly packed comic box for a lengthy period.

 

and here's the reason i ask; because i seem to recall many in the pressing-is-resto group having stated in these pressing threads that none of these scenarios are restoration.

 

yet they clearly (to me at least) would fall under your dictionary's definition....

 

Respectfully, I find this argument tiresome. What happens in the pressing process today is none of the above. We are discussing pressing not semantics.

 

My comics have been stacked for years, that will not yield the results achieved by the methods employed when pressing comics. Comparing the two is using the aforementioned smoke and mirrors and is anecdotal at best.

 

We have direct, empirical evidence to support that the pressing techniques used by restoration professionals does in fact return the book to a former state of preservation. Quite simple really, and why the debate has raged on for so long mystifes me.

[Flaming_Telepath]

I respect your point of view and ask this next question in all sincerity; is any of the following restoration to you??

 

1. bending back a bent corner with just your hands.

 

2. placing the same book into an encyclopedia with other volumes piled on top for some lengthy period.

 

3. placing the same book in a tight Mylar/fullback combo and jamming into a tightly packed comic box for a lengthy period.

 

and here's the reason i ask; because i seem to recall many in the pressing-is-resto group having stated in these pressing threads that none of these scenarios are restoration.

 

yet they clearly (to me at least) would fall under your dictionary's definition....

 

I'd say 'definitely not' to 1 and 3, but a weak 'maybe' to 2.

 

The definition of restoration implies a process, a deliberate set of actions, usually involving materials, equipment and/or methods, to effect a change.

 

To me, the encyclopedia example is the only one that comes even close to a 'process'...if an extremely inefficient one. (thumbs u

[Flaming_Telepath]

Nick -- my point is basically this -- anti pressers have to come forward with the evidence that it does alter price.

 

Impossible to do with the pressers refusing to disclose.

 

They're a sneaky bunch, aren't they?

[The Black Hand ®]

[quote=cioracFT has hit the nail on the head. All this discussion about value, taking away mass, etc, is just smoke and mirrors. And quite frankly silliness.

 

From the dictionary in my desk drawer:

 

restore: to bring back to a former, original, or normal condition, as a building, statue, or painting (or comic)

 

The methodology is not the limiting factor. To assume otherwise is to introduce bias into the discussion.

 

If the hobby decides to dictate that pressing is not restoration in terms of what color label it should receive..........then so be it.

 

However, turning a blind eye to the reality, does not make it less real.

 

Does that make pressing evil? Of course not. Neither is piece replacement, cleaning, color touch or other forms of restoration. They make comics look nicer and more like they originally did. Cool by me.

 

But, let's call a spade a spade.

 

i respect your point of view and ask this next question in all sincerity; is any of the following restoration to you??

 

1. bending back a bent corner with just your hands.

 

2. placing the same book into an encyclopedia with other volumes piled on top for some lengthy period.

 

3. placing the same book in a tight Mylar/fullback combo and jamming into a tightly packed comic box for a lengthy period.

 

and here's the reason i ask; because i seem to recall many in the pressing-is-resto group having stated in these pressing threads that none of these scenarios are restoration.

 

yet they clearly (to me at least) would fall under your dictionary's definition....

 

Respectfully, I find this argument tiresome. What happens in the pressing process today is none of the above. We are discussing pressing not semantics.

 

My comics have been stacked for years, that will not yield the results achieved by the methods employed when pressing comics. Comparing the two is using the aforementioned smoke and mirrors and is anecdotal at best.

 

We have direct, empirical evidence to support that the pressing techniques used by restoration professionals does in fact return the book to a former state of preservation. Quite simple really, and why the debate has raged on for so long mystifes me.

 

 

I share your frustration, but not your mystification. The reason the debate has gone on for so long is because of a concerted effort by some to muddy the waters with diversionary debate and....... there's a lot of money to be made...or lost.

[divad]

Could someone please define restoration for me? I was always under the assumption that restoration involved processes that physically added components (in scientific terms - mass) to a book. Color touch has mass. Pieces added adds mass. Rice paper has mass. Glue has mass. Solvent cleaning removes sizing thus removing original mass. I don't think that mashing a book flat actually adds anything to it (or takes any mass away from it).

 

Now I have only been involved in this hobby for a few years, so I could be wrong. If I am, please enlighten me.

 

I find it quite amusing that, whilst the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of 'restoration' has served society extremely well for hundreds of years, a bunch of vested interest comic dealers think it needs a rework...

 

FT has hit the nail on the head. All this discussion about value, taking away mass, etc, is just smoke and mirrors. And quite frankly silliness.

 

From the dictionary in my desk drawer:

 

restore: to bring back to a former, original, or normal condition, as a building, statue, or painting (or comic)

 

The methodology is not the limiting factor. To assume otherwise is to introduce bias into the discussion.

 

If the hobby decides to dictate that pressing is not restoration in terms of what color label it should receive..........then so be it.

 

However, turning a blind eye to the reality, does not make it less real.

 

Does that make pressing evil? Of course not. Neither is piece replacement, cleaning, color touch or other forms of restoration. They make comics look nicer and more like they originally did. Cool by me.

 

But, let's call a spade a spade.

 

A spade. (thumbs u

[ciorac]

[quote=cioracFT has hit the nail on the head. All this discussion about value, taking away mass, etc, is just smoke and mirrors. And quite frankly silliness.

 

From the dictionary in my desk drawer:

 

restore: to bring back to a former, original, or normal condition, as a building, statue, or painting (or comic)

 

The methodology is not the limiting factor. To assume otherwise is to introduce bias into the discussion.

 

If the hobby decides to dictate that pressing is not restoration in terms of what color label it should receive..........then so be it.

 

However, turning a blind eye to the reality, does not make it less real.

 

Does that make pressing evil? Of course not. Neither is piece replacement, cleaning, color touch or other forms of restoration. They make comics look nicer and more like they originally did. Cool by me.

 

But, let's call a spade a spade.

 

i respect your point of view and ask this next question in all sincerity; is any of the following restoration to you??

 

1. bending back a bent corner with just your hands.

 

2. placing the same book into an encyclopedia with other volumes piled on top for some lengthy period.

 

3. placing the same book in a tight Mylar/fullback combo and jamming into a tightly packed comic box for a lengthy period.

 

and here's the reason i ask; because i seem to recall many in the pressing-is-resto group having stated in these pressing threads that none of these scenarios are restoration.

 

yet they clearly (to me at least) would fall under your dictionary's definition....

 

Respectfully, I find this argument tiresome. What happens in the pressing process today is none of the above. We are discussing pressing not semantics.

 

My comics have been stacked for years, that will not yield the results achieved by the methods employed when pressing comics. Comparing the two is using the aforementioned smoke and mirrors and is anecdotal at best.

 

We have direct, empirical evidence to support that the pressing techniques used by restoration professionals does in fact return the book to a former state of preservation. Quite simple really, and why the debate has raged on for so long mystifes me.

 

 

I share your frustration, but not your mystification. The reason the debate has gone on for so long is because of a concerted effort by some to muddy the waters with diversionary debate and....... there's a lot of money to be made...or lost.

 

You are correct sir.

[Foolkiller]

Could someone please define restoration for me? I was always under the assumption that restoration involved processes that physically added components (in scientific terms - mass) to a book. Color touch has mass. Pieces added adds mass. Rice paper has mass. Glue has mass. Solvent cleaning removes sizing thus removing original mass. I don't think that mashing a book flat actually adds anything to it (or takes any mass away from it).

 

Now I have only been involved in this hobby for a few years, so I could be wrong. If I am, please enlighten me.

 

Mkay so if you,"don't think that mashing a book flat actually adds anything to it" then why would you have it pressed to begin with?

 

I know your answer. CGC might give the book a higher grade. Then you must ask yourself, why they are giving a higher grade if nothing has been added or taken away from it?

 

I know this sounds silly, but I swear to God if the argument of pressing ≠ restoration ever made its way into a court of law there is no way in hell it would be accepted by either a judge or a grand jury. This is coming from someone who is the son of a former U.S. magistrate who has served on 5 jury's including one rape & 2 homicides.

 

-CC

Forget the disclosure issue, you'd never even get to court in the first place because nobody could ever prove that if they bought a book that had been pressed without disclosure that there was any real personal damages..

 

This statement isn't 100% accurate. One can certainly tell a press book from a non-pressed book. Even your boys @ CGC. If you doubt my blatant honesty on this issue you call them up and see for yourself. If someone sells a book and doesn't disclose that it has been pressed, particularly if the buyer inquires, it is nothing more than sheer dishonesty. How? Its no different than buying a used car, and the dealer not disclosing to you that it has been involved in several collisions. Nevertheless- I like Harvey dude, was a bit shocked when you made the statement,"The seller ought to determine whether to disclose or not to disclose". "The seller ought to determine whether to disclose?" Come on Brian we all know how lewd and dissipated this would truly be. I agree with Harvey in that this concept in essence deprives and cheats others out of knowing the history of their collectibles. One's that often times are worth lots of money. If this isn't enough search the forums for Mr. Zaid and his Mad #1.

 

-CC

 

 

Wow... I'm down the shore but somehow I'm sucked in on a PRESSING thread... good lord.

 

Anyway, if pressing (done properly) could be detected with consistency and accuracy I would be surprised.

 

I'm not going through the car analogy again -- I've dealt with this before in numerous pressing threads. Suffice to say I don't find it analogous.

 

The seller disclosing goes to the pressing issue alone -- not the issue of disclosing defects and other types of work. The problem is that pressing -- unlike say color touch or piece replacement -- is not universally frowned upon.

 

Now if you're asking me personally I would disclose to any buyer who asked. I think Matt ought to -- but I believe that on this issue, it's up to the seller to come forth and disclose and the buyer to ask. The question is not settled, and until it is, it is not the seller's obligation to disclose. But the reason I never ask myself the question is because I personally would also never have a book pressed. The thing is, I would guess that I have some pressed books in my collection, though I have no idea which ones and which ones aren't. And I don't really care.

[bhhooks22]

The anti-pressing folks are always going to carry the burden !!"Pressers" have no incentive or reason for that matter to come forward.Things are fine from thier standpoint. The recognized authority-CGC has taken their position ,for whatever reason's, but really!, if you want to enact change then it would "have" to come from the anti-pressers.........B/c you cannot police "ethics",especially by people that have no ethical problem with pressing or simply don't care b/c the "law" is on their side.!.So with human nature,yes this is a grey area that will be capitalized on, legally,and possibly ethically ,until & unless the anti guys can get some disclosing rule passed!

[MrBedrock]

Could someone please define restoration for me? I was always under the assumption that restoration involved processes that physically added components (in scientific terms - mass) to a book. Color touch has mass. Pieces added adds mass. Rice paper has mass. Glue has mass. Solvent cleaning removes sizing thus removing original mass. I don't think that mashing a book flat actually adds anything to it (or takes any mass away from it).

 

Now I have only been involved in this hobby for a few years, so I could be wrong. If I am, please enlighten me.

 

I find it quite amusing that, whilst the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of 'restoration' has served society extremely well for hundreds of years, a bunch of vested interest comic dealers think it needs a rework...

 

FT has hit the nail on the head. All this discussion about value, taking away mass, etc, is just smoke and mirrors. And quite frankly silliness.

 

From the dictionary in my desk drawer:

 

restore: to bring back to a former, original, or normal condition, as a building, statue, or painting (or comic)

 

The methodology is not the limiting factor. To assume otherwise is to introduce bias into the discussion.

 

If the hobby decides to dictate that pressing is not restoration in terms of what color label it should receive..........then so be it.

 

However, turning a blind eye to the reality, does not make it less real.

 

Does that make pressing evil? Of course not. Neither is piece replacement, cleaning, color touch or other forms of restoration. They make comics look nicer and more like they originally did. Cool by me.

 

But, let's call a spade a spade.

 

Yes buddy boy, you are correct. So the next time you buy one of my restored buildings, I am going to be inclined to charge you full, like new, price, as those restorations are obviously improvements in your eyes and thus should command a premium.

If I am incorrect in this assumption it is only because you are comparing an apple (restoration as defined in the dictionary) to an orange (comic restoration as those of us in the hobby are trying to define it).

[ciorac]

Could someone please define restoration for me? I was always under the assumption that restoration involved processes that physically added components (in scientific terms - mass) to a book. Color touch has mass. Pieces added adds mass. Rice paper has mass. Glue has mass. Solvent cleaning removes sizing thus removing original mass. I don't think that mashing a book flat actually adds anything to it (or takes any mass away from it).

 

Now I have only been involved in this hobby for a few years, so I could be wrong. If I am, please enlighten me.

 

I find it quite amusing that, whilst the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of 'restoration' has served society extremely well for hundreds of years, a bunch of vested interest comic dealers think it needs a rework...

 

FT has hit the nail on the head. All this discussion about value, taking away mass, etc, is just smoke and mirrors. And quite frankly silliness.

 

From the dictionary in my desk drawer:

 

restore: to bring back to a former, original, or normal condition, as a building, statue, or painting (or comic)

 

The methodology is not the limiting factor. To assume otherwise is to introduce bias into the discussion.

 

If the hobby decides to dictate that pressing is not restoration in terms of what color label it should receive..........then so be it.

 

However, turning a blind eye to the reality, does not make it less real.

 

Does that make pressing evil? Of course not. Neither is piece replacement, cleaning, color touch or other forms of restoration. They make comics look nicer and more like they originally did. Cool by me.

 

But, let's call a spade a spade.

 

Yes buddy boy, you are correct. So the next time you buy one of my restored buildings, I am going to be inclined to charge you full, like new, price, as those restorations are obviously improvements in your eyes and thus should command a premium.

If I am incorrect in this assumption it is only because you are comparing an apple (restoration as defined in the dictionary) to an orange (comic restoration as those of us in the hobby are trying to define it).

 

When you start selling buildings let me know.

 

"Trying to define it" is the telling statement.

[Flaming_Telepath]

If I am incorrect in this assumption it is only because you are comparing an apple (restoration as defined in the dictionary) to an orange (comic restoration as those of us in the hobby are trying to define it).

 

Which is just as tough as comparing ethics (as defined in the dictionary) and comic ethics (as practiced by a number of dealers).

 

(And that is not directed at you, Richard. (thumbs u )

[Flaming_Telepath]

Bill,

 

Correct me if my memory is a touch hazy, but...

 

Didn't you get involved in previous pressing threads, months ago, with an open mind, and once you had been exposed to many of the various arguments, decided to join NOD and take an active role in pro-disclose?