"The Pressing Debate" all boils down to differing 'belief systems'

[DrWatson]

[Flaming_Telepath]

Actually, if this has been done to death, if nobody needs/wants to know any more, if it's all just repetition without anything new to be added...

 

Why is it the quickest growing thread we've had since...er, the last pressing thread.

[DrWatson]

Actually, if this has been done to death, if nobody needs/wants to know any more, if it's all just repetition without anything new to be added...

 

Why is it the quickest growing thread we've had since...er, the last pressing thread.

Rubbernecking.

[The Black Hand ®]

I am going to take issue with the idea that only those who profit from pressing believe that it is not restoration. That is not a fact, it is a belief. It is a great soundbite when trying to convince the undecided that pressing is bad.

It is, in fact, a false assumption.

 

 

Just as false as the assumption that all the folks who think pressing is restoration are the same folks who never want to pay what a book is worth.

 

I'm not saying that pressing in itself is bad... I'm saying non disclosure of pressing is bad. I guess "belief" is the new buzzword here. Different word, same argument. So lets try another word.."Manipulation" I consider pressing to be restoration but it could also be called manipulation. Those who press a book for profit are indeed, manipulating that book.Those who press a book for aesthetics are also manipulating the book That the book has been manipulated, is a fact. Fact..belief..restoration... manupulation. Semantics aside, something is being done to the book and all I care about is disclosure, not wordplay or clever soundbites or diverting attention away from the real heart of the debate. Disclosure, greed and deceit.

[rob_allan]

Actually, if this has been done to death, if nobody needs/wants to know any more, if it's all just repetition without anything new to be added...

 

Why is it the quickest growing thread we've had since...er, the last pressing thread.

 

I actually think it needs to be brought up periodically. I became aware of the issue last year when I registered on these very boards. (Ironically almost exactly a year ago.) But I'm in a mood today and I can't help feeling a little bit like Jim Rome rooting for the Dolphins to go 0-16. "This is why they play the game," kinda thing.

 

Pressing: This Is Why they Post on the Boards. Maybe? "I'm Matt Nelson and you're watching CGC Network." or "Will the members of NOD be popping the champagne bottles after this thread?"

 

Sigh. I'm a bored, bored Pats fan. The game against the Steelers can't come quick enough.

[Weird Paper]

I have to ask a question that I haven't seen raised before, though I haven't read every post of every thread on pressing.

Somewhat contingent on the answer to this question, I'm not bothered by pressing. This debate is interesting, though, because it raises a new (relatively) insecurity into the hobby. The old insecurity was whether a book was restored or not. You could rely on the seller; you could buy the big blue light and look for color touches yourself; you could, at great expense, send every new purchase off to an expert for checking. Slabbing, in theory at least, came along and eliminated this insecurity. Wow. Feel safe about every purchase. Ebay was no longer the pit of vipers it had been for some people.

So now we get pressing--the undetected restoration (allegedly). Just in case you weren't comfortable feeling secure about that recent purchase, now you have something to grip over.

Anyway, my question: Since newsprint is inherently an unstable substrate easily damaged by shifts in temperature, what are the long-term effects of the application of heat and pressure to the paper? Any chemists out there? Will the book that's pressed decay quicker? Most newsprint is worm food a century or so down the road anyway, right?

 

[DrWatson]

I have to ask a question that I haven't seen raised before, though I haven't read every post of every thread on pressing.

Somewhat contingent on the answer to this question, I'm not bothered by pressing. This debate is interesting, though, because it raises a new (relatively) insecurity into the hobby. The old insecurity was whether a book was restored or not. You could rely on the seller; you could buy the big blue light and look for color touches yourself; you could, at great expense, send every new purchase off to an expert for checking. Slabbing, in theory at least, came along and eliminated this insecurity. Wow. Feel safe about every purchase. Ebay was no longer the pit of vipers it had been for some people.

So now we get pressing--the undetected restoration (allegedly). Just in case you weren't comfortable feeling secure about that recent purchase, now you have something to grip over.

Anyway, my question: Since newsprint is inherently an unstable substrate easily damaged by shifts in temperature, what are the long-term effects of the application of heat and pressure to the paper? Any chemists out there? Will the book that's pressed decay quicker? Most newsprint is worm food a century or so down the road anyway, right?

Hey Roger, this has been brought up before and the opinions on it were just as divided as with the pressing/restoration arguments themselves. So, I do not remember any definitive answer.

[Weird Paper]

I have to ask a question that I haven't seen raised before, though I haven't read every post of every thread on pressing.

Somewhat contingent on the answer to this question, I'm not bothered by pressing. This debate is interesting, though, because it raises a new (relatively) insecurity into the hobby. The old insecurity was whether a book was restored or not. You could rely on the seller; you could buy the big blue light and look for color touches yourself; you could, at great expense, send every new purchase off to an expert for checking. Slabbing, in theory at least, came along and eliminated this insecurity. Wow. Feel safe about every purchase. Ebay was no longer the pit of vipers it had been for some people.

So now we get pressing--the undetected restoration (allegedly). Just in case you weren't comfortable feeling secure about that recent purchase, now you have something to grip over.

Anyway, my question: Since newsprint is inherently an unstable substrate easily damaged by shifts in temperature, what are the long-term effects of the application of heat and pressure to the paper? Any chemists out there? Will the book that's pressed decay quicker? Most newsprint is worm food a century or so down the road anyway, right?

Hey Roger, this has been brought up before and the opinions on it were just as divided as with the pressing/restoration arguments themselves. So, I do not remember any definitive answer.

 

Thanks. I would think, though, that hard science would be beyond debate. If paper reaches a certain heat, and then is cooled it will expand and contract. As I understand it, that is what makes newsprint degrade. I would like to be wrong about that, since I'm otherwise not bothered by pressing.

[nearmint]

I am going to take issue with the idea that only those who profit from pressing believe that it is not restoration. That is not a fact, it is a belief. It is a great soundbite when trying to convince the undecided that pressing is bad.

It is, in fact, a false assumption.

 

 

Just as false as the assumption that all the folks who think pressing is restoration are the same folks who never want to pay what a book is worth.

 

I'm not saying that pressing in itself is bad... I'm saying non disclosure of pressing is bad. I guess "belief" is the new buzzword here. Different word, same argument. So lets try another word.."Manipulation" I consider pressing to be restoration but it could also be called manipulation. Those who press a book for profit are indeed, manipulating that book.Those who press a book for aesthetics are also manipulating the book That the book has been manipulated, is a fact. Fact..belief..restoration... manupulation. Semantics aside, something is being done to the book and all I care about is disclosure, not wordplay or clever soundbites or diverting attention away from the real heart of the debate. Disclosure, greed and deceit.

 

But isn't manipulation too broad a term? Isn't a comic manipulated when it's opened and read, or rolled up and stuffed into a kid's back pocket?

[Flaming_Telepath]

I have to ask a question that I haven't seen raised before, though I haven't read every post of every thread on pressing.

Somewhat contingent on the answer to this question, I'm not bothered by pressing. This debate is interesting, though, because it raises a new (relatively) insecurity into the hobby. The old insecurity was whether a book was restored or not. You could rely on the seller; you could buy the big blue light and look for color touches yourself; you could, at great expense, send every new purchase off to an expert for checking. Slabbing, in theory at least, came along and eliminated this insecurity. Wow. Feel safe about every purchase. Ebay was no longer the pit of vipers it had been for some people.

So now we get pressing--the undetected restoration (allegedly). Just in case you weren't comfortable feeling secure about that recent purchase, now you have something to grip over.

Anyway, my question: Since newsprint is inherently an unstable substrate easily damaged by shifts in temperature, what are the long-term effects of the application of heat and pressure to the paper? Any chemists out there? Will the book that's pressed decay quicker? Most newsprint is worm food a century or so down the road anyway, right?

 

The problem is...and this is a real problem that is being ignored by the pro-pressers...is that nobody knows. Matt has been running his commodity production line for a limited period and nobody has yet tracked a good sized sample of known pressed books down the years.

 

There may be no problem whatsoever...there may be no difference in degradation, nor any sign of reverting. I sincerely hope there isn't.

 

However, what if there is? What if all of arseman's customers own ticking slabs with 9.8s (soon to be 8.5s) slapped on the front? And worse still, because of his lack of pro-active disclosure, a large percentage of them are clueless as to the potential danger.

 

That this has now become an acceptable and even encouraged practice is, IMHO, irresponsible at best without due diligence having been rigourously undertaken.

[rob_allan]

I have to ask a question that I haven't seen raised before, though I haven't read every post of every thread on pressing.

Somewhat contingent on the answer to this question, I'm not bothered by pressing. This debate is interesting, though, because it raises a new (relatively) insecurity into the hobby. The old insecurity was whether a book was restored or not. You could rely on the seller; you could buy the big blue light and look for color touches yourself; you could, at great expense, send every new purchase off to an expert for checking. Slabbing, in theory at least, came along and eliminated this insecurity. Wow. Feel safe about every purchase. Ebay was no longer the pit of vipers it had been for some people.

So now we get pressing--the undetected restoration (allegedly). Just in case you weren't comfortable feeling secure about that recent purchase, now you have something to grip over.

Anyway, my question: Since newsprint is inherently an unstable substrate easily damaged by shifts in temperature, what are the long-term effects of the application of heat and pressure to the paper? Any chemists out there? Will the book that's pressed decay quicker? Most newsprint is worm food a century or so down the road anyway, right?

Hey Roger, this has been brought up before and the opinions on it were just as divided as with the pressing/restoration arguments themselves. So, I do not remember any definitive answer.

 

I don't think there can be a definitive answer. With so many variables in why/how a book degrades, there's insufficient data for analysis. I think, in general, it's unlikely to have much of an effect long-term. That said, even small things like differences in inks and paper types over the years would have an impact on the overall result. So there'd be a need not just for a firm answer, but an answer broken down perhaps by publisher and age. There's even a segment of the community that argues CGC slabs cause a book to prematurely degrade, which is completely contrary to the intent of the slab. So while the question you ask is good, there's not going to be a firm answer in place anytime soon.

[chrisco37]

I am going to take issue with the idea that only those who profit from pressing believe that it is not restoration. That is not a fact, it is a belief. It is a great soundbite when trying to convince the undecided that pressing is bad.

It is, in fact, a false assumption.

 

 

Just as false as the assumption that all the folks who think pressing is restoration are the same folks who never want to pay what a book is worth.

 

I'm not saying that pressing in itself is bad... I'm saying non disclosure of pressing is bad. I guess "belief" is the new buzzword here. Different word, same argument. So lets try another word.."Manipulation" I consider pressing to be restoration but it could also be called manipulation. Those who press a book for profit are indeed, manipulating that book.Those who press a book for aesthetics are also manipulating the book That the book has been manipulated, is a fact. Fact..belief..restoration... manupulation. Semantics aside, something is being done to the book and all I care about is disclosure, not wordplay or clever soundbites or diverting attention away from the real heart of the debate. Disclosure, greed and deceit.

 

But isn't manipulation too broad a term? Isn't a comic manipulated when it's opened and read, or rolled up and stuffed into a kid's back pocket?

 

It's damaged when than happens. I think for the sake of this discussion, "manipulation" involves an improvement on the present condition.

 

I get what you're saying though. Maybe there is a term better than manipulation (although I think it's the correct term, it definitely has a negative connotation). Anyone?

[Flaming_Telepath]

I am going to take issue with the idea that only those who profit from pressing believe that it is not restoration. That is not a fact, it is a belief. It is a great soundbite when trying to convince the undecided that pressing is bad.

It is, in fact, a false assumption.

 

 

Just as false as the assumption that all the folks who think pressing is restoration are the same folks who never want to pay what a book is worth.

 

I'm not saying that pressing in itself is bad... I'm saying non disclosure of pressing is bad. I guess "belief" is the new buzzword here. Different word, same argument. So lets try another word.."Manipulation" I consider pressing to be restoration but it could also be called manipulation. Those who press a book for profit are indeed, manipulating that book.Those who press a book for aesthetics are also manipulating the book That the book has been manipulated, is a fact. Fact..belief..restoration... manupulation. Semantics aside, something is being done to the book and all I care about is disclosure, not wordplay or clever soundbites or diverting attention away from the real heart of the debate. Disclosure, greed and deceit.

 

But isn't manipulation too broad a term? Isn't a comic manipulated when it's opened and read, or rolled up and stuffed into a kid's back pocket?

 

Comment regarding restoration including folding a corner back with a finger coming in...3...2...1

[nearmint]

I have to ask a question that I haven't seen raised before, though I haven't read every post of every thread on pressing.

Somewhat contingent on the answer to this question, I'm not bothered by pressing. This debate is interesting, though, because it raises a new (relatively) insecurity into the hobby. The old insecurity was whether a book was restored or not. You could rely on the seller; you could buy the big blue light and look for color touches yourself; you could, at great expense, send every new purchase off to an expert for checking. Slabbing, in theory at least, came along and eliminated this insecurity. Wow. Feel safe about every purchase. Ebay was no longer the pit of vipers it had been for some people.

So now we get pressing--the undetected restoration (allegedly). Just in case you weren't comfortable feeling secure about that recent purchase, now you have something to grip over.

Anyway, my question: Since newsprint is inherently an unstable substrate easily damaged by shifts in temperature, what are the long-term effects of the application of heat and pressure to the paper? Any chemists out there? Will the book that's pressed decay quicker? Most newsprint is worm food a century or so down the road anyway, right?

Hey Roger, this has been brought up before and the opinions on it were just as divided as with the pressing/restoration arguments themselves. So, I do not remember any definitive answer.

 

Thanks. I would think, though, that hard science would be beyond debate. If paper reaches a certain heat, and then is cooled it will expand and contract. As I understand it, that is what makes newsprint degrade. I would like to be wrong about that, since I'm otherwise not bothered by pressing.

 

Mark Wilson sent books to a lab to be tested, some had been pressed, some had not. No discernable difference was found.

[The Black Hand ®]

I am going to take issue with the idea that only those who profit from pressing believe that it is not restoration. That is not a fact, it is a belief. It is a great soundbite when trying to convince the undecided that pressing is bad.

It is, in fact, a false assumption.

 

 

Just as false as the assumption that all the folks who think pressing is restoration are the same folks who never want to pay what a book is worth.

 

I'm not saying that pressing in itself is bad... I'm saying non disclosure of pressing is bad. I guess "belief" is the new buzzword here. Different word, same argument. So lets try another word.."Manipulation" I consider pressing to be restoration but it could also be called manipulation. Those who press a book for profit are indeed, manipulating that book.Those who press a book for aesthetics are also manipulating the book That the book has been manipulated, is a fact. Fact..belief..restoration... manupulation. Semantics aside, something is being done to the book and all I care about is disclosure, not wordplay or clever soundbites or diverting attention away from the real heart of the debate. Disclosure, greed and deceit.

 

But isn't manipulation too broad a term? Isn't a comic manipulated when it's opened and read, or rolled up and stuffed into a kid's back pocket?

 

No, it's not too broad a term. It's just right.

[Flaming_Telepath]

I have to ask a question that I haven't seen raised before, though I haven't read every post of every thread on pressing.

Somewhat contingent on the answer to this question, I'm not bothered by pressing. This debate is interesting, though, because it raises a new (relatively) insecurity into the hobby. The old insecurity was whether a book was restored or not. You could rely on the seller; you could buy the big blue light and look for color touches yourself; you could, at great expense, send every new purchase off to an expert for checking. Slabbing, in theory at least, came along and eliminated this insecurity. Wow. Feel safe about every purchase. Ebay was no longer the pit of vipers it had been for some people.

So now we get pressing--the undetected restoration (allegedly). Just in case you weren't comfortable feeling secure about that recent purchase, now you have something to grip over.

Anyway, my question: Since newsprint is inherently an unstable substrate easily damaged by shifts in temperature, what are the long-term effects of the application of heat and pressure to the paper? Any chemists out there? Will the book that's pressed decay quicker? Most newsprint is worm food a century or so down the road anyway, right?

Hey Roger, this has been brought up before and the opinions on it were just as divided as with the pressing/restoration arguments themselves. So, I do not remember any definitive answer.

 

I don't think there can be a definitive answer. With so many variables in why/how a book degrades, there's insufficient data for analysis. I think, in general, it's unlikely to have much of an effect long-term. That said, even small things like differences in inks and paper types over the years would have an impact on the overall result. So there'd be a need not just for a firm answer, but an answer broken down perhaps by publisher and age. There's even a segment of the community that argues CGC slabs cause a book to prematurely degrade, which is completely contrary to the intent of the slab. So while the question you ask is good, there's not going to be a firm answer in place anytime soon.

 

And without one, how can anyone support the practice of pressing?

[Flaming_Telepath]

I have to ask a question that I haven't seen raised before, though I haven't read every post of every thread on pressing.

Somewhat contingent on the answer to this question, I'm not bothered by pressing. This debate is interesting, though, because it raises a new (relatively) insecurity into the hobby. The old insecurity was whether a book was restored or not. You could rely on the seller; you could buy the big blue light and look for color touches yourself; you could, at great expense, send every new purchase off to an expert for checking. Slabbing, in theory at least, came along and eliminated this insecurity. Wow. Feel safe about every purchase. Ebay was no longer the pit of vipers it had been for some people.

So now we get pressing--the undetected restoration (allegedly). Just in case you weren't comfortable feeling secure about that recent purchase, now you have something to grip over.

Anyway, my question: Since newsprint is inherently an unstable substrate easily damaged by shifts in temperature, what are the long-term effects of the application of heat and pressure to the paper? Any chemists out there? Will the book that's pressed decay quicker? Most newsprint is worm food a century or so down the road anyway, right?

Hey Roger, this has been brought up before and the opinions on it were just as divided as with the pressing/restoration arguments themselves. So, I do not remember any definitive answer.

 

Thanks. I would think, though, that hard science would be beyond debate. If paper reaches a certain heat, and then is cooled it will expand and contract. As I understand it, that is what makes newsprint degrade. I would like to be wrong about that, since I'm otherwise not bothered by pressing.

 

Mark Wilson sent books to a lab to be tested, some had been pressed, some had not. No discernable difference was found.

 

And how many years after they had been pressed did he do this?

[nearmint]

I am going to take issue with the idea that only those who profit from pressing believe that it is not restoration. That is not a fact, it is a belief. It is a great soundbite when trying to convince the undecided that pressing is bad.

It is, in fact, a false assumption.

 

 

Just as false as the assumption that all the folks who think pressing is restoration are the same folks who never want to pay what a book is worth.

 

I'm not saying that pressing in itself is bad... I'm saying non disclosure of pressing is bad. I guess "belief" is the new buzzword here. Different word, same argument. So lets try another word.."Manipulation" I consider pressing to be restoration but it could also be called manipulation. Those who press a book for profit are indeed, manipulating that book.Those who press a book for aesthetics are also manipulating the book That the book has been manipulated, is a fact. Fact..belief..restoration... manupulation. Semantics aside, something is being done to the book and all I care about is disclosure, not wordplay or clever soundbites or diverting attention away from the real heart of the debate. Disclosure, greed and deceit.

 

But isn't manipulation too broad a term? Isn't a comic manipulated when it's opened and read, or rolled up and stuffed into a kid's back pocket?

 

It's damaged when than happens. I think for the sake of this discussion, "manipulation" involves an improvement on the present condition.

 

I get what you're saying though. Maybe there is a term better than manipulation (although I think it's the correct term, it definitely has a negative connotation). Anyone?

 

I think a new term is necessary. A noobie would not necessarily assume that manipulation translates to improvement.

[chrisco37]

 

But isn't manipulation too broad a term? Isn't a comic manipulated when it's opened and read, or rolled up and stuffed into a kid's back pocket?

 

It's damaged when than happens. I think for the sake of this discussion, "manipulation" involves an improvement on the present condition.

 

I get what you're saying though. Maybe there is a term better than manipulation (although I think it's the correct term, it definitely has a negative connotation). Anyone?

 

I think a new term is necessary. A noobie would not necessarily assume that manipulation translates to improvement.

 

Howzabout "Restored"?

[rob_allan]

I have to ask a question that I haven't seen raised before, though I haven't read every post of every thread on pressing.

Somewhat contingent on the answer to this question, I'm not bothered by pressing. This debate is interesting, though, because it raises a new (relatively) insecurity into the hobby. The old insecurity was whether a book was restored or not. You could rely on the seller; you could buy the big blue light and look for color touches yourself; you could, at great expense, send every new purchase off to an expert for checking. Slabbing, in theory at least, came along and eliminated this insecurity. Wow. Feel safe about every purchase. Ebay was no longer the pit of vipers it had been for some people.

So now we get pressing--the undetected restoration (allegedly). Just in case you weren't comfortable feeling secure about that recent purchase, now you have something to grip over.

Anyway, my question: Since newsprint is inherently an unstable substrate easily damaged by shifts in temperature, what are the long-term effects of the application of heat and pressure to the paper? Any chemists out there? Will the book that's pressed decay quicker? Most newsprint is worm food a century or so down the road anyway, right?

Hey Roger, this has been brought up before and the opinions on it were just as divided as with the pressing/restoration arguments themselves. So, I do not remember any definitive answer.

 

Thanks. I would think, though, that hard science would be beyond debate. If paper reaches a certain heat, and then is cooled it will expand and contract. As I understand it, that is what makes newsprint degrade. I would like to be wrong about that, since I'm otherwise not bothered by pressing.

 

Mark Wilson sent books to a lab to be tested, some had been pressed, some had not. No discernable difference was found.

 

But how many books? And over what timeframe? Honestly, I've already said I don't think it makes a bit of difference. But there's been nothing close to a true scientific study accounting for all variables and we won't see something like that anytime soon, I wouldn't think. The things you'd have to track would be incredible..

 

Control and test groups from all eras of comics. (Probably a large amount of samples from every 5 years.) The fact is, pressing is a relatively new process (compared to the age of the hobby) and there's also no existing sample that is old enough for someone to categorically say an effect won't be noteworthy in another few years. So they can test a few books in a lab all they want, but until a LARGE sample of books covering the different publishers/dates is tested OVER TIME there's no possibility for 100% answer. It's like that stupid study with the monkeys everybody is quoting. "Monkeys are smarter than college students." Monkeys are developmentally like 5-year-olds. Meaning if you want to test them vs. a human, you should test them against 5-year-olds. We're in an era of soft science where the possibility of creating a controversial result is more important than running experiments based within the parameters of the scientific method. Ugh. Sorry I'm ranting and it's not even entirely about funnybooks.