• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Is Pressing restoration?

Started by The Black Hand ®,

Is Pressing Restoration?  

261 members have voted

  1. 1. Is Pressing Restoration?

    • 12015
    • 12014
    • 12014

49 posts in this topic

trmoore54

trmoore54

Posted
Posted

Aren't there now like a bee-zillion Pressing threads on the Chat-boards? As previously expressed, I don't think it's a simple yes/no answer. The simple answer to me, if it's just truly compression by some means...no. If there is any introduction of any liquid/moisture/chemical/and the like to aid in the pressing results, then yes = restoration. As in all related issues, disclosure would be nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWatson

DrWatson

Posted
Posted
You are bored hm

 

Nah...I just want to hear DW scream again.

This time will cost you dinner and a movie. (tsk)

 

You're a cheap date. That reminds me, anyone see the Golden Compass. If so, do you recommend it?

There is a thread in the water cooler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
trmoore54

trmoore54

Posted
Posted

This is all being re-hashed, but here's an essay I wrote on the topic back in May 2006...(this was also in response to a discussion that CGC, and others, may be considering a tiered restored grading/rating system)

 

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 unrestored.

 

Bottom line, and which has so eloquently been stated in M. X’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. 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?

 

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.

 

 

Tom Moore

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.

 

(12.10.07 I have to a certain extent softened my stance on pressing (granted, I am no expert on all the technical methodology that exists out there) to view dry pressing as a variation of preservation moreso than restoration...this may of course be a matter of degrees...

 

but the ultimate question has got to be, if Superman exerts enough pressure to induce a lump of coal into a diamond...is it a real diamond or a fake diamond...you decide...)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing