Do You Feel The Church Books Being Stored in Stacks

[nearmint]

I think how many people think pressing = resto is irrelevant. All that is relevant is how many will align their buying habits with that belief. It's easy to vote on a forum poll on the subject, but how many of those that answered yes, or who proclaim in threads that pressing is resto(and further state that a person would have to be an insufficiently_thoughtful_person to think otherwise) are actually asking every dealer about every book that he/she is interested in?

 

As I've said in previous threads, I've talked to many dealers on this subject, and the uniform answer is that a miniscule number of their transactions include the question "has this book been pressed?" Until that changes dramatically, it simply doesn't matter who thinks pressing is resto and who doesn't.

 

 

 

 

That is a very myoptic view Jeff.

 

I would care to wager that a majority of transactions at shows (or especially in stores and most certainly mail order) with dealers do not even involve the question "is this raw book restored?" Does that mean that it simply doesn't matter?

 

It means that, in your example, you encourage the dealer to continue selling books with undisclosed resto if you don't ask the question. With pressing, you encourage the dealer to continue selling books with undisclosed pressing if you don't ask the question. There's nothing myopic about that(or, as you say, myoptic).

 

NOD as a whole has not announced that they believe pressing = resto, but Bill certainly believes that, and thinks progress can only be made if the hobby proceeds from that agreed belief. I disagree. People have to act on that belief for it to mean anything.

[FlyingDonut]

 

I guarantee that book is WWAAYYY too short to bear more than a passing resemblance to this endless pillow fight.

 

Jack

 

Is it a sleepover and we are wearing naughty nighties at this pillowfight?

 

Go pound sand, geek.

 

Right, there isn't a nightie out there that would make you sexy.

 

Damn, now I have to go poke my eyes out with a fork. With Christmas coming up, too.

[THE_BEYONDER]

I think how many people think pressing = resto is irrelevant. All that is relevant is how many will align their buying habits with that belief. It's easy to vote on a forum poll on the subject, but how many of those that answered yes, or who proclaim in threads that pressing is resto(and further state that a person would have to be an insufficiently_thoughtful_person to think otherwise) are actually asking every dealer about every book that he/she is interested in?

 

As I've said in previous threads, I've talked to many dealers on this subject, and the uniform answer is that a miniscule number of their transactions include the question "has this book been pressed?" Until that changes dramatically, it simply doesn't matter who thinks pressing is resto and who doesn't.

 

 

 

 

How many of their transactions involve the sale of pressed books without upfront disclosure?

 

How is that relevant? If I were anti-pressing, I would be asking the question at every transaction, regardless of the dealer's reputation in regards to pressing.

 

I refuse to accept that responsibility. It's up to the seller to disclose any/all alterations done to a book....upfront. This "ASK & I'LL TELL" policy is complete BS. If a seller won't tell me a book was pressed upfront...I really have no reason to believe they'll tell me the truth if I ask.

 

Then how do you buy any books?

 

The success of any consumer moment is completely dependent on the active participation of the consumers themselves. The idea that every dealer that presses should disclose upfront is noble, but unrealistic. If collectors want a change, they have to make it happen, not simply wait for dealers to have a moral awakening.

 

I buy books from those I trust with upfront disclosure. If I buy a book from someone & later find out that they knew the book was pressed when they sold it to me....the "you didn't ask" defense isn't going to cut it.

 

Ah, but what if you find out the book is pressed and the dealer didn't know it was pressed? Which happens all the time, I believe. That's why YOU have to ask, because then you can make an informed choice. I you care about pressing, ask the simple question "was this book pressed."

 

The only answers are:

 

1) Yes, it was pressed.

2) No, it wasn't pressed.

3) I honestly don't know.

4) Go fist yourself, NOD weasel.

 

You as the buyer are then informed and can make an effective buying decision - and you as the buyer are in control of the buying decision, not the dealer.

 

As I said....I expect the seller to disclose upfront. Anything less is deceptive IMO.

 

 

[nearmint]

I think how many people think pressing = resto is irrelevant. All that is relevant is how many will align their buying habits with that belief. It's easy to vote on a forum poll on the subject, but how many of those that answered yes, or who proclaim in threads that pressing is resto(and further state that a person would have to be an insufficiently_thoughtful_person to think otherwise) are actually asking every dealer about every book that he/she is interested in?

 

As I've said in previous threads, I've talked to many dealers on this subject, and the uniform answer is that a miniscule number of their transactions include the question "has this book been pressed?" Until that changes dramatically, it simply doesn't matter who thinks pressing is resto and who doesn't.

 

 

 

 

How many of their transactions involve the sale of pressed books without upfront disclosure?

 

How is that relevant? If I were anti-pressing, I would be asking the question at every transaction, regardless of the dealer's reputation in regards to pressing.

 

I refuse to accept that responsibility. It's up to the seller to disclose any/all alterations done to a book....upfront. This "ASK & I'LL TELL" policy is complete BS. If a seller won't tell me a book was pressed upfront...I really have no reason to believe they'll tell me the truth if I ask.

 

Then how do you buy any books?

 

The success of any consumer moment is completely dependent on the active participation of the consumers themselves. The idea that every dealer that presses should disclose upfront is noble, but unrealistic. If collectors want a change, they have to make it happen, not simply wait for dealers to have a moral awakening.

 

I buy books from those I trust with upfront disclosure. If I buy a book from someone & later find out that they knew the book was pressed when they sold it to me....the "you didn't ask" defense isn't going to cut it.

 

Then you're acting on your beliefs, which is great. The problem is that you're unusual in that respect. Not enough people on your side of the fence are following your lead to effect any kind of change.

[october]

 

I guarantee that book is WWAAYYY too short to bear more than a passing resemblance to this endless pillow fight.

 

Jack

 

Is it a sleepover and we are wearing naughty nighties at this pillowfight?

 

Go pound sand, geek.

 

Right, there isn't a nightie out there that would make you sexy.

 

Damn, now I have to go poke my eyes out with a fork. With Christmas coming up, too.

 

Have fun with your nightmares for the next week.

[GACollectibles]

[Scheradon]

I think how many people think pressing = resto is irrelevant. All that is relevant is how many will align their buying habits with that belief. It's easy to vote on a forum poll on the subject, but how many of those that answered yes, or who proclaim in threads that pressing is resto(and further state that a person would have to be an insufficiently_thoughtful_person to think otherwise) are actually asking every dealer about every book that he/she is interested in?

 

As I've said in previous threads, I've talked to many dealers on this subject, and the uniform answer is that a miniscule number of their transactions include the question "has this book been pressed?" Until that changes dramatically, it simply doesn't matter who thinks pressing is resto and who doesn't.

 

 

 

 

How many of their transactions involve the sale of pressed books without upfront disclosure?

 

How is that relevant? If I were anti-pressing, I would be asking the question at every transaction, regardless of the dealer's reputation in regards to pressing.

 

I refuse to accept that responsibility. It's up to the seller to disclose any/all alterations done to a book....upfront. This "ASK & I'LL TELL" policy is complete BS. If a seller won't tell me a book was pressed upfront...I really have no reason to believe they'll tell me the truth if I ask.

 

Then how do you buy any books?

 

The success of any consumer moment is completely dependent on the active participation of the consumers themselves. The idea that every dealer that presses should disclose upfront is noble, but unrealistic. If collectors want a change, they have to make it happen, not simply wait for dealers to have a moral awakening.

 

I buy books from those I trust with upfront disclosure. If I buy a book from someone & later find out that they knew the book was pressed when they sold it to me....the "you didn't ask" defense isn't going to cut it.

 

Then you're acting on your beliefs, which is great. The problem is that you're unusual in that respect. Not enough people on your side of the fence are following your lead to effect any kind of change.

 

I'm pretty sure you're not a fan of trimmed books, right? Do you ask every dealer if a book is trimmed before every purchase? How about color touch? If you don't ask, does this mean you don't care?

 

You expect these manipulations to be disclosed. So, why should we not expect pressing manipulation as well?

 

 

[esquirecomics]

I think how many people think pressing = resto is irrelevant. All that is relevant is how many will align their buying habits with that belief. It's easy to vote on a forum poll on the subject, but how many of those that answered yes, or who proclaim in threads that pressing is resto(and further state that a person would have to be an insufficiently_thoughtful_person to think otherwise) are actually asking every dealer about every book that he/she is interested in?

 

As I've said in previous threads, I've talked to many dealers on this subject, and the uniform answer is that a miniscule number of their transactions include the question "has this book been pressed?" Until that changes dramatically, it simply doesn't matter who thinks pressing is resto and who doesn't.

 

 

 

 

That is a very myoptic view Jeff.

 

I would care to wager that a majority of transactions at shows (or especially in stores and most certainly mail order) with dealers do not even involve the question "is this raw book restored?" Does that mean that it simply doesn't matter?

 

It means that, in your example, you encourage the dealer to continue selling books with undisclosed resto if you don't ask the question. With pressing, you encourage the dealer to continue selling books with undisclosed pressing if you don't ask the question. There's nothing myopic about that(or, as you say, myoptic).

 

NOD as a whole has not announced that they believe pressing = resto, but Bill certainly believes that, and thinks progress can only be made if the hobby proceeds from that agreed belief. I disagree. People have to act on that belief for it to mean anything.

 

I thought I was spelling it wrong, but I'm tired and CGC still hasn't added a spell check.

 

I simply don't follow the logic Jeff. I don't see how either scenario is evidence of the question you referenced, i.e., whether the notion of pressing being restoration matters. That dealers are not asked whether a book has been pressed does not mean that (1) the issue is not relevant, or (2) the issue is not significant or (3) that pressing is not restoration. It can just as easily mean that (1) the issue was not important to that particular person, or (2) the transaction would not even involve the question of pressing, i.e., a bronze age book, or (3) the buyer has no idea of the debate over pressing.

 

As you know, there was no unanimity in the NOD when it was formed concerning whether pressing is restoration. There still is disagreement. I would say the majority view among members is that it is, but it really doesn't matter as everyone in the NOD agrees that no matter whether it is or is not, it should be disclosed so that buyers (collectors and dealers alike) can render a fully informed decision.

 

Personally, I agree with Bill. I have never been presented with an argument that I believe has sound basis to say pressing is not restoration. I've seen a lot of opinions to that effect but no reasonable refutation to the professional expert definitions that exist with respect to paper in particular.

 

Whether even if pressing is restoration it should impact the value of the book or make it less desirable is an entirely different question, and absolutely susceptible to subjective opinion.

 

For example, Dr. Watson, if I recall correctly (and my apologies if I am incorrect), voiced his opinion that he would never ever purchase a color touched book. I would not have any problems in buying a color touched book. Both subjective opinions and perfectly valid. I usually won't purchase a book with extensive restoration (especially pieces added), but many others would. Perfectly valid subjective opinions.

 

But none of the opinions impact the facts of whether the book was restored or not.

[THE_BEYONDER]

I'm still waiting for a reasonable explanation as to why some sellers feel that pressing doesn't need to be disclosed upfront.

[FlyingDonut]

I'm still waiting for a reasonable explanation as to why some sellers feel that pressing doesn't need to be disclosed upfront.

 

I think everybody's agreeing with you. All I'm saying is you should ask because you then control the buying decision. And yes, I'd ask about trimming, or color touch, or anything else.

[THE_BEYONDER]

I'm still waiting for a reasonable explanation as to why some sellers feel that pressing doesn't need to be disclosed upfront.

 

I think everybody's agreeing with you. All I'm saying is you should ask because you then control the buying decision. And yes, I'd ask about trimming, or color touch, or anything else.

 

As I mentioned earlier:

 

If a seller is unwilling to disclose upfront....why should I believe that they will tell me the truth when I ask?

 

 

[FlyingDonut]

They may honestly not know it is a big deal, they may not care, or they simply may not know. You as the buyer need to take control of the situation, and by asking, you've done that.

[THE_BEYONDER]

They may honestly not know it is a big deal, they may not care, or they simply may not know. You as the buyer need to take control of the situation, and by asking, you've done that.

 

The seller only needs to practice upfront disclosure if they know the book was pressed. If they don't know.....they have nothing to disclose.

 

 

[nearmint]

I think how many people think pressing = resto is irrelevant. All that is relevant is how many will align their buying habits with that belief. It's easy to vote on a forum poll on the subject, but how many of those that answered yes, or who proclaim in threads that pressing is resto(and further state that a person would have to be an insufficiently_thoughtful_person to think otherwise) are actually asking every dealer about every book that he/she is interested in?

 

As I've said in previous threads, I've talked to many dealers on this subject, and the uniform answer is that a miniscule number of their transactions include the question "has this book been pressed?" Until that changes dramatically, it simply doesn't matter who thinks pressing is resto and who doesn't.

 

 

 

 

How many of their transactions involve the sale of pressed books without upfront disclosure?

 

How is that relevant? If I were anti-pressing, I would be asking the question at every transaction, regardless of the dealer's reputation in regards to pressing.

 

I refuse to accept that responsibility. It's up to the seller to disclose any/all alterations done to a book....upfront. This "ASK & I'LL TELL" policy is complete BS. If a seller won't tell me a book was pressed upfront...I really have no reason to believe they'll tell me the truth if I ask.

 

Then how do you buy any books?

 

The success of any consumer moment is completely dependent on the active participation of the consumers themselves. The idea that every dealer that presses should disclose upfront is noble, but unrealistic. If collectors want a change, they have to make it happen, not simply wait for dealers to have a moral awakening.

 

I buy books from those I trust with upfront disclosure. If I buy a book from someone & later find out that they knew the book was pressed when they sold it to me....the "you didn't ask" defense isn't going to cut it.

 

Then you're acting on your beliefs, which is great. The problem is that you're unusual in that respect. Not enough people on your side of the fence are following your lead to effect any kind of change.

 

I'm pretty sure you're not a fan of trimmed books, right? Do you ask every dealer if a book is trimmed before every purchase? How about color touch? If you don't ask, does this mean you don't care?

 

You expect these manipulations to be disclosed. So, why should we not expect pressing manipulation as well?

 

 

I rarely buy raw books anymore, but when I do, I absolutely ask those questions. If I were anti-pressing, I'd absolutely ask that question on every single purchase, or even a book I was merely considering.

[THE_BEYONDER]

I think how many people think pressing = resto is irrelevant. All that is relevant is how many will align their buying habits with that belief. It's easy to vote on a forum poll on the subject, but how many of those that answered yes, or who proclaim in threads that pressing is resto(and further state that a person would have to be an insufficiently_thoughtful_person to think otherwise) are actually asking every dealer about every book that he/she is interested in?

 

As I've said in previous threads, I've talked to many dealers on this subject, and the uniform answer is that a miniscule number of their transactions include the question "has this book been pressed?" Until that changes dramatically, it simply doesn't matter who thinks pressing is resto and who doesn't.

 

 

 

 

How many of their transactions involve the sale of pressed books without upfront disclosure?

 

How is that relevant? If I were anti-pressing, I would be asking the question at every transaction, regardless of the dealer's reputation in regards to pressing.

 

I refuse to accept that responsibility. It's up to the seller to disclose any/all alterations done to a book....upfront. This "ASK & I'LL TELL" policy is complete BS. If a seller won't tell me a book was pressed upfront...I really have no reason to believe they'll tell me the truth if I ask.

 

Then how do you buy any books?

 

The success of any consumer moment is completely dependent on the active participation of the consumers themselves. The idea that every dealer that presses should disclose upfront is noble, but unrealistic. If collectors want a change, they have to make it happen, not simply wait for dealers to have a moral awakening.

 

I buy books from those I trust with upfront disclosure. If I buy a book from someone & later find out that they knew the book was pressed when they sold it to me....the "you didn't ask" defense isn't going to cut it.

 

Then you're acting on your beliefs, which is great. The problem is that you're unusual in that respect. Not enough people on your side of the fence are following your lead to effect any kind of change.

 

I'm pretty sure you're not a fan of trimmed books, right? Do you ask every dealer if a book is trimmed before every purchase? How about color touch? If you don't ask, does this mean you don't care?

 

You expect these manipulations to be disclosed. So, why should we not expect pressing manipulation as well?

 

 

I rarely buy raw books anymore, but when I do, I absolutely ask those questions. If I were anti-pressing, I'd absolutely ask that question on every single purchase, or even a book I was merely considering.

 

Why should the responsibilty fall on the buyer? If the seller knows the book has been manipulated, it's up to them to disclose that fact...upfront. Refusing to do so is deceitful.

[nearmint]

I think how many people think pressing = resto is irrelevant. All that is relevant is how many will align their buying habits with that belief. It's easy to vote on a forum poll on the subject, but how many of those that answered yes, or who proclaim in threads that pressing is resto(and further state that a person would have to be an insufficiently_thoughtful_person to think otherwise) are actually asking every dealer about every book that he/she is interested in?

 

As I've said in previous threads, I've talked to many dealers on this subject, and the uniform answer is that a miniscule number of their transactions include the question "has this book been pressed?" Until that changes dramatically, it simply doesn't matter who thinks pressing is resto and who doesn't.

 

 

 

 

That is a very myoptic view Jeff.

 

I would care to wager that a majority of transactions at shows (or especially in stores and most certainly mail order) with dealers do not even involve the question "is this raw book restored?" Does that mean that it simply doesn't matter?

 

It means that, in your example, you encourage the dealer to continue selling books with undisclosed resto if you don't ask the question. With pressing, you encourage the dealer to continue selling books with undisclosed pressing if you don't ask the question. There's nothing myopic about that(or, as you say, myoptic).

 

NOD as a whole has not announced that they believe pressing = resto, but Bill certainly believes that, and thinks progress can only be made if the hobby proceeds from that agreed belief. I disagree. People have to act on that belief for it to mean anything.

 

I thought I was spelling it wrong, but I'm tired and CGC still hasn't added a spell check.

 

I simply don't follow the logic Jeff. I don't see how either scenario is evidence of the question you referenced, i.e., whether the notion of pressing being restoration matters. That dealers are not asked whether a book has been pressed does not mean that (1) the issue is not relevant, or (2) the issue is not significant or (3) that pressing is not restoration. It can just as easily mean that (1) the issue was not important to that particular person, or (2) the transaction would not even involve the question of pressing, i.e., a bronze age book, or (3) the buyer has no idea of the debate over pressing.

 

As you know, there was no unanimity in the NOD when it was formed concerning whether pressing is restoration. There still is disagreement. I would say the majority view among members is that it is, but it really doesn't matter as everyone in the NOD agrees that no matter whether it is or is not, it should be disclosed so that buyers (collectors and dealers alike) can render a fully informed decision.

 

Personally, I agree with Bill. I have never been presented with an argument that I believe has sound basis to say pressing is not restoration. I've seen a lot of opinions to that effect but no reasonable refutation to the professional expert definitions that exist with respect to paper in particular.

 

Whether even if pressing is restoration it should impact the value of the book or make it less desirable is an entirely different question, and absolutely susceptible to subjective opinion.

 

For example, Dr. Watson, if I recall correctly (and my apologies if I am incorrect), voiced his opinion that he would never ever purchase a color touched book. I would not have any problems in buying a color touched book. Both subjective opinions and perfectly valid. I usually won't purchase a book with extensive restoration (especially pieces added), but many others would. Perfectly valid subjective opinions.

 

But none of the opinions impact the facts of whether the book was restored or not.

 

Mark, the easiest way I can condense what I'm trying to say is actions speak louder than words. I don't know what Bill wants to proceed to once we all agree that pressing is resto, but I don't think he'll be able to proceed unless people are acting on that belief, not simply expressing it.

[esquirecomics]

I think how many people think pressing = resto is irrelevant. All that is relevant is how many will align their buying habits with that belief. It's easy to vote on a forum poll on the subject, but how many of those that answered yes, or who proclaim in threads that pressing is resto(and further state that a person would have to be an insufficiently_thoughtful_person to think otherwise) are actually asking every dealer about every book that he/she is interested in?

 

As I've said in previous threads, I've talked to many dealers on this subject, and the uniform answer is that a miniscule number of their transactions include the question "has this book been pressed?" Until that changes dramatically, it simply doesn't matter who thinks pressing is resto and who doesn't.

 

 

 

 

That is a very myoptic view Jeff.

 

I would care to wager that a majority of transactions at shows (or especially in stores and most certainly mail order) with dealers do not even involve the question "is this raw book restored?" Does that mean that it simply doesn't matter?

 

It means that, in your example, you encourage the dealer to continue selling books with undisclosed resto if you don't ask the question. With pressing, you encourage the dealer to continue selling books with undisclosed pressing if you don't ask the question. There's nothing myopic about that(or, as you say, myoptic).

 

NOD as a whole has not announced that they believe pressing = resto, but Bill certainly believes that, and thinks progress can only be made if the hobby proceeds from that agreed belief. I disagree. People have to act on that belief for it to mean anything.

 

I thought I was spelling it wrong, but I'm tired and CGC still hasn't added a spell check.

 

I simply don't follow the logic Jeff. I don't see how either scenario is evidence of the question you referenced, i.e., whether the notion of pressing being restoration matters. That dealers are not asked whether a book has been pressed does not mean that (1) the issue is not relevant, or (2) the issue is not significant or (3) that pressing is not restoration. It can just as easily mean that (1) the issue was not important to that particular person, or (2) the transaction would not even involve the question of pressing, i.e., a bronze age book, or (3) the buyer has no idea of the debate over pressing.

 

As you know, there was no unanimity in the NOD when it was formed concerning whether pressing is restoration. There still is disagreement. I would say the majority view among members is that it is, but it really doesn't matter as everyone in the NOD agrees that no matter whether it is or is not, it should be disclosed so that buyers (collectors and dealers alike) can render a fully informed decision.

 

Personally, I agree with Bill. I have never been presented with an argument that I believe has sound basis to say pressing is not restoration. I've seen a lot of opinions to that effect but no reasonable refutation to the professional expert definitions that exist with respect to paper in particular.

 

Whether even if pressing is restoration it should impact the value of the book or make it less desirable is an entirely different question, and absolutely susceptible to subjective opinion.

 

For example, Dr. Watson, if I recall correctly (and my apologies if I am incorrect), voiced his opinion that he would never ever purchase a color touched book. I would not have any problems in buying a color touched book. Both subjective opinions and perfectly valid. I usually won't purchase a book with extensive restoration (especially pieces added), but many others would. Perfectly valid subjective opinions.

 

But none of the opinions impact the facts of whether the book was restored or not.

 

Mark, the easiest way I can condense what I'm trying to say is actions speak louder than words. I don't know what Bill wants to proceed to once we all agree that pressing is resto, but I don't think he'll be able to proceed unless people are acting on that belief, not simply expressing it.

 

Jeff, I'll let Bill answer as to what he wants to do once we all agree on the pressing = restoration debate.

 

I do agree with Bill's expression of agreement with you that the market forces will only effect change if buyer's actions speak louder than words. What I am saying is that this is also a separate substantive issue from whether pressing is restoration.

 

For years the OS Guide defined pressing as restoration (i.e., pressing out wrinkles) and obviously that had very little impact on the market forces.

 

Two different issues.

[FlyingDonut]

 

Why should the responsibilty fall on the buyer? If the seller knows the book has been manipulated, it's up to them to disclose that fact...upfront. Refusing to do so is deceitful.

 

 

I'm going to try again.

 

I agree with you that it is deceitful.

 

That's why you need to ask because you as a buyer can then make an informed decision. If you don't ask, you're eventually going to get screwed.

[THE_BEYONDER]

 

Why should the responsibilty fall on the buyer? If the seller knows the book has been manipulated, it's up to them to disclose that fact...upfront. Refusing to do so is deceitful.

 

 

I'm going to try again.

 

I agree with you that it is deceitful.

 

That's why you need to ask because you as a buyer can make an informed decision. If you don't ask, you're going to get screwed.

 

 

And again.....

 

How do I know the seller is telling me the truth?

[FlyingDonut]

You don't.

 

But the seller has told you something, which is more than you would have gotten if you didn't ask.