Do You Feel The Church Books Being Stored in Stacks

[THE_BEYONDER]

You don't.

 

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

 

We can go in circles all night. I shouldn't have to ask. Period.

[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.

 

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.

 

It's not the responsibility of the buyer, it's just being a wise consumer. If I buy a used car, I ask if it's been in an accident.

 

A comic dealer who presses might assume you don't care about pressing if you don't ask the question. I think in most cases he'd be right, but in your case he would be wrong, so the smart thing for the customer to do is to ask.

[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.

 

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.

 

If you could get 100% of collectors to agree that pressing = resto, but none of them asked dealers if books were pressed, what have you gained?

[THE_BEYONDER]

 

 

It's not the responsibility of the buyer, it's just being a wise consumer. If I buy a used car, I ask if it's been in an accident.

 

A comic dealer who presses might assume you don't care about pressing if you don't ask the question. I think in most cases he'd be right, but in your case he would be wrong, so the smart thing for the customer to do is to ask.

 

I refuse to believe that a seller who presses a 9.0 into a 9.6 believes that a potential buyer wouldn't be interested in that information.

 

 

[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.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

If you could get 100% of collectors to agree that pressing = resto, but none of them asked dealers if books were pressed, what have you gained?

 

C'mon now. If pressing was defined as resto.....sellers would be obligated to disclose it upfront.

[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.

 

If you could get 100% of collectors to agree that pressing = resto, but none of them asked dealers if books were pressed, what have you gained?

 

Using those facts, presumably the same thing that was achieved by the fact that 100% of collectors agree (to my knowledge) that pieces added to a book constitutes restoration - affirmative disclosure by sellers.

[nearmint]

I refuse to believe that a seller who presses a 9.0 into a 9.6 believes that a potential buyer wouldn't be interested in that information.

 

You're coming at it as someone who's anti-pressing, and you're passionate about it. Someone who doesn't care about pressing isn't going to react that strongly. To them, the book is a 9.6.

[cd4ever]

[esquirecomics]

I refuse to believe that a seller who presses a 9.0 into a 9.6 believes that a potential buyer wouldn't be interested in that information.

 

You're coming at it as someone who's anti-pressing, and you're passionate about it. Someone who doesn't care about pressing isn't going to react that strongly. To them, the book is a 9.6.

 

That's too broad a brush Jeff. You're addressing extremes.

 

I am not anti-pressing, and I would react quite strongly to such a scenario. Those who are pro-disclosure and anti-pressing may seek the same objective, but they do not necessarily share the same premise to reach the objective.

[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.

 

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.

 

If you could get 100% of collectors to agree that pressing = resto, but none of them asked dealers if books were pressed, what have you gained?

 

Using those facts, presumably the same thing that was achieved by the fact that 100% of collectors agree (to my knowledge) that pieces added to a book constitutes restoration - affirmative disclosure by sellers.

 

Apples and oranges. First, even dealers agree that pieces added is resto. There's no controversy there. Second, collectors often do ask about that kind of resto, or are able to detect it themselves, thus forcing dealers to disclose upfront.

 

Your point supports my argument.

[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.

 

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.

 

If you could get 100% of collectors to agree that pressing = resto, but none of them asked dealers if books were pressed, what have you gained?

 

C'mon now. If pressing was defined as resto.....sellers would be obligated to disclose it upfront.

 

Obligated by whom or what? If no one asked the question, what motivation would they have to disclose upfront? I think they'd assume that everyone thought it was so minor a form of resto that they don't care, and don't bother to ask because the answer won't change their buying decision.

[nearmint]

I refuse to believe that a seller who presses a 9.0 into a 9.6 believes that a potential buyer wouldn't be interested in that information.

 

You're coming at it as someone who's anti-pressing, and you're passionate about it. Someone who doesn't care about pressing isn't going to react that strongly. To them, the book is a 9.6.

 

That's too broad a brush Jeff. You're addressing extremes.

 

I am not anti-pressing, and I would react quite strongly to such a scenario. Those who are pro-disclosure and anti-pressing may seek the same objective, but they do not necessarily share the same premise to reach the objective.

 

We're all talking in extremes. The example of a book going from 9.0 to 9.6 is a bit extreme. Here's a less extreme example...if I bought a $500 CGC 6.0 golden age book, and later discovered that the book had once been a 5.5, but the previous owner had a spine roll removed by pressing, I wouldn't care one bit. The seller in that scenario would be correct in thinking, in Chris' words, "that a potential buyer(me) wouldn't be interested in that information."

[THE_BEYONDER]

I refuse to believe that a seller who presses a 9.0 into a 9.6 believes that a potential buyer wouldn't be interested in that information.

 

You're coming at it as someone who's anti-pressing, and you're passionate about it. Someone who doesn't care about pressing isn't going to react that strongly. To them, the book is a 9.6.

 

That's too broad a brush Jeff. You're addressing extremes.

 

I am not anti-pressing, and I would react quite strongly to such a scenario. Those who are pro-disclosure and anti-pressing may seek the same objective, but they do not necessarily share the same premise to reach the objective.

 

We're all talking in extremes. The example of a book going from 9.0 to 9.6 is a bit extreme. Here's a less extreme example...if I bought a $500 CGC 6.0 golden age book, and later discovered that the book had once been a 5.5, but the previous owner had a spine roll removed by pressing, I wouldn't care one bit. The seller in that scenario would be correct in thinking, in Chris' words, "that a potential buyer(me) wouldn't be interested in that information."

 

Whether or not you're interested in that information...the seller should provide it.

 

BTW - 9.0-9.6 is not an extreme example.

[MrBedrock]

 

It's not the responsibility of the buyer, it's just being a wise consumer. If I buy a used car, I ask if it's been in an accident.

 

A comic dealer who presses might assume you don't care about pressing if you don't ask the question. I think in most cases he'd be right, but in your case he would be wrong, so the smart thing for the customer to do is to ask.

 

I refuse to believe that a seller who presses a 9.0 into a 9.6 believes that a potential buyer wouldn't be interested in that information.

 

As a seller, I would think that my customers would want that information. But, in fact, many of them do not. In most cases they absolutely don't care. In some cases they do not want to know because they don't want to have the obligation of remembering whether it is or isn't when they sell a book down the road.

[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.

 

If you could get 100% of collectors to agree that pressing = resto, but none of them asked dealers if books were pressed, what have you gained?

 

Using those facts, presumably the same thing that was achieved by the fact that 100% of collectors agree (to my knowledge) that pieces added to a book constitutes restoration - affirmative disclosure by sellers.

 

Apples and oranges. First, even dealers agree that pieces added is resto. There's no controversy there. Second, collectors often do ask about that kind of resto, or are able to detect it themselves, thus forcing dealers to disclose upfront.

 

Your point supports my argument.

 

Apples and oranges? Where in the world do you think these definitions all came from? They all had to start somewhere, and many have morphed over the years.

 

How many dealers do you require to take a position on an issue before it becomes "official" policy for the community? And since when is it that only the views of dealers determine the views of the hobby?

 

As I said, Overstreet asserted pressing was restoration for years. That only changed after dealers primarily balked.

 

Now you have modified your comment about collectors asking about restoration to "often". How "often" is often? Is "often" more than "always" or even "most of the time"? And how many collectors do you honestly believe can detect restoration, particularly looking at a book on the floor of a convention? Is that the standard to be applied? Disclosure happens because dealers can "often" get caught? I don't agree with the stated premise that even the majority of collectors can detect restoration, but beyond that this is a terrible standard to apply to a community.

 

Jeff, if you believe my points support your argument, then we might as well cease this back and forth. I thought we were actually having a viable and interesting comparison of views but we're not getting anywhere if you are going to bring in circular arguments because I certainly can assure you that nothing I wrote supports your position.

 

Gotta get some sleep anyway.

[nearmint]

I refuse to believe that a seller who presses a 9.0 into a 9.6 believes that a potential buyer wouldn't be interested in that information.

 

You're coming at it as someone who's anti-pressing, and you're passionate about it. Someone who doesn't care about pressing isn't going to react that strongly. To them, the book is a 9.6.

 

That's too broad a brush Jeff. You're addressing extremes.

 

I am not anti-pressing, and I would react quite strongly to such a scenario. Those who are pro-disclosure and anti-pressing may seek the same objective, but they do not necessarily share the same premise to reach the objective.

 

We're all talking in extremes. The example of a book going from 9.0 to 9.6 is a bit extreme. Here's a less extreme example...if I bought a $500 CGC 6.0 golden age book, and later discovered that the book had once been a 5.5, but the previous owner had a spine roll removed by pressing, I wouldn't care one bit. The seller in that scenario would be correct in thinking, in Chris' words, "that a potential buyer(me) wouldn't be interested in that information."

 

Whether or not you're interested in that information...the seller should provide it.

 

BTW - 9.0-9.6 is not an extreme example.

 

Yes, the seller should provide it. I'm just not going to depend on them doing so without my asking.

[THE_BEYONDER]

 

It's not the responsibility of the buyer, it's just being a wise consumer. If I buy a used car, I ask if it's been in an accident.

 

A comic dealer who presses might assume you don't care about pressing if you don't ask the question. I think in most cases he'd be right, but in your case he would be wrong, so the smart thing for the customer to do is to ask.

 

I refuse to believe that a seller who presses a 9.0 into a 9.6 believes that a potential buyer wouldn't be interested in that information.

 

As a seller, I would think that my customers would want that information. But, in fact, many of them do not. In most cases they absolutely don't care. In some cases they do not want to know because they don't want to have the obligation of remembering whether it is or isn't when they sell a book down the road.

 

Remembering? C'mon. How hard is it to remember which books have been pressed & which haven't? If they don't want to know......I imagine it's because they don't want to have to disclose that the book was pressed when they sell it.

[Park]

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.

 

If you could get 100% of collectors to agree that pressing = resto, but none of them asked dealers if books were pressed, what have you gained?

 

C'mon now. If pressing was defined as resto.....sellers would be obligated to disclose it upfront.

 

They would be obligated but some would not do it. I get what you are saying that you should not have to ask, but if you do not ask you are gonna be disappointed. It is just not realistic to expect every person who sells a comic book to disclose the history of the book they are selling mainly because they have no idea of the history.

 

One way to push forward the prospect of disclosure would be to ask everyone that you buy a comic book from if the book has been pressed, especially dealers. Of course you are going to have sellers lie to you just to make a sale. You are going to have sellers that have no clue what you are talking about, but the end result of 10 or a 100 or a 1000 potential buyers all asking the same question has to register in at least some peoples mind "what the hell is pressing or why are so many buyers asking me about pressing."

 

 

 

 

[esquirecomics]

 

It's not the responsibility of the buyer, it's just being a wise consumer. If I buy a used car, I ask if it's been in an accident.

 

A comic dealer who presses might assume you don't care about pressing if you don't ask the question. I think in most cases he'd be right, but in your case he would be wrong, so the smart thing for the customer to do is to ask.

 

I refuse to believe that a seller who presses a 9.0 into a 9.6 believes that a potential buyer wouldn't be interested in that information.

 

As a seller, I would think that my customers would want that information. But, in fact, many of them do not. In most cases they absolutely don't care. In some cases they do not want to know because they don't want to have the obligation of remembering whether it is or isn't when they sell a book down the road.

 

How do you know they don't care? Have you asked them? Polled them?

 

Would you be willing to participate in a study at the next major con you have a booth at? Every time someone buys a book from you the question is asked of them as to whether (1) they are aware of pressing and whether they believe it is restoration or not, and (2) if so, whether they care if a book they purchased has been pressed but that fact has not been disclosed.

[MrBedrock]

 

It's not the responsibility of the buyer, it's just being a wise consumer. If I buy a used car, I ask if it's been in an accident.

 

A comic dealer who presses might assume you don't care about pressing if you don't ask the question. I think in most cases he'd be right, but in your case he would be wrong, so the smart thing for the customer to do is to ask.

 

I refuse to believe that a seller who presses a 9.0 into a 9.6 believes that a potential buyer wouldn't be interested in that information.

 

As a seller, I would think that my customers would want that information. But, in fact, many of them do not. In most cases they absolutely don't care. In some cases they do not want to know because they don't want to have the obligation of remembering whether it is or isn't when they sell a book down the road.

 

Remembering? C'mon. How hard is it to remember which books have been pressed & which haven't? If they don't want to know......I imagine it's because they don't want to have to disclose that the book was pressed when they sell it.

Holy Cow! you read my post and actually understood it! Congrats.