Do You Feel The Church Books Being Stored in Stacks

[OldGuy]

are "pressed" in the way we use the term "pressing" in the various "pressing threads"?

 

No.

 

Next question.

[Ze-man]

 

What the heck is the point of this idiotic dicussion anyway? Are we saying we think all the Church books were pressed/restored? Lunacy,

 

I grow fatigued at the limits that the pro-pressing crowd will go to find the most far fetched analogies they can to try and prove that what a professional restoration expert does with his heat, moisture, and extreme pressure using a mechanical contrivance that has been proven to flatten and improve grades on comic books.....is not restoration.

 

Good heavens folks. Can we not all see how pathetic that is?

 

just stop it. Please

 

Wow Bill, sorry to see you are so fatigued.

 

I don't see anyone trying to say Church books should be labeled as restored because of how they were stored. But more how there might be similarities between pressing and stacking. If a stacked book is under enough pressure to become warped,, bent , torn, flared, spine roll etc, then to me that is the kind of pressure similar to flat pressing a book.

 

I am not trying to say it is or isn't restoration. Every time a book is opened it is manipulated, every time a book is handled it is altered. Someone tries to counter a spine roll by hand rolling it the other way the to lesson the roll and make it look better it is being manipulated, when you unbend that corner with your finger it makes it look better it is being manipulated. Put a book under a stack of books it flattens the book(somewhat) So I was trying to better understand why some demand for disclosure to the point of feeling cheated when in reality many books that are bought and sold have had very similar processes done to them to make them "look" better. But because professional methods might achieve better results it is all of a sudden deceptive.

 

Of course Church books stored in those stacks were not pressed, nor should they be considered restored. But because pressing a book closely mimics these storage conditions I just do not see vilifying one over the other, or how you can honestly separate one method over another as restored or unrestored when both were altered on some level.

 

In the end I am not talking about peoples right to seek disclosure, if it is or isn't restoration or conservation. Just that I cannot understand why you and others are not willing to concede there might be enough similarities to warrant perhaps rethinking what it is people like or do not like about pressing, and labeling some kinds of manipulation as deceptive simply because the results achieved are better. I can do things to a comic that improve the grade that do not require tools or machines, heat or moisture, would you consider this restoration?

 

If not then where would you draw the line? I know, I know.. when a machine and heat or moisture is used. That viewpoint to me seems to be close minded and very self serving. I am not trying to be overly combative, but when you talked about being so fatigued, and how others views different from yours are pathetic.. well how should one react?

 

 

Ze-

[nearmint]

I grow fatigued at the limits that the pro-pressing crowd will go to find the most far fetched analogies they can to try and prove that what a professional restoration expert does with his heat, moisture, and extreme pressure using a mechanical contrivance that has been proven to flatten and improve grades on comic books.....is not restoration.

 

Good heavens folks. Can we not all see how pathetic that is?

 

What the pro-pressing crowd finds pathetic is the attempt by the anti-pressing crowd to apply a scarlet letter to books that have undergone what we have every reason to believe is a completely harmless procedure.

 

I wasn't aware you were the newly elected "pro-pressing crowd" spokesman. I'm sure they appreciate you conveying their message though and speaking for them on the whole.

 

Since I'm not elected to speak for anyone other than myself, I'll give you my opinion...

 

A) You finally revealed your true agenda. Your simply scared that if pressing was to ever be universally accepted as a type of restoration, then your collection could become devalued.

 

B) In your efforts to circumvent this fear, you've decided to leap at extremes and pull any other book into the debate that you can by trying to include stacked books, books stored in long boxes, etc. as being pressed. You're trying to spread your fear to more of the hobby population by including these books along with those of your collection that were mechanically pressed.

 

I have to say, nice try. There is a difference and you know it. You've even admitted as much earlier. Trying to scare those that own Church books or other books that have been stacked or stored in long boxes into thinking that their books would also get labeled as pressed if it were to become the standard is a nice campaign move. I think they're smarter than that.

 

It's so clear now, I'm not sure why it didn't hit me earlier. Expand the pool of those owning pressed books = good for you. Expanding the fear that you have = good for you. Isolating your group to only those that own books that have had true professional pressing = bad for you. I get it.

 

It's interesting, I never engage in personal attacks against you, but you certainly don't hesitate to attack me.

 

I don't claim to be anyone's spokesman, but if Bill is going to direct a comment towards "the pro-pressers", I don't see why I shouldn't respond. I assume that anything anyone posts on the boards is their opinion, and their opinion alone. Why you approach the boards differently is a mystery to me.

 

I have an agenda? I had no idea. Sorry, but of the 75 or so Golden Age books in my collection, exactly 3 have been pressed, and I have no fear that they'll be devalued. In fact, I've received very generous offers on my America's Best Comics #7 by people who are very aware that it's been pressed. Not everyone in the world has an agenda. Let me rephrase that, not everyone in my world has an agenda.

 

I have never stated that stacking books gives the same results as pressing a book. I merely took issue with Esquire and Taxguy's statement that the Church collection as a whole was defect-free. One look at Chuck's original list tells a different story. Let me state unequivocally, I do not think that stacking books or stuffing them tightly into boxes will improve defects to the extent that pro pressing will.

[Red Hook]

In the end I am not talking about peoples right to seek disclosure, if it is or isn't restoration or conservation. Just that I cannot understand why you and others are not willing to concede there might be enough similarities to warrant perhaps rethinking what it is people like or do not like about pressing, and labeling some kinds of manipulation as deceptive simply because the results achieved are better. I can do things to a comic that improve the grade that do not require tools or machines, heat or moisture, would you consider this restoration?

 

If not then where would you draw the line? I know, I know.. when a machine and heat or moisture is used. That viewpoint to me seems to be close minded and very self serving. I am not trying to be overly combative, but when you talked about being so fatigued, and how others views different from yours are pathetic.. well how should one react?

 

 

Ze-

 

Kenny, since you are now in the business of pressing books, don't you think you could be accused of being self-serving too? Now that you're (theoretically) going to be profiting from the practice? Your position changed 180 degrees on the issues once you decided on restoration as a career path. Not judging, just pointing it out.

 

The other thing is....I am totally convinced that pressing books is not a secret art. Why not show us how you do it exactly? With photos. You used to show us lots of demos about how you played around with books. If you really are trying to convince people that pressing with heat and moisture is harmless.....well....show us. I do not think this is a state secret.

 

And please don't use the excuse that you signed some kind of non-disclosure. Talk to Matt....it might be the right time to just do a simple demonstration to prove your point. Help bring the debate to an end, by showing us what's involved.

 

You are the guys that are treating it like some kind of DARK ART. It's not. And frankly, I don't think it takes that much skill. Once you have the setup in your basement, I can't believe it's that difficult.

 

One other question: Have you personally practiced disassembly pressing? I assume you must. One last thing. When are you going to show examples of your work? I find it odd that you have been presenting yourself as an expert over the last six months and yet, not a single example of your work has been produced.

 

Note to the moderators: This is not trolling. This is an honest inquiry.

 

Thanks.

[Scheradon]

I grow fatigued at the limits that the pro-pressing crowd will go to find the most far fetched analogies they can to try and prove that what a professional restoration expert does with his heat, moisture, and extreme pressure using a mechanical contrivance that has been proven to flatten and improve grades on comic books.....is not restoration.

 

Good heavens folks. Can we not all see how pathetic that is?

 

What the pro-pressing crowd finds pathetic is the attempt by the anti-pressing crowd to apply a scarlet letter to books that have undergone what we have every reason to believe is a completely harmless procedure.

 

I wasn't aware you were the newly elected "pro-pressing crowd" spokesman. I'm sure they appreciate you conveying their message though and speaking for them on the whole.

 

Since I'm not elected to speak for anyone other than myself, I'll give you my opinion...

 

A) You finally revealed your true agenda. Your simply scared that if pressing was to ever be universally accepted as a type of restoration, then your collection could become devalued.

 

B) In your efforts to circumvent this fear, you've decided to leap at extremes and pull any other book into the debate that you can by trying to include stacked books, books stored in long boxes, etc. as being pressed. You're trying to spread your fear to more of the hobby population by including these books along with those of your collection that were mechanically pressed.

 

I have to say, nice try. There is a difference and you know it. You've even admitted as much earlier. Trying to scare those that own Church books or other books that have been stacked or stored in long boxes into thinking that their books would also get labeled as pressed if it were to become the standard is a nice campaign move. I think they're smarter than that.

 

It's so clear now, I'm not sure why it didn't hit me earlier. Expand the pool of those owning pressed books = good for you. Expanding the fear that you have = good for you. Isolating your group to only those that own books that have had true professional pressing = bad for you. I get it.

 

It's interesting, I never engage in personal attacks against you, but you certainly don't hesitate to attack me.

 

I don't claim to be anyone's spokesman, but if Bill is going to direct a comment towards "the pro-pressers", I don't see why I shouldn't respond. I assume that anything anyone posts on the boards is their opinion, and their opinion alone. Why you approach the boards differently is a mystery to me.

 

I have an agenda? I had no idea. Sorry, but of the 75 or so Golden Age books in my collection, exactly 3 have been pressed, and I have no fear that they'll be devalued. In fact, I've received very generous offers on my America's Best Comics #7 by people who are very aware that it's been pressed. Not everyone in the world has an agenda. Let me rephrase that, not everyone in my world has an agenda.

 

I have never stated that stacking books gives the same results as pressing a book. I merely took issue with Esquire and Taxguy's statement that the Church collection as a whole was defect-free. One look at Chuck's original list tells a different story. Let me state unequivocally, I do not think that stacking books or stuffing them tightly into boxes will improve defects to the extent that pro pressing will.

That was a personal attack? I didn't even call you any names or insults...did I? You may not have liked the outcome of how I interpreted your post, but it was not what I'd consider a "personal attack".

 

One big difference between yours and Bills post...he started right off with, " I grow tired..." Definately clearly giving his opinion. You started yours off

with, "What the pro-pressing crowd finds pathetic..." which implies you were speaking for a "crowd", not just giving your opinion. Next time try, "What I think the pro-pressing crowd finds pathetic..." It might come across better.

 

I do believe that you touched on something with the "scarlet letter" reference. To me, that reads as fear on the minds of some as to what that could mean to their collection. Since you are the one who said it, I could infer that you are one of those that perhaps has that fear.

 

I don't believe that you are agenda free as you say. I'm not. I'm posting here for a reason other than to simply touch up on my debate skills. My #1 agenda is Disclosure. In order to obtain universally accepted disclosure, we first need to decide what needs to be disclosed. Restoration is universally expected to be disclosed. I believe that pressing is a form of restoration, thus needing to be disclosed. If there are those not willing to admit that pressing is even in the slightest, most minimal way a form of restoration, then that means there are still many most likely not feeling the need to disclose the procedure. Thus, this remains an important topic for me.

 

I am glad that we do seem to agree with Povs original question though.

[Ze-man]

Kenny, since you are now in the business of pressing books, don't you think you could be accused of being self-serving too? Now that you're (theoretically) going to be profiting from the practice? Your position changed 180 degrees on the issues once you decided on restoration as a career path. Not judging, just pointing it out.

 

The other thing is....I am totally convinced that pressing books is not a secret art. Why not show us how you do it exactly? With photos. You used to show us lots of demos about how you played around with books. If you really are trying to convince people that pressing with heat and moisture is harmless.....well....show us. I do not think this is a state secret.

 

And please don't use the excuse that you signed some kind of non-disclosure. Talk to Matt....it might be the right time to just do a simple demonstration to prove your point. Help bring the debate to an end, by showing us what's involved.

 

You are the guys that are treating it like some kind of DARK ART. It's not. And frankly, I don't think it takes that much skill. Once you have the setup in your basement, I can't believe it's that difficult.

 

One other question: Have you personally practiced disassembly pressing? I assume you must. One last thing. When are you going to show examples of your work? I find it odd that you have been presenting yourself as an expert over the last six months and yet, not a single example of your work has been produced.

 

Note to the moderators: This is not trolling. This is an honest inquiry.

 

Thanks.

 

Hi Brad, no....not trolling at all I am more then happy to discuss anything with you, anytime. Always have been.

 

I wanted to say for the record, I am not pressing books for Matt,never have.. or for money for anyone else. That does not mean I do not press books for people. But it is for friends who ask me to, and even then it is on a very minor scale. It just interests me. Matt has been training me for over a year in all things resto, yes among them is pressing if it is part of a larger resto process. He never intended, or trained me to ever press books, simply to press them. And yes I have practiced any form of pressing you can think of in an effort to better understand it.

 

I know you don't like it when I mention the non disclosure thing I signed, but in the end methods he taught and showed to me are his sole property. While I of course have applied my own experience and techniques to things he showed me they are in the end still based on his methodology. So it isn't as simple as me saying I will do a demonstration or not. I cant. Not to mention I spent a good deal of time learning and perfecting certain techniques and am not about to just show the world so they can do it themselves. Let them do the leg work, trial and error process and they too can figure things out the same way I did. If I found along the way every book that is pressed was being destroyed and mangled I probably would have said so,honestly , but along the way I found the opposite to be true, and would like to think my overall reputation would lend some credit to that point of view. Not as being self serving, but honestly how I feel based on what I learned.

 

And while I of course speak about things that involve resto(it interests me), I have never once said I am an expert, far from it. I am close to being pretty well versed in all things resto and truth be told if we still spoke you would probably have a much better idea of where my skill level is at. Right now I am still in the stages of working on practice books for Matt,(which have increasingly become more involved) but between my glass biz, taking care of house and home it has been a long process. But one well worth the effort. I always felt weird talking about it publicly, or showing any work I have done because it all smacked of tooting my own horn, plus Matt is one private bugger and I respect that. If it comes to fruition and I pass muster and join his staff officially(get paid) I imagine there will be some kind of formal announcement. I honestly dont really know.

 

I have just been very lucky to have this opportunity come my way and am trying to make it work. And yes I am more then ok at it or else I would not have bothered to fly down to Texas more then once, I like it and it was a natural transition from glass stuff to resto stuff. Both require lots of patience and utilize a bit of alchemy and science. I imagine some of my work will see the light of day eventually. Perhaps even on his website of before and after examples if all goes well.

 

Ze-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[The Black Hand ®]

I find that disclosure is the big factor in the whole pressing debate I recently ran two polls one on disclosure and the other one on whether pressing was restoration. The pro disclosure vote won by almost two to one, however the poll on whether pressing was resto was almost evenly split with about 3 votes more declaring pressing was not restoration. I find that interesting. Of course these polls aren't scientific and who knows what a truly accurate poll would come out with, but interesting nonetheless.

[EastEnd]

 

What the heck is the point of this idiotic dicussion anyway? Are we saying we think all the Church books were pressed/restored? Lunacy,

 

I grow fatigued at the limits that the pro-pressing crowd will go to find the most far fetched analogies they can to try and prove that what a professional restoration expert does with his heat, moisture, and extreme pressure using a mechanical contrivance that has been proven to flatten and improve grades on comic books.....is not restoration.

 

Good heavens folks. Can we not all see how pathetic that is?

 

just stop it. Please

 

Wow Bill, sorry to see you are so fatigued.

 

I don't see anyone trying to say Church books should be labeled as restored because of how they were stored. But more how there might be similarities between pressing and stacking. If a stacked book is under enough pressure to become warped,, bent , torn, flared, spine roll etc, then to me that is the kind of pressure similar to flat pressing a book.

 

I am not trying to say it is or isn't restoration. Every time a book is opened it is manipulated, every time a book is handled it is altered. Someone tries to counter a spine roll by hand rolling it the other way the to lesson the roll and make it look better it is being manipulated, when you unbend that corner with your finger it makes it look better it is being manipulated. Put a book under a stack of books it flattens the book(somewhat) So I was trying to better understand why some demand for disclosure to the point of feeling cheated when in reality many books that are bought and sold have had very similar processes done to them to make them "look" better. But because professional methods might achieve better results it is all of a sudden deceptive.

 

Of course Church books stored in those stacks were not pressed, nor should they be considered restored. But because pressing a book closely mimics these storage conditions I just do not see vilifying one over the other, or how you can honestly separate one method over another as restored or unrestored when both were altered on some level.

 

In the end I am not talking about peoples right to seek disclosure, if it is or isn't restoration or conservation. Just that I cannot understand why you and others are not willing to concede there might be enough similarities to warrant perhaps rethinking what it is people like or do not like about pressing, and labeling some kinds of manipulation as deceptive simply because the results achieved are better. I can do things to a comic that improve the grade that do not require tools or machines, heat or moisture, would you consider this restoration?

 

If not then where would you draw the line? I know, I know.. when a machine and heat or moisture is used. That viewpoint to me seems to be close minded and very self serving. I am not trying to be overly combative, but when you talked about being so fatigued, and how others views different from yours are pathetic.. well how should one react?

 

 

Ze-

 

I'm not sure why you keep insisting that stacking books is akin to mechanically pressing books. There's no comparison. Most, if not all, of the defects eliminated by mechanical pressing with the application of heat simply are not removable by putting a comic at the bottom of a large stack. You won't get rid of non-color breaking creases, spine roll, bends, folds, none of it. At best you might flatten the book slightly but nothing that would take a 9.0 to a 9.2 or a 9.4. I had a warped book under encyclopedias for five years. When I took it out, it warped a good way back to where it started from. You need heat, and in some cases humidity, to get results... and neither of those is present in a pure stacking. Again, I'd point you to the wrinkled teeshirt example I gave earlier.

[Ze-man]

 

I'm not sure why you keep insisting that stacking books is akin to mechanically pressing books. There's no comparison.

 

I was only trying to make the point that the pressure in either scenario is very similar, only the results are different. I never said stacking books was going to remove flaws, simply that they in fact underwent similar conditions.

 

To me, there is a comparison.

 

Ze-

[EastEnd]

 

I'm not sure why you keep insisting that stacking books is akin to mechanically pressing books. There's no comparison.

 

I was only trying to make the point that the pressure in either scenario is very similar, only the results are different. I never said stacking books was going to remove flaws, simply that they in fact underwent similar conditions.

 

To me, there is a comparison.

 

Ze-

 

So what is the purpose of the comparative if the pressure associated with stacking is inconsequential to improving a book's defects? Why does it provide any support to the argument that mechanical pressing, which can significantly improve defects, is not restoration?

[SuperBird]

I can't believe this thread is going on 9 pages.

[Ze-man]

 

I'm not sure why you keep insisting that stacking books is akin to mechanically pressing books. There's no comparison.

 

I was only trying to make the point that the pressure in either scenario is very similar, only the results are different. I never said stacking books was going to remove flaws, simply that they in fact underwent similar conditions.

 

To me, there is a comparison.

 

Ze-

 

So what is the purpose of the comparative if the pressure associated with stacking is inconsequential to improving a book's defects? Why does it provide any support to the argument that mechanical pressing, which can significantly improve defects, is not restoration?

 

It is not about me trying to say pressing is, or isn't restoration, but rather how this scenario is similar enough in nature(to me),that drawing the line as to what is pressed and what is not is a greyer area then it is for others. And obviously very hard for me to try and convey..

 

I gotta run, the post office is on my to do list, and I am very late.

 

Ze-

[EastCoastExchange-migratio]

are "pressed" in the way we use the term "pressing" in the various "pressing threads"?

 

No

[Red Hook]

 

[Matt] never intended, or trained me to ever press books, simply to press them. And yes I have practiced any form of pressing you can think of in an effort to better understand it.

 

I know you don't like it when I mention the non disclosure thing I signed, but in the end methods he taught and showed to me are his sole property. While I of course have applied my own experience and techniques to things he showed me they are in the end still based on his methodology. So it isn't as simple as me saying I will do a demonstration or not. I cant. Not to mention I spent a good deal of time learning and perfecting certain techniques and am not about to just show the world so they can do it themselves. Let them do the leg work, trial and error process and they too can figure things out the same way I did. If I found along the way every book that is pressed was being destroyed and mangled I probably would have said so,honestly , but along the way I found the opposite to be true, and would like to think my overall reputation would lend some credit to that point of view. Not as being self serving, but honestly how I feel based on what I know.

 

 

So you are saying it is impossible for you to give even a rudimentary demonstration on pressing (I didn't ask about any other restoration "secrets" you may be learning)?

 

With that said, then you will have to accept the fact that people will remain suspicious of the pressing process, since it's practitioners insist on keeping it a secret art. I also end up being more concerned about what goes on during the procedure, since you make it sound much more than simple pressing with a little heat added. I really don't like the sound of it.

 

I think the excuse that someone else is going to come along and "steal" your techniques is extremely shortsighted. That sure doesn't sound like a pro-hobby stance. It sounds like a pro-ME stance.

 

When I teach a class in Adobe Illustrator (the use of which is how I make most of my income), I show my students exactly what I do. No trying to create a bogus mystique about it. I challenge them to come and get me if they can!

 

These are comic books. Fragile pieces of paper ephemera that have miraculously withstood the test of time. I say leave them the hell alone. If pressing, which you keep trying to convince us is so benign, is so complicated a procedure that it would be considered industrial espionage is someone tried to "steal the secret", then I really really have some concerns.

 

You can not convince me that it's a totally harmless procedure, if you won't explain what the procedure is. No thinking person wouldn't buy that line.

[MutantKeys]

Be nice, Brad

[DrWatson]

These are comic books. Fragile pieces of paper ephemera that have miraculously withstood the test of time.

Now who is being melodramatic?

 

 

[Red Hook]

Just pointing out that you can't have it both ways. You want to make a buck and keep what you do a secret, but you also want everyone to trust you.

 

Not happening. Not in today's collecting environment.

[Ze-man]

Just pointing out that you can't have it both ways. You want to make a buck and keep what you do a secret, but you also want everyone to trust you.

 

Not happening. Not in today's collecting environment.

 

As I said Brad, I am not making money by pressing books. I just know how to, and have offered my opinion on it. Take it or leave it.

 

And you do realize if I were to post videos showing 3-4 various pressing techniques, not soon afterwards dozens of people would be pressing books. So in essence I am not promoting teaching others what you say you want left alone.

 

Let's just move on if we can. I heard you loud and clear and will try and refrain from saying pressing is good, bad, or ugly.

 

Ze-

 

 

[EastEnd]

 

I'm not sure why you keep insisting that stacking books is akin to mechanically pressing books. There's no comparison.

 

I was only trying to make the point that the pressure in either scenario is very similar, only the results are different. I never said stacking books was going to remove flaws, simply that they in fact underwent similar conditions.

 

To me, there is a comparison.

 

Ze-

 

So what is the purpose of the comparative if the pressure associated with stacking is inconsequential to improving a book's defects? Why does it provide any support to the argument that mechanical pressing, which can significantly improve defects, is not restoration?

 

It is not about me trying to say pressing is, or isn't restoration, but rather how this scenario is similar enough in nature(to me),that drawing the line as to what is pressed and what is not is a greyer area then it is for others. And obviously very hard for me to try and convey..

 

I gotta run, the post office is on my to do list, and I am very late.

 

Ze-

 

Sorry, don't mean to be a nudge. I think it's fine to evaluate the merits of stacking and pressing as you're doing but I don't find mixing the two helpful in addressing the controversy surrounding mechanical pressing. I think describing stacking as "pressing", a term which carries certain restorative connotations, really just muddies the analysis. I think it's fair to say that most hobbyists have historically considered stacking or tightly storing comics in boxes as preservative and to the extent that any inconsequential flattening did occur it didn't rise to the level of being considered restoration -- not sure that there's any reason to revisit this conclusion that the hobby made long ago just because mechanical pressing suddenly got controversial. The turning point here is that stacking or tight storing does not significantly improve defects... for the most part, it often, but not always, helps keep defects from occurring and perhaps helps to slightly flatten a book. This should not be confused with actual mechanical "pressing" which does not serve to prevent defects from occurring, but actually serves, often succcessfully, to eliminate defects like bends and creases and spine roll that have already occurred. This is a HUGE difference.

 

Now having said that, I do find myself a bit up in the air on this whole pressing thing. The purist part of me doesn't want the books touched. But I have some familiarity with antiques and other collectibles and general cleaning and light appearance enhancement doesn't normally reduce value so long as nothing is added or removed and the object remains intact in it's original form. So the logical part of me asks why should comics be any different? While I'm convinced that pressing is restoration, I'm not sure that there should be any value controversy attached to it (as is the case with say cleaning antique furniture). And to the extent that there is, I think we comic hobbyists might be a bit out of step with most other hobbyists and collectors.

[nearmint]

I grow fatigued at the limits that the pro-pressing crowd will go to find the most far fetched analogies they can to try and prove that what a professional restoration expert does with his heat, moisture, and extreme pressure using a mechanical contrivance that has been proven to flatten and improve grades on comic books.....is not restoration.

 

Good heavens folks. Can we not all see how pathetic that is?

 

What the pro-pressing crowd finds pathetic is the attempt by the anti-pressing crowd to apply a scarlet letter to books that have undergone what we have every reason to believe is a completely harmless procedure.

 

I wasn't aware you were the newly elected "pro-pressing crowd" spokesman. I'm sure they appreciate you conveying their message though and speaking for them on the whole.

 

Since I'm not elected to speak for anyone other than myself, I'll give you my opinion...

 

A) You finally revealed your true agenda. Your simply scared that if pressing was to ever be universally accepted as a type of restoration, then your collection could become devalued.

 

B) In your efforts to circumvent this fear, you've decided to leap at extremes and pull any other book into the debate that you can by trying to include stacked books, books stored in long boxes, etc. as being pressed. You're trying to spread your fear to more of the hobby population by including these books along with those of your collection that were mechanically pressed.

 

I have to say, nice try. There is a difference and you know it. You've even admitted as much earlier. Trying to scare those that own Church books or other books that have been stacked or stored in long boxes into thinking that their books would also get labeled as pressed if it were to become the standard is a nice campaign move. I think they're smarter than that.

 

It's so clear now, I'm not sure why it didn't hit me earlier. Expand the pool of those owning pressed books = good for you. Expanding the fear that you have = good for you. Isolating your group to only those that own books that have had true professional pressing = bad for you. I get it.

 

It's interesting, I never engage in personal attacks against you, but you certainly don't hesitate to attack me.

 

I don't claim to be anyone's spokesman, but if Bill is going to direct a comment towards "the pro-pressers", I don't see why I shouldn't respond. I assume that anything anyone posts on the boards is their opinion, and their opinion alone. Why you approach the boards differently is a mystery to me.

 

I have an agenda? I had no idea. Sorry, but of the 75 or so Golden Age books in my collection, exactly 3 have been pressed, and I have no fear that they'll be devalued. In fact, I've received very generous offers on my America's Best Comics #7 by people who are very aware that it's been pressed. Not everyone in the world has an agenda. Let me rephrase that, not everyone in my world has an agenda.

 

I have never stated that stacking books gives the same results as pressing a book. I merely took issue with Esquire and Taxguy's statement that the Church collection as a whole was defect-free. One look at Chuck's original list tells a different story. Let me state unequivocally, I do not think that stacking books or stuffing them tightly into boxes will improve defects to the extent that pro pressing will.

That was a personal attack? I didn't even call you any names or insults...did I? You may not have liked the outcome of how I interpreted your post, but it was not what I'd consider a "personal attack".

 

One big difference between yours and Bills post...he started right off with, " I grow tired..." Definately clearly giving his opinion. You started yours off

with, "What the pro-pressing crowd finds pathetic..." which implies you were speaking for a "crowd", not just giving your opinion. Next time try, "What I think the pro-pressing crowd finds pathetic..." It might come across better.

 

I do believe that you touched on something with the "scarlet letter" reference. To me, that reads as fear on the minds of some as to what that could mean to their collection. Since you are the one who said it, I could infer that you are one of those that perhaps has that fear.

 

I don't believe that you are agenda free as you say. I'm not. I'm posting here for a reason other than to simply touch up on my debate skills. My #1 agenda is Disclosure. In order to obtain universally accepted disclosure, we first need to decide what needs to be disclosed. Restoration is universally expected to be disclosed. I believe that pressing is a form of restoration, thus needing to be disclosed. If there are those not willing to admit that pressing is even in the slightest, most minimal way a form of restoration, then that means there are still many most likely not feeling the need to disclose the procedure. Thus, this remains an important topic for me.

 

I am glad that we do seem to agree with Povs original question though.

 

I do take the accusation that I have an agenda based on financial gain or loss as a personal attack.

 

The fearful are generally the ones who apply the scarlet letter.

 

The funny thing is that I'm for disclosure. Not because I think pressing is resto, but if even a small % of customers want it, it's easy enough to list a book as having been pressed.