Poll...Should Pressing be Disclosed?

[Old Fashion PB and J]

Yes. And I have no problem with pressing.

[tb]

31 to 17 so far in favor of disclosure.

 

Yes but isn't it funny how many of those who voted "yes" also posted their opinion, while the naysayers (with a couple of exceptions) remain mostly silent?

 

As for me, I say full disclosure, each and every time

 

Let the buyer decide if what has been done to the book is acceptable or not. Many people have nothing against pressing or other forms or resto in general, but they still should know everything that the book has been subjected to in the past.

 

I voted no. In theory, I agree with all of the above. In practice, having the seller tell me whether a book has been pressed provides very close to zero information. Therefore, I consider such a statement irrelevant when buying a book. I very rarely sell anything from my collection.

 

I'd imagine a book changes hand every few years on average. The "disclosure" about whether or not it has been pressed is no stronger than the weakest link among the previous owners. For example:

 

* A book is pressed by owner "A" who resells it to "B" with disclosure in 2003.

* "B" sells it to "C" with disclosure in 2005.

* "C" sells it to "D" without disclosure in 2007.

* "D" sells it to me with disclosure in 2009.

 

In other words, I am buying a pressed book with "D" honestly telling me that it has not been pressed to his knowledge.

 

I agree with everyone that selling a pressed book without disclosure is wrong. But the above example shows that any statement that the seller might make is close to meaningless. In fact, it will only become more and more meaningless as the years go by. If someone buys the same book in 2050, they will still be told that it has not been pressed.

 

So, it is possible to vote "no" without disagreeing that selling pressed books undisclosed is wrong. In fact, the reason I bother to read these threads is that I consider disclosure of pressing unethical: it provides the buyer with a false sense of security. I honestly feel I am better off not listening to the seller at all.

 

There are other ways to determine if a book has been pressed (inspection, Heritage archives etc.), but I don't consider disclosure among them.

 

I might be biased towards logical arguments since I spent 3 years studying for at Ph.D. in Computer Science at MIT, but to me the above is a sad, unfortunate fact and I've so far been unable to come up with a counterargument.

[MrBedrock]

Yes but isn't it funny how many of those who voted "yes" also posted their opinion, while the naysayers (with a couple of exceptions) remain mostly silent?

It really is funny! I guess all the "yes" voters are just a bunch of blow-hards.

[The Black Hand ®]

Just because the chain of disclosure can be broken, doesn't mean we personally shouldn't strive for high ethical standards. I care what "C" does but I can't police his actions but I can damn well police my own.

[VintageComics]

I voted no. In theory, I agree with all of the above. In practice, having the seller tell me whether a book has been pressed provides very close to zero information. Therefore, I consider such a statement irrelevant when buying a book. I very rarely sell anything from my collection.

 

I'd imagine a book changes hand every few years on average. The "disclosure" about whether or not it has been pressed is no stronger than the weakest link among the previous owners. For example:

 

* A book is pressed by owner "A" who resells it to "B" with disclosure in 2003.

* "B" sells it to "C" with disclosure in 2005.

* "C" sells it to "D" without disclosure in 2007.

* "D" sells it to me with disclosure in 2009.

 

In other words, I am buying a pressed book with "D" honestly telling me that it has not been pressed to his knowledge.

 

I agree with everyone that selling a pressed book without disclosure is wrong. But the above example shows that any statement that the seller might make is close to meaningless. In fact, it will only become more and more meaningless as the years go by. If someone buys the same book in 2050, they will still be told that it has not been pressed.

 

So, it is possible to vote "no" without disagreeing that selling pressed books undisclosed is wrong. In fact, the reason I bother to read these threads is that I consider disclosure of pressing unethical: it provides the buyer with a false sense of security. I honestly feel I am better off not listening to the seller at all.

 

There are other ways to determine if a book has been pressed (inspection, Heritage archives etc.), but I don't consider disclosure among them.

 

I might be biased towards logical arguments since I spent 3 years studying for at Ph.D. in Computer Science at MIT, but to me the above is a sad, unfortunate fact and I've so far been unable to come up with a counterargument.

You know, I have not wanted to be involved in these pressing threads because I've been pretty busy at work this week and I really believe them to be a waste of time (and I have Spider-man-on-tilt on ignore because half the posts on the boards these past 2 days were all his ) but I pop in an out once in a while to stay afloat. Let me tell you that this post makes more real world (practical sense) than anything else I have read. I believe in disclosure. I don't believe pressing is resto. A proper press job with a proper pressing candidate will never be detected. The "tell tale" defects on a pressed book are not so unique that they could not be caused by any other form of storage, handling or technique. How can you differentiate between paper fibres that were bent one way and then bent back....and paper fibres that went back and forth 3 or 4 or 6 times? How can you differentiate between paper fibres that were pressed at 170 degrees, or paper fibres that were stored in a hot environment? Sorry gang...These discussions are pretty much useless in the real world. USELESS.Unless someone has owned the book since knew a pressing disclosure is irrelevant as you can not vouch for any previous owners. My "unpressed" book can still be pressed without my knowledge. The arguement to fully disclose also has several secondary effects:Now you open the door to an entire new game: Buying pressed books, cracking them and reselling them as unpressed books to purists who won't buy pressed books.Not only that, you begin to mark the books into two categories...pressed and unpressed...and that is fine and dandy...until a few weeks down the road they all become mixed to due to non-disclosure at some point, or people not caring which are pressed and which are not or not knowing...because the book was cracked from a slab etc etc. then you have a stack of pressed books in the non-pressed category and visa versa...Right back to square one. Except that now the owner of a non pressed book owns a pressed book but does not know it.There is likely not going to be a way to detect pressed books with certainty. There is likely not going to remain a chain of disclosure through the histroy of most books available. That is quite an eye opener of a post, TB.R.

[Green]

 Originally Posted By: tb

I voted no. In theory, I agree with all of the above. In practice, having the seller tell me whether a book has been pressed provides very close to zero information. Therefore, I consider such a statement irrelevant when buying a book. I very rarely sell anything from my collection.

 

I'd imagine a book changes hand every few years on average. The "disclosure" about whether or not it has been pressed is no stronger than the weakest link among the previous owners. For example:

 

* A book is pressed by owner "A" who resells it to "B" with disclosure in 2003.

* "B" sells it to "C" with disclosure in 2005.

* "C" sells it to "D" without disclosure in 2007.

* "D" sells it to me with disclosure in 2009.

 

In other words, I am buying a pressed book with "D" honestly telling me that it has not been pressed to his knowledge.

 

I agree with everyone that selling a pressed book without disclosure is wrong. But the above example shows that any statement that the seller might make is close to meaningless. In fact, it will only become more and more meaningless as the years go by. If someone buys the same book in 2050, they will still be told that it has not been pressed.

 

So, it is possible to vote "no" without disagreeing that selling pressed books undisclosed is wrong. In fact, the reason I bother to read these threads is that I consider disclosure of pressing unethical: it provides the buyer with a false sense of security. I honestly feel I am better off not listening to the seller at all.

 

There are other ways to determine if a book has been pressed (inspection, Heritage archives etc.), but I don't consider disclosure among them.

 

I might be biased towards logical arguments since I spent 3 years studying for at Ph.D. in Computer Science at MIT, but to me the above is a sad, unfortunate fact and I've so far been unable to come up with a counterargument.

 

You know, I have not wanted to be involved in these pressing threads because I've been pretty busy at work this week and I really believe them to be a waste of time (and I have Spider-man-on-tilt on ignore because half the posts on the boards these past 2 days were all his ) but I pop in an out once in a while to stay afloat. Let me tell you that this post makes more real world (practical sense) than anything else I have read.

 

I believe in disclosure. I don't believe pressing is resto. A proper press job with a proper pressing candidate will never be detected. The "tell tale" defects on a pressed book are not so unique that they could not be caused by any other form of storage, handling or technique.

 

How can you differentiate between paper fibres that were bent one way and then bent back....and paper fibres that went back and forth 3 or 4 or 6 times?

 

How can you differentiate between paper fibres that were pressed at 170 degrees, or paper fibres that were stored in a hot environment?

 

Sorry gang...These discussions are pretty much useless in the real world. USELESS.

 

Unless someone has owned the book since knew a pressing disclosure is irrelevant as you can not vouch for any previous owners. My "unpressed" book can still be pressed without my knowledge.

 

The arguement to fully disclose also has several secondary effects:

 

Now you open the door to an entire new game: Buying pressed books, cracking them and reselling them as unpressed books to purists who won't buy pressed books.

 

Not only that, you begin to mark the books into two categories...pressed and unpressed...and that is fine and dandy...until a few weeks down the road they all become mixed to due to non-disclosure at some point, or people not caring which are pressed and which are not or not knowing...because the book was cracked from a slab etc etc. then you have a stack of pressed books in the non-pressed category and visa versa...

 

Right back to square one. Except that now the owner of a non pressed book owns a pressed book but does not know it.

 

There is likely not going to be a way to detect pressed books with certainty. There is likely not going to remain a chain of disclosure through the histroy of most books available.

 

That is quite an eye opener of a post, TB.

 

 

 

R.

I disagree. Is it in the near future? doubtful. 35+ years from now? probable.

[MrBedrock]

35+ years from now? probable.

Wishful thinking.

[COI]

No.

 

Full disclosure would mean an end to these b**ch-tastic threads. We can't have that.

[tb]

r1970d:

 

Thanks for taking the time to support a controversial opinion. I am actually very busy with work myself but think this is an important angle that has been overlooked.

 

> Now you open the door to an entire new game: Buying pressed books, cracking them and reselling them as unpressed books to purists who won't buy pressed books.

 

Exactly. In my example, everyone was honest except person "C". He was the least deserving person to make a profit, yet he was the only one who did.

 

The logical conclusion of this argument is even more controversial: If you answer "yes" or "no" to the question whether or not a book has been pressed, you are actually inadvertently supporting person "C". By answering "I decline to answer" you move the advantage to person "A", which in my mind is the more appropriate thing to do. The same holds when buying: the most appropriate action is simply not to ask the question.

 

It is true that the argument falls apart if someone were to invent a way to detect pressing. In the meantime, there will be a gaping, profitable hole for every dishonest person "C" in America to exploit. You can make a strong case that NOD, or anyone else who discloses pressing, is doing a disfavor to the original owner, "A".

 

[MCMiles]

r1970d:

 

Thanks for taking the time to support a controversial opinion. I am actually very busy with work myself but think this is an important angle that has been overlooked.

 

> Now you open the door to an entire new game: Buying pressed books, cracking them and reselling them as unpressed books to purists who won't buy pressed books.

 

Exactly. In my example, everyone was honest except person "C". He was the least deserving person to make a profit, yet he was the only one who did.

 

The logical conclusion of this argument is even more controversial: If you answer "yes" or "no" to the question whether or not a book has been pressed, you are actually inadvertently supporting person "C". By answering "I decline to answer" you move the advantage to person "A", which in my mind is the more appropriate thing to do. The same holds when buying: the most appropriate action is simply not to ask the question.

 

It is true that the argument falls apart if someone were to invent a way to detect pressing. In the meantime, there will be a gaping, profitable hole for every dishonest person "C" in America to exploit. You can make a strong case that NOD, or anyone else who discloses pressing, is doing a disfavor to the original owner, "A".

 

I'm of the opinion that pressed books are part of the hobby and if you don't like pressed books then you better learn to deal with it for all of the reasons that r1970d mentioned. Basicly proliferation of unknown pressed books in to the market.

 

The counter argument here is this. Person A may be more deserving to benefit, but it doesn't make it any more right to not disclose in the eyes of people that want proactive disclosure, and I agree, but I don't consider the selling of pressed books with out proactive disclosure "unethical". To steal a term from you (tb) used in the "fries with that" thread. It is with in the "established standard" currently active in the hobby. There is a fine line there for me though. I belive not offering disclosure when asked is crossing that line.

[360degrees]

If pressing doesn't change the value of the book then who cares.... i voted NO just because it's not that big of a deal.

[Sardo Numspar]

If pressing doesn't change the value of the book then who cares.... i voted NO just because it's not that big of a deal.

 

Recent examples have demonstrated that pressing of certain books has increased resale values by significant numbers.

 

There is an inherent inconsistency between the two polls. It is interesting that the majority of people "assert" pressing is not restoration, and yet a majority believe it should be disclosed. If a person truly believed pressing is not resto, then wouldn't that person be able to come right out and say no disclosure is necessary? I dont see many people saying this.

 

Question: Are there any people on this Board who will admit that they will send a book in to a professional to be pressed (or perform the process themself) to improve the condition of a comic, and then turn around and sell the book to someone and intentionally not disclose the pressing (because you really believe pressing is not restoration)? If you respond that you will do this then it can truly be said that you do not believe pressing is restoration. I of course will never buy a book from you, but at least it can't be said that you are not intellectually honest in your opinion.

[Old Fashion PB and J]

If pressing doesn't change the value of the book then who cares.... i voted NO just because it's not that big of a deal.

 

Recent examples have demonstrated that pressing of certain books has increased resale values by significant numbers.

 

There is an inherent inconsistency between the two polls. Ir is interesting that the majority of people "assert" pressing is not restoration, and yet a majority believe it should be disclosed. If a person truly believed pressing is not resto, then wouldn't that person be able to come right out and say no disclosure is necessary? I dont see many people saying this.

 

Question: Are there any people on this Board who will admit that they will send a book in to a professional to be pressed (or perform the process themself) to improve the condition of a comic, and then turn around and sell the book to someone and intentionally not disclose the pressing (because you really believe pressing is not restoration)? If you respond that you will do this then it can truly be said that you do not believe pressing is restoration. I of course will never buy a book from you, but at least it can't be said that you are not intellectually honest in your opinion.

 

 

Fire !!

 

I believe in disclosure of work. I also dont consider pressing restoration, but it is.. My whole mindset is it isnt in league with CT,tear seals, etc.. So it doesnt have the PLOD grade restoration, but in the end the books been worked on. And since the book has been worked on, disclosure is necessary.

[MR.COMICBOOK]

yes. so we can sleep with a good conscience.

[The Black Hand ®]

Of course pressing is restoration. The book is being tweaked to it's former glory. It's the negative connotation that resto has that has groups like cgc changing the definition to suit an evolving business model.

[burntboy]

Of course pressing is restoration. The book is being tweaked to it's former glory. It's the negative connotation that resto has that has groups like cgc changing the definition to suit an evolving business model.

 

I'd like Black Hand to respond to this if he has a mind to; (and i am NOT trying to confuse the issue, as i'm serious)

 

If someone uses their fingernail to remove a NCB crease on the corner of a book (as has been demonstrated successfully on these very boards), is that restoration???

 

If someone uses just their hands (and the slight heat inherent in that procedure) to undo a wave in a cover, is that restoration???

 

If someone removes some chocolate sauce from a cover by using a letter opener to flick it off, is that restoration???

 

If someone uses a soft eraser or wonder bread to remove some dirt/ink transfer from a book, is that restoration???

 

In my 5 years experience on these boards, the typical response from most boardies would be NO...yet the books have been "Tweaked" with the express intention of returning them closer to their original state.

 

SO just who gets to decide that pressing is resto and the rest are not??? Who gets to draw that line???

 

Thank you in advance for a considered response...

 

 

 

 

[joe_collector]

yet the books have been "Tweaked" with the express intention of returning them closer to their original state.

 

But opening a book would be restoration, as would looking it, or exposing it to sunlight or wind, as those would subtly alter the physical structure of the book - which makes the whole argument stupid.

 

I think once something foreign and mechanical is brought into the equation, that would not normally exist next to a comic, such as say... a comic book press, a laser trimmer or micro-ink jet... that kinda changes things considerably.

[The Black Hand ®]

Of course pressing is restoration. The book is being tweaked to it's former glory. It's the negative connotation that resto has that has groups like cgc changing the definition to suit an evolving business model.

 

I'd like Black Hand to respond to this if he has a mind to; (and i am NOT trying to confuse the issue, as i'm serious)

 

If someone uses their fingernail to remove a NCB crease on the corner of a book (as has been demonstrated successfully on these very boards), is that restoration???

 

If someone uses just their hands (and the slight heat inherent in that procedure) to undo a wave in a cover, is that restoration???

 

If someone removes some chocolate sauce from a cover by using a letter opener to flick it off, is that restoration???

 

If someone uses a soft eraser or wonder bread to remove some dirt/ink transfer from a book, is that restoration???

 

In my 5 years experience on these boards, the typical response from most boardies would be NO...yet the books have been "Tweaked" with the express intention of returning them closer to their original state.

 

SO just who gets to decide that pressing is resto and the rest are not??? Who gets to draw that line???

 

Thank you in advance for a considered response...

 

 

 

 

What do these questions have to do with disclosure of pressing?

[gaz973]

Of course pressing is restoration. The book is being tweaked to it's former glory. It's the negative connotation that resto has that has groups like cgc changing the definition to suit an evolving business model.

 

I'd like Black Hand to respond to this if he has a mind to; (and i am NOT trying to confuse the issue, as i'm serious)

 

If someone uses their fingernail to remove a NCB crease on the corner of a book (as has been demonstrated successfully on these very boards), is that restoration???

 

If someone uses just their hands (and the slight heat inherent in that procedure) to undo a wave in a cover, is that restoration???

 

If someone removes some chocolate sauce from a cover by using a letter opener to flick it off, is that restoration???

 

If someone uses a soft eraser or wonder bread to remove some dirt/ink transfer from a book, is that restoration???

 

In my 5 years experience on these boards, the typical response from most boardies would be NO...yet the books have been "Tweaked" with the express intention of returning them closer to their original state.

 

SO just who gets to decide that pressing is resto and the rest are not??? Who gets to draw that line???

 

Thank you in advance for a considered response...

 

 

 

 

 

The slight heat from a hand is like the slight heat from a hand while being read. The level of contact from rubbing off a stain is on a par with the level of contact from general handling. This sort of thing is not resto in my book.

When you talk about the level of pressore and heat from pressing books, then you are talking about conditions that the book would never normally be exposed to.

 

 

 

[snitzer]

I'm for full disclosure of restoration and tweaking. Damn tweakers - where's Dawg when you need 'em?