POLL: Do you care if a comic has been pressed?

[oakman29]

So Mint...........What is the definition of restoration? Bringing something to a better state of preservation? then by that definition pressing IS restoration.Albeit minor,but a form of restoration never the less.

[mintcollector]

So Mint...........What is the definition of restoration? Bringing something to a better state of preservation? then by that definition pressing IS restoration.Albeit minor,but a form of restoration never the less.

 

No, that would be conservation, in my opinion. The true definition of restoration, as dictated by the vast majority of those operating in the antiques and collectibles business (to my knowledge) is when something is added or taken away from the item in question. This is a physical form of matter. Returning a comic book to it's original state through means that can occur in it's natural environment will never be considered restoration to me. As previosly stated, both the Overstreet Price Guide and CGC also agree.

 

Not to rehash an old argument, but overal anti-pressing logic would seem to suggest that if by some chance forty years ago I left a stack of comic books under a stack of books (or other weight) in my attic, these comic books should now be considered restored. I fully disagree. By this same logic a toned coin should be considered damaged in my opinion. Ironically, for some reason I cannot explain, even toning that appears to look unnatural is sometimes desired. Now in the interest of a full disclosure, as a coin collector, I like natural coins, NOT toned coins. I especially hate crusty looking coins or rainbow toned coins. Logic dictates the surface of tne coin has been damaged. Yet a lot of my fellow collectors disagree.

 

It is worth mentioning that most collectors and dealers who are not bothered by pressing do not make a spectacle about it. It is usually those who take issue with something that are much more vocal. This is why sometimes results of polls on dedicated collecting forums are generally skewed. The most diehard collectors within that realm are the most vocal and beyond that, those who do not generally agree with the consensus are sometimes ostracized. Outside of these forums a lot of collectors are not troubled with pressing, especially when the true definition is explained. Some always will be. Taking a stance one way or another is the true problem. This is why I take issue when someone says it is restoration, case closed. Even though both Overstreet, CGC, and the tons of emails i received that are pro-pressing; or at the very least do not co sider it restoration, I still acknoledge there is an opposite view. My statements are opinions based on years of collecting experience. Keep in mind however, my primary interests do not revolve soley around comic books. I cross-collect and did not really start collecting comic books seriously until 2008+. Does this make my view any less important? Some would say due to my broader experience with other collecting fields my opinion is much more unbiased. Others would say, who cares. Is placing antique bottles in the sun so they change to color to a much more uncommon shade, restoration? I assure you, the answer is more complex than it seems. However, if you have no interest in antique bottles the question becomes mute. I recently paid a very large sum for a rare antique bottle. Does this mean my opinion on the subject is more important than someone else's? Is it fair to say my answer is final? Now what if I told you that when certain bottles were made, disposed of, stored, (etc.); high amounts of light and heat (etc.) were sometimes involved, thus capable of changing the shade of these bottles? Does this change your (or anyone's) original opinion as to whether this kind of 'color changing' is considered restoration, conservation...or neither? In bottle collecting terms, 'attic mint' is usually anything but. There are many more examples, but I already get criticized for writing long threads.

 

In conclusion, I see no issue with the purchase of Classics Incorporated by CGC, as NCS has been a very good business decision by the same parent company of CGC and accents NGC quite well. Let's just hope they get an equal sub-forum, much like NCS is a sub-form on the coin side of this very forum.

 

While I respect all views, I just don't think one can say with certainty that it is restoration. That is my point.

 

Respectfully yours,

 

'mint'

 

 

 

 

[batman_fan]

So Mint...........What is the definition of restoration? Bringing something to a better state of preservation? then by that definition pressing IS restoration.Albeit minor,but a form of restoration never the less.

 

No, that would be conservation, in my opinion. The true definition of restoration, as dictated by the vast majority of those operating in the antiques and collectibles business (to my knowledge) is when something is added or taken away from the item in question. This is a physical form of matter. Returning a comic book to it's original state through means that can occur in it's natural environment will never be considered restoration to me. As previosly stated, both the Overstreet Price Guide and CGC also agree.

 

Not to rehash an old argument, but overal anti-pressing logic would seem to suggest that if by some chance forty years ago I left a stack of comic books under a stack of books (or other weight) in my attic, these comic books should now be considered restored. I fully disagree. By this same logic a toned coin should be considered damaged in my opinion. Ironically, for some reason I cannot explain, even toning that appears to look unnatural is sometimes desired. Now in the interest of a full disclosure, as a coin collector, I like natural coins, NOT toned coins. I especially hate crusty looking coins or rainbow toned coins. Logic dictates the surface of tne coin has been damaged. Yet a lot of my fellow collectors disagree.

 

It is worth mentioning that most collectors and dealers who are not bothered by pressing do not make a spectacle about it. It is usually those who take issue with something that are much more vocal. This is why sometimes results of polls on dedicated collecting forums are generally skewed. The most diehard collectors within that realm are the most vocal and beyond that, those who do not generally agree with the consensus are sometimes ostracized. Outside of these forums a lot of collectors are not troubled with pressing, especially when the true definition is explained. Some always will be. Taking a stance one way or another is the true problem. This is why I take issue when someone says it is restoration, case closed. Even though both Overstreet, CGC, and the tons of emails i received that are pro-pressing; or at the very least do not co sider it restoration, I still acknoledge there is an opposite view. My statements are opinions based on years of collecting experience. Keep in mind however, my primary interests do not revolve soley around comic books. I cross-collect and did not really start collecting comic books seriously until 2008+. Does this make my view any less important? Some would say due to my broader experience with other collecting fields my opinion is much more unbiased. Others would say, who cares. Is placing antique bottles in the sun so they change to color to a much more uncommon shade, restoration? I assure you, the answer is more complex than it seems. However, if you have no interest in antique bottles the question becomes mute. I recently paid a very large sum for a rare antique bottle. Does this mean my opinion on the subject is more important than someone else's? Is it fair to say my answer is final? Now what if I told you that when certain bottles were made, disposed of, stored, (etc.); high amounts of light and heat (etc.) were sometimes involved, thus capable of changing the shade of these bottles? Does this change your (or anyone's) original opinion as to whether this kind of 'color changing' is considered restoration, conservation...or neither? In bottle collecting terms, 'attic mint' is usually anything but. There are many more examples, but I already get criticized for writing long threads.

 

In conclusion, I see no issue with the purchase of Classics Incorporated by CGC, as NCS has been a very good business decision by the same parent company of CGC and accents NGC quite well. Let's just hope they get an equal sub-forum, much like NCS is a sub-form on the coin side of this very forum.

 

While I respect all views, I just don't think one can say with certainty that it is restoration. That is my point.

 

Respectfully yours,

 

'mint'

 

 

 

 

its restoration, move on

[oakman29]

So Mint...........What is the definition of restoration? Bringing something to a better state of preservation? then by that definition pressing IS restoration.Albeit minor,but a form of restoration never the less.

 

No, that would be conservation, in my opinion. The true definition of restoration, as dictated by the vast majority of those operating in the antiques and collectibles business (to my knowledge) is when something is added or taken away from the item in question. This is a physical form of matter. Returning a comic book to it's original state through means that can occur in it's natural environment will never be considered restoration to me. As previosly stated, both the Overstreet Price Guide and CGC also agree.

 

Not to rehash an old argument, but overal anti-pressing logic would seem to suggest that if by some chance forty years ago I left a stack of comic books under a stack of books (or other weight) in my attic, these comic books should now be considered restored. I fully disagree. By this same logic a toned coin should be considered damaged in my opinion. Ironically, for some reason I cannot explain, even toning that appears to look unnatural is sometimes desired. Now in the interest of a full disclosure, as a coin collector, I like natural coins, NOT toned coins. I especially hate crusty looking coins or rainbow toned coins. Logic dictates the surface of tne coin has been damaged. Yet a lot of my fellow collectors disagree.

 

It is worth mentioning that most collectors and dealers who are not bothered by pressing do not make a spectacle about it. It is usually those who take issue with something that are much more vocal. This is why sometimes results of polls on dedicated collecting forums are generally skewed. The most diehard collectors within that realm are the most vocal and beyond that, those who do not generally agree with the consensus are sometimes ostracized. Outside of these forums a lot of collectors are not troubled with pressing, especially when the true definition is explained. Some always will be. Taking a stance one way or another is the true problem. This is why I take issue when someone says it is restoration, case closed. Even though both Overstreet, CGC, and the tons of emails i received that are pro-pressing; or at the very least do not co sider it restoration, I still acknoledge there is an opposite view. My statements are opinions based on years of collecting experience. Keep in mind however, my primary interests do not revolve soley around comic books. I cross-collect and did not really start collecting comic books seriously until 2008+. Does this make my view any less important? Some would say due to my broader experience with other collecting fields my opinion is much more unbiased. Others would say, who cares. Is placing antique bottles in the sun so they change to color to a much more uncommon shade, restoration? I assure you, the answer is more complex than it seems. However, if you have no interest in antique bottles the question becomes mute. I recently paid a very large sum for a rare antique bottle. Does this mean my opinion on the subject is more important than someone else's? Is it fair to say my answer is final? Now what if I told you that when certain bottles were made, disposed of, stored, (etc.); high amounts of light and heat (etc.) were sometimes involved, thus capable of changing the shade of these bottles? Does this change your (or anyone's) original opinion as to whether this kind of 'color changing' is considered restoration, conservation...or neither? In bottle collecting terms, 'attic mint' is usually anything but. There are many more examples, but I already get criticized for writing long threads.

 

In conclusion, I see no issue with the purchase of Classics Incorporated by CGC, as NCS has been a very good business decision by the same parent company of CGC and accents NGC quite well. Let's just hope they get an equal sub-forum, much like NCS is a sub-form on the coin side of this very forum.

 

While I respect all views, I just don't think one can say with certainty that it is restoration. That is my point.

 

Respectfully yours,

 

'mint'

 

 

 

I stopped reading at "in my opinion".

[Kevin.J]

So Mint...........What is the definition of restoration? Bringing something to a better state of preservation? then by that definition pressing IS restoration.Albeit minor,but a form of restoration never the less.

 

No, that would be conservation, in my opinion. The true definition of restoration, as dictated by the vast majority of those operating in the antiques and collectibles business (to my knowledge) is when something is added or taken away from the item in question. This is a physical form of matter. Returning a comic book to it's original state through means that can occur in it's natural environment will never be considered restoration to me. As previosly stated, both the Overstreet Price Guide and CGC also agree.

 

Not to rehash an old argument, but overal anti-pressing logic would seem to suggest that if by some chance forty years ago I left a stack of comic books under a stack of books (or other weight) in my attic, these comic books should now be considered restored. I fully disagree. By this same logic a toned coin should be considered damaged in my opinion. Ironically, for some reason I cannot explain, even toning that appears to look unnatural is sometimes desired. Now in the interest of a full disclosure, as a coin collector, I like natural coins, NOT toned coins. I especially hate crusty looking coins or rainbow toned coins. Logic dictates the surface of tne coin has been damaged. Yet a lot of my fellow collectors disagree.

 

It is worth mentioning that most collectors and dealers who are not bothered by pressing do not make a spectacle about it. It is usually those who take issue with something that are much more vocal. This is why sometimes results of polls on dedicated collecting forums are generally skewed. The most diehard collectors within that realm are the most vocal and beyond that, those who do not generally agree with the consensus are sometimes ostracized. Outside of these forums a lot of collectors are not troubled with pressing, especially when the true definition is explained. Some always will be. Taking a stance one way or another is the true problem. This is why I take issue when someone says it is restoration, case closed. Even though both Overstreet, CGC, and the tons of emails i received that are pro-pressing; or at the very least do not co sider it restoration, I still acknoledge there is an opposite view. My statements are opinions based on years of collecting experience. Keep in mind however, my primary interests do not revolve soley around comic books. I cross-collect and did not really start collecting comic books seriously until 2008+. Does this make my view any less important? Some would say due to my broader experience with other collecting fields my opinion is much more unbiased. Others would say, who cares. Is placing antique bottles in the sun so they change to color to a much more uncommon shade, restoration? I assure you, the answer is more complex than it seems. However, if you have no interest in antique bottles the question becomes mute. I recently paid a very large sum for a rare antique bottle. Does this mean my opinion on the subject is more important than someone else's? Is it fair to say my answer is final? Now what if I told you that when certain bottles were made, disposed of, stored, (etc.); high amounts of light and heat (etc.) were sometimes involved, thus capable of changing the shade of these bottles? Does this change your (or anyone's) original opinion as to whether this kind of 'color changing' is considered restoration, conservation...or neither? In bottle collecting terms, 'attic mint' is usually anything but. There are many more examples, but I already get criticized for writing long threads.

 

In conclusion, I see no issue with the purchase of Classics Incorporated by CGC, as NCS has been a very good business decision by the same parent company of CGC and accents NGC quite well. Let's just hope they get an equal sub-forum, much like NCS is a sub-form on the coin side of this very forum.

 

While I respect all views, I just don't think one can say with certainty that it is restoration. That is my point.

 

Respectfully yours,

 

'mint'

 

 

 

I stopped reading at "in my opinion".

 

[mintcollector]

So Mint...........What is the definition of restoration? Bringing something to a better state of preservation? then by that definition pressing IS restoration.Albeit minor,but a form of restoration never the less.

 

No, that would be conservation, in my opinion. The true definition of restoration, as dictated by the vast majority of those operating in the antiques and collectibles business (to my knowledge) is when something is added or taken away from the item in question. This is a physical form of matter. Returning a comic book to it's original state through means that can occur in it's natural environment will never be considered restoration to me. As previosly stated, both the Overstreet Price Guide and CGC also agree.

 

Not to rehash an old argument, but overal anti-pressing logic would seem to suggest that if by some chance forty years ago I left a stack of comic books under a stack of books (or other weight) in my attic, these comic books should now be considered restored. I fully disagree. By this same logic a toned coin should be considered damaged in my opinion. Ironically, for some reason I cannot explain, even toning that appears to look unnatural is sometimes desired. Now in the interest of a full disclosure, as a coin collector, I like natural coins, NOT toned coins. I especially hate crusty looking coins or rainbow toned coins. Logic dictates the surface of tne coin has been damaged. Yet a lot of my fellow collectors disagree.

 

It is worth mentioning that most collectors and dealers who are not bothered by pressing do not make a spectacle about it. It is usually those who take issue with something that are much more vocal. This is why sometimes results of polls on dedicated collecting forums are generally skewed. The most diehard collectors within that realm are the most vocal and beyond that, those who do not generally agree with the consensus are sometimes ostracized. Outside of these forums a lot of collectors are not troubled with pressing, especially when the true definition is explained. Some always will be. Taking a stance one way or another is the true problem. This is why I take issue when someone says it is restoration, case closed. Even though both Overstreet, CGC, and the tons of emails i received that are pro-pressing; or at the very least do not co sider it restoration, I still acknoledge there is an opposite view. My statements are opinions based on years of collecting experience. Keep in mind however, my primary interests do not revolve soley around comic books. I cross-collect and did not really start collecting comic books seriously until 2008+. Does this make my view any less important? Some would say due to my broader experience with other collecting fields my opinion is much more unbiased. Others would say, who cares. Is placing antique bottles in the sun so they change to color to a much more uncommon shade, restoration? I assure you, the answer is more complex than it seems. However, if you have no interest in antique bottles the question becomes mute. I recently paid a very large sum for a rare antique bottle. Does this mean my opinion on the subject is more important than someone else's? Is it fair to say my answer is final? Now what if I told you that when certain bottles were made, disposed of, stored, (etc.); high amounts of light and heat (etc.) were sometimes involved, thus capable of changing the shade of these bottles? Does this change your (or anyone's) original opinion as to whether this kind of 'color changing' is considered restoration, conservation...or neither? In bottle collecting terms, 'attic mint' is usually anything but. There are many more examples, but I already get criticized for writing long threads.

 

In conclusion, I see no issue with the purchase of Classics Incorporated by CGC, as NCS has been a very good business decision by the same parent company of CGC and accents NGC quite well. Let's just hope they get an equal sub-forum, much like NCS is a sub-form on the coin side of this very forum.

 

While I respect all views, I just don't think one can say with certainty that it is restoration. That is my point.

 

Respectfully yours,

 

'mint'

 

 

 

I stopped reading at "in my opinion".

 

Oakman, by logic, calling 'pressing' restoration would be YOUR OPINION. Have you read how the Overstreet price Guide and CGC BOTH define 'pressing?' What about restoration as it relates to comic books? Would you like me to quote from CURRENT stated fact by both parties? Stating that you do not consider it valid because I am expressing an opinion is not a legimate argument in this case because every basis in which we rely on to judge how 'pressing' is deemed (i.e. CGC, Overstreet) considers it NOT to be restoration. By using the term 'my opinion' I am attempting to acknowledge that I have no correct answer in the matter, when ironically; with BOTH Overstreet and CGC agreeing with me it should be those who consider it restoration to have to prove why it in fact IS.

 

Keep in mind we are on a CGC owned and operated forum. They must have some clout (financial interest withstanding) in determining how collectors define this. Otherwise, why would we put our trust and faith in their product? The Overstreet Guide. Are we now stating we only use the guide for pricing information that is already obsolete once the book hits the market? My point is that common logic dicates that it is NOT restoration and due to these basic facts one who states it is should have very convincing documentation.

 

I am seriously trying to understand why one would consider it as such. This is not meant to be (even though it probably has become) another pressing thread. If this is how the forum views this (all those who actually read this section and are not sick of this topic); then I sincerely do apologize.

 

Kind Regards,

 

'mint'

[batman_fan]

So Mint...........What is the definition of restoration? Bringing something to a better state of preservation? then by that definition pressing IS restoration.Albeit minor,but a form of restoration never the less.

 

No, that would be conservation, in my opinion. The true definition of restoration, as dictated by the vast majority of those operating in the antiques and collectibles business (to my knowledge) is when something is added or taken away from the item in question. This is a physical form of matter. Returning a comic book to it's original state through means that can occur in it's natural environment will never be considered restoration to me. As previosly stated, both the Overstreet Price Guide and CGC also agree.

 

Not to rehash an old argument, but overal anti-pressing logic would seem to suggest that if by some chance forty years ago I left a stack of comic books under a stack of books (or other weight) in my attic, these comic books should now be considered restored. I fully disagree. By this same logic a toned coin should be considered damaged in my opinion. Ironically, for some reason I cannot explain, even toning that appears to look unnatural is sometimes desired. Now in the interest of a full disclosure, as a coin collector, I like natural coins, NOT toned coins. I especially hate crusty looking coins or rainbow toned coins. Logic dictates the surface of tne coin has been damaged. Yet a lot of my fellow collectors disagree.

 

It is worth mentioning that most collectors and dealers who are not bothered by pressing do not make a spectacle about it. It is usually those who take issue with something that are much more vocal. This is why sometimes results of polls on dedicated collecting forums are generally skewed. The most diehard collectors within that realm are the most vocal and beyond that, those who do not generally agree with the consensus are sometimes ostracized. Outside of these forums a lot of collectors are not troubled with pressing, especially when the true definition is explained. Some always will be. Taking a stance one way or another is the true problem. This is why I take issue when someone says it is restoration, case closed. Even though both Overstreet, CGC, and the tons of emails i received that are pro-pressing; or at the very least do not co sider it restoration, I still acknoledge there is an opposite view. My statements are opinions based on years of collecting experience. Keep in mind however, my primary interests do not revolve soley around comic books. I cross-collect and did not really start collecting comic books seriously until 2008+. Does this make my view any less important? Some would say due to my broader experience with other collecting fields my opinion is much more unbiased. Others would say, who cares. Is placing antique bottles in the sun so they change to color to a much more uncommon shade, restoration? I assure you, the answer is more complex than it seems. However, if you have no interest in antique bottles the question becomes mute. I recently paid a very large sum for a rare antique bottle. Does this mean my opinion on the subject is more important than someone else's? Is it fair to say my answer is final? Now what if I told you that when certain bottles were made, disposed of, stored, (etc.); high amounts of light and heat (etc.) were sometimes involved, thus capable of changing the shade of these bottles? Does this change your (or anyone's) original opinion as to whether this kind of 'color changing' is considered restoration, conservation...or neither? In bottle collecting terms, 'attic mint' is usually anything but. There are many more examples, but I already get criticized for writing long threads.

 

In conclusion, I see no issue with the purchase of Classics Incorporated by CGC, as NCS has been a very good business decision by the same parent company of CGC and accents NGC quite well. Let's just hope they get an equal sub-forum, much like NCS is a sub-form on the coin side of this very forum.

 

While I respect all views, I just don't think one can say with certainty that it is restoration. That is my point.

 

Respectfully yours,

 

'mint'

 

 

 

I stopped reading at "in my opinion".

 

Oakman, by logic, calling 'pressing' restoration would be YOUR OPINION. Have you read how the Overstreet price Guide and CGC BOTH define 'pressing?' What about restoration as it relates to comic books? Would you like me to quote from CURRENT stated fact by both parties? Stating that you do not consider it valid because I am expressing an opinion is not a legimate argument in this case because every basis in which we rely on to judge how 'pressing' is deemed (i.e. CGC, Overstreet) considers it NOT to be restoration. By using the term 'my opinion' I am attempting to acknowledge that I have no correct answer in the matter, when ironically; with BOTH Overstreet and CGC agreeing with me it should be those who consider it restoration to have to prove why it in fact IS.

 

Keep in mind we are on a CGC owned and operated forum. They must have some clout (financial interest withstanding) in determining how collectors define this. Otherwise, why would we put our trust and faith in their product? The Overstreet Guide. Are we now stating we only use the guide for pricing information that is already obsolete once the book hits the market? My point is that common logic dicates that it is NOT restoration and due to these basic facts one who states it is should have very convincing documentation.

 

I am seriously trying to understand why one would consider it as such. This is not meant to be (even though it probably has become) another pressing thread. If this is how the forum views this (all those who actually read this section and are not sick of this topic); then I sincerely do apologize.

 

Kind Regards,

 

'mint'

 

You are "restoring the book to its original state". What would you call it? Preservation?

[rtecbot]

Preservation is if you could press the book back into a tree.

[mintcollector]

So Mint...........What is the definition of restoration? Bringing something to a better state of preservation? then by that definition pressing IS restoration.Albeit minor,but a form of restoration never the less.

 

No, that would be conservation, in my opinion. The true definition of restoration, as dictated by the vast majority of those operating in the antiques and collectibles business (to my knowledge) is when something is added or taken away from the item in question. This is a physical form of matter. Returning a comic book to it's original state through means that can occur in it's natural environment will never be considered restoration to me. As previosly stated, both the Overstreet Price Guide and CGC also agree.

 

Not to rehash an old argument, but overal anti-pressing logic would seem to suggest that if by some chance forty years ago I left a stack of comic books under a stack of books (or other weight) in my attic, these comic books should now be considered restored. I fully disagree. By this same logic a toned coin should be considered damaged in my opinion. Ironically, for some reason I cannot explain, even toning that appears to look unnatural is sometimes desired. Now in the interest of a full disclosure, as a coin collector, I like natural coins, NOT toned coins. I especially hate crusty looking coins or rainbow toned coins. Logic dictates the surface of tne coin has been damaged. Yet a lot of my fellow collectors disagree.

 

It is worth mentioning that most collectors and dealers who are not bothered by pressing do not make a spectacle about it. It is usually those who take issue with something that are much more vocal. This is why sometimes results of polls on dedicated collecting forums are generally skewed. The most diehard collectors within that realm are the most vocal and beyond that, those who do not generally agree with the consensus are sometimes ostracized. Outside of these forums a lot of collectors are not troubled with pressing, especially when the true definition is explained. Some always will be. Taking a stance one way or another is the true problem. This is why I take issue when someone says it is restoration, case closed. Even though both Overstreet, CGC, and the tons of emails i received that are pro-pressing; or at the very least do not co sider it restoration, I still acknoledge there is an opposite view. My statements are opinions based on years of collecting experience. Keep in mind however, my primary interests do not revolve soley around comic books. I cross-collect and did not really start collecting comic books seriously until 2008+. Does this make my view any less important? Some would say due to my broader experience with other collecting fields my opinion is much more unbiased. Others would say, who cares. Is placing antique bottles in the sun so they change to color to a much more uncommon shade, restoration? I assure you, the answer is more complex than it seems. However, if you have no interest in antique bottles the question becomes mute. I recently paid a very large sum for a rare antique bottle. Does this mean my opinion on the subject is more important than someone else's? Is it fair to say my answer is final? Now what if I told you that when certain bottles were made, disposed of, stored, (etc.); high amounts of light and heat (etc.) were sometimes involved, thus capable of changing the shade of these bottles? Does this change your (or anyone's) original opinion as to whether this kind of 'color changing' is considered restoration, conservation...or neither? In bottle collecting terms, 'attic mint' is usually anything but. There are many more examples, but I already get criticized for writing long threads.

 

In conclusion, I see no issue with the purchase of Classics Incorporated by CGC, as NCS has been a very good business decision by the same parent company of CGC and accents NGC quite well. Let's just hope they get an equal sub-forum, much like NCS is a sub-form on the coin side of this very forum.

 

While I respect all views, I just don't think one can say with certainty that it is restoration. That is my point.

 

Respectfully yours,

 

'mint'

 

 

 

I stopped reading at "in my opinion".

 

Oakman, by logic, calling 'pressing' restoration would be YOUR OPINION. Have you read how the Overstreet price Guide and CGC BOTH define 'pressing?' What about restoration as it relates to comic books? Would you like me to quote from CURRENT stated fact by both parties? Stating that you do not consider it valid because I am expressing an opinion is not a legimate argument in this case because every basis in which we rely on to judge how 'pressing' is deemed (i.e. CGC, Overstreet) considers it NOT to be restoration. By using the term 'my opinion' I am attempting to acknowledge that I have no correct answer in the matter, when ironically; with BOTH Overstreet and CGC agreeing with me it should be those who consider it restoration to have to prove why it in fact IS.

 

Keep in mind we are on a CGC owned and operated forum. They must have some clout (financial interest withstanding) in determining how collectors define this. Otherwise, why would we put our trust and faith in their product? The Overstreet Guide. Are we now stating we only use the guide for pricing information that is already obsolete once the book hits the market? My point is that common logic dicates that it is NOT restoration and due to these basic facts one who states it is should have very convincing documentation.

 

I am seriously trying to understand why one would consider it as such. This is not meant to be (even though it probably has become) another pressing thread. If this is how the forum views this (all those who actually read this section and are not sick of this topic); then I sincerely do apologize.

 

Kind Regards,

 

'mint'

 

You are "restoring the book to its original state". What would you call it? Preservation?

 

I understand you may not have read my previous responses, but your question has already been answered in line one of my response to 'Oakman.' Conservation, being my operative answer.

 

In that same response I defined all my held positions regarding this issue and included cross-collecting examples.

 

PS: Ironically, I have a strong feeling that much like NCS (Numismatic Coin Conservation); this is how CGC will probably come to define it once the purchase of Classics Incorporated is finalized. NOTE that I am by no way attempting to speak for CGC or its affiliates (I know just as much as 'you'; 'you' being a general term in this case). This is only an educated guess. If however, they follow the same pattern of NCS and NGC; we may get a sub-forum devoted to it though. This can only bring about positive debate and discussion...hopefully.

 

Kind Regards,

 

'mint'

[batman_fan]

So Mint...........What is the definition of restoration? Bringing something to a better state of preservation? then by that definition pressing IS restoration.Albeit minor,but a form of restoration never the less.

 

No, that would be conservation, in my opinion. The true definition of restoration, as dictated by the vast majority of those operating in the antiques and collectibles business (to my knowledge) is when something is added or taken away from the item in question. This is a physical form of matter. Returning a comic book to it's original state through means that can occur in it's natural environment will never be considered restoration to me. As previosly stated, both the Overstreet Price Guide and CGC also agree.

 

Not to rehash an old argument, but overal anti-pressing logic would seem to suggest that if by some chance forty years ago I left a stack of comic books under a stack of books (or other weight) in my attic, these comic books should now be considered restored. I fully disagree. By this same logic a toned coin should be considered damaged in my opinion. Ironically, for some reason I cannot explain, even toning that appears to look unnatural is sometimes desired. Now in the interest of a full disclosure, as a coin collector, I like natural coins, NOT toned coins. I especially hate crusty looking coins or rainbow toned coins. Logic dictates the surface of tne coin has been damaged. Yet a lot of my fellow collectors disagree.

 

It is worth mentioning that most collectors and dealers who are not bothered by pressing do not make a spectacle about it. It is usually those who take issue with something that are much more vocal. This is why sometimes results of polls on dedicated collecting forums are generally skewed. The most diehard collectors within that realm are the most vocal and beyond that, those who do not generally agree with the consensus are sometimes ostracized. Outside of these forums a lot of collectors are not troubled with pressing, especially when the true definition is explained. Some always will be. Taking a stance one way or another is the true problem. This is why I take issue when someone says it is restoration, case closed. Even though both Overstreet, CGC, and the tons of emails i received that are pro-pressing; or at the very least do not co sider it restoration, I still acknoledge there is an opposite view. My statements are opinions based on years of collecting experience. Keep in mind however, my primary interests do not revolve soley around comic books. I cross-collect and did not really start collecting comic books seriously until 2008+. Does this make my view any less important? Some would say due to my broader experience with other collecting fields my opinion is much more unbiased. Others would say, who cares. Is placing antique bottles in the sun so they change to color to a much more uncommon shade, restoration? I assure you, the answer is more complex than it seems. However, if you have no interest in antique bottles the question becomes mute. I recently paid a very large sum for a rare antique bottle. Does this mean my opinion on the subject is more important than someone else's? Is it fair to say my answer is final? Now what if I told you that when certain bottles were made, disposed of, stored, (etc.); high amounts of light and heat (etc.) were sometimes involved, thus capable of changing the shade of these bottles? Does this change your (or anyone's) original opinion as to whether this kind of 'color changing' is considered restoration, conservation...or neither? In bottle collecting terms, 'attic mint' is usually anything but. There are many more examples, but I already get criticized for writing long threads.

 

In conclusion, I see no issue with the purchase of Classics Incorporated by CGC, as NCS has been a very good business decision by the same parent company of CGC and accents NGC quite well. Let's just hope they get an equal sub-forum, much like NCS is a sub-form on the coin side of this very forum.

 

While I respect all views, I just don't think one can say with certainty that it is restoration. That is my point.

 

Respectfully yours,

 

'mint'

 

 

 

I stopped reading at "in my opinion".

 

Oakman, by logic, calling 'pressing' restoration would be YOUR OPINION. Have you read how the Overstreet price Guide and CGC BOTH define 'pressing?' What about restoration as it relates to comic books? Would you like me to quote from CURRENT stated fact by both parties? Stating that you do not consider it valid because I am expressing an opinion is not a legimate argument in this case because every basis in which we rely on to judge how 'pressing' is deemed (i.e. CGC, Overstreet) considers it NOT to be restoration. By using the term 'my opinion' I am attempting to acknowledge that I have no correct answer in the matter, when ironically; with BOTH Overstreet and CGC agreeing with me it should be those who consider it restoration to have to prove why it in fact IS.

 

Keep in mind we are on a CGC owned and operated forum. They must have some clout (financial interest withstanding) in determining how collectors define this. Otherwise, why would we put our trust and faith in their product? The Overstreet Guide. Are we now stating we only use the guide for pricing information that is already obsolete once the book hits the market? My point is that common logic dicates that it is NOT restoration and due to these basic facts one who states it is should have very convincing documentation.

 

I am seriously trying to understand why one would consider it as such. This is not meant to be (even though it probably has become) another pressing thread. If this is how the forum views this (all those who actually read this section and are not sick of this topic); then I sincerely do apologize.

 

Kind Regards,

 

'mint'

 

You are "restoring the book to its original state". What would you call it? Preservation?

 

I understand you may not have read my previous responses, but your question has already been answered in line one of my response to 'Oakman.' Conservation, being my operative answer.

 

In that same response I defined all my held positions regarding this issue and included cross-collecting examples.

 

PS: Ironically, I have a strong feeling that much like NCS (Numismatic Coin Conservation); this is how CGC will probably come to define it once the purchase of Classics Incorporated is finalized. NOTE that I am by no way attempting to speak for CGC or its affiliates (I know just as much as 'you'; 'you' being a general term in this case). This is only an educated guess. If however, they follow the same pattern of NCS and NGC; we may get a sub-forum devoted to it though. This can only bring about positive debate and discussion...hopefully.

 

Kind Regards,

 

'mint'

 

Great, so you have finally come to your senses and acknowledged that it is restoration, just as it has always been defined. (thumbs u

[oakman29]

So Mint...........What is the definition of restoration? Bringing something to a better state of preservation? then by that definition pressing IS restoration.Albeit minor,but a form of restoration never the less.

 

No, that would be conservation, in my opinion. The true definition of restoration, as dictated by the vast majority of those operating in the antiques and collectibles business (to my knowledge) is when something is added or taken away from the item in question. This is a physical form of matter. Returning a comic book to it's original state through means that can occur in it's natural environment will never be considered restoration to me. As previosly stated, both the Overstreet Price Guide and CGC also agree.

 

Not to rehash an old argument, but overal anti-pressing logic would seem to suggest that if by some chance forty years ago I left a stack of comic books under a stack of books (or other weight) in my attic, these comic books should now be considered restored. I fully disagree. By this same logic a toned coin should be considered damaged in my opinion. Ironically, for some reason I cannot explain, even toning that appears to look unnatural is sometimes desired. Now in the interest of a full disclosure, as a coin collector, I like natural coins, NOT toned coins. I especially hate crusty looking coins or rainbow toned coins. Logic dictates the surface of tne coin has been damaged. Yet a lot of my fellow collectors disagree.

 

It is worth mentioning that most collectors and dealers who are not bothered by pressing do not make a spectacle about it. It is usually those who take issue with something that are much more vocal. This is why sometimes results of polls on dedicated collecting forums are generally skewed. The most diehard collectors within that realm are the most vocal and beyond that, those who do not generally agree with the consensus are sometimes ostracized. Outside of these forums a lot of collectors are not troubled with pressing, especially when the true definition is explained. Some always will be. Taking a stance one way or another is the true problem. This is why I take issue when someone says it is restoration, case closed. Even though both Overstreet, CGC, and the tons of emails i received that are pro-pressing; or at the very least do not co sider it restoration, I still acknoledge there is an opposite view. My statements are opinions based on years of collecting experience. Keep in mind however, my primary interests do not revolve soley around comic books. I cross-collect and did not really start collecting comic books seriously until 2008+. Does this make my view any less important? Some would say due to my broader experience with other collecting fields my opinion is much more unbiased. Others would say, who cares. Is placing antique bottles in the sun so they change to color to a much more uncommon shade, restoration? I assure you, the answer is more complex than it seems. However, if you have no interest in antique bottles the question becomes mute. I recently paid a very large sum for a rare antique bottle. Does this mean my opinion on the subject is more important than someone else's? Is it fair to say my answer is final? Now what if I told you that when certain bottles were made, disposed of, stored, (etc.); high amounts of light and heat (etc.) were sometimes involved, thus capable of changing the shade of these bottles? Does this change your (or anyone's) original opinion as to whether this kind of 'color changing' is considered restoration, conservation...or neither? In bottle collecting terms, 'attic mint' is usually anything but. There are many more examples, but I already get criticized for writing long threads.

 

In conclusion, I see no issue with the purchase of Classics Incorporated by CGC, as NCS has been a very good business decision by the same parent company of CGC and accents NGC quite well. Let's just hope they get an equal sub-forum, much like NCS is a sub-form on the coin side of this very forum.

 

While I respect all views, I just don't think one can say with certainty that it is restoration. That is my point.

 

Respectfully yours,

 

'mint'

 

 

 

I stopped reading at "in my opinion".

 

Oakman, by logic, calling 'pressing' restoration would be YOUR OPINION. Have you read how the Overstreet price Guide and CGC BOTH define 'pressing?' What about restoration as it relates to comic books? Would you like me to quote from CURRENT stated fact by both parties? Stating that you do not consider it valid because I am expressing an opinion is not a legimate argument in this case because every basis in which we rely on to judge how 'pressing' is deemed (i.e. CGC, Overstreet) considers it NOT to be restoration. By using the term 'my opinion' I am attempting to acknowledge that I have no correct answer in the matter, when ironically; with BOTH Overstreet and CGC agreeing with me it should be those who consider it restoration to have to prove why it in fact IS.

 

Keep in mind we are on a CGC owned and operated forum. They must have some clout (financial interest withstanding) in determining how collectors define this. Otherwise, why would we put our trust and faith in their product? The Overstreet Guide. Are we now stating we only use the guide for pricing information that is already obsolete once the book hits the market? My point is that common logic dicates that it is NOT restoration and due to these basic facts one who states it is should have very convincing documentation.

 

I am seriously trying to understand why one would consider it as such. This is not meant to be (even though it probably has become) another pressing thread. If this is how the forum views this (all those who actually read this section and are not sick of this topic); then I sincerely do apologize.

 

Kind Regards,

 

'mint'

 

You are "restoring the book to its original state". What would you call it? Preservation?

 

I understand you may not have read my previous responses, but your question has already been answered in line one of my response to 'Oakman.' Conservation, being my operative answer.

 

In that same response I defined all my held positions regarding this issue and included cross-collecting examples.

 

PS: Ironically, I have a strong feeling that much like NCS (Numismatic Coin Conservation); this is how CGC will probably come to define it once the purchase of Classics Incorporated is finalized. NOTE that I am by no way attempting to speak for CGC or its affiliates (I know just as much as 'you'; 'you' being a general term in this case). This is only an educated guess. If however, they follow the same pattern of NCS and NGC; we may get a sub-forum devoted to it though. This can only bring about positive debate and discussion...hopefully.

 

Kind Regards,

 

'mint'

 

Great, so you have finally come to your senses and acknowledged that it is restoration, just as it has always been defined. (thumbs u

I'm a antique dealer I'm a coin collector I deal in antiquities

[Aman619]

I just wish for once someone with deep understanding of and experience in OTHER collectibles areas would appear and set us straight!!!!

 

 

btw, pressing IS restoration. always was. just isnt so much anymore according to current grading standards.

[___]

I don't care at all if a book is pressed

[Griff]

if it increases the presentability of a book I'm all for it

[Junkdrawer]

I have screws and plates in my wrist. Am I a PLOD now?

[Griff]

no you are a cyborg

[oakman29]

I have said my peace a year ago,still believe it to be true.