If pressing was detectable should it be given a blue label designation?

[RockMyAmadeus]

I say the following as someone who has never benefited financially from professional pressing to date, for whatever credibility that grants me.

 

The issue that we're dancing around is this: intent vs. end result. Means vs. ends.

 

The definition of restoration that Nerf gave is the correct one: Restoration: To bring back to or put back into a former or original state. This definition carries an implicit connotation of "improvement" and avoids the unclarity of other, less adequate definitions which focus only on "change."

 

But using that definition, you must, in the interest of total scientific honesty, include ANYTHING that is done, on purpose or by accident, the achieves that definition without qualification.

 

If it fits the definition, it is what it is, and there's no getting around it.

 

Peeling off a sticker, scraping off food, scraping off professional color touch, pressing, working out a dent with your thumb (as Ze mentioned)....all things which return an item to a former or original state (in comics, it's really "former"....it's very difficult to get back to the "original" state, but I digress.)

 

By the definition, Restoration (capital "R", the "official" kind which gets the PLOD) does NOT literally return the comic to a former or original state. It cannot, if we accept the definition at literal face value. If you re-glue the spine, that's not original. If you re-create a large chunk, that's not a former state. In its former state, the original chunk would still be there. If you color touch, that's not the former or original inks being laid down as they were at the printer.

 

Even sealing tears is not a former or original state. Formerly or originally, those tears simply didn't exist.

 

It simply makes the comic APPEAR to be in a former or original state, as much as possible. It is not actually, literally, in that former or original state.

 

Which is where we are NOW, with respect to comics and our own special brand of the word "Restoration (capital "R".) Restoration (capital "R") makes a comic APPEAR to be in a former or original state, and this is why we call the improved grades "APPARENT."

 

Voila!

 

Now...if you consider that any impact or stress to the cover of a book will weaken the molecular bonds of that paper at the point of impact/stress (which it does), then you CAN include pressing...even if it's just the small dent worked out by the thumb...as a process that APPEARS to return the book to a former or original state, but does not actually do that. Even though the dent/fold appears to be lessened or even disappears, the damage done to the molecules of paper and ink still exists. No process that I know of can reattach molecules to molecules in the exact same way that they were when they left the paper mill.

 

This is easily demonstrated by the fact that if you take a corner of a cover and bend it back and forth over and over again, eventually the molecular bonds holding the paper together at the point of stress will ALL break, first on the surface, then to the core, and finally detached.

 

Using that definition, pressing (whether intentional or accidental) does very much belong to the Restoration (capital "R") side of the argument. The damage done on a molecular level never REALLY goes away...it just APPEARS that it does.

 

But the question remains: how can you tell what's intentional pressing and what's not.....? And how can a grader possibly spend the time looking for what he/she cannot really see without benefit of some fairly sophisticated equipment....? And why should they even be expected to, unless the market were to demand it...?

 

The problem, as I said before, is intent vs. end results. It is easy to determine if a comic has been color touched. The evidence is right in front of your eyes. Intent is obvious. Same with piece replacement, wet-wash, dry-cleaning, staple replacement, any and all of the "accepted as Restoration by everybody" things that can be done to a sheaf of paper, bound or saddle stitched in booklet form.

 

But things like scraping professional color touch off, which as far as I know is completely undetectable as a process when done correctly, and "booger flicking", and even pressing (to an extent) fits under the definition of "bringing back an item to a former or original state" (restoration, small "r"), but is not really Restoration (capital "R".)

 

The end result is the same, whether it's done on purpose, as in a dry mount press, or stacked under encyclopedias for 5 years, or by accident, as in putting it at the bottom of a box in the closet for 20 years.

 

With all respect to Bronze_rules, who makes an excellent scientific argument for the detectability of pressing (and I would further suggest it is in the analysis of the resultant weakening of the molecular bonds of the paper in the area affected...ie, the "valley of the fold/area of the dent/etc"... that you'll get the more accurate results, but now we're getting into highly detailed science), I just don't believe we will ever be able to tell the difference between intentional pressing and natural pressing, at least in a way that the market will accept.

 

If you cannot tell if it was intentional or a sheer accident of existence, how can it possibly ever be called Restoration (capital "R")...? If intentional pressing vs. accidental pressing is indeterminate (and I believe it is), then CGC's position is correct, and pressing disclosure becomes a personal choice issue, rather than an industry wide standard.

 

And, of course, there are no guarantees that an intentionally pressed book will retain that designation through the chain of ownership. I certainly have never bought a book that was disclosed to me as pressed. I very well could own one, or several.

 

I could very well be wrong. It may be that intentional pressing is easily detectable and differentiable from unintentional pressing. If I am, I will happily place intentional pressing into the "Restored (capital "R") category (which, of course, was BR's original question.)

 

Please, feel free to poke holes in anything I've said here, but be nice about it.

[bronze_rules]

Experience has shown that challenging the assumptions of the establishment...regardless of the merit of that challenge...will always bring out the wrath of those whose assumptions are being challenged.

 

About the only way to get the non-believers to believe is to carry out an irrefutable empirical study (which would likely still be challenged or railroaded). All I can say is the technology is there. If the issue had to do with counterfeit money, it would quickly surface. But, unfortunately, I don't have the resources, nor, the incentive to carry out the battle on my own. I only hope to have added some seeds, as I'm keenly aware that this debate has raged on much longer than the length of my membership here.

 

RockMyAmadeus, your well thought out discourse and like minded attention to detail are a pleasure to read..

 

Thanks to all the others who contributed to the thread as well. I'll likely be downshifting from here as I've said my piece.

 

50/50 what a battle.

[gaz973]

Kudos BR for a good thread and good discussion.Rocky made a good post and his point about intent is valid. Of course, getting everyone to agree on what is Restoration is next to impossible as everyone can have a different definition.

As for detection of pressing, what we lack is someone with both motivation and resources to try.

[burntboy]

Precisely.

 

That's why if CGC makes the non-blue label distinction, the buyer need not rely on the seller's 'motivation'. That's why the buyer pays CGC.

 

It's not like the seller is getting a raw deal either; if buyers feel they are getting full disclosure up front (without having to ask, I might add), then they will likely feel more incentive to purchase more high ticket antiquities. Dealers benefit (sell more, improve reputation). Buyers benefit (improved trust). CGC benefits (increased demand for services).

Everyone is happy. Resto gets a good name.The hobby prospers.

 

 

All fine and good, EXCEPT that a decent pressing job CANNOT be detected.

 

And CGC has stated on numerous occasions that they will not allow "guesses" to stygmatize books.

 

So, until the hypothetical affordable and routinely efficient pressing detection machine comes along, these are all moot points...........

[burntboy]

As a buyer then do I need to have a long list of questions with me every time I want to buy a comic?

 

What should I ask?

 

Has the book been trimmed?

Does it have colour touch?

Have the staples been replaced or cleaned?

Any of the pages married?

Any tape repair?

Any cleaning?

Has it been pressed?

 

I can't just ask if there has been any restoration as we know trying to define what that means is fairly tricky.

 

I won't get much buying done at that rate!

 

I'd say just ask TWO questions;

 

1. has the book been restored in any way??

 

2. has this book been pressed??

 

nothing else to ask as you've covered all the bases........

[burntboy]

I say the following as someone who has never benefited financially from professional pressing to date, for whatever credibility that grants me.

 

The issue that we're dancing around is this: intent vs. end result. Means vs. ends.

 

The definition of restoration that Nerf gave is the correct one: Restoration: To bring back to or put back into a former or original state. This definition carries an implicit connotation of "improvement" and avoids the unclarity of other, less adequate definitions which focus only on "change."

 

But using that definition, you must, in the interest of total scientific honesty, include ANYTHING that is done, on purpose or by accident, the achieves that definition without qualification.

 

If it fits the definition, it is what it is, and there's no getting around it.

 

Peeling off a sticker, scraping off food, scraping off professional color touch, pressing, working out a dent with your thumb (as Ze mentioned)....all things which return an item to a former or original state (in comics, it's really "former"....it's very difficult to get back to the "original" state, but I digress.)

 

By the definition, Restoration (capital "R", the "official" kind which gets the PLOD) does NOT literally return the comic to a former or original state. It cannot, if we accept the definition at literal face value. If you re-glue the spine, that's not original. If you re-create a large chunk, that's not a former state. In its former state, the original chunk would still be there. If you color touch, that's not the former or original inks being laid down as they were at the printer.

 

Even sealing tears is not a former or original state. Formerly or originally, those tears simply didn't exist.

 

It simply makes the comic APPEAR to be in a former or original state, as much as possible. It is not actually, literally, in that former or original state.

 

Which is where we are NOW, with respect to comics and our own special brand of the word "Restoration (capital "R".) Restoration (capital "R") makes a comic APPEAR to be in a former or original state, and this is why we call the improved grades "APPARENT."

 

Voila!

 

Now...if you consider that any impact or stress to the cover of a book will weaken the molecular bonds of that paper at the point of impact/stress (which it does), then you CAN include pressing...even if it's just the small dent worked out by the thumb...as a process that APPEARS to return the book to a former or original state, but does not actually do that. Even though the dent/fold appears to be lessened or even disappears, the damage done to the molecules of paper and ink still exists. No process that I know of can reattach molecules to molecules in the exact same way that they were when they left the paper mill.

 

This is easily demonstrated by the fact that if you take a corner of a cover and bend it back and forth over and over again, eventually the molecular bonds holding the paper together at the point of stress will ALL break, first on the surface, then to the core, and finally detached.

 

Using that definition, pressing (whether intentional or accidental) does very much belong to the Restoration (capital "R") side of the argument. The damage done on a molecular level never REALLY goes away...it just APPEARS that it does.

 

But the question remains: how can you tell what's intentional pressing and what's not.....? And how can a grader possibly spend the time looking for what he/she cannot really see without benefit of some fairly sophisticated equipment....? And why should they even be expected to, unless the market were to demand it...?

 

The problem, as I said before, is intent vs. end results. It is easy to determine if a comic has been color touched. The evidence is right in front of your eyes. Intent is obvious. Same with piece replacement, wet-wash, dry-cleaning, staple replacement, any and all of the "accepted as Restoration by everybody" things that can be done to a sheaf of paper, bound or saddle stitched in booklet form.

 

But things like scraping professional color touch off, which as far as I know is completely undetectable as a process when done correctly, and "booger flicking", and even pressing (to an extent) fits under the definition of "bringing back an item to a former or original state" (restoration, small "r"), but is not really Restoration (capital "R".)

 

The end result is the same, whether it's done on purpose, as in a dry mount press, or stacked under encyclopedias for 5 years, or by accident, as in putting it at the bottom of a box in the closet for 20 years.

 

With all respect to Bronze_rules, who makes an excellent scientific argument for the detectability of pressing (and I would further suggest it is in the analysis of the resultant weakening of the molecular bonds of the paper in the area affected...ie, the "valley of the fold/area of the dent/etc"... that you'll get the more accurate results, but now we're getting into highly detailed science), I just don't believe we will ever be able to tell the difference between intentional pressing and natural pressing, at least in a way that the market will accept.

 

If you cannot tell if it was intentional or a sheer accident of existence, how can it possibly ever be called Restoration (capital "R")...? If intentional pressing vs. accidental pressing is indeterminate (and I believe it is), then CGC's position is correct, and pressing disclosure becomes a personal choice issue, rather than an industry wide standard.

 

And, of course, there are no guarantees that an intentionally pressed book will retain that designation through the chain of ownership. I certainly have never bought a book that was disclosed to me as pressed. I very well could own one, or several.

 

I could very well be wrong. It may be that intentional pressing is easily detectable and differentiable from unintentional pressing. If I am, I will happily place intentional pressing into the "Restored (capital "R") category (which, of course, was BR's original question.)

 

Please, feel free to poke holes in anything I've said here, but be nice about it.

 

Well said.... (thumbs u

[Aces]

As a buyer then do I need to have a long list of questions with me every time I want to buy a comic?

 

What should I ask?

 

Has the book been trimmed?

Does it have colour touch?

Have the staples been replaced or cleaned?

Any of the pages married?

Any tape repair?

Any cleaning?

Has it been pressed?

 

I can't just ask if there has been any restoration as we know trying to define what that means is fairly tricky.

 

I won't get much buying done at that rate!

 

If you're buying a raw book, asking a dealer "has anything been done to it?" will usually cover everything on your list except pressing. I would ask that as an additional question.

 

If you're investing in expensive comics, you should really learn how to detect as many of these things as possible, so you don't have to rely on the honesty of the seller.

 

Thank you for telling me what I should learn. I don't rely on the honesty of 95% of the people I communicate with.

 

Unfortunately experience has taught me that greed tends to far outway honesty in most situations.

 

True Fact!

 

Nope.

I'm honestly greedy and greedily honest!

[gaz973]

All fine and good, EXCEPT that a decent pressing job CANNOT be detected.

 

And CGC has stated on numerous occasions that they will not allow "guesses" to stygmatize books.

 

So, until the hypothetical affordable and routinely efficient pressing detection machine comes along, these are all moot points...........

 

But how hard has CGC tried to detect pressing? Nobody is arguing that it's not in CGC's interests that it gets detected.

[nearmint]

All fine and good, EXCEPT that a decent pressing job CANNOT be detected.

 

And CGC has stated on numerous occasions that they will not allow "guesses" to stygmatize books.

 

So, until the hypothetical affordable and routinely efficient pressing detection machine comes along, these are all moot points...........

 

But how hard has CGC tried to detect pressing? Nobody is arguing that it's not in CGC's interests that it gets detected.

 

Why would CGC try to detect pressing? Their stance is not merely that pressing can not be detected 100% of the time. Their stance is also that pressing is not resto.

[slym2none]

 

As has been said a million times, a non-pressed 9.6 might very well be worth more than a pressed 9.6. The reason is that the non-pressed might have 9.8 potential.

 

That's part of the reason, for sure. But, the other part is that some collectors just prefer an "untouched" copy, rather than a 9.4 in 9.6 clothing.

 

 

 

 

 

-slym

[nearmint]

 

As has been said a million times, a non-pressed 9.6 might very well be worth more than a pressed 9.6. The reason is that the non-pressed might have 9.8 potential.

 

That's part of the reason, for sure. But, the other part is that some collectors just prefer an "untouched" copy, rather than a 9.4 in 9.6 clothing.

 

 

-slym

 

But how can you ever be sure?

[gaz973]

All fine and good, EXCEPT that a decent pressing job CANNOT be detected.

 

And CGC has stated on numerous occasions that they will not allow "guesses" to stygmatize books.

 

So, until the hypothetical affordable and routinely efficient pressing detection machine comes along, these are all moot points...........

 

But how hard has CGC tried to detect pressing? Nobody is arguing that it's not in CGC's interests that it gets detected.

 

Why would CGC try to detect pressing? Their stance is not merely that pressing can not be detected 100% of the time. Their stance is also that pressing is not resto.

I was going to let the thread die but since it's back.....

 

You're right, CGC hasn't any reason to want to detect pressing.....which is why I'm not convinced when people say that pressing cannot be detected. How hard have they tried?

[bronze_rules]

 

As has been said a million times, a non-pressed 9.6 might very well be worth more than a pressed 9.6. The reason is that the non-pressed might have 9.8 potential.

 

That's part of the reason, for sure. But, the other part is that some collectors just prefer an "untouched" copy, rather than a 9.4 in 9.6 clothing.

 

 

-slym

 

But how can you ever be sure?

 

Not to beat a dead horse, but, I

happened to read through much of a new book tonight. One comment stood out, which was precisely what I mentioned earlier...

 

Regarding the Secret Service: "Since it is the same force that protects the President of the US, it is well funded and possesses the most cutting edge technology, including

an electron (STEM) microscope capable of analyzing bill components on a molecular level. ... One more bit of (old, I might add) technology to dispel of the impossibility myth.

[Flaming_Telepath]

 

As has been said a million times, a non-pressed 9.6 might very well be worth more than a pressed 9.6. The reason is that the non-pressed might have 9.8 potential.

 

That's part of the reason, for sure. But, the other part is that some collectors just prefer an "untouched" copy, rather than a 9.4 in 9.6 clothing.

 

 

-slym

 

But how can you ever be sure?

 

Not to beat a dead horse, but, I

happened to read through much of a new book tonight. One comment stood out, which was precisely what I mentioned earlier...

 

Regarding the Secret Service: "Since it is the same force that protects the President of the US, it is well funded and possesses the most cutting edge technology, including

an electron (STEM) microscope capable of analyzing bill components on a molecular level. ... One more bit of (old, I might add) technology to dispel of the impossibility myth.

 

Fact is, a good pressing job is not impossible to detect...CGC's statement would be closer to the truth if it read 'a good pressing job is difficult to detect with the amount of money we're prepared to spend on detection'.

 

They have a choice...drop a wedge on high-end equipment and bring the gravy train to a screeching halt...or declare pressing 'impossible to detect' and that it's not restoration anyway. I think you lot call it a 'no-brainer'?

 

Convenience, no more and no less. (thumbs u

[slym2none]

Fact is, a good pressing job is not impossible to detect...CGC's statement would be closer to the truth if it read 'a good pressing job is difficult to detect with the amount of money we're prepared to spend on detection'.

 

They have a choice...drop a wedge on high-end equipment and bring the gravy train to a screeching halt...or declare pressing 'impossible to detect' and that it's not restoration anyway. I think you lot call it a 'no-brainer'?

 

 

 

 

-slym