Manufactured Gold

[esquirecomics]

A very simple answer. They don't consider pressing to be restoration.

 

Based on your experience in restoration, do you consider things like erasure to be restoration?

 

If not, why?

 

If so, then would you disclose even if in a CGC holder?

 

I've always looked at this thing with a practical viewpoint. Anyone can erase something on a book, whether it's dirt, a date, or a pencilled "Larson." How can this be considered restoration? It's silly. Are all those erased Larson books restored? Of course not. So no, I don't think erasing is restoration.

 

Thanks Matt, I'm on the fence on this issue, but to play devil's advocate:

 

Anyone can take a marker or a pen and touch up a book. Based on the criteria you gave above, then why is color touch considered resto?

 

Geez Brent, don't you know anything? Because it added something to the book!

 

Taking away stuff that had been added is fine. Just can't add stuff by itelf.

 

But what about if you used some sort of wet solvent or cleaning solution (or whatever the heck is used) to remove pencil marks on a cover rather than a dry erasure. Is that not an identified form of restoration?

 

Again, you guys are slipping back into the same old theoretical arguements that don't have practical applications. Whatever was used to remove a pencil mark--your boogers, maybe--what does CGC see? Do they see restoration, or just a missing pencil mark, if the impression is even visible?

 

This is a dead end road you guys are going down, because it only matters what the grader can see in front of him.

 

Does that apply to pedigree designations then? I know you care about such thing.

 

CGC grades a pedigree book and marks it as such.

 

Then that book, which has distinguishing characteristics, is pressed, dry-cleaned, resubbed, whatever, and resubmitted without the label.

 

CGC has a verifiable record of the original book in its database that if compared (and I am obviously talking about a situation where this is a practical possibility) it could be identified.

 

Do we want CGC not to include the pedigree designation because it isn't in front of them?

[namisgr]

Furthermore, Bob is the seller here, not the buyer. If the buyer has an issue, let him speak up. Otherwise, this is an issue from the other end of the transaction which has different implications. If Bob was aware of pressing, but chose not to do so because of his own reasons, he cannot get angry because someone bought books from Storms' inventory and got upgrades.

 

What if the person who bought these books was not from the "axis of evil," but rather some innocent collector? Does that change things?

Since you're misrepresenting my position, Matt, I feel the need to respond. I am not angry because someone bought books from Storms and got upgrades. I am angry that someone pressed the books to get numerical upgrades from CGC and is now selling them without disclosure of such. I am also angry that another pedigree designation was purposely left off a label as a deceptive practice, ostensibly to ensure that during the re-grading CGC would be unaware the book had been graded before and subsequently pressed. I bet the latter strategy sounds familiar to you.

 

Finally, I am angry that these books were purchased from Storms for the express purpose of pressing them into higher grades and selling them without disclosure to an unsuspecting collecting public. Any statement to the contrary denies the obviousness of the time line - less than 3 weeks after the books were made available for sale on Storms' site, they have been cracked, pressed, resubmitted on the express tier, and listed at 2X prices on Comiclink. Innocent collector? Don't be naive, or think that we collectors are, either.

 

Finally, your argument that pressing need not be disclosed because it simply isn't important to most prospective buyers is pure selfserving hogwash. It is for the very reason that the market value of pressed books might be undermined that you fail to disclose pressing on your auctions and website. If I am wrong on this, then prove it to me by making it your policy to disclose pressing in the description of every book you sell that you know has been pressed.

[esquirecomics]

 

And you still owe me a beer.

 

 

Hey Matt, if I latch onto your leg like an angry cocker spaniel, can I have a free beer too?

 

 

Redhook, don't you dare!!

[Matt Nelson]

Wow, this stuff is blowing my mind. Do you seriously think this list of dealers who do not openly disclose pressing is comprehensive? It's fall far short. I think you're grossly underestimating how many people, both collectors and dealers, are involved in the crackout game. These people you list are very visible because they mainly operate through the internet, and it's all there for everyone to see. There are so many other people out there buying and selling books that you're not taking into consideration.

 

no offense, but you seem to be grossly underestimating how much this "game" bothers people once they are made aware of it.

 

i suspect most people don't care because most people have no freaking idea just what is going on

 

Why do you think I'm grossly underestimating how much it bother's people? What are you basing this on? I think I have a pretty good view of people's perception of pressing from where I sit, and I wholeheartedly disagree.

 

Way more people know about pressing today than a year ago, thanks in part to the boards, Scoop, GPA, and other outlets. Where is this groundswell that is talked about? How much more does the word have to be spread before you acquiesce?

 

if people aren't bothered by it, then why are the majority of dealers who do work (pressing) on books unwilling to disclose same?

 

apologies if this feels like a tu quoque direction of questioning

 

A very simple answer. They don't consider pressing to be restoration.

 

Even if people think pressing isn't a form of restoration. I still imagine they would like to know about it.

 

Don't you agree?

 

No easy way to say it, so I will just ask you. Why do you feel it is ok to NOT tell people openly that you pressed the book they are buying from you? Besides the money part, I really would like to know why you feel withholding information like this is in any way shape, or form...a good thing for the hobby

 

Eveyone else seems to think this way, why dont you?

 

Ze-

 

Kenny,

 

Don't confuse "a few people on a message board" with "everyone else."

 

Love,

 

Me

 

The many outweigh the few. So that makes everything A O K , Gotcha.

 

If Matt wated to reply to my post he could have, but thanks for filling the class in on what we already know.

 

 

Ze-

 

Ze, I can barely type fast enough with all of these posts coming in! I've already answered your question, so I'm moving on to others.

 

The only way the few are right is if they become the many...this is Mark's dream anyway.

[esquirecomics]

Wow! First time in this thread and it took me 30 mins to catch up on just the last 2 hours of discussion. Thank you to all participating in this discussion. It is a great read.

 

If CGC can't see the pressing, but it is disclosed to them, do they put the purple label on?

 

Nope.

 

They refuse to see it even when presented to them.

 

Can I a corporation?

[OldGuy]

Wow! First time in this thread and it took me 30 mins to catch up on just the last 2 hours of discussion. Thank you to all participating in this discussion. It is a great read.

 

If CGC can't see the pressing, but it is disclosed to them, do they put the purple label on?

 

You seemed to have missed some pivotal posts in your "catching up". The answer is no. CGC doesn’t consider pressing to be restoration, nor disassembly.

[esquirecomics]

The many outweigh the few. So that makes everything A O K , Gotcha.

 

If Matt wated to reply to my post he could have, but thanks for filling the class in on what we already know.

 

 

Ze-

 

Ze, I can barely type fast enough with all of these posts coming in! I've already answered your question, so I'm moving on to others.

 

The only way the few are right is if they become the many...this is Mark's dream anyway.

 

Star Trek II proved that the needs of the one can still outweigh the needs of the many or else there would not have been a Star Trek III and onwards, so I can be happy knowing I'm right even if we lack the many.

[FFB]

On this we can agree. I have no problem with disclosure and think that in the ideal world, everyone should do it on the off chance that any one potential bidder might care. But that is a far cry from some of the stuff I see on here where people dress up speculation as fact and proclaim without any evidence that pressed books would necessarily sell at a discount if pressing were disclosed. There isn't much evidence on the point either way, but what limited evidence that is out there is to the contrary.

 

i've always viewed the declartions of discounts for disclosure as being more a rationale people use to try and understand the reasons why a seller wouldn't disclose, rather than a statement of fact.

 

is my understanding different than yours?

 

Whatever the reason they use it, the point is that the limited facts do not bear it out. Whether that means the seller and the person on the message board both have a mistaken belief in what pressing will do to the resale value of a book, I don't know. I suspect that fear of the "unknown" is a good part of why some sellers don't disclose though.

[innocuous]

Thanks. I think I need this thread in book format to get caught-up.

[FFB]

The many outweigh the few. So that makes everything A O K , Gotcha.

 

If Matt wated to reply to my post he could have, but thanks for filling the class in on what we already know.

 

 

Ze-

 

Ze, I can barely type fast enough with all of these posts coming in! I've already answered your question, so I'm moving on to others.

 

The only way the few are right is if they become the many...this is Mark's dream anyway.

 

Star Trek II proved that the needs of the one can still outweigh the needs of the many or else there would not have been a Star Trek III and onwards, so I can be happy knowing I'm right even if we lack the many.

 

Star Trek II proved that? Well SHEE-OOOT, I am convinced now. Matt Nelson, you are scum if you don't do what Star Trek II tells you to do.

[Matt Nelson]

the climate on the boards does not reflect what's going on out there in the world of buying and selling.

 

I am not part of the inside crowd but from a collector's standpoint, I disagree with you entirely. Collector's do care about ethics in this hobby and that includes full disclosure.

 

I'm not saying collectors don't care about ethics in this hobby. We agree on that. And I don't think what I am doing is unethical. We disagree on that.

 

But I am deeply involved with both the inside and outside crowd, and I'm telling you, it's not the same out there.

[esquirecomics]

The many outweigh the few. So that makes everything A O K , Gotcha.

 

If Matt wated to reply to my post he could have, but thanks for filling the class in on what we already know.

 

 

Ze-

 

Ze, I can barely type fast enough with all of these posts coming in! I've already answered your question, so I'm moving on to others.

 

The only way the few are right is if they become the many...this is Mark's dream anyway.

 

Star Trek II proved that the needs of the one can still outweigh the needs of the many or else there would not have been a Star Trek III and onwards, so I can be happy knowing I'm right even if we lack the many.

 

Star Trek II proved that? Well SHEE-OOOT, I am convinced now. Matt Nelson, you are scum if you don't do what Star Trek II tells you to do.

 

You do know that is where the language Kenny was using came from? No, probably not. Too sophisticated.

[mica]

On this we can agree. I have no problem with disclosure and think that in the ideal world, everyone should do it on the off chance that any one potential bidder might care.

Great. Help us convince the inconvincible.

[namisgr]

Whatever the reason they use it, the point is that the limited facts do not bear it out. Whether that means the seller and the person on the message board both have a mistaken belief in what pressing will do to the resale value of a book, I don't know. I suspect that fear of the "unknown" is a good part of why some sellers don't disclose though.

 

Scott, I encourage you to research this issue further. Having followed a large number of auctions from Spectre52, I am of the opinion that said seller achieves less-than-GPA average prices for substantially more than half his high grade books. And this is with merely scattered knowledge that said seller works on the books he sells. I differ in opinion from you, and suspect that if pressing and non-disassembly cleaning were explicitly disclosed for books being auctioned on a routine basis, the price differential between "virgin" and "worked on" books would be readily apparent.

[Matt Nelson]

Furthermore, Bob is the seller here, not the buyer. If the buyer has an issue, let him speak up. Otherwise, this is an issue from the other end of the transaction which has different implications. If Bob was aware of pressing, but chose not to do so because of his own reasons, he cannot get angry because someone bought books from Storms' inventory and got upgrades.

 

What if the person who bought these books was not from the "axis of evil," but rather some innocent collector? Does that change things?

 

Since you're misrepresenting my position, Matt, I feel the need to respond. I am not angry because someone bought books from Storms and got upgrades. I am angry that someone pressed the books to get numerical upgrades from CGC and is now selling them without disclosure of such. I am also angry that another pedigree designation was purposely left off a label as a deceptive practice, ostensibly to ensure that during the re-grading CGC would be unaware the book had been graded before and subsequently pressed. I bet the latter sounds familiar to you.

 

Did you expect the possibility of upgrade on your books would never happen? If not, then how could you be angry about that now? Once the books leave your possession, you cannot control what happens to them.

 

As far as the pedigree thing goes, you can't assume it was left off purposely. That's what happened to me, although it seems clear that you are convinced otherwise. So this paragraph is probably a waste of time.

 

Finally, I am angry that these books were purchased from Storms for the express purpose of pressing them into higher grades and selling them without disclosure to an unsuspecting collecting public. Any statement to the contrary denies the obviousness of the time line - less than 3 weeks after the books were made available for sale on Storms' site, they have been cracked, pressed, resubmitted on the express tier, and listed at 2X prices on Comiclink. Innocent collector? Don't be naive, or think that we collectors are, either.

 

 

the "innocent" remark was tongue in cheek, to make the point that Lauterbach was being singled out because he's Lauterbach.

 

I'm assuming you're no stranger to pressing. Since pressed books being sold without disclosure has clearly happened many times in the past, as documented on the boards, how on earth could you think it wouldn't happen to books you sold? Again, once they leave your possession, anything can happen.

 

I want to be clear that I am sorry that you're angry. Your situation is exactly why I offer pressing services to others.

 

 

Finally, your argument that pressing need not be disclosed because it simply isn't important to most prospective buyers is pure selfserving hogwash. It is for the very reason that the market value of pressed books might be undermined that you fail to disclose pressing on your auctions and website. If I am wrong on this, then prove it to me by making it your policy to disclose pressing in the description of every book you sell that you know has been pressed.

 

It's not my arguement. It's the opinion of all the people I speak to. And for your proof, read the examples posted here of what disclosed books are selling for.

[innocuous]

Whatever the reason they use it, the point is that the limited facts do not bear it out. Whether that means the seller and the person on the message board both have a mistaken belief in what pressing will do to the resale value of a book, I don't know. I suspect that fear of the "unknown" is a good part of why some sellers don't disclose though.

 

Scott, I encourage you to research this issue further. Having followed a large number of auctions from Spectre52, I am of the opinion that said seller achieves less-than-GPA average prices for substantially more than half his high grade books. And this is with merely scattered knowledge that said seller works on the books he sells. I differ in opinion from you, and suspect that if pressing and non-disassembly cleaning were explicitly disclosed for books being auctioned on a routine basis, the price differential between "virgin" and "worked on" books would be readily apparent.

 

I am not sure I would agree if the books are slabbed. If you took two identical BLUE label CGC 9.4 books and disclosed in the Ebay listing that one is pressed and one is not I would guess the prices would be about the same. Many people just buy the label.

 

maybe a test is needed

[Matt Nelson]

Moral? If you don't like buying high grade books that may have been pressed, then do not do business with Comiclink, Matt Nelson, Lauterbach, Pedigree and the other dealers and auctioneers that refuse of their own volition to disclose non-disassembly cleaning and/or pressing.

 

The problem is that the average Ebay seller or any of the other major dealers could have purchased their books from the sellers you listed above. For instance, I hadn't purchased any books from a Heritage Auction until 2005. However, after checking their image archive I found a dozen of my high end books that were originally purchased on Ebay in 2003, on their website. I've also paid extra for certain books purchased at Metro only to find out that I could've gotten the exact same book cheaper if I had bid on the original Heritage Auction myself. Unless someone is going after books worth less than $100 or getting them from an original owner, the whole damn system could be tainted.

 

Do you mean that all of these books you bought were upgraded? Or that you paid more for the same grades?

 

No, most of the books were in the exact same holder as the one I eventually purchased. One of the books was resubbed by the owner to eliminate the grader's notes that CGC used to put on the labels. The grade or the code number did not change.

 

My point is that if someone says that they won't deal wih Heritage, ComicLink, etc. as a matter of principle, then I can certainly understand their position. However, just because that person doesn't deal directly with these dealers doesn't mean that you won't wind up with a book that passed through their hands. For instance, do people on these boards ask their favorite dealers whether they've made any purchases from Heritage/ComicLink in the past, before buying a book from them? Last time I checked vintage books weren't growing on trees, and eventually these comics will wind up with someone that is known to manipulate books. Whether they press these books or not doesn't really matter, since the stigma remains. Heck, I've purchased raw books that cost less than $100 from a couple of GA dealers, and they looked pressed to me (color breaking creases that looked flat as pancakes). So basically nothing is safe nowadays.

 

The only remaining option is to educate the public so that they don't wind up paying 4 X the FMV for books that underwent a 20 minute press job. If a book is in a 6.5 CGC holder, but looks like a 9.0 except for a couple of minor bumps or non-color breaking creases (Nearmint;s Thrilling copy comes to mind), then that book should only have a slightly lesser value than another 9.0 book without this defect. Hopefully in time people will start paying more attention to the QP of a book, while factoring in the CGC grade to a much lesser degree. What I'm basically saying is that if a defect can be fixed without performing restoration work (pressing.......at least according to CGC), then the change in value to fix that defect should be negligeable.

 

I actually think the opposite happens. I see people paying premiums for pressable books all the time, depending on how high of a grade they may achieve.

[infinite_comics-migration]

the climate on the boards does not reflect what's going on out there in the world of buying and selling.

 

I am not part of the inside crowd but from a collector's standpoint, I disagree with you entirely. Collector's do care about ethics in this hobby and that includes full disclosure.

 

I'm not saying collectors don't care about ethics in this hobby. We agree on that. And I don't think what I am doing is unethical. We disagree on that.

 

But I am deeply involved with both the inside and outside crowd, and I'm telling you, it's not the same out there.

 

 

My god Matt's comments are driving me effing crazy. For the good of the thread I shall post no more

[esquirecomics]

I want to be clear that I am sorry that you're angry. Your situation is exactly why I offer pressing services to others.

 

 

Am I the only one who doesn't quite follow this statement?

[Matt Nelson]

So then what is the big deal about disclosure?

 

Man Mark, it's about TIME you came around!

 

Silly Matt, trix are for kids.

 

Hey, I happen to like kid's cereal. Screw that oat bran flake stuff.