Manufactured Gold

[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 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.

[infinite_comics-migration]

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.

 

Does anyone else get the feeling that if Matt could get away with trimming, he would do it?

[FFB]

You mean the guys benefiting from pressing and the non-disclosure of it don't consider it restoration. I see a fairly clear line of division between buyers and sellers on this area. A couple of exceptions, but still.....

 

Remember when I sold that FF#53 last year and disclosed pressing in the auction? It sold for just shy of a record price to a dealer. So apparently it isn't just collectors who are on the buying end of this, nor is it just dealers who are on the pressing end of this.

 

So what?

 

For one thing, this would be more impressive (at least on an anecdotal level) if the book had been sold to a collector rather than a dealer. According to Matt, no dealers care so this sale was irrelevant.

 

In any event, if this transaction is to be interpreted as meaning anything, it could then be argued that the concerns about disclosure are not accurate. So then what is the big deal about disclosure?

 

I sold an X-Men #4 CGC NM 9.4 Pacific Coast earlier this year and disclosed it was pressed. It sold for a very healthy price of $6,300.

 

What is interesting is that the same book sold for $4800 in July 2004, presumably WITHOUT disclosure. Then about a year and a half later, it sold for $6,300 WITH disclosure. (GPAnalysis says $6,500, by the way, not $6,300, but I am going with what you said the price was.) Either way, it's a great result.

 

Especially when you consider that a non-pedigree copy of X-Men #4 CGC 9.4 sold four months before your Pacific Coast sale for $4,261 (again, presumably without any disclosure of pressing).

 

So again, where is all of the negative market reaction to pressing? (This question is not addressed to you, Brent, and I support and respect your stance on disclosure, which I think is the best way to go.)

[skybolt]

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.

[FFB]

A nice test would be to sell 2 identical graded books, same grade, only 1 was pressed to achieve the grade. Disclose the one that was pressed, my hunch is that the average collector will pay the same for either one.

 

If both books are in blue label CGC holders, I believe you're right.

[Matt Nelson]

So then what is the big deal about disclosure?

 

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

[esquirecomics]

Buyers, the number of which is unknown, are starting to turn away from dealers who refuse to disclose certain information. There are more than enough dealers, and I believe that number will grow, who buyers will unhesitatingly turn to who meet their needs and principles. Therein lies the consequence to the action.

 

Is this unknown number of buyers a large number? Give me some proof that the number is significant enough to create the groundswell you've mentioned. What is the current membership total of the NOD?

 

Does it matter what the number of buyers is? It is that very concern as to exactly how large or small that number might be which has many dealers unwilling to disclose the fact that a book has been manipulated. I have no way of knowing, other than limited anecdotal evidence, as to the number of buyers that this applies to, just as you have no way of knowing, other than limited anecdotal evidence, how significant an impact the knowledge would have on the community at large were most people aware of what is going on.

 

And I didn't say "groundswell" which implies a significant and quick increasing concern. I just said that the numbers are increasing. The membership of the NOD, which is somewhere around 25 and always available on the website (we don't hide identities, everything is out in the open), is not necessarily reflective of this fact. Many people on the CGC boards, including posting in this thread, have offered comments reflective of the NOD philosophy but they are not NOD members for one reason or the other.

 

 

There are countless examples where books have been correctly identified as having been manipulated, whether that be through methods of pressing, dry cleaning, resubbing or a combination of these and other means.

 

If so, then there are 1000x countless number of books that will never be identified. How can you expect a fair assessment with such lopsided numbers?

 

 

The issue is not collective. It is specific. It is not a balance of the equation of 1,000 unidentified manipulated books versus one identified manipulated book. It is the value of having in your possession the advance knowledge of that one manipulated book to determine whether you wish to purchase it. The more information, the better.

 

Nor am I clear as to what you are attempting to infer by your second clause. No one should ever be expected to disclose information they do not know, nor guess as to what might be. Honest and open judgments and conduct are all that can ever be expected. [/color]

 

agreed.

 

 

So, you are saying Bob (or anyone else for that matter) has no right to be concerned, annoyed or even angry regarding what took place? Only the buyer of the books possess that right? That is quite a narrow interpretation of a community. I suppose simply because someone was robbed down the street from me makes no difference to how I feel about the safety of my community as the victim was not me?

 

To the contrary the victim was the community, and we are all entitled to raise this as an issue.

 

The victim? Bob knew the rules of the game (I'm assuming until he confirms his knowledge of pressing prior to consignment). How in the world can you call him a victim?

 

I was equating victim = concerned, annoyed or even angry. The issue is not what you would call him, but whether you believe, as you indicated you do not (or at least that is how I interpreted your comments), he has not right to be upset. And I differ with you profusely on such an interpretation for the reasons I stated.

 

To take it one step further, how is this different than Harley Yee buying your book for $1000 and marking it up to $2000 on his wall?

 

Because Harley didn't manipulate the book.

 

Now, if Harley was able to attain $2,000 for a book I just sold him for $1,000, he is a much better salesperson than I and kudos to him!

[Sal]

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.

 

Does anyone else get the feeling that if Matt could get away with trimming, he would do it?

 

no.

 

let's try to stay away from pejorativeness, please. Matt's going out of his way to be forthright, he should at least be able to expect to be treated civilly

[esquirecomics]

You mean the guys benefiting from pressing and the non-disclosure of it don't consider it restoration. I see a fairly clear line of division between buyers and sellers on this area. A couple of exceptions, but still.....

 

Remember when I sold that FF#53 last year and disclosed pressing in the auction? It sold for just shy of a record price to a dealer. So apparently it isn't just collectors who are on the buying end of this, nor is it just dealers who are on the pressing end of this.

 

So what?

 

For one thing, this would be more impressive (at least on an anecdotal level) if the book had been sold to a collector rather than a dealer. According to Matt, no dealers care so this sale was irrelevant.

 

In any event, if this transaction is to be interpreted as meaning anything, it could then be argued that the concerns about disclosure are not accurate. So then what is the big deal about disclosure?

 

There were several collectors bidding on the auction. My recollection is that the two highest underbidders were collectors. The problem is, it's still only a single datapoint.

 

What we don't have are auctions where pressing is disclosed in a neutral fashion (in other words, without fire and brimstone/negative comments about the practice of pressing) where the book sold for significantly below retail.

 

Divad sold a Ghost Rider #1 raw on ebay with the notation that it was RESTORED/pressed. He got a great price on it relative to unrestored FMV too, as I recall.

 

Still only two data points, but neither one evidences any market-wide negative consequences when pressing is disclosed.

 

True. This will take time. And if there is no generally negative consequence to disclosing pressing or whatever method of manipulation, perfectly fine.

[Comicdey]

Here's a question.....

 

Is the person getting hurt...$$$$...the guy that wants to crack it out and press it for a higher grade.....as it's already been done?

 

Any buyer of a book that has never been pressed, has the option to try for a higher grade. If it's already been done, then you're already there.

 

It seems like it's all boiling down to five divergent groups of collector/dealer/buyer/sellers.

 

1. The last collector/dealer leaving money on the table when it comes to the crack, press and resubmit.

 

2. The collectors that refuse to buy any book that's been tampered with in any way wherebye virgin books are becoming more prized and difficult to come by.

 

3. The collector that wants to buy the highest number slab and doesn't really give a rip how it got there (as long as it's blue Investment grade)

 

4. The collector that is just buying what they love to collect and likes the idea of a slabbed book.

 

5. The collector that is just buying what they love and prefers the books raw.

 

Keep keeping track of sales when pressing is disclosed and someday we may even know if it effects the overall sales prices on ebay or other sales venues.

[esquirecomics]

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.

 

wait wait wait wait. i never said anything about restoration.

 

if it's not restoration, if it is...doesn't matter one bit to me. truthfully, i could not care less one way or the other.

 

but it still needs to be disclosed. unless there's a stigma about pressing that for some reason, even though it's not 'restoration' still exists anyways, which is essentially a fancy way of dealers having their cake and eating it, too

 

To be blunt, they just don't care. I've talked to just about every dealer ad nausem about pressing, and even the ones who don't press don't think it's a big deal. I'm telling you, the climate on the boards does not reflect what's going on out there in the world of buying and selling.

 

It is not the views of the dealers that matters. It is the views of the collectors/buyers.

 

BTW Matt, I do wish to acknowledge my appreciation for your participation in this discussion.

 

WHOA! Everyone's views matter!!! You've just offended most of your peers in the Overstreet Advisor section!

 

And thank you! And if things get heated between us, here's my in advance.

 

 

Ah, our dealer colleagues will survive.

 

Not heated at all. Professional conversation/debate, but right back at ya:

 

And you still owe me a beer.

[Matt Nelson]

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.

[FFB]

You mean the guys benefiting from pressing and the non-disclosure of it don't consider it restoration. I see a fairly clear line of division between buyers and sellers on this area. A couple of exceptions, but still.....

 

Remember when I sold that FF#53 last year and disclosed pressing in the auction? It sold for just shy of a record price to a dealer. So apparently it isn't just collectors who are on the buying end of this, nor is it just dealers who are on the pressing end of this.

 

So what?

 

For one thing, this would be more impressive (at least on an anecdotal level) if the book had been sold to a collector rather than a dealer. According to Matt, no dealers care so this sale was irrelevant.

 

In any event, if this transaction is to be interpreted as meaning anything, it could then be argued that the concerns about disclosure are not accurate. So then what is the big deal about disclosure?

 

There were several collectors bidding on the auction. My recollection is that the two highest underbidders were collectors. The problem is, it's still only a single datapoint.

 

What we don't have are auctions where pressing is disclosed in a neutral fashion (in other words, without fire and brimstone/negative comments about the practice of pressing) where the book sold for significantly below retail.

 

Divad sold a Ghost Rider #1 raw on ebay with the notation that it was RESTORED/pressed. He got a great price on it relative to unrestored FMV too, as I recall.

 

Still only two data points, but neither one evidences any market-wide negative consequences when pressing is disclosed.

 

True. This will take time. And if there is no generally negative consequence to disclosing pressing or whatever method of manipulation, perfectly fine.

 

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.

[esquirecomics]

So then what is the big deal about disclosure?

 

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

 

Silly Matt, trix are for kids.

[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.

 

Does anyone else get the feeling that if Matt could get away with trimming, he would do it?

 

no.

 

let's try to stay away from pejorativeness, please. Matt's going out of his way to be forthright, he should at least be able to expect to be treated civilly

 

I agree.

[FFB]

 

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?

 

[Matt Nelson]

You mean the guys benefiting from pressing and the non-disclosure of it don't consider it restoration. I see a fairly clear line of division between buyers and sellers on this area. A couple of exceptions, but still.....

 

 

also, got the label, Matt. Thanks.

 

No, that's not what I mean at all. Everyone I know that presses has no problem buying a pressed book. To me, that makes the system work. If they only sold pressed books, and refused the buy them, then you'd be right.

 

Great on the label! You'll send it to CGC, right?

 

They don't refuse to buy them because they know they can resell them without disclosure. That's what makes the system work.

 

It's a tougher road to buy a book, press it, certify it and then disclose it. You cut out some buyers that would normally want that book. But the tradeoff is that buyers develop a sense that they have a better sense of trust in a transaction with a dealer who does disclose regardless of whether it's restoration or not.

 

And Matt, I appreciate you coming on here and answering questions. I don't see many others coming on the forums to defend their business practices when it comes to disclosure at least not to this extent.

 

Thanks Brent. I'm trying....

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're saying above that the dealer is buying the pressed book for less than market value because it's disclosed as pressed, and therefore worth less? Am I correct? No, what I'm saying is that these people will pay full retail for the pressed books. In otherwords, they treat them the same as unpressed books. In their eyes there is no difference.

 

Actually, what I'm saying is that the dealer will pay the same whether it has been pressed or not because it doesn't matter. When they sell it, they don't have to disclose anything. IF they did disclose, the $$$ amount paid MIGHT be slightly less. It's probably similar to notes being on the CGC label. I would pay a little more for a "note-less" copy because it does get less sometimes in the marketplace.

 

This is a perfect example of the pitfalls of disclosure. If there is no way to tell a book has been pressed every time, then it must fall upon the owner...every owner to disclose the pressing as the book trades hands again and again. Dealer or collector, it's impossible. I'm not trying to kill an idea here, just trying to be realistic. Even a tracking system would fail for many reasons.

[codfish]

Agh! Too much quote nesting !

[Sal]

You mean the guys benefiting from pressing and the non-disclosure of it don't consider it restoration. I see a fairly clear line of division between buyers and sellers on this area. A couple of exceptions, but still.....

 

Remember when I sold that FF#53 last year and disclosed pressing in the auction? It sold for just shy of a record price to a dealer. So apparently it isn't just collectors who are on the buying end of this, nor is it just dealers who are on the pressing end of this.

 

So what?

 

For one thing, this would be more impressive (at least on an anecdotal level) if the book had been sold to a collector rather than a dealer. According to Matt, no dealers care so this sale was irrelevant.

 

In any event, if this transaction is to be interpreted as meaning anything, it could then be argued that the concerns about disclosure are not accurate. So then what is the big deal about disclosure?

 

There were several collectors bidding on the auction. My recollection is that the two highest underbidders were collectors. The problem is, it's still only a single datapoint.

 

What we don't have are auctions where pressing is disclosed in a neutral fashion (in other words, without fire and brimstone/negative comments about the practice of pressing) where the book sold for significantly below retail.

 

Divad sold a Ghost Rider #1 raw on ebay with the notation that it was RESTORED/pressed. He got a great price on it relative to unrestored FMV too, as I recall.

 

Still only two data points, but neither one evidences any market-wide negative consequences when pressing is disclosed.

 

True. This will take time. And if there is no generally negative consequence to disclosing pressing or whatever method of manipulation, perfectly fine.

 

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?

[innocuous]

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?