Manufactured Gold

[Bronty]

also carefully explains that the book was originally a toughly graded

9.4 and he applied some gentle localized pressing to help it reach it's current 9.6 grade.

 

That's the part that's never going to happen. Fk disclosing pressing. If its in a blue 9.4 holder there are collectors that will pay the blue 9.4 price no matter what has been done to the book (see restored mile highs). They just see the # on the slab and bid accordingly.

 

What DOES need to be disclosed is resubs. If people know that 9.4 used to be a 9.0 I don't think anyone's going to pay the same amount as for an untouched 9.4.

 

So *spoon* disclosing pressing. Too hard to do. All you need to do is be able to trace a book's history. I'm all for the UV ink idea - gets rid of all this resub bull if you can track the book through its incarnations as a 8.0, 7.5, 8.5 and 9.0.

[rodan57]

If I didn't follow the Boards and saw a book advertised as 'pressed', I might think that this is a value-added good thing.

 

BUT, if I saw a book advertised as 'pressed' with the notation that this beautiful 9.6 I see in front of me used to be a 9.4 -- I would see the book as less desirable than an unmanipulated 9.6.

 

Without knowledge, the phrase 'pressed' might read as a good thing. Therefore, it is very difficult to conclude that a high price for a pressed book is an informed purchase.

[esquirecomics]

which book?

 

Issue Date: Mar. 1945

Publisher: D.C. Comics

Pedigree: Crowley Copy

Era/Age:: Golden/Atom

 

 

Grade: 9.4/NM

Grade Service: CGC ID#0072797003

Page Condition: White

Check Current CGC Census

 

 

Price: $4,400

Status: For Sale

 

Description: Unbelievably, at 9.4, this is not the highest graded copy. But it is the second highest graded and a pedigree on top of it.

 

Overstreet 2005 NM- 9.2 value = $1,000.

 

NETWORK OF DISCLOSURE NOTICE: This book, which was purchased from a Heritage Comics auction, was previously graded by CGC as a 9.0. It is unknown whether the book has been pressed or simply was resubbed by a prior owner for a higher grade.

[Bronty]

 

Fantastic_Four was a restoration information junkie. He was way ahead of the curve of most of the people here when it came to learning about restoration in general and pressing in particular, and I know for a fact that he had some of his own books pressed because he talked about it openly. So yes, I am quite confident that this pressing topic had nothing to do with him slowing his collecting, if that's what he did. (And I don't know if he did. I just know that he stopped posting. The dude had a metal Magneto mask that he took pictures of himself wearing. Do you honestly think he's gone from the hobby for good? )

 

 

Good old Citizen Rudd

[Bronty]

Good old Robin grabbing a tight hold of Batman's gushing hose

[Aman619]

oh THAT old rag! haha.

 

hey congrats on selling the Batman 2!! or is it "pending it?"

[batman_fan]

As for prices realized for books with tainted pasts, Hey Mark, how is the sale of that GA Detective you bought from Heritage going, getting a ton of offer? What, no offers? Try re-posting the auction without disclosing its history and see if it helps.

 

Please note for the pinheads out there, my comment to Mark was made in a sarcastic tone, but that is an example of where disclosure certainly has not drug the masses out to throw money at Mark for the book.

 

First, let me say I will readily admit I paid too much for that book at the time EVEN if the book had not been manipulated and the grade as is was original.

 

That being said, not one offer. Nada. Zip.

 

And all reasonable offers are always considered. The listed price is just that, a listed initial asking price. Anyone want the book for what I paid for it one or two years ago?

 

P.S. I understood your point and recognized the sarcasm without problem.

 

Thanks Mark, somehow I figured you would understand my point, but others on the board seem to be incapable of understanding the use of sarcasm to make a point. I am not sure how out of whack the price is. A Detective 127, 9.4 sold on Heritage for ~3.2k and Pedigree Dets in 9.4 are selling for more than your start of 3k.

[esquirecomics]

oh THAT old rag! haha.

 

hey congrats on selling the Batman 2!! or is it "pending it?"

 

A non-refundable deposit was placed on the Bat #2, #5 and #6, with three more installments to be made until transfer of ownership, i.e., "pending".

[esquirecomics]

As for prices realized for books with tainted pasts, Hey Mark, how is the sale of that GA Detective you bought from Heritage going, getting a ton of offer? What, no offers? Try re-posting the auction without disclosing its history and see if it helps.

 

Please note for the pinheads out there, my comment to Mark was made in a sarcastic tone, but that is an example of where disclosure certainly has not drug the masses out to throw money at Mark for the book.

 

First, let me say I will readily admit I paid too much for that book at the time EVEN if the book had not been manipulated and the grade as is was original.

 

That being said, not one offer. Nada. Zip.

 

And all reasonable offers are always considered. The listed price is just that, a listed initial asking price. Anyone want the book for what I paid for it one or two years ago?

 

P.S. I understood your point and recognized the sarcasm without problem.

 

Thanks Mark, somehow I figured you would understand my point, but others on the board seem to be incapable of understanding the use of sarcasm to make a point. I am not sure how out of whack the price is. A Detective 127, 9.4 sold on Heritage for ~3.2k and Pedigree Dets in 9.4 are selling for more than your start of 3k.

 

Maybe now the offers will start rushing in!

 

Matt? 9.6 potential?

[Foolkiller]

Geez, how scary is this - I just agreed to back to back points from FK and FFB!!!

 

It's about the same frequency three lawyers agree on anything.

[esquirecomics]

Geez, how scary is this - I just agreed to back to back points from FK and FFB!!!

 

It's about the same frequency three lawyers agree on anything.

 

[LearnedHand]

Overstreet 2005 NM- 9.2 value = $1,000.

 

NETWORK OF DISCLOSURE NOTICE: This book, which was purchased from a Heritage Comics auction, was previously graded by CGC as a 9.0. It is unknown whether the book has been pressed or simply was resubbed by a prior owner for a higher grade.

 

Just an observation:

 

According to you, NOD is about education and disclosure of all known work, and not just about singling out pressing. Yet the NOD disclosure offered with this book indicates something very different. This book was graded as a CGC 9.0 and subsequently as a CGC 9.4. The cause for upgrade is unknown. The upgrade might have been due to one or a combination of several techniques not deemed restoration by CGC. Yet the only possibility the NOD disclaimer allows for as the reason for the unknown upgrade - is that it the book was pressed! Why am I saying it's the only possibility? Because I think it's clear that only an imbecile would believe that simply resubmitting a book like this would or could result in such a drastic upgrade (or is the point of this so-called option to imply that the CGC graders are incompetent?). So, in the absence of any knowledge of what was done to the book, why is NOD singling out pressing if pressing is not the NOD poster child?

[Aman619]

what would you have said in this case differentyly to convet an upgrade of 2 levels?

[esquirecomics]

Overstreet 2005 NM- 9.2 value = $1,000.

 

NETWORK OF DISCLOSURE NOTICE: This book, which was purchased from a Heritage Comics auction, was previously graded by CGC as a 9.0. It is unknown whether the book has been pressed or simply was resubbed by a prior owner for a higher grade.

 

Just an observation:

 

According to you, NOD is about education and disclosure of all known work, and not just about singling out pressing. Yet the NOD disclosure offered with this book indicates something very different. This book was graded as a CGC 9.0 and subsequently as a CGC 9.4. The cause for upgrade is unknown. The upgrade might have been due to one or a combination of several techniques not deemed restoration by CGC. Yet the only possibility the NOD disclaimer allows for as the reason for the unknown upgrade - is that it the book was pressed! Why am I saying it's the only possibility? Because I think it's clear that only an imbecile would believe that simply resubmitting a book like this would or could result in such a drastic upgrade (or is the point of this so-called option to imply that the CGC graders are incompetent?). So, in the absence of any knowledge of what was done to the book, why is NOD singling out pressing if pressing is not the NOD poster child?

 

Why Peter, thank you so much for your productive post!! Wow, you missed so much today. We actually had substantive discussions without much name-calling back and forth, including with three lawyers and a restoration expert, all of whom often have differing opinions. Thank you for restoring our sanity by bringing us back to the level of condescending and cute remarks. Was this more of a shot against me, the NOD or both? I know you have been looking for the opportunities. I hope this was as good for you as it was for me.

 

I wrote that description long before the NOD was created and only later simply added the NETWORK OF DISCLOSURE part. By any chance did you even notice that the OS value was from 2005? Psst, let me tell you a secret, we're in 2006. I never modified it or the text.

 

But for you cutie pie, because you so much want to be right and put me in my place whenever you can, I will gladly modify the language to balance out the possible alternatives that could have resulted in the higher grade. It will now read: "It is unknown what method(s) were applied or utilized to enhance or manipulate the grade". Better? "Manipulate", yes or no? Fair? Inappropriate? Mean?

 

In any event, happy to respond to your constructive criticism. After all, this is all about ethical behavior and doing the right thing. Wouldn't want to be called a hypocrite. Keep on trying. Maybe you will snag me on something significant one of these days. Anything else?

 

Have a great weekend!

[esquirecomics]

what would you have said in this case differentyly to convet an upgrade of 2 levels?

 

Its more fun to simply criticize than suggest something constructive as an alternative.

[chrisco37]

what would you have said in this case differentyly to convet an upgrade of 2 levels?

 

Its more fun to simply criticize than suggest something constructive as an alternative.

 

Well, duh!

[Aman619]

well, he had a point, and as you explained it predated NOD and was an oversight to not have updated the text. and yeah, it was a dig.

[LearnedHand]

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Overstreet 2005 NM- 9.2 value = $1,000.

 

NETWORK OF DISCLOSURE NOTICE: This book, which was purchased from a Heritage Comics auction, was previously graded by CGC as a 9.0. It is unknown whether the book has been pressed or simply was resubbed by a prior owner for a higher grade.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Just an observation:

 

According to you, NOD is about education and disclosure of all known work, and not just about singling out pressing. Yet the NOD disclosure offered with this book indicates something very different. This book was graded as a CGC 9.0 and subsequently as a CGC 9.4. The cause for upgrade is unknown. The upgrade might have been due to one or a combination of several techniques not deemed restoration by CGC. Yet the only possibility the NOD disclaimer allows for as the reason for the unknown upgrade - is that it the book was pressed! Why am I saying it's the only possibility? Because I think it's clear that only an imbecile would believe that simply resubmitting a book like this would or could result in such a drastic upgrade (or is the point of this so-called option to imply that the CGC graders are incompetent?). So, in the absence of any knowledge of what was done to the book, why is NOD singling out pressing if pressing is not the NOD poster child?

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Why Peter, thank you so much for your productive post!! Wow, you missed so much today. We actually had substantive discussions without much name-calling back and forth, including with three lawyers and a restoration expert, all of whom often have differing opinions. Thank you for restoring our sanity by bringing us back to the level of condescending and cute remarks. Was this more of a shot against me, the NOD or both? I know you have been looking for the opportunities. I hope this was as good for you as it was for me.

 

I wrote that description long before the NOD was created and only later simply added the NETWORK OF DISCLOSURE part. By any chance did you even notice that the OS value was from 2005? Psst, let me tell you a secret, we're in 2006. I never modified it or the text.

 

But for you cutie pie, because you so much want to be right and put me in my place whenever you can, I will gladly modify the language to balance out the possible alternatives that could have resulted in the higher grade. It will now read: "It is unknown what method(s) were applied or utilized to enhance or manipulate the grade". Better? "Manipulate", yes or no? Fair? Inappropriate? Mean?

 

In any event, happy to respond to your constructive criticism. After all, this is all about ethical behavior and doing the right thing. Wouldn't want to be called a hypocrite. Keep on trying. Maybe you will snag me on something significant one of these days. Anything else?

 

Have a great weekend!

 

 

Your ridiculous melodrama aside, my query was serious – I was curious why pressing was being singled out. Geez, imagine if Matt reacted like you every time he got asked a simple question. Hope NOD doesn't react like this to every other legitimate query. By the way, I had no idea that the description was written by you and thought it might be the adopted standard.

 

Finally, as far as your A-hole comment about it being easier to criticize NOD than suggesting something constructive - I seem to recall (and Marnin can verify what you already know) that I was a big part of bringing about NOD. And, when you were suggesting a lower priced tier with NO associated voting rights, it was my suggestion to Marnin (after I decided I couldn't be a part of NOD and quit) to, instead, offer everyone voting rights on a scaled basis dependent on membership tier (so that everyone would have a voice in NOD) that was, luckily, ultimately adopted by NOD. And don't misunderstand. Many worked hard to bring NOD into existence; I only bring up my involvement because of your arrogance.

 

And to answer your question – I think the revised description is a better and more equitable statement.

[tth2]

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.

Bob, you know I respect the hell out of you, but I have to say that as I read through your discoveries, what struck me as the moral of the story is that even if you sell through a "good" dealer like Bob Storms, you have no control over where the books will end up. Unless the "good" dealers will sign up to your code of ethics and refuse to show the books to or sell to any person who you deem to be part of the Axis of Evil.

[FFB]

As for prices realized for books with tainted pasts, Hey Mark, how is the sale of that GA Detective you bought from Heritage going, getting a ton of offer? What, no offers? Try re-posting the auction without disclosing its history and see if it helps.

 

Please note for the pinheads out there, my comment to Mark was made in a sarcastic tone, but that is an example of where disclosure certainly has not drug the masses out to throw money at Mark for the book.

 

First, let me say I will readily admit I paid too much for that book at the time EVEN if the book had not been manipulated and the grade as is was original.

 

That being said, not one offer. Nada. Zip.

 

And all reasonable offers are always considered. The listed price is just that, a listed initial asking price. Anyone want the book for what I paid for it one or two years ago?

 

P.S. I understood your point and recognized the sarcasm without problem.

 

Part of the problem (and I stress the word "part") is the way that you phrase the disclosure. Why didn't you just say "This book was once graded 9.0 by CGC. It was probably professionally pressed prior to resubmission." When you say things like "It is unknown what methods were utilized or applied to enhance or manipulate the grade," it gives a sinister and negative connotation to the book that doesn't need to be there if what you're after is simply disclosure. There's neutral, factual disclosure, and then there's sensationalizing.

 

And then there's the fact that the asking price on that book is

 

How many times have we heard posters here say that if the asking price on a book is too high, they don't even bother with an offer? Drop the price by $1,000 to a more realistic level and maybe you'll see some offers.