And people wonder why folks get a little bit peeved...

[TheShadowKnows]

I had always thought that the anti-pressers wanted to bring about some kind of change, but from the responses I'm seeing in this thread, it seems like they just want the pro-pressers to admit that they're right.

 

That's because, as some of them have conceded, the battle about pressing and whether it will continue is long over, and they lost that battle. Now it's just philosophical and ethereal.

 

Exactly what I've been arguing all morning. The anti-pressing argument has moved into the land of the theoretical.

 

The battle is far from over. I believe that pressing is a form of restoration, and I also believe that it's only a matter of time before it becomes defined as such.

 

The entire comic market will change drastically when it does.

Chris,

I would like your opinion on what will happen if this comes about.

Dennis

[scottish]

This is such an interesting thread.

 

You always learn so much from these pressing thread that I just can't wait to read the next 38 pages!

 

 

 

[nearmint]

And I agree that CGC does not consider pressing restoration. But if I recall correctly, that's only because they can't accurately identify it and/or prove it.

 

I don't remember that being the case at all.

Doesn't mean it's not true.

 

Prove it.

[hockey&comicsguy]

And I agree that CGC does not consider pressing restoration. But if I recall correctly, that's only because they can't accurately identify it and/or prove it.

 

I don't remember that being the case at all.

Doesn't mean it's not true.

 

 

It's becoming quite clear around here that "truth" is in the eye of the beholder.

 

You want truth. Truth is I have never seen a pressed book, with no other work done to it, receive a purple label.

 

Of course your counter would be what? That it doesn't mean pressing isn't restoration?

 

Which brings me back to the 1st statement. That we believe what we want to believe. And when the powers that be don't agree with us, then they're wrong and I am right.

 

 

[hockey&comicsguy]

I am not asking this in an argumentative way or just to be a tool, but what world do you live in where you feel it is solely the sellers responsibilty to disclose anything to a buyer? I ask questions about everything. Anyone who has ever sold to me here on the boards knows I can be a royal PITA, but I do not like surprises after the fact. If I know before I close the deal I am OK with that. I can then decide to buy or not.

 

 

I've been wondering that exact same thing.

[Dick Pontoon]

 

The battle is far from over. I believe that pressing is a form of restoration, and I also believe that it's only a matter of time before it becomes defined as such.

 

The entire comic market will change drastically when it does.

 

Defined by whom?

 

clearly it would have to be CGC. unless Haspel's opinion changes, or someone else who follows Haspel disagrees with their current position - and I can't see them making that decision at this point in time - it will always be thus.

 

 

the only "victory" people who don't approve of pressing can have at this point is finding their own books in the wild

 

I guess I'm alone in the belief that CGC will not hold a monopoly forever.

 

It might not, but if pressing is undetectable, how would even a dozen competitors change the current CGC viewpoint that pressing is not restoration? Even if Haspel or Borock were vehemently against pressing, how would they guide CGC policy or anyone’s perception it was restoration if they can’t even tell the difference between unpressed and pressed in order to slap a book with a PLOD?

[Domo Arigato]

Joey...I do know that you actively disclose and I'm glad for that. I just think that pressing needs to be called what it is and actively disclosed by everyone. Whether we will both be in the ground before our books or not doesn't really matter.

 

There is a very good chance that the owner of a book that has been slightly micro-trimmed without disclosure will never know it. The book was trimmed during manufacture and was ever so slightly micro-trimmed by someone after that. The book is not going to disintegrate any quicker because of it. But that doesn't mean that the non-disclosure of the work is ok as long as the guy didn't ask. Not really a great analogy...and it doesn't aply to you since you do disclose...but hopefully you'll get the point I'm trying to make.

 

If I spent every moment of this hobby worrying about what was done to every book I own I would no longer enjoy what I do.

 

I am not saying ignorance is bliss but the more I learned about certain practices the more tolerant I am of them. I do not want a trimmed book, but I may own one anyway. Shame on the seller who does this. But then again, had I asked he may have said yes, it was trimmed.

 

You use your LOC info to substantiate your side of the argument, and I am not arguing the point that damage can/is done. A book that sits their is slowly decaying so I see the logic. What I do not see offered is the quantifiable data. A pressed book will only have a shelf life of XXX years compared to the same non-pressed book that has YYYYY shelf life.

 

To substantiate my side of the argument, as of this moment, CGC does not consider pressing restoration. Until that changes I will use that as my benchmark.

Yes...the seller might have admitted the book was trimmed if you asked him...but you should never have to ask. I would hate to have to ask every time I bought a book if it had (fill in the blank here with every type of restoration/desctruction that could be done to a book).

 

A point I'm trying to make is that many pressers (not all) have been saying for a LONG time that pressing does no damage in an effort to justify their lack of disclosure. Regardless of the lack of quantifiable data from the LOC...we now know that this is simply not true. Pressing a book (utilizing heat and/or moisture) does cause damage. Is it small? Probably. But it's damage done to a book by an individual in order to improve the outward look of the book and should be proactively disclosed by those who do it.

 

And I agree that CGC does not consider pressing restoration. But if I recall correctly, that's only because they can't accurately identify it and/or prove it. In light of the recent response from the Library of Congress, I just don't think their stance on it is satisfactory.

I am not asking this in an argumentative way or just to be a tool, but what world do you live in where you feel it is solely the sellers responsibilty to disclose anything to a buyer? I ask questions about everything. Anyone who has ever sold to me here on the boards knows I can be a royal PITA, but I do not like surprises after the fact. If I know before I close the deal I am OK with that. I can then decide to buy or not.

WTF? Are you just trying to be a tool?

 

I live in a world where I feel a seller should disclose work they've had done to a book prior to selling it. Especially if that work has caused damage to the book.

 

By the same token...what kind of world do you live in where you feel it's ok if someone knowingly and willingly does damage to a book and then doesn't disclose that to their buyer?

[joeypost]

Joey...I do know that you actively disclose and I'm glad for that. I just think that pressing needs to be called what it is and actively disclosed by everyone. Whether we will both be in the ground before our books or not doesn't really matter.

 

There is a very good chance that the owner of a book that has been slightly micro-trimmed without disclosure will never know it. The book was trimmed during manufacture and was ever so slightly micro-trimmed by someone after that. The book is not going to disintegrate any quicker because of it. But that doesn't mean that the non-disclosure of the work is ok as long as the guy didn't ask. Not really a great analogy...and it doesn't aply to you since you do disclose...but hopefully you'll get the point I'm trying to make.

 

If I spent every moment of this hobby worrying about what was done to every book I own I would no longer enjoy what I do.

 

I am not saying ignorance is bliss but the more I learned about certain practices the more tolerant I am of them. I do not want a trimmed book, but I may own one anyway. Shame on the seller who does this. But then again, had I asked he may have said yes, it was trimmed.

 

You use your LOC info to substantiate your side of the argument, and I am not arguing the point that damage can/is done. A book that sits their is slowly decaying so I see the logic. What I do not see offered is the quantifiable data. A pressed book will only have a shelf life of XXX years compared to the same non-pressed book that has YYYYY shelf life.

 

To substantiate my side of the argument, as of this moment, CGC does not consider pressing restoration. Until that changes I will use that as my benchmark.

Yes...the seller might have admitted the book was trimmed if you asked him...but you should never have to ask. I would hate to have to ask every time I bought a book if it had (fill in the blank here with every type of restoration/desctruction that could be done to a book).

 

A point I'm trying to make is that many pressers (not all) have been saying for a LONG time that pressing does no damage in an effort to justify their lack of disclosure. Regardless of the lack of quantifiable data from the LOC...we now know that this is simply not true. Pressing a book (utilizing heat and/or moisture) does cause damage. Is it small? Probably. But it's damage done to a book by an individual in order to improve the outward look of the book and should be proactively disclosed by those who do it.

 

And I agree that CGC does not consider pressing restoration. But if I recall correctly, that's only because they can't accurately identify it and/or prove it. In light of the recent response from the Library of Congress, I just don't think their stance on it is satisfactory.

I am not asking this in an argumentative way or just to be a tool, but what world do you live in where you feel it is solely the sellers responsibilty to disclose anything to a buyer? I ask questions about everything. Anyone who has ever sold to me here on the boards knows I can be a royal PITA, but I do not like surprises after the fact. If I know before I close the deal I am OK with that. I can then decide to buy or not.

WTF? Are you just trying to be a tool?

 

I live in a world where I feel a seller should disclose work they've had done to a book prior to selling it. Especially if that work has caused damage to the book.

 

By the same token...what kind of world do you live in where you feel it's ok if someone knowingly and willingly does damage to a book and then doesn't disclose that to their buyer?

 

I live in a world where I have been taught to ask questions.

[towards2112]

Joey...I do know that you actively disclose and I'm glad for that. I just think that pressing needs to be called what it is and actively disclosed by everyone. Whether we will both be in the ground before our books or not doesn't really matter.

 

There is a very good chance that the owner of a book that has been slightly micro-trimmed without disclosure will never know it. The book was trimmed during manufacture and was ever so slightly micro-trimmed by someone after that. The book is not going to disintegrate any quicker because of it. But that doesn't mean that the non-disclosure of the work is ok as long as the guy didn't ask. Not really a great analogy...and it doesn't aply to you since you do disclose...but hopefully you'll get the point I'm trying to make.

 

If I spent every moment of this hobby worrying about what was done to every book I own I would no longer enjoy what I do.

 

I am not saying ignorance is bliss but the more I learned about certain practices the more tolerant I am of them. I do not want a trimmed book, but I may own one anyway. Shame on the seller who does this. But then again, had I asked he may have said yes, it was trimmed.

 

You use your LOC info to substantiate your side of the argument, and I am not arguing the point that damage can/is done. A book that sits their is slowly decaying so I see the logic. What I do not see offered is the quantifiable data. A pressed book will only have a shelf life of XXX years compared to the same non-pressed book that has YYYYY shelf life.

 

To substantiate my side of the argument, as of this moment, CGC does not consider pressing restoration. Until that changes I will use that as my benchmark.

Yes...the seller might have admitted the book was trimmed if you asked him...but you should never have to ask. I would hate to have to ask every time I bought a book if it had (fill in the blank here with every type of restoration/desctruction that could be done to a book).

 

A point I'm trying to make is that many pressers (not all) have been saying for a LONG time that pressing does no damage in an effort to justify their lack of disclosure. Regardless of the lack of quantifiable data from the LOC...we now know that this is simply not true. Pressing a book (utilizing heat and/or moisture) does cause damage. Is it small? Probably. But it's damage done to a book by an individual in order to improve the outward look of the book and should be proactively disclosed by those who do it.

 

And I agree that CGC does not consider pressing restoration. But if I recall correctly, that's only because they can't accurately identify it and/or prove it. In light of the recent response from the Library of Congress, I just don't think their stance on it is satisfactory.

I am not asking this in an argumentative way or just to be a tool, but what world do you live in where you feel it is solely the sellers responsibilty to disclose anything to a buyer? I ask questions about everything. Anyone who has ever sold to me here on the boards knows I can be a royal PITA, but I do not like surprises after the fact. If I know before I close the deal I am OK with that. I can then decide to buy or not.

WTF? Are you just trying to be a tool?

 

I live in a world where I feel a seller should disclose work they've had done to a book prior to selling it. Especially if that work has caused damage to the book.

 

By the same token...what kind of world do you live in where you feel it's ok if someone knowingly and willingly does damage to a book and then doesn't disclose that to their buyer?

 

I live in a world where I have been taught to ask questions.

 

cotigo ergo sum ?

[Sal]

 

The battle is far from over. I believe that pressing is a form of restoration, and I also believe that it's only a matter of time before it becomes defined as such.

 

The entire comic market will change drastically when it does.

 

Defined by whom?

 

clearly it would have to be CGC. unless Haspel's opinion changes, or someone else who follows Haspel disagrees with their current position - and I can't see them making that decision at this point in time - it will always be thus.

 

 

the only "victory" people who don't approve of pressing can have at this point is finding their own books in the wild

 

I guess I'm alone in the belief that CGC will not hold a monopoly forever.

 

not necessarily, but if CGC folds, the crashing sound you hear won't be on account of pressing being suddenly viewed as resto imho

[Domo Arigato]

And I agree that CGC does not consider pressing restoration. But if I recall correctly, that's only because they can't accurately identify it and/or prove it.

 

I don't remember that being the case at all.

Doesn't mean it's not true.

 

Prove it.

Prove it's not true. Or for that matter...contribute something of substance. Somthing other than just post after post asking for chart, graphs, numerical data, and statistical analysis in an attempt to show everyone that you're know more about paper conservation the the LOC.

[Dick Pontoon]

Joey...I do know that you actively disclose and I'm glad for that. I just think that pressing needs to be called what it is and actively disclosed by everyone. Whether we will both be in the ground before our books or not doesn't really matter.

 

There is a very good chance that the owner of a book that has been slightly micro-trimmed without disclosure will never know it. The book was trimmed during manufacture and was ever so slightly micro-trimmed by someone after that. The book is not going to disintegrate any quicker because of it. But that doesn't mean that the non-disclosure of the work is ok as long as the guy didn't ask. Not really a great analogy...and it doesn't aply to you since you do disclose...but hopefully you'll get the point I'm trying to make.

 

If I spent every moment of this hobby worrying about what was done to every book I own I would no longer enjoy what I do.

 

I am not saying ignorance is bliss but the more I learned about certain practices the more tolerant I am of them. I do not want a trimmed book, but I may own one anyway. Shame on the seller who does this. But then again, had I asked he may have said yes, it was trimmed.

 

You use your LOC info to substantiate your side of the argument, and I am not arguing the point that damage can/is done. A book that sits their is slowly decaying so I see the logic. What I do not see offered is the quantifiable data. A pressed book will only have a shelf life of XXX years compared to the same non-pressed book that has YYYYY shelf life.

 

To substantiate my side of the argument, as of this moment, CGC does not consider pressing restoration. Until that changes I will use that as my benchmark.

Yes...the seller might have admitted the book was trimmed if you asked him...but you should never have to ask. I would hate to have to ask every time I bought a book if it had (fill in the blank here with every type of restoration/desctruction that could be done to a book).

 

A point I'm trying to make is that many pressers (not all) have been saying for a LONG time that pressing does no damage in an effort to justify their lack of disclosure. Regardless of the lack of quantifiable data from the LOC...we now know that this is simply not true. Pressing a book (utilizing heat and/or moisture) does cause damage. Is it small? Probably. But it's damage done to a book by an individual in order to improve the outward look of the book and should be proactively disclosed by those who do it.

 

And I agree that CGC does not consider pressing restoration. But if I recall correctly, that's only because they can't accurately identify it and/or prove it. In light of the recent response from the Library of Congress, I just don't think their stance on it is satisfactory.

I am not asking this in an argumentative way or just to be a tool, but what world do you live in where you feel it is solely the sellers responsibilty to disclose anything to a buyer? I ask questions about everything. Anyone who has ever sold to me here on the boards knows I can be a royal PITA, but I do not like surprises after the fact. If I know before I close the deal I am OK with that. I can then decide to buy or not.

WTF? Are you just trying to be a tool?

 

I live in a world where I feel a seller should disclose work they've had done to a book prior to selling it. Especially if that work has caused damage to the book.

 

By the same token...what kind of world do you live in where you feel it's ok if someone knowingly and willingly does damage to a book and then doesn't disclose that to their buyer?

 

I live in a world where I have been taught to ask questions.

 

[Domo Arigato]

Joey...I do know that you actively disclose and I'm glad for that. I just think that pressing needs to be called what it is and actively disclosed by everyone. Whether we will both be in the ground before our books or not doesn't really matter.

 

There is a very good chance that the owner of a book that has been slightly micro-trimmed without disclosure will never know it. The book was trimmed during manufacture and was ever so slightly micro-trimmed by someone after that. The book is not going to disintegrate any quicker because of it. But that doesn't mean that the non-disclosure of the work is ok as long as the guy didn't ask. Not really a great analogy...and it doesn't aply to you since you do disclose...but hopefully you'll get the point I'm trying to make.

 

If I spent every moment of this hobby worrying about what was done to every book I own I would no longer enjoy what I do.

 

I am not saying ignorance is bliss but the more I learned about certain practices the more tolerant I am of them. I do not want a trimmed book, but I may own one anyway. Shame on the seller who does this. But then again, had I asked he may have said yes, it was trimmed.

 

You use your LOC info to substantiate your side of the argument, and I am not arguing the point that damage can/is done. A book that sits their is slowly decaying so I see the logic. What I do not see offered is the quantifiable data. A pressed book will only have a shelf life of XXX years compared to the same non-pressed book that has YYYYY shelf life.

 

To substantiate my side of the argument, as of this moment, CGC does not consider pressing restoration. Until that changes I will use that as my benchmark.

Yes...the seller might have admitted the book was trimmed if you asked him...but you should never have to ask. I would hate to have to ask every time I bought a book if it had (fill in the blank here with every type of restoration/desctruction that could be done to a book).

 

A point I'm trying to make is that many pressers (not all) have been saying for a LONG time that pressing does no damage in an effort to justify their lack of disclosure. Regardless of the lack of quantifiable data from the LOC...we now know that this is simply not true. Pressing a book (utilizing heat and/or moisture) does cause damage. Is it small? Probably. But it's damage done to a book by an individual in order to improve the outward look of the book and should be proactively disclosed by those who do it.

 

And I agree that CGC does not consider pressing restoration. But if I recall correctly, that's only because they can't accurately identify it and/or prove it. In light of the recent response from the Library of Congress, I just don't think their stance on it is satisfactory.

I am not asking this in an argumentative way or just to be a tool, but what world do you live in where you feel it is solely the sellers responsibilty to disclose anything to a buyer? I ask questions about everything. Anyone who has ever sold to me here on the boards knows I can be a royal PITA, but I do not like surprises after the fact. If I know before I close the deal I am OK with that. I can then decide to buy or not.

WTF? Are you just trying to be a tool?

 

I live in a world where I feel a seller should disclose work they've had done to a book prior to selling it. Especially if that work has caused damage to the book.

 

By the same token...what kind of world do you live in where you feel it's ok if someone knowingly and willingly does damage to a book and then doesn't disclose that to their buyer?

 

I live in a world where I have been taught to ask questions.

I live in a world where I was taught to be honest and forthcoming and to expect no less from others.

[cujobyte]

Again, that's why I think the anti-pressing crowd live in the theoretical. Your complaint is that dealers aren't proactively disclosing

 

I'm anti-pressing and have never believed that disclosure was sufficient, not when thousands and thousands of books have been and are being pressed (again, remember when the pro-pressing crowd kept insisting that it would always remain a costly and limited phenomenon? What a joke that was) and actively exchanged between numerous parties. Fast forward 5-10 years and these books will have changed hands so many times, through so many venues, that the line of disclosure will inevitably have been broken on a huge number of books.

 

I was once a big slab collector (I still own probably 200-300 of them) and thought I might one day get back into it, but the hobby is dead to me now. Those of us who admire books that have earned their CGC grades by withstanding the ravages of time and ownership can already hardly distinguish those books from those that have been manipulated with any degree of certainty, and it will only become more and more difficult going forward.

 

Unless one is willing to accept manipulated books as being the equivalent of books in their natural state (i.e., ignorance is bliss, if it looks like a 9.8, it is a 9.8 no matter how it got there), there is no more place in the HG slabbed hobby for people like us. It's like Leonard Cohen sang when I saw him at MSG the other week - everybody knows the war is over, everybody knows the good guys lost...

 

I have never posted in a pressing thread, perhaps because I'm more fearful of what will eventually happen to comics when all the young readers have vanished, and all the old guys (my being one of them) have dried up and moved on. Am I the only one that cares about this?

 

Gene, without knowing nearly as much about OA as you, having read every thread in OA for the last year or two, I'd like your thoughts upon any restoration (if any are done) in the world of OA.

[THE_BEYONDER]

 

The battle is far from over. I believe that pressing is a form of restoration, and I also believe that it's only a matter of time before it becomes defined as such.

 

The entire comic market will change drastically when it does.

 

Defined by whom?

 

clearly it would have to be CGC. unless Haspel's opinion changes, or someone else who follows Haspel disagrees with their current position - and I can't see them making that decision at this point in time - it will always be thus.

 

 

the only "victory" people who don't approve of pressing can have at this point is finding their own books in the wild

 

I guess I'm alone in the belief that CGC will not hold a monopoly forever.

 

It might not, but if pressing is undetectable, how would even a dozen competitors change the current CGC viewpoint that pressing is not restoration? Even if Haspel or Borock were vehemently against pressing, how would they guide CGC policy or anyone’s perception it was restoration if they can’t even tell the difference between unpressed and pressed in order to slap a book with a PLOD?

 

I suppose CGC would be forced to invest in the technology to detect it, or be forced to admit that their resto check is incomplete.

 

It's one thing to admit that you cannot detect a specific form of restoration. It's another thing entirely to promote & support such a restorative process.

 

 

[MrBedrock]

If someone can prove that pressing is restoration I will stop using the (thumbs u graemlin.

 

I need proof that pressing is restoration.

 

On 3....Ready?

 

1...2...3

[seanfingh]

 

Someone on the Interwebs said it is. (thumbs u

[joeypost]

Joey...I do know that you actively disclose and I'm glad for that. I just think that pressing needs to be called what it is and actively disclosed by everyone. Whether we will both be in the ground before our books or not doesn't really matter.

 

There is a very good chance that the owner of a book that has been slightly micro-trimmed without disclosure will never know it. The book was trimmed during manufacture and was ever so slightly micro-trimmed by someone after that. The book is not going to disintegrate any quicker because of it. But that doesn't mean that the non-disclosure of the work is ok as long as the guy didn't ask. Not really a great analogy...and it doesn't aply to you since you do disclose...but hopefully you'll get the point I'm trying to make.

 

If I spent every moment of this hobby worrying about what was done to every book I own I would no longer enjoy what I do.

 

I am not saying ignorance is bliss but the more I learned about certain practices the more tolerant I am of them. I do not want a trimmed book, but I may own one anyway. Shame on the seller who does this. But then again, had I asked he may have said yes, it was trimmed.

 

You use your LOC info to substantiate your side of the argument, and I am not arguing the point that damage can/is done. A book that sits their is slowly decaying so I see the logic. What I do not see offered is the quantifiable data. A pressed book will only have a shelf life of XXX years compared to the same non-pressed book that has YYYYY shelf life.

 

To substantiate my side of the argument, as of this moment, CGC does not consider pressing restoration. Until that changes I will use that as my benchmark.

Yes...the seller might have admitted the book was trimmed if you asked him...but you should never have to ask. I would hate to have to ask every time I bought a book if it had (fill in the blank here with every type of restoration/desctruction that could be done to a book).

 

A point I'm trying to make is that many pressers (not all) have been saying for a LONG time that pressing does no damage in an effort to justify their lack of disclosure. Regardless of the lack of quantifiable data from the LOC...we now know that this is simply not true. Pressing a book (utilizing heat and/or moisture) does cause damage. Is it small? Probably. But it's damage done to a book by an individual in order to improve the outward look of the book and should be proactively disclosed by those who do it.

 

And I agree that CGC does not consider pressing restoration. But if I recall correctly, that's only because they can't accurately identify it and/or prove it. In light of the recent response from the Library of Congress, I just don't think their stance on it is satisfactory.

I am not asking this in an argumentative way or just to be a tool, but what world do you live in where you feel it is solely the sellers responsibilty to disclose anything to a buyer? I ask questions about everything. Anyone who has ever sold to me here on the boards knows I can be a royal PITA, but I do not like surprises after the fact. If I know before I close the deal I am OK with that. I can then decide to buy or not.

WTF? Are you just trying to be a tool?

 

I live in a world where I feel a seller should disclose work they've had done to a book prior to selling it. Especially if that work has caused damage to the book.

 

By the same token...what kind of world do you live in where you feel it's ok if someone knowingly and willingly does damage to a book and then doesn't disclose that to their buyer?

 

I live in a world where I have been taught to ask questions.

I live in a world where I was taught to be honest and forthcoming and to expect no less from others.

 

You can be both. But since we do not live in a Utopian society I chose to ask questions while maintaining an honest approach myself. I find I am not disappointed as much as I used to be.

[THE_BEYONDER]

If someone can prove that pressing is restoration I will stop using the (thumbs u graemlin.

 

I need proof that pressing is restoration.

 

On 3....Ready?

 

1...2...3

 

NCB crease is no longer visible

[joeypost]

Joey...I do know that you actively disclose and I'm glad for that. I just think that pressing needs to be called what it is and actively disclosed by everyone. Whether we will both be in the ground before our books or not doesn't really matter.

 

There is a very good chance that the owner of a book that has been slightly micro-trimmed without disclosure will never know it. The book was trimmed during manufacture and was ever so slightly micro-trimmed by someone after that. The book is not going to disintegrate any quicker because of it. But that doesn't mean that the non-disclosure of the work is ok as long as the guy didn't ask. Not really a great analogy...and it doesn't aply to you since you do disclose...but hopefully you'll get the point I'm trying to make.

 

If I spent every moment of this hobby worrying about what was done to every book I own I would no longer enjoy what I do.

 

I am not saying ignorance is bliss but the more I learned about certain practices the more tolerant I am of them. I do not want a trimmed book, but I may own one anyway. Shame on the seller who does this. But then again, had I asked he may have said yes, it was trimmed.

 

You use your LOC info to substantiate your side of the argument, and I am not arguing the point that damage can/is done. A book that sits their is slowly decaying so I see the logic. What I do not see offered is the quantifiable data. A pressed book will only have a shelf life of XXX years compared to the same non-pressed book that has YYYYY shelf life.

 

To substantiate my side of the argument, as of this moment, CGC does not consider pressing restoration. Until that changes I will use that as my benchmark.

Yes...the seller might have admitted the book was trimmed if you asked him...but you should never have to ask. I would hate to have to ask every time I bought a book if it had (fill in the blank here with every type of restoration/desctruction that could be done to a book).

 

A point I'm trying to make is that many pressers (not all) have been saying for a LONG time that pressing does no damage in an effort to justify their lack of disclosure. Regardless of the lack of quantifiable data from the LOC...we now know that this is simply not true. Pressing a book (utilizing heat and/or moisture) does cause damage. Is it small? Probably. But it's damage done to a book by an individual in order to improve the outward look of the book and should be proactively disclosed by those who do it.

 

And I agree that CGC does not consider pressing restoration. But if I recall correctly, that's only because they can't accurately identify it and/or prove it. In light of the recent response from the Library of Congress, I just don't think their stance on it is satisfactory.

I am not asking this in an argumentative way or just to be a tool, but what world do you live in where you feel it is solely the sellers responsibilty to disclose anything to a buyer? I ask questions about everything. Anyone who has ever sold to me here on the boards knows I can be a royal PITA, but I do not like surprises after the fact. If I know before I close the deal I am OK with that. I can then decide to buy or not.

WTF? Are you just trying to be a tool?

 

I live in a world where I feel a seller should disclose work they've had done to a book prior to selling it. Especially if that work has caused damage to the book.

 

By the same token...what kind of world do you live in where you feel it's ok if someone knowingly and willingly does damage to a book and then doesn't disclose that to their buyer?

 

I live in a world where I have been taught to ask questions.

 

cotigo ergo sum ?

 

reperio veritas or the one I like best In vino veritas