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

[towards2112]

I'm sure she'd agree that amateurs could damage books through improper pressing.

So how does one get to be a NON amateur?

 

The process is not exactly posted somewhere near as I can tell.

 

:think: There would probably be some reduction in time spent posting on message boards....,

 

Maybe Flee will work some magic and get us an official looking

diploma , "dicktorate of pressing"

[Flaming_Telepath]

Susan , Tracey and Matt all press comics as part of restoring a comic. Susan, and Tracey are self professed "conservation minded" folk, if pressing was overly harmful to the long term life of a comic do you really think they would do it?

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Susan now stated that she will no longer press comics unless it's part of a larger overhaul of the book? She doesn't believe that the benefit accrued outweighs the potential damage?

I believe so.

 

So if pressing is not restoration, if it does no damage to the book, if it is ethical and above board...

 

Why would a woman of Susan's knowledge, experience, expertise and stellar reputation (let's face it, she's probably one of the top three restorers/conservators of comic books in the industry, if not the premier) refuse to simply press a book?

 

I mean, it's contrary to Matt Nelson's stand on the issue, so what's the difference between the two of them?

 

Susan didn't stop solo pressing because of possible damage to comics. She became involved in NOD and took an ethical stance against solo pressing because she thought it encourage greed and nondisclosure in the hobby.

 

I remember it clearly, because I took the position that she might be causing more damage to the hobby by not offering solo pressing. If the professionals stop, then that leaves only the amateurs to take over, and that's what could damage comics.

She became involved with NOD because of her stance on disclosure. Not because she hates pressers. I hate when people have to bring the NOD into these debates.

 

This declaration of Susan's was directly related to NOD. Mark played up a "big announcement coming" on the boards for several days before starting a thread where he posted the declaration. And I never said Susan hates pressers.

 

So NOD twisted Susan's arm?

 

I didn't say that.

 

So what were you saying? 'The declaration of Susan's was directly related to NOD'.

 

She was cajoled? She only said it to keep NOD happy?

 

You see, I cannot for the life of me otherwise see why NOD is relevant to her statement. Did she say it of her own free will?

 

If the answer is yes, what's NOD got to do with it? Aren't we talking about her thought process and her opinion, not where it might have been published?

[nearmint]

Susan , Tracey and Matt all press comics as part of restoring a comic. Susan, and Tracey are self professed "conservation minded" folk, if pressing was overly harmful to the long term life of a comic do you really think they would do it?

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Susan now stated that she will no longer press comics unless it's part of a larger overhaul of the book? She doesn't believe that the benefit accrued outweighs the potential damage?

I believe so.

 

So if pressing is not restoration, if it does no damage to the book, if it is ethical and above board...

 

Why would a woman of Susan's knowledge, experience, expertise and stellar reputation (let's face it, she's probably one of the top three restorers/conservators of comic books in the industry, if not the premier) refuse to simply press a book?

 

I mean, it's contrary to Matt Nelson's stand on the issue, so what's the difference between the two of them?

 

Susan didn't stop solo pressing because of possible damage to comics. She became involved in NOD and took an ethical stance against solo pressing because she thought it encourage greed and nondisclosure in the hobby.

 

I remember it clearly, because I took the position that she might be causing more damage to the hobby by not offering solo pressing. If the professionals stop, then that leaves only the amateurs to take over, and that's what could damage comics.

She became involved with NOD because of her stance on disclosure. Not because she hates pressers. I hate when people have to bring the NOD into these debates.

 

This declaration of Susan's was directly related to NOD. Mark played up a "big announcement coming" on the boards for several days before starting a thread where he posted the declaration. And I never said Susan hates pressers.

 

So NOD twisted Susan's arm?

 

I didn't say that.

 

So what were you saying? 'The declaration of Susan's was directly related to NOD'.

 

She was cajoled? She only said it to keep NOD happy?

 

You see, I cannot for the life of me otherwise see why NOD is relevant to her statement. Did she say it of her own free will?

 

If the answer is yes, what's NOD got to do with it? Aren't we talking about her thought process and her opinion, not where it might have been published?

 

Let me put it this way. If NOD hadn't existed, and if Mark hadn't had discussions with her about resto, pressing, and disclosure, then I don't think she ever would have made the declaration.

 

That in no way implies that she didn't believe what she wrote. I'm sure she did at the time. I was merely placing the declaration into an historical context.

[Domo Arigato]

 

Link

 

 

OK, let's address this.

 

"Using heat to reduce creases, wrinkles, or other planar distortions is not recommended by professional paper conservators. Many studies have shown that increased heat accelerates paper aging, especially papers made from groundwood pulp."

 

It's a recommendation. Not fact. Studies have shown that heat accelerates aging, but none in a fashion anywhere similar to that used in pressing. Most often in much higher temperatures and for much longer. You simply can't extrapolate that to pressing.

 

In controlled environments, conservators sometimes use humidification to flatten works. However, the method by which it occurs and on what kinds of paper are both very broad factors that are considered. Once any moisture is introduced into the paper sheet, any number of chemical reactions can begin. Many conservators elect to accept minor wrinkling and creasing as part of the artifact's history of use, rather then subject the work to what may begin or cause premature aging and discoloration."

 

Again, no facts given, simply stating what preferences "many conservators" elect to do. There is humidity in the air. You need some humidity in the air to preserve paper. Humidity can be bad or good for paper. This is such a vague statement: "Once any moisture is introduced into the paper sheet, any number of chemical reactions can begin" There's nothing objective or experimental there.

 

You really need to read what is written and stated before drawing such a conclusive view. This entire statement is nothing more than educated opinion at best. I believe you said I had mis-represented this. I'd like for you to show how I did that. If not, you need to retract that.

The LOC statement was in direct response to a very well thought out and specific question that Fantastic_Four presented to them about pressing a comic. And yes...they don't recommend using heat to reduce wrinkles because of the fact that increased heat accelerates paper aging, especially papers made from groundwood pulp. Seems extemely clear to me.

 

And I'll concede the moisture part, since it's not entirely clear if most people are using moisture when doing the pressing. However, it does look like the LOC carefully considers a broad number of factors before deciding to introduce moisture into a paper product to help flatten it and that "many conservators elect to accept minor wrinkling and creasing as part of the artifact's history of use, rather then subject the work to what may begin or cause premature aging and discoloration."

 

And I believe you did mis-represent this...because it was clear from one of your follow-up posts afterwards that you were just commenting on what you had read on the LOC website and hadn't actually read this response from them that I had posted earlier in the thread. If you want to chastise someone for not reading what is written and stated before drawing a conclusive view...then I think that door swings both directions in this case.

 

OK. I'll make this simple for you.

 

Is that statement from the LOC:

a) Fact

b) Opinion

 

The part about heat is clearly presented as a fact.

 

No it's not. Read it again. The words "recommended" and "many" are both qualifiers that exclude it from being presented as fact. It remains opinion.

 

And you should really read up on the studies they're talking about and see how relevant they are to pressing.

Yes it is. You're trying to distort it, but that's not going to change what they said. They were specifically asked about the process of using heat to press a comic book. They clearly stated that using heat is not recommended by professional paper conservators because many studies have shown that increased heat accelerates paper aging, especially papers made from groundwood pulp (like comic book paper). That is why it is not recommended. This is not opinion. It is a fact based on those studies.

Last time. If you don't get it, then I'm moving on.

 

The guy is responding to a question with his opinion. There is NOTHING in there to qualify it as fact. NOTHING. Even if he came out and said, "I'm absolutely certain this is bad" - without the background you're taking him at his word. There's nothing in his phrasing to suggest that is fact. It's opinion. Fact implies certainty. There is no certainty there. The reason there is no certainty is because the studies haven't been done. The reason the studies haven't been done is because the effect is so miniscule there's no way to quantify it. You can study what happens if you bake paper at 100 C for 24 hours, but at ~70 C for 5 minutes the effect is negligible.

 

You're so hung up on this one statement by one person (which is still nothing but opinion). Move beyond that and look at the information that is out there. For all you know this is a GED diplomate with a handbook whose job is to answer emails.

Do what you feel you have to do. It's still not going to make you any less wrong. He bases his answer on FACTS he knows...from STUDIES that have shown them. He is absolutely certain that increased heat accelerates paper aging, especially papers made from groundwood pulp (like comic book paper). Studies have been done to prove this. They didn't conduct these studies so that the study would give them an opinion. Increased heat accelerates the paper aging process, plain and simple. I don't think the LOC or I would argue with you that the more heat that is applied, the greater the aging affect. But that still doesn't dismiss the fact that some damage is occuring with the amount of heat applied during a press job. Regardless of how much you'd like to dismiss it as "neglegible" with nothing to back your own opinion up. And you can try to dismiss this persons credentials all you want. But I'll trust the credibility of a response from the Conservation Division of the U.S. Library of Congress on this matter over your opinion any day.

I have read the studies. We've discussed them at length in the resto forum. I've pointed that out. If you'd listen to a damn word I said you'd realize the studies that have been done - as they apply to pressing - are essentially irrelevant. I'm telling you the guy doesn't have these "facts" you think he does. The studies that would tell us that haven't been done, and they likely won't be done because there's no way to tell a difference. That's what I'm trying to tell you. LISTEN. It's not my opinion, that - more than any nonsense you've spouted - is fact. The studies you think you're referring to have proven nothing as it relates to pressing. Why don't you read them your damn self. I'm done with you. It's like talking to a brick. I regret having spent any time trying to convince you of anything.

Why should I listen to you if you're not going to listen to anyone else? Are you actually suggesting the U.S. Library of Congress has done no studies on the effects of heat on paper? Are you seriously expecting anyone to believe that and that they don't know what they're talking about? You keep demanding proof while offering none of your own.

[Monstro]

delek gets my vote for CGC boardie of the year.

 

 

 

-slym

 

Agreed, this guy, in a few posts has summed up every feeling I have had on this subject over the last two of years but have been to much of a knuckle head to express in my own posts.

 

 

[VK]

Good God, what a waste of time these threads are......

[Domo Arigato]

Your argument that heat pressing causes damage to a comic is not entirely unfounded and worth discussing. All the recent rash of "heat plate johnny's" (for lack of a better term) who are cooking books to try and get a grade are obviously not good for the hobby. But as many have said already in this thread, specific studies that show at what rate a pressed comic book ages, and how much it ages at what temp used are needed to back up the vague reference you have quoted so many times from the LOC to further this conversation beyond opinion.

Many of the pressers are the ones performing the work on the comics and then claiming no damage. The responsability lies on THEM to back up their claims and prove that absolutely no damage is occuring. Not the other way around.

 

 

And as long as we are all offering up opinons, I believe pressing if done correctly does not cause any more damage,or even less then a book that was sitting on tarmac for hours waiting to be flown across the globe, carted around by a mailman only to sit on someone's porch for hours in the snow only to be brought in and exposed to a dramatic temp swing.. Both MAY cause damage to the comic on some level, but it is negligible. Not to mention a comic is bought, sold, carted and shipped around the world under god knows what conditions perhaps dozens of times over it's 40 + years. But because pressing is done intentionally for mainly monetary reasons it is singled out as being "bad damage"

And how is that different than some of the other work being done in the name of money in this hobby, Kenny? A child who takes a felt tip marker and accidently touches the tip to the back of one of her dads comics with it isn't going to do much damage to the comic or lower it's condition/value much. If the same dad takes the same marker and color dots an area of spine where the color flaked off...CGC then labels that book as color touched and the value drops significantly. The dad didn't cause any more damage than the child. But it doesn't matter. Neither book is going to "disintegrate" tomorrow as so many in here are fond of saying. But, to use your own words...it was done intentionally for mainly monetary reasons and is singled out as being "bad damage". So the point you were trying to make is moot.

 

 

So I say you should spend your time writing up a response Email to the LOC instead of trying to convince everybody the jig is up because of one comment pulled from one email, because I honestly think people would love to discuss real time results of how pressing relates to comics. But aside from the tests Wilson did years ago there simply are none that I am aware of.

The LOC responded and recommended against using heat to press a comic. So I would say that you and any of the other pressers in here should spend your time backing up your own claims that pressing does no or very lilttle harm to the book. As I said above...that responsibility lies clearly on your shoulders...not ours.

[The Question?]

 

 

If you press and do not disclose it, you are in MY opinion, a charlatan, or simply a creep!

 

It matters none that "some" people don't consider it restoration, nor even a "big deal" overall. The FACT is, I and may other collectors, want to KNOW that at the very least, the book in question was...well, tampered with.

 

Its clearly a protocol/act for profit, with complete disregard for the comic itself, and it's lineage.

[Domo Arigato]

You're opinion doesn't mean anything Kenny, since you restore comics for a living.

 

However, if you were some unknown conservator from the Library of Congress, whose opinions could be used, without the benefit of specifics, to fit a particular agenda, then your opinion would be.... (worship)

I see more pressers making unsubstantiated claims...and without the benefit of specifics...to fit a particular agenda in here than I do anyone else.

[Flaming_Telepath]

I think I'm also correct in saying that Susan claims that she can tell you if a book has been pressed or not? As she has no monetary dog in the fight, as her reputation is unimpeachable, as her expertise is unsurpassed, let's accept that she can.

 

This is contrary to what we're being told by other individuals/bodies who, coincidentally, do have a monetary dog in the fight.

 

Let me put forward a theory...

 

Various forms of restoration are easier than others to spot. Colour touch, tear seals, cleaning...these are not quite as difficult to spot as trimming or, well, pressing.

 

Trimming, when done well, is almost impossible to detect...CGC know this all too well, as they've previously dropped the ball. However, they still attempt to detect it and note the slab accordingly when they are successful.

 

I would suggest that pressing is very, very similar, in that it can be detected, but maybe not in every case...the very, very good jobs might just slip the net.

 

This is the reason that CGC give for not considering it restoration...it can't be detected...but that seems to be untrue.

 

And they can't reliably detect trimming, either, so why not stop trying with this, too?

 

I suspect that the reason why pressing is not looked for is that they don't want to look for it. Not that they can't, but that they won't.

 

Why not? The premier restorer/conservator in the industry deems it restoration and says she can spot it...and not just the weak 'if it's a poor job, we'll see damage and downgrade it'. No, we're talking about the good jobs, the jobs that you're all happy with. Susan says she can still spot them.

 

So what has she got to gain by making these claims?

 

And what has CGC got to gain by denying them?

[Domo Arigato]

so, the most highly regarded, most experience comic book restorian considers pressing restoration...

 

That's not exactly breaking news. That declaration is years old, and she released it when she became involved in NOD.

But the fact still remains true and is appropriate for this discussion since many in here are claiming otherwise. Likely the most highly regarded, most experienced comic book restoration expert in the world considers pressing to be restoration and should be proactively disclosed.

[nearmint]

This is the reason that CGC give for not considering it restoration...it can't be detected...but that seems to be untrue.

 

That's not their reasoning for not considering it resto, Nick. They consider pressing a non-additive procedure, and that's why they don't consider it resto. It's right in their FAQ.

[Foolkiller]

so, the most highly regarded, most experience comic book restorian considers pressing restoration...

 

That's not exactly breaking news. That declaration is years old, and she released it when she became involved in NOD.

But the fact still remains true and is appropriate for this discussion since many in here are claiming otherwise. Likely the most highly regarded, most experienced comic book restoration expert in the world considers pressing to be restoration and should be proactively disclosed.

 

If she had gone to work for CGC (a job for which she was turned down for per Borock) would her position be the same?

 

Susan is a highly regarded professional, I but I no longer consider her to be the most highly regarded, though I do believe she is obviously in the top tier.

[Domo Arigato]

This is the reason that CGC give for not considering it restoration...it can't be detected...but that seems to be untrue.

That's not their reasoning for not considering it resto, Nick. They consider pressing a non-additive procedure, and that's why they don't consider it resto. It's right in their FAQ.

WRONG! Nick is referring to exactly what I was referring to earlier. CGC originally said they don't consider it restoration because they have no way of detecting it. They seem to have altered their "official" stance somewhat since originally saying that...but it doesn't change the fact that that was their original reason for not doing so. You are wrong, nearmint. Plain and simple.

[nearmint]

This is the reason that CGC give for not considering it restoration...it can't be detected...but that seems to be untrue.

That's not their reasoning for not considering it resto, Nick. They consider pressing a non-additive procedure, and that's why they don't consider it resto. It's right in their FAQ.

WRONG! Nick is referring to exactly what I was referring to earlier. CGC originally said they don't consider it restoration because they have no way of detecting it. They seem to have altered their "official" stance since originally saying that...but it doesn't change the fact that that was their original reason for not doing so. You are wrong, nearmint. Plain and simple.

 

I have no reason to believe that what you're saying is true. But it doesn't matter, I'm only interested in what CGC's stance is today under its present management. I think Nick is discussing the here and now.

[Domo Arigato]

so, the most highly regarded, most experience comic book restorian considers pressing restoration...

 

That's not exactly breaking news. That declaration is years old, and she released it when she became involved in NOD.

But the fact still remains true and is appropriate for this discussion since many in here are claiming otherwise. Likely the most highly regarded, most experienced comic book restoration expert in the world considers pressing to be restoration and should be proactively disclosed.

 

If she had gone to work for CGC (a job for which she was turned down for per Borock) would her position be the same?

 

Susan is a highly regarded professional, I but I no longer consider her to be the most highly regarded, though I do believe she is obviously in the top tier.

How is anyone supposed to guess what someone elses position might have been if a particular situation had been different? After demanding specific proof from the other side of the room, that's the kind of silly question you come up with to try and make a point?

 

And you may not consider her to be the most highly regarded, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't be in the minority.

[Domo Arigato]

This is the reason that CGC give for not considering it restoration...it can't be detected...but that seems to be untrue.

That's not their reasoning for not considering it resto, Nick. They consider pressing a non-additive procedure, and that's why they don't consider it resto. It's right in their FAQ.

WRONG! Nick is referring to exactly what I was referring to earlier. CGC originally said they don't consider it restoration because they have no way of detecting it. They seem to have altered their "official" stance since originally saying that...but it doesn't change the fact that that was their original reason for not doing so. You are wrong, nearmint. Plain and simple.

I have no reason to believe that what you're saying is true. But it doesn't matter, I'm only interested in what CGC's stance is today under its present management. I think Nick is discussing the here and now.

Of course you have no reason to believe it...because it doesn't fit in with what you want to believe. But Nick obviously remembers the exact same thing I mentioned earlier about what they've said in the past. You can choose to believe what you want, but you're still wrong. And I am absolutely interested in what CGC's stance was in the past. Especially a stance that changes as the dollar amounts increase.

[nearmint]

This is the reason that CGC give for not considering it restoration...it can't be detected...but that seems to be untrue.

That's not their reasoning for not considering it resto, Nick. They consider pressing a non-additive procedure, and that's why they don't consider it resto. It's right in their FAQ.

WRONG! Nick is referring to exactly what I was referring to earlier. CGC originally said they don't consider it restoration because they have no way of detecting it. They seem to have altered their "official" stance since originally saying that...but it doesn't change the fact that that was their original reason for not doing so. You are wrong, nearmint. Plain and simple.

I have no reason to believe that what you're saying is true. But it doesn't matter, I'm only interested in what CGC's stance is today under its present management. I think Nick is discussing the here and now.

Of course you have no reason to believe it...because it doesn't fit in with what you want to believe. But Nick obviously remembers the exact same thing I mentioned earlier about what they've said in the past. You can choose to believe what you want, but you're still wrong. And I am absolutely interested in what CGC's stance was in the past. Especially a stance that changes as the dollar amounts increase.

 

To be frank, I'm not all that interested in your opinion. My post was in response to Nick. It's his opinion that I'm interested in.

[scottish]

This is the reason that CGC give for not considering it restoration...it can't be detected...but that seems to be untrue.

That's not their reasoning for not considering it resto, Nick. They consider pressing a non-additive procedure, and that's why they don't consider it resto. It's right in their FAQ.

WRONG! Nick is referring to exactly what I was referring to earlier. CGC originally said they don't consider it restoration because they have no way of detecting it. They seem to have altered their "official" stance since originally saying that...but it doesn't change the fact that that was their original reason for not doing so. You are wrong, nearmint. Plain and simple.

I have no reason to believe that what you're saying is true. But it doesn't matter, I'm only interested in what CGC's stance is today under its present management. I think Nick is discussing the here and now.

Of course you have no reason to believe it...because it doesn't fit in with what you want to believe. But Nick obviously remembers the exact same thing I mentioned earlier about what they've said in the past. You can choose to believe what you want, but you're still wrong. And I am absolutely interested in what CGC's stance was in the past. Especially a stance that changes as the dollar amounts increase.

 

BELIEF cannot be wrong. At least IMHO. Just sayin'

 

[buttock]

I think I'm also correct in saying that Susan claims that she can tell you if a book has been pressed or not? As she has no monetary dog in the fight, as her reputation is unimpeachable, as her expertise is unsurpassed, let's accept that she can.

 

This is contrary to what we're being told by other individuals/bodies who, coincidentally, do have a monetary dog in the fight.

 

Let me put forward a theory...

 

Various forms of restoration are easier than others to spot. Colour touch, tear seals, cleaning...these are not quite as difficult to spot as trimming or, well, pressing.

 

Trimming, when done well, is almost impossible to detect...CGC know this all too well, as they've previously dropped the ball. However, they still attempt to detect it and note the slab accordingly when they are successful.

 

I would suggest that pressing is very, very similar, in that it can be detected, but maybe not in every case...the very, very good jobs might just slip the net.

 

This is the reason that CGC give for not considering it restoration...it can't be detected...but that seems to be untrue.

 

And they can't reliably detect trimming, either, so why not stop trying with this, too?

 

I suspect that the reason why pressing is not looked for is that they don't want to look for it. Not that they can't, but that they won't.

 

Why not? The premier restorer/conservator in the industry deems it restoration and says she can spot it...and not just the weak 'if it's a poor job, we'll see damage and downgrade it'. No, we're talking about the good jobs, the jobs that you're all happy with. Susan says she can still spot them.

 

So what has she got to gain by making these claims?

 

And what has CGC got to gain by denying them?

 

1) This summer, I sat in a hotel room with a couple of people who actively press. The topic of pressing came up with another dealer who had books pressed and did not consider it restoration. The two pressers both vigorously stated that pressing is absolutely restoration. To say that those who press don't consider it restoration is a patently wrong generalization.

 

2) I have an old price guide or CBM (for the life of me, I can't remember which, but I'm pretty sure it was an OSPG) with an article by Susan C. on restoration. In that article she discussed pressing and stated that it is undetectable. I'd like to know what changed so that she now feels it is.