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

[nearmint]

Most of the vocal antipressers here (especially in this thread) dislike the activity due to the alleged harm it causes books.

 

Alleged being the key word there. When discussing the "is pressing resto" debate, most of the vocal anti-pressers in this thread want to hold Susan up as the world expert, because her opinion is that pressing is resto. The chink in their armor is that they can't use her as the world expert on resto in regards to the "does pressing damage comics" debate because she still presses books.

According to the U.S. Library of Congress, increased heat accelerates paper aging, especially papers made from groundwood pulp. There is no allegedly about it. It's up to the pro-pressers to prove their claim that it doesn't cause any damage or stop falsely making that claim.

 

I actually don't know of anyone categorically claiming that pressing does 0.0 damage. I hear many stating their belief that the damage is so benign as to be not worth consideration. Since the LOC didn't specify the extent of damage, those two opinions might not be mutually exclusive.

[goldust40]

Most of the vocal antipressers here (especially in this thread) dislike the activity due to the alleged harm it causes books.

 

Alleged being the key word there. When discussing the "is pressing resto" debate, most of the vocal anti-pressers in this thread want to hold Susan up as the world expert, because her opinion is that pressing is resto. The chink in their armor is that they can't use her as the world expert on resto in regards to the "does pressing damage comics" debate because she still presses books.

 

My point was that anti-pressers may be more concerned with possible harm to books than their own interests.

 

In the end however their intentions may be honorable, lack of concrete proof means their arguments will alway be reductive.

[ciorac]

"Greed denotes an excessive, extreme desire for something, often more than one's proper share . Greed means avid desire for gain or wealth (unless some other application is indicated) and is definitely uncomplimentary in implication"

 

Being concerned about the devaluation of your current collection, or at least the maintenance of its current value, would not fit the definition of greed as I read it above.

"Greed" as a description is uncomplimentary, that is why I questioned its usage here. What is one's proper share when it comes to accumulating a collection of high grade comics? We collect comics. We amass collections. We rate them by many things, grade being one. We value them by many things, grade being paramount.

So again I ask, How is a person who is concerned by the effect pressing will have on the value of his/her collection any less "greedy" then the person pressing?

 

Avarice acquistion vs. maintenance/devaluation I should imagine. As it relates to the monetary valuation of the books.

 

But, I hasten to add, I have no problem with either approach or view.

[ciorac]

And anyone even vaguely concerned about this issue will on some level be concerned with the bottom line. If you've put a lot of money, time and dedication into a hobby, it would be daft not to be.

Agreed. And that's why I think it is silly to call people who have books pressed "greedy" like they are the only ones, or it is a bad thing. The very act of collecting makes us all "greedy" to some extent.

 

Except those of us who collect low grade, slow market, goofy stuff

 

 

Some one called?

 

A brother of the faith

[ciorac]

And anyone even vaguely concerned about this issue will on some level be concerned with the bottom line. If you've put a lot of money, time and dedication into a hobby, it would be daft not to be.

Agreed. And that's why I think it is silly to call people who have books pressed "greedy" like they are the only ones, or it is a bad thing. The very act of collecting makes us all "greedy" to some extent.

 

That argument is reflexive, don't you know. Are you suggesting that anti-pressers have to be less greedy than pressers to have a valid position against them?

 

 

 

I do think anti-pressers tend to throw that term out there as a way of making their position seem more righteous. I think the term should be removed from the argument all-together.

 

aGREED

 

[Dale Roberts]

And anyone even vaguely concerned about this issue will on some level be concerned with the bottom line. If you've put a lot of money, time and dedication into a hobby, it would be daft not to be.

Agreed. And that's why I think it is silly to call people who have books pressed "greedy" like they are the only ones, or it is a bad thing. The very act of collecting makes us all "greedy" to some extent.

 

That argument is reflexive, don't you know. Are you suggesting that anti-pressers have to be less greedy than pressers to have a valid position against them?

 

 

 

 

I would say the few anti pressers are just as greedy. They feel that their "unmanipulated" books should be inherently worth more than manipulated books of the same grade, and that their books are being devalued by the pressing crowd.

 

 

You really don't get it, do you Dale?

 

You really, really, really don't get it.

 

Nick, that is a general conception of the complaints. It may not fit your opinions, but I have seen that specific argument used in pressing/anti pressing threads. You are welcome to explain your opinions about it and I am happy to listen.

[Dale Roberts]

I actually don't know of anyone categorically claiming that pressing does 0.0 damage. I hear many stating their belief that the damage is so benign as to be not worth consideration. Since the LOC didn't specify the extent of damage, those two opinions might not be mutually exclusive.

 

(thumbs u

[conditionfreak]

Most of the vocal antipressers here (especially in this thread) dislike the activity due to the alleged harm it causes books.

 

Alleged being the key word there. When discussing the "is pressing resto" debate, most of the vocal anti-pressers in this thread want to hold Susan up as the world expert, because her opinion is that pressing is resto. The chink in their armor is that they can't use her as the world expert on resto in regards to the "does pressing damage comics" debate because she still presses books.

 

Because someone does something, especially for pay, does not mean that they do not think it is harmful.

 

It is a living and they are only comic books.

 

There are doctors that perform abortions, that believe abortions do harm. But....money is money.

 

There are politicians that believe a bill they are voting on will do harm. But.......re-election is re-election.

 

I could go on and on.

 

If Susan states that in her opinion, pressing is restoration, and a conservator from the LOC states that pressing does harm to paper. Then present an argument from someone with credentials who does not have an obvious agenda to repudiate those professionals.

 

That's all I am asking. I don't see any agenda from a LOC conservator nor from Susan (since as you pointed out, she still presses books). If she had an agenda, it would be in the other direction, woudln't you think?

 

Susan provides a service for pay. Said service is restoration in her opinion. Restoration is considered very bad in most cases, for comic books. Hence, it adds a lot of credibility to her statement. A lot more than if she said the same thing and did not press books for money. Or am I missing something?

[Silver Surfer]

I really blame the whole PCS affair and they way it went down for putting a such a sour note on the pressing issue. All it did was help stir up negative images from the past of dealers/collectors over grading, not disclosing restoration, trimming, shill bidding, etc just for the sake of the all mighty dollar and at the consumer's expense. There just has been way too many horror stories over the years.

 

Here we had senior employees of really the only trusted grading company in the business trying to get a piece of the pie [so to speak] but were doing it in a cloak and dagger manner, catering only to small group of select clientele. It was a PR disaster and while we will never know why they decided to back away from the venture its clear that the negative backlash at the time was huge.

 

Again for the record I don't have an issue with pressed books and I think its too difficult of a task to ask CGC to identify it because its not an exact science. Having said that if you have a problem with pressed books then ask before you buy and if you don't like what you hear the option is yours to proceed or not but what more can you do?

[Mr. Zipper]

...as opposed to 420 years, I could care less.

 

My God... it drives me nuts that almost no one gets this right.

 

It should be: "I couldn't care less."

 

Nothing personal, Dale.

[Shootydog]

I actually don't know of anyone categorically claiming that pressing does 0.0 damage. I hear many stating their belief that the damage is so benign as to be not worth consideration. Since the LOC didn't specify the extent of damage, those two opinions might not be mutually exclusive.

 

I dont think pressing will do any more damage than the following...

 

I open the window in my office and the harsh sunlight washes over whatever books I have laying out at the time.

 

My greasy fingers touching the book when I pull it out to admire the art or GASP...read it.

 

My daughter rushing in and grabbing the first book she sees in her little hands and smiles at me, beaming at me even, as she mangles the book in her excited little paws.

 

Constantly shifting books from box to box trying to come up with a catalog scheme that will accomodate the many "categories" I collect. You know you do it too.

 

The fact that my wife likes to jack up the heat when its 60 degrees in the house and then blasts the AC when it reaches 70. I swear the temp fluctuates in my house so much I should have storm fronts moving through my living room.

 

Seeing that comics go through all kinds of wear and tear even when they are loved and cared for I dont think pressing is that "pressing" of an issue. Certainly doesn't seem to be such a hot button issue as its made out to be.

[scottish]

...as opposed to 420 years, I could care less.

 

My God... it drives me nuts that almost no one gets this right.

 

It should be: "I couldn't care less."

 

Nothing personal, Dale.

 

I always get that wrong as well - drives my wife nuts.

[Domo Arigato]

Before making the claim, they would have to provide proof. Are you seriously suggesting a drug can be released by a manufacture who specifically claims it's safe for pregnant women to take it because it won't hurt an unborn child...with absolutely no proof to back up that claim?

 

They have to prove that claim before they're allowed to make it and before the drug is even allowed to enter the marketplace.

 

I refuse to believe you are even attempting to be that dense.

 

That wasn't the original scenario you presented, which was a parent shoving their deformed child in the drug manufacturer's face. How could they claim the drug was the reason for the deformity if the FDA hadn't already approved it and the drug company released it?

 

At that point, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.

That's exactly the original scenario I presented. You're just trying to twist it in an attempt to make yourself appear correct. It's not up to the parents to do that because it's up to the drug manufacturer to prove their claim FIRST. It's NOT up to the parents to disprove the drug manufacturers claim first.

 

If the drug manufacture presents its proof and gets approved by the FDA and then a deformity still takes place...only then would it be up to the parents to dis-prove the drug manufacturers claim. Nice try though.

[joeypost]

And anyone even vaguely concerned about this issue will on some level be concerned with the bottom line. If you've put a lot of money, time and dedication into a hobby, it would be daft not to be.

Agreed. And that's why I think it is silly to call people who have books pressed "greedy" like they are the only ones, or it is a bad thing. The very act of collecting makes us all "greedy" to some extent.

 

When a person is greedy, it tends to flow into other, if not all aspects of their life. Not just comics.

 

Anyone who has ever sent me a book to work on and submit knows I am not greedy. Even when I sell, I disclose and will entertain offers below GPA. As long as I make some money off a book, I am happy.

 

Do I get upset when books I purchased for $500 last year are now selling for $250?Yes I do, but I also understand this is the nature of any business or investment.

 

 

[Dale Roberts]

...as opposed to 420 years, I could care less.

 

My God... it drives me nuts that almost no one gets this right.

 

It should be: "I couldn't care less."

 

Nothing personal, Dale.

 

well technically, I am right.

 

The phrases actually say two different things.

I could care less indicates that you could care less about something, but maybe can't think of a specific example right at the moment.

 

If it is something that I absolutely couldn't care less about something, that would mean there isn't anything which means less to me than that point.

 

But I get your point.

[MrBedrock]

You're just trying to twist it in an attempt to make yourself appear correct.

Well that would be a first.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Over the last year I've watch the pro-pressing crowd in here continue to try to shout down any opposition to their cash cow. If they can't shout the person down, then they point fingers at them for not being able to walk away. Why don't you pro-pressers drop it? Does every voice of dissent have to be crushed by you in order to make you feel better about the process? And you also might want to ask yourself just exactly who is baiting who.

 

who the are you talking to? because it can't be me.

 

You're clearly an obstinate person who's been pushed to the edge of sensibility and personal decency by a whole group of others. I'm singling you out because you're continuing to wage what seems like a one-man campaign here and the other side doesn't really appear to be all that interested in continuing it with you.

 

At least not on your terms.

 

Which by most accounts is a loss in a debate exercise. It ain't me being pejorative, it's the bloody truth

Yes I'm talking to you. You're telling me to drop it. Who the hell are you to tell me to drop it? If anyone is pushing the bounds of sensibility and personal decency, it's several members of the pro-pressing crownd in here. The minute a voice of dissent pops, they try to shout it down. If they can't shout it down, they resort to the tactics anyone in here can see just by going back and reading this train wreck of a thread. They've used insults, name calling, accused me of being a liar, said I'm another board member, accused me of being a shill...one long time board member even called on other board members to refer to me by someone elses name in some kind of sad effort to get me to keep quiet.

 

How utterly pathetic is that?

 

I won't drop it and I won't be shouted down. The insults don't bother me, and anyone with any common sense whatsoever can see what the pro-pressing crowd is attempting to do in here. I've watched them do it repeatedly over the last year. I'll continue to voice my opinion in here on the subject, and if they don't like it...well that's just too bad. They're free to not engage me or to put me on ignore. From what I've seen in many of their childish responses so far...it will be no big loss for me.

 

It's very nice to see someone (else) not be bullied down from their position in the face of the mob hurling invective at them.

 

Does my heart proud.

 

 

(For the record, I'm a "jury's still out" kinda guy. I have had a handful of books pressed, but I'm willing to listen to arguments regardng detrimental effects.)

[nearmint]

Before making the claim, they would have to provide proof. Are you seriously suggesting a drug can be released by a manufacture who specifically claims it's safe for pregnant women to take it because it won't hurt an unborn child...with absolutely no proof to back up that claim?

 

They have to prove that claim before they're allowed to make it and before the drug is even allowed to enter the marketplace.

 

I refuse to believe you are even attempting to be that dense.

 

That wasn't the original scenario you presented, which was a parent shoving their deformed child in the drug manufacturer's face. How could they claim the drug was the reason for the deformity if the FDA hadn't already approved it and the drug company released it?

 

At that point, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.

That's exactly the original scenario I presented. You're just trying to twist it in an attempt to make yourself appear correct. It's not up to the parents to do that because it's up to the drug manufacturer to prove their claim FIRST. It's NOT up to the parents to disprove the drug manufacturers claim first.

 

If the drug manufacture presents its proof and gets approved by the FDA and then a deformity still takes place...only then would it be up to the parents to dis-prove the drug manufacturers claim. Nice try though.

 

How could a drug company possible be accused of causing a deformity before the FDA has approved the drug and before it's released? You're not making any sense.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Yes I'm talking to you...

How utterly pathetic is that?

 

You have a right to your opinion, a forum to express it, and the will to keep it front and center. It kinda makes me proud

 

[conditionfreak]

...as opposed to 420 years, I could care less.

 

My God... it drives me nuts that almost no one gets this right.

 

It should be: "I couldn't care less."

 

Nothing personal, Dale.

 

I always get that wrong as well - drives my wife nuts.

 

Which is worse? Using could instead of couldn't in that statement, or pressing comic books.

 

The harm from both is negligible.

 

I believe that proper spelling, proper speaking, etc., are something to strive for, but lets not forget that language (written or spoken) is to convey a message and that is all it is. All of these grammer and spelling highlightings on this forum, are realy not necessary. Unless just for fun. If that is the case, then forgive my bringing it up please.

 

Now, is there anyone that thought Dale meant something other than "he couldn't care less"? He conveyed his thoughts and we all understood. "Mission accomplished" (oops, don't want to use that phrase with this crowd).