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

[hockey&comicsguy]

 

No. He says "You can tell by the look of the book" This means by what you see. With a proper pressing, there is no visible damage. "In fact, damage is being removed", in this he is refering to damage such as bends that were present prior to the pressing and are now no longer visible. Now, as for invisible, microscopic damage, he didn't dispute that possiblity.

 

Dale, If I'm mistaken please correct me.

 

 

Don't you dare try to take context into account. That would be

[hockey&comicsguy]

 

He's clarified the position that he currently holds now...that has nothing to do with what his position was earlier that I was originally referring to.

 

Who knows...perhaps even you'll come around one of these days.

 

 

Come around to what? I've already acknowledged it's a possibility. What I haven't done is claim it's a certainty. Is that what you want, for us all to claim it's a certainty? Or to claim that the levels of damage can be known with any certainty? I thought you weren't into making claims.

 

And for the love of God man, whatever YOU THINK his original position was. That's not what it is now. Whether that is due to your awesomeness or simple clarification doesn't matter. The record has been set straight by Dale as to his position. So get over yourself already and move on.

 

 

[arexcrooke]

Arex is a poopie head.

 

Talk about beating a dead horse...

[Domo Arigato]

You have claimed over & over again that "numerous" pro-pressers have repeatedly stated in this thread that pressing does absolutely no harm to comic books, so why is it so hard for you to come up with just one example of anyone saying this?

Don't like the first on. Ok. As conditionfreak already mentioned in one of his posts above...here's another quote Dale made regarding pressing earlier in this thread.

 

"Well, you can tell by the look of the book that no damage is being done on a current level. In fact, damage is being removed. My evidence is that I can turn a 9.2 book into a 9.8 book. That is damage removed, not created."

 

Sure seems like he's saying do damage is occuring during the pressing process.

 

I think what Dale is saying is that there is no visible damage. Obviously, a poor press job will leave visible damage as has been seen here just as poor storage will leave visible damage.

He states very clearly that they are removing damage...not creating any.

 

No. He says "You can tell by the look of the book" This means by what you see. With a proper pressing, there is no visible damage. "In fact, damage is being removed", in this he is refering to damage such as bends that were present prior to the pressing and are now no longer visible. Now, as for invisible, microscopic damage, he didn't dispute that possiblity.

 

Dale, If I'm mistaken please correct me.

No. We are talking about pressing causing damage to a comic. And in his very own quote, he clearly states when referring to that...

 

"no damage is being done on a current level. In fact, damage is being removed. My evidence is that I can turn a 9.2 book into a 9.8 book. That is damage removed, not created."

 

Damage is damage. Damage is not just what you can see immediately with the nake eye. And to state that pressing...removes damage, not creates it...is wrong. You guys can try to retroactively change the meaning of what was said all you want.

 

[MCMiles]

[hockey&comicsguy]

You have claimed over & over again that "numerous" pro-pressers have repeatedly stated in this thread that pressing does absolutely no harm to comic books, so why is it so hard for you to come up with just one example of anyone saying this?

Don't like the first on. Ok. As conditionfreak already mentioned in one of his posts above...here's another quote Dale made regarding pressing earlier in this thread.

 

"Well, you can tell by the look of the book that no damage is being done on a current level. In fact, damage is being removed. My evidence is that I can turn a 9.2 book into a 9.8 book. That is damage removed, not created."

 

Sure seems like he's saying do damage is occuring during the pressing process.

 

I think what Dale is saying is that there is no visible damage. Obviously, a poor press job will leave visible damage as has been seen here just as poor storage will leave visible damage.

He states very clearly that they are removing damage...not creating any.

 

No. He says "You can tell by the look of the book" This means by what you see. With a proper pressing, there is no visible damage. "In fact, damage is being removed", in this he is refering to damage such as bends that were present prior to the pressing and are now no longer visible. Now, as for invisible, microscopic damage, he didn't dispute that possiblity.

 

Dale, If I'm mistaken please correct me.

No. We are talking about pressing causing damage to a comic. And in his very own quote, he clearly states when referring to that...

 

"no damage is being done on a current level. In fact, damage is being removed. My evidence is that I can turn a 9.2 book into a 9.8 book. That is damage removed, not created."

 

Damage is damage. Damage is not just what you can see immediately with the nake eye. And to state that pressing...removes damage, not creates it...is wrong. You guys can try to retroactively change the meaning of what was said all you want.

 

 

I think you've got some damage. JMHO

[Domo Arigato]

 

He's clarified the position that he currently holds now...that has nothing to do with what his position was earlier that I was originally referring to.

 

Who knows...perhaps even you'll come around one of these days.

 

 

Come around to what? I've already acknowledged it's a possibility. What I haven't done is claim it's a certainty. Is that what you want, for us all to claim it's a certainty? Or to claim that the levels of damage can be known with any certainty? I thought you weren't into making claims.

 

And for the love of God man, whatever YOU THINK his original position was. That's not what it is now. Whether that is due to your awesomeness or simple clarification doesn't matter. The record has been set straight by Dale as to his position. So get over yourself already and move on.

See...you are starting to come around. You're welcome.

 

And I'm glad Dale has changed his original position on the matter. I would never have brought it up if one of you hadn't been whining and crying for several post for me to show them where someone said that pressing didn't cause any damage. Perhaps you need to intercept them next time and tell them to shut their feed bag before it gets to this point if it bothers you so much.

[Domo Arigato]

You have claimed over & over again that "numerous" pro-pressers have repeatedly stated in this thread that pressing does absolutely no harm to comic books, so why is it so hard for you to come up with just one example of anyone saying this?

Don't like the first on. Ok. As conditionfreak already mentioned in one of his posts above...here's another quote Dale made regarding pressing earlier in this thread.

 

"Well, you can tell by the look of the book that no damage is being done on a current level. In fact, damage is being removed. My evidence is that I can turn a 9.2 book into a 9.8 book. That is damage removed, not created."

 

Sure seems like he's saying do damage is occuring during the pressing process.

 

I think what Dale is saying is that there is no visible damage. Obviously, a poor press job will leave visible damage as has been seen here just as poor storage will leave visible damage.

He states very clearly that they are removing damage...not creating any.

 

No. He says "You can tell by the look of the book" This means by what you see. With a proper pressing, there is no visible damage. "In fact, damage is being removed", in this he is refering to damage such as bends that were present prior to the pressing and are now no longer visible. Now, as for invisible, microscopic damage, he didn't dispute that possiblity.

 

Dale, If I'm mistaken please correct me.

No. We are talking about pressing causing damage to a comic. And in his very own quote, he clearly states when referring to that...

 

"no damage is being done on a current level. In fact, damage is being removed. My evidence is that I can turn a 9.2 book into a 9.8 book. That is damage removed, not created."

 

Damage is damage. Damage is not just what you can see immediately with the nake eye. And to state that pressing...removes damage, not creates it...is wrong. You guys can try to retroactively change the meaning of what was said all you want.

I think you've got some damage. JMHO

One of my toe nails does grow a little crooked. Thanks for noticing.

[hockey&comicsguy]

 

He's clarified the position that he currently holds now...that has nothing to do with what his position was earlier that I was originally referring to.

 

Who knows...perhaps even you'll come around one of these days.

 

 

Come around to what? I've already acknowledged it's a possibility. What I haven't done is claim it's a certainty. Is that what you want, for us all to claim it's a certainty? Or to claim that the levels of damage can be known with any certainty? I thought you weren't into making claims.

 

And for the love of God man, whatever YOU THINK his original position was. That's not what it is now. Whether that is due to your awesomeness or simple clarification doesn't matter. The record has been set straight by Dale as to his position. So get over yourself already and move on.

See...you are starting to come around. You're welcome.

 

And I'm glad Dale has changed his original position on the matter. I would never have brought it up if one of you hadn't been whining and crying for several post for me to show them where someone said that pressing didn't cause any damage. Perhaps you need to intercept them next time and tell them to shut their feed bag before it gets to this point if it bothers you so much.

 

You know what my position has been from day 1. Your attempts to be clever are anything but. Good luck in your new role as delusional pariah. Damage caused by pressing may be some muddy waters but the fact that you've got a little misfiring going on upstairs is crystal clear. (thumbs u

[kc120us]

You have claimed over & over again that "numerous" pro-pressers have repeatedly stated in this thread that pressing does absolutely no harm to comic books, so why is it so hard for you to come up with just one example of anyone saying this?

Don't like the first on. Ok. As conditionfreak already mentioned in one of his posts above...here's another quote Dale made regarding pressing earlier in this thread.

 

"Well, you can tell by the look of the book that no damage is being done on a current level. In fact, damage is being removed. My evidence is that I can turn a 9.2 book into a 9.8 book. That is damage removed, not created."

 

Sure seems like he's saying do damage is occuring during the pressing process.

 

I think what Dale is saying is that there is no visible damage. Obviously, a poor press job will leave visible damage as has been seen here just as poor storage will leave visible damage.

He states very clearly that they are removing damage...not creating any.

 

No. He says "You can tell by the look of the book" This means by what you see. With a proper pressing, there is no visible damage. "In fact, damage is being removed", in this he is refering to damage such as bends that were present prior to the pressing and are now no longer visible. Now, as for invisible, microscopic damage, he didn't dispute that possiblity.

 

Dale, If I'm mistaken please correct me.

No. We are talking about pressing causing damage to a comic. And in his very own quote, he clearly states when referring to that...

 

"no damage is being done on a current level. In fact, damage is being removed. My evidence is that I can turn a 9.2 book into a 9.8 book. That is damage removed, not created."

 

Damage is damage. Damage is not just what you can see immediately with the nake eye. And to state that pressing...removes damage, not creates it...is wrong. You guys can try to retroactively change the meaning of what was said all you want.

 

I'm not retroactively changing anything. I'm just saying you are misreading the quote you posted. Again, in that post it says, by the look of the book there is no damage. If you do not understand that, then there is no getting thru to you.

 

I, for one, think that while pressing may damage a book, the damage is so inconsequential that I would not hestitate in buying one.

[Domo Arigato]

See...you are starting to come around. You're welcome.

 

And I'm glad Dale has changed his original position on the matter. I would never have brought it up if one of you hadn't been whining and crying for several post for me to show them where someone said that pressing didn't cause any damage. Perhaps you need to intercept them next time and tell them to shut their feed bag before it gets to this point if it bothers you so much.

 

You know what my position has been from day 1.

I don't recall that. Do you have any proof? If not, my claim for responsiblity is going to have to stick.

[DiceX]

You have been here for a year, have 950 some posts, and 800 of them were in this week old thread.

 

 

[Domo Arigato]

You have claimed over & over again that "numerous" pro-pressers have repeatedly stated in this thread that pressing does absolutely no harm to comic books, so why is it so hard for you to come up with just one example of anyone saying this?

Don't like the first on. Ok. As conditionfreak already mentioned in one of his posts above...here's another quote Dale made regarding pressing earlier in this thread.

 

"Well, you can tell by the look of the book that no damage is being done on a current level. In fact, damage is being removed. My evidence is that I can turn a 9.2 book into a 9.8 book. That is damage removed, not created."

 

Sure seems like he's saying do damage is occuring during the pressing process.

 

I think what Dale is saying is that there is no visible damage. Obviously, a poor press job will leave visible damage as has been seen here just as poor storage will leave visible damage.

He states very clearly that they are removing damage...not creating any.

 

No. He says "You can tell by the look of the book" This means by what you see. With a proper pressing, there is no visible damage. "In fact, damage is being removed", in this he is refering to damage such as bends that were present prior to the pressing and are now no longer visible. Now, as for invisible, microscopic damage, he didn't dispute that possiblity.

 

Dale, If I'm mistaken please correct me.

No. We are talking about pressing causing damage to a comic. And in his very own quote, he clearly states when referring to that...

 

"no damage is being done on a current level. In fact, damage is being removed. My evidence is that I can turn a 9.2 book into a 9.8 book. That is damage removed, not created."

 

Damage is damage. Damage is not just what you can see immediately with the nake eye. And to state that pressing...removes damage, not creates it...is wrong. You guys can try to retroactively change the meaning of what was said all you want.

I'm not retroactively changing anything. I'm just saying you are misreading the quote you posted. Again, in that post it says, by the look of the book there is no damage. If you do not understand that, then there is no getting thru to you.

 

I, for one, think that while pressing may damage a book, the damage is so inconsequential that I would not hestitate in buying one.

You're attempting to retroactively change it, but it's not working. And I'm not misreading anything. The discussion is about pressing causing damage to a comic book. Damage is damage. It's not always immediately visible to the naked eye. This is one of the reasons why CGC uses magnification and different kinds of lighting when examining a book. He clearly states that pressing removes damage, not creates it. This was wrong...and he's clearly changed his stance on the matter now...which is great. The fact that some of you refuse to admit the obvious is what's troubling.

[hockey&comicsguy]

 

I don't recall that. Do you have any proof? If not, my claim for responsiblity is going to have to stick.

 

 

 

 

 

And as for the harm factor, as our esteemed colleague Jive has mentioned numerous times, it may indeed cause harm, but to what extent? How can anybody say with any certainty how a proper press job has made "x" book's life any shorter. And if it has, by how many days? If somebody can show me a book that has been pressed one time, properly, by somebody who knows how to do it and then tell me that said book's life has now been reduced by "x" number of days. Then I'll buy the harm factor.

 

From where I am sitting I see nothing but guesses being made........by both sides. That being said, I am inclined to view pressing as ok. At this point, I don't think I even care if it's disclosed. Why would I? What do I have to worry about? The anti-pressing crowd hasn't given me anything to worry about other than the "potential" harm it can do. But how much potential harm? What degree of harm? How much more harm other than normal aging or improper storage?

 

And being relatively new to these boards compared to many, please forgive my simplistic view of things. But nobody can tell me with 100% accuracy that I can't press a book under a stack of encyclopedia's and not get the same results as a pro. It's clearly within the realm of the "possible". Would I consider that book a PLOD? No. I may consider it restored in the literal sense of the word. But I would never consider that PLOD. So what's the difference? The process that was used that leads to potentially the same result?

 

 

 

I've always been open minded to the possibility that pressing can do harm to a book. My only beef has been that the anti-pressers have not nor can they address the degree of harm.

 

 

[Domo Arigato]

You have been here for a year, have 950 some posts, and 800 of them were in this week old thread.

I'm trying to get to 1,000.

 

And I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you for some proof that 800 of my posts have been in this thread. I do not believe that to be an accurate count and everything in this thread apparently requires notarized documentation and the signatures of three federal judges.

[Domo Arigato]

 

I don't recall that. Do you have any proof? If not, my claim for responsiblity is going to have to stick.

 

 

And as for the harm factor, as our esteemed colleague Jive has mentioned numerous times, it may indeed cause harm, but to what extent? How can anybody say with any certainty how a proper press job has made "x" book's life any shorter. And if it has, by how many days? If somebody can show me a book that has been pressed one time, properly, by somebody who knows how to do it and then tell me that said book's life has now been reduced by "x" number of days. Then I'll buy the harm factor.

 

From where I am sitting I see nothing but guesses being made........by both sides. That being said, I am inclined to view pressing as ok. At this point, I don't think I even care if it's disclosed. Why would I? What do I have to worry about? The anti-pressing crowd hasn't given me anything to worry about other than the "potential" harm it can do. But how much potential harm? What degree of harm? How much more harm other than normal aging or improper storage?

 

And being relatively new to these boards compared to many, please forgive my simplistic view of things. But nobody can tell me with 100% accuracy that I can't press a book under a stack of encyclopedia's and not get the same results as a pro. It's clearly within the realm of the "possible". Would I consider that book a PLOD? No. I may consider it restored in the literal sense of the word. But I would never consider that PLOD. So what's the difference? The process that was used that leads to potentially the same result?

 

I've always been open minded to the possibility that pressing can do harm to a book. My only beef has been that the anti-pressers have not nor can they address the degree of harm.

Well...I don't see anything to indicate that's from day one...but I'm going to let you slide by on the technicality that you didn't specify day one of what.

 

The pressers are the ones manipulating the book for a profit. They're the ones with the equipment and the techniques. They're the ones that should have the tests done to determine the amount of harm their causing to the books and then disclose this information.

[hockey&comicsguy]

 

As has been pointed out to you a half dozen times already, who are these "many" pressers you are talking about who claim zero damage? If they do exist I suggest you take up your argument with them. And not with the folks like Jeff or George or myself who say damage may be being done but to what extent is not known.

 

Of course your only rebuttal to this seems to be to tell the folks who are uncertain to go confront these mystery people. Why? If you are so sure, you go confront them directly instead of harping on Jeff for things he hasn't said. Or are you too lazy to confront them yourself? Why should Jeff or I confront them. We're not in a battle with them, you are. So go fight your own fight with those people. We've already acknowledged the possibility that damage may be occurring.

 

As for who is responsibly for proving there is or is not damage being done. That's a matter of opinion.

 

I personally think the following:

 

1. If you are one of these mystery people who claim no harm is being done by pressing. Please prove it.

 

2. On the flip side of that coin, if you are one of those people who claim unequivocally that pressing causes damage, then please prove it.

 

There's no law that says people on either side of this debate are immune from doing the legwork. If somebody wants to be vindicated, then do the work. That goes for both sides.

 

As for those who are uncertain, like myself. I don't really see myself as having a dog in this fight. I'm not 100% positive there's damage being done. But then again I sure as heck am not claiming that it's not possible am I?

 

 

There's about 10 more just like this.

 

The funny thing I noticed about them all. In every single one I have asked you personally to address the degree of damage we're talking about. And not once have you even bothered to respond to the question. And that would be because nobody, including yourself knows with any certainty that what is being done to these books causes any significant amount of harm.

[Domo Arigato]

 

As has been pointed out to you a half dozen times already, who are these "many" pressers you are talking about who claim zero damage? If they do exist I suggest you take up your argument with them. And not with the folks like Jeff or George or myself who say damage may be being done but to what extent is not known.

 

Of course your only rebuttal to this seems to be to tell the folks who are uncertain to go confront these mystery people. Why? If you are so sure, you go confront them directly instead of harping on Jeff for things he hasn't said. Or are you too lazy to confront them yourself? Why should Jeff or I confront them. We're not in a battle with them, you are. So go fight your own fight with those people. We've already acknowledged the possibility that damage may be occurring.

 

As for who is responsibly for proving there is or is not damage being done. That's a matter of opinion.

 

I personally think the following:

 

1. If you are one of these mystery people who claim no harm is being done by pressing. Please prove it.

 

2. On the flip side of that coin, if you are one of those people who claim unequivocally that pressing causes damage, then please prove it.

 

There's no law that says people on either side of this debate are immune from doing the legwork. If somebody wants to be vindicated, then do the work. That goes for both sides.

 

As for those who are uncertain, like myself. I don't really see myself as having a dog in this fight. I'm not 100% positive there's damage being done. But then again I sure as heck am not claiming that it's not possible am I?

 

 

There's about 10 more just like this.

 

The funny thing I noticed about them all. In every single one I have asked you personally to address the degree of damage we're talking about. And not once have you even bothered to respond to the question. And that would be because nobody, including yourself knows with any certainty that what is being done to these books causes any significant amount of harm.

You might want to look at the post right above yours. If you don't want to do that, I'll repeat it for you.

 

The pressers are the ones manipulating the book for a profit. They're the ones with the equipment and the techniques. They're the ones that should have the tests done to determine the amount of harm their causing to the books and then disclose this information.

[hockey&comicsguy]

 

The pressers are the ones manipulating the book for a profit. They're the ones with the equipment and the techniques. They're the ones that should have the tests done to determine the amount of harm their causing to the books and then disclose this information.

 

I could care less about the profit aspect of this topic. I only care about the potential harm to the books.

 

As for the bolded part, that statement doesn't really bother me. Sure, why don't they do their own tests. Sounds like a good idea. Of course, would you really believe them?

 

But since you are so positive that what is happening to these books is destroying them, why don't you or people who share your certainty, do some of your own testing or help coordinate testing? I'm all for everybody pitching in to do what they can to shed light.

[thirdgreenham]

 

To me, this is the most head-scratching aspect of the debate...

 

Some feel the the LOC statement is not to be taken seriously and does not provide adequate detail.

 

Yet, the opposing view has absolutely no evidence or independent expert opinion to support their belief.

 

Domo comes to the table with **something** and the other side has nothing other than personal opinion. Who has more credibility?

 

 

Hey Zip,

 

Back when i was trying, foolishly, to participate in this train wreck, I took Domo's statement at face value. I assumed damage. What I thought was interesting would be to figure out what were really talking about in terms of damage. For example, if a typical press is 200 degrees for a couple of minutes, how does that correspond to a bunch of books being in the back seat of my car, heated up to 130-140 degrees for several hours?

 

After it became clear (to me) that Domo did not want to talk about the levels of damage or other sources of similar damage, but merely to proselytize (in my opinion) I left. I still think it would be fascinating to noodle over. It's possible that more damage is being done as a result of leaving comics in a hot car than pressing.

 

Oh , I shouldn't keep those books in my car? Actually, I'm joking. Everyone knows, up here in Canada, it couldn't possibly get hot enough to warm the inside of a car.