Why do Anti-Pressers HATE pressing?

[BarryAllen]

No spamming is something entirely different.

 

Posting (garbage) multiple times in quick succession is definitely spamming a thread or forum.

 

(garbage) Is your opinion and your inclusion in this thread is unnecessary. You weren't included in the original discussion, were not a part of any of the subsequent discussions and really serve no other purpose than to come here and stir up trouble.

 

Did you come here just to pile on with the others?

 

I've been reading this thread since it was resurrected and have previously made a few posts that were replies to specific posts and not just random, unfunny, irrelevant "hashtags."

 

I just happened to notice that you're crying once again, not that that's a surprise because that is very typical of your specific behavior around here.

 

If you want to be a twit, go elsewhere.

 

Because that is also very typical of your specific behavior around here.

 

No, it isn't. You're just a whiny oversensitive insufficiently_thoughtful_person.

 

Right, you just drop on by to do you normal condescending bs carp and "scold me." However you ignore all the other nonsense that many other board members like Metal and Slym post for days on end all over the boards. You are targeting me personally because you don't like me. You came specifically to this thread and got involved because you personally have an issue with me.

 

What you are doing is exactly what is wrong with this place. You show up to something you aren't involved in and start piling on someone with your buddies.

 

I am not whiny or oversensitive and I am definitely not an insufficiently_thoughtful_person. You are a pushy, arrogant, condescending insensitive individual without empathy whose self-awareness is so low that he literally feels the need to jump in a belittle others in matters he was never included in to justify his own existence.

 

Congrats, I hope you feel better for shaming me over a few #hashtag posts while ignoring all the other "spam" as you define it that goes on here daily. You sure are helpful sir.

[BarryAllen]

Well, this thread's done. Glad I invested in the discussion.

 

You never know, people thought it was done years ago. Anyway, what did you expect from a pressing thread?

 

Will Team Derail make rfoiii an honourary member?

 

I didn't expect a complete mental breakdown expressed in hashtags.

 

That isn't funny or true. How are my posts any worse than yours?

 

You have posted off-topic memes, gifs, videos and various other nonsense on a regular basis - not just here, but everywhere - sometimes in very quick succession. But I post some #hashtags and I've gone too far and had "a complete mental breakdown."

 

Maybe you are funnier than I am, but at least I am not a hypocrite. Give me a break.

[FineCollector]

Can the mods please remove all the bickering so we can continue with the discussion?

 

 

staple impactions made larger - larger is relative and only before and after pics can prove 'larger' but I will remind you that some FF's in the mid to late #30's (like #38 I believe) are very prone to impacted staples as I have seen several copies. So if mid 1960's Marvels are prone to impacted staples, how do you know which are from pressing and which aren't?

 

Ask Matt Nelson, or his old partner, Steve Ritter. They had the term 'maverick staples' for comics with small staple impactions at high risk of becoming much larger after pressing. And many of them do.

 

Before:

 

 

After: The comic kept its 9.6 grade despite the obvious pressing-induced defect.

 

 

 

 

I never knew what a Maverick staple was. *runs to the Overstreet glossary to find out if it was in there, and I just missed it*

[oakman29]

Can the mods please remove all the bickering so we can continue with the discussion?

 

 

staple impactions made larger - larger is relative and only before and after pics can prove 'larger' but I will remind you that some FF's in the mid to late #30's (like #38 I believe) are very prone to impacted staples as I have seen several copies. So if mid 1960's Marvels are prone to impacted staples, how do you know which are from pressing and which aren't?

 

Ask Matt Nelson, or his old partner, Steve Ritter. They had the term 'maverick staples' for comics with small staple impactions at high risk of becoming much larger after pressing. And many of them do.

 

Before:

 

 

After: The comic kept its 9.6 grade despite the obvious pressing-induced defect.

 

 

 

 

I never knew what a Maverick staple was. *runs to the Overstreet glossary to find out if it was in there, and I just missed it*

 

 

But,but. ..... I thought pressing was undetectable? I guess only to those that have a vested interest.

[Philreal]

Haven't read the complete post from the beginning nor the original but was curious has there ever been a voting pole by the members for or against pressing?

[MustEatBrains]

Reading this thread is like a blast from the past. Since the great pressing debate first started way back then a lot has changed. Or, maybe a better way to phrase it is, we know a lot more. It's not a secret anymore.

 

I think a lot of the initial outrage was certainly a feeling of being duped. CGC offered a service to select clients and most of us had no idea. That all came to light when they were attempting to set up an in house service for the public (I forget what that was called, but someone found the application for the business online). Most people didn't know about pressing. Look back thru the OS ads and see when people started advertising pressing services as a way to specifically increase the grade ("Unlock the hidden potential" is the first one I remember, maybe 2004-05? I don't remember exactly).

 

Bob (Storms) has said multiple times over the years (and I'm paraphrasing) that if you want to know how the comic grading game plays out, look back at coins. Same stuff happened with "us" as did with coins. Grading service established, services set up to encourage the "CPR" game (continued revenue stream), etc. etc. CGC always has had a vested interest in that game.

 

For years, OS considered it restoration. Then, all of the sudden, it wasn't. I just went thru the OSGG (2nd Edition; I think people still consider this one the best, right?). Didn't find one mention of it in the articles (including articles by both Susan and Matt) or definitions. Interesting. A few pages back Roy asked why did OS remove it from resto definition? Call me a cynic, but go thru any OSPG from 2002 up. Who has as many or more ads than anyone else? Why would OS define something as "bad" that would directly, negatively affect one of their biggest advertisers?

 

 

 

I just went through mine (2nd Edition, January 2003), and you're right, "Pressing" isn't listed in the definitions section. But it's mentioned under "Restoration." (see below)

 

RESTORATION - Any attempt, whether professional or amateur, to enhance the appearance of an aging or damaged comic book. These procedures may include any or all of the following techniques: recoloring, adding missing paper, stain, ink, dirt or tape removal, whitening, pressing out wrinkles, staple replacement, trimming, re-glossing, etc. Amateur work can lower the value of a book, and even professional restoration has now gained a certain negative aura in the modern marketplace from some quarters. In all cases, except for some simple cleaning procedures, a restored book can never be worth the same as an unrestored book in the same condition.

 

 

Restoration:

Any attempt whether professional or amateur, to enhance the appearance of an aging or damaged comic book using additive procedures. These procedures may include any or all of the following techniques: recoloring,adding missing paper,trimming,re-glossing,reinforcement,glue etc.

 

Amateur work can lower the value the value of a book, and even professional restoration has now gained a negative aura in the modern marketplace from some quarters.

 

In all cases a restored book can never be worth the same as an unrestored book in the same condition. There is no consensus on the inclusion of pressing, non-aqueous cleaning, tape removal and in some cases staple replacement in this definition. Until such time as there is a consensus, we encourage continued debate and interaction among all interested parties and reflection upon the standards in other hobbies and art forms.

 

OSPG stance = they currently have no stance on pressing. They are happy to remain impartial and be ambiguous. They contradict themselves using the term additive procedures exclusively along with including trimming.

 

 

 

 

[oakman29]

Didn't you skip right on past the "pressing out wrinkles" part?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Does "etc." include any procedure under additive procedures including pressing, and any procedure that happens once a book comes off the printing press?

[MustEatBrains]

Didn't you skip right on past the "pressing out wrinkles" part?

 

I don't think so Oak. Page 1118 middle column towards bottom of page, 45th edition.

 

My eyes aren't what they used to be but I don't think that is in their current definition of resto.

 

Maybe I have a misprint copy, that could be worth big bucks!

 

 

[THE_BEYONDER]

Didn't you skip right on past the "pressing out wrinkles" part?

 

I don't think so Oak. Page 1118 middle column towards bottom of page, 45th edition.

 

My eyes aren't what they used to be but I don't think that is in their current definition of resto.

 

Maybe I have a misprint copy, that could be worth big bucks!

 

 

They removed it

 

 

Just a coincidence I'm sure......

[MustEatBrains]

Does "etc." include any procedure under additive procedures including pressing, and any procedure that happens once a book comes off the printing press?

 

IMO clearly no related to pressing, since they explicitly state the jury is still out on pressing. The reality is there will never be a consensus and they seem to be cool with that.

[Ditch Fahrenheit]

Didn't you skip right on past the "pressing out wrinkles" part?

 

I don't think so Oak. Page 1118 middle column towards bottom of page, 45th edition.

 

My eyes aren't what they used to be but I don't think that is in their current definition of resto.

 

Maybe I have a misprint copy, that could be worth big bucks!

 

 

They removed it

 

 

Just a coincidence I'm sure......

 

@Brains. This was Chrisco's point.

[mosconi]

As for examples of fuzzy staples after pressing, the hobby is littered with them. It's been discussed on the boards before, and many other long-time high grade SA collectors have shared their experiences seeing them with all-too-high a frequency on pressed comics.

 

The early SA Marvel with too much starch in the collar and the unnatural overhang that's flat and stiff as cardboard? Just check any major auction to find them.

 

So while the majority of comics can be pressed by someone skilled in the art so as not to show any sign of it, there are slews of early SA Marvels pressed by even the best in the business where the effects of pressing are plain as day to anyone without a vested financial interest in the process and with the will needed to recognize them. And where the new defects aren't factored into the CGC grade to the degree they should be.

Can anyone show an example of a SA overhang horizontal crease caused from pressing?

[MustEatBrains]

Didn't you skip right on past the "pressing out wrinkles" part?

 

I don't think so Oak. Page 1118 middle column towards bottom of page, 45th edition.

 

My eyes aren't what they used to be but I don't think that is in their current definition of resto.

 

Maybe I have a misprint copy, that could be worth big bucks!

 

 

They removed it

 

 

Just a coincidence I'm sure......

 

@Brains. This was Chrisco's point.

 

I know just wanted to explicitly state the current definition. We can debate till the cows come home the reasons why. Advertising $$$ etc... Still think it ultimately boils down to the ability to consistently detect pressing has been performed. If the answer ever becomes yes I'd personally be cool with with that notation. Science aside, Logistically i don't it will never happen since the market is already flooded with pressed books.

 

 

[chrisco37]

Didn't you skip right on past the "pressing out wrinkles" part?

 

I don't think so Oak. Page 1118 middle column towards bottom of page, 45th edition.

 

My eyes aren't what they used to be but I don't think that is in their current definition of resto.

 

Maybe I have a misprint copy, that could be worth big bucks!

 

 

They removed it

 

 

Just a coincidence I'm sure......

 

@Brains. This was Chrisco's point.

 

Yes, Ditch was correcting my post with regards to what I said about the OSGG.

 

I should have read a little better before I made my post (that pressing was not mentioned anywhere). Still not in the definitions pages as it's own item (while every other resto technique is given a definition). Not broken out in Susan's article (although mentioned in passing) and not in Matt's article either.

 

I don't think that's a coincidence.

 

One thing I forgot to mention in my rambling is that I do agree with RMA's numerous posts that "we" (the collectors) have caused this by paying the ridiculous premiums associated with a .2 bump in the uber HG's.

 

I'm in the minority in this, but when buying books for my collection (talking Copper/Modern now), I typically look for 9.6 books. I will occasionally buy 9.8's (if the price is low enough), but I prefer to pay 1/2 price of the 9.8 for a 9.6. The differences are so minute, that I can live with it.

 

As RMA has said a few times in this thread, before the advent of CGC, a dealer would most likely have a 9.4-9.8 priced at NM prices. Maybe the savviest of dealers would assign a slight premium to the nicer book. I find it very unlikely that, if they had two books (one 9.6 and one 9.8) that the 9.8 would've been marked double what the 9.6 copy was.

[MustEatBrains]

Didn't you skip right on past the "pressing out wrinkles" part?

 

I don't think so Oak. Page 1118 middle column towards bottom of page, 45th edition.

 

My eyes aren't what they used to be but I don't think that is in their current definition of resto.

 

Maybe I have a misprint copy, that could be worth big bucks!

 

 

They removed it

 

 

Just a coincidence I'm sure......

 

@Brains. This was Chrisco's point.

 

Yes, Ditch was correcting my post with regards to what I said about the OSGG.

 

I should have read a little better before I made my post (that pressing was not mentioned anywhere). Still not in the definitions pages as it's own item (while every other resto technique is given a definition). Not broken out in Susan's article (although mentioned in passing) and not in Matt's article either.

 

I don't think that's a coincidence.

 

One thing I forgot to mention in my rambling is that I do agree with RMA's numerous posts that "we" (the collectors) have caused this by paying the ridiculous premiums associated with a .2 bump in the uber HG's.

 

I'm in the minority in this, but when buying books for my collection (talking Copper/Modern now), I typically look for 9.6 books. I will occasionally buy 9.8's (if the price is low enough), but I prefer to pay 1/2 price of the 9.8 for a 9.6. The differences are so minute, that I can live with it.

 

As RMA has said a few times in this thread, before the advent of CGC, a dealer would most likely have a 9.4-9.8 priced at NM prices. Maybe the savviest of dealers would assign a slight premium to the nicer book. I find it very unlikely that, if they had two books (one 9.6 and one 9.8) that the 9.8 would've been marked double what the 9.6 copy was.

 

Completely agree. The good ole days.

[chrisco37]

Didn't you skip right on past the "pressing out wrinkles" part?

 

I don't think so Oak. Page 1118 middle column towards bottom of page, 45th edition.

 

My eyes aren't what they used to be but I don't think that is in their current definition of resto.

 

Maybe I have a misprint copy, that could be worth big bucks!

 

 

They removed it

 

 

Just a coincidence I'm sure......

 

@Brains. This was Chrisco's point.

 

I know just wanted to explicitly state the current definition. We can debate till the cows come home the reasons why. Advertising $$$ etc... Still think it ultimately boils down to the ability to consistently detect pressing has been performed. If the answer ever becomes yes I'd personally be cool with with that notation. Science aside, Logistically i don't it will never happen since the market is already flooded with pressed books.

 

 

Agree there.

 

Read Susan's column in the OSGG 2nd Edition with regards to cleaning.

 

From page 94:

6. CHEMICAL OR SOLVENT CLEANING

When correctly performed, impossible to detect. When incorrectly performed, covers will retain the transfer stain and/or a possible residual chemical odor.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Does "etc." include any procedure under additive procedures including pressing, and any procedure that happens once a book comes off the printing press?

 

IMO clearly no related to pressing, since they explicitly state the jury is still out on pressing. The reality is there will never be a consensus and they seem to be cool with that.

 

Thank you. I don't know the ins and outs of comic book condition language. I am always mystified when grading rules state "etc." I default to "just re-submit and find out because we need the fees" mode when I see the word in describing what something is or isn't. I first saw it used when I was 9, collecting coins and stamps and paper money, when it was mysteriously used when the writer couldn't articulate. It is still the same... a mystery. I finally figured out it is an escape word. I guess it applies to comics, too. The word has graduated to a meaning of we need money revenue stream description when used by the TPGs. That is sort of sad.

 

Thanks again.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Didn't you skip right on past the "pressing out wrinkles" part?

 

I don't think so Oak. Page 1118 middle column towards bottom of page, 45th edition.

 

My eyes aren't what they used to be but I don't think that is in their current definition of resto.

 

Maybe I have a misprint copy, that could be worth big bucks!

 

 

They removed it

 

 

Just a coincidence I'm sure......

 

 

 

@Brains. This was Chrisco's point.

 

I know just wanted to explicitly state the current definition. We can debate till the cows come home the reasons why. Advertising $$$ etc... Still think it ultimately boils down to the ability to consistently detect pressing has been performed. If the answer ever becomes yes I'd personally be cool with with that notation. Science aside, Logistically i don't it will never happen since the market is already flooded with pressed books.

 

 

Agree there.

 

Read Susan's column in the OSGG 2nd Edition with regards to cleaning.

 

From page 94:

6. CHEMICAL OR SOLVENT CLEANING

When correctly performed, impossible to detect. When incorrectly performed, covers will retain the transfer stain and/or a possible residual chemical odor.

 

That does not make sense to me. If correctly performed makes it impossible to detect, how does anybody know about it or know the possibility that it might have been done?

[trmoore54]

Does "etc." include any procedure under additive procedures including pressing, and any procedure that happens once a book comes off the printing press?

 

IMO clearly no related to pressing, since they explicitly state the jury is still out on pressing. The reality is there will never be a consensus and they seem to be cool with that.

 

Exact text under definition of RESTORATION (p. 1118)...

 

There is no consensus on the inclusion of pressing, non-aqueous cleaning, tape removal and in some cases staple replacement in this definition. Until such time as there is consensus, we encourage continued debate and interaction among all interested parties and reflection upon the standards in other hobbies and art forms.

 

Thus, this thread is officially endorsed by Bob Overstreet...