Why do Anti-Pressers HATE pressing?

[kav]

Pressing does not add anything or take away anything. You could make a better argument wiping dust off a book is restoration.

[VintageComics]

I helped a buddy buff out a Ferrari GT SWB 250. For those not familiar, buffing involves removing paint, to take out any oxidation and damage to the paint surface, to bring back an unmarred, reflective surface. That's how you get a shine. But, you are removing paint from the car.

 

When someone sells such a car, the work done is documented and disclosed, isn't it? Car people can look at the work and judge if it was done properly. Pressing a comic should be the same, but it's often not disclosed. The buyer may not know the work was done, but claiming ignorance can attract CPR people who think a book may still be improveable.

 

 

In the auto industry, pressing can be compared to fixing a dent using paint-less dent removal techniques.

 

There are companies that go around to car dealerships and 'press out' small dents on cars from the inside out using tools. Once the dent is fixed you may never know it was ever there.

 

It's never disclosed and it's not even considered a big deal. It's just accepted as a part of the industry.

 

 

[oakman29]

Pressing does not add anything or take away anything. You could make a better argument wiping dust off a book is restoration.

 

 

Smart azz!

[jcjames]

Pressing does not add anything or take away anything. You could make a better argument wiping dust off a book is restoration.

 

And what about putting the book in a tupperware container of baking soda to help remove odor - is that also restoration and does it need to be disclosed to a potential buyer by saying "Yes, I aired this book out"?

 

No, of course not.

 

 

 

[BarryAllen]

I like my comics like I like my women: wrinkly and odorous.

[jcjames]

I like my comics like I like my women: wrinkly and odorous.

[kav]

Technically you can't restore a Cap book cause he's a super soldier.

[Unca Ben]

I like my comics like I like my women: wrinkly and odorous.

 

Now that is funny

[BarryAllen]

Pressing isn't restoration because CGC (and other grading companies) says its not. They are the grading experts as recognized by the hobby and they make the rules. It really is as simple as that.

 

You want pressing to be restoration, convince them otherwise.

 

CGC does not consider pressing restoration because if it was considered restoration, they'd have to be able to detect it with accuracy.

 

Since pressing is technically 'invisible' and can't be accurately detected with any real accuracy, they opted to not include it under the restoration banner.

 

The reason why really is immaterial, you may very well be right. However, my statement still holds true. Whatever the reason, pressing isn't restoration because they say so.

 

The reason is not immaterial, it is the reason. Vintage is correct as that's always been the stance. If they can not detect pressing consistently they can not add that to their services or notations. It's not "because they say so." You might as well say every grade is what it is because CGC says so.

 

The reason is immaterial. Pressing is not restoration because they say it is not restoration. How or why they came to that conclusion does not change the premise: they make the rules. So yes, you might as well say every graded book is what they say it is, because it is. You, or someone, paid for that very thing to be true.

 

I don't know what you are arguing about, I don't make the rules. The grading companies do, take it up with them.

[prez]

Pressing isn't restoration because CGC (and other grading companies) says its not. They are the grading experts as recognized by the hobby and they make the rules. It really is as simple as that.

 

You want pressing to be restoration, convince them otherwise.

 

CGC does not consider pressing restoration because if it was considered restoration, they'd have to be able to detect it with accuracy.

 

Since pressing is technically 'invisible' and can't be accurately detected with any real accuracy, they opted to not include it under the restoration banner.

 

The reason why really is immaterial, you may very well be right. However, my statement still holds true. Whatever the reason, pressing isn't restoration because they say so.

 

The reason is not immaterial, it is the reason. Vintage is correct as that's always been the stance. If they can not detect pressing consistently they can not add that to their services or notations. It's not "because they say so." You might as well say every grade is what it is because CGC says so.

 

I think CGC has its own cleaning and pressing group (CCS?). Also, CGC's fee is a function of the book's market value - the higher the book grades the higher its submitters pay.

 

It is counter productive for CGC, or any other grading company, to stigmatize pressing. It is really up to the individual collector on how to deal with this issue. I actually find a wrinkly (with minor surface dirt) raw mid-grade book more appealing than a high grade slabbed copies - better bang for your buck.

[Bomber-Bob]

Judging by the general tone of the comments in this thread, I would conclude it's the pressers doing most of the hating. The non pressers are on the defensive with the pressers talking down to them. Obviously, the pressers have won the war. It's over.

[SquareChaos]

Six years and 26 pages of comments.

 

Concerning a process which, I'm certain, no one in this thread could claim with any statistical certainty had even been done to a specific book they have full ability to examine.

 

 

[PovertyRow]

Pressing does not add anything or take away anything. You could make a better argument wiping dust off a book is restoration.

 

I always hated this definition of restoration. Simply put, restoration is the process of attempting to revert an object to its original condition. Simple as that. Which includes pressing.

 

How the the application of humidity, heat and pressure to remove accumulated defects. and/or to realign the spine is not seen as restoration baffles me. And as has been said, the only reason CGC doe not include pressing as restoration is they cannot reliably detect it.

[ttfitz]

Pressing does not add anything or take away anything. You could make a better argument wiping dust off a book is restoration.

 

I always hated this definition of restoration. Simply put, restoration is the process of attempting to revert an object to its original condition. Simple as that. Which includes pressing.

 

How the the application of humidity, heat and pressure to remove accumulated defects. and/or to realign the spine is not seen as restoration baffles me. And as has been said, the only reason CGC doe not include pressing as restoration is they cannot reliably detect it.

 

I would agree with this. I would also say that it appears to me that the problem comes with the idea that "restoration=BAD". Without that stigma attached, it doesn't become the heated argument that it seems to be whenever it comes up.

[grayzr]

Pressing does not add anything or take away anything. You could make a better argument wiping dust off a book is restoration.

 

I always hated this definition of restoration. Simply put, restoration is the process of attempting to revert an object to its original condition. Simple as that. Which includes pressing.

 

How the the application of humidity, heat and pressure to remove accumulated defects. and/or to realign the spine is not seen as restoration baffles me. And as has been said, the only reason CGC doe not include pressing as restoration is they cannot reliably detect it.

 

So basically every book that has been left out in a shed during the summer heat tightly sandwiched in a long box would be considered pressed right?

[FineCollector]

Pressing does not add anything or take away anything. You could make a better argument wiping dust off a book is restoration.

 

I always hated this definition of restoration. Simply put, restoration is the process of attempting to revert an object to its original condition. Simple as that. Which includes pressing.

 

How the the application of humidity, heat and pressure to remove accumulated defects. and/or to realign the spine is not seen as restoration baffles me. And as has been said, the only reason CGC doe not include pressing as restoration is they cannot reliably detect it.

 

So basically every book that has been left out in a shed during the summer heat tightly sandwiched in a long box would be considered pressed right?

 

Would you say that those conditions are favorable or unfavorable for the storage of comic books? Apply the same logic to pressing.

[PovertyRow]

Pressing does not add anything or take away anything. You could make a better argument wiping dust off a book is restoration.

 

I always hated this definition of restoration. Simply put, restoration is the process of attempting to revert an object to its original condition. Simple as that. Which includes pressing.

 

How the the application of humidity, heat and pressure to remove accumulated defects. and/or to realign the spine is not seen as restoration baffles me. And as has been said, the only reason CGC doe not include pressing as restoration is they cannot reliably detect it.

 

I would agree with this. I would also say that it appears to me that the problem comes with the idea that "restoration=BAD". Without that stigma attached, it doesn't become the heated argument that it seems to be whenever it comes up.

 

That is very close to what I have been saying since my very earliest posts here. The stigma of the word "restoration" is such that some people seem to regard books with restoration as equally bad. Granted the market is certainly a factor, but that should have nothing to do with understanding exactly what resto is. The market can always re-adjust to new definitions. That is already happening with the breaking out of conservation from restoration. Higher prices are starting to be realized for Conserved books that, before the new label, would have gone for less as they would have been assigned a Restored label..

[PovertyRow]

Pressing does not add anything or take away anything. You could make a better argument wiping dust off a book is restoration.

 

I always hated this definition of restoration. Simply put, restoration is the process of attempting to revert an object to its original condition. Simple as that. Which includes pressing.

 

How the the application of humidity, heat and pressure to remove accumulated defects. and/or to realign the spine is not seen as restoration baffles me. And as has been said, the only reason CGC doe not include pressing as restoration is they cannot reliably detect it.

 

So basically every book that has been left out in a shed during the summer heat tightly sandwiched in a long box would be considered pressed right?

 

There is nothing new or original about that example. Books subject to that condition share nothing with a pressed book, which is a controlled process of brief duration. I would certainly not consider them pressed, just improperly stored.

[SquareChaos]

Isn't the first step towards any meaningful discussion on this topic the research and creation of a method to actually detect whether a book has been pressed or not?

 

Without such a method this is somewhat like stating a dislike for the act of storing comic books in purple long boxes - an understandable argument for someone that shares your aesthetics, but an annoyance in all practical cases unless you yourself bought the book off of the rack.

 

I appreciate the passion in this thread, but I just don't get the heat present on both sides for something that is, for all viable purposes, invisible when properly done.

[kav]

Pressing does not add anything or take away anything. You could make a better argument wiping dust off a book is restoration.

 

I always hated this definition of restoration. Simply put, restoration is the process of attempting to revert an object to its original condition. Simple as that. Which includes pressing.

 

How the the application of humidity, heat and pressure to remove accumulated defects. and/or to realign the spine is not seen as restoration baffles me. And as has been said, the only reason CGC doe not include pressing as restoration is they cannot reliably detect it.

 

So basically every book that has been left out in a shed during the summer heat tightly sandwiched in a long box would be considered pressed right?

 

There is nothing new or original about that example. Books subject to that condition share nothing with a pressed book, which is a controlled process of brief duration. I would certainly not consider them pressed, just improperly stored.

So if you stretch out the process then it's not restoration? Like what about a week long process? Month? What's the magic time limit of heat/pressure/humidity that suddenly becomes 'restoration'?