Why do Anti-Pressers HATE pressing?

[RockMyAmadeus]

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 vast majority of the books I press, no one is able to tell they are pressed. One of the signs is if the staple is off-set, it can get pressed down into the surface of the cover (front or back), but even that isn't guaranteed, because that can happen in production as well.

 

If the staple is well-aligned, and it was a high grade book to begin with, there is no way to tell it has been pressed. None.

 

 

[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.

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'?

 

If you stretch out the process it is not the pressing we are discussing. Pressing is a process. It is. like all restoration processes, governed by various factors that dictate the process. Control is a major factor in that process. Control of heat, pressure, humidity and duration.

 

Now if you want to bring up a week long or a month long or however long process, fine. Work it out, experiment with it and get back to us. But don't just add a week or a month to a process not designed for such durations. To do so demonstrates an ignorance of basic restoration tenets and processes.

[kav]

What if a better process was found that took a week to press and didn't cause damage to brittle books-would that be restoration or not? I'm speaking hypothetically. Time seems arbitrary. If you can build a car in 5 minutes does that mean it's not really a car? If time is the factor then you always run across the 'well at what point does it change?' 100 hours? 20? 5? 1?

[Flaming_Telepath]

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.

 

For 30-odd years, the industry bible (Overstreet) included pressing in their list of restorative processes.

 

They only changed their wording in around 2006 in the face of pressure from CGC and dealers who had a vested interest in the turnabout.

 

And CGC don't make THE rules. They make THEIR rules and they have taken the convenient route to discount pressing as restoration due to an inability to detect it with 100% accuracy.

[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?

 

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

 

Unfavorable, Except pressing if done right has none of the negative side effects of improper storage associated to it so not sure

[Flaming_Telepath]

Oh, and the definition of restoration requiring that something be added or taken away was another convenience only wheeled out in the mid-00s to justify the stance on pressing. It was not a widely accepted definition prior to that...if it was a definition at all.

 

To my mind, restoration is a process involving equipment and/or substances designed to restore a book to a previous condition.

 

Whilst non-invasive (and also arguably the least concerning of all processes) pressing qualifies.

[kav]

Restoration is a human word. It means whatever the consensus agrees it means. Currently it does not mean pressing.

[PovertyRow]

What if a better process was found that took a week to press and didn't cause damage to brittle books-would that be restoration or not? I'm speaking hypothetically. Time seems arbitrary. If you can build a car in 5 minutes does that mean it's not really a car? If time is the factor then you always run across the 'well at what point does it change?' 100 hours? 20? 5? 1?

 

Time is not arbitrary if you are talking about specific pressing techniques, as we are. Time is a major core component that integrates with heat, humidity and pressure.

 

Now if a better process could be found that took a week, it should still be seen in whatever light the current pressing process is seen. But the times involved with that new process would be irrelevant to current pressing.

[kav]

What if a better process was found that took a week to press and didn't cause damage to brittle books-would that be restoration or not? I'm speaking hypothetically. Time seems arbitrary. If you can build a car in 5 minutes does that mean it's not really a car? If time is the factor then you always run across the 'well at what point does it change?' 100 hours? 20? 5? 1?

 

Time is not arbitrary if you are talking about specific pressing techniques, as we are. Time is a major core component that integrates with heat, humidity and pressure.

 

Now if a better process could be found that took a week, it should still be seen in whatever light the current pressing process is seen. But the times involved with that new process would be irrelevant to current pressing.

Ok if time is irrelevant then stacking books for twenty years in a hot humid area is restoration. And that makes no sense. All the Church books are restored under that definition.

[PovertyRow]

Oh, and the definition of restoration requiring that something be added or taken away was another convenience only wheeled out in the mid-00s to justify the stance on pressing. It was not a widely accepted definition prior to that...if it was a definition at all.

 

To my mind, restoration is a process involving equipment and/or substances designed to restore a book to a previous condition.

 

Whilst non-invasive (and also arguably the least concerning of all processes) pressing qualifies.

 

Agree 100%. I said this a bit earlier in this thread. Just reposting so you know others are aligned with you:

 

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.

[PovertyRow]

What if a better process was found that took a week to press and didn't cause damage to brittle books-would that be restoration or not? I'm speaking hypothetically. Time seems arbitrary. If you can build a car in 5 minutes does that mean it's not really a car? If time is the factor then you always run across the 'well at what point does it change?' 100 hours? 20? 5? 1?

 

Time is not arbitrary if you are talking about specific pressing techniques, as we are. Time is a major core component that integrates with heat, humidity and pressure.

 

Now if a better process could be found that took a week, it should still be seen in whatever light the current pressing process is seen. But the times involved with that new process would be irrelevant to current pressing.

Ok if time is irrelevant then stacking books for twenty years in a hot humid area is restoration. And that makes no sense. All the Church books are restored under that definition.

 

I did not say time is irrelevant. Where are you getting that from? I said "time is a major core component".

 

And I will make the same reply about the Church books I made in 2002 or 2003 on these boards. Those books were put in stacks and not touched again. They did not have the time to accumulate all those non-color breaking creases, waviness, rippling etc. that get pressed out. The weight of the stacks also served to keep out oxygen and airborne acids etc.Their storage method basically served not to press them but to preserve them.

 

By the way, a "hot humid area" is not an accurate description of how the Church books were stored.

 

[kav]

So if time is a major core component to determine if restoration has happened what is the cut off time? 1 hour? a week? 3 years? what?

[PovertyRow]

So if time is a major core component to determine if restoration has happened what is the cut off time? 1 hour? a week? 3 years? what?

 

Kav - this is going nowhere. You are making absolutely no sense. What is this "cut off time for restoration" coming from? I have made the points I wanted to make. But at this point it is obvious you are just intentionally coming up with irrelevant scenarios for what? A protracted discussion going nowhere?

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

So if time is a major core component to determine if restoration has happened what is the cut off time? 1 hour? a week? 3 years? what?

 

Kav - this is going nowhere. You are making absolutely no sense. What is this "cut off time for restoration" coming from? I have made the points I wanted to make. But at this point it is obvious you are just intentionally coming up with irrelevant scenarios for what? A protracted discussion going nowhere?

 

I think I can answer that for you. He joined these forums 2 months AFTER me, and has made nearly 34000 more posts than I.

It really is time he left the house

[Paul © ® ⚽️💙™]

Without reading into this thread too deep, I think almost every base about pressing has been covered 1000 times over. But I'll just share my thoughts as I probably haven't posted them in years for the various pressing arguments.

 

I find that most pressing arguments become more about emotional arguments than about actual pressing facts, and that is fair. Sometimes there is a lot of money involved going in either direction. Unfortunately, because we are all emotionally attached to our books (and are possibly the most emotional of all collectors ) sometimes it's hard to face the facts.

 

1) Pressing damages books

 

So does reading them.

So does shipping them.

So does storing them in a Fed Ex truck in 130 degree Arizona heat.

So does throwing them across the room in a USPS box.

So does showing them to your friends while eating a Hershey's bar and sipping a soda.

 

The reality is that the only thing that doesn't damage books is leaving them sitting on the newsstand after they are released. From that point forward, it's all about damage mitigation. Ultimately, since the benefits outweigh the risks for most people, and the risks are reasonably small, properly pressed books have a very small chance of being damaged.

 

2) Pressing weakens the paper.

 

This has neither been proven or shown.

 

Yes, it will damage weak books, just like anything else will damage a weak book, but in general, pressing has now shown to be damaging. In fact, when Joeypost ran a test on a pressed vs. a non-pressed book, the pressed book fared better, presumably because the humidification process introduced some suppleness and tensile strength into the paper that the unpressed book did not have.

 

It's important to note that paper, as it is being formed, printed, etc, goes through various stages of both high heat and extreme pressure. Saying that pressing damages paper completely ignores the fact that paper, over it's life is exposed to heat and pressure multiple times before it ends up as a comic book in someone's short box.

 

3) People who press books are greedy.

 

And people who play the stock market or that make calculated business decisions are not?

 

Let's face it, each person is going to do what feels right for them. Collectors like nice books, dealers like to sell nice books. Pressing a book is no more 'greedy' than asking top dollar for your car when you are ready to sell it.

 

4) Pressing is restoration

 

Ah yes, the 'booger flick' or 'wiping dust', slippery slope analogy.

 

The reason I don't consider pressing as restoration (even though you are actually, actively changing the book) is because pressing is so benign (when done properly) to the actual paper, and because you are using naturally occurring principles, and because nothing is really added or taken away.

 

Pressure is a naturally occurring phenomenon. It operates first with gravity, and then with man made, mechanical advantages and inventions (like a press).

 

Moisture is also naturally occurring on planet earth.

 

Heat is also naturally occurring.

 

Pressing can happen naturally under the right conditions. I picked up an original owner SA collection a few years ago that were stored in tall stacks and in a humid environment. Every book looked 'pressed' because the gap at the spine (a 'tell' for some board members) was missing. Vehement 'anti-pressing' proponents would have passed on the books even though they were never actually 'pressed'.

 

This showed me that sometimes a pressed book is not actually a pressed book.

 

So,

 

i) since it's using natural occurring principles (in man made models of course),

ii) it's difficult to prove or detect (when done properly) and

iii) it's not actually harmful or at least not any more harmful than anything else that happens to a book

 

I decide to stop tilting at that windmill and just realized that if a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, it's irrelevant.

 

It's invisible, it's not harmful and so it's not an issue.

 

5) Pressing increased the census and caused a drop in prices.

 

There are so many factors that affect prices that I believe this is only one facet of the discussion. I don't think it was the actual census numbers that affected the market as much as fear and knowledge.

 

When people realized that there were more books available than they originally thought, they realized that they can wait for the next comic to show up. Other people just decided to try and press a cheaper copy up. We also have a massive economic collapse in 2007-2008 where entire countries went bankrupt. We also had several Pedigree collection finds (Twin City, Billy Wright, Mound City, Suscha News - am I forgetting some?) bring massive amounts of fresh books to market. We also had several large collectors sell their collections off and actively stop pursuing books. Some owned multiples copies of runs. We also had many collectors lose their jobs and were forced to sell their collections.

 

All of the above happened at the same time frame between roughly 2007 and now.

 

So as you can see, there are a zillion factors that affect prices. Not just one.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

It's my opinion that a lot of people don't like pressing, but why they don't like pressing and what pressing actually is are not the same things.

 

Did I miss any points?

 

 

In 300 years time a time capsule will be dug up somewhere. Inside will be a 'Pressing Bible'. This will be the Foreword.

[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.

 

For 30-odd years, the industry bible (Overstreet) included pressing in their list of restorative processes.

 

They only changed their wording in around 2006 in the face of pressure from CGC and dealers who had a vested interest in the turnabout.

 

And CGC don't make THE rules. They make THEIR rules and they have taken the convenient route to discount pressing as restoration due to an inability to detect it with 100% accuracy.

 

You may very well be correct about Overstreet, but that too is immaterial. Using semantics of "THE" or "THEIR" in reference to the rules doesn't change the simple fact that grading company standards are what the industry uses to judge restoration. If that wasn't the case, this argument (in this very thread) would't exist.

 

How, why, when or whatever about the detection process or the restoration itself is also immaterial. All of the arguments against pressing are only good if someone can convince the "powers that be" to change their policy. Yes, it may be complicated and include technology or an approach that doesn't exist en masse yet (or something else) - but it doesn't change the simple truth...

 

Pressing is not restoration because the grading companies at current say so.

 

If you don't like it, take it up with them.

[joeypost]

Years ago a book was sent in for analysis.

 

The book was cut in half by me. One half was hydrated and pressed, the other half had nothing done to it. IIRC the pressed half showed an more hydrogen bond sin the paper compared to the unpressed half.

 

Does anyone else remember this and can one of the board detectives pull up the thread?

[bababooey]

That was this thread.

 

Here's the CBCA google doc

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-NJflbiZN6QYjJjYjY0NmYtYjI0Mi00NmY3LTg1ODEtYzNjNjVkNzMyZDdi/view

[comicdonna]

Years ago a book was sent in for analysis.

 

The book was cut in half by me. One half was hydrated and pressed, the other half had nothing done to it. IIRC the pressed half showed an more hydrogen bond sin the paper compared to the unpressed half.

 

Does anyone else remember this and can one of the board detectives pull up the thread?

I remember it. Jeff cut it into 3rds, as there were 3 tests performed by the lab. Another book was cut in 3rds and not pressed. The pressed samples tested stronger than the untested samples.

 

Edited: cut in half, not thirds.

[jsilverjanet]

So if time is a major core component to determine if restoration has happened what is the cut off time? 1 hour? a week? 3 years? what?

 

Kav - this is going nowhere. You are making absolutely no sense. What is this "cut off time for restoration" coming from? I have made the points I wanted to make. But at this point it is obvious you are just intentionally coming up with irrelevant scenarios for what? A protracted discussion going nowhere?

 

I think I can answer that for you. He joined these forums 2 months AFTER me, and has made nearly 34000 more posts than I.

It really is time he left the house

 

Just so I don't confuse what you are implying, are you suggesting that another board member not post anymore and leave the site?