Why do Anti-Pressers HATE pressing?

[october]

Kudos to the noob who resurrected this thread. We took the bait hook line and sinker.

 

So true.

[jimbo_707]

The reason I always disliked pressing had absolutely nothing to do with what anyone else collected, it was because it killed the way I (and others) wanted to collect permanently.

Agreed!

 

The only reason I haven't left the hobby altogether is that I'm too stubborn to let the pressers ruin it for me, but I can't say I get as much enjoyment out of it as I used to.

[jimbo_707]

Rust happens in real time. All the rusting that will happen from pressing will happen during pressing. Staples do not 'absorb' moisture to be slowly parceled out into rust.

 

Staples don't absorb moisture, but paper does. Some of that moisture is almost certainly still in recently-pressed books that have been encapsulated. It stands to reason that more moisture=more rust.

[kav]

Rust happens in real time. All the rusting that will happen from pressing will happen during pressing. Staples do not 'absorb' moisture to be slowly parceled out into rust.

 

Staples don't absorb moisture, but paper does. Some of that moisture is almost certainly still in recently-pressed books that have been encapsulated. It stands to reason that more moisture=more rust.

that makes sense

[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?

 

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

Every once in a while some boob shows up and tries to tell me what to do. It never works but every once in a while they try.

 

My point with the time thing is if someone stacks books in their room that is in a hot humid environment, and 3 years later the books end up pressed exactly as if they were professionally pressed, is that restoration? If not, then professional pressing does the same thing, just in a shorter span of time. Thats why I bring up the time factor. The only difference in the 2 scenarios is the amount of time it took to press.

[PovertyRow]

My point with the time thing is if someone stacks books in their room that is in a hot humid environment, and 3 years later the books end up pressed exactly as if they were professionally pressed, is that restoration? If not, then professional pressing does the same thing, just in a shorter span of time. Thats why I bring up the time factor. The only difference in the 2 scenarios is the amount of time it took to press.

 

The problem is they would not end up "pressed as if they were professionally pressed." So the question has no basis in reality.

 

"Over time" is a key factor in why books degrade. High humidity and temperature "over time". Fluctuations in humidity and temperature "over time". Absorption of airborne acids/particulates "over time". The long duration you are talking about are the ones that cause damage to books "over time" in such conditions as high heat and humidity. I know you know that so am not sure why you keep arguing it.

[Chip Cataldo]

Heh. Boob.

[COI]

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.

 

Back in 2001 or so, I saw some really high grade early SA for the first time; I was 20, and just getting into collecting vintage books. It was a CGC 9.6 ASM 8 in particular that blew my mind; the colors were insanely vibrant, the corners perfectly sharp, and the spine was flawless. Up until then, I'd mostly been exposed to low and mid-grade books, and I had no idea a 40 year-old book could look that good. The book went up for auction, and sold for what everyone thought at the time was a crazy multiple of guide, but I instantly understood why it sold for that kind of money. Not only did the copy look stunning, but I found it absolutely remarkable that a book could survive 4 decades unscathed when books that were just printed and sold off the stands often didn't even look that good.

 

This, to me, justified the high prices and the massive price disparity from one grade to the next in 9.0+. When I became aware of pressing, all that went out the window. I slowly came to the realization that the justification for high grade prices, the thrill of the hunt associated with finding those untouched gems, and even the significance of pedigree collections, was significantly diminished by the practice of pressing. The fact that it's invisible doesn't make it a non-issue; the undetectable nature of "properly pressed" books is precisely the problem because it undermines and trivializes the entire pursuit of high grade books. A 9.0 pressed into a 9.6 and flipped for profit is not the same thing as a 9.6 that came directly from an original owner or succession of collectors who cared enough to select the best copy they could find and subsequently preserved it in pristine condition. It looks the same, and is labeled the same, but it's not the same.

 

Most of you probably don't share this viewpoint, which is fine, but there's a difference between not understanding something and not agreeing with it. There is also a clear financial incentive involved in NOT sharing this viewpoint, and not differentiating between these two types of 9.6s, regardless of the fact that there is no method of differentiating between a pressed and unpressed book. At this point, even if we could find a process to detect pressing, neither collectors nor CGC have any reason to rock the boat. Again, you don't have to agree with the view that pressing diminishes high grade books and high grade collecting, but the whole "haters gonna hate" argument, is a massive, and quite stupid straw-man. And boiling this down to an aesthetic argument that is irrelevant because you can't physically see the difference doesn't solve the above problem for many of us, hence the "heat" present on the anti-pressing side.

 

Not that hard to understand if you're not being deliberately obtuse.

[Chip Cataldo]

Great post.

[kav]

My point with the time thing is if someone stacks books in their room that is in a hot humid environment, and 3 years later the books end up pressed exactly as if they were professionally pressed, is that restoration? If not, then professional pressing does the same thing, just in a shorter span of time. Thats why I bring up the time factor. The only difference in the 2 scenarios is the amount of time it took to press.

 

The problem is they would not end up "pressed as if they were professionally pressed." So the question has no basis in reality.

 

"Over time" is a key factor in why books degrade. High humidity and temperature "over time". Fluctuations in humidity and temperature "over time". Absorption of airborne acids/particulates "over time". The long duration you are talking about are the ones that cause damage to books "over time" in such conditions as high heat and humidity. I know you know that so am not sure why you keep arguing it.

So the quick pressing is less destructive. So the long term destructive pressing is not restoration and the non destructive pressing is restoration. So restoration is a good thing then.

[Chip Cataldo]

...not Voldemart...

Horcruxes are now FIVE for ONLY $24.95!

 

Come on down to Voldemart and buy yours TODAY!

 

[PovertyRow]

My point with the time thing is if someone stacks books in their room that is in a hot humid environment, and 3 years later the books end up pressed exactly as if they were professionally pressed, is that restoration? If not, then professional pressing does the same thing, just in a shorter span of time. Thats why I bring up the time factor. The only difference in the 2 scenarios is the amount of time it took to press.

 

The problem is they would not end up "pressed as if they were professionally pressed." So the question has no basis in reality.

 

"Over time" is a key factor in why books degrade. High humidity and temperature "over time". Fluctuations in humidity and temperature "over time". Absorption of airborne acids/particulates "over time". The long duration you are talking about are the ones that cause damage to books "over time" in such conditions as high heat and humidity. I know you know that so am not sure why you keep arguing it.

So the quick pressing is less destructive. So the long term destructive pressing is not restoration and the non destructive pressing is restoration. So restoration is a good thing then.

 

Again you confuse the word restoration and apply it to something that it is not. Which is why I got fed up earlier.

 

So I will end it with this. Everything is restoration. Happy? and restoration is always highly beneficial. Pleased? Humidifying a book two miles beneath the ocean surface for 20 years and subsequently rolling over it on a stainless steel bed heated to 1200F with a bulldozer is restoration. They are all fine processes from which a book can only benefit.

[VintageComics]

The fact that it's invisible doesn't make it a non-issue; the undetectable nature of "properly pressed" books is precisely the problem because it undermines and trivializes the entire pursuit of high grade books. A 9.0 pressed into a 9.6 and flipped for profit is not the same thing as a 9.6 that came directly from an original owner or succession of collectors who cared enough to select the best copy they could find and subsequently preserved it in pristine condition. It looks the same, and is labeled the same, but it's not the same.

 

The market price difference between grades is what causes the market to accept pressing.

 

And it's not even a 'fault' thing. Pressing is not 'wrong'. People just don't like it for whatever reasons (personal, logical, emotional, sentimental, a combination of them all).

 

It's a naturally cyclical economic principle. As prices escalate, differentiating between price points becomes more necessary and there become more ways to capitalize on those increments.

 

This house is 'almost the same as the other one' but it does have a nicer upgraded floor so I'll pay more for it.

 

Pressing is just one mechanism that capitalizes on that price point difference. Much lkike other ways such as knowing what an undergraded book looks like, what a hot and upcoming key that nobody knows about is or figuring out how one item (whether it's a comic or a house) is relatively undervalued compared to it's surrounding counterparts.

 

The main reason I believe pressing is disliked it because it changes the rules for a lot of people.

 

And that dislike is well understood. I dislike how movie books have changed the rules.

 

But I can't stop it so I adapt and move on.

 

[COI]

The fact that it's invisible doesn't make it a non-issue; the undetectable nature of "properly pressed" books is precisely the problem because it undermines and trivializes the entire pursuit of high grade books. A 9.0 pressed into a 9.6 and flipped for profit is not the same thing as a 9.6 that came directly from an original owner or succession of collectors who cared enough to select the best copy they could find and subsequently preserved it in pristine condition. It looks the same, and is labeled the same, but it's not the same.

 

The market price difference between grades is what causes the market to accept pressing.

 

And it's not even a 'fault' thing. Pressing is not 'wrong'. People just don't like it for whatever reasons (personal, logical, emotional, sentimental, a combination of them all).

 

It's a naturally cyclical economic principle. As prices escalate, differentiating between price points becomes more necessary and there become more ways to capitalize on those increments.

 

This house is 'almost the same as the other one' but it does have a nicer upgraded floor so I'll pay more for it.

 

Pressing is just one mechanism that capitalizes on that price point difference. Much lkike other ways such as knowing what an undergraded book looks like, what a hot and upcoming key that nobody knows about is or figuring out how one item (whether it's a comic or a house) is relatively undervalued compared to it's surrounding counterparts.

 

The main reason I believe pressing is disliked it because it changes the rules for a lot of people.

 

And that dislike is well understood. I dislike how movie books have changed the rules.

 

But I can't stop it so I adapt and move on.

 

Doesn't seem very understood, judging by the comments in this thread.

 

A 9.6 sells for more than a 9.0 because, nice as the 9.0 is, the 9.6 is just that much more special. That logic falls apart when you turn a 9.0 into a 9.6. You're putting money into someone's pocket for the service of making a 9.0 more expensive, and making 9.6s less special. There's no benefit whatsoever to the buyer of the pressed book. The acceptance and proliferation of pressing by "the market" is an indication that "the market", or more specifically the buyers of the pressed books, took an 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em' position. I get it. But all the arguing over the minutia of 'conservation vs restoration' and all the "durrrr haters gonna hate duuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrr" type comments aren't indicative of any sort of understanding.

[kav]

My point with the time thing is if someone stacks books in their room that is in a hot humid environment, and 3 years later the books end up pressed exactly as if they were professionally pressed, is that restoration? If not, then professional pressing does the same thing, just in a shorter span of time. Thats why I bring up the time factor. The only difference in the 2 scenarios is the amount of time it took to press.

 

The problem is they would not end up "pressed as if they were professionally pressed." So the question has no basis in reality.

 

"Over time" is a key factor in why books degrade. High humidity and temperature "over time". Fluctuations in humidity and temperature "over time". Absorption of airborne acids/particulates "over time". The long duration you are talking about are the ones that cause damage to books "over time" in such conditions as high heat and humidity. I know you know that so am not sure why you keep arguing it.

So the quick pressing is less destructive. So the long term destructive pressing is not restoration and the non destructive pressing is restoration. So restoration is a good thing then.

 

Again you confuse the word restoration and apply it to something that it is not. Which is why I got fed up earlier.

 

So I will end it with this. Everything is restoration. Happy? and restoration is always highly beneficial. Pleased? Humidifying a book two miles beneath the ocean surface for 20 years and subsequently rolling over it on a stainless steel bed heated to 1200F with a bulldozer is restoration. They are all fine processes from which a book can only benefit.

I wouldn't recommend that.

[PovertyRow]

My point with the time thing is if someone stacks books in their room that is in a hot humid environment, and 3 years later the books end up pressed exactly as if they were professionally pressed, is that restoration? If not, then professional pressing does the same thing, just in a shorter span of time. Thats why I bring up the time factor. The only difference in the 2 scenarios is the amount of time it took to press.

 

The problem is they would not end up "pressed as if they were professionally pressed." So the question has no basis in reality.

 

"Over time" is a key factor in why books degrade. High humidity and temperature "over time". Fluctuations in humidity and temperature "over time". Absorption of airborne acids/particulates "over time". The long duration you are talking about are the ones that cause damage to books "over time" in such conditions as high heat and humidity. I know you know that so am not sure why you keep arguing it.

So the quick pressing is less destructive. So the long term destructive pressing is not restoration and the non destructive pressing is restoration. So restoration is a good thing then.

 

Again you confuse the word restoration and apply it to something that it is not. Which is why I got fed up earlier.

 

So I will end it with this. Everything is restoration. Happy? and restoration is always highly beneficial. Pleased? Humidifying a book two miles beneath the ocean surface for 20 years and subsequently rolling over it on a stainless steel bed heated to 1200F with a bulldozer is restoration. They are all fine processes from which a book can only benefit.

I wouldn't recommend that.

 

 

OK - you got me. That was

[kav]

I'm just trying to learn. I've run into this before where people get frustrated with me because I keep asking questions-I really have no stake or care one way or another about pressing.

[PovertyRow]

I'm just trying to learn. I've run into this before where people get frustrated with me because I keep asking questions-I really have no stake or care one way or another about pressing.

 

My main problem was you kept asking me questions without actually digesting my answers, which was obvious from the subsequent questions.

[kav]

I'm just trying to learn. I've run into this before where people get frustrated with me because I keep asking questions-I really have no stake or care one way or another about pressing.

 

My main problem was you kept asking me questions without actually digesting my answers, which was obvious from the subsequent questions.

Yep that's the problem I run into. I'll ask a question in real life and someone will say 'I've already answered that!' But, in my mind there's still a part of the question that is unanswered.

[Lazyboy]

The fact that it's invisible doesn't make it a non-issue; the undetectable nature of "properly pressed" books is precisely the problem because it undermines and trivializes the entire pursuit of high grade books. A 9.0 pressed into a 9.6 and flipped for profit is not the same thing as a 9.6 that came directly from an original owner or succession of collectors who cared enough to select the best copy they could find and subsequently preserved it in pristine condition. It looks the same, and is labeled the same, but it's not the same.

 

The market price difference between grades is what causes the market to accept pressing.

 

And it's not even a 'fault' thing. Pressing is not 'wrong'. People just don't like it for whatever reasons (personal, logical, emotional, sentimental, a combination of them all).

 

It's a naturally cyclical economic principle. As prices escalate, differentiating between price points becomes more necessary and there become more ways to capitalize on those increments.

 

This house is 'almost the same as the other one' but it does have a nicer upgraded floor so I'll pay more for it.

 

Pressing is just one mechanism that capitalizes on that price point difference. Much lkike other ways such as knowing what an undergraded book looks like, what a hot and upcoming key that nobody knows about is or figuring out how one item (whether it's a comic or a house) is relatively undervalued compared to it's surrounding counterparts.

 

The main reason I believe pressing is disliked it because it changes the rules for a lot of people.

 

And that dislike is well understood. I dislike how movie books have changed the rules.

 

But I can't stop it so I adapt and move on.

 

What rules did movie books change?