Why do Anti-Pressers HATE pressing?

[SquareChaos]

I don't believe you can transmogriphy (or blur the lines as you say) between 'vintage collectibles' and 'manufactured collectibles' by pressing.

 

I completely agree with you on the illogical pricing by grade discrepancies that we see across nearly all ages.

 

 

[Logan510]

Always a bit amusing that some of the most strident anti pressers have no issue selling books to known flippers & pressers.

 

Just sayin'

[seanfingh]

I don't believe you can transmogriphy (or blur the lines as you say) between 'vintage collectibles' and 'manufactured collectibles' by pressing.

 

I completely agree with you on the illogical pricing by grade discrepancies that we see across nearly all ages.

 

 

How else would you describe pulling books out of national dealers' bins, paying the 40-60 bucks they are asking, getting them pressed and auctioning them for $1500-3000? It was a shell game, and the only difference now, compared to 2008, is that they press their own stuff now. And so many more books are turned into ultra high grade copies. They are manufactured. Make no bones about it.

[SquareChaos]

I don't believe you can transmogriphy (or blur the lines as you say) between 'vintage collectibles' and 'manufactured collectibles' by pressing.

 

I completely agree with you on the illogical pricing by grade discrepancies that we see across nearly all ages.

 

 

How else would you describe pulling books out of national dealers' bins, paying the 40-60 bucks they are asking, getting them pressed and auctioning them for $1500-3000? It was a shell game, and the only difference now, compared to 2008, is that they press their own stuff now. And so many more books are turned into ultra high grade copies. They are manufactured. Make no bones about it.

 

I of course would not argue that pressing can improve some books. I'm arguing that the 9.4 that we all agree is a vintage collectible is the same book as the 9.6 that some of us argue is a manufactured collectible.

 

The only thing manufactured is the profit for the person that submits and then presumably sells the book. A theoretical owner ten years and three owners down the line will have no less enjoyment out of the pressed 9.6 than they would have from an unpressed 9.6... unless they're someone in this thread that feels what I can only describe as an existential concern over whether or not their book had been improved.

[seanfingh]

I don't believe you can transmogriphy (or blur the lines as you say) between 'vintage collectibles' and 'manufactured collectibles' by pressing.

 

I completely agree with you on the illogical pricing by grade discrepancies that we see across nearly all ages.

 

 

How else would you describe pulling books out of national dealers' bins, paying the 40-60 bucks they are asking, getting them pressed and auctioning them for $1500-3000? It was a shell game, and the only difference now, compared to 2008, is that they press their own stuff now. And so many more books are turned into ultra high grade copies. They are manufactured. Make no bones about it.

 

I of course would not argue that pressing can improve some books. I'm arguing that the 9.4 that we all agree is a vintage collectible is the same book as the 9.6 that some of us argue is a manufactured collectible.

 

The only thing manufactured is the profit for the person that submits and then presumably sells the book. A theoretical owner ten years and three owners down the line will have no less enjoyment out of the pressed 9.6 than they would have from an unpressed 9.6... unless they're someone in this thread that feels what I can only describe as an existential concern over whether or not their book had been improved.

 

Your analysis might play if it were really all about the big number on the left. If it is really about the book itself, and not the big number then I think the exact opposite of what you are saying plays.

 

And maybe that is what is really at the core of the discussion - whether the imprimatur of the CGC grade trumps everything. I don't think there is a right or a wrong answer, just what plays for you. But for me, the Emperor has no clothes.

[kav]

When an Ameba splits in 2, which one is the original Ameba?

[SquareChaos]

I don't believe you can transmogriphy (or blur the lines as you say) between 'vintage collectibles' and 'manufactured collectibles' by pressing.

 

I completely agree with you on the illogical pricing by grade discrepancies that we see across nearly all ages.

 

 

How else would you describe pulling books out of national dealers' bins, paying the 40-60 bucks they are asking, getting them pressed and auctioning them for $1500-3000? It was a shell game, and the only difference now, compared to 2008, is that they press their own stuff now. And so many more books are turned into ultra high grade copies. They are manufactured. Make no bones about it.

 

I of course would not argue that pressing can improve some books. I'm arguing that the 9.4 that we all agree is a vintage collectible is the same book as the 9.6 that some of us argue is a manufactured collectible.

 

The only thing manufactured is the profit for the person that submits and then presumably sells the book. A theoretical owner ten years and three owners down the line will have no less enjoyment out of the pressed 9.6 than they would have from an unpressed 9.6... unless they're someone in this thread that feels what I can only describe as an existential concern over whether or not their book had been improved.

 

Your analysis might play if it were really all about the big number on the left. If it is really about the book itself, and not the big number then I think the exact opposite of what you are saying plays.

 

And maybe that is what is really at the core of the discussion - whether the imprimatur of the CGC grade trumps everything. I don't think there is a right or a wrong answer, just what plays for you. But for me, the Emperor has no clothes.

 

 

Black and white? It's not the number AND the book, it's the number OR the book? Editing this to be more explicit - I don't mean you think that, I mean is that the core of the problem as you see it. Which is more important.

[COI]

I don't believe you can transmogriphy (or blur the lines as you say) between 'vintage collectibles' and 'manufactured collectibles' by pressing.

 

I completely agree with you on the illogical pricing by grade discrepancies that we see across nearly all ages.

 

 

How else would you describe pulling books out of national dealers' bins, paying the 40-60 bucks they are asking, getting them pressed and auctioning them for $1500-3000? It was a shell game, and the only difference now, compared to 2008, is that they press their own stuff now. And so many more books are turned into ultra high grade copies. They are manufactured. Make no bones about it.

 

I of course would not argue that pressing can improve some books. I'm arguing that the 9.4 that we all agree is a vintage collectible is the same book as the 9.6 that some of us argue is a manufactured collectible.

 

The only thing manufactured is the profit for the person that submits and then presumably sells the book. A theoretical owner ten years and three owners down the line will have no less enjoyment out of the pressed 9.6 than they would have from an unpressed 9.6... unless they're someone in this thread that feels what I can only describe as an existential concern over whether or not their book had been improved.

 

The enjoyment someone gets out of a collectible is irrelevant when attempting to categorize it. You can enjoy a manufactured collectible just as much as a vintage collectible; similarly, you could enjoy a forged painting just as much as a real painting. Scarcity, authenticity, history and perception of value aren't "existential concerns"; they represent factors in an equation each of us do when determining how much, both in material and immaterial terms, something is worth to us.

 

Do you think a forged painting, if it looks exactly the same, has the same value as the original? Your argument hinges on the idea that if you can't detect it, it 'ain't a problem, so how would you apply that concept to a forgery or replica of something that is indistinguishable from the original? Is valuing the original exponentially higher than the forgery based on an existential concern?

[SquareChaos]

When an Ameba splits in 2, which one is the original Ameba?

 

I'm not sure if Theseus' paradox fits here... maybe it's somewhere between that and platonic ideals, I don't know.

[SquareChaos]

I don't believe you can transmogriphy (or blur the lines as you say) between 'vintage collectibles' and 'manufactured collectibles' by pressing.

 

I completely agree with you on the illogical pricing by grade discrepancies that we see across nearly all ages.

 

 

How else would you describe pulling books out of national dealers' bins, paying the 40-60 bucks they are asking, getting them pressed and auctioning them for $1500-3000? It was a shell game, and the only difference now, compared to 2008, is that they press their own stuff now. And so many more books are turned into ultra high grade copies. They are manufactured. Make no bones about it.

 

I of course would not argue that pressing can improve some books. I'm arguing that the 9.4 that we all agree is a vintage collectible is the same book as the 9.6 that some of us argue is a manufactured collectible.

 

The only thing manufactured is the profit for the person that submits and then presumably sells the book. A theoretical owner ten years and three owners down the line will have no less enjoyment out of the pressed 9.6 than they would have from an unpressed 9.6... unless they're someone in this thread that feels what I can only describe as an existential concern over whether or not their book had been improved.

 

The enjoyment someone gets out of a collectible is irrelevant when attempting to categorize it. You can enjoy a manufactured collectible just as much as a vintage collectible; similarly, you could enjoy a forged painting just as much as a real painting. Scarcity, authenticity, history and perception of value aren't "existential concerns"; they represent factors in an equation each of us do when determining how much, both in material and immaterial terms, something is worth to us.

 

Do you think a forged painting, if it looks exactly the same, has the same value as the original? Your argument hinges on the idea that if you can't detect it, it 'ain't a problem, so how would you apply that concept to a forgery or replica of something that is indistinguishable from the original? Is valuing the original exponentially higher than the forgery based on an existential concern?

 

 

I wrote what I wrote with the implication that the bolded part above is absolutely not true. Otherwise we'd all be collecting TPBs and reprints.

 

[seanfingh]

I don't believe you can transmogriphy (or blur the lines as you say) between 'vintage collectibles' and 'manufactured collectibles' by pressing.

 

I completely agree with you on the illogical pricing by grade discrepancies that we see across nearly all ages.

 

 

How else would you describe pulling books out of national dealers' bins, paying the 40-60 bucks they are asking, getting them pressed and auctioning them for $1500-3000? It was a shell game, and the only difference now, compared to 2008, is that they press their own stuff now. And so many more books are turned into ultra high grade copies. They are manufactured. Make no bones about it.

 

I of course would not argue that pressing can improve some books. I'm arguing that the 9.4 that we all agree is a vintage collectible is the same book as the 9.6 that some of us argue is a manufactured collectible.

 

The only thing manufactured is the profit for the person that submits and then presumably sells the book. A theoretical owner ten years and three owners down the line will have no less enjoyment out of the pressed 9.6 than they would have from an unpressed 9.6... unless they're someone in this thread that feels what I can only describe as an existential concern over whether or not their book had been improved.

 

Your analysis might play if it were really all about the big number on the left. If it is really about the book itself, and not the big number then I think the exact opposite of what you are saying plays.

 

And maybe that is what is really at the core of the discussion - whether the imprimatur of the CGC grade trumps everything. I don't think there is a right or a wrong answer, just what plays for you. But for me, the Emperor has no clothes.

 

 

Black and white? It's not the number AND the book, it's the number OR the book? Editing this to be more explicit - I don't mean you think that, I mean is that the core of the problem as you see it. Which is more important.

 

That was my interpretation of your point, that 10 years down the road someone would appreciate the 9.6 whether it were pressed or unpressed. That, to me, indicated that it was the number that was important. And honestly, that may be where the hobby is headed. Fewer and fewer people care. I never cared. It just sort of crept up on me and made me realize that I didn't want to play the blue label game anymore.

[Guardian Comics]

Pressing is the number one reason why I gave up collecting.

 

The joy of finding something that had existed for 50+ years in pristine condition was the thrill for me.

 

Finding something that appeared to be in pristine condition, but had been manufactured the previous week...not so much fun.

 

Thanks, Nick, for expressing so succinctly what bothers some about a high grade vintage market flooded with pressed books.

 

Bob have you not had books pressed before you have sold them before?

 

Jim

[SquareChaos]

I don't believe you can transmogriphy (or blur the lines as you say) between 'vintage collectibles' and 'manufactured collectibles' by pressing.

 

I completely agree with you on the illogical pricing by grade discrepancies that we see across nearly all ages.

 

 

How else would you describe pulling books out of national dealers' bins, paying the 40-60 bucks they are asking, getting them pressed and auctioning them for $1500-3000? It was a shell game, and the only difference now, compared to 2008, is that they press their own stuff now. And so many more books are turned into ultra high grade copies. They are manufactured. Make no bones about it.

 

I of course would not argue that pressing can improve some books. I'm arguing that the 9.4 that we all agree is a vintage collectible is the same book as the 9.6 that some of us argue is a manufactured collectible.

 

The only thing manufactured is the profit for the person that submits and then presumably sells the book. A theoretical owner ten years and three owners down the line will have no less enjoyment out of the pressed 9.6 than they would have from an unpressed 9.6... unless they're someone in this thread that feels what I can only describe as an existential concern over whether or not their book had been improved.

 

Your analysis might play if it were really all about the big number on the left. If it is really about the book itself, and not the big number then I think the exact opposite of what you are saying plays.

 

And maybe that is what is really at the core of the discussion - whether the imprimatur of the CGC grade trumps everything. I don't think there is a right or a wrong answer, just what plays for you. But for me, the Emperor has no clothes.

 

 

Black and white? It's not the number AND the book, it's the number OR the book? Editing this to be more explicit - I don't mean you think that, I mean is that the core of the problem as you see it. Which is more important.

 

That was my interpretation of your point, that 10 years down the road someone would appreciate the 9.6 whether it were pressed or unpressed. That, to me, indicated that it was the number that was important. And honestly, that may be where the hobby is headed. Fewer and fewer people care. I never cared. It just sort of crept up on me and made me realize that I didn't want to play the blue label game anymore.

 

Gotcha.

 

I didn't really mean to imply that, so it's interesting that you brought that line up. What I intended to convey is that the book would be valued by it's owner, no more than that. If it was a 8.5 pressed into a 9.2 in my example, would that change anything? I was using the numbers I used somewhat arbitrarily.

 

In my experience, most collectors buy what they can afford. I'm sure some number of collectors have tunnel vision on the grade, but I know many also simply love the books - I don't know. I don't want to be too cynical about this.

[COI]

I don't believe you can transmogriphy (or blur the lines as you say) between 'vintage collectibles' and 'manufactured collectibles' by pressing.

 

I completely agree with you on the illogical pricing by grade discrepancies that we see across nearly all ages.

 

 

How else would you describe pulling books out of national dealers' bins, paying the 40-60 bucks they are asking, getting them pressed and auctioning them for $1500-3000? It was a shell game, and the only difference now, compared to 2008, is that they press their own stuff now. And so many more books are turned into ultra high grade copies. They are manufactured. Make no bones about it.

 

I of course would not argue that pressing can improve some books. I'm arguing that the 9.4 that we all agree is a vintage collectible is the same book as the 9.6 that some of us argue is a manufactured collectible.

 

The only thing manufactured is the profit for the person that submits and then presumably sells the book. A theoretical owner ten years and three owners down the line will have no less enjoyment out of the pressed 9.6 than they would have from an unpressed 9.6... unless they're someone in this thread that feels what I can only describe as an existential concern over whether or not their book had been improved.

 

The enjoyment someone gets out of a collectible is irrelevant when attempting to categorize it. You can enjoy a manufactured collectible just as much as a vintage collectible; similarly, you could enjoy a forged painting just as much as a real painting. Scarcity, authenticity, history and perception of value aren't "existential concerns"; they represent factors in an equation each of us do when determining how much, both in material and immaterial terms, something is worth to us.

 

Do you think a forged painting, if it looks exactly the same, has the same value as the original? Your argument hinges on the idea that if you can't detect it, it 'ain't a problem, so how would you apply that concept to a forgery or replica of something that is indistinguishable from the original? Is valuing the original exponentially higher than the forgery based on an existential concern?

 

 

I wrote what I wrote with the implication that the bolded part above is absolutely not true. Otherwise we'd all be collecting TPBs and reprints.

 

It absolutely is true. Some people choose to collect TPBs over comics because they don't see the value for themselves in spending the money on the originals. I myself now collect statues, which are manufactured collectibles, and which I enjoy collecting just as much as original art and more so than I ever did collecting comics.

 

This just happens to be a community focused around vintage comics; there are communities focused around manufactured collectibles as well. Vintage is not automatically superior, they're just different categories. Around here and other vintage communities, "manufactured collectible" is almost a pejorative, which is ironic given pressing.

[kav]

If an anti-presser is selling a book, do they refuse to have it pressed on principle even if they can get 10K more?

[COI]

Can't speak for anyone else, but I've never pressed a book. I sold my high grade ASM collection back in 2007 consisting of books I bought in the early days of CGC, knowing full well many of them had "potential". I'm sure I left tons of money on the table.

[SquareChaos]

 

 

I wrote what I wrote with the implication that the bolded part above is absolutely not true. Otherwise we'd all be collecting TPBs and reprints.

 

It absolutely is true. Some people choose to collect TPBs over comics because they don't see the value for themselves in spending the money on the originals. I myself now collect statues, which are manufactured collectibles, and which I enjoy collecting just as much as original art and more so than I ever did collecting comics.

 

This just happens to be a community focused around vintage comics; there are communities focused around manufactured collectibles as well. Vintage is not automatically superior, they're just different categories. Around here and other vintage communities, "manufactured collectible" is almost a pejorative, which is ironic given pressing.

 

I'm not saying people don't collect trades and reprints - I have a pretty large collection of trades - I'm saying for the context of this discussion it is clear that we aren't talking about reprints. We are talking about "vintage collectibles", not manufactured collectibles. Until quite recently later printings were mostly ignored, if not disdained, and the entire context of everything I've said is geared towards what you've called vintage collectibles.

 

I admit I'm getting tired as it's getting late for me, my apologies if I'm not being clear.

[kav]

Can't speak for anyone else, but I've never pressed a book. I sold my high grade ASM collection back in 2007 consisting of books I bought in the early days of CGC, knowing full well many of them had "potential". I'm sure I left tons of money on the table.

But aren't you just feeding the press/flippers?

[SquareChaos]

If an anti-presser is selling a book, do they refuse to have it pressed on principle even if they can get 10K more?

 

You should create a comic book philosopher twitter account

[kav]

If an anti-presser is selling a book, do they refuse to have it pressed on principle even if they can get 10K more?

 

You should create a comic book philosopher twitter account

 

If a comic is never read, does it contain a story?