Why do Anti-Pressers HATE pressing?

[VintageComics]

Are anti-pressers practicing freedom of speech or violating hate-speak laws...?

 

i don't understand why pro-pressers has to shove "pressing is not restoration" down our throats?

 

Let's just agree to disagree.

 

Pro-pressers don't shove anything down anti-pressers throats. If they do, you can reverse the sentiment and say that anti-pressers are shoving it down the throat of pro-pressers, but neither is correct.

 

It's just a discussion on a chat forum, and discussions go in multiple directions.

 

Whilst 'shoving it down anti-pressers' throats' is somewhat emotive, there was a campaign to have the definition changed.

 

There is a very good reason why CGC withheld the information from the buying populace back in the early 00s that they were allowing pressed books into Universal slabs. At the time, the market considered the process restoration and this was reflected in the Overstreet definitions.

 

CGC were actually offering pressing services to their large submitters, but those people buying the books once they were slabbed had no idea. When the cat got out of the bag, there was a huge outcry here and a campaign began centred around the 'nothing added, nothing taken away' mantra to justify the procedure. This was led by CGC itself, backed up by a number of big-time, vested interest, dealers.

 

It was not the buying public who supported this move and many collectors felt like they had been had...which because of the subterfuge used, was a very understandable emotion.

 

Shoved down their throats? Maybe not.

 

Foisted on them without any prior debate? Most certainly.

 

Those are fair points.

 

I guess the question that comes to my mind is who would the debate be with and how would such a debate be held?

 

Remember, this was going on 15 years ago. And books were apparently being pressed before CGC was ever formed.

 

And I'd also be more curious to know why Overstreet changed their position.

[oakman29]

I don't think we can discuss pressing properly online, we have to look at books in hand. I can't remember which book, but I have a pressed book where a long corner crease wasn't totally removed. Instead of a normal corner crease, I have a squished corner crease. Am I happier with a flat crease instead of a normal crease? Not really. The feeling of owning a manipulated book takes away the benefit of any wrinkling or spine tics the pressing may have taken away.

 

I'm going to degenerate this thread into two camps: boob jobs vs. no boob jobs. One is unnatural, but it looks nice if you don't look too hard. The other group knows it doesn't feel right, and would rather have the genuine article, even if that makes prime examples harder to find.

 

Howzat?

 

 

Natural> unnatural

Unpressed> pressed

 

[jcjames]

Boob analogy falls flat

 

There's a slippery slope of what one would call "manipulation" of a book's present appearance to improve its in-hand presentation that almost no one has effectively addressed. Or maybe they have in years past and don't want to explain again for noobs.

 

Bending back a folded-over corner flap - is that "manipulation/restoration"? It's a physical change to the cover of a book done to improve the in-hand presentation and it changes the paper fibers and the orientation/appearance of the cover. Manipulation? Restoration?

 

The idea that pressing adds "artificial" pressure and is therefore manipulation/restoration, same could be said for pressing the folded corner-flap back over with your finger, or a stack of books or a mini-hand iron or full-press machine - same thing, added pressure. Which one is manipulation or are they all?

 

The idea that humidity is added to the book during the pressing process, well, humidity is naturally always added (or removed depending on storage environment) in order to properly preserve the books, so is using silica absorbents in a safe to control humidity also "manipulation" of the book?

 

And is airing out the book or using baking-soda or cat-litter to absorb odors from the book also manipulation? Is removing odors or using MC paper to remove acidic off-gassing manipulation?

 

Is blowing accumulated dust off the cover really any different that using a dry-eraser to remove light dirt smudges? Are they both forms of "restoration"?

 

The thing about every single solitary example I gave is that they are all physical means to improve the appearance/appeal of the book that neither adds to nor removes any of the original material of the book.

 

Everyone has their opinion, and that's fine. As long as the criteria used to reach that opinion is consistent and folks are willing to explain, discuss and share ideas. And it's in the gray areas where the inconsistencies come out, and that's where many people just stop explaining their positions.

 

But it's all good though - collect what you enjoy and enjoy what you collect!

 

 

 

[SquareChaos]

The accurate boob job / pressing comparison is counterfeit Cereberus versus authentic first print.

 

I think we all know which one we would prefer.

[MCMiles]

Funny thread. So nostalgic.

 

Pressing is restoration. Just a form that a majority of the community doesn't care about, and yes a lot, if not most, of that acceptance is based on the possible monetary gain.

 

Pro-pressers try to play it down as not restoration, benign, and not about money. Anti-pressers try to vilify as criminally greedy, as having a high potential to damage books, and lacking collector purity.

 

Personally, I don't care what CGC or Overstreet call it or say about it. There is enough information out there that most people should be able to decide for themselves if it bothers them or not.

 

For the record: IMO, the anti-pressers were much more nasty back in the day.

[VintageComics]

Actually, didn't you make the 'definitive pressing post' a few years ago?

 

Where is that post....

[jcjames]

The accurate boob job / pressing comparison is counterfeit Cereberus versus authentic first print.

 

I think we all know which one we would prefer.

If no one can tell them apart, then what difference does it make?

 

If a properly-pressed book can't be identified as being pressed, then how would you know?

 

 

 

[Flaming_Telepath]

Funny thread. So nostalgic.

 

Pressing is restoration. Just a form that a majority of the community doesn't care about, and yes a lot, if not most, of that acceptance is based on the possible monetary gain.

 

Pro-pressers try to play it down as not restoration, benign, and not about money. Anti-pressers try to vilify as criminally greedy, as having a high potential to damage books, and lacking collector purity.

 

Personally, I don't care what CGC or Overstreet call it or say about it. There is enough information out there that most people should be able to decide for themselves if it bothers them or not.

 

For the record: IMO, the anti-pressers were much more nasty back in the day.

 

I can up the ante, Mike?

 

I think your post is a fair reflection of how things stand, and I know you to be in the pro-pressing camp, so fair play for an even-handed assessment.

[SquareChaos]

The accurate boob job / pressing comparison is counterfeit Cereberus versus authentic first print.

 

I think we all know which one we would prefer.

If no one can tell them apart, then what difference does it make?

 

If a properly-pressed book can't be identified as being pressed, then how would you know?

 

 

 

Because breast implants replace as a means of enhancement.

 

If you're so in love with the analogy maybe try a lift instead of an implant.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

The problem isn't pressing and never has been.

 

The problem is how the hobby views restoration in general, and its inability to differentiate between different processes and their degrees of change they bring to the individual book.

 

Of course pressing is restoration (and yes, I am obviously pro-pressing.)

 

But it's market acceptable restoration.

 

If and when the market rewards disclosing pressing, pressing will be disclosed, even if it's not detectable.

 

Until then...nothing's going to change, and eventually, every book worth pressing will be pressed that isn't controlled by someone who is opposed to it.

 

 

 

[namisgr]

Until then...nothing's going to change, and eventually, every book worth pressing will be pressed that isn't controlled by someone who is opposed to it

 

 

For me, that's a problem. It's increasingly the case that collectors of high grade Silver Age comics no longer have the opportunity to choose to collect unpressed books.

 

It's interesting to consider that the real scarcity with high grade early SA Marvels lies in the tiny handful of copies that haven't been pressed, and that can be identified as such by appearance and a well defined provenance.

[SquareChaos]

The problem isn't pressing and never has been.

 

The problem is how the hobby views restoration in general, and its inability to differentiate between different processes and their degrees of change they bring to the individual book.

 

Of course pressing is restoration (and yes, I am obviously pro-pressing.)

 

But it's market acceptable restoration.

 

If and when the market rewards disclosing pressing, pressing will be disclosed, even if it's not detectable.

 

Until then...nothing's going to change, and eventually, every book worth pressing will be pressed that isn't controlled by someone who is opposed to it.

 

 

It seems most in this thread accept that pressing can't be detected with statistically relevant accuracy, so let's go with that for the purposes of this response.

 

Given that, pressing is the most perfect form of restoration we know of. It practices a targeted extirpation of a certain type of defect while introducing no defects in the process.

 

I agree that pressing is improvement, but I hesitate to officially use the term "restoration" since, as you say, there is a lot tied up in that word in this community. Association free, I'd be perfectly comfortable calling it restoration.

[mosconi]

Until then...nothing's going to change, and eventually, every book worth pressing will be pressed that isn't controlled by someone who is opposed to it

 

 

For me, that's a problem. It's increasingly the case that collectors of high grade Silver Age comics no longer have the opportunity to choose to collect unpressed books.

 

It's interesting to consider that the real scarcity with high grade early SA Marvels lies in the tiny handful of copies that haven't been pressed, and that can be identified as such by appearance and a well defined provenance.

+1

I actually prefer SA books with a few slight bends and indents as it gives me some confidence that the book probably hasn't been pressed or at least not pressed so aggressively that I'm looking at a pancaked comic with extreme flattened out edges, corners, and spines.

 

I tend to steer clear of uber high grade SA as I know most of these CGC examples have probably been pressed and re-pressed countless times in attempts to squeeze out that ultimate highest grade. Maybe over time my feelings will change but unfortunately for me this image comes to mind when thinking of pressing:

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

The problem isn't pressing and never has been.

 

The problem is how the hobby views restoration in general, and its inability to differentiate between different processes and their degrees of change they bring to the individual book.

 

Of course pressing is restoration (and yes, I am obviously pro-pressing.)

 

But it's market acceptable restoration.

 

If and when the market rewards disclosing pressing, pressing will be disclosed, even if it's not detectable.

 

Until then...nothing's going to change, and eventually, every book worth pressing will be pressed that isn't controlled by someone who is opposed to it.

 

 

It seems most in this thread accept that pressing can't be detected with statistically relevant accuracy, so let's go with that for the purposes of this response.

 

Given that, pressing is the most perfect form of restoration we know of. It practices a targeted extirpation of a certain type of defect while introducing no defects in the process.

 

I agree that pressing is improvement, but I hesitate to officially use the term "restoration" since, as you say, there is a lot tied up in that word in this community. Association free, I'd be perfectly comfortable calling it restoration.

 

 

 

 

Valid point. The goal, though, isn't to come up with a stigma-free term for pressing...the goal is to eliminate the stigma of restoration altogether.

 

And I don't mean forcing people to alter their personal thoughts about restoration; I mean de-stigmatizing restoration from what it is now....that is, "GASP!! (recoil in horror) that slab has a PURPLE LABEL! Get it away, get it away, get it AWAY!!!!!"

 

Degree of restoration matters, and CGC has been taking steps in that direction. A book with a tiny dot of CT on the spine shouldn't be worth only 10% of a CT free copy in the same condition.

 

Should CT be punished in the marketplace, to discourage it? Abso-freakin-lutely. Keep your damn magic markets away from my books.

 

But if a book is worth $50,000 without CT, it shouldn't only be worth $7,000 if it has that small dot. That's silly and reactionary...and far worse: it's inspiring people to want to do further damage to the book removing that restoration, because the financial incentive to do so is so great.

 

How backwards is that?

 

"Let's decrease the eye appeal AND structural integrity of this book to remove this dot of CT, because the end result is worth tens of thousands of dollars more!"

 

It's craziness.

 

[gaz973]

The reason why people don't want to call pressing restoration is because restoration is traditionally seen as a negative in comic collecting. People have been tricked into thinking that they don't have restored books in their collection because of those who decided to define restoration as being related to adding or taking away from a book.

[Azkaban]

The problem isn't pressing and never has been.

 

The problem is how the hobby views restoration in general, and its inability to differentiate between different processes and their degrees of change they bring to the individual book.

 

Of course pressing is restoration (and yes, I am obviously pro-pressing.)

 

But it's market acceptable restoration.

 

If and when the market rewards disclosing pressing, pressing will be disclosed, even if it's not detectable.

 

Until then...nothing's going to change, and eventually, every book worth pressing will be pressed that isn't controlled by someone who is opposed to it.

 

 

It seems most in this thread accept that pressing can't be detected with statistically relevant accuracy, so let's go with that for the purposes of this response.

 

Given that, pressing is the most perfect form of restoration we know of. It practices a targeted extirpation of a certain type of defect while introducing no defects in the process.

 

I agree that pressing is improvement, but I hesitate to officially use the term "restoration" since, as you say, there is a lot tied up in that word in this community. Association free, I'd be perfectly comfortable calling it restoration.

 

 

I don't think we can say pressing causes no defects. I've seen a lot of comics that have been pressed look like

[batman_fan]

The accurate boob job / pressing comparison is counterfeit Cereberus versus authentic first print.

 

I think we all know which one we would prefer.

If no one can tell them apart, then what difference does it make?

 

If a properly-pressed book can't be identified as being pressed, then how would you know?

 

 

 

For myself, a lot of the angst stems from many pressed books have obviously been pressed and a decent percent have been pressed poorly and yet still end up in holders with big numbers. It is actually hard to tell from a scan or photo in some cases which means it hard to buy without seeing the book in person. I guess this is good for some buyers since it reduces the competition.

 

Also, people need to quit thinking pressing is just a high grade slab thing. It actually happens on all grades and for Raws as well.

[SquareChaos]

The problem isn't pressing and never has been.

 

The problem is how the hobby views restoration in general, and its inability to differentiate between different processes and their degrees of change they bring to the individual book.

 

Of course pressing is restoration (and yes, I am obviously pro-pressing.)

 

But it's market acceptable restoration.

 

If and when the market rewards disclosing pressing, pressing will be disclosed, even if it's not detectable.

 

Until then...nothing's going to change, and eventually, every book worth pressing will be pressed that isn't controlled by someone who is opposed to it.

 

 

It seems most in this thread accept that pressing can't be detected with statistically relevant accuracy, so let's go with that for the purposes of this response.

 

Given that, pressing is the most perfect form of restoration we know of. It practices a targeted extirpation of a certain type of defect while introducing no defects in the process.

 

I agree that pressing is improvement, but I hesitate to officially use the term "restoration" since, as you say, there is a lot tied up in that word in this community. Association free, I'd be perfectly comfortable calling it restoration.

 

 

I don't think we can say pressing causes no defects. I've seen a lot of comics that have been pressed look like

 

 

Pressing in this context is obviously referring to jobs that didn't mangle the book. In other words, people that know what they're doing.

 

No one is arguing for hatchet job pressing to be ignored. Mangling a book is mangling a book, regardless of how you got there.

[RockMyAmadeus]

The accurate boob job / pressing comparison is counterfeit Cereberus versus authentic first print.

 

I think we all know which one we would prefer.

If no one can tell them apart, then what difference does it make?

 

If a properly-pressed book can't be identified as being pressed, then how would you know?

 

 

 

For myself, a lot of the angst stems from many pressed books have obviously been pressed and a decent percent have been pressed poorly and yet still end up in holders with big numbers. It is actually hard to tell from a scan or photo in some cases which means it hard to buy without seeing the book in person. I guess this is good for some buyers since it reduces the competition.

 

Also, people need to quit thinking pressing is just a high grade slab thing. It actually happens on all grades and for Raws as well.

 

 

 

 

Yes, pressing happens wherever someone thinks a book can be improved (or, for that matter, a poster, a bill, a program, or even currency.)

 

It's not relegated to high grade slabs, by any means.

 

The nice thing with mid to lower grades, though, is that pressing becomes much more obvious the lower you get. Books with multiple CB creases should not be "flat"....but that's what pressing does.

 

That said, though, while I genuinely appreciate the concern over people damaging these books, the reality is, they ARE their books, and while it pains me to see beautiful books get munched, that is not, in the end, anything I can do anything about.

 

 

Huh. There's quite a vulgar joke in there. Interesting.

 

 

[VintageComics]

The problem isn't pressing and never has been.

 

The problem is how the hobby views restoration in general, and its inability to differentiate between different processes and their degrees of change they bring to the individual book.

 

Of course pressing is restoration (and yes, I am obviously pro-pressing.)

 

But it's market acceptable restoration.

 

If and when the market rewards disclosing pressing, pressing will be disclosed, even if it's not detectable.

 

Until then...nothing's going to change, and eventually, every book worth pressing will be pressed that isn't controlled by someone who is opposed to it.

 

 

It seems most in this thread accept that pressing can't be detected with statistically relevant accuracy, so let's go with that for the purposes of this response.

 

Given that, pressing is the most perfect form of restoration we know of. It practices a targeted extirpation of a certain type of defect while introducing no defects in the process.

 

I agree that pressing is improvement, but I hesitate to officially use the term "restoration" since, as you say, there is a lot tied up in that word in this community. Association free, I'd be perfectly comfortable calling it restoration.

 

 

 

 

Valid point. The goal, though, isn't to come up with a stigma-free term for pressing...the goal is to eliminate the stigma of restoration altogether.

 

And I don't mean forcing people to alter their personal thoughts about restoration; I mean de-stigmatizing restoration from what it is now....that is, "GASP!! (recoil in horror) that slab has a PURPLE LABEL! Get it away, get it away, get it AWAY!!!!!"

 

Degree of restoration matters, and CGC has been taking steps in that direction. A book with a tiny dot of CT on the spine shouldn't be worth only 10% of a CT free copy in the same condition.

 

Should CT be punished in the marketplace, to discourage it? Abso-freakin-lutely. Keep your damn magic markets away from my books.

 

But if a book is worth $50,000 without CT, it shouldn't only be worth $7,000 if it has that small dot. That's silly and reactionary...and far worse: it's inspiring people to want to do further damage to the book removing that restoration, because the financial incentive to do so is so great.

 

How backwards is that?

 

"Let's decrease the eye appeal AND structural integrity of this book to remove this dot of CT, because the end result is worth tens of thousands of dollars more!"

 

It's craziness.

 

The concept of restoration being grasped in a realistic, rational manner by the general collecting public is still in it's infancy. And everything, unfortunately transfers into dollars and cents.

 

This was driven home when I sold my Cap #1 a few weeks ago on here. It was a Qualified 4.0 with a married centerfold. I had the book listed here at $50K. Had the book been a blue label CGC 4.0, it would have been listed at possibly double that.

 

Think about that.

 

Because the book had a (original 1940 Cap #1) centerfold out of another Cap #1, it made this book worth half of what it would have been worth than if it had it's own, original centerfold.

 

To me, that's just irrational.