How in the world did this go unnoticed???

[DarkKnightReturns]

So......what have we learned?

 

1. The same people that disliked pressing before still do.

2. The same people that liked pressing before still do.

3. There are good guys on both sides that have different and valid opinions on the subject.

And that the present leader of NOD presses books.

 

Which brings us right back to the beginning of this thread.

 

Where's Brent? I'd like hear his side of this. I want to know what he's doing to prevent the books he presses from being sold without disclosure. Do his customers have to sign some kind of disclosure agreement or something?

 

 

Brent?

 

Pressing Agreement:

By submitting your books to be pressed by Quality Comix, you agree to disclose the work that has been done whether the books are sold on Quality Comix, thru another online venue or privately.

 

How do you plan on enforcing this?

 

What a silly question.

 

 

Silly because everyone knows that people that do not wish to disclose won't give two about any agreement because it is not something you can enforce.

 

Being a member of NOD and pressing books seems like a conflict of interest to me. QC knows that people will use his pressing service and sell those books with no disclosure.

[DiceX]

So......what have we learned?

 

1. The same people that disliked pressing before still do.

2. The same people that liked pressing before still do.

3. There are good guys on both sides that have different and valid opinions on the subject.

And that the present leader of NOD presses books.

 

Which brings us right back to the beginning of this thread.

 

Where's Brent? I'd like hear his side of this. I want to know what he's doing to prevent the books he presses from being sold without disclosure. Do his customers have to sign some kind of disclosure agreement or something?

 

 

Brent?

 

Pressing Agreement:

By submitting your books to be pressed by Quality Comix, you agree to disclose the work that has been done whether the books are sold on Quality Comix, thru another online venue or privately.

 

How do you plan on enforcing this?

 

He will call the police.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First bust on record...

 

 

[GACollectibles]

So......what have we learned?

 

1. The same people that disliked pressing before still do.

2. The same people that liked pressing before still do.

3. There are good guys on both sides that have different and valid opinions on the subject.

And that the present leader of NOD presses books.

 

Which brings us right back to the beginning of this thread.

 

Where's Brent? I'd like hear his side of this. I want to know what he's doing to prevent the books he presses from being sold without disclosure. Do his customers have to sign some kind of disclosure agreement or something?

 

 

Brent?

 

Pressing Agreement:

By submitting your books to be pressed by Quality Comix, you agree to disclose the work that has been done whether the books are sold on Quality Comix, thru another online venue or privately.

 

How do you plan on enforcing this?

 

All violators will be marked accordingly.

 

[DrWatson]

I think you need to reread Sushi for Dummies.

[delekkerste]

Ewert is still with us and is selling through 3rd party avenues. (thumbs u

 

Of course he is. He's even operating in plain sight as many people here well know. But, why say or do anything that might upset the crack-press-resub gravy train for everyone, right?

[delekkerste]

This whole debate seems ridiculous. Yes, there's the hobby and keeping it "pure", but there's also personal circumstance.

 

In a perfect world, no one would need money.

 

However, in today's imperfect world, if you need the money for whatever reason, (tragedy, birth, house, accident, medical bills, etc.), then it's up to you to do whatever you need to for yourself and your family. If that means maximizing what your collection will net you, then do it. And good luck to you.

 

By that logic, why not just sell crack on the corner so you can feed your starving children? For many/most here, comics are pressed and flipped and the proceeds are recycled back into more comics, not used for life-saving medical operations.

 

It has gotten to the point where people think it's their birthright to be able to fund their own comic collecting by flipping pressed comics to others. "I couldn't afford this ASM #XX CGC 9.4 if I hadn't flipped all those pressed books." Well, maybe you just weren't meant to have it then. It used to be that you had to have either had the foresight and diligence to cherry pick a HG book when it was affordable, and meticulously care for it for many years while it rose in value to have such a nice book. Or, silver spoon cases notwithstanding, you had to work and earn the money to buy that book (or the equivalent trade bait).

 

Now, with the advent of pressing-on-demand, any penny ante player can crack-press-resub-flip their way into parlaying profits to fund their collecting or to short-cut their way to those previously unobtainable books by pressing their own books at minimal cost. It undermines the value of having a sharp eye, having the foresight to buy low, obsessively caring for a book to keep it as perfectly preserved as possible, having the patience to stick with a book over time as it rises in value, having the integrity to respect Pedigrees, other collectors and the history behind certain books, and having the determination and work ethic to earn the money it takes to buy what you want, etc. It's taking the short-cut, it's cutting corners, it's taking the easy way out. It's Mark McGwire juicing up so he can hit 70 home runs when he should only be able to hit 52. Anything else is just excuses meant to justify the practice.

[delekkerste]

By the way, these "property rights" arguments are just the latest in a series of ridiculous rationalizations. First, you won't find a bigger advocate of capitalism and property rights on this Forum than me. Second, we don't have unfettered property rights in this country. If you own your house, you can't do anything you want with it. There are zoning laws. You can't turn your home into a storefront. You can't build a 100-foot wall in your backyard that blocks the sun from all your neighbors and generally becomes an eyesore (even if it was legal, which it wouldn't be in any neighborhood I would want to live in, it certainly isn't ethical or right). You can't conduct illegal activities on your property. If you own a gun, or even a pair of scissors, you can't take them on an airplane. There are restrictions, and plenty of them, regarding "your property" and what you can do with it in this country.

 

Closer to the point, if Steve Wynn buys a $30 million Vermeer, is it his right to destroy it if he wants? Can he have his granddaughter paint unicorns and rainbows over it because it's his now and he can't think of others who might want to own it in time or respect what it is and leave it alone? I'm not sure what the legality of that is, but I can tell you that it certainly isn't ethical. What if I bought the MH Action #1 and decided to light it on fire? What if I decided to torch it and put the video on YouTube, so now it's art and that now gives it some hoity-toity justification. Is that within my "property rights"? Is that something you think you might be interested in? Whether it's legal or not, it's certainly not the right thing to do.

 

In this environment of "everybody's doing it and I want to get my piece of the action while the getting's still good", I think a lot of people have invested a lot of time in coming up with ingenious excuses (like the "if I drop something on a book and then brush it off, is that restoration?" query I got off-line yesterday :doh: ) instead of just recognizing it for what it is and doing the right thing.

[Flee-Marquette]

 

How do you plan on enforcing this?

 

All violators will be marked accordingly.

 

 

Similar tactics have failed in the past.

 

[Mr. Zipper]

To me it's about educating the BUYERS of pressed books not the sellers who probably already knows about the controversy of passing off pressed books as books never manipulated in this manner.

 

NOD does both.

 

From the position of a potential seller using his service, Brent's service promotes disclosure to the best of his ability while maintaining the business model that works for him. If the customer agrees to the abide to the use of service agreement and then fails to disclose, shame on him.

 

From the prospective of unknown future buyers, the NOD website and message boards (as well as here obviously) provide information regarding the pressing issue.

 

There is no one silver bullet that is going to promote the notion of disclosure to all possible audiences. But, the message is being communicated through a robust mix of information from various sources.

 

at the very least that the customer agrees to allow a scan of the book, its grade before and after, and the name of the customer be allowed to be published online to the public as part of the agreement to submit the book for this service?

 

I am not speaking officially for the group here, but this involves privacy issues and my sense is that they are doing their best to lift any onerous requirements on its members while still promoting disclosure.

[fanfourforever]

So......what have we learned?

 

1. The same people that disliked pressing before still do.

2. The same people that liked pressing before still do.

3. There are good guys on both sides that have different and valid opinions on the subject.

And that the present leader of NOD presses books.

 

Which brings us right back to the beginning of this thread.

 

Where's Brent? I'd like hear his side of this. I want to know what he's doing to prevent the books he presses from being sold without disclosure. Do his customers have to sign some kind of disclosure agreement or something?

 

 

Brent?

 

Pressing Agreement:

By submitting your books to be pressed by Quality Comix, you agree to disclose the work that has been done whether the books are sold on Quality Comix, thru another online venue or privately.

 

How do you plan on enforcing this?

 

What a silly question.

 

 

Of course it's a silly question. As silly as this pressing agreement. That was the point. I would guess 95% of the board got it. I knew you wouldn't.

[sckao]

By the way, these "property rights" arguments are just the latest in a series of ridiculous rationalizations. First, you won't find a bigger advocate of capitalism and property rights on this Forum than me. Second, we don't have unfettered property rights in this country. If you own your house, you can't do anything you want with it. There are zoning laws. You can't turn your home into a storefront. You can't build a 100-foot wall in your backyard that blocks the sun from all your neighbors and generally becomes an eyesore (even if it was legal, which it wouldn't be in any neighborhood I would want to live in, it certainly isn't ethical or right). You can't conduct illegal activities on your property. If you own a gun, or even a pair of scissors, you can't take them on an airplane. There are restrictions, and plenty of them, regarding "your property" and what you can do with it in this country.

 

Closer to the point, if Steve Wynn buys a $30 million Vermeer, is it his right to destroy it if he wants? Can he have his granddaughter paint unicorns and rainbows over it because it's his now and he can't think of others who might want to own it in time or respect what it is and leave it alone? I'm not sure what the legality of that is, but I can tell you that it certainly isn't ethical. What if I bought the MH Action #1 and decided to light it on fire? What if I decided to torch it and put the video on YouTube, so now it's art and that now gives it some hoity-toity justification. Is that within my "property rights"? Is that something you think you might be interested in? Whether it's legal or not, it's certainly not the right thing to do.

 

In this environment of "everybody's doing it and I want to get my piece of the action while the getting's still good", I think a lot of people have invested a lot of time in coming up with ingenious excuses (like the "if I drop something on a book and then brush it off, is that restoration?" query I got off-line yesterday :doh: ) instead of just recognizing it for what it is and doing the right thing.

 

 

Well, I certainly appreciate you telling me what's ethical and what's right. Thanks! (thumbs u

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Foolkiller]

By the way, these "property rights" arguments are just the latest in a series of ridiculous rationalizations. First, you won't find a bigger advocate of capitalism and property rights on this Forum than me. Second, we don't have unfettered property rights in this country. If you own your house, you can't do anything you want with it. There are zoning laws. You can't turn your home into a storefront. You can't build a 100-foot wall in your backyard that blocks the sun from all your neighbors and generally becomes an eyesore (even if it was legal, which it wouldn't be in any neighborhood I would want to live in, it certainly isn't ethical or right). You can't conduct illegal activities on your property. If you own a gun, or even a pair of scissors, you can't take them on an airplane. There are restrictions, and plenty of them, regarding "your property" and what you can do with it in this country.

 

Closer to the point, if Steve Wynn buys a $30 million Vermeer, is it his right to destroy it if he wants? Can he have his granddaughter paint unicorns and rainbows over it because it's his now and he can't think of others who might want to own it in time or respect what it is and leave it alone? I'm not sure what the legality of that is, but I can tell you that it certainly isn't ethical. What if I bought the MH Action #1 and decided to light it on fire? What if I decided to torch it and put the video on YouTube, so now it's art and that now gives it some hoity-toity justification. Is that within my "property rights"? Is that something you think you might be interested in? Whether it's legal or not, it's certainly not the right thing to do.

 

In this environment of "everybody's doing it and I want to get my piece of the action while the getting's still good", I think a lot of people have invested a lot of time in coming up with ingenious excuses (like the "if I drop something on a book and then brush it off, is that restoration?" query I got off-line yesterday :doh: ) instead of just recognizing it for what it is and doing the right thing.

 

Gene,

 

I totally get your argument regarding the historical custody and the obligation to preserve the products.

 

I will note that there's a missing piece to your argument which is a critical part of the evidence to me. There's no proof that this in any way harms the comic. Now, you want to say adding heat can't be good? Okay. That's a possibility, but there's not enough evidence to support that to me.

 

I also understand your strong feelings here. You feel that people are making money through "cheating". Collectibles are not like many of the analogies you've drawn with property rights because there's nothing inherently dangerous about them so there's no need to regulate that property. What you've cited are instances where the public good or safety is infringed on, not a non essential, completely innocuous product. In fact, if somebody owned a Ver Meer and wanted to burn it, there's nothing anyone could do to stop it. That doesn't mean somebody should do it, but while I think people would think it was a travesty, I wonder if you could really have any "moral" outrage.

 

You're very concerned with the fact that massive amounts of money are being made through this supposedly immoral activity. In order to accept your arguments, I think we'd have to accept that underlying definitions you've rolled out that there's something inherently "wrong" when we press a book. There are lots of things that are done solely for money. In fact, your entire career and profession is based solely on making money. If someone buys a company and does so for so other reason than to make money for its shareholders and thousands of people lose their job -- is it "wrong" for you to buy that company? It's perfectly legal to do so -- but the morality of it is questionable. I'm certainly not analogizing this to pressing, and I know you've said many times that you have no problem with people making money, it's that you feel they are "cheating" to do so. Well, manufacturing a collectible may be cheating, but how is it unlike "making" any other product? This is a product that there is clearly some demand for.

 

You have charged a lot of morality into your argument, and the bottom line is, there's ultimately no clear foundation in my mind for how you support the underlying definition that pressing is somehow "wrong". What you are stating is simply, I think it's wrong to press a book because you make money on it by doing something I think is a process that is really an additive or restoration and isn't a "true" historical 9.4. That's not a right or a wrong from a moral standpoint, it's expressing preference for not wanting a pressed book. But I'd like to hear how you've managed to inject moral outrage into your argument.

[VintageComics]

So......what have we learned?

 

1. The same people that disliked pressing before still do.

2. The same people that liked pressing before still do.

3. There are good guys on both sides that have different and valid opinions on the subject.

And that the present leader of NOD presses books.

 

Which brings us right back to the beginning of this thread.

 

Where's Brent? I'd like hear his side of this. I want to know what he's doing to prevent the books he presses from being sold without disclosure. Do his customers have to sign some kind of disclosure agreement or something?

 

 

Brent?

 

Pressing Agreement:

By submitting your books to be pressed by Quality Comix, you agree to disclose the work that has been done whether the books are sold on Quality Comix, thru another online venue or privately.

 

How do you plan on enforcing this?

 

What a silly question.

 

 

Silly because everyone knows that people that do not wish to disclose won't give two about any agreement because it is not something you can enforce.

 

Being a member of NOD and pressing books seems like a conflict of interest to me. QC knows that people will use his pressing service and sell those books with no disclosure.

 

People are asking for more enforcement in the hobby than the law will use enforcing violators out there doing more serious things.

 

Trying to enforce what people do after pressing a book is like trying to enforce what people will spend their money on after taking it out of a bank.

 

I agree that some people may (or rather will) sell without disclosure after the fact, and that's a shame, but asking Brent to enforce something like that is no different than somebody making a legal withdrawal from a bank and then everyone asking the bank to be responsible for what that person does with the money afterwards. Whether the guy spends it on weed or comics is not the bank's concern.

 

Maybe one day soon when Orwellian rules apply, and our every move is enforced everyone might get their wish. Until then society is largely based on an honor system for small stuff like this.

 

[VintageComics]

Of course it's a silly question. As silly as this pressing agreement. That was the point. I would guess 95% of the board got it. I knew you wouldn't.

 

It's silly because some irrational people are asking a man with a great reputation like Brent to do more than they would themselves.

 

See my previous post for a more thorough explanation.

 

 

[VintageComics]

 

There are lots of things that are done solely for money. In fact, your entire career and profession is based solely on making money. If someone buys a company and does so for so other reason than to make money for its shareholders and thousands of people lose their job -- is it "wrong" for you to buy that company? It's perfectly legal to do so -- but the morality of it is questionable. I'm certainly not analogizing this to pressing, and I know you've said many times that you have no problem with people making money, it's that you feel they are "cheating" to do so. Well, manufacturing a collectible may be cheating, but how is it unlike "making" any other product? This is a product that there is clearly some demand for.

 

You have charged a lot of morality into your argument, and the bottom line is, there's ultimately no clear foundation in my mind for how you support the underlying definition that pressing is somehow "wrong". What you are stating is simply, I think it's wrong to press a book because you make money on it by doing something I think is a process that is really an additive or restoration and isn't a "true" historical 9.4. That's not a right or a wrong from a moral standpoint, it's expressing preference for not wanting a pressed book. But I'd like to hear how you've managed to inject moral outrage into your argument.

 

I have trouble agreeing with Gene on this too as much as I like him.

 

I saw Pretty Woman with Julia Roberts and Richard Gere.

 

[Foolkiller]

 

There are lots of things that are done solely for money. In fact, your entire career and profession is based solely on making money. If someone buys a company and does so for so other reason than to make money for its shareholders and thousands of people lose their job -- is it "wrong" for you to buy that company? It's perfectly legal to do so -- but the morality of it is questionable. I'm certainly not analogizing this to pressing, and I know you've said many times that you have no problem with people making money, it's that you feel they are "cheating" to do so. Well, manufacturing a collectible may be cheating, but how is it unlike "making" any other product? This is a product that there is clearly some demand for.

 

You have charged a lot of morality into your argument, and the bottom line is, there's ultimately no clear foundation in my mind for how you support the underlying definition that pressing is somehow "wrong". What you are stating is simply, I think it's wrong to press a book because you make money on it by doing something I think is a process that is really an additive or restoration and isn't a "true" historical 9.4. That's not a right or a wrong from a moral standpoint, it's expressing preference for not wanting a pressed book. But I'd like to hear how you've managed to inject moral outrage into your argument.

 

I have trouble agreeing with Gene on this too as much as I like him.

 

I saw Pretty Woman with Julia Roberts and Richard Gere.

 

 

I was thinking more of "Wall Street" (which they are making a sequel to!)

[GACollectibles]

 

How do you plan on enforcing this?

 

All violators will be marked accordingly.

 

 

Similar tactics have failed in the past.

 

 

It wasn't so much the pancake on the head stigma, it was the dripping syrup in the eyes. It burns.

[VintageComics]

 

There are lots of things that are done solely for money. In fact, your entire career and profession is based solely on making money. If someone buys a company and does so for so other reason than to make money for its shareholders and thousands of people lose their job -- is it "wrong" for you to buy that company? It's perfectly legal to do so -- but the morality of it is questionable. I'm certainly not analogizing this to pressing, and I know you've said many times that you have no problem with people making money, it's that you feel they are "cheating" to do so. Well, manufacturing a collectible may be cheating, but how is it unlike "making" any other product? This is a product that there is clearly some demand for.

 

You have charged a lot of morality into your argument, and the bottom line is, there's ultimately no clear foundation in my mind for how you support the underlying definition that pressing is somehow "wrong". What you are stating is simply, I think it's wrong to press a book because you make money on it by doing something I think is a process that is really an additive or restoration and isn't a "true" historical 9.4. That's not a right or a wrong from a moral standpoint, it's expressing preference for not wanting a pressed book. But I'd like to hear how you've managed to inject moral outrage into your argument.

 

I have trouble agreeing with Gene on this too as much as I like him.

 

I saw Pretty Woman with Julia Roberts and Richard Gere.

 

 

I was thinking more of "Wall Street" (which they are making a sequel to!)

 

Same idea, different dirtbags.

 

[capt_comics]

 

There are lots of things that are done solely for money. In fact, your entire career and profession is based solely on making money. If someone buys a company and does so for so other reason than to make money for its shareholders and thousands of people lose their job -- is it "wrong" for you to buy that company? It's perfectly legal to do so -- but the morality of it is questionable. I'm certainly not analogizing this to pressing, and I know you've said many times that you have no problem with people making money, it's that you feel they are "cheating" to do so. Well, manufacturing a collectible may be cheating, but how is it unlike "making" any other product? This is a product that there is clearly some demand for.

 

You have charged a lot of morality into your argument, and the bottom line is, there's ultimately no clear foundation in my mind for how you support the underlying definition that pressing is somehow "wrong". What you are stating is simply, I think it's wrong to press a book because you make money on it by doing something I think is a process that is really an additive or restoration and isn't a "true" historical 9.4. That's not a right or a wrong from a moral standpoint, it's expressing preference for not wanting a pressed book. But I'd like to hear how you've managed to inject moral outrage into your argument.

 

I have trouble agreeing with Gene on this too as much as I like him.

 

I saw Pretty Woman with Julia Roberts and Richard Gere.

 

 

Julia Roberts has been pressed?

 

 

 

 

[VintageComics]

 

There are lots of things that are done solely for money. In fact, your entire career and profession is based solely on making money. If someone buys a company and does so for so other reason than to make money for its shareholders and thousands of people lose their job -- is it "wrong" for you to buy that company? It's perfectly legal to do so -- but the morality of it is questionable. I'm certainly not analogizing this to pressing, and I know you've said many times that you have no problem with people making money, it's that you feel they are "cheating" to do so. Well, manufacturing a collectible may be cheating, but how is it unlike "making" any other product? This is a product that there is clearly some demand for.

 

You have charged a lot of morality into your argument, and the bottom line is, there's ultimately no clear foundation in my mind for how you support the underlying definition that pressing is somehow "wrong". What you are stating is simply, I think it's wrong to press a book because you make money on it by doing something I think is a process that is really an additive or restoration and isn't a "true" historical 9.4. That's not a right or a wrong from a moral standpoint, it's expressing preference for not wanting a pressed book. But I'd like to hear how you've managed to inject moral outrage into your argument.

 

I have trouble agreeing with Gene on this too as much as I like him.

 

I saw Pretty Woman with Julia Roberts and Richard Gere.

 

 

Julia Roberts has been pressed?

 

 

 

 

Umm. From what I remember she did the pressing. She also ate Strawberries.