How in the world did this go unnoticed???

[3319comics]

Since everyone is reading this thread, what is people's position on that paper cgc puts inside the books when they slab it? restoration, conservation??

[delekkerste]

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.

 

Brian,

 

That is a total misinterpretation of my argument. Like Mr. Evans, you are making highly faulty assumptions about A+B = C. I *never* said "it's wrong to press a book because you make money on it". I would, for example, have no problem if a book truly needed conservation techniques applied to it and such techniques both improved the book and increased its market value (with the proper disclosure, of course).

 

My friend, even if you believe that pressing does not harm a book, do you truly believe that a 9.4 book from 1963 which stayed that way because some library curator had the foresight to cherry pick and meticulously preserve a book for 47 years is the equal to a 9.4 book that was a 9.0 a week ago until someone paid $20 to have it pressed? Do you not think it undermines those who actually did have the foresight to pick the right books, risk their money and pour their time and energy into preserving them?

 

You told me that you would press a common 1970s book but not, say, a MH pedigree. If there's really nothing wrong with the practice, why make the distinction? I believe that, in your heart of hearts, you know that it's taking the easy way out and that it subverts a lot of the values that the hobby should strive for.

 

In fact, many people had a dim view of pressing just 6-7 years ago when I, JC and others correctly observed that Ewert was churning out pressed books by the truckload when the apologists said it couldn't be done economically or logistically (what a farce that turned out to be). Pressing was something that was undesirable enough that it had to be denied. Nowadays, not only has pressing been accepted, but even Jason Ewert is tolerated, if not accepted! :doh:

 

If peddling pressed book crack hadn't become such an easy way for every penny ante player to play with the big boys and make all his collecting dreams come true (just sign on the dotted line to sell your soul first), pressing would be seen in exactly the same dim light it was viewed in just a few short years ago.

[Foolkiller]

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.

 

Brian,

 

That is a total misinterpretation of my argument. Like Mr. Evans, you are making highly faulty assumptions about A+B = C. I *never* said "it's wrong to press a book because you make money on it". I would, for example, have no problem if a book truly needed conservation techniques applied to it and such techniques both improved the book and increased its market value (with the proper disclosure, of course).

 

My friend, even if you believe that pressing does not harm a book, do you truly believe that a 9.4 book from 1963 which stayed that way because some library curator had the foresight to cherry pick and meticulously preserve a book for 47 years is the equal to a 9.4 book that was a 9.0 a week ago until someone paid $20 to have it pressed? Do you not think it undermines those who actually did have the foresight to pick the right books, risk their money and pour their time and energy into preserving them?

 

You told me that you would press a common 1970s book but not, say, a MH pedigree. If there's really nothing wrong with the practice, why make the distinction? I believe that, in your heart of hearts, you know that it's taking the easy way out and that it subverts a lot of the values that the hobby should strive for.

 

In fact, many people had a dim view of pressing just 6-7 years ago when I, JC and others correctly observed that Ewert was churning out pressed books by the truckload when the apologists said it couldn't be done economically or logistically (what a farce that turned out to be). Pressing was something that was undesirable enough that it had to be denied. Nowadays, not only has pressing been accepted, but even Jason Ewert is tolerated, if not accepted! :doh:

 

If peddling pressed book crack hadn't become such an easy way for every penny ante player to play with the big boys and make all his collecting dreams come true (just sign on the dotted line to sell your soul first), pressing would be seen in exactly the same dim light it was viewed in just a few short years ago.

 

The difference with trimming and pressing is that one has a clearly attached stigma to it rejected by most of the collecting community and the other does not.

 

The problem that I have Gene isn't with your position in and of itself, it's with the underlying morality that you seem to attach to it. Things like "selling your soul" and pressing seem to be a little over the top. It has nothing to do with whether "I" think that a 9.4 naturally preserved is equal to a 9.0 pressed to a 9.4 -- that is a preference you are expressing and then imputing your valuation onto them and claiming it as a morally superior judgment. I can't agree with that.

 

If you are asking whether I would press a pedigree, no I wouldn't. I do value it because there is something special and unique about the book. Whether that says that I feel that somehow it affects the historical significance, yes, I'd agree. I'd prefer it if people didn't press those books. But I do not feel it subverts the hobby. I'm not the arbiter of what does and does not subvert the hobby. This hobby, and we are talking the high end, has always had its share of shenanigans. The money always brought out those seeking to make a quick buck.

 

As I said, while pressing may be controversial, when the verbiage turns to language akin to rallying people from a pulpit, I tend to think its gone too far. This is pressing a comic book. As passionately as we may feel about a subject matter, it isn't a moral crusade with clearly defined lines of what is right and what is wrong. The pressed comic book, is, at best, a preference. It is not a morality question and to cast the argument in such a light carries the argument to a place where it does not belong.

[delekkerste]

The difference with trimming and pressing is that one has a clearly attached stigma to it rejected by most of the collecting community and the other does not.

 

Before the micro-trimming was found out, Ewert was suspected of being a presser. And that was not viewed as acceptable by the mainstream of the hobby back years and years and years ago (like, 2003).

 

 

The problem that I have Gene isn't with your position in and of itself, it's with the underlying morality that you seem to attach to it. Things like "selling your soul" and pressing seem to be a little over the top.

 

The verbiage may be a little over the top to get my point across. But, the underlying facts are what they are. People are not pressing books for the good of the hobby. They are not pressing books for the good of the books. People are not resubbing Pedigrees without the distinction because erasing that history is a good thing, they are covering their tracks. Tell me: is this really helping the hobby? Is this making the hobby a better place? Will you leave the hobby in a better position than when you entered it?

 

 

It has nothing to do with whether "I" think that a 9.4 naturally preserved is equal to a 9.0 pressed to a 9.4 -- that is a preference you are expressing and then imputing your valuation onto them and claiming it as a morally superior judgment. I can't agree with that.

 

If you are asking whether I would press a pedigree, no I wouldn't. I do value it because there is something special and unique about the book. Whether that says that I feel that somehow it affects the historical significance, yes, I'd agree. I'd prefer it if people didn't press those books. But I do not feel it subverts the hobby. I'm not the arbiter of what does and does not subvert the hobby. This hobby, and we are talking the high end, has always had its share of shenanigans. The money always brought out those seeking to make a quick buck.

 

If guys like you won't challenge the "it's always gone on, everybody's doing it" argument, I guess it's no wonder the high end of the market is becoming such a cesspool (and, really - guys like you don't even need to press books for profit or fear for your livelihoods without it). Anyway, that's not an overstatement: it's a cesspool. It has nothing to do with earning an honest buck and spending it on comics for enjoyment. It has everything to do with taking every short-cut you can - pressing books, tolerating and/or associating with known scam artists, whatever - to make a quick buck, self-finance your collection (not a right guaranteed by the Constitution, by the way), and get the books you otherwise wouldn't be able to have through shrewd cherry-picking, wise trades, hard work, etc. - values that should be held in higher esteem than pressing a book for higher grades and more money.

[3319comics]

this is why I buy 7.5 books... love the pictures, love the stories, love the art.. simple. Dont care about the future financial gain. If there is then great if not so be it. Maybe my kids can enjoy them for the art and stories and if not toss them to make room for whatever they want.

[JiveTurkeyMoFo]

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.

Really? You sure? Please cite me a couple of instances where courts in a capitalist country have ruled in the favor of future/potential/possible owners who hold no tangible claim to an item, as opposed to the actual legal owner of said item. If you want to rewrite property rights in such a manner, I think your advocacy of capitalism needs to be scrutinized more carefully.

 

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.

I wasn’t aware of the Zoning Laws, HOAs, or stringent carry-on restrictions I had to conform to when I purchased a comic. Someone really should’ve let me know. Oh, there isn’t any? Let’s move on to the next faulty apples-to-oranges comparison, shall we?

 

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.

Yes, you would be completely within your rights. However, comparing the torching of a Mile High Action # 1 to pressing a VF+ mid-run Silver Age book into a VF/NM is…well….extreme at best.

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.

I enjoy people like Rush Limbaugh, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Pat Robertson, and the rest of the political/religious/social engineering establishment telling me what the right thing to do is, because I apparently have no moral compass of my own. At least I can decide to tune them out when their rhetoric becomes tired or just turn the dial. I guess the Ignore button exists for the exact same purpose on the Boards.

 

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.

Comparing the selling of drugs to pressing comics….really Gene, really?

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.

A day-trader expousing the virtues of foresight, long-term appreciation, diligence, integrity, & work ethic. Did anyone else appreciate the irony or was it just me?

 

Seriously Gene, this is the whole of your argument? I appreciate your passion for your position, but I thought at least you’d offer some tangible points that were divorced from the normal nonsense that follows this debate. I guess even the mighty join us in the cesspool when logic and reason are cast aside in favor of parlor tricks and chicanery for the amusement of the masses.

 

[Monstro]

 

Brian,

 

That is a total misinterpretation of my argument. Like Mr. Evans, you are making highly faulty assumptions about A+B = C. I *never* said "it's wrong to press a book because you make money on it". I would, for example, have no problem if a book truly needed conservation techniques applied to it and such techniques both improved the book and increased its market value (with the proper disclosure, of course).

 

My friend, even if you believe that pressing does not harm a book, do you truly believe that a 9.4 book from 1963 which stayed that way because some library curator had the foresight to cherry pick and meticulously preserve a book for 47 years is the equal to a 9.4 book that was a 9.0 a week ago until someone paid $20 to have it pressed? Do you not think it undermines those who actually did have the foresight to pick the right books, risk their money and pour their time and energy into preserving them?

 

You told me that you would press a common 1970s book but not, say, a MH pedigree. If there's really nothing wrong with the practice, why make the distinction? I believe that, in your heart of hearts, you know that it's taking the easy way out and that it subverts a lot of the values that the hobby should strive for.

 

In fact, many people had a dim view of pressing just 6-7 years ago when I, JC and others correctly observed that Ewert was churning out pressed books by the truckload when the apologists said it couldn't be done economically or logistically (what a farce that turned out to be). Pressing was something that was undesirable enough that it had to be denied. Nowadays, not only has pressing been accepted, but even Jason Ewert is tolerated, if not accepted! :doh:

 

If peddling pressed book crack hadn't become such an easy way for every penny ante player to play with the big boys and make all his collecting dreams come true (just sign on the dotted line to sell your soul first), pressing would be seen in exactly the same dim light it was viewed in just a few short years ago.

 

Great minds think alike

[Monstro]

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.

Really? You sure? Please cite me a couple of instances where courts in a capitalist country have ruled in the favor of future/potential/possible owners who hold no tangible claim to an item, as opposed to the actual legal owner of said item. If you want to rewrite property rights in such a manner, I think your advocacy of capitalism needs to be scrutinized more carefully.

 

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.

I wasn’t aware of the Zoning Laws, HOAs, or stringent carry-on restrictions I had to conform to when I purchased a comic. Someone really should’ve let me know. Oh, there isn’t any? Let’s move on to the next faulty apples-to-oranges comparison, shall we?

 

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.

Yes, you would be completely within your rights. However, comparing the torching of a Mile High Action # 1 to pressing a VF+ mid-run Silver Age book into a VF/NM is…well….extreme at best.

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.

I enjoy people like Rush Limbaugh, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Pat Robertson, and the rest of the political/religious/social engineering establishment telling me what the right thing to do is, because I apparently have no moral compass of my own. At least I can decide to tune them out when their rhetoric becomes tired or just turn the dial. I guess the Ignore button exists for the exact same purpose on the Boards.

 

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.

Comparing the selling of drugs to pressing comics….really Gene, really?

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.

A day-trader expousing the virtues of foresight, long-term appreciation, diligence, integrity, & work ethic. Did anyone else appreciate the irony or was it just me?

 

Seriously Gene, this is the whole of your argument? I appreciate your passion for your position, but I thought at least you’d offer some tangible points that were divorced from the normal nonsense that follows this debate. I guess even the mighty join us in the cesspool when logic and reason are cast aside in favor of parlor tricks and chicanery for the amusement of the masses.

 

[Foolkiller]

If guys like you won't challenge the "it's always gone on, everybody's doing it" argument, I guess it's no wonder the high end of the market is becoming such a cesspool (and, really - guys like you don't even need to press books for profit or fear for your livelihoods without it). Anyway, that's not an overstatement: it's a cesspool. It has nothing to do with earning an honest buck and spending it on comics for enjoyment. It has everything to do with taking every short-cut you can - pressing books, tolerating and/or associating with known scam artists, whatever - to make a quick buck, self-finance your collection (not a right guaranteed by the Constitution, by the way), and get the books you otherwise wouldn't be able to have through shrewd cherry-picking, wise trades, hard work, etc. - values that should be held in higher esteem than pressing a book for higher grades and more money.

 

It isn't about challenging it. It's a difference of opinion of what you have in your control. Expending mountains of time trying to control and regulate something that isn't in my control. You participate in the OA market, a market no more "honest" than high end comics. You can justify that however you like, but the reality is, you no more crusade against that than you do really other than your stance on pressing.

 

No self financing your collection is not Constitutional right, who said anything about that... ? Nobody. Again, you assign a moral "wrong" to pressing without justification or support. You arrive at conclusions in calling pressing a short cut and tolerating scam artists. I don't deal with those that are scam artists, but because I'm not able to devote them the extreme levels of effort needed to do something I think would have marginal benefit doesn't mean I've done something wrong.

 

What I refuse to accept is the parameters you've set for this discussion which means attacking something as "morally wrong" when in reality you've provided no foundation -- it's ultimately just an expression of your feeling of preference.

 

You and I will continue to disagree about the nature of pressing and it's moral value. But I respect what you are saying and understand the underlying drive for it. I bristle at the notion that we ought to attach the context of morality to the discussion. You seem to believe you hold the moral high ground and I completely reject any such notion.

[Davenport]

What I refuse to accept is the parameters you've set for this discussion which means attacking something as "morally wrong" when in reality you've provided no foundation -- it's ultimately just an expression of your feeling of preference.

Isn't that true of trimming as well? That it's ultimately just an expression of your feeling of preference?

 

Trimming a comic isn't illegal. Trimming might be nearly impossible to detect and improve "grade". Trimming was once a commercially offered treatment and opinions evolved over time against the practice.

 

I guess I'm not understanding why "morally wrong" conclusions are widely accepted against a specific treatment (trimming), but then rejected out of hand when applied to any other treatments.

 

[gaz973]

What I refuse to accept is the parameters you've set for this discussion which means attacking something as "morally wrong" when in reality you've provided no foundation -- it's ultimately just an expression of your feeling of preference.

Isn't that true of trimming as well? That it's ultimately just an expression of your feeling of preference?

 

Trimming a comic isn't illegal. Trimming might be nearly impossible to detect and improve "grade". Trimming was once a commercially offered treatment and opinions evolved over time against the practice.

 

I guess I'm not understanding why "morally wrong" conclusions are widely accepted against a specific treatment (trimming), but then rejected out of hand when applied to any other treatments.

 

This is the point that I was trying to make yesterday. While there is a difference in the extent of invasiveness, I'm not sure how some people can see pressing as being OK and trimming as being the devils work. I'm not trying to defend trimming but it just makes some peoples point of view seem a contradictory at best and hypocrytical at worst.

 

Artificially enhancing the grade is artificially enhancing the grade, the difference is only in the severity of the procedure.

[MCMiles]

I have the feeling it doesn't have that much to do with pressing. I think some people just like to complain when others don't share the same opinion. Well, sorry, we all have free will and some view things differently than others.

 

People that think they have figured out how the rest of us should lead our lives, standing on a soap box preaching their version of good and evil are often just as bad as those that infringe upon the rights of others with their actions. Both have a selfish lack of consideration for the thoughts and opinions of others. Both do it to various degrees. Some not so bad, some terribly.

 

People with an ability to reason and compromise will find each other and be able to work together. The rest can go on with your preaching, far fetched comparisons, accusations, and pizzing on each other.

 

 

[FlyingDonut]

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.

 

While I understand your argument, I have to disagree. Unfortunately, it would certainly be Steve Wynn's decision to destroy his Vermeer, and if he wanted to have is granddaughter paint unicorns and rainbows over it we might all be horrified, but there's nothing we could do about it, because it is Wynn's painting. Same with you buying the MH Action 1 and lighting it on fire. We'd all be horrified and the community - and most of society - would have a stroke about it, but there wouldn't be much we could do about it, outside of a "takings" clause, or something.

 

The "custodian" aspect of things doesn't really hold water, unless you're a museum. Can Dave Anderson read the Mile High Action 1 on his hammock while having a grape Nehi? Of course he can, because its his book - and if he spills that Nehi on the comic, that's just terrible, but its his problem, not anybody elses.

[TupennyConan]

Closer to the point, if Steve Wynn buys a $30 million Vermeer, is it his right to destroy it if he wants?

 

Wynn can not only destroy it, he can restore it.

 

Wynn ain't much of a custodian

[Davenport]

What I refuse to accept is the parameters you've set for this discussion which means attacking something as "morally wrong" when in reality you've provided no foundation -- it's ultimately just an expression of your feeling of preference.

Isn't that true of trimming as well? That it's ultimately just an expression of your feeling of preference?

 

Trimming a comic isn't illegal. Trimming might be nearly impossible to detect and improve "grade". Trimming was once a commercially offered treatment and opinions evolved over time against the practice.

 

I guess I'm not understanding why "morally wrong" conclusions are widely accepted against a specific treatment (trimming), but then rejected out of hand when applied to any other treatments.

 

This is the point that I was trying to make yesterday. While there is a difference in the extent of invasiveness, I'm not sure how some people can see pressing as being OK and trimming as being the devils work. I'm not trying to defend trimming but it just makes some peoples point of view seem a contradictory at best and hypocrytical at worst.

 

Artificially enhancing the grade is artificially enhancing the grade, the difference is only in the severity of the procedure.

I think that's why there's a rift when it comes to pressing. One side looks at the less invasive nature of pressing (but rarely mentions the disassembled variety). The other side looks at impact to the law of entropy (decay is expected, rare if not present: the preservation/value connection).

 

Undisclosed trimming "cheats" the law of entropy (re-trimming edges removes damage/decay).

 

Undisclosed pressing (intact or disassembly) also "cheats" the law of entropy...and the community splits, endless debates and arguments persist...

 

 

[DarkKnightReturns]

Closer to the point, if Steve Wynn buys a $30 million Vermeer, is it his right to destroy it if he wants?

 

Wynn can not only destroy it, he can restore it.

 

Wynn ain't much of a custodian

 

Holy snikes !

[Monstro]

I have the feeling it doesn't have that much to do with pressing. I think some people just like to complain when others don't share the same opinion. Well, sorry, we all have free will and some view things differently than others.

 

People that think they have figured out how the rest of us should lead our lives, standing on a soap box preaching their version of good and evil are often just as bad as those that infringe upon the rights of others with their actions. Both have a selfish lack of consideration for the thoughts and opinions of others. Both do it to various degrees. Some not so bad, some terribly.

 

People with an ability to reason and compromise will find each other and be able to work together. The rest can go on with your preaching, far fetched comparisons, accusations, and pizzing on each other.

 

 

[JiveTurkeyMoFo]

What I refuse to accept is the parameters you've set for this discussion which means attacking something as "morally wrong" when in reality you've provided no foundation -- it's ultimately just an expression of your feeling of preference.

Isn't that true of trimming as well? That it's ultimately just an expression of your feeling of preference?

 

Trimming a comic isn't illegal. Trimming might be nearly impossible to detect and improve "grade". Trimming was once a commercially offered treatment and opinions evolved over time against the practice.

 

I guess I'm not understanding why "morally wrong" conclusions are widely accepted against a specific treatment (trimming), but then rejected out of hand when applied to any other treatments.

 

This is the point that I was trying to make yesterday. While there is a difference in the extent of invasiveness, I'm not sure how some people can see pressing as being OK and trimming as being the devils work. I'm not trying to defend trimming but it just makes some peoples point of view seem a contradictory at best and hypocrytical at worst.

 

Artificially enhancing the grade is artificially enhancing the grade, the difference is only in the severity of the procedure.

I think that's why there's a rift when it comes to pressing. One side looks at the less invasive nature of pressing (but rarely mentions the disassembled variety). The other side looks at impact to the law of entropy (decay is expected, rare if not present: the preservation/value connection).

 

Undisclosed trimming "cheats" the law of entropy (re-trimming edges removes damage/decay).

 

Undisclosed pressing (intact or disassembly) also "cheats" the law of entropy...and the community splits, endless debates and arguments persist...

 

 

What's funny is that as riled up as I get about this "debate" (in the few instances where it is a debate, and not a pizzing contest...guilty as charged, thank you ), I've had 150-200 books TOPS pressed for me in the last few years, many of which were common Coppers/Moderns that are still sitting in my closet.

 

I don't fall into the Lauterbach/Schmell/whoever group of volume pressers/submitters. The only time the pedigree designation was absent on a book I pressed and resubmitted was when CGC lost two of my old labels during submission . I disclose pressing on a book. If I buy a book with disclosure, its also sold with the same disclosure because I keep notes....though it doesn't matter to me, it might matter to the next guy.

 

Someone remind me why I'm the anti-christ again?

 

 

 

[Timmay]

 

Someone remind me why I'm the anti-christ again?

 

 

 

because you press books

[Davenport]

What I refuse to accept is the parameters you've set for this discussion which means attacking something as "morally wrong" when in reality you've provided no foundation -- it's ultimately just an expression of your feeling of preference.

Isn't that true of trimming as well? That it's ultimately just an expression of your feeling of preference?

 

Trimming a comic isn't illegal. Trimming might be nearly impossible to detect and improve "grade". Trimming was once a commercially offered treatment and opinions evolved over time against the practice.

 

I guess I'm not understanding why "morally wrong" conclusions are widely accepted against a specific treatment (trimming), but then rejected out of hand when applied to any other treatments.

 

This is the point that I was trying to make yesterday. While there is a difference in the extent of invasiveness, I'm not sure how some people can see pressing as being OK and trimming as being the devils work. I'm not trying to defend trimming but it just makes some peoples point of view seem a contradictory at best and hypocrytical at worst.

 

Artificially enhancing the grade is artificially enhancing the grade, the difference is only in the severity of the procedure.

I think that's why there's a rift when it comes to pressing. One side looks at the less invasive nature of pressing (but rarely mentions the disassembled variety). The other side looks at impact to the law of entropy (decay is expected, rare if not present: the preservation/value connection).

 

Undisclosed trimming "cheats" the law of entropy (re-trimming edges removes damage/decay).

 

Undisclosed pressing (intact or disassembly) also "cheats" the law of entropy...and the community splits, endless debates and arguments persist...

 

 

What's funny is that as riled up as I get about this "debate" (in the few instances where it is a debate, and not a pizzing contest...guilty as charged, thank you ), I've had 150-200 books TOPS pressed for me in the last few years, many of which were common Coppers/Moderns that are still sitting in my closet.

 

I don't fall into the Lauterbach/Schmell/whoever group of volume pressers/submitters. The only time the pedigree designation was absent on a book I pressed and resubmitted was when CGC lost two of my old labels during submission . I disclose pressing on a book. If I buy a book with disclosure, its also sold with the same disclosure because I keep notes....though it doesn't matter to me, it might matter to the next guy.

 

Someone remind me why I'm the anti-christ again?

 

Some collectors might cringe at the pressing phenomenon, at the huge volume of books receiving treatments. Just like some cringe at cover signatures, date stamps, miswraps, and on and on.

 

With disclosure, each individual can choose for themselves. With disclosure you make the treatment "visible", and potential buyers are free to react. And, yeah, it might be disdain, but so what? (Just ask some sig series collector how they deal with it. )