How in the world did this go unnoticed???

[DrWatson]

I understand that no one wants to give up the secrets of the trade, but can one of you guys that have a press please shoot a video and post it so we can see what all is involved?

[DrWatson]

This has been one of the most civil and thoughtful debate threads, probably ever.

I can fix that.

[Monstro]

I understand that no one wants to give up the secrets of the trade, but can one of you guys that have a press please shoot a video and post it so we can see what all is involved?

 

It's hard to talk to anyone when you're on ignore, isn't it?

 

 

I better not be on ignore

[Monstro]

I understand that no one wants to give up the secrets of the trade, but can one of you guys that have a press please shoot a video and post it so we can see what all is involved?

 

To dark.

 

Isn't that Dad & Son?

[DrWatson]

I better not be on ignore

Why on Earth would you be on ignore? You're as innocuous as a kitten.

[pickycollector]

I understand that no one wants to give up the secrets of the trade, but can one of you guys that have a press please shoot a video and post it so we can see what all is involved?

 

It's hard to talk to anyone when you're on ignore, isn't it?

 

 

"If the ones that do ignore you are the same ones that you do ignore yourself, then it really doesn't matter"

[DrWatson]

Isn't that Dad & Son?

I don't think so. The video shows a certain level of creativity and a sense of humor.

[Monstro]

I better not be on ignore

Why on Earth would you be on ignore? You're as innocuous as a kitten.

 

Thats what I'm saying.

[DrWatson]

I better not be on ignore

Why on Earth would you be on ignore? You're as innocuous as a kitten.

Thats what I'm saying.

I bet.

[skypinkblu]

I'm still not sure how any company that wants to make money grading comic books is going to survive by putting a "pressed" designation on any book that passes whatever nigh-miraculous test that can be developed.

 

I mean, even if somehow they can figure that a book has been artificially manipulated by being placed in a dry mount press and not just stuck under a set of encyclopedias, at the bottom of a large stack of books or wedged into a too tightly-packed longbox - which is a BIG FRIGGING IF - they still are going to have to deal with the same challenges CGC dealt with.

 

Which is all a red herring, anyway. CGC is the 3rd party grading company. Like it or not, but that's what we have today. A new company is not going to fix the "pressing problem." The only way people who don't want books to be pressed are going to 'win' is a two-stage plan.

 

Step one is to convince CGC that pressing detection is necessary.

 

Step two is to convince people who currently are either aware of pressing and don't care or who are unaware of pressing that they need to stop buying pressed books. Once people who press are hit in the wallet, they'll stop.

 

Good luck with that

 

CGC could detect manipulation if it had previously graded the book. This detection would be costly but very doable.

 

So you are claiming CGC can differentiate between "artificially manipulated by being placed in a dry mount press and not just stuck under a set of encyclopedias, at the bottom of a large stack of books or wedged into a too tightly-packed longbox"?

 

 

I don't think that's what Gary meant.

 

He would like CGC to keep high res scans of every book they do, then when a book comes in, say a Spidey #223, check through all the scans of that book they have ever done, see if any match, if so, then determine if it has been pressed or not.

 

Unrealistic from a for-profit company, but, as Gary said, doable.

 

He said it was doable to determine if there was manipulation. That would include: stuck under a set of encyclopedias, at the bottom of a large stack of books or wedged into a too tightly-packed longbox. So if it were one of those, it would result in a "pressed" designation?

 

And as for figuring out which method that had been used, because some would be acceptable to collectors and some wouldn't, how would CGC be able to determine the method? Check for "Encyclopedia Britanica" impression residues? Comic book psychic?

 

I'm not trying to stir the pot here, but I'm curious.

 

People I respect keep mentioning that pressing from stacking books, etc, occurs and you can't tell the difference.

 

Have any of you tried this?

 

First of all, putting books under encyclopedias or bricks, or ten ton weights, doesn't seem to be so different to me from other methods, you do these things intentionally.

 

But stacking is mentioned all the time...

 

Now I happen to be doing a project of my own, I'm rebagging and boarding most of my SA books...and they HAVE been stacked...for years..maybe longer than they should have...some at least 7 years. I have them on bookshelves.

 

 

 

The books are mostly bagged and boarded, one or two escaped me, and were not, but for the most part, the boards are there, too so you have that additional weight. The stacks are about 125 to 150 high. The books at the bottom don't look pressed. There are still spine rolls and they honestly don't look anything like the pressed books I've seen.. I'm not quite sure that you could stack books any higher without them falling over (I've tried) .

 

Before you mention long boxes, I also happen to have a long box, that has been on it's end (in-between two of my book cases) for maybe 4 years? Same thing...

 

So...Exactly how many books do you think get accidently pressed this way? It would seem to me, and I'm no scientist...that you'd need a weight. That there would have had to be a lot of time....would there have been 2 collections? 100?

 

I'm just a little confused...:shrug:

[joeypost]

Not that I think it's remotely possible, but I'm sure the added time, cost, and risks would be well worth it to a customer base that largely doesn't give a flyin' flip about it anyway.

 

Maybe Marnin would finally buy a slab or submit a book

[DrWatson]

Not that I think it's remotely possible, but I'm sure the added time, cost, and risks would be well worth it to a customer base that largely doesn't give a flyin' flip about it anyway.

 

Maybe Marnin would finally buy a slab or submit a book

I would say that's coming about the same time as your apology.

[joeypost]

I'm still not sure how any company that wants to make money grading comic books is going to survive by putting a "pressed" designation on any book that passes whatever nigh-miraculous test that can be developed.

 

I mean, even if somehow they can figure that a book has been artificially manipulated by being placed in a dry mount press and not just stuck under a set of encyclopedias, at the bottom of a large stack of books or wedged into a too tightly-packed longbox - which is a BIG FRIGGING IF - they still are going to have to deal with the same challenges CGC dealt with.

 

Which is all a red herring, anyway. CGC is the 3rd party grading company. Like it or not, but that's what we have today. A new company is not going to fix the "pressing problem." The only way people who don't want books to be pressed are going to 'win' is a two-stage plan.

 

Step one is to convince CGC that pressing detection is necessary.

 

Step two is to convince people who currently are either aware of pressing and don't care or who are unaware of pressing that they need to stop buying pressed books. Once people who press are hit in the wallet, they'll stop.

 

Good luck with that

 

CGC could detect manipulation if it had previously graded the book. This detection would be costly but very doable.

 

So you are claiming CGC can differentiate between "artificially manipulated by being placed in a dry mount press and not just stuck under a set of encyclopedias, at the bottom of a large stack of books or wedged into a too tightly-packed longbox"?

 

 

I don't think that's what Gary meant.

 

He would like CGC to keep high res scans of every book they do, then when a book comes in, say a Spidey #223, check through all the scans of that book they have ever done, see if any match, if so, then determine if it has been pressed or not.

 

Unrealistic from a for-profit company, but, as Gary said, doable.

 

He said it was doable to determine if there was manipulation. That would include: stuck under a set of encyclopedias, at the bottom of a large stack of books or wedged into a too tightly-packed longbox. So if it were one of those, it would result in a "pressed" designation?

 

And as for figuring out which method that had been used, because some would be acceptable to collectors and some wouldn't, how would CGC be able to determine the method? Check for "Encyclopedia Britanica" impression residues? Comic book psychic?

 

I'm not trying to stir the pot here, but I'm curious.

 

People I respect keep mentioning that pressing from stacking books, etc, occurs and you can't tell the difference.

 

Have any of you tried this?

 

First of all, putting books under encyclopedias or bricks, or ten ton weights, doesn't seem to be so different to me from other methods, you do these things intentionally.

 

But stacking is mentioned all the time...

 

Now I happen to be doing a project of my own, I'm rebagging and boarding most of my SA books...and they HAVE been stacked...for years..maybe longer than they should have...some at least 7 years. I have them on bookshelves.

 

 

 

The books are mostly bagged and boarded, one or two escaped me, and were not, but for the most part, the boards are there, too so you have that additional weight. The stacks are about 125 to 150 high. The books at the bottom don't look pressed. There are still spine rolls and they honestly don't look anything like the pressed books I've seen.. I'm not quite sure that you could stack books any higher without them falling over (I've tried) .

 

Before you mention long boxes, I also happen to have a long box, that has been on it's end (in-between two of my book cases) for maybe 4 years? Same thing...

 

So...Exactly how many books do you think get accidently pressed this way? It would seem to me, and I'm no scientist...that you'd need a weight. That there would have had to be a lot of time....would there have been 2 collections? 100?

 

I'm just a little confused...:shrug:

 

I would imagine you have these books in an airconditioned room or a place that for the most part is climate controlled.

 

I have pulled books out of a hot, humid Florida warehouse where the shape of the bag was imprinted into the book behind it. I have also had some that were so tightly packed that the pages stuck together and I had to pry the cover off the splash page. Stacking alone is not enough in most cases. It seemed to preserve books in the case of the Church and Pac Coast books though.

[Davenport]

I understand that no one wants to give up the secrets of the trade, but can one of you guys that have a press please shoot a video and post it so we can see what all is involved?

Personally I think the debate bogs down between minimalist applications of pressing and detection. It creates a loop. Lets back up and look at the whole debate...

 

The debate/rift began with CGC adding a distinction to restorative treatments and techniques. Here are the words: "adding non-original material". That's the caveat that defines "restoration".

 

Which gives the greenlight for (as stated):

• tape removal
  
• dry cleaning
  
• tucking loose wraps back under a staple
  
• disassembly and reassembly of a comic
  
• certain staple replacement
  
• pressing
  

Right? Any and all of those could receive blue Universal labeling even if detected. Grade lowering (done poorly) or grade enhancing: blue Universal, either way.

 

That's my understanding anyway. Detection isn't a debate issue. The added caveat makes detection a moot point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[skypinkblu]

 

I'm not trying to stir the pot here, but I'm curious.

 

People I respect keep mentioning that pressing from stacking books, etc, occurs and you can't tell the difference.

 

Have any of you tried this?

 

First of all, putting books under encyclopedias or bricks, or ten ton weights, doesn't seem to be so different to me from other methods, you do these things intentionally.

 

But stacking is mentioned all the time...

 

Now I happen to be doing a project of my own, I'm rebagging and boarding most of my SA books...and they HAVE been stacked...for years..maybe longer than they should have...some at least 7 years. I have them on bookshelves.

 

 

 

The books are mostly bagged and boarded, one or two escaped me, and were not, but for the most part, the boards are there, too so you have that additional weight. The stacks are about 125 to 150 high. The books at the bottom don't look pressed. There are still spine rolls and they honestly don't look anything like the pressed books I've seen.. I'm not quite sure that you could stack books any higher without them falling over (I've tried) .

 

Before you mention long boxes, I also happen to have a long box, that has been on it's end (in-between two of my book cases) for maybe 4 years? Same thing...

 

So...Exactly how many books do you think get accidently pressed this way? It would seem to me, and I'm no scientist...that you'd need a weight. That there would have had to be a lot of time....would there have been 2 collections? 100?

 

I'm just a little confused...:shrug:

 

I would imagine you have these books in an airconditioned room or a place that for the most part is climate controlled.

 

I have pulled books out of a hot, humid Florida warehouse where the shape of the bag was imprinted into the book behind it. I have also had some that were so tightly packed that the pages stuck together and i had to pry the cover off the splash page. Stacking alone is not enough in most cases. It seemd to preserve books in the case of the Church and Pac Coast books though.

 

 

 

Actually Joey,no air-conditioning in this room (I wish I had it) and NY as you know, can be pretty humid. I saw the kind of damage you describe when I was buying those books from the distributor's warehouse located in Long Island, but they all showed some kind of moisture damage when they were in that shape. I also have books stacked in my garage, with no a/c, and they've been in boxes for years...same spine rolls. Now some of those books I stacked alternately hoping they'd straighten...but no such luck;) They aren't expensive books, I just give those away so I figured I'd play with them. I actually forgot about the boxes.

 

I never even thought about my shelves...until I was sitting here with my bags and boards and reading the last post.

 

I understand about the Church collection...but I figure that was the exception rather than the rule...that's why I'm wondering. I would think at this point that there are more artifically pressed books, than books pressed by accident, so the differentiation might become a moot point.

[GACollectibles]

I'm still not sure how any company that wants to make money grading comic books is going to survive by putting a "pressed" designation on any book that passes whatever nigh-miraculous test that can be developed.

 

I mean, even if somehow they can figure that a book has been artificially manipulated by being placed in a dry mount press and not just stuck under a set of encyclopedias, at the bottom of a large stack of books or wedged into a too tightly-packed longbox - which is a BIG FRIGGING IF - they still are going to have to deal with the same challenges CGC dealt with.

 

Which is all a red herring, anyway. CGC is the 3rd party grading company. Like it or not, but that's what we have today. A new company is not going to fix the "pressing problem." The only way people who don't want books to be pressed are going to 'win' is a two-stage plan.

 

Step one is to convince CGC that pressing detection is necessary.

 

Step two is to convince people who currently are either aware of pressing and don't care or who are unaware of pressing that they need to stop buying pressed books. Once people who press are hit in the wallet, they'll stop.

 

Good luck with that

 

CGC could detect manipulation if it had previously graded the book. This detection would be costly but very doable.

 

So you are claiming CGC can differentiate between "artificially manipulated by being placed in a dry mount press and not just stuck under a set of encyclopedias, at the bottom of a large stack of books or wedged into a too tightly-packed longbox"?

 

 

I don't think that's what Gary meant.

 

He would like CGC to keep high res scans of every book they do, then when a book comes in, say a Spidey #223, check through all the scans of that book they have ever done, see if any match, if so, then determine if it has been pressed or not.

 

Unrealistic from a for-profit company, but, as Gary said, doable.

 

He said it was doable to determine if there was manipulation. That would include: stuck under a set of encyclopedias, at the bottom of a large stack of books or wedged into a too tightly-packed longbox. So if it were one of those, it would result in a "pressed" designation?

 

And as for figuring out which method that had been used, because some would be acceptable to collectors and some wouldn't, how would CGC be able to determine the method? Check for "Encyclopedia Britanica" impression residues? Comic book psychic?

 

I'm not trying to stir the pot here, but I'm curious.

 

People I respect keep mentioning that pressing from stacking books, etc, occurs and you can't tell the difference.

 

Have any of you tried this?

 

First of all, putting books under encyclopedias or bricks, or ten ton weights, doesn't seem to be so different to me from other methods, you do these things intentionally.

 

But stacking is mentioned all the time...

 

Now I happen to be doing a project of my own, I'm rebagging and boarding most of my SA books...and they HAVE been stacked...for years..maybe longer than they should have...some at least 7 years. I have them on bookshelves.

 

 

 

The books are mostly bagged and boarded, one or two escaped me, and were not, but for the most part, the boards are there, too so you have that additional weight. The stacks are about 125 to 150 high. The books at the bottom don't look pressed. There are still spine rolls and they honestly don't look anything like the pressed books I've seen.. I'm not quite sure that you could stack books any higher without them falling over (I've tried) .

 

Before you mention long boxes, I also happen to have a long box, that has been on it's end (in-between two of my book cases) for maybe 4 years? Same thing...

 

So...Exactly how many books do you think get accidently pressed this way? It would seem to me, and I'm no scientist...that you'd need a weight. That there would have had to be a lot of time....would there have been 2 collections? 100?

 

I'm just a little confused...:shrug:

 

I would imagine you have these books in an airconditioned room or a place that for the most part is climate controlled.

 

I have pulled books out of a hot, humid Florida warehouse where the shape of the bag was imprinted into the book behind it. I have also had some that were so tightly packed that the pages stuck together and I had to pry the cover off the splash page. Stacking alone is not enough in most cases. It seemed to preserve books in the case of the Church and Pac Coast books though.

 

 

Stacks are also not limited to long box heights, I've seen much higher ones. One collection I can recall consisted of stacks of books about 12" high, then a piece of masonite which made a flatter surface for the next 12', and this repeated 4-5 time. That is quite a bit more weight and the 1/4" masonite distributed the pressure more evenly. There were books that suffered stacking indents, and those that looked like they may have had some sort of minor spine roll, but I wouldn't have called theat method an intent to flatten the books, it was a storage issue.

[buttock]

I'm still not sure how any company that wants to make money grading comic books is going to survive by putting a "pressed" designation on any book that passes whatever nigh-miraculous test that can be developed.

 

I mean, even if somehow they can figure that a book has been artificially manipulated by being placed in a dry mount press and not just stuck under a set of encyclopedias, at the bottom of a large stack of books or wedged into a too tightly-packed longbox - which is a BIG FRIGGING IF - they still are going to have to deal with the same challenges CGC dealt with.

 

Which is all a red herring, anyway. CGC is the 3rd party grading company. Like it or not, but that's what we have today. A new company is not going to fix the "pressing problem." The only way people who don't want books to be pressed are going to 'win' is a two-stage plan.

 

Step one is to convince CGC that pressing detection is necessary.

 

Step two is to convince people who currently are either aware of pressing and don't care or who are unaware of pressing that they need to stop buying pressed books. Once people who press are hit in the wallet, they'll stop.

 

Good luck with that

 

CGC could detect manipulation if it had previously graded the book. This detection would be costly but very doable.

 

So you are claiming CGC can differentiate between "artificially manipulated by being placed in a dry mount press and not just stuck under a set of encyclopedias, at the bottom of a large stack of books or wedged into a too tightly-packed longbox"?

 

 

I don't think that's what Gary meant.

 

He would like CGC to keep high res scans of every book they do, then when a book comes in, say a Spidey #223, check through all the scans of that book they have ever done, see if any match, if so, then determine if it has been pressed or not.

 

Unrealistic from a for-profit company, but, as Gary said, doable.

 

He said it was doable to determine if there was manipulation. That would include: stuck under a set of encyclopedias, at the bottom of a large stack of books or wedged into a too tightly-packed longbox. So if it were one of those, it would result in a "pressed" designation?

 

And as for figuring out which method that had been used, because some would be acceptable to collectors and some wouldn't, how would CGC be able to determine the method? Check for "Encyclopedia Britanica" impression residues? Comic book psychic?

 

I'm not trying to stir the pot here, but I'm curious.

 

People I respect keep mentioning that pressing from stacking books, etc, occurs and you can't tell the difference.

 

Have any of you tried this?

 

First of all, putting books under encyclopedias or bricks, or ten ton weights, doesn't seem to be so different to me from other methods, you do these things intentionally.

 

But stacking is mentioned all the time...

 

Now I happen to be doing a project of my own, I'm rebagging and boarding most of my SA books...and they HAVE been stacked...for years..maybe longer than they should have...some at least 7 years. I have them on bookshelves.

 

 

 

The books are mostly bagged and boarded, one or two escaped me, and were not, but for the most part, the boards are there, too so you have that additional weight. The stacks are about 125 to 150 high. The books at the bottom don't look pressed. There are still spine rolls and they honestly don't look anything like the pressed books I've seen.. I'm not quite sure that you could stack books any higher without them falling over (I've tried) .

 

Before you mention long boxes, I also happen to have a long box, that has been on it's end (in-between two of my book cases) for maybe 4 years? Same thing...

 

So...Exactly how many books do you think get accidently pressed this way? It would seem to me, and I'm no scientist...that you'd need a weight. That there would have had to be a lot of time....would there have been 2 collections? 100?

 

I'm just a little confused...:shrug:

 

Years ago I tried this with a GA book that had a spine roll. Didn't take much to get rid of the spine roll - just a little pressure (like a couple of thick books) for a little while.

 

Unfortunately, it didn't take much to split the centerfold either.

 

That's the extent of my experience with pressing. If anyone has any questions, I'll be happy to answer them for a fee.

[Mr.Diggler]

This has been one of the most civil and thoughtful debate threads, probably ever.

I can fix that.

[Rocketeer]

......pressure alone is not usually enuff without the heat element,...

[MCMiles]

......pressure alone is not usually enuff without the heat element,...

 

You'd be surprised, especially with defects that aren't severe, such as the difference between 9.4 to 9.6 and 9.6 to 9.8. Although, more time is required. Again, depending on the severity of the defect.