How in the world did this go unnoticed???

[VintageComics]

I agree with the first part of his statement, mostly. Although, especially in Brent's case, if you are the chairman of the board of an organization that promotes disclosing restoration and enhancements, the best avenue to counter undisclosed enhancements would be to not add to the pool of books that could be sold with potentially undisclosed enhancements in the first place. Doesn't that make sense?

 

In much the same way an APA (anti pressing advocate) will eventually sell his unpressed books to a person who will press and not disclose the pressing. How much effort should be taken by the APA to make the presser responsible if the book gets pressed and not disclosed?

 

A person pressing a book is not creating an addictive, harmful, or deadly substance. They are pressing paper.

 

The fact that Brent proactively discloses, and is going to make people sign a disclosure clause is much more than any other person has done for disclosure. This is the type of trailblazing behavior that a NOD chairman might have.

 

I also think that the argument, "they are not responsible for those that do not share the ideal" is a very poor at best, especially in this instance. Indeed, they are not directly responsible for what the next person does with a pressed book, but if the book isn't pressed in the first place, there wouldn't be the opportunity for undisclosed "enhancements" to begin with.

 

The second part of Brent's statement is what I don't understand - "That is about the extent of what can be done." It sounds apathetic. It's just not what I would expect from the leader of an organization supposedly formed to promote disclosure of any form of restoration or enhancement, known to exist, on a comic book.

 

Realism can sound apathetic. I'm sure that if someone has a better [read: fair and financially reasonable] idea NOD would be all ears. The point of my posts is that they are only responsible as an organization to proactively disclose their own actions and remain transparent on transactions that they are personally involved in.

 

I just don't understand why people keep trying to hold NOD [or Brent] to a standard [disclosure beyond an arm's length transaction] that they themselves would not be held to by another or themselves.

 

This isn't an inquisition where people have to convert or die.

 

I never suggested it was. Now you are trying to put words in my mouth. Convert or die, really dude.

 

I'm not trying to bash on Brent here or anything, nor anyone for that matter. I'm just confused by some of the statements I'm reading in this thread.

 

 

The "convert or die" thing was a little over the top but I think you got my point.

 

NOD is not about enforcement. They are simply about proactive disclosure of any modifications done to a comic book when they sell a book. That's it.

[VintageComics]

Since no one will call a spade a spade, here it is for the cheap seats:

 

CGC WILL NEVER INSTITUTE A POLICY THAT IS GOING TO CAUSE LESS SUBMISSIONS. CPR MEANS THAT CGC GETS TO CHARGE THEIR FEES FOR THE SAME BOOK, POTENTIALLY MULTIPLE TIMES. THEY WILL NEVER CHANGE ANYTHING AS IT RESULTS TO PRESSING. PRESSING MEANS MORE SUBS.

 

There's that little tid bit of trivia too.

 

[alecholland]

 

I just don't understand why people keep trying to hold NOD [or Brent] to a standard [disclosure beyond an arm's length transaction] that they themselves would not be held to by another or themselves.

 

I think it's because he is involved in a business practice that appears to conflict with the ideals of the organization he is involved with, even if it is indirectly. I think you are right in that, if you are going to press books, then he is definitely taking great measures on his part in regard to disclosure.

 

I have to say, I haven't really been involved in one of these pressing discussions previously. In fact, I usually try to avoid them. But I definitely appreciate the comments posted since I so abruptly jumped in, from you Roy as well as Brent and several others. I've actually learned quite a bit from reading your point of view and have a better understanding of where you are coming from.

 

Thank you answering many of my questions and for not calling me a poopy head.

[qualitycomix]

 

I just don't understand why people keep trying to hold NOD [or Brent] to a standard [disclosure beyond an arm's length transaction] that they themselves would not be held to by another or themselves.

 

I think it's because he is involved in a business practice that appears to conflict with the ideals of the organization he is involved with, even if it is indirectly. I think you are right in that, if you are going to press books, then he is definitely taking great measures on his part in regard to disclosure.

 

I have to say, I haven't really been involved in one of these pressing discussions previously. In fact, I usually try to avoid them. But I definitely appreciate the comments posted since I so abruptly jumped in, from you Roy as well as Brent and several others. I've actually learned quite a bit from reading your point of view and have a better understanding of where you are coming from.

 

Thank you answering many of my questions and for not calling me a poopy head.

 

poopy head

[alecholland]

 

I just don't understand why people keep trying to hold NOD [or Brent] to a standard [disclosure beyond an arm's length transaction] that they themselves would not be held to by another or themselves.

 

I think it's because he is involved in a business practice that appears to conflict with the ideals of the organization he is involved with, even if it is indirectly. I think you are right in that, if you are going to press books, then he is definitely taking great measures on his part in regard to disclosure.

 

I have to say, I haven't really been involved in one of these pressing discussions previously. In fact, I usually try to avoid them. But I definitely appreciate the comments posted since I so abruptly jumped in, from you Roy as well as Brent and several others. I've actually learned quite a bit from reading your point of view and have a better understanding of where you are coming from.

 

Thank you answering many of my questions and for not calling me a poopy head.

 

poopy head

 

I knew I should have edited out that last part.

[Nexus]

 

poopy head

 

Speaking of poop:

 

http://pinktentacle.com/2009/01/gold-mined-from-sewage-sludge/

 

If I'm buying gold, I wouldn't want this gold. I know it'd make no difference to many of you, but it does to me. Not all gold is equal, and not all 9.6's (or whatever) are equal. They may all start out the same (from the mine, from the printer) and they may all end up the same (gold bullion, high-grade slabs)...but what happens in between and how they achieved their ultimate pristine status, totally matters to me. No stinky gold for me, thank you very much.

[Old Fashion PB and J]

 

It may be a "dead on statement", I just can't believe the the Board of Directors Chairman of the "Network of Disclosure" could make a statement like that. What does his organization stand for?

 

Perhaps they need to change the name to "Network of Selective Disclosure" or something along those lines.

 

It's not the statement, it's who made the statement.

 

 

See Bold....

 

No NOD member I know of picks and chooses what would be disclosed. But thanks for making it sound like I am part of an organization that is just about a name and we dont actually abide by the rules we set. Awesome

[alecholland]

 

It may be a "dead on statement", I just can't believe the the Board of Directors Chairman of the "Network of Disclosure" could make a statement like that. What does his organization stand for?

 

Perhaps they need to change the name to "Network of Selective Disclosure" or something along those lines.

 

It's not the statement, it's who made the statement.

 

 

See Bold....

 

No NOD member I know of picks and chooses what would be disclosed. But thanks for making it sound like I am part of an organization that is just about a name and we dont actually abide by the rules we set. Awesome

 

Yeah, that was uncalled for and I apologized for making that statement a few posts later. I will apologize again to you as well and any other NOD members that read this post. I think I was caught up in the moment and clearly let my azz show on that one.

 

I didn't mean to disparage NOD or it's members like that and I am sorry.

 

Brent, Roy, and others definitely helped me understand there position on some of this, which I truly appreciate. I may still not agree with some things, but I see their point of view and respect their opinions.

[marvelcollector]

 

You'd like to think so, but that isn't the case.

 

There are two parts to this reply.

 

1) The detection of pressed books

 

Keep in mind that pressing for the most part is a volatile discussion because of the money involved. There are other reasons but money seems to be a central focus.

 

I think that we can agree that nobody really cares all that much if a low dollar reader 1.8 book is pressed and gets a 1.8 grade again. I don't think the owner of a 1.8 book cares much if his 1.8 book was pressed or pressed to a 2.0, do they?

 

I think the discussion of pressing is generally focused around higher grade, higher dollar books.

 

If that is a fair comment, then we need to understand and agree these books make much better candidates for pressing and make them even less detectable because there are less and smaller flaws, therefore less clues and therefore less ability to actually tell whether they are pressed or not.

 

What does this mean? That detection of pressing on books that matter the most to people will be the most innaccurate.

 

2) the idea of a label change

 

Every time a discussion about label change, or label color change or some sort of potential change comes about it seems that people start to jump and yell from the roof tops that any sort of change will just confuse buyers and make it an unfair playing field.

 

Now we have people asking for a notation on the label, and the notation would not even be accurate (I'm sticking with my 50/50 odds at best until someone can prove otherwise).

 

This would be much the same as previous discussions where label changes were discussed...except that you are taking one variable (and a very large variable IMO as only a small minority of books can be accurately detected as being pressed) and creating another secondary variable by labeling them as pressed and giving the impression that the rest are unpressed.

 

So not only would you be labeling only a minority of the books that get caught, the most important ones are more likely to get missed by those looking for clues that reveal that a book has been pressed.

 

It would just not be good business no matter how you try to slice it.

 

That's my

 

I'm not really sure how much of that applies to people's reaction to a slab without a pressed notation.

 

If a high grade book is not marked pressed, than, I guess one wouldn't know for sure if it was or not. Huh. Just like now. Do people assume a slabbed book is pressed or unpressed now if it's not disclosed? I suppose that varies on the individual.

 

If somebody were to pay a premium for an unmarked slab, and it is in fact not pressed, then no harm no foul. After all, the grade is the grade. A 9.4 is a 9.4.

If it is pressed, it really would only matter to two sub groups: a)flippers, who should be savy enough to know sometimes if you roll the dice, you lose, and b) those collectors that are concerned that pressing may have a long term negative effect on a book. They would not be put at any worse of a disadvantage than they are right now.

 

The books that are detected would be positvely identified. (Particularly if, as was initially suggested for the purposes of this situation, the information was voluntereed by the presser.)

 

 

 

 

[Ogami]

 

poopy head

 

Speaking of poop:

 

http://pinktentacle.com/2009/01/gold-mined-from-sewage-sludge/

 

If I'm buying gold, I wouldn't want this gold. I know it'd make no difference to many of you, but it does to me. Not all gold is equal, and not all 9.6's (or whatever) are equal. They may all start out the same (from the mine, from the printer) and they may all end up the same (gold bullion, high-grade slabs)...but what happens in between and how they achieved their ultimate pristine status, totally matters to me. No stinky gold for me, thank you very much.

 

All sewage is not created equally, and there is real value in reclamation.

 

In my civilian identity, I was called to Alabama just last week to audit the facilites of six sites involved in reclamation of sludge/fly ash/coal waste, all from sewage. This said material was nothing more than big piles of coal both in piles, and in water, from ponds created by strip mining.

 

This is smart buisness.

[FlyingDonut]

I just don't understand why people keep trying to hold NOD [or Brent] to a standard [disclosure beyond an arm's length transaction] that they themselves would not be held to by another or themselves.

 

 

The dripping irony of it all just amuses me. I have nothing against Brent - or anyone else - pressing books to make more money, as long as they disclose.That being said, All the well thought out posts by Zipper about NOD pale to the past three years of NOD's existence where its members got out the torches at anybody who even discussed pressing.

 

Because while NOD isn't about pressing - it is about "disclosure", whatever that is - the only message EVER disseminated by NOD and the very vocal NOD members is that pressing is bad. For you to believe anything else is fallacy.

[Davenport]

One more possibility:

 

CGC could add a spot for submitters to voluntarily state that a book has been pressed, and in such cases add it to the label.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. That seems like such an obvious place to start.

 

It made my list of obvious things that could be done (but will never ever happen) as well. Along with some others:

• Ask. Put a yes/no field on the submission form about first-hand knowledge of any alterations prior to submission, plus a space to list them. Alterations listed go on the label and grading notes.
   
  
• Require any books being submitted by a known professional restoration company to have accompanying detailed worksheets for each book. Whatever treatment is on the worksheet goes on the label and grading notes.
   
  
• Call submitters that checked "no" for alterations if an alteration is suspected during examination. Ask again to verify and discuss possibilities for the suspected alteration being present.
   
  
• Communicate the prevalence of altering books for "The Crack Out Game" and disparage the practice. Communicate the intent to discern alterations through both fact-gathering and skilled detection, even if it's not 100% foolproof.

Or numero uno...

• Revisit and re-think hammering nano-defects during grading that aren't actual/factual permanent damage. Maybe unmarred absolute flatness isn't the best indicator of "yep, it's damaged"... if pressing is so effective at re-flattening.

One major reason the book tampering phenomenon is so prevalent is there's zero resistance to it from the professional/authoritative side. But that's a choice, not something written in stone.

 

[MrBedrock]

• Revisit and re-think hammering nano-defects during grading that aren't actual/factual permanent damage. Maybe unmarred absolute flatness isn't the best indicator of "yep, it's damaged"... if pressing is so effective at re-flattening.

(thumbs u

[Tsimanga]

If you ask me.. I think a big reason people want to know if a book has been pressed or not is simply because they want to be the first to press it themselves and be the ones that reap the possible upgrade.... not some kind of morality debate which they drivel on about...

 

Pressing is here, has been here and will be here in the future... forget about monetary gains. If you can press your book to make it more presentable for your collection... why on earth wouldn't you? I had a full run of Kamandis.. the whole set had a NCBSC right down the middle... otherwise they were all NM+ copies... But they were all ugly because of the crease and I sold them all for peanuts...

 

But, If I would have had them all pressed. I would have had a NM/NM+ full of of Kamandi and not only gotten 30x the money for them.. but I would have kept them. I wish I even knew about pressing then. Of coarse to someone like me pressing 100 mediocre titled bronze age books might not be such a wise financial choice... but I'd rather have sold them to someone who would have had them all pressed and made them all normal again... Pressing isnt normal you say... well either is the mailman giving me a book length crease down the middle of the book I say...

[Davenport]

• Revisit and re-think hammering nano-defects during grading that aren't actual/factual permanent damage. Maybe unmarred absolute flatness isn't the best indicator of "yep, it's damaged"... if pressing is so effective at re-flattening.

(thumbs u

A retailer and consumer both agreeing on that single point is very encouraging. (thumbs u A sliver of "hope".

 

Maybe the chasm isn't as wide as it appeared first blush.

Or perhaps its narrowing as both sides experience the full impact of the phenomenon.

[slym2none]

I think a big reason SOME people want to know if a book has been pressed or not is simply because they want to be the first to press it themselves and be the ones that reap the possible upgrade.... not some kind of morality debate which they drivel on about...

 

Added a word in there to make that true.

 

 

 

-slym

[Paratrooper]

holy , you guys are still talking about this? ADHD comic collectors don't have

[sckao]

• Revisit and re-think hammering nano-defects during grading that aren't actual/factual permanent damage. Maybe unmarred absolute flatness isn't the best indicator of "yep, it's damaged"... if pressing is so effective at re-flattening.

(thumbs u

A retailer and consumer both agreeing on that single point is very encouraging. (thumbs u A sliver of "hope".

 

Maybe the chasm isn't as wide as it appeared first blush.

Or perhaps its narrowing as both sides experience the full impact of the phenomenon.

 

A retailer and a consumer both wanting a higher grade on a comic... Imagine that.

 

 

[Old Fashion PB and J]

I just don't understand why people keep trying to hold NOD [or Brent] to a standard [disclosure beyond an arm's length transaction] that they themselves would not be held to by another or themselves.

 

 

The dripping irony of it all just amuses me. I have nothing against Brent - or anyone else - pressing books to make more money, as long as they disclose.That being said, All the well thought out posts by Zipper about NOD pale to the past three years of NOD's existence where its members got out the torches at anybody who even discussed pressing.

 

Because while NOD isn't about pressing - it is about "disclosure", whatever that is - the only message EVER disseminated by NOD and the very vocal NOD members is that pressing is bad. For you to believe anything else is fallacy.

I have been extremely vocal since my joining of the group. I have never been anti-pressing, and know that alot of the members I am in contact with are not anti-pressing. I stand for disclosure of known work, as do many other members. Pressing is such a non-issue with 90% of NOD members it is baffling. Think about how many NOD members press books, or have pressed books and disclose. Many other past members still disclose any work known. Maybe a few years ago things were different, but since I have joined, and a few members in the same time frame this is NOT the message. All we ask is people be honest about what they know. I dont care if you press 1 or 1,000 books, just keep track and let future buyers know. Is disclosure a bad message? Because that is ALL I stand for when you ask why I am an active NOD member.

[Paratrooper]

holy , you guys are still talking about this? ADHD comic collectors don't have