How in the world did this go unnoticed???

[tth2]

How `bout them Spurs, Goonie?

[Freddie-migration]

How `bout them Spurs, Goonie?

 

I am not a black-footed albatross, and I feel spurs are a rather outmoded and cruel way of propelling one's horse forward.

[DrWatson]

• 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.

One of the biggest problems I have had with the parameters CGC used when establishing their grading criteria was the incredible emphasis put on "defects" which are so microscopic in nature that they were not necessarily considered defects prior to CGC's inception.

I agree completely.

[hikeeba-migration]

If "Methuselah" had never ID`d the books,

 

It was Abrams, no? (same guy though, I think)

[Old Fashion PB and J]

[And books that have easily been tracked as pressed? All the mound city resubmits, the Pac Coasts, and the other pedigrees that are so easily identified? Those books would not be guesses, its common knowledge. And if you try and argue that cgc can not be positive they were pressed upon resubmission I may as well sell off my slabs now as I am pretty sure they have grading that blows with the wind.

 

I have no doubt that those books were pressed, but do you want CGC guessing at all the other books?

 

 

Do you want CGC labeling only some books as pressed while others get a clean bill of health because they slip through the system?

 

Think about it.

 

 

Yes I do, because it already happens with trimming.

 

And stop with the 'guessing'...CGC can positively identify a good proportion of pressed books. If they had some sort of tracking in place, they'd also be able to identify books that have been manipulated, so there's some more for the pot.

 

The comparisons between trimming and pressing need to stop.

 

They are not related, they are not analogous to one another.

 

Almost the entire hobby agrees that trimming is destructive and hate it. It is also detectable the majority of the time. It can be positively identified.

 

The hobby is split over the idea of pressing. Further more it is only detectable a small percentage of the time.

 

Even if NASA type technology were used I'd be willing to put money on the fact that detection would not get better than 50/50 because a pressed book *might* exhibit exposure to heat/humidity/pressure, but a book can be exposed to all of those things in more instances than just pressing, and a machine (unless it is a time machine) will never detect intent.

 

We just can't draw any comparisons or analogies between trimming and pressing. It's a dead end street.

 

 

Im with Nick here. Manipulation is manipulation. Your perception of what is acceptable, or the hobby as a whole bears no weight. One is changing the appearance of the book, while the other is also changing the appearance of a book. It's apples to apples roy.

 

Equating trimming with pressing is laughable.

No, saying that cgc is any better at detecting micro trimming than pressing is Trying to claim that neither is manipulation is also

[Flaming_Telepath]

[And books that have easily been tracked as pressed? All the mound city resubmits, the Pac Coasts, and the other pedigrees that are so easily identified? Those books would not be guesses, its common knowledge. And if you try and argue that cgc can not be positive they were pressed upon resubmission I may as well sell off my slabs now as I am pretty sure they have grading that blows with the wind.

 

I have no doubt that those books were pressed, but do you want CGC guessing at all the other books?

 

 

Do you want CGC labeling only some books as pressed while others get a clean bill of health because they slip through the system?

 

Think about it.

 

 

Yes I do, because it already happens with trimming.

 

And stop with the 'guessing'...CGC can positively identify a good proportion of pressed books. If they had some sort of tracking in place, they'd also be able to identify books that have been manipulated, so there's some more for the pot.

 

The comparisons between trimming and pressing need to stop.

 

They are not related, they are not analogous to one another.

 

Almost the entire hobby agrees that trimming is destructive and hate it. It is also detectable the majority of the time. It can be positively identified.

 

The hobby is split over the idea of pressing. Further more it is only detectable a small percentage of the time.

 

Even if NASA type technology were used I'd be willing to put money on the fact that detection would not get better than 50/50 because a pressed book *might* exhibit exposure to heat/humidity/pressure, but a book can be exposed to all of those things in more instances than just pressing, and a machine (unless it is a time machine) will never detect intent.

 

We just can't draw any comparisons or analogies between trimming and pressing. It's a dead end street.

 

 

Im with Nick here. Manipulation is manipulation. Your perception of what is acceptable, or the hobby as a whole bears no weight. One is changing the appearance of the book, while the other is also changing the appearance of a book. It's apples to apples roy.

 

Equating trimming with pressing is laughable.

 

Almost as ridiculous (but not quite I think) as trivialising murder and comparing that to pressing. Now that is x 10

 

Hey, Thomas, you loathsome squirming scrotum, you!

 

As I've been saying for a few days, aren't you banned, or something?

 

For being a general and stuff?

[Flaming_Telepath]

[And books that have easily been tracked as pressed? All the mound city resubmits, the Pac Coasts, and the other pedigrees that are so easily identified? Those books would not be guesses, its common knowledge. And if you try and argue that cgc can not be positive they were pressed upon resubmission I may as well sell off my slabs now as I am pretty sure they have grading that blows with the wind.

 

I have no doubt that those books were pressed, but do you want CGC guessing at all the other books?

 

 

Do you want CGC labeling only some books as pressed while others get a clean bill of health because they slip through the system?

 

Think about it.

 

 

Yes I do, because it already happens with trimming.

 

And stop with the 'guessing'...CGC can positively identify a good proportion of pressed books. If they had some sort of tracking in place, they'd also be able to identify books that have been manipulated, so there's some more for the pot.

 

The comparisons between trimming and pressing need to stop.

 

They are not related, they are not analogous to one another.

 

Almost the entire hobby agrees that trimming is destructive and hate it. It is also detectable the majority of the time. It can be positively identified.

 

The hobby is split over the idea of pressing. Further more it is only detectable a small percentage of the time.

 

Even if NASA type technology were used I'd be willing to put money on the fact that detection would not get better than 50/50 because a pressed book *might* exhibit exposure to heat/humidity/pressure, but a book can be exposed to all of those things in more instances than just pressing, and a machine (unless it is a time machine) will never detect intent.

 

We just can't draw any comparisons or analogies between trimming and pressing. It's a dead end street.

 

 

Im with Nick here. Manipulation is manipulation. Your perception of what is acceptable, or the hobby as a whole bears no weight. One is changing the appearance of the book, while the other is also changing the appearance of a book. It's apples to apples roy.

 

Equating trimming with pressing is laughable.

 

Correct.

 

However, comparing the abililty to detect trimming to the ability to detect pressing is very much a valid argument. (thumbs u

[Flaming_Telepath]

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...

 

Well, nobody actually did ask you, which is a good job really, as this is ing worthless. (thumbs u

[VintageComics]

However, comparing the abililty to detect trimming to the ability to detect pressing is very much a valid argument. (thumbs u

 

How can it be a valid comparison when most trimmed books are and can be detected and most pressed books are not and can't be detected.

 

Yes Beyonder, 98-99%.

 

[Flaming_Telepath]

However, comparing the abililty to detect trimming to the ability to detect pressing is very much a valid argument. (thumbs u

 

How can it be a valid comparison when most trimmed books are and can be detected and most pressed books are not and can't be detected.

 

Yes Beyonder, 98-99%.

 

 

Prove it.

 

'Cause that's just propaganda, nothing more, nothing less.

 

And just because you keep repeating it, with not one shred of evidence to back you up, doesn't mean it's so. (thumbs u

[VintageComics]

Do you want CGC labeling only some books as pressed while others get a clean bill of health because they slip through the system?

 

Think about it.

 

Ooh, ooh, this one`s too easy.

 

So are you saying that CGC should only recognize work on books when they`re capable of catching all such work with 100% accuracy?

 

So just say, for the sake of hypothetical argument, because it couldn`t possibly have happened, that CGC labeled only some books as trimmed while others get a clean bill of health because they slip through the system. Are you saying that CGC should therefore simply throw up its hands and stop trying to detect trimming and PLOD-ing books that it catches?

 

No Tim. I've been pretty clear about what I meant.

 

Trimming is mostly detectable. I'd say in the upper 90% range. Pressing is mostly undetectable. Mostly in the 50% range or less.

 

If you hired someone to make assessments, I think it's safe to say that you'd be ok with a near 100% rating and not so happy with a 50% or less rating.

 

Just saying. The two are not the same when it comes to detection.

 

 

 

 

[Flaming_Telepath]

And here's why...

 

How many of the Ewert books got through?

 

Most of them? Almost all of them?

 

Yup.

 

And now CGC tell you, with zero in the way of supporting evidence, that they can suddenly detect micro-trimming. No explanation. No examples. No change in policy.

 

And you believe them.

 

With not one shred of evidence.

 

And you want to pass this wildly_fanciful_statement on to us as gospel?

 

 

 

 

 

My ing arse.

[Flaming_Telepath]

Do you want CGC labeling only some books as pressed while others get a clean bill of health because they slip through the system?

 

Think about it.

 

Ooh, ooh, this one`s too easy.

 

So are you saying that CGC should only recognize work on books when they`re capable of catching all such work with 100% accuracy?

 

So just say, for the sake of hypothetical argument, because it couldn`t possibly have happened, that CGC labeled only some books as trimmed while others get a clean bill of health because they slip through the system. Are you saying that CGC should therefore simply throw up its hands and stop trying to detect trimming and PLOD-ing books that it catches?

 

No Tim. I've been pretty clear about what I meant.

 

Trimming is mostly detectable. I'd say in the upper 90% range. Pressing is mostly undetectable. Mostly in the 50% range or less.

 

If you hired someone to make assessments, I think it's safe to say that you'd be ok with a near 100% rating and not so happy with a 50% or less rating.

 

Just saying. The two are not the same when it comes to detection.

 

 

 

 

You have zero facts to back you up.

 

Nothing.

 

Nada.

 

Zilch.

 

Zero.

 

Those figures have been simply plucked out of your arse.

 

But you wish to base a whole debate on them?

 

Well, I'll ask you this, then...

 

What is the precise cut-off point in percentage terms for detection to become valid? What is the figure at which something becomes 'real'?

 

55%? 65%? 83.456372424%?

[VintageComics]

However, comparing the abililty to detect trimming to the ability to detect pressing is very much a valid argument. (thumbs u

 

How can it be a valid comparison when most trimmed books are and can be detected and most pressed books are not and can't be detected.

 

Yes Beyonder, 98-99%.

 

 

Prove it.

 

'Cause that's just propaganda, nothing more, nothing less.

 

And just because you keep repeating it, with not one shred of evidence to back you up, doesn't mean it's so. (thumbs u

 

Nick, I can't prove it because I don't have the money or the time to do a double blind test where I put a bunch of books in front of graders and have them see which is which, whether they like coke or pepsi, etc, etc.

 

What I do have is my experience with examining trimmed books vs. pressed books, and I know for a fact that pressed books are tougher to catch than trimmed books.

 

I extrapolated on my own experience to get my results.

 

You want to know another thing?

 

After the Ewert story broke I could easily catch most of Ewert's trim jobs from a scan without comparing before and after scans.

 

You just have to know what to look for. It was easy as pie.

 

With pressing, on the higher grade specimens, on the books that really matter, there is nothing to look for. It's invisible most of the time. The defects that you are pressing are almost invisible before pressing and after you press them they are completely invisible.

 

Anyhow, I don't want to make this thread a circle jerk, and I certainly have the utmost respect for both you and Tim and everyone else that I have discussed this with but I think it's time for me to bow out of this thread.

 

I respect NOD for trying to do something. I'm not a member of NOD, nor do I plan to be, but who knows...nothing is for certain.

I respect Brent for being a straight shooter. Not because I know him personally, or because he sold me a book, but because he can stand on his own merit.

I respect the APA for their position and hope you find a happy middle ground. It's a tough spot to be in, especially in the UK and Hong Kong where American comics are not as easy to come by.

 

I'm out of this thread gang. Wish you the best.

 

[sckao]

 

How about everyone chip in and give me $1 million dollars and I promise to come up with a machine within one year that will detect both pressing and trimming and most forms of restoration. (Without totally destroying the book in the process.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

[joe_collector]

After the Ewert story broke I could easily catch most of Ewert's trim jobs from a scan without comparing before and after scans.

 

So that means you couldn't catch him then, and you couldn't catch him now. As when Ewert, and others like him, send books to CGC, they do NOT sent in a "before" scan for easy comparison.

[esquirecomics]

[And books that have easily been tracked as pressed? All the mound city resubmits, the Pac Coasts, and the other pedigrees that are so easily identified? Those books would not be guesses, its common knowledge. And if you try and argue that cgc can not be positive they were pressed upon resubmission I may as well sell off my slabs now as I am pretty sure they have grading that blows with the wind.

 

I have no doubt that those books were pressed, but do you want CGC guessing at all the other books?

 

 

Do you want CGC labeling only some books as pressed while others get a clean bill of health because they slip through the system?

 

Think about it.

 

 

Yes I do, because it already happens with trimming.

 

And stop with the 'guessing'...CGC can positively identify a good proportion of pressed books. If they had some sort of tracking in place, they'd also be able to identify books that have been manipulated, so there's some more for the pot.

 

The comparisons between trimming and pressing need to stop.

 

They are not related, they are not analogous to one another.

 

Almost the entire hobby agrees that trimming is destructive and hate it. It is also detectable the majority of the time. It can be positively identified.

 

The hobby is split over the idea of pressing. Further more it is only detectable a small percentage of the time.

 

Even if NASA type technology were used I'd be willing to put money on the fact that detection would not get better than 50/50 because a pressed book *might* exhibit exposure to heat/humidity/pressure, but a book can be exposed to all of those things in more instances than just pressing, and a machine (unless it is a time machine) will never detect intent.

 

We just can't draw any comparisons or analogies between trimming and pressing. It's a dead end street.

 

 

 

With all due respect Roy, your approach is simply not true. Not because it is inaccurate as we are writing today, because in that sense I agree with you, but that does not mean tomorrow we will be saying the same thing. Some of the most prominent members of our hobby, especially within the dealer community, were actively color touching in the 1980s. Why? If you ask them today they will tell you there wasn't anything wrong with doing so. They thought it wasn't a big deal to place a dab here and a dab there. It didn't need to be disclosed. It wasn't, I believe in their minds, even restoration.

 

Fast forward to 1999 and the advent of CGC and CTs receiving purple labels, and you see how the view you now express came about with a hard line attitude. It could happen with pressing too if CGC ever decided to place it on the label, which I think it should do when it knows a book has been pressed. There are many, many instances when this could happen.

 

Indeed, just a few years ago the Overstreet Comic Book Price Guide/Gemstone defined pressing as restoration. Now, basically for "political" reasons, it waffles on the definition.

Anyone interested in reading about that discussion can do so here:

 

The Restoration of the Overstreet Comic Book Price Guide's Definition of Restoration

 

And it is similar to trimming even today in the sense that CGC is often placed in the position of having to apply their educated guess as to whether a book has been trimmed. I'm sorry but I simply do not believe, though I am more than willing to be proven wrong, that CGC has some sort of magic forumula to determine whether a book has been trimmed or not.

 

That is not to say some books won't display evidence of trimming, just like some books display evidence of pressing. And it may be that trimmed books are more easier to determine than pressed books, although I honestly don't know. It would depend on the trimming and it would depend on the pressing. But the detection application is not completely different.

 

Personally, I hate the fact that restoration is stigmatized in any way. It shouldn't be. There is nothing wrong with it, other than it might not be worth as much as an unrestored book.

[esquirecomics]

But if that were to happen, I would argue that we should definitely put a pressed label on all Mile High books as well since they also have been pressed after being in stacks for 30 - 40 years.

 

This is completely an apples and oranges argument Brent. And given that you are operating a pressing business I would expect you, of all people, to know that to be true.

[thirdgreenham]

How about everyone chip in and give me $1 million dollars and I promise to come up with a machine within one year that will detect both pressing and trimming and most forms of restoration. (Without totally destroying the book in the process.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

That would be the last time we saw sckao.

[esquirecomics]

"To Build Advantages for the Collector... by revealing the unique characteristics of each book we grade, so that a more informed buyer can confidently pay as much as he believes the book to be worth to his collection."

 

Wouldn't adding the designation "PRESSED" to the label, even if pressing is not considered restoration help to further that goal? Wouldn't pressing be a "unique characteristic"? Wouldn't knowing if a book was pressed or not help the buyer be more informed so that they can "confidently pay as much as he (she) believes the book to be worth to his (her) collection"?

 

 

Big time

 

The bolded part is particularly incisive. (thumbs u

 

I agree with both of you. Very much. It would definitely offer people much more info and choice. The problem is that even if you are labeling 50% of the books that are pressed and detected as such (and that is a high percentage IMO) you will still be allowing 50% of the books to slide through with the notion that they are NOT pressed when they very well could be.

 

This would simply enable people who press books to now direct their energy on the unpressed ones with more focus.

 

And again, I just don't see how you can ask a company to make 50/50 judgment calls.

 

Until there is a study whereby somebody can prove that properly pressed books on proper candidates CAN be detected and detected consistently, I'm going to automatically default to the 50/50 scenario (at best) every time.

 

No offense intended to anyone.

 

 

I think it's important to note that we can disagree about something and still like each other at the end of the day. I tell my coworkers that all the time. That's all it is, a difference of opinion. I don't think anyone here is the devil, we just perceive things differently.

 

With that said, my question would be - isn't making judgment calls pretty much what the entire business of grading is all about? CGC is making a judgment call every time they grade a book. If it isn't a judgment call, then grades would never change upon resubmission of books. A 9.0 would be a 9.0 every time it was submitted, barring any work done to the book, but that is not the case.

 

When you submit a book to CGC, you are paying them to make a judgment call, albeit a more educated judgment call, but a judgment call nevertheless. Why couldn't they add detecting pressing to the list of "unique characteristics" they look for when grading?

 

A very astute post IMHO.

 

+1 (thumbs u