How in the world did this go unnoticed???

[Subliminal]

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.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totally being the key word here.

 

I don't need a million dollar machine to tell that most of the posters in this thread have been trimmed and a few pressed despite their skills displayed here in squirming

[slym2none]

I have been trimmed, but never pressed.

 

My fingernails, toenails, and hair need trimming every so often.

 

Then again, there was this one heavy chick who got on top and... well, that's not a discussion for this board. Let's just say, I might have been pressed and didn't know it.

 

 

 

 

-slym

[Ze-man]

 

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.

 

Hey Mark, I wanted to touch on something you brought up because I agree with you in regards that books can display traits of either being trimmed or pressed.

 

Typically obvious trims jobs can be labeled as trimmed because there is clear evidence that cannot occur by accident.(overly clean cover edges, no V effect present, splintered inks, cover not matching up to the interior etc..) Unlike bad press jobs, more then likely a suspect book is in its current state because some bozo cranked up the heat or pressure. But because the damage or flaws can mimic improper storage conditions, or even amatuer pressing(stacked under books) it is hard to determine that pressing alone was why the comic looks the way it does now, let alone label it as pressed.

 

So I would argue that while detection methods might not differ greatly between the two, labeling them is.

 

That said, I can appreciate the frustration that some books that are guestimated as being trimmed to err on the side of caution are labeled as trimmed, when many obvious badly pressed books are not.

[qualitycomix]

 

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.

 

Hey Mark, I wanted to touch on something you brought up because I agree with you in regards that books can display traits of either being trimmed or pressed.

 

Typically obvious trims jobs can be labeled as trimmed because there is clear evidence that cannot occur by accident.(overly clean cover edges, no V effect present, splintered inks, cover not matching up to the interior etc..) Unlike bad press jobs, more then likely a suspect book is in its current state because some bozo cranked up the heat or pressure. But because the damage or flaws can mimic improper storage conditions, or even amatuer pressing(stacked under books) it is hard to determine that pressing alone was why the comic looks the way it does now, let alone label it as pressed.

 

So I would argue that while detection methods might not differ greatly between the two, labeling them is.

 

That said, I can appreciate the frustration that some books that are guestimated as being trimmed to err on the side of caution are labeled as trimmed, when many obvious badly pressed books are not.

 

Excellent points

[esquirecomics]

 

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.

 

Hey Mark, I wanted to touch on something you brought up because I agree with you in regards that books can display traits of either being trimmed or pressed.

 

Typically obvious trims jobs can be labeled as trimmed because there is clear evidence that cannot occur by accident.(overly clean cover edges, no V effect present, splintered inks, cover not matching up to the interior etc..) Unlike bad press jobs, more then likely a suspect book is in its current state because some bozo cranked up the heat or pressure. But because the damage or flaws can mimic improper storage conditions, or even amatuer pressing(stacked under books) it is hard to determine that pressing alone was why the comic looks the way it does now, let alone label it as pressed.

 

So I would argue that while detection methods might not differ greatly between the two, labeling them is.

 

That said, I can appreciate the frustration that some books that are guestimated as being trimmed to err on the side of caution are labeled as trimmed, when many obvious badly pressed books are not.

 

Excellent points

 

Definitely valid points.

[batman_fan]

So to argue that Most of the time are good enough results for one and not the other is ridonkulous.

 

Pat, we're not talking most of the time for pressing.

 

We are talking about SOME of the time pressing is detectable and MOST of the time trimming is detectable.

 

There is a really big difference between the two.

 

People will respect an educated decision that is mostly correct. They won't respect an educated decision that is mostly incorrect.

 

I can't believe anyone would even debate this.

 

 

But Roy, If I asked you before the Ewert incident, would you have said they can detect trimming 100%? Probably most people would say yes or very near 100%. After Ewert not so good, and right after Ewert you had a well known dealer slide a trimmed Ewert book back through CGC a second time and get a blue label. This was during the time when CGC was on a tight watch. What was learned from the Ewert incident?

 

#1 Only trim books that have no scan record (this it how he really got caught).

#2 Improve your trimming technique

 

Back in business. Saying CGC can detect almost all trimming almost 100% is just wrong.

[tth2]

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

 

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

Sorry, you`re right. Don`t know why I wrote Methuselah, although as you say, they`re most likely the same guy anyways.

[VintageComics]

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

 

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

Sorry, you`re right. Don`t know why I wrote Methuselah, although as you say, they`re most likely the same guy anyways.

 

Because you have a soft spot in your heart for old testament biblical patriarchs?

 

[tth2]

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

 

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

Sorry, you`re right. Don`t know why I wrote Methuselah, although as you say, they`re most likely the same guy anyways.

 

Because you have a soft spot in your heart for old testament biblical patriarchs?

 

 

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

Congratulations, you lasted 1 hour and 4 minutes longer than I thought you would!

 

[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.

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.

Alright. (thumbs u Delicately, very delicately, ...I'm going to ask if both you guys could comment on those other points on the list?

 

Agree or disagree, I'm just curious what you both think, if those efforts, along with the one you both agreed on, were actually in play. Again, they were:

 

• Ask. Put a yes/no field on the submission form for 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.

Whadaya think?

[tth2]

If Phil Mickelson uses these manipulated clubs and shoots 12 under par, is that as impressive as Rocco Mediate shooting 12 under par using un-manipulated clubs? (Is a pressed 9.6 as impressive as a naturally well-preserved 9.6?)

 

If Phil Mickelson shoots an all-time low score using these clubs, should that record not be questioned? (If a book reaches the top of the Census through pressing, is it really that impressive?)

 

If Phil Mickelson wins a tournament using these clubs, but no one can detect it, does that somehow make everything all right? (Is it OK to press books just because lack of 100% reliable detection has prevented CGC or anyone else from noting it?)

 

Is Phil Mickelson enhancing the sport of golf by his "cheating within the rules"? (Does pressing make the comic book hobby and marketplace better?)

 

Or, is Phil Mickelson simply cheating?

 

Fri Jan 29, 2010 10:56 am EST

 

Tour players accuse Phil Mickelson of 'cheating' with old clubs

 

By Jay Busbee

San Francisco Chronicle

 

The PGA Tour season's not even a month old, and we've already got our first major controversy. And Phil Mickelson has played exactly 18 holes, and he's smack-dab in the middle of it.

 

At issue are new club groove rules that went into effect on Jan. 1. Long story short: golfers were using specially-cut grooves on their clubs to spin the ball more sharply and play more effectively out of the rough; the penalty for putting a shot into the rough was thus minimized. So the USGA and the Royal & Ancient, two of golf's major governing bodies, decreed that such grooves were illegal and could not be used on Tour starting this year. (For more detail, check our handy guide to the new rules right here.)

 

However, golfers are expert at wiggling their way out of tough situations, and they discovered that a lawsuit Ping filed against the PGA Tour and the USGA way back in 1993 exempted wedges made before 1990 from the new rules. (Don't try to figure it out, just accept it.) Lo and behold, what should turn up in the bags of golfers like John Daly and Phil Mickelson but some vintage Ping Eye 2 wedges, clubs that are old enough to legally drink.

 

The golfers' decision to squeeze through the loophole hasn't sat well with many of their peers. "It's cheating, and I'm appalled Phil has put [the grandfathered club] into play," Scott McCarron, a three-time Tour winner, told the San Francisco Chronicle."All those guys should be ashamed of themselves for doing that ... As one of our premier players, (Mickelson) should be one of the guys who steps up and says this is wrong."

 

"I don't like it at all, not one bit," added Rocco Mediate. "It's against the spirit of the rule." (thumbs u

 

Mickelson conceded at a Wednesday press conference that while he knew the Eye 2 clubs didn't conform to the new rules, they nonetheless were legal, and that was good enough for him: "All that matters is it's OK under the rules of golf."

 

Ah, there it is: the "rules of golf." To a great extent, the USGA has no one to blame but itself for this situation. If the USGA allowed the Pings in, it can't then turn around and arbitrarily say they're not legal. Golf is defined by its rules, and selective enforcement here is no more justifiable than, say, taking a free drop when your ball doesn't end up exactly where you'd like it.

 

But ... golf is also a sport of self-policed rules. You call your own fouls. And from that standpoint, it makes sense that other players would expect Phil to step up and say that the spirit of the law ought to take precedence over the letter of the law. If he were to publicly distance himself from the clubs, plenty of other pros would, too.

 

Regardless, this is an early reminder of how it's going to be for Phil. In the absence of Tiger Woods, with the expectation that Phil will take over the No. 1 slot, every move he makes will be scrutinized, dissected and criticized. And if he wins, it'll only get that much worse.

Normally this kind of thing would bother the hell out of me because it`s definitely cheating. But since it`s Mickelson the Choker, even a groove straight from his putter to the cup won`t help him because he`ll still choke like the choking choker that he is.

 

Oh, but if he manages to win a few non-Majors tournaments with his cheating wedge, they`ll start appearing in every player`s bag. As I said earlier, rationalization is a powerful force in the human psyche.

[october]

The reality has come to this: If you don't want someone else to take advantage of you, you need to be pressing books. Whether you agree or disagree, if you don't press major books, many times you are facilitating the wealth of a select few who will target you and purchase books knowing you don't press.

 

That's really what it all boils down to. I press now for that exact reason. Set aside all of the histrionics, soapbox preaching and ethical debates...when someone buys a 9.4 from me for $800, presses it into a 9.6 and flips it for $3000, things need to change in my selling model. Period. Nobody likes playing the sucker or the mark, and I'd rather have that profit riding on my hip. I don't know too many people in this hobby, collectors or dealers, who are in this to make other people money.

I won't do it. If I make a sufficient profit out of selling a book unpressed, I'm content, even if I'm potentially leaving money on the table for someone with less scruples. Squeezing every last possible dollar out of a book isn't worth sacrificing my principles.

 

"Principles", in the buying and selling of pressed comic books, are the luxury of those who do not depend on the money made from them. I press, I disclose and I save the ethical hand wringing for things of actual consequence.

Thus confirming the Jeff Goldblum character`s point in "The Big Chill" about the importance of rationalizations.

 

Dude, did you just reference The Big Chill? God are you old.

[VintageComics]

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

 

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

Sorry, you`re right. Don`t know why I wrote Methuselah, although as you say, they`re most likely the same guy anyways.

 

Because you have a soft spot in your heart for old testament biblical patriarchs?

 

 

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

Congratulations, you lasted 1 hour and 4 minutes longer than I thought you would!

 

Dagnabit, I couldn't resist a biblical reference post.

 

[esquirecomics]

The reality has come to this: If you don't want someone else to take advantage of you, you need to be pressing books. Whether you agree or disagree, if you don't press major books, many times you are facilitating the wealth of a select few who will target you and purchase books knowing you don't press.

 

That's really what it all boils down to. I press now for that exact reason. Set aside all of the histrionics, soapbox preaching and ethical debates...when someone buys a 9.4 from me for $800, presses it into a 9.6 and flips it for $3000, things need to change in my selling model. Period. Nobody likes playing the sucker or the mark, and I'd rather have that profit riding on my hip. I don't know too many people in this hobby, collectors or dealers, who are in this to make other people money.

I won't do it. If I make a sufficient profit out of selling a book unpressed, I'm content, even if I'm potentially leaving money on the table for someone with less scruples. Squeezing every last possible dollar out of a book isn't worth sacrificing my principles.

 

"Principles", in the buying and selling of pressed comic books, are the luxury of those who do not depend on the money made from them. I press, I disclose and I save the ethical hand wringing for things of actual consequence.

Thus confirming the Jeff Goldblum character`s point in "The Big Chill" about the importance of rationalizations.

 

Dude, did you just reference The Big Chill? God are you old.

 

Many a question can be answered by simply referencing The Big Chill.

[mschmidt]

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

 

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that for a few years "the Overstreet Comic Book Price Guide/Gemstone defined pressing as restoration"? Because, as far as I know, only the 2003-2005 OSPG's included "pressing out wrinkles" as part of their definition of restoration? :shrug:

[Freddie-migration]

[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?

 

Whoever you are, or think you are?, you could try and refrain from being the keyboard-tough CGC bashing dirty old man for a change, you may find you like it.

There again maybe not.

I'm sorry you were bullied at school, but that's really not my fault.

You have a great weekend now, I hear Kelly Brook is to be found on a shopping channel somewhere.

[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?

 

Whoever you are, or think you are?, you could try and refrain from being the keyboard-tough CGC bashing dirty old man for a change, you may find you like it.

There again maybe not.

I'm sorry you were bullied at school, but that's really not my fault.

You have a great weekend now, I hear Kelly Brook is to be found on a shopping channel somewhere.

 

ECX7Collection Alex DeLarge GoonChild Jasmine Luke Thomas Hughes Paul Robert Freddie, why don't you take your multiple personalities and shed-load of lies and peddle it all somewhere else?

 

You've been down this road here many times before and it's always ended badly. You can fling any accusation my way that you like, but it's not me who's continually coming back here with a different persona with a different 'backstory'. You have serious issues, obsession being one of them, and I'd recommend you get out of your mother's basement and seek professional help. (thumbs u

[Freddie-migration]

In the first instance (and I say this in reference to all your posts targeted toward me) I am at a loss, I can only assume you are privy to some information which is beyond me. Maybe the copious amounts of alcohol you appear to consume, are not only fuelling your irritability but your judgement as well.

I recommend the odd soft drink now and again.

 

In the second instance, I cannot leave my Mom's basement. I have a 99 year lease, which I must honour.

 

Now really I have a pleasant day to spend with my family, so knock yourself out and post away to your heart's content.

Now if only I could find the key to the basement door?

[tth2]

The reality has come to this: If you don't want someone else to take advantage of you, you need to be pressing books. Whether you agree or disagree, if you don't press major books, many times you are facilitating the wealth of a select few who will target you and purchase books knowing you don't press.

 

That's really what it all boils down to. I press now for that exact reason. Set aside all of the histrionics, soapbox preaching and ethical debates...when someone buys a 9.4 from me for $800, presses it into a 9.6 and flips it for $3000, things need to change in my selling model. Period. Nobody likes playing the sucker or the mark, and I'd rather have that profit riding on my hip. I don't know too many people in this hobby, collectors or dealers, who are in this to make other people money.

I won't do it. If I make a sufficient profit out of selling a book unpressed, I'm content, even if I'm potentially leaving money on the table for someone with less scruples. Squeezing every last possible dollar out of a book isn't worth sacrificing my principles.

 

"Principles", in the buying and selling of pressed comic books, are the luxury of those who do not depend on the money made from them. I press, I disclose and I save the ethical hand wringing for things of actual consequence.

Thus confirming the Jeff Goldblum character`s point in "The Big Chill" about the importance of rationalizations.

 

Dude, did you just reference The Big Chill? God are you old.

I`ve never denied it!

[whocares]

OK..I am game...You've made an incredible arguement for the paninni..I want one, and I will also skip the 25 cent cup of coffe for a 6 dollar Frappuccino Late with Whip cream....

You know who's coffee is actually really good. McDonalds. Yep. I love it. Can't stand Starbucks. Tim Hortons is great, but I was very surprised at how good Rotten Ronnies coffee was. They must sprinkle just a little crack in it or something.

 

Finally something I can post on with conviction...I also do like Starbucks, enjoy Tim's but got dragged to Rotten Ronnies 3 weeks ago to try their coffee ... was quite surprised how good it was. (thumbs u