Disclosure - Yes Or No?

[Foolkiller]

I sense a great disturbance in the force.

[Comicopolis]

I sense a great disturbance in the force.

 

Well, there's plenty of the disturbed in here

[bluechip]

Overall this has been a very rational thread. Part of the discussion, as always, focuses on whether pressing should be called restoration. Ultimately even that distinction doesn't matter as much as whether it's described that way with simple words that have universally agreed definitions or with colored labels that are subjective and highly emotion-charged because they are routinely used to denote a book that is "bad" or "not an investment." But it's very easy to find examples of labels where the color creates the counter-intuitive impression.

 

Would any average normal person consider this book "restored"

 

 

And that this book is NOT restored?

 

 

 

I think the answer is obvious.

 

But the comic investment conventional wisdwom says the first book, with only a couple hundred known copies and the first appearance of a world-famous character in the Batman mythos, is "restored" (and therefore "not for investment'), while the second book, a good book but not remotely rare and, in fact, enormously common, is worth far more because it can be slabbed with a blue label and a much higher number.

 

I don't think the guy who pressed out the FF 112 did anything wrong so long as he tells the buyer he pressed it and I think if he does tell people he pressed the book most people wouldn't really care -- UNLESS that book were put in a special colored label and the buyer had been told the label color means the book is "just for collectors" or "not for investment."

 

 

 

 

 

[Flaming_Telepath]

Overall this has been a very rational thread. Part of the discussion, as always, focuses on whether pressing should be called restoration. Ultimately even that distinction doesn't matter as much as whether it's described that way with simple words that have universally agreed definitions or with colored labels that are subjective and highly emotion-charged because they are routinely used to denote a book that is "bad" or "not an investment." But it's very easy to find examples of labels where the color creates the counter-intuitive impression.

 

Would any average normal person consider this book "restored"

 

 

And that this book is NOT restored?

 

 

 

I think the answer is obvious.

 

But the comic investment conventional wisdwom says the first book, with only a couple hundred known copies and the first appearance of a world-famous character in the Batman mythos, is "restored" (and therefore "not for investment'), while the second book, a good book but not remotely rare and, in fact, enormously common, is worth far more because it can be slabbed with a blue label and a much higher number.

 

I don't think the guy who pressed out the FF 112 did anything wrong so long as he tells the buyer he pressed it and I think if he does tell people he pressed the book most people wouldn't really care -- UNLESS that book were put in a special colored label and the buyer had been told the label color means the book is "just for collectors" or "not for investment."

 

 

 

 

 

You're like a broken record and unfortunately, stuff like this gets threads derailed.

 

Which, considering we've for once managed to conduct this like perfect gentlemen so far, isn't too great an idea.

[thehumantorch]

Easy yes.

 

I do want to point out that people who buy improvable books to press

aren't interested in pressed books as there is no profit in the deal. In general it must effect the price.

[rza808]

I really dont care either way. But I dont think someone should be expected to disclose anything. Why is it important to disclose pressing? I am just trying to get to the core of the topic. Is pressing bad for the book? Or is it really just a preference thing? Just tryin to understand why everyone brings this up everyday

[Comicopolis]

I really dont care either way. But I dont think someone should be expected to disclose anything. Why is it important to disclose pressing? I am just trying to get to the core of the topic. Is pressing bad for the book? Or is it really just a preference thing? Just tryin to understand why everyone brings this up everyday

 

And you've been on here for more than three years.

[Foolkiller]

I'm generally for disclosure, though forcing people or policing it is another matter. Still... I'd rather people disclose. Enough people care and would rather buy unpressed books, it just seems fair to them to do it. I'm not sure why there's a deeper analysis. I know the response, they should ask, but honestly, if you know, disclose.

[bluechip]

Overall this has been a very rational thread. Part of the discussion, as always, focuses on whether pressing should be called restoration. Ultimately even that distinction doesn't matter as much as whether it's described that way with simple words that have universally agreed definitions or with colored labels that are subjective and highly emotion-charged because they are routinely used to denote a book that is "bad" or "not an investment." But it's very easy to find examples of labels where the color creates the counter-intuitive impression.

 

Would any average normal person consider this book "restored"

 

 

And that this book is NOT restored?

 

 

 

I think the answer is obvious.

 

But the comic investment conventional wisdwom says the first book, with only a couple hundred known copies and the first appearance of a world-famous character in the Batman mythos, is "restored" (and therefore "not for investment'), while the second book, a good book but not remotely rare and, in fact, enormously common, is worth far more because it can be slabbed with a blue label and a much higher number.

 

I don't think the guy who pressed out the FF 112 did anything wrong so long as he tells the buyer he pressed it and I think if he does tell people he pressed the book most people wouldn't really care -- UNLESS that book were put in a special colored label and the buyer had been told the label color means the book is "just for collectors" or "not for investment."

 

 

 

 

 

You're like a broken record and unfortunately, stuff like this gets threads derailed.

 

Which, considering we've for once managed to conduct this like perfect gentlemen so far, isn't too great an idea.

 

I don't know what was ungentlemanly about the post, but if you took offense at any of it because you feel it's a "broken record" comment, I'd have to say that many of the comments made here have been made many times before and many repeated here in this same thread. I am sure they appreciate your not terming their comments a "broken record" or otherwise outside of gentlemanly discussion. .

[VintageComics]

I agree that proactive disclosure in a perfect world is ideal.

 

The problem with that, is that every book that is not disclosed as a known pressed book (in a perfect book where known pressed books are disclosed) would then be assumed to be unpressed even though it may have been pressed 10 times over by previous owners.

 

Unfortunately, nobody except the original owner knows if a book has been pressed or not.

 

Wouldn't it make more sense to pro-actively disclose which books you could tell for certain were NOT pressed? At least then, you would have an unimpeachable declaration.

 

I could say "this book was pressed" or "this book was not pressed" by me, but that doesn't guarantee anything about what previous owners have done with the book over it's 30, 40 or 70 year life span.

 

It's really no different than me declaring that "this book was not stored in my car in the summer under a stack of books" while the previous owner may have done just that with the book.

 

To simply say "I had these books pressed" simply creates a limited pool of knowledge, creating a limited pool of awareness for a limited group of books in a large body of water that will swallow them all up anyway, eventually.

 

So what you end up doing, in effect, is drawing a line in an already grey area. You create a small dividing line in the sand, in a massive ocean where all the other lines are washed away anyway. Does that make sense?

 

I just assume that all books are now pressed unless someone tells me the book is absolutely not pressed (not to the best of their knowledge, but that it was absolutely not pressed) and then act (or bid) accordingly. In my opinion, this is the most realistic way to perceive and confront the situation.

 

Unfortunately, this often causes the book to sell for a premium. Are the people who do not want to own pressed books prepared to pay that premium for an unpressed book?

 

Maybe Borock had it right.

 

 

 

 

[Flaming_Telepath]

I'm generally for disclosure, though forcing people or policing it is another matter. Still... I'd rather people disclose. Enough people care and would rather buy unpressed books, it just seems fair to them to do it. I'm not sure why there's a deeper analysis. I know the response, they should ask, but honestly, if you know, disclose.

 

Brian, I agree...it really is that simple.

 

It seems that the vast majority of people in this community (ever-so-slightly shy of 3 to 1) want to see disclosure here.

 

You want to sell in this community, you should be disclosing.

 

End of.

[Flaming_Telepath]

I agree that proactive disclosure in a perfect world is ideal.

 

The problem with that, is that every book that is not disclosed as a known pressed book (in a perfect book where known pressed books are disclosed) would then be assumed to be unpressed even though it may have been pressed 10 times over by previous owners.

 

Unfortunately, nobody except the original owner knows if a book has been pressed or not.

 

Wouldn't it make more sense to pro-actively disclose which books you could tell for certain were NOT pressed? At least then, you would have an unimpeachable declaration.

 

I could say "this book was pressed" or "this book was not pressed" by me, but that doesn't guarantee anything about what previous owners have done with the book over it's 30, 40 or 70 year life span.

 

It's really no different than me declaring that "this book was not stored in my car in the summer under a stack of books" while the previous owner may have done just that with the book.

 

To simply say "I had these books pressed" simply creates a limited pool of knowledge, creating a limited pool of awareness for a limited group of books in a large body of water that will swallow them all up anyway, eventually.

 

So what you end up doing, in effect, is drawing a line in an already grey area. You create a small dividing line in the sand, in a massive ocean where all the other lines are washed away anyway. Does that make sense?

 

I just assume that all books are now pressed unless someone tells me the book is absolutely not pressed (not to the best of their knowledge, but that it was absolutely not pressed) and then act (or bid) accordingly. In my opinion, this is the most realistic way to perceive and confront the situation.

 

Unfortunately, this often causes the book to sell for a premium. Are the people who do not want to own pressed books prepared to pay that premium for an unpressed book?

 

Maybe Borock had it right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm generally for disclosure, though forcing people or policing it is another matter. Still... I'd rather people disclose. Enough people care and would rather buy unpressed books, it just seems fair to them to do it. I'm not sure why there's a deeper analysis. I know the response, they should ask, but honestly, if you know, disclose.

 

Brian, I agree...it really is that simple.

 

It seems that the vast majority of people in this community (ever-so-slightly shy of 3 to 1) want to see disclosure here.

 

You want to sell in this community, you should be disclosing.

 

End of.

[Flaming_Telepath]

Overall this has been a very rational thread. Part of the discussion, as always, focuses on whether pressing should be called restoration. Ultimately even that distinction doesn't matter as much as whether it's described that way with simple words that have universally agreed definitions or with colored labels that are subjective and highly emotion-charged because they are routinely used to denote a book that is "bad" or "not an investment." But it's very easy to find examples of labels where the color creates the counter-intuitive impression.

 

Would any average normal person consider this book "restored"

 

 

And that this book is NOT restored?

 

 

 

I think the answer is obvious.

 

But the comic investment conventional wisdwom says the first book, with only a couple hundred known copies and the first appearance of a world-famous character in the Batman mythos, is "restored" (and therefore "not for investment'), while the second book, a good book but not remotely rare and, in fact, enormously common, is worth far more because it can be slabbed with a blue label and a much higher number.

 

I don't think the guy who pressed out the FF 112 did anything wrong so long as he tells the buyer he pressed it and I think if he does tell people he pressed the book most people wouldn't really care -- UNLESS that book were put in a special colored label and the buyer had been told the label color means the book is "just for collectors" or "not for investment."

 

 

 

 

 

You're like a broken record and unfortunately, stuff like this gets threads derailed.

 

Which, considering we've for once managed to conduct this like perfect gentlemen so far, isn't too great an idea.

 

I don't know what was ungentlemanly about the post, but if you took offense at any of it because you feel it's a "broken record" comment, I'd have to say that many of the comments made here have been made many times before and many repeated here in this same thread. I am sure they appreciate your not terming their comments a "broken record" or otherwise outside of gentlemanly discussion. .

 

This is your personal hobby-horse. You raise it time and time again. It doesn't have a lot of support. It certainly has no relevance to this discussion and poll.

 

Thread derailing always ends in tears.

[Comicopolis]

I really don't understand the need for obfuscation in this matter.

 

If you know a book has been pressed say - this book has been pressed.

 

If you don't know a book has been pressed and someone asks, say - I don't know if this book has been pressed.

 

Once your book has been sold it's not your (the seller) responsibility. Forget about it and let them deal with it.

 

It's not rocket science.

[VintageComics]

Fine.

 

Someone sells a book and they say that they had it pressed. People buy accordingly.

 

Someone sells a book and they say they didn't have it pressed. People buy accordingly (more people, the pro and anti pressing crowd for different reasons)...except the book may have been pressed 25 times before that. Nobody really knows for certain but people buy it as an unpressed book.

 

Sounds like an uncertain declaration. Nobody really knows but they buy as though it should be an unpressed book.

 

Finally, someone sells a book and they personally guarantee that the book has never been pressed.

 

Now you're actively disclosing something concrete and unequivocal.

[Comicopolis]

[VintageComics]

I really don't understand the need for obfuscation in this matter.

 

If you know a book has been pressed say - this book has been pressed.

 

If you don't know a book has been pressed and someone asks, say - I don't know if this book has been pressed.

 

Once your book has been sold it's not your (the seller) responsibility. Forget about it and let them deal with it.

 

It's not rocket science.

 

That's my point. Nobody really knows for sure if a book has been pressed except for the ones that they pressed themselves. Sure, you can declare those, but all that does is portray that the undeclared books were not pressed which is 50/50 at best.

 

If I did not press a book myself, I still don't know if that book has been pressed or not. I can make a judgment call, but that's not knowing. That's guessing.

 

 

 

 

[Comicopolis]

I really don't understand the need for obfuscation in this matter.

 

If you know a book has been pressed say - this book has been pressed.

 

If you don't know a book has been pressed and someone asks, say - I don't know if this book has been pressed.

 

Once your book has been sold it's not your (the seller) responsibility. Forget about it and let them deal with it.

 

It's not rocket science.

 

That's my point. Nobody really knows for sure if a book has been pressed except for the ones that they pressed themselves. Sure, you can declare those, but all that does is portray that the undeclared books were not pressed which is 50/50 at best.

 

If I did not press a book myself, I still don't know if that book has been pressed or not. I can make a judgment call, but that's not knowing. That's guessing.

 

 

 

 

Which part of the statement " I don't know if this book has been pressed." is confusing?

[Foolkiller]

Fine.

 

Someone sells a book and they say that they had it pressed. People buy accordingly.

 

Someone sells a book and they say they didn't have it pressed. People buy accordingly (more people, the pro and anti pressing crowd for different reasons)...except the book may have been pressed 25 times before that. Nobody really knows for certain but people buy it as an unpressed book.

 

Sounds like an uncertain declaration. Nobody really knows but they buy as though it should be an unpressed book.

 

Finally, someone sells a book and they personally guarantee that the book has never been pressed.

 

Now you're actively disclosing something concrete and unequivocal.

 

First, Roy, I'm not unsympathetic to your position, in fact a large part of me agrees with this. That's why I'm against a policing aspect. My point is, look, if you know, then you ought to say it. For instance, if you actually had the book pressed, you should say so. You shouldn't sell a book that you had pressed or pressed yourself, and then say, well it either hasn't been pressed or I don't know if it's been pressed. That'd be wrong to me.

 

If you don't know a book's history, you say, I have no idea.

 

It's just saying what the honest answer is. I don't want witch hunts over it either, but I would like some basic integrity and I think that we're throwing up arguments of scenarios of well... what if... to obfuscate the basic principle, if you know, disclose.

[Comicopolis]

This is about people knowing a book has been pressed and not disclosing.

 

It's not about not knowing if it was pressed before you bought it.