• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

IF PRESSING ISN'T RESTORATION.....

Started by THE_BEYONDER,

217 posts in this topic

joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
Posted
OK, so you are saying that CGC will indeed see a book that they know is pressed, make a judgement call on it as to whether is was "properly pressed" and then give it the green light?

 

I don't understand where this "properly pressed" stuff came from? confused-smiley-013.gif

 

Have you ever seen a CGC PLOD with a notation of "improper pressing" on it?

 

Personally, I don't think CGC cares if you got a resto expert to press the book, or you stuck it under some encyclopedias, and the only modifier would be the CGC grade.

 

Pro Press Job: CGC 8.5 goes to CGC 9.6

 

Basic Press Job: CGC 8.5 goes to CGC 9.2

 

At no time have I seen CGC give a PLOD for improper or amateur pressing, and I think this "proper pressing" BS is just PR for the "clean and press" sellers

 

"Buy our books, they're "properly pressed" !!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fantastic_four

fantastic_four

Posted
Posted
With all due respect, Timely, that's your opinion. I think erasure and pressing are restoration because the condition of the book changes from worse to better. I agree that intent does not matter.

 

So the people who believe in vertical stacking are just totally screwed? I remember some guy arguing a year or two ago that storing comics in vertical stacks is better because it compresses at least half the comics in the stack, thereby reducing their exposure to air and slowing the aging process. If this guy has some VG to VF comics at the bottom of some of his stacks, are they all gonna be purple label in a few years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FFB

FFB

Posted
Posted

Thanks. I think about it this way -- what's the difference between amateur color touch on the one hand, and a kid coloring in Wonder Woman's outfit with a purple marker on the other hand? The difference is whether the marker is being used to cover up color loss or not. If anything is done to a book in order to remove or alter a defect to make it unnoticeable or less noticeable, I consider it to be restoration.

 

A book has to have flaws before it can be "restored,"

 

Yes yes yes yes yes! thumbsup2.gif893applaud-thumb.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fantastic_four

fantastic_four

Posted
Posted
At no time have I see CGC give a PLOD for improper or amateur pressing.

 

They do sometimes note it. If they note it at all, doesn't that infer it's amateur pressing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Timely

Timely

Posted
Posted

The bottom line is... do you want CGC guessing on whether a book you have submitted is pressed or not?

 

And if professional pressing IS restoration but other books that have been incidentally pressed (Church books) ARE NOT restored do you want CGC guessing at which one yours is? confused-smiley-013.gif

 

Timely

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
Posted
They do sometimes note it. If they note it at all, doesn't that infer it's amateur pressing?

 

Do you have an example of this? I'd imagine "clean and press" would be noted, but just a straight press job?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PovertyRow

PovertyRow

Posted
Posted

As I've said before...if you keep a book on a table for 1 full year and afterwards you take a dust cloth to it...you are removing dirt...it is not restoration...even though technically you are "cover cleaning" the book.

 

And as I have replied to that before, the dust does not impact the book. (well, actually it CAN depending on the composition) but assume it is simple benign dust. Nothing is impacted. The structure of the pages etc remain as they were. You are just removing syrface dust.

 

You take an eraser to a coverand you impact the "clay" and the calendaring of that cover. You are actually removing or modifying it. No getting around that.

 

Only when things have been added in an attempt to restore a book can you rightfully call it a restored book.

 

Where did you come up with this theory? On what is it based? Also, is not pressure "added" to a book? Is not humidity "added" to a book? (and believe me, pressure and humidity DO impact the paper composition - it is definitely modified).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FFB

FFB

Posted
Posted

Is that low amount of pressure sufficient to remove a bend permanently? I didn't think it was.

 

With all due respect, Timely, that's your opinion. I think erasure and pressing are restoration because the condition of the book changes from worse to better. I agree that intent does not matter.

 

So the people who believe in vertical stacking are just totally screwed? I remember some guy arguing a year or two ago that storing comics in vertical stacks is better because it compresses at least half the comics in the stack, thereby reducing their exposure to air and slowing the aging process. If this guy has some VG to VF comics at the bottom of some of his stacks, are they all gonna be purple label in a few years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Red Hook

Red Hook

Posted
Posted
A book has to have flaws before it can be "restored,"

 

Yes yes yes yes yes! thumbsup2.gif893applaud-thumb.gif

 

 

Sooooooooooo, if Jason Ewert unslabs a 9.4, because he can tell from looking at the slab (which as we know hides a ton of defects), and presses it, and resubs for a 9.6........is the "flaw" in the eye of the beholder? When it comes down to the higher end of the grading scale...it get's near impossible to quantify.

 

Say I buy the 9.6 and decide, hey, I think I can push this to a 9.8!........

 

 

It reminds me of the scene in Spinal Tap where the inteviewer is being shown the amp with the dial that goes up to 11!

 

Nigel Tufnel: The numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and....

Marty DiBergi: Oh, I see. And most amps go up to ten?

Nigel Tufnel: Exactly.

Marty DiBergi: Does that mean it's louder? Is it any louder?

Nigel Tufnel: Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You're on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your guitar. Where can you go from there? Where?

Marty DiBergi: I don't know.

Nigel Tufnel: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?

Marty DiBergi: Put it up to eleven.

Nigel Tufnel: Eleven. Exactly. One louder.

Marty DiBergi: Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?

Nigel Tufnel: [Pause.] These go to eleven.

 

So for Jason Ewert and Matt Nelson and Heritage and all our pals....I would like to introduce....

 

CGC 11.0 ! Mega Super Mint!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FFB

FFB

Posted
Posted

Steve B. said that they only give the PLOD for pressing to books that were disassembled. Amateur or professional does not matter, if the book was disassembled.

 

At no time have I see CGC give a PLOD for improper or amateur pressing.

 

They do sometimes note it. If they note it at all, doesn't that infer it's amateur pressing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fantastic_four

fantastic_four

Posted
Posted
Do you have an example of this? I'd imagine "clean and press" would be noted, but just a straight press job?

 

No examples of ONLY a press. It doesn't count if it's accompanied by a clean?

 

Wait--none of us have brought up Borock's explicit comment about what a "correct" press is and it just re-occured to me. He said it's not pressing if you don't remove the cover, right? Everything else is fair game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rip

Rip

Posted
Posted

I disagree about the Edgar Church books being "restored" if they were at the bottom of the pile. A book has to have flaws before it can be "restored," and there were no flaws on the uncreased books in the bunch because of the way they were cared for and stored. Simply adding pressure to a book doesn't make an already NM book a "restored" book. Otherwise, one could make the ridiculous argument that any time you stack one book on top of another, you are "pressing" the bottom book. Just my two cents.

Who says they have to be regarded as restored, they are PRESSED.

Also if the book didn't have creases to begin with (that expand with a large amount of pressure) how would I know it those Church copies were pressed in the first place unless they have these defects? DO those "pressed books" you mention have defects like a smashed clam shell, wide creases etc. Just something to think about, if this did become a system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fantastic_four

fantastic_four

Posted
Posted
Is that low amount of pressure sufficient to remove a bend permanently? I didn't think it was.

 

I dunno really, I've never tried vertical stacking and have no idea how much pressure can be exerted by hundreds of books stacked up except the anecdotes about how flat the Church books from the bottom of the stacks were. Tripps said the same thing about the Pacific Coasts from the bottom of those stacks. Sounds like someone needs to experiment with different PSI levels on books to see what the effects are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PovertyRow

PovertyRow

Posted
Posted

have no idea how much pressure can be exerted by hundreds of books stacked up

 

I'd assume it would be a decent amount of pressure because 1) the pressure is not spread out over several book widths/heights, but all concentrated in a single stack of single book size, and 2) trees are darned heavy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
Posted
Sooooooooooo, if Jason Ewert unslabs a 9.4, because he can tell from looking at the slab (which as we know hides a ton of defects), and presses it, and resubs for a 9.6........is the "flaw" in the eye of the beholder?

 

But that's not what happens. Sellers who "press for CGC cash" usually buy raw or graded VF to VF/NM books with slight spine rolls, distro ink, or other similar defects, and then clean 'em and press 'em, then submit to CGC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
Posted
No examples of ONLY a press. It doesn't count if it's accompanied by a clean?

 

Of course not, as cleaning has always gotten a PLOD from CGC.

 

I guess "proper pressing" means you do not disassemble the book and you don't dip it in cleaning solution. Anything else is fair game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Red Hook

Red Hook

Posted
Posted

Well, in the case of the Daredevil 11, Ewert did acquire Shin Kao's Green River 9.4, and resubbed for a 9.6 that would have gone for a hell of a lot more cash if he hadn't pulled the listing on Ebay. It was Shin's opinion just from looking at the scans that the book was pressed. Shin owned the book raw before he submitted it to CGC the first time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
Posted
I'd assume it would be a decent amount of pressure because 1) the pressure is not spread out over several book widths/heights, but all concentrated in a single stack of single book size, and 2) trees are darned heavy!

 

The difference is the TIME it takes. There is no way you could stack comics for the same "press time" and then remove them and hope to get the same CGC grade as a pressed copy.

 

That's what so ludicrous about the whole pressing debate, equating a few minutes of press-time with the incredibly rare instance of comics properly stacked for decades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing