Why Pressing ISN'T Restoration 2 2

[sfilosa]

If both books are indentical, then I would take the one that WASN'T PRESSED.

 

But the fact that one book is pressed and one isn't, is so far down on my priority list of things to factor into purchasing a comic that it is ALMOST irrelavent to me.

 

It would be comparable to having to pick between TWO IDENTICAL employees for a promotion. Both are great, but one had a slightly higher SAT score ten years ago. Got to base it on something.

 

Regarding the date stamp issue, what about someones name on a book? That definitely occured AFTER manufacturing and distribution. Obviously, CGC doesn't deem this restoration.

 

And what about erasing pencil writing from a book? I still don't see how that ISN'T restoration? But CGC doesn't deem it restoration. My guess is because there were a number of pedigree books that it was known had some erasing done to them. But I'm not sure.

[PovertyRow]

But the fact that one book is pressed and one isn't, is so far down on my priority list of things to factor into purchasing a comic that it is ALMOST irrelavent to me

 

OK - it is far down your list - but WHY would you take the unpressed book?

 

Regarding the date stamp issue, what about someones name on a book? That definitely occured AFTER manufacturing and distribution. Obviously, CGC doesn't deem this restoration.

 

A name written on a book happens after-retail. A date stamp happens before retail. The name is a defect. The date stamp, especially in older books when the date stamps were much more common, is part of the pre-retail process. Not sure what you are getting at here. I see no correlation at all between a date stamp and a name written on the book.

 

 

And what about erasing pencil writing from a book? I still don't see how that ISN'T restoration? But CGC doesn't deem it restoration.

 

Heck. I have ALWAYS said any erasure is restoration. I really do not care what CGC says is or is not restoration. The fact they allow amateur scotch tape on a blue label kind of says it all. CGC tends to look not at the reality of restoration processes but at the history of comic books. Only problem with that is that the history of paper restoration goes back a lot further than the history of comic book restoration. I have overall confidence for CGC to report on the label most restorative processes. But the ability for CGC to report on the label restoration has absolutely NO bearing on their credibility as to what actually comprises restration. They are very different subjects.

[sfilosa]

I see no correlation at all between a date stamp and a name written on the book.

 

 

 

The correlation is that writing on a book is not considered a defect anymore than a date stamp is? I'm not saying it's restoration, but it definitely happened after the manufacturing and distribution process.

 

Regarding picking the unpressed book instead of an identical pressed book, that just makes sense as the right answer. But I wouldn't feel any different owning the pressed book in my collection.

[PovertyRow]

The correlation is that writing on a book is not considered a defect anymore than a date stamp is?

 

Writing on a book (disregarding retail writing where the "date stamp" or arrival info can also be writing as oppsoed to a stamp) - any writing on a book from a buyer/owner whatever IS a defect. Where did you pick up tghat writing on a book is not a defect???????

 

Regarding picking the unpressed book instead of an identical pressed book, that just makes sense as the right answer. But I wouldn't feel any different owning the pressed book in my collection.

 

Again - you are trying to create a definition of restoration. WHAT makes sense as the right answer? The unpressed book does. So WHY unpressed vs pressed with all else being equal? It is important you answer this piece of the puzzle.

[Timely]

2) I agree with your definition if you remove "adding or subtracting material". The proper definition of restoration, in my opinion, is any process that improves the appearance or structural integrity of the book. This includes pressing.

 

I cannot agree with this statement, it's too general. Putting a book in a mylar is a "process that improves the appearance of the book." I know this sounds stupid...but it does qualify. It's not a good definition to me.

 

Your question about having two 9.4 books in front of you, one pressed and one not pressed, is a loaded question. First of all, if I was told which one was pressed and which was not I'd pick the unpressed one, and so would everyone else on the planet...all other things being equal. Why? Because for all I know the unpressed 9.4 could turn into a pressed 9.8! The pressed 9.4 could have been a 9.2 down to a 7.0 and will never be any better.

 

The real question you should ask yourself is...If you have two 9.4 books that are equal in every way except one is pressed and one is not...can you tell the difference?

 

Timely

[sfilosa]

Writing on a book (disregarding retail writing where the "date stamp" or arrival info can also be writing as oppsoed to a stamp) - any writing on a book from a buyer/owner whatever IS a defect. Where did you pick up tghat writing on a book is not a defect???????

 

Larson copies, Winnipeg copies.

 

Both have writing on the book and I believe I have seen CGC 9.6's.

 

Once again, I am using what I believe to be CGC standards.

 

The reason I would pick an unpressed book over a pressed indentical book is because maybe I could press, the unpressed book and get a higher grade.

[PovertyRow]

I cannot agree with this statement, it's too general. Putting a book in a mylar is a "process that improves the appearance of the book."

 

No, putting a book in mylar PRESERVES the apearance of the book. You seem to ignore, Timely, the basic premise that restoration UNDOES something. Putting a book in mylar may PREVENT something, but it does not UNDO anything. I really do not get this.

 

And my ideas are not general, they are quite specific. As i have said about the Church collection - and been corrected by you but you did not answer my questions - the Church books put in stacks did not have the chance to accumulate many of the handling defects. The stacks PREVENTED the handling defects. They did not UNDO already accumulated handling defects. And it is that quality that makes the Church collection so special. These are books that due to their storage and handling conditions were, at least when first seen by Chuck, quite special. But what happened to them? They were moved and lifted and crated and driven and removed form the driven vehicle and uncratted and sorted and listed etc. That handling is gonna do SOME damage - so no wonder, as you said, many of your Church books were in need of pressing or were pressed etc. Did you see them at Chruich's place? Do you know how they looked before they were moved?

 

Your question about having two 9.4 books in front of you, one pressed and one not pressed, is a loaded question. First of all, if I was told which one was pressed and which was not I'd pick the unpressed one, and so would everyone else on the planet...all other things being equal. Why? Because for all I know the unpressed 9.4 could turn into a pressed 9.8!

 

To this I honestly have to say WTF? Are you serious? So you would take a true, untouched 9.4 and have it pressed in the hopes of a 9.8? I really do not understand that logic. Actually it pisses me off. The books would no longer be a 9.4 nor a 9.8. It would be a "Pressed 9.8". Now CGC may not think so but *I* (or YOU) would KNOW so - and that doesn't bother you? That you know you have books in your collection that took a pressing to get an even higher CGC blue label?

 

So let me ask this: 2 books - both CGC 9.8. One pressed from a 9.4 to 9.8 (using your scenario). The other 9.8 needing NO PRESSING. Which would you choose and why?

 

Like many others here you seem to be missing the question - IS PRESSING RESTO? I say yes. I have read absolutely nothing to dissuade me from that except for potential scams where we can get an untouched HG book and make it even higher in CGC's eye by pressing. So what if it does make it higher in CGC's eyes? Does that somehow NOT make it restoration because they cannot detect it? Or do you prefer to have a fantasy collection made up of books modified in ways that CGC cannot detect, knowing that changes have been made to the books, but feeling warm and fuzzy because - well - right now - in 2004 - CGC says they are blue label?

[PovertyRow]

Both have writing on the book and I believe I have seen CGC 9.6's.

 

Yes, on Larson and Winnipeg and even Church - there is some writing. The writing helps to establish provenance - helps to prove the pedigree. But is it a defect? Well, it depends. If the writing is from the retailer (please note I did say "disregarding retail writing where the "date stamp" or arrival info can also be writing as oppsoed to a stamp - yeah - I typoed "opposed" but what to do - it is Pov). Note I also said not only a "date stamp" but also "arrival info" - so do the Larson or Winnipeg have retailer arrival info on them?

 

The thing again - and again the basic point is missed - resto should be called resto - and writing should be called writing. Now if writing on the cover helps to extablish provenance relating to a specific pedigree - it is up to the collector to determine if such writing is detrimental. As such writing is usually considered beneficial in establishing the provenance, most collectors would probable accept it as a valuable addition.

 

Does that make it a non-defect? To my mind, no it does not. BUT - and this seems to be something else not usually considered, if a particular pedigree has non-retail writing that proves the pedigree then CGC should properly garde the book including the writing as a defect. But the pedigree appelation should be sufficient to let people who know how to grade factor in that defect writing and come up with a real value. Actually, if CGC made a notation saying "downgraded from 9.4 to whatever due to writing on the cover that establishes so-and-so pedigree" I would be delighted. We would have truly impartial GRADING combned with a good knowledge of HISTORY.

 

Bottom line is there should be no shame in any of these things: restoration, wirting etc. There should be simple reporting and then leaving it up to the collector to determine their own conscience and budget. Is that a bad thing?

[FFB]

Just thought I'd jump in quickly on the issue of date stamps/codes/writing on books because I have some strong feelings on the subject.

 

I actually prefer having certain kinds of writing on pedigree books rather than having no writing at all. For example, I like seeing the "Larson" in handwriting on books from that pedigree, just like I like seeing the date codes on a Church book or the stamps on a Reilly.

 

Rather than thinking of these things as defects, I think of them more in a "trademark" sense, in that they are indicative of the origin of the book and are evidence of the book's history. The marks themselves have historical meaning (which is why the writing on the Pay Copy of Marvel #1 doesn't bother me one bit) that come from the stories of how these books defied the odds across the decades and come to be in the present day in their pristine condition. These codes/signatures/writings are important to the "pedigree" status of the book because they help designate the book as being a member of a famous collection.

 

I know that many people don't agree, but for me, I look at it in the same way as I look at a logo on a specific company's product. When I see a logo on a product, the logo indicates to me where the product came from. And when I see a Larson signature or a Reilly stamp on a book, it serves as a quick reminder of the book's history and forces me to stop and appreciate, even if only for a second, what the book went through to get here in nice shape. Thus, whereas I think of defects as things that make a comic less desirable when I see it, I consider pedigree stamps, codes, and writing to be a benefit that I like seeing and for which I'd pay extra. If you posed a question to me similar to the one povertyrow posed to you about pressing and asked me "If you have two pedigree copies of the same book and one has pedigree-related writing and the other doesn't but they are otherwise equal in every way, which would you pick?" I would pick the one with the pedigree-related writing every time, without hesitation, hands down, and as I said, I'd probably pay extra for it.

 

I see no correlation at all between a date stamp and a name written on the book.

 

 

 

The correlation is that writing on a book is not considered a defect anymore than a date stamp is? I'm not saying it's restoration, but it definitely happened after the manufacturing and distribution process.

 

Regarding picking the unpressed book instead of an identical pressed book, that just makes sense as the right answer. But I wouldn't feel any different owning the pressed book in my collection.

[FFB]

Timely and I discussed one of his Church books recently (Action #70) that got a 9.8 and had writing. The book did not appear to have been downgraded at all for the writing, as Timely (who once owned the book) opined that it had been given a 9.8 because of some other minute defects apart from the writing.

 

Despite my personal feelings on the issue of pedigree-related writing, I do agree that writing is a defect. Like any defect, how much of a downgrade it gets depends on how obtrusive it is and what kind of writing it is. By this, I mean that a book with writing cannot rightfully be graded 10.0, no matter how good the rest of the book is structurally. But below that, I think that the weight that should be given to writing should vary dramatically depending on the above factors, and if it is pedigree-related writing, I would personally downgrade the writing less or perhaps even not at all below 9.4 if it is just a small code, a written name of the original collection owner, or a store stamp.

 

Both have writing on the book and I believe I have seen CGC 9.6's.

 

Yes, on Larson and Winnipeg and even Church - there is some writing. The writing helps to establish provenance - helps to prove the pedigree. But is it a defect? Well, it depends. If the writing is from the retailer (please note I did say "disregarding retail writing where the "date stamp" or arrival info can also be writing as oppsoed to a stamp - yeah - I typoed "opposed" but what to do - it is Pov). Note I also said not only a "date stamp" but also "arrival info" - so do the Larson or Winnipeg have retailer arrival info on them?

 

The thing again - and again the basic point is missed - resto should be called resto - and writing should be called writing. Now if writing on the cover helps to extablish provenance relating to a specific pedigree - it is up to the collector to determine if such writing is detrimental. As such writing is usually considered beneficial in establishing the provenance, most collectors would probable accept it as a valuable addition.

 

Does that make it a non-defect? To my mind, no it does not. BUT - and this seems to be something else not usually considered, if a particular pedigree has non-retail writing that proves the pedigree then CGC should properly garde the book including the writing as a defect. But the pedigree appelation should be sufficient to let people who know how to grade factor in that defect writing and come up with a real value. Actually, if CGC made a notation saying "downgraded from 9.4 to whatever due to writing on the cover that establishes so-and-so pedigree" I would be delighted. We would have truly impartial GRADING combned with a good knowledge of HISTORY.

 

Bottom line is there should be no shame in any of these things: restoration, wirting etc. There should be simple reporting and then leaving it up to the collector to determine their own conscience and budget. Is that a bad thing?

[PovertyRow]

I would personally downgrade the writing less or perhaps even not at all below 9.4 if it is just a small code, a written name of the original collection owner, or a store stamp.

 

Well here, again, I tend towards just ignoring the origin of the writing and grading the book "straight" but with sufficient notation to reveal that the writing is in support of a pedigree. That should certainly be enough to still make the book "pedigree marketable".

 

The current situation is that if, as an example, a GA book has a tiny color touch then it may qualify for the unrestored blue label. Does that mean that tiny color touch is not restoration if in certain GA books? What if it is on a BA book? Would it get similar treatment? Probably not. It would be PLOD'd.

 

The reasoning that a long time ago in a collector world far far away tiny color touch and even scotch tape were considered "the norm" makes no diff to me. Do the books where Vapor Phase Deacidification paper turned the interior pages yellower (during the days when scotch tape and color touch were also as norm as VPD paper) cause CGC to upgarde those pages to OW?

 

Tiny color touch is restoration. Scotch tape is truly awful and ultimately damaging restoration. Pressing is restoration.

 

Nowadays it seems we are at "what can be gotten away with and not called restoration?". I put pressing in that category.

 

The REAL issue? People have to understand that restoration CAN be benign, that some restoration processes CAN be accepted by the general collecting market, and that not everything that is restored is major surgery. But instead of that "special circumstances" or just plain "excuses" are made up. It doesn;t alter that the book has been altered.

[awe4one]

Nowadays it seems we are at "what can be gotten away with and not called restoration?".

 

I think that's the root of the debate....

 

Jim

[Timely]

Actually here's a more important question. Would you rather have a 9.4 or a 9.8 that was pressed?

 

And lets be honest here, even if you were told it used to be a 9.4 do you really think you could find the spot where the paper was unbent?

 

Keep in mind we are talking about bends...on paper! Pressing is simply bending paper forwards because it was bent backwards a little too far years or decades ago. Using artifical means to unbend paper as opposed to sticking the book under a 10 lbs dictionary for a decade to let "nature" do it is not restoration!

 

Timely

[Rip]

You can have grease pencil up to at least 9.8. But the grading guide states, you can't have writing on a 10.0 book. Personally I think CGC doesn't downgrade enough, especially based on what I saw pre-CGC.

[PovertyRow]

Would you rather have a 9.4 or a 9.8 that was pressed?

 

Either would do for me as I am not a consistently HG collector. But to answer the question, ignoring eye appeal concepts, naturally I would choose the 9.8 pressed over the 9.4 pressed. Why? Because the 9.8 has to have something more going for it to get a higher grade pressed than the 9.4 did pressed.

 

I will say that if a book has a slight bend to it and just curling it back is not pressing. There is no damage done to the paper fibres with a slight wave or curl, and gently unwaving it does not impact the paper or the fibres. It is part of the paper's inherent flexibility. But a point is reached where even a curl, if extreme enough, does impact the paper. Actually, if a simple, slight curl that s just gently uncurled is what folks are talking about when they say "pressng" - well - I am in the wrong argument.

 

I do have a thought as regards to real "pressing". The folks that believe that a book properly pressed by a restorer and with that pressing being undectable and making such ok and not restoration: are you not setting yourself for a similar situation in the future we are now experiencing? Remember all of the books that were expertly resto-detected since CGC came out and the buyer was not aware of it? And bang - resto became the true PLOD. I don't think CGC is standing still. This is a much newer age, technologically, than it was 20 years ago. CGC has to keep up with the times, and in doing so, will develop newer methods of detection. A simple pressing may well be one of them. And if that happens, we are going to relive the "all those books in collector's hands that were discovered to be restored" all over again.

 

And I repeat - and repeat - I am not against restoration and a better understanding of what it is and what it does is really necessary. I see benign proesses like pressing as being something that should not be put in the same category as piece replacement, etc. But it still should be called restoration. Just a better understood restoration.

[Timely]

Yes, I think many people misunderstand that when a comic is pressed, it's not the whole thing! If one corner on the back cover is bent it will be pressed backwards to it's original shape. The pages are not touched. Many pressed comics I've seen have only had 1/8 to 1/4 inch bends pressed back. So in reality in most cases a total of .001% of the comic's total square inch area has been pressed.

 

Now you know why it's not really a big deal... and how CGC and the rest of us cannot detect it... when done correctly.

 

Timely

[Rip]

Has the fear of pressing made much of an impact in anybodys purchasing?

[PovertyRow]

Yes, I think many people misunderstand that when a comic is pressed, it's not the whole thing! If one corner on the back cover is bent it will be pressed backwards to it's original shape. The pages are not touched. Many pressed comics I've seen have only had 1/8 to 1/4 inch bends pressed back. So in reality in most cases a total of .001% of the comic's total square inch area has been pressed.

 

Well, it can also be the whole thing, certainly. Book presses and dry mount presses are often used to press the entire book, either as a whole or in successive stages. A book with a 1/4" fold straightened out is a different animal than a complete cover or the complete book pressed. This is a distinction that should definitely be made. If a description does mention a book has been "pressed", I think the degree should be mentioned. It will further more an understanding of restoration.

[PovertyRow]

Has the fear of pressing made much of an impact in anybodys purchasing?

 

Not on me. Don't mind owning pressed books at all. But should pressing be more detectable in the future and should CGC or whatever companies are then-grading books add pressing to the description - well - I think we will see more FOP (Fear Of Pressing).

[Rocketeer]

I thought a dry mount press was used for laminating,...wouldn't it scorth a comic book?