pressing

[PovertyRow]

For people who feel pressing is a form of restoration, the pressed book would be considered restored. For those who do not, the pressed book would not be considered restored.

 

Success is not a determination of whether it has been restored.

Success or failure has no bearing on the point being made. You have three states being compared here...a comic which is folded in half, a comic which has been flattened by hand and placed in a bag and a board, and a comic which has been further flattened by use of a press. No mention of grade, but the assumption is that a complete vertical color breaking crease results the same grade on all three books. Your claim is that only the latter is considered restored because it was "reverted to a previous condition". In this instance it was not. Therefore it must not be restored.

 

I believe I said that "success or failure has no bearing on the point being made" when I said "Success is not a determination of whether it has been restored."

 

In the case above, the pressed book will be a LOT closer to the original condition than the hand-flattened one. Hand flattening a sub crease (I am assuming they mean bending it in the opposite direction rather than just laying it flat on a table and smoothing it with your hand) will not remove the waviness, There will still be a small rise around the crease itself and the paper bend/wave will be exaggerated well away form the crease.

 

The rise and the waviness would be eliminated with a proper pressing, leaving only the crease itself. The difference between the two would be immediately noticeable.

 

But the way some folks are talking, to "revert a book to a previous condition" sounds like they are taking it literally. If that were the case, then if someone managed to figure out how to exactly duplicate in-painting, down to dot size, dot angle and ink - could add pieces to a chip that exactly matched the original paper in composition, calendared gloss, color - could mend tears invisibly by coming up with a process to interweave paper fibers directly into the tear (not leaf casting) and then apply that exact in-painting and paper recreation - etc etc etc. THEN a book could be said to actually be "reverted to it previous condition". And, unfortunately would not be detectable. Should such a book be considered restored?

 

[divad]

The counter argument is valid as well. Nothing was proven that pressing does damage a book.

 

Yes, of course, and masturbation is good for you too!

 

Is the world still flat where you live David?

 

Damn near!

[divad]

The counter argument is valid as well. Nothing was proven that pressing does damage a book.

 

Yes, of course, and masturbation is good for you too!

 

It's pretty damn good for me.

 

 

[VintageComics]

Taking a comic book that's been folded in half from a subscription crease and laying it flat inside of bag/board is technically "restoration", since you are "restoring" it to it's previously flat state after it's been damaged.

 

That is not technically or even theoretically restoration. You have not restored it to a previous state by putting in a bag/board. The inherent structure of the book is not impacted. Take it out of the bag and you have a book with a sub crease. You have not altered the book.

 

But earlier you said...

 

Again, preserving an existing condition is not the same as reverting to a previous condition. And reverting to a previous condition is restoration. It may be quite benign restoration but it is restoration.

So flattening out a sub-creased copy, which was previously folded in half, is technically restoration.

 

 

The good Dr had the Balls to suggest putting a book in a board/mylar so the sub-crease does not seem to show is reverting to its original condition. You did not flatten out the crease IN THE BOOK by just bagging/boarding it. The crease is till there. Just more difficult to discern while it is in the bag. You did not alter the condition of the book. You did not revert the book's condition to a previous state. It remains in the same state. That is what "reverting to a previous condition" means. The book did not revert. As I said, take it out of the bag and the crease remains.

 

One may as well say the book has been "re-glossed" (a ridiculous term) by putting it in mylar because it looks shinier there.

 

Pov, I read Dr. Balls quote differently. Here it is in it's entirety:

 

I guess I'll always be surprised at how many people are militantly anti-pressing, for what seems to be personal and ambiguous reasons - other than calling it "restoration". Taking a comic book that's been folded in half from a subscription crease and laying it flat inside of bag/board is technically "restoration", since you are "restoring" it to it's previously flat state after it's been damaged. There has to be varying degrees of establishing how you care for a comic and how it affects it - and the physical equivalent of putting weight on them to flatten them out seems pretty low on the list.

 

And I'm not trying to pick a fight here, I'm just saying as an outsider and new person on the boards, the fight against pressing just seems way overboard. Like most debate-able topics - no one can seem to find the middle ground, so the pressing issue goes on...

 

I understood the bolded above to be his main point.

 

From what I am getting from his quote he seems to think that there are varying degrees of returning a book to it's previous condition with flattening it being quite benign.

 

Here is a list of possible procedures I put together graduating from least amount of effort to greatest. There are probably many scenarios in between the ones I've listed.

 

Least of them being dropping a bent book into mylar/back board.

Middle ground might include hand flattening it, or even bending the book against the bend/crease to reduce the bend/crease.

More intrusive might be humidifying the book and then placing it under a set of encyclopedia for a few weeks.

Finally you have traditional pressing, and even then you have different ways of pressing a book.

One person may not be that aggressive and just give it a light press or a spot press.

One person may use moisture as well as heat.

Another person might be militant in making the book as flat as possible using everything at their disposal.

 

All of the above are varying degrees of returning a book to it's former state. All are procedures that were done with the express purpose of removing the bend/crease.

 

I think Dr. Balls was asking how people decide where they draw the line among those procedures? Why is one form "OK" and not needing disclosure and others "not OK" and needing disclosure.

 

[oakman29]

I guess there is no right or wrong,it's just a personal preference.My opinion is manipulating a book whether CGC deems it so or not, is restoration.I don't fault anyone for pressing a book,it's just not for me. (thumbs u

[VintageComics]

I guess there is no right or wrong,it's just a personal preference.My opinion is manipulating a book whether CGC deems it so or not, is restoration.I don't fault anyone for pressing a book,it's just not for me. (thumbs u

 

My question is at want point does it become "unwanted manipulation" as opposed to "I don't mind" manipulation?

 

 

[PovertyRow]

I won't be saying much more here. Honestly, some of the posts HAVE to be tongue in cheek. I hope so as I have gotten a good chuckle from them.

 

Things like hand-folding are part and parcel of a comic book's life. Where do you think some of the spine rolls come from? From folding the front cover over and reading the book that way, folding each page in turn. This was rather common back in the day. Or rolling it up for convenient back pocket pants storage.

Hand folding is the same process. And it basically doesn't work except on the most minor of folds/bends where the structure of the book is not impacted. A real spine roll impacts the structure of the book.

 

Intentionally humidifying a book and subjecting it to pressure or heat and pressure are not typical in the life of a comic. And a higher humidity summer in Florida coupled with tightly packed bagged/boarded books is not the same as a proper pressing. Anyone that thinks so does not have experience in the processes.

 

These are specific techniques, carefully controlled if they are doing it right, designed to "revert the book CLOSER to its original condition". (happy, literal ones?) using artificially induced conditions for that sole purpose.

 

All the rest is basically mental masturbation and fun tongue in cheek.

[PovertyRow]

I guess there is no right or wrong,it's just a personal preference.My opinion is manipulating a book whether CGC deems it so or not, is restoration.I don't fault anyone for pressing a book,it's just not for me. (thumbs u

 

My question is at want point does it become "unwanted manipulation" as opposed to "I don't mind" manipulation?

 

 

That is up to the individual, nes pa?

[oakman29]

I guess there is no right or wrong,it's just a personal preference.My opinion is manipulating a book whether CGC deems it so or not, is restoration.I don't fault anyone for pressing a book,it's just not for me. (thumbs u

 

My question is at want point does it become "unwanted manipulation" as opposed to "I don't mind" manipulation?

 

Any manipulation is unwanted manipulation,however i do think restoration of a major key such as an Action 1 or a Detective 27 or an equivalent type of key is very beneficial,but they are noted with a purple label and pressing is not.

[MrBedrock]

But the way some folks are talking, to "revert a book to a previous condition" sounds like they are taking it literally. If that were the case, then if someone managed to figure out how to exactly duplicate in-painting, down to dot size, dot angle and ink - could add pieces to a chip that exactly matched the original paper in composition, calendared gloss, color - could mend tears invisibly by coming up with a process to interweave paper fibers directly into the tear (not leaf casting) and then apply that exact in-painting and paper recreation - etc etc etc. THEN a book could be said to actually be "reverted to it previous condition". And, unfortunately would not be detectable. Should such a book be considered restored?

One of the alternative definitions of comic book restoration is any process which adds or subtracts material. All of your examples involve the addition of something foreign to the comic. And, theoretically at least, all foreign matter should be detectable.

[MrBedrock]

I guess there is no right or wrong,it's just a personal preference.My opinion is manipulating a book whether CGC deems it so or not, is restoration.I don't fault anyone for pressing a book,it's just not for me. (thumbs u

 

My question is at want point does it become "unwanted manipulation" as opposed to "I don't mind" manipulation?

 

There will never be a standard, hobby-wide accepted, answer to that question. Each collector has to answer it for him or herself.

 

From a grading standpoint the line should be drawn at the point where a process does damage to the book.

[PovertyRow]

But the way some folks are talking, to "revert a book to a previous condition" sounds like they are taking it literally. If that were the case, then if someone managed to figure out how to exactly duplicate in-painting, down to dot size, dot angle and ink - could add pieces to a chip that exactly matched the original paper in composition, calendared gloss, color - could mend tears invisibly by coming up with a process to interweave paper fibers directly into the tear (not leaf casting) and then apply that exact in-painting and paper recreation - etc etc etc. THEN a book could be said to actually be "reverted to it previous condition". And, unfortunately would not be detectable. Should such a book be considered restored?

One of the alternative definitions of comic book restoration is any process which adds or subtracts material. All of your examples involve the addition of something foreign to the comic. And, theoretically at least, all foreign matter should be detectable.

 

I used those examples of adding material because they are detectable. Some pressing is not detectable and that is where the controversy comes in. But some pressing is detectable, even when done properly. A good example is a spine roll where the rolled left edge has gotten worn over time. The roll can be removed but the signs of a previous spine roll remain. Or a book with creases that are now flattened. Would such books be looked on as restored?

 

I am not anti-restoration or anti-pressing. I am fascinated by the restoration process and studied it hands on for many years. I have respect for it when it is done properly. I do not like the fear pressing induces, though. It saddens me that the word "restoration" itself seems to be the focus. I know a lot of this is financially motivated, with even very slightly restored books bringing less than their unrestored counterparts. It has reached a point where I see questions here with people asking "is such and such restoration?". My assumption would be if the answer is "no" then they are OK with it.

 

That strikes me as very odd.

 

 

[seanfingh]

I guess there is no right or wrong,it's just a personal preference.My opinion is manipulating a book whether CGC deems it so or not, is restoration.I don't fault anyone for pressing a book,it's just not for me. (thumbs u

 

My question is at want point does it become "unwanted manipulation" as opposed to "I don't mind" manipulation?

 

 

At the point someone tears part of it off?

[divad]

Let's just put it this way, then. Any handling of a comic book is potential for harm. Period.

[MrBedrock]

But the way some folks are talking, to "revert a book to a previous condition" sounds like they are taking it literally. If that were the case, then if someone managed to figure out how to exactly duplicate in-painting, down to dot size, dot angle and ink - could add pieces to a chip that exactly matched the original paper in composition, calendared gloss, color - could mend tears invisibly by coming up with a process to interweave paper fibers directly into the tear (not leaf casting) and then apply that exact in-painting and paper recreation - etc etc etc. THEN a book could be said to actually be "reverted to it previous condition". And, unfortunately would not be detectable. Should such a book be considered restored?

One of the alternative definitions of comic book restoration is any process which adds or subtracts material. All of your examples involve the addition of something foreign to the comic. And, theoretically at least, all foreign matter should be detectable.

 

I used those examples of adding material because they are detectable. Some pressing is not detectable and that is where the controversy comes in. But some pressing is detectable, even when done properly. A good example is a spine roll where the rolled left edge has gotten worn over time. The roll can be removed but the signs of a previous spine roll remain. Or a book with creases that are now flattened. Would such books be looked on as restored?

 

I am not anti-restoration or anti-pressing. I am fascinated by the restoration process and studied it hands on for many years. I have respect for it when it is done properly. I do not like the fear pressing induces, though. It saddens me that the word "restoration" itself seems to be the focus. I know a lot of this is financially motivated, with even very slightly restored books bringing less than their unrestored counterparts. It has reached a point where I see questions here with people asking "is such and such restoration?". My assumption would be if the answer is "no" then they are OK with it.

 

That strikes me as very odd.

 

One of the reasons I enjoy discussing this with you is that you do have a very thorough understanding of all the technical aspects of the various processes. And you are thoughtful in responding.

 

From my perspective it is the labeling of pressing as restoration that creates some of the misconceptions. To me pressing is just a process to flatten the book. That process is not restorative (again, from my perspective). It just flattens the book. Whether it is detectable or not does change that for me. It just means that a) the book had defects which were not able to be flattened (color breaking creases, dust shadows), or b) the book was pressed incorrectly thus creating new defects. This may be a bad analogy but I liken it to reading a comic. Some people read them in such a way that it is undetectable that the comic has been read. Others read them so that it is very obvious that some passionate reading was taking place. Now I am not advocating that folks press their comics. And I understand that some would prefer their comics not be pressed, though I think that many of those hold that preference specifically because they are under the impression that pressing is a form of restoration (the great circle of life). In other words some have a problem with pressing simply because others categorize it a restoration, not because of anything inherently wrong with the process itself.

[namisgr]

Whether a press is good or bad for the comic aside, what about the possibility of damage, especially at the staples ? I have brought this up on the boards several times without much response though I always seem to get some PM's with personal experiences.

 

Popped staples are always a risk. If you know what you are doing the risk can be greatly minimized. I pass on pressing many books becasue I know the staples are just waiting for that extra pound or two of pressure to go "pop". But, I can honestly say the same can happen if the owner decided to open the book to read it.

 

Bob's not talking about popped staples, but rather the tiny areas of wear that can sometimes develop around the staple holes during a pressing that slightly shifts the cover in relation to the staples.

[VintageComics]

Whether a press is good or bad for the comic aside, what about the possibility of damage, especially at the staples ? I have brought this up on the boards several times without much response though I always seem to get some PM's with personal experiences.

 

Popped staples are always a risk. If you know what you are doing the risk can be greatly minimized. I pass on pressing many books becasue I know the staples are just waiting for that extra pound or two of pressure to go "pop". But, I can honestly say the same can happen if the owner decided to open the book to read it.

 

Bob's not talking about popped staples, but rather the tiny areas of wear that can sometimes develop around the staple holes during a pressing that slightly shifts the cover in relation to the staples.

 

The possibility of damage is inherent with any procedure where the book is being handled.

 

Grading? I've had books damaged.

Reading?

Handling books to admire them?

Having them restored.

 

Pressing would be no different.

 

If a book is not lying in a state of rest there is the possibility for damage.

 

[BrianR]

Glad to see this debate has become civil and more respectful than years past.

[MrBedrock]

If a book is not lying in a state of rest there is the possibility for damage.

Even in a state of rest something could fall on it.

[DrWatson]

Whether a press is good or bad for the comic aside, what about the possibility of damage, especially at the staples ? I have brought this up on the boards several times without much response though I always seem to get some PM's with personal experiences.

 

Popped staples are always a risk. If you know what you are doing the risk can be greatly minimized. I pass on pressing many books becasue I know the staples are just waiting for that extra pound or two of pressure to go "pop". But, I can honestly say the same can happen if the owner decided to open the book to read it.

 

Bob's not talking about popped staples, but rather the tiny areas of wear that can sometimes develop around the staple holes during a pressing that slightly shifts the cover in relation to the staples.

The same thing can happen if the inner well is sealed too tight, for lack of a better phrase, in regards to a CGC graded book.