Comic book pressing

[Phill the Governor]

I don't think that it necessarily needs to be disclosed because if the book obviously doesn't have restoration, and the press isn't obvious, then it was done correctly as and the book would look like it wasn't pressed in the first place.

 

I think that many people that want to know if a book was pressed want to know because if it hasn't been, they can press it themselves to make a quick buck.

 

I stand firmly behind the second statement, the first is merely my own opinion.

[zuulioso]

I don't think that it necessarily needs to be disclosed because if the book obviously doesn't have restoration, and the press isn't obvious, then it was done correctly as and the book would look like it wasn't pressed in the first place.

 

I think that many people that want to know if a book was pressed want to know because if it hasn't been, they can press it themselves to make a quick buck.

 

I stand firmly behind the second statement, the first is merely my own opinion.

 

Why do you care what the buyer does with it? Is it your duty to police their purchase to make sure it meets your criteria of acceptable purchase use?

 

Disclose it. Period.

[divad]

One argument says anything that changes paper from one state to another (better) state is restoration.

 

Another argument says that pressing and dry cleaning aren't actually removing or adding to the paper of the comic book therefore they don't fit within the same category of restoration as color touch, trimming, adding rice paper etc. In fact, some (including CGC) say theses techniques are not restoration at all.

 

There is also an argument that says many comic books have been pressed in the past without disclosure (with dealers making a profit) and also many books have been accidentally "pressed" in long boxes and in piles. The argument says that declassifying dry cleaning and pressing gives everyone a level playing field.

 

A point frequently made is that it is simply too hard or impossible to detect dry cleaning and pressing hence why bother trying.

 

How do you feel about it yourself:

 

(A) Would you disclose a Miracleman #15 CGC 9.8 was pressed to a CGC 9.9 when you sell it on eBay?

 

(B) As a buyer would you like to know that the Albedo #2 CGC 9.8 you want to bid on was previously a 9.4?

 

© As someone who buys books at one grade and gets them pressed to a higher grade, would you like to know that the Bone #1 CGC 9.2 you want to bid on had already been pressed (hence much lower probability of it upgrading when you get it pressed)?

 

I suspect the debate will go on but people entrenched on each side are unlikely to change their stance; others can see both sides and some are simply not bothered.

 

Great post, btw. The only thing you miss here is the discussion of whether it harms the book in any way . . .

[Phill the Governor]

I don't think that it necessarily needs to be disclosed because if the book obviously doesn't have restoration, and the press isn't obvious, then it was done correctly as and the book would look like it wasn't pressed in the first place.

 

I think that many people that want to know if a book was pressed want to know because if it hasn't been, they can press it themselves to make a quick buck.

 

I stand firmly behind the second statement, the first is merely my own opinion.

 

Why do you care what the buyer does with it? Is it your duty to police their purchase to make sure it meets your criteria of acceptable purchase use?

 

Disclose it. Period.

 

I don't care in the least bit what they do with it, I'm just saying this is why they ask, and why they really care whether it's been pressed or not.

 

I'm a believer that pressing is not restoration, which is why I don't think it matters either way.

[fantastic_four]

so is it considered restoration

 

No, it is NOT considered restoration. CGC has arguably but effectively become the final word on grading and they do not consider pressing to be restoration.

 

They're not the final word on restoration, but besides that, when exactly have they explicitly defined it as not being restoration? Not noting it is not exactly the same thing as them explicitly not defining it as restoration--there's an important distinction. Just because they don't say it is doesn't mean the opposite, that it isn't--as far as I can tell they're neutral on pressing and have evaded a stance on it. Their implicit stance of not noting it is largely due to the fact that they can't detect it--if they could, they might then note it as restoration. Steve Borock has stated his individual opinion that he doesn't define pressing as restoration, but he has also said he doesn't believe it's restoration in part because it's undetectable...so if someone developed a way to detect it, his opinion could change. Certainly his opinion has been key to forming CGC's standards, but I haven't heard him specifically say that his opinion is CGC's official stance--someone please link to where he did say that if I've forgotten it. I doubt they have an official stance as it's easier to just avoid taking one.

 

At best, it's a controversial subject. One of the people offering pressing services listed above is Susan Cicconi, who is one of the only restorers working in comics who has an advanced degree in paper conservation--Tracey Heft is the only other one I'm aware of. For a few years she stopped pressing books because she didn't like the upgrading games that people were playing. She defined pressing as restoration herself in an article posted on the site at that time, although since she started doing pressing again, I can't find that article. It's implicitly obvious that pressing is restoration--you're manipulating the state of the book to make it look more like it did when it was new. If you accidentally breathe a booger onto a book but then plick it off, why did you do it? To make the book like it was. You can call pressing or booger-flicking restoration and be describing what was done accurately--I strongly believe people have gotten uptight about the whole subject and way of defining things due to the money involved in comics, but the money involved shouldn't defy what is logically obvious--if there used to be a bend, but you heat-press that bend out, you've restored the book to a previous state.

 

When people say pressing isn't restoration, I believe they're making an attempt to differentiate it from more invasive restoration, which is a good thing to do and makes complete sense. However, that doesn't mean it isn't restoration. A common way people have used to differentiate it from less-desirable, more manipulative restoration is to describe pressing as "non-additive" restoration, which means that no foreign materials were added to the book to cover up defects. That's my favorite way to define it--non-additive restoration. That fairly effectively differentiates it from the more invasive types.

[Tony S]

so is it considered restoration

 

No, it is NOT considered restoration. CGC has arguably but effectively become the final word on grading and they do not consider pressing to be restoration.

 

They're not the final word on restoration, but besides that, when exactly have they explicitly defined it as not being restoration? Not noting it is not exactly the same thing as them explicitly not defining it as restoration--there's an important distinction. Just because they don't say it is doesn't mean the opposite, that it isn't--as far as I can tell they're neutral on pressing and have evaded a stance on it. Their implicit stance of not noting it is largely due to the fact that they can't detect it--if they could, they might then note it as restoration. Steve Borock has stated his individual opinion that he doesn't define pressing as restoration, but he has also said he doesn't believe it's restoration in part because it's undetectable...so if someone developed a way to detect it, his opinion could change. Certainly his opinion has been key to forming CGC's standards, but I haven't heard him specifically say that his opinion is CGC's official stance--someone please link to where he did say that if I've forgotten it. I doubt they have an official stance as it's easier to just avoid taking one.

 

At best, it's a controversial subject. One of the people offering pressing services listed above is Susan Cicconi, who is one of the only restorers working in comics who has an advanced degree in paper conservation--Tracey Heft is the only other one I'm aware of. For a few years she stopped pressing books because she didn't like the upgrading games that people were playing. She defined pressing as restoration herself in an article posted on the site at that time, although since she started doing pressing again, I can't find that article. It's implicitly obvious that pressing is restoration--you're manipulating the state of the book to make it look more like it did when it was new. If you accidentally breathe a booger onto a book but then plick it off, why did you do it? To make the book like it was. You can call pressing or booger-flicking restoration and be describing what was done accurately--I strongly believe people have gotten uptight about the whole subject and way of defining things due to the money involved in comics, but the money involved shouldn't defy what is logically obvious--if there used to be a bend, but you heat-press that bend out, you've restored the book to a previous state.

 

When people say pressing isn't restoration, I believe they're making an attempt to differentiate it from more invasive restoration, which is a good thing to do and makes complete sense. However, that doesn't mean it isn't restoration. A common way people have used to differentiate it from less-desirable, more manipulative restoration is to describe pressing as "non-additive" restoration, which means that no foreign materials were added to the book to cover up defects. That's my favorite way to define it--non-additive restoration. That fairly effectively differentiates it from the more invasive types.

 

I'm not going to debate most of the points you've raised as they have been discussed at length for years and years. Collectors are entitled to their own opinions.

 

Two things though:

CGC does specifically state pressing and dry cleaning are not restoration. The link and quote follows

http://www.cgccomics.com/resources/restoration.asp

 

"Non-additive processes such as dry cleaning (non-aqueous removal of dirt, soot, or other non-original surface material), pressing (removal or reduction of bends and creases), and tape removal, are not considered restoration by CGC"

Susan gave up and presses books now.

 

 

[koollectablz]

It's laudable to disclose that a comic has been pressed.

 

However at some point it will be sold on without that being disclosed, wether in a couple weeks or in 50 years. So to disclose it now leaves money on the table.

 

I don't think anyone should disclose pressing moreover for the reason that the people who press and resubmit would start to get burned on a regular basis and would make the practice much more risky and not cost effective.

 

Oh and CGC say it's not restoration and as people only press to then submit to CGC to get graded, ergo it's not restoration.

[Tony S]

I don't think anyone should disclose pressing moreover for the reason that the people who press and resubmit would start to get burned on a regular basis and would make the practice much more risky and not cost effective.

 

Made me laugh. Thank you!

[Lost]

It's kinda like disclosing to people that you ironed your shirt that morning. You can tell people but will they care? Once it's slabbed and graded it's worth whatever the market says its worth.

[Underground44]

It's kinda like disclosing to people that you ironed your shirt that morning. You can tell people but will they care? Once it's slabbed and graded it's worth whatever the market says its worth.

 

There's no doubt whatsoever that people care. Some people care a lot - some people don't care (such as myself) but personally, I think it should be disclosed.

Ironing a shirt is a bad parallel.

[Phill the Governor]

It's kinda like disclosing to people that you ironed your shirt that morning. You can tell people but will they care? Once it's slabbed and graded it's worth whatever the market says its worth.

 

There's no doubt whatsoever that people care. Some people care a lot - some people don't care (such as myself) but personally, I think it should be disclosed.

Ironing a shirt is a bad parallel.

 

How about "washing a car"?

 

I, personally, think that pressing isn't restoration because your not trying to make it look like it's original state you are actually bringing it back closer to the original state.

[namisgr]

I, personally, think that pressing isn't restoration because your not trying to make it look like it's original state you are actually bringing it back closer to the original state.

 

Isn't that precisely what restoration is?

 

"Restoration: the act of restoring or state of being restored, as to a former or original condition"

[Tony S]

It's kinda like disclosing to people that you ironed your shirt that morning. You can tell people but will they care? Once it's slabbed and graded it's worth whatever the market says its worth.

 

There's no doubt whatsoever that people care. Some people care a lot - some people don't care (such as myself) but personally, I think it should be disclosed.

Ironing a shirt is a bad parallel.

 

How about "washing a car"?

 

I, personally, think that pressing isn't restoration because your not trying to make it look like it's original state you are actually bringing it back closer to the original state.

 

I think ironing a shirt or washing a car makes as good an example as anything else.

 

This debate can and has gone on endlessly. The collectors that think it should be disclosed are never changing their minds. The collectors that think it does not have to be disclosed are never changing their minds. Furthermore, the collectors on this board tend to forget that as a group, we represent a very, very tiny portion of collectors. A well informed, vocal and opinionated bunch for sure. But t i n y. There are three comic book stores in town. Two of the owners have run their stores for a combined 60 years. Those two owners are not members of the CIS message board. They never submitt books to CGC for grading (waste of money). 99% of their customers have never even heard of pressing. Except perhaps as in putting a comic with a bend/spine roll in a tight long box or between heavy books. (Is that pressing? Should it be disclosed?.)

 

The bottom line is that from an ethical standpoint pressing only needs to be disclosed IF it is restoration. And controversial or not, the decision has been made by the nearest thing thing this hobby has to a "final authority" on grading and restoration issues- which is CGC. Though far smaller, PGX also does not consider pressing to be restoration.

 

Neither of these companies are going to change their stance on this. We debate this for the fun of it.

[Mike's Rack]

I disclose pressing because I respect those that want to know.

[Ze-man]

so is it considered restoration

 

No, it is NOT considered restoration. CGC has arguably but effectively become the final word on grading and they do not consider pressing to be restoration.

 

They're not the final word on restoration, but besides that, when exactly have they explicitly defined it as not being restoration? Not noting it is not exactly the same thing as them explicitly not defining it as restoration--there's an important distinction. Just because they don't say it is doesn't mean the opposite, that it isn't--as far as I can tell they're neutral on pressing and have evaded a stance on it. Their implicit stance of not noting it is largely due to the fact that they can't detect it--if they could, they might then note it as restoration. Steve Borock has stated his individual opinion that he doesn't define pressing as restoration, but he has also said he doesn't believe it's restoration in part because it's undetectable...so if someone developed a way to detect it, his opinion could change. Certainly his opinion has been key to forming CGC's standards, but I haven't heard him specifically say that his opinion is CGC's official stance--someone please link to where he did say that if I've forgotten it. I doubt they have an official stance as it's easier to just avoid taking one.

 

At best, it's a controversial subject. One of the people offering pressing services listed above is Susan Cicconi, who is one of the only restorers working in comics who has an advanced degree in paper conservation--Tracey Heft is the only other one I'm aware of. For a few years she stopped pressing books because she didn't like the upgrading games that people were playing. She defined pressing as restoration herself in an article posted on the site at that time, although since she started doing pressing again, I can't find that article. It's implicitly obvious that pressing is restoration--you're manipulating the state of the book to make it look more like it did when it was new. If you accidentally breathe a booger onto a book but then plick it off, why did you do it? To make the book like it was. You can call pressing or booger-flicking restoration and be describing what was done accurately--I strongly believe people have gotten uptight about the whole subject and way of defining things due to the money involved in comics, but the money involved shouldn't defy what is logically obvious--if there used to be a bend, but you heat-press that bend out, you've restored the book to a previous state.

 

When people say pressing isn't restoration, I believe they're making an attempt to differentiate it from more invasive restoration, which is a good thing to do and makes complete sense. However, that doesn't mean it isn't restoration. A common way people have used to differentiate it from less-desirable, more manipulative restoration is to describe pressing as "non-additive" restoration, which means that no foreign materials were added to the book to cover up defects. That's my favorite way to define it--non-additive restoration. That fairly effectively differentiates it from the more invasive types.

 

Nice post, I would add that some folks who believe it isn't a form of restoration, simply believe that. Although you are right in saying many say it for other reasons.

 

And not to pick nits, but Susan, while highly educated does not have an advanced degree in the science behind paper conservation.

[porky]

here's my own little pressing experiment. slowly cracking out my one misguided PGX submission and reslabbing. my pair of "5.0" weird war tales 1s turned into CGC 8.0 without any pressing. my marvel features were also (in my humble opinion) undergraded but they did have that wrinkly spine that giant-sizes often have so i tried to flatten that out a little. squished a PGX 6.0 to a CGC 9.0. other similar issue went from PGX 7.0 to CGC 7.5.

 

*edit* after seeing how these look, i think i'm going to take pics with my camera in natural light instead of scan them when i'm trying to sell books from now on. the colors look so much better that way...

 

 

[Phill the Governor]

I, personally, think that pressing isn't restoration because your not trying to make it look like it's original state you are actually bringing it back closer to the original state.

 

Isn't that precisely what restoration is?

 

"Restoration: the act of restoring or state of being restored, as to a former or original condition"

 

And that's where the disagreement is: the definition of "restoration".

 

I think that that a key part of restoration is that you are trying to make something "look" better than it really is - it really isn't better (this is why CGC gives Restores comics an "Apparent Grade!". If you replace the leather handles on an old trunk, it may "look" better, but at it's core it's a trunk without the original handles. A comic can't have an apparent grade because of something that can't be detected.

 

If I buy a comic, I'm not going to ask if it was pressed, or dry cleaned, because to me that's irrelevant. Yes - these two things do affect how the book looks, but nothing was taken away or added to the actual physical book.

 

I'll stop with this comparison: A new car out on the lot of a dealership gets covered in dirt - so the dealer washes the car. It was clean to begin with anyways so what's the big deal? It's preserving the car. When he goes to sell it, he doesn't disclose that the car was washed because it looks like it should to begin with - right out of the factory.

 

Why should a comic book be different. A comic, that was fresh and clean and wrinkle free to begin, with gets dirty and slightly wrinkled without breaking color. The owner dry cleans it, and presses it back to the original condition. No part of the physical comic book was taken away or added to it - for lack of a better term the comic was in the unique position to have a "second chance" at being in "off the press" condition again. I think it's pretty cool that this can be done.

[Tony S]

I, personally, think that pressing isn't restoration because your not trying to make it look like it's original state you are actually bringing it back closer to the original state.

 

Isn't that precisely what restoration is?

 

"Restoration: the act of restoring or state of being restored, as to a former or original condition"

 

And that's where the disagreement is: the definition of "restoration".

 

I think that that a key part of restoration is that you are trying to make something "look" better than it really is - it really isn't better (this is why CGC gives Restores comics an "Apparent Grade!". If you replace the leather handles on an old trunk, it may "look" better, but at it's core it's a trunk without the original handles. A comic can't have an apparent grade because of something that can't be detected.

 

If I buy a comic, I'm not going to ask if it was pressed, or dry cleaned, because to me that's irrelevant. Yes - these two things do affect how the book looks, but nothing was taken away or added to the actual physical book.

 

I'll stop with this comparison: A new car out on the lot of a dealership gets covered in dirt - so the dealer washes the car. It was clean to begin with anyways so what's the big deal? It's preserving the car. When he goes to sell it, he doesn't disclose that the car was washed because it looks like it should to begin with - right out of the factory.

 

Why should a comic book be different. A comic, that was fresh and clean and wrinkle free to begin, with gets dirty and slightly wrinkled without breaking color. The owner dry cleans it, and presses it back to the original condition. No part of the physical comic book was taken away or added to it - for lack of a better term the comic was in the unique position to have a "second chance" at being in "off the press" condition again. I think it's pretty cool that this can be done.

 

Cars are also restored. And unrestored original cars are worth more than restored cars in the same condition. Washing, waxing, cleaning the interior of a car is not considered restoration. But it would fit the definition of restoration as posted at the top.

 

I think cars are a fine restoration analogy.

Nice post.

[fantastic_four]

CGC does specifically state pressing and dry cleaning are not restoration. The link and quote follows

http://www.cgccomics.com/resources/restoration.asp

 

"Non-additive processes such as dry cleaning (non-aqueous removal of dirt, soot, or other non-original surface material), pressing (removal or reduction of bends and creases), and tape removal, are not considered restoration by CGC"

 

Great link, thanks! (thumbs u

[fantastic_four]

The bottom line is that from an ethical standpoint pressing only needs to be disclosed IF it is restoration. And controversial or not, the decision has been made by the nearest thing thing this hobby has to a "final authority" on grading and restoration issues- which is CGC. Though far smaller, PGX also does not consider pressing to be restoration.

 

Neither of these companies are going to change their stance on this. We debate this for the fun of it.

 

And also because whether pressing is or isn't restoration isn't a hair people thought to split for decades until CGC made the more serious types of restoration less of a threat to the high-end hobby. Overstreet is a fairly widely-accepted authority as well, and he has historically referred to pressing as restoration. He may or may not agree with CGC's stance on it.

 

I'd define pressing as not being restoration, too, if I were in CGC's shoes. They can't detect it, so if they define it as restoration, the obvious conclusion is they can't fully do the job we're paying them to do in detecting restoration. It's not really their fault, because nobody even knows yet if it's possible to detect pressing--as far as anyone knows, it isn't possible since nobody's found a way to do it.