CGC Acquires Classics Inc - Response to your Questions

[fantastic_four]

Looking for foreign substances is a different topic than finding a way to detect comic pressing since pressing doesn't leave any detectable substances when done well.

 

On the bolded part of your statement, I disagree. I linked it in the context of the original discussion as I wasn't aware PCGS was using spectroscopy, and more recently because I thought it might be useful with what's happening with the AFA situation.

 

How do you think spectroscopy can help detect pressing?

[InvstmntComcSuply]

 

On a separate note, what made you link that article? Looking for foreign substances is a different topic than finding a way to detect comic pressing since pressing doesn't leave any detectable substances when done well.

 

And you have confirmed that with dispersive X-ray spectrometry (EDX), Fournier Transform Infra-Red Spectral analysis (FT-IR), Raman Spectroscopy and other analytical techniques?

 

I would imagine some signature of the release paper used in pressing would stand out like a sore thumb.

 

I believe Joseph mentioned that earlier in this older thread. I agree, but as soon as CGC hypothetically started to note pressing due to the presence of release paper, it's difficult to imagine that pressers wouldn't move on to something else that doesn't leave residue to prevent scalding the paper.

 

It is unlikely that something that would be commonly seen on comic book covers by these sorts of analyses would work as a release agent. So it wouldn't take rocket science to realize when all of a sudden there was a spike in submissions with fluorotetracarbide that it was likely being used in lieu of silicone release paper.

 

I do remain optimistic that pressing is detectable,

Why? It would never be implemented by CGC anyway.

[fantastic_four]

It is unlikely that something that would be commonly seen on comic book covers by these sorts of analyses would work as a release agent. So it wouldn't take rocket science to realize when all of a sudden there was a spike in submissions with fluorotetracarbide that it was likely being used in lieu of silicone release paper.

 

I said something that doesn't leave residue. Are you implying you believe that to be impossible?

 

I do remain optimistic that pressing is detectable,

Why? It would never be implemented by CGC anyway.

 

Possibly not, but going back to Steve Borock's statements in this forum about why he didn't worry about pressing when he started CGC, he explicitly said it wasn't high on his radar since there was no way to detect it anyway. If someone establishes a way to detect it, then the game changes entirely. Even if CGC doesn't decide to start noting it, a legitimately competitive future service might, at which point it seems likely that CGC would be forced to consider it as well.

[Davenport]

I said something that doesn't leave residue. Are you implying you believe that to be impossible?

Would "Locard's exchange principle" kick in for release papers or eraser crumbs? "Every contact leaves a trace."

[nearmint]

It is unlikely that something that would be commonly seen on comic book covers by these sorts of analyses would work as a release agent. So it wouldn't take rocket science to realize when all of a sudden there was a spike in submissions with fluorotetracarbide that it was likely being used in lieu of silicone release paper.

 

I said something that doesn't leave residue. Are you implying you believe that to be impossible?

 

I do remain optimistic that pressing is detectable,

Why? It would never be implemented by CGC anyway.

 

Possibly not, but going back to Steve Borock's statements in this forum about why he didn't worry about pressing when he started CGC, he explicitly said it wasn't high on his radar since there was no way to detect it anyway. If someone establishes a way to detect it, then the game changes entirely. Even if CGC doesn't decide to start noting it, a legitimately competitive future service might, at which point it seems likely that CGC would be forced to consider it as well.

 

I just don't buy that CGC would lose significant business to a competitor that noted pressing on their label.

[Jeffro.]

Where's the dead parrot?

 

Exactly !

 

'e's pinin' for the fjords

[InvstmntComcSuply]

It is unlikely that something that would be commonly seen on comic book covers by these sorts of analyses would work as a release agent. So it wouldn't take rocket science to realize when all of a sudden there was a spike in submissions with fluorotetracarbide that it was likely being used in lieu of silicone release paper.

 

I said something that doesn't leave residue. Are you implying you believe that to be impossible?

 

Yes.

 

 

I do remain optimistic that pressing is detectable,

Why? It would never be implemented by CGC anyway.

 

Possibly not, but going back to Steve Borock's statements in this forum about why he didn't worry about pressing when he started CGC, he explicitly said it wasn't high on his radar since there was no way to detect it anyway. If someone establishes a way to detect it, then the game changes entirely. Even if CGC doesn't decide to start noting it, a legitimately competitive future service might, at which point it seems likely that CGC would be forced to consider it as well.

 

Actually there might be a case made where it wouldn't be economic suicide for CGC to note pressing. Never would this fly for all submissions, since a huge section of their customer base would be up in arms. However, there might be a slim chance that it could be an optional $ add on.

 

The question is would an additional niche market be a net gain for CGC or would there be such a downturn of their primary market that it would not be worthwhile?

 

[Iceman399]

I said something that doesn't leave residue. Are you implying you believe that to be impossible?

Would "Locard's exchange principle" kick in for release papers or eraser crumbs? "Every contact leaves a trace."

 

If it works for digital/computers it applies here, but as others mentioned difficult to show/prove. I was just reading this when you posted:

 

http://www.dfinews.com/articles/2014/01/apply-locard%E2%80%99s-exchange-principle-digital-forensics?et_cid=3703678&et_rid=454866895&location=top#.UtBHSftdC0o

[Sqeggs]

It is unlikely that something that would be commonly seen on comic book covers by these sorts of analyses would work as a release agent. So it wouldn't take rocket science to realize when all of a sudden there was a spike in submissions with fluorotetracarbide that it was likely being used in lieu of silicone release paper.

 

I said something that doesn't leave residue. Are you implying you believe that to be impossible?

 

I do remain optimistic that pressing is detectable,

Why? It would never be implemented by CGC anyway.

 

Possibly not, but going back to Steve Borock's statements in this forum about why he didn't worry about pressing when he started CGC, he explicitly said it wasn't high on his radar since there was no way to detect it anyway. If someone establishes a way to detect it, then the game changes entirely. Even if CGC doesn't decide to start noting it, a legitimately competitive future service might, at which point it seems likely that CGC would be forced to consider it as well.

 

I just don't buy that CGC would lose significant business to a competitor that noted pressing on their label.

 

More likely the opposite. Having pressing noted on the label can't increase the value of a book and is likely to reduce it. Whatever your stand on pressing, it's hard to believe people would use a service that might result in a lower value for their books.

 

Offering a service that reliably detects pressing of raw books might possibly attract some customers.

 

If a viable competitor to CGC ever appears, I doubt a promise to note pressing on its labels will be part of its business plan.

[fantastic_four]

It is unlikely that something that would be commonly seen on comic book covers by these sorts of analyses would work as a release agent. So it wouldn't take rocket science to realize when all of a sudden there was a spike in submissions with fluorotetracarbide that it was likely being used in lieu of silicone release paper.

 

I said something that doesn't leave residue. Are you implying you believe that to be impossible?

 

Yes.

 

 

I do remain optimistic that pressing is detectable,

Why? It would never be implemented by CGC anyway.

 

Possibly not, but going back to Steve Borock's statements in this forum about why he didn't worry about pressing when he started CGC, he explicitly said it wasn't high on his radar since there was no way to detect it anyway. If someone establishes a way to detect it, then the game changes entirely. Even if CGC doesn't decide to start noting it, a legitimately competitive future service might, at which point it seems likely that CGC would be forced to consider it as well.

 

Actually there might be a case made where it wouldn't be economic suicide for CGC to note pressing. Never would this fly for all submissions, since a huge section of their customer base would be up in arms. However, there might be a slim chance that it could be an optional $ add on.

 

The question is would an additional niche market be a net gain for CGC or would there be such a downturn of their primary market that it would not be worthwhile?

 

There's another angle. If you're right that there is no residue-less alternative to release paper--which I find difficult to believe, but it's possible--then CGC's entire justification for not noting pressing falls apart. It's probably detectable now if you're right. Their ONLY option would then be to avoid addressing it altogether, because their current position is that it is undetectable and non-additive, but if you can detect the residue from the heat buffer, then their position becomes entirely false. They just can't keep giving that same answer without instantly losing face. SOMETHING has to change in the way they handle it...it's just a matter of what.

[fantastic_four]

I said something that doesn't leave residue. Are you implying you believe that to be impossible?

Would "Locard's exchange principle" kick in for release papers or eraser crumbs? "Every contact leaves a trace."

 

Probably. If you haven't touched release paper, it's got some kind of waxy substance on it similar to the same stuff that's on the wax paper people cook with, just less waxy/sticky. When it heats up, microscopic amounts of that waxy substance may come off, seems fairly likely. Maybe not always though. In my experimentation with pressing I've always used the same sheets of release paper, but I haven't done it much, so I don't know if you have to keep replacing it because the wax wears off. I suppose if I pressed a lot I'd know what happens to release paper over time.

[nearmint]

It is unlikely that something that would be commonly seen on comic book covers by these sorts of analyses would work as a release agent. So it wouldn't take rocket science to realize when all of a sudden there was a spike in submissions with fluorotetracarbide that it was likely being used in lieu of silicone release paper.

 

I said something that doesn't leave residue. Are you implying you believe that to be impossible?

 

Yes.

 

 

I do remain optimistic that pressing is detectable,

Why? It would never be implemented by CGC anyway.

 

Possibly not, but going back to Steve Borock's statements in this forum about why he didn't worry about pressing when he started CGC, he explicitly said it wasn't high on his radar since there was no way to detect it anyway. If someone establishes a way to detect it, then the game changes entirely. Even if CGC doesn't decide to start noting it, a legitimately competitive future service might, at which point it seems likely that CGC would be forced to consider it as well.

 

Actually there might be a case made where it wouldn't be economic suicide for CGC to note pressing. Never would this fly for all submissions, since a huge section of their customer base would be up in arms. However, there might be a slim chance that it could be an optional $ add on.

 

The question is would an additional niche market be a net gain for CGC or would there be such a downturn of their primary market that it would not be worthwhile?

 

There's another angle. If you're right that there is no residue-less alternative to release paper--which I find difficult to believe, but it's possible--then CGC's entire justification for not noting pressing falls apart. It's probably detectable now if you're right. Their ONLY option would then be to avoid addressing it altogether, because their current position is that it is undetectable and non-additive, but if you can detect the residue from the heat buffer, then their position becomes entirely false. They just can't keep giving that same answer without instantly losing face. SOMETHING has to change in the way they handle it...it's just a matter of what.

 

CGC's official policy in regards to pressing states nothing about detectability. They merely list it as one of the non-additive processes that they do not consider resto.

[fantastic_four]

It is unlikely that something that would be commonly seen on comic book covers by these sorts of analyses would work as a release agent. So it wouldn't take rocket science to realize when all of a sudden there was a spike in submissions with fluorotetracarbide that it was likely being used in lieu of silicone release paper.

 

I said something that doesn't leave residue. Are you implying you believe that to be impossible?

 

I do remain optimistic that pressing is detectable,

Why? It would never be implemented by CGC anyway.

 

Possibly not, but going back to Steve Borock's statements in this forum about why he didn't worry about pressing when he started CGC, he explicitly said it wasn't high on his radar since there was no way to detect it anyway. If someone establishes a way to detect it, then the game changes entirely. Even if CGC doesn't decide to start noting it, a legitimately competitive future service might, at which point it seems likely that CGC would be forced to consider it as well.

 

I just don't buy that CGC would lose significant business to a competitor that noted pressing on their label.

 

More likely the opposite. Having pressing noted on the label can't increase the value of a book and is likely to reduce it. Whatever your stand on pressing, it's hard to believe people would use a service that might result in a lower value for their books.

 

Offering a service that reliably detects pressing of raw books might possibly attract some customers.

 

If a viable competitor to CGC ever appears, I doubt a promise to note pressing on its labels will be part of its business plan.

 

I'm less interested in the politics than I am in developing a way to detect it. How CGC or any other grading company would choose to deal with the reality of detectable pressing is tough to call.

[fantastic_four]

CGC's official policy in regards to pressing states nothing about detectability. They merely list it as one of the non-additive processes that they do not consider resto.

 

But if detecting heat buffer residue proved to be reliably repeatable, then it's NOT a non-additive process, otherwise said heat buffer residue wouldn't be detectable.

[fantastic_four]

Actually there might be a case made where it wouldn't be economic suicide for CGC to note pressing. Never would this fly for all submissions, since a huge section of their customer base would be up in arms. However, there might be a slim chance that it could be an optional $ add on.

 

The question is would an additional niche market be a net gain for CGC or would there be such a downturn of their primary market that it would not be worthwhile?

 

I didn't notice it the first time I looked at Joseph's PCGS article, but that's actually exactly how they handled it, by introducing a new "Secure Plus" level of certification that used their more "advanced" detection techniques. My immediate reaction to that is that it's dumb and cheapens the "standard" certification service, but , PCGS tried to legitimize it by adding a bunch of other value-added features besides better detection that I'd have to mull a bit to decide how worthwhile they are.

 

Is splitting your product worth doing if you're a certification company? Seems like the "cheaper" certs then just look, well, cheap.

[nearmint]

CGC's official policy in regards to pressing states nothing about detectability. They merely list it as one of the non-additive processes that they do not consider resto.

 

But if detecting heat buffer residue proved to be reliably repeatable, then it's NOT a non-additive process, otherwise said heat buffer residue wouldn't be detectable.

 

Even if that were the case, I can't imagine CGC changing their stance unless their customers overwhelming demanded it, and I don't see that happening.

[fantastic_four]

CGC's official policy in regards to pressing states nothing about detectability. They merely list it as one of the non-additive processes that they do not consider resto.

 

But if detecting heat buffer residue proved to be reliably repeatable, then it's NOT a non-additive process, otherwise said heat buffer residue wouldn't be detectable.

 

Even if that were the case, I can't imagine CGC changing their stance unless their customers overwhelming demanded it, and I don't see that happening.

 

Something would have to change in that hypothetical situation, even if it's that they stop publicly commenting on pressing because they realize their position on it is no longer valid. And it will eat at the ethical sense of the graders, and I'm convinced that most of them try to act ethically. Right now, those guys are doing all they really can when it comes to restoration disclosure, but if suddenly you can detect pressing and they decide not to do it, then that's no longer the case. They'd have to completely avoid publicly talking about the topic.

 

That interests me only about a third as much as the possibility of it being detectable. It's the forensics geek in me.

[nearmint]

CGC's official policy in regards to pressing states nothing about detectability. They merely list it as one of the non-additive processes that they do not consider resto.

 

But if detecting heat buffer residue proved to be reliably repeatable, then it's NOT a non-additive process, otherwise said heat buffer residue wouldn't be detectable.

 

Even if that were the case, I can't imagine CGC changing their stance unless their customers overwhelming demanded it, and I don't see that happening.

 

Something would have to change in that hypothetical situation, even if it's that they stop publicly commenting on pressing because they realize their position on it is no longer valid. And it will eat at the ethical sense of the graders, and I'm convinced that most of them try to act ethically. Right now, those guys are doing all they really can when it comes to restoration disclosure, but if suddenly you can detect pressing and they decide not to do it, then that's no longer the case. They'd have to completely avoid publicly talking about the topic.

 

That interests me only about a third as much as the possibility of it being detectable. It's the forensics geek in me.

 

I just don't think they'd have to face that ethical dilemna. There's no groundswell of support for noting pressing. There are voices, but not loud enough, and certainly not enough voting with their dollars.

[gaz973]

It is unlikely that something that would be commonly seen on comic book covers by these sorts of analyses would work as a release agent. So it wouldn't take rocket science to realize when all of a sudden there was a spike in submissions with fluorotetracarbide that it was likely being used in lieu of silicone release paper.

 

I said something that doesn't leave residue. Are you implying you believe that to be impossible?

 

Yes.

 

 

I do remain optimistic that pressing is detectable,

Why? It would never be implemented by CGC anyway.

 

Possibly not, but going back to Steve Borock's statements in this forum about why he didn't worry about pressing when he started CGC, he explicitly said it wasn't high on his radar since there was no way to detect it anyway. If someone establishes a way to detect it, then the game changes entirely. Even if CGC doesn't decide to start noting it, a legitimately competitive future service might, at which point it seems likely that CGC would be forced to consider it as well.

 

Actually there might be a case made where it wouldn't be economic suicide for CGC to note pressing. Never would this fly for all submissions, since a huge section of their customer base would be up in arms. However, there might be a slim chance that it could be an optional $ add on.

 

The question is would an additional niche market be a net gain for CGC or would there be such a downturn of their primary market that it would not be worthwhile?

 

There's another angle. If you're right that there is no residue-less alternative to release paper--which I find difficult to believe, but it's possible--then CGC's entire justification for not noting pressing falls apart. It's probably detectable now if you're right. Their ONLY option would then be to avoid addressing it altogether, because their current position is that it is undetectable and non-additive, but if you can detect the residue from the heat buffer, then their position becomes entirely false. They just can't keep giving that same answer without instantly losing face. SOMETHING has to change in the way they handle it...it's just a matter of what.

I believe that their position that pressing was undetectable was always a convenient excuse to give to those who would have liked pressing to have been noted. It's not like they ever had an incentive to even try to detect it so obviously they were never going to and never will.

 

A failsafe method that could be proven to all for detecting pressing could be discovered tomorrow and CGC would never use it simply because it's not in their best interests. They wouldn't be able to use the "undetectable excuse" but they would either find another one or just say it's not their policy.

[cheetah]

CGC's official policy in regards to pressing states nothing about detectability. They merely list it as one of the non-additive processes that they do not consider resto.

 

But if detecting heat buffer residue proved to be reliably repeatable, then it's NOT a non-additive process, otherwise said heat buffer residue wouldn't be detectable.

 

I expect that polyethylene bags and backing boards contribute far more additives to a comic than would a few seconds of contact with wax paper. Are you implying that bagging and boarding of books should be considered restoration?