CGC Acquires Classics Inc - Response to your Questions

[fantastic_four]

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.

 

I have never seen any evidence of two things--that any restoration detection techniques used in comics originated from anyone IN the comics hobby, and that anyone outside of comics has ever developed a way to detect heat pressing. I wouldn't jump to the conclusion you have lacking both bits of evidence. Everything I've ever seen that we have in our hobby was borrowed from the conservation and art world or other hobbies that preceded ours, particularly coin and stamp collecting. From restoration techniques, to restoration detection techniques, to preservation methods or the usage of Mylar and calcium carbonate buffered boards from Cole and Gerber, to the way Overstreet developed his grading nomenclature and scale--EVERYTHING came from somewhere else. But no pressing detection anywhere I've seen. And I've looked, and asked. I asked the Library of Congress via their web site, and got back an answer from a conservator that they didn't believe it was detectable.

 

Which I didn't take to be an absolute universal truth, I just figure conservators have little reason to TRY to detect it. I can't hold it against CGC for not being able to detect something that nobody on Earth is known to have a reliable method for--that would be unreasonable.

[comicwiz]

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?

 

Good questions. The market will decide, not CGC. I see such a niche evolving mostly from the need to differentiate books which might wrongly be associated and debased in value and/or where a market resistance has emerged that is tied to their appearance or likeness to "bad pressing" examples.

[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.

 

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?

 

A few seconds of contact with release paper AND the heat from a press. It's the heat that might cause some residue to flake off.

 

I think the "wax" on most release paper is silicone. Wikipedia claims that silicone polymer is stable between 100 and 250 degrees Centigrade, and pressers don't go above that. My memory tells me they probably stay under 200 degrees Fahrenheit, but I'm not sure of it.

[comicwiz]

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?

 

What does the off-gassing of plastic have to do with the chemical properties found in the coating of release paper?

[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.

 

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?

 

What does the off-gassing of plastic have to do with the chemical properties found in the coating of release paper?

 

They'd be a different polymer anyway than silicone release paper.

 

This technique would require a complete inventory of release paper buffer types to determine if they're different from the polymers used in bags, and a Google search tells me there are quite a few materials besides silicone used in different release papers.

[comicwiz]

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.

 

I agree. The excuse would likely be that it would take too much time. I was hesitant in even suggesting this because even the mere mention of it might translate in to longer TAT's.

[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?

 

What does the off-gassing of plastic have to do with the chemical properties found in the coating of release paper?

 

Additives.

 

FWIW, you can use backing boards as release 'paper', too.

[cheetah]

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.

 

I agree. The excuse would likely be that it would take too much time. I was hesitant in even suggesting this because even the mere mention of it might translate in to longer TAT's.

 

To do a truly thorough job would also likely require destructive chemical testing. I wonder if the community could get used to each graded comic having a 1cm x 1cm square piece missing from the cover.

[comicwiz]

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?

 

What does the off-gassing of plastic have to do with the chemical properties found in the coating of release paper?

 

Additives.

 

FWIW, you can use backing boards as release 'paper', too.

 

Maybe the same hacks will start pressing books in stacks of 50 at a time too.

[comicwiz]

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.

 

I agree. The excuse would likely be that it would take too much time. I was hesitant in even suggesting this because even the mere mention of it might translate in to longer TAT's.

 

To do a truly thorough job would also likely require destructive chemical testing. I wonder if the community could get used to each graded comic having a 1cm x 1cm square piece missing from the cover.

 

Spectroscopy is identified as non-destructive for a reason.

[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.

 

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?

 

What does the off-gassing of plastic have to do with the chemical properties found in the coating of release paper?

 

Additives.

 

FWIW, you can use backing boards as release 'paper', too.

 

We're back to undetectable.

[mschmidt]

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.

 

I agree. The excuse would likely be that it would take too much time. I was hesitant in even suggesting this because even the mere mention of it might translate in to longer TAT's.

 

Please point me to any study or any company out there claiming that pressing can be reliably detected.

[comicwiz]

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?

 

What does the off-gassing of plastic have to do with the chemical properties found in the coating of release paper?

 

Additives.

 

FWIW, you can use backing boards as release 'paper', too.

 

We're back to undetectable.

 

If you mean because these are comics where backing boards are stuck to them and make it impossible to see the original cover wrap, then yes they are undetectable. (thumbs u

 

Serious, I'd like to know who uses backing boards as release sheets for pressing so at least I can add them to the list of people not to buy from or EVER deal with.

[comicwiz]

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.

 

I agree. The excuse would likely be that it would take too much time. I was hesitant in even suggesting this because even the mere mention of it might translate in to longer TAT's.

 

Please point me to any study or any company out there claiming that pressing can be reliably detected.

 

Show me a company that can 100% reliably detect restoration and that should give you the answer you seek.

[fantastic_four]

If you mean because these are comics where backing boards are stuck to them and make it impossible to see the original cover wrap, then yes they are undetectable. (thumbs u

 

How do you know that happens?

[VintageComics]

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.

 

Hindsight is always clear.

 

CGC graders are not magicians. There are probably 50 people on this forum that I could name off the top of my head that can grade just as well as a CGC grader. What those 50 people likely can't do is detect pressing with any degree of certainty - at least not with the naked eye - just like CGC graders can't. How can you detect something invisible to the naked eye? You can only assume that some books may have been pressed based on their current appearance, but then you have no way of knowing whether it was intentional or not and so CGC does what any normal person would do if they were handed a book and were asked their opinion: The grade the book as it sits in front of them.

 

Does anyone want a service whose opinion is a 50/50 guess? I don't see that as a very viable business model.

 

Now, you might be able to detect pressing using some of the tech mentioned in this thread, but after 2 Million books (and likely closer to 3 Million now) are they going to change anything? I guess the market will decide.

 

[comicwiz]

If you mean because these are comics where backing boards are stuck to them and make it impossible to see the original cover wrap, then yes they are undetectable. (thumbs u

 

How do you know that happens?

 

Nothing I can say will convince you that this is about as dumb a suggestion as seeing that YouTube video that showed that guy pressing the book open like he was reading it.

[mschmidt]

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.

 

I agree. The excuse would likely be that it would take too much time. I was hesitant in even suggesting this because even the mere mention of it might translate in to longer TAT's.

 

Please point me to any study or any company out there claiming that pressing can be reliably detected.

 

Show me a company that can 100% reliably detect restoration and that should give you the answer you seek.

 

That's my point - nobody can detect pressing reliably, so why would it be an excuse that CGC can't do it either?

[VintageComics]

Show me a company that can 100% reliably detect restoration and that should give you the answer you seek.

 

I would put their resto detection at somewhere between 98%-102%. Sometimes they miss a few, sometimes they over detect something that isn't there.

 

Nobody can actually do 100%, but they can detect resto with a much greater degree of accuracy than they can pressing. That's why we pay them the big bucks!

[comicwiz]

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.

 

I agree. The excuse would likely be that it would take too much time. I was hesitant in even suggesting this because even the mere mention of it might translate in to longer TAT's.

 

Please point me to any study or any company out there claiming that pressing can be reliably detected.

 

Show me a company that can 100% reliably detect restoration and that should give you the answer you seek.

 

That's my point - nobody can detect pressing reliably, so why would it be an excuse that CGC can't do it either?

 

That's also my point - nobody can guarantee 100% reliable restoration detection, but yet that hasn't stopped CGC from marketing itself as an authority on "restoration detection."

 

To me, the use of spectroscopy by a coin grading company is an important footnote in the discussion about the possibilities of detecting pressing, and I'm in the camp that just doesn't take CGC's word that pressing isn't detectable.