What does PRESSING IT OUT mean exactly?

[comix4fun]

..but we don't agree, and quote this as much as you like. Crawl back in the basement and go eff yourself.

 

I hope the mods are fair at doling out 'profanity masking' strikes.

 

 

 

Then Mitch Macremehhdy would have enough strikes to fill a baseball score sheet with all his FFFFFFFFFing.

[thunsicker]

Pressing comics is a process where typically a dry mount press is used at low heat in conjunction with moisture, which helps relax the paper fibers, in order to remove bends, dents, and rolls from the books. Often the whole process can be completed in a matter of minutes.

 

Books with defects like the ones listed above that do not break color can be pressed into extremely high grade.

 

Pressing when done properly is extremely difficult to detect. Definitely difficult to detect on a consistent basis. The end result of dry mount pressing is also similar, if not identical, to the end result as if the book were stored in optimal and certain conditions (flat and under some amount of pressure) for a long period of time, which also makes it difficult for anyone to determine if a book has been pressed or not.

 

CGC has chosen not to consider pressing restoration. Most likely, because it can not be detected consistently, or determined if it was done intentionally by mechanical means or not. It's also believed that they choose not to because it helps continue to bring in more business. They often grade the same book two, three or more times, because they are purchased, cracked out, often pressed, and resubmitted in hopes of a higher grade.

 

Many consider pressing restoration, and by definition it is. It's a process of removing defects, which restores a book to a state closer to which it was when it was manufactured.

 

Many do not consider it restoration. Probably, because as mentioned, the same results can be found naturally over a longer period of time. The logic there is: If you stored a book poorly and it gained defects because of poor storage, it would be down graded for it. ie: a stacking curl. Conversely, if you stored a book, that already had a stacking curl, flat enough and long enough to remove the curl, you would grade it in it's current state. Not down grading it for a curl that no longer exists.

 

Many consider pressing to be so non invasive that it really doesn't bother them. Some are completely turned off by it, and don't want to own any books that have been pressed. For this reason, disclosure is a hot topic. Most believe that the information should be disclosed to any potential buyers. Many believe that information should be pro-active. Many care very little about pressing, and just don't care to ask or keep track. Some use the logic that "CGC doesn't mind it, I don't mind it, so if someone that does mind it wants to know, then they should ask."

 

Without a doubt. Pressing makes pretty books. It also goes without saying that the driving force behind the popularity of pressing is the possible financial gains to be made form the process. Perhaps, also, it's acceptance is rooted in the fact that it is very non invasive and does make a good product with all original material (nothing physically added or taken away). As an example you will find the comic community less divided on issues of tape and a newer result of pressing being referred to as "spine re-alignment therepy". Those are widely frowned upon.

 

There are many debates on pressing and disclosure that can be found here on the CGC chat boards.

 

I just want to say this is perhaps the best synopsis of the whole pressing issue I have read. Sounds like a Wikipedia entry with both sides represented.

[joe_collector]

Many consider pressing restoration, and by definition it is. It's a process of removing defects, which restores a book to a state closer to which it was when it was manufactured.

 

Excellent point!

[joe_collector]

You may not agree with what you posted, but you did post it.

 

Don't sweat it, the board is full of split personalities.

[MCMiles]

There's an entire "out of context" thread in CG dedicated to the concept of taking a small part of a larger, more complete, quote and thus changing the meaning to what it would be when left in context.

 

I imagine that is that he is referring to, even though that thread is usually regarding innuendo.

 

Come on, that's BS as I quoted two paragraphs/several sentences here and didn't cut out a portion of a sentence to change the context.

 

He's just mad I agreed with something he posted.

 

..but we don't agree...

 

You're missing the nuances. JC said he agreed with something you posted. That is true. You may not agree with what you posted, but you did post it.

 

I get that and I'm not missing anything. What you aren't getting is that my name is attached to a partial quote, of a post that purposely and fairly covered two sides of a debate. Wether or not it's the proper definition of out of context or not doesn't matter. The fact is anyone reading his post that may not have read mine may think that is my opinion, so I asked that he not do that. He could have actually quoted the whole thing and just bolded the part he wanted to emphasize, or just took the time to write it himself.

[Timmay]

I get that and I'm not missing anything. What you aren't getting is that my name is attached to a partial quote, of a post that purposely and fairly covered two sides of a debate. Wether or not it's the proper definition of out of context or not doesn't matter. The fact is anyone reading his post that may not have read mine may think that is my opinion, so I asked that he not do that. He could have actually quoted the whole thing and just bolded the part he wanted to emphasize, or just took the time to write it himself.

 

What's the fun in that?

 

There would be nothing to argue about.

 

[joe_collector]

[He could have actually quoted the whole thing

 

Actually, quoting entire, massive comments when you only want to refer to a part of it is against Internet etiquette and many board members will call you out on it.

[ARWilson-migration]

There's an entire "out of context" thread in CG dedicated to the concept of taking a small part of a larger, more complete, quote and thus changing the meaning to what it would be when left in context.

 

I imagine that is that he is referring to, even though that thread is usually regarding innuendo.

 

Come on, that's BS as I quoted two paragraphs/several sentences here and didn't cut out a portion of a sentence to change the context.

 

He's just mad I agreed with something he posted.

 

..but we don't agree...

 

You're missing the nuances. JC said he agreed with something you posted. That is true. You may not agree with what you posted, but you did post it.

 

I get that and I'm not missing anything. What you aren't getting is that my name is attached to a partial quote, of a post that purposely and fairly covered two sides of a debate. Wether or not it's the proper definition of out of context or not doesn't matter. The fact is anyone reading his post that may not have read mine may think that is my opinion, so I asked that he not do that. He could have actually quoted the whole thing and just bolded the part he wanted to emphasize, or just took the time to write it himself.

 

Ahh, I've heard of this. Isn't this what you kids today call "butthurt"?

[comicdonna]

[BlowUpTheMoon]

There would be nothing

 

I agree with Timmay 100%.

[joe_collector]

100%.

 

110%

[Timmay]

I agree 100%.

 

[Flaming_Telepath]

Pressing comics is a process where typically a dry mount press is used at low heat in conjunction with moisture, which helps relax the paper fibers, in order to remove bends, dents, and rolls from the books. Often the whole process can be completed in a matter of minutes.

 

Books with defects like the ones listed above that do not break color can be pressed into extremely high grade.

 

Pressing when done properly is extremely difficult to detect. Definitely difficult to detect on a consistent basis. The end result of dry mount pressing is also similar, if not identical, to the end result as if the book were stored in optimal and certain conditions (flat and under some amount of pressure) for a long period of time, which also makes it difficult for anyone to determine if a book has been pressed or not.

 

CGC has chosen not to consider pressing restoration. Most likely, because it can not be detected consistently, or determined if it was done intentionally by mechanical means or not. It's also believed that they choose not to because it helps continue to bring in more business. They often grade the same book two, three or more times, because they are purchased, cracked out, often pressed, and resubmitted in hopes of a higher grade.

 

Many consider pressing restoration, and by definition it is. It's a process of removing defects, which restores a book to a state closer to which it was when it was manufactured.

 

Many do not consider it restoration. Probably, because as mentioned, the same results can be found naturally over a longer period of time. The logic there is: If you stored a book poorly and it gained defects because of poor storage, it would be down graded for it. ie: a stacking curl. Conversely, if you stored a book, that already had a stacking curl, flat enough and long enough to remove the curl, you would grade it in it's current state. Not down grading it for a curl that no longer exists.

 

Many consider pressing to be so non invasive that it really doesn't bother them. Some are completely turned off by it, and don't want to own any books that have been pressed. For this reason, disclosure is a hot topic. Most believe that the information should be disclosed to any potential buyers. Many believe that information should be pro-active. Many care very little about pressing, and just don't care to ask or keep track. Some use the logic that "CGC doesn't mind it, I don't mind it, so if someone that does mind it wants to know, then they should ask."

 

Without a doubt. Pressing makes pretty books. It also goes without saying that the driving force behind the popularity of pressing is the possible financial gains to be made form the process. Perhaps, also, it's acceptance is rooted in the fact that it is very non invasive and does make a good product with all original material (nothing physically added or taken away). As an example you will find the comic community less divided on issues of tape and a newer result of pressing being referred to as "spine re-alignment therepy". Those are widely frowned upon.

 

There are many debates on pressing and disclosure that can be found here on the CGC chat boards.

 

You're a better man that I, Mike.

 

However, I fully endorse this post. (thumbs u

[Mark 1]

Pressing comics is a process where typically a dry mount press is used at low heat in conjunction with moisture, which helps relax the paper fibers, in order to remove bends, dents, and rolls from the books. Often the whole process can be completed in a matter of minutes.

 

Books with defects like the ones listed above that do not break color can be pressed into extremely high grade.

 

Pressing when done properly is extremely difficult to detect. Definitely difficult to detect on a consistent basis. The end result of dry mount pressing is also similar, if not identical, to the end result as if the book were stored in optimal and certain conditions (flat and under some amount of pressure) for a long period of time, which also makes it difficult for anyone to determine if a book has been pressed or not.

 

CGC has chosen not to consider pressing restoration. Most likely, because it can not be detected consistently, or determined if it was done intentionally by mechanical means or not. It's also believed that they choose not to because it helps continue to bring in more business. They often grade the same book two, three or more times, because they are purchased, cracked out, often pressed, and resubmitted in hopes of a higher grade.

 

Many consider pressing restoration, and by definition it is. It's a process of removing defects, which restores a book to a state closer to which it was when it was manufactured.

 

Many do not consider it restoration. Probably, because as mentioned, the same results can be found naturally over a longer period of time. The logic there is: If you stored a book poorly and it gained defects because of poor storage, it would be down graded for it. ie: a stacking curl. Conversely, if you stored a book, that already had a stacking curl, flat enough and long enough to remove the curl, you would grade it in it's current state. Not down grading it for a curl that no longer exists.

 

Many consider pressing to be so non invasive that it really doesn't bother them. Some are completely turned off by it, and don't want to own any books that have been pressed. For this reason, disclosure is a hot topic. Most believe that the information should be disclosed to any potential buyers. Many believe that information should be pro-active. Many care very little about pressing, and just don't care to ask or keep track. Some use the logic that "CGC doesn't mind it, I don't mind it, so if someone that does mind it wants to know, then they should ask."

 

Without a doubt. Pressing makes pretty books. It also goes without saying that the driving force behind the popularity of pressing is the possible financial gains to be made form the process. Perhaps, also, it's acceptance is rooted in the fact that it is very non invasive and does make a good product with all original material (nothing physically added or taken away). As an example you will find the comic community less divided on issues of tape and a newer result of pressing being referred to as "spine re-alignment therepy". Those are widely frowned upon.

 

There are many debates on pressing and disclosure that can be found here on the CGC chat boards.

 

You're a better man that I, Mike.

 

However, I fully endorse this post. (thumbs u

 

Very well worded post for sure! That captures the essence of the topic and defines it amazingly well.

[VintageComics]

I think it's a great post as well and I've saved it for future use.

 

Wish I'd have written it.

 

Most people know exactly what you meant.

 

JC is just shifting the discussion into his own personal direction as he usually does.

 

ignore/

 

 

 

 

[THE_BEYONDER]

I think it's a great post as well and I've saved it for future use.

 

Wish I'd have written it.

 

Most people know exactly what you meant.

 

JC is just shifting the discussion into his own personal direction as he usually does.

 

ignore/

 

 

 

 

....by definition it is...

 

Pretty sure that's what was being applauded.

[fantastic_four]

There's an entire "out of context" thread in CG dedicated to the concept of taking a small part of a larger, more complete, quote and thus changing the meaning to what it would be when left in context.

 

I imagine that is that he is referring to, even though that thread is usually regarding innuendo.

 

Come on, that's BS as I quoted two paragraphs/several sentences here and didn't cut out a portion of a sentence to change the context.

 

He's just mad I agreed with something he posted.

 

He posted a well-balanced, informative overview of pressing that presented the issue from multiple perspectives. You quoted the small portion of his balanced post that presented a single perspective that you agree with. Your quote of that isolated perspective removes the balance that he intended, so yes, you changed his intent by taking the quote out of its context. Your follow-ups suggest you don't even realize what you did. I can't tell from the post that you quoted what his own opinion is since he presented multiple sides of the issue so effectively, so you two may or may not be in agreement.

 

Just because he chose to present the side you agree with doesn't mean that's his own opinion--to think otherwise suggests a mindset that bias is implicit in a discussion. It isn't. I suppose it's no surprise that you presume bias since you're typically only able to see one side of an issue. Gives me no joy to point that out given what an eloquent speaker and great thinker you are--I can only wish that it weren't so.

 

At least you didn't try to TWIST his meaning by removing it from its context, so as far as out-of-context quoting sins go, yours was pretty tame. The "you didn't build that" quote from last year's American presidential election was so annoying in the way they completely redefined the word "that" intended in the original context. I strive to not be prejudiced, to not be biased, to see both sides, and to not choose one side of a discussion before hearing both sides, so I really wanted to listen to the conservative side of things in that election--but when they choose a deliberately manipuled out-of-context quote as the theme for their entire convention to paint their opponent in a way that wasn't accurate, it tells me they have no respect for the truth and think the public is too dumb to know the difference. Ugh.

[Davenport]

Pressing comics is a process where typically a dry mount press is used at low heat in conjunction with moisture, which helps relax the paper fibers, in order to remove bends, dents, and rolls from the books. Often the whole process can be completed in a matter of minutes.

 

Books with defects like the ones listed above that do not break color can be pressed into extremely high grade.

 

Pressing when done properly is extremely difficult to detect. Definitely difficult to detect on a consistent basis. The end result of dry mount pressing is also similar, if not identical, to the end result as if the book were stored in optimal and certain conditions (flat and under some amount of pressure) for a long period of time, which also makes it difficult for anyone to determine if a book has been pressed or not.

 

CGC has chosen not to consider pressing restoration. Most likely, because it can not be detected consistently, or determined if it was done intentionally by mechanical means or not. It's also believed that they choose not to because it helps continue to bring in more business. They often grade the same book two, three or more times, because they are purchased, cracked out, often pressed, and resubmitted in hopes of a higher grade.

 

Many consider pressing restoration, and by definition it is. It's a process of removing defects, which restores a book to a state closer to which it was when it was manufactured.

 

Many do not consider it restoration. Probably, because as mentioned, the same results can be found naturally over a longer period of time. The logic there is: If you stored a book poorly and it gained defects because of poor storage, it would be down graded for it. ie: a stacking curl. Conversely, if you stored a book, that already had a stacking curl, flat enough and long enough to remove the curl, you would grade it in it's current state. Not down grading it for a curl that no longer exists.

 

Many consider pressing to be so non invasive that it really doesn't bother them. Some are completely turned off by it, and don't want to own any books that have been pressed. For this reason, disclosure is a hot topic. Most believe that the information should be disclosed to any potential buyers. Many believe that information should be pro-active. Many care very little about pressing, and just don't care to ask or keep track. Some use the logic that "CGC doesn't mind it, I don't mind it, so if someone that does mind it wants to know, then they should ask."

 

Without a doubt. Pressing makes pretty books. It also goes without saying that the driving force behind the popularity of pressing is the possible financial gains to be made form the process. Perhaps, also, it's acceptance is rooted in the fact that it is very non invasive and does make a good product with all original material (nothing physically added or taken away). As an example you will find the comic community less divided on issues of tape and a newer result of pressing being referred to as "spine re-alignment therepy". Those are widely frowned upon.

 

There are many debates on pressing and disclosure that can be found here on the CGC chat boards.

Wow. This should be stickied so it doesn't get lost.

 

Any thoughts on other 'non-additive' controversies? Disassembly and such?

[chromium]

Agreed, McMiles wrote an excellent and balanced catch-all response to the original question.

I suggest quoting it ad infinitum for all future pressing questions.

[joe_collector]

He posted a well-balanced, informative overview of pressing that presented the issue from multiple perspectives. You quoted the small portion of his balanced post that presented a single perspective that you agree with.

 

Tough titty said the kitty, we're all out of milk.

 

I quoted 2 paragraphs made up of multiple sentences, and if he totally disagrees with, and is fanboy-level-senstive about, that level of content being shown out of a larger post, then he shouldn't have written it.

 

At least you didn't try to TWIST his meaning by removing it from its context, so as far as out-of-context quoting sins go, yours was pretty tame

 

While I would never twist meaning in that way, I see what you're getting at, but I disagree that "selective quoting" of multiple and sequential paragraphs is anything close to 'out of context quoting'. These were complete sentences that he wrote in sequence and said exactly what he meant them to.

 

Truthfully, I think your bias towards my posting style is more of an issue, and had someone else quoted exactly what I quoted, there would be no hoopla.