When did pressing a comic before every sub become the norm?

[miraclemet]

Now the big question is: should you always disclose a grade bump (pressed or not) when you are fully aware of it ? My answer would be yes, so the buyer can decide if he wants to buy the book or the label.

 

Of course we are talking about a CGC book that got a grade bump and not a raw book which would be different.

 

You are selling what a book is, not what it was, and not what it will be in the future right?

 

And when a buyer is buying a book, how do you know what he is basing his buy off of?

 

You list a CGC 9.0 ASM 121 with a cover scan.

 

Buyer say's "I'll take it"

 

In theory the buyer is agreeing that the book you are selling is worth the amount you asked (or maybe even more). What does it matter what it was graded before? What if it's previous grade had been someone else's raw grade?

 

ie

 

ASM 121 CGC 9.0 for sale (previously sold as a raw VF by foolkiller, as a VF/NM by some local dealer in South Carolina, and as a "pretty new looking book" by some little old lady cleaning out her garage)

 

[VintageComics]

Now the big question is: should you always disclose a grade bump (pressed or not) when you are fully aware of it ? My answer would be yes, so the buyer can decide if he wants to buy the book or the label.

 

Of course we are talking about a CGC book that got a grade bump and not a raw book which would be different.

 

You are selling what a book is, not what it was, and not what it will be in the future right?

 

And when a buyer is buying a book, how do you know what he is basing his buy off of?

 

You list a CGC 9.0 ASM 121 with a cover scan.

 

Buyer say's "I'll take it"

 

In theory the buyer is agreeing that the book you are selling is worth the amount you asked (or maybe even more). What does it matter what it was graded before? What if it's previous grade had been someone else's raw grade?

 

ie

 

ASM 121 CGC 9.0 for sale (previously sold as a raw VF by foolkiller, as a VF/NM by some local dealer in South Carolina, and as a "pretty new looking book" by some little old lady cleaning out her garage)

 

 

That is the way I see it too.

 

I've argued many times over the years that simply telling someone whether or not you know if a book is pressed is really not a whole lot of information since the only way to know if a book was actually pressed is if you are the original owner or have bought the book from the original owner.

 

I would just assume that any other book has already been pressed.

 

So to me, the only disclosure of any real value at this point is whether you can vouch whether a book was never pressed. Anything else is not really conclusive.

 

 

[DamageInc-migration]

Pressing is restoration, no matter how slight and non-intrusive.

 

I don't believe pressing is restoration, nor is it repair - because the process in which it works does not introduce anything (chemical or material) into the book that was not there originally in order to bring it back to a previous state of condition.

 

Putting a book under pressure using heat is not a restorative process, IMHO. This is the grey area where people seem to get hostile, which is why there is no acceptance of what it is or isn't.

 

+1

 

I just don't see how you can say it is restoration.

 

Its easy to see if you want to see it, it's right in the definition. Any operation/technique that brings a book back closer to its original condition is restoring that book to a previous (better) state. (Nevermind the CGC "additive" BS, we know why that qualifier is used.)

 

There are several pro-pressers that are willing to admit that pressing is restoration, albeit very slight and the least intrusive. Maybe they'll chime in.

[pickycollector]

Now the big question is: should you always disclose a grade bump (pressed or not) when you are fully aware of it ? My answer would be yes, so the buyer can decide if he wants to buy the book or the label.

 

Of course we are talking about a CGC book that got a grade bump and not a raw book which would be different.

 

You are selling what a book is, not what it was, and not what it will be in the future right?

 

And when a buyer is buying a book, how do you know what he is basing his buy off of?

 

You list a CGC 9.0 ASM 121 with a cover scan.

 

Buyer say's "I'll take it"

 

In theory the buyer is agreeing that the book you are selling is worth the amount you asked (or maybe even more). What does it matter what it was graded before? What if it's previous grade had been someone else's raw grade?

 

ie

 

ASM 121 CGC 9.0 for sale (previously sold as a raw VF by foolkiller, as a VF/NM by some local dealer in South Carolina, and as a "pretty new looking book" by some little old lady cleaning out her garage)

 

I say that if grade bump came from pressing, disclosure is more important as many people consider pressing as restoration and do not like it.

 

Now for just grade bump disclosure (no pressing involved) although ethically preferable, it does not involve the restoration debate that pressing can have.

 

I agree with you though that if it is a book that I bought raw and that I re-sell raw or CGC graded, it is just a matter of opinion between two entities when they do grade.

 

But when the same entity (CGC) can have a grade of 8.0 and then 9.2 on the same book without even pressing involved, then I am really puzzled about their grading consistency..

[bababooey]

Now the big question is: should you always disclose a grade bump (pressed or not) when you are fully aware of it ? My answer would be yes, so the buyer can decide if he wants to buy the book or the label.

 

Of course we are talking about a CGC book that got a grade bump and not a raw book which would be different.

 

You are selling what a book is, not what it was, and not what it will be in the future right?

 

And when a buyer is buying a book, how do you know what he is basing his buy off of?

 

You list a CGC 9.0 ASM 121 with a cover scan.

 

Buyer say's "I'll take it"

 

In theory the buyer is agreeing that the book you are selling is worth the amount you asked (or maybe even more). What does it matter what it was graded before? What if it's previous grade had been someone else's raw grade?

 

ie

 

ASM 121 CGC 9.0 for sale (previously sold as a raw VF by foolkiller, as a VF/NM by some local dealer in South Carolina, and as a "pretty new looking book" by some little old lady cleaning out her garage)

 

 

That is the way I see it too.

 

I've argued many times over the years that simply telling someone whether or not you know if a book is pressed is really not a whole lot of information since the only way to know if a book was actually pressed is if you are the original owner or have bought the book from the original owner.

 

I would just assume that any other book has already been pressed.

 

So to me, the only disclosure of any real value at this point is whether you can vouch whether a book was never pressed. Anything else is not really conclusive.

 

I would think if someone knew a book was pressed then that would be disclosure of real value also.

 

[Transplant]

I have a problem with that as well, and it's become a conflict of interest ( @ Transplant - you were right).

 

If they have an in house pressing company and can also now co-incidentally detect poor pressing better that funnels more business through the in house pressing service.

 

In order to get the best grade you now need to use their pressing service. Why wasn't the poor pressing detected before?

 

I'm really having trouble with that one because

 

a) it's almost like grading shadows and tanning - it's entirely subjective.

b) it's inconsistent. I was told I had books that I had pressed (not through CGC) and submitted with flaring or butterflying or crushed spines when in fact I personally don't think there was any, or if it was it was negligible enough that nobody would have given it a second thought a year ago.

 

Twice today I have been lauded for my board actions. Is it time to expect a Boardie of the Year honor? I think my chances are looking good.

[pickycollector]

Now the big question is: should you always disclose a grade bump (pressed or not) when you are fully aware of it ? My answer would be yes, so the buyer can decide if he wants to buy the book or the label.

 

Of course we are talking about a CGC book that got a grade bump and not a raw book which would be different.

 

You are selling what a book is, not what it was, and not what it will be in the future right?

 

And when a buyer is buying a book, how do you know what he is basing his buy off of?

 

You list a CGC 9.0 ASM 121 with a cover scan.

 

Buyer say's "I'll take it"

 

In theory the buyer is agreeing that the book you are selling is worth the amount you asked (or maybe even more). What does it matter what it was graded before? What if it's previous grade had been someone else's raw grade?

 

ie

 

ASM 121 CGC 9.0 for sale (previously sold as a raw VF by foolkiller, as a VF/NM by some local dealer in South Carolina, and as a "pretty new looking book" by some little old lady cleaning out her garage)

 

 

That is the way I see it too.

 

I've argued many times over the years that simply telling someone whether or not you know if a book is pressed is really not a whole lot of information since the only way to know if a book was actually pressed is if you are the original owner or have bought the book from the original owner.

 

I would just assume that any other book has already been pressed.

 

So to me, the only disclosure of any real value at this point is whether you can vouch whether a book was never pressed. Anything else is not really conclusive.

 

I disagree Roy, for me, there is only one way to disclose pressing:

 

1) you know for sure the book was pressed; or

2) you know for sure the book was never pressed; or

3) you don't know if the book was pressed or not

 

That way, the buyer has the same information as you do and can decide if he wants to buy the book or not.

[DamageInc-migration]

Frankly, if I were in the anti-pressing camp, the thing I would be most upset at is the new "We can detect a lot of (bad) press jobs" stance. For years, the thing that beat down the resistance of a lot of people was the idea that it was undetectable. Again and again, despite the historic treatment of pressing as, at the very least, part of a restorative process, the concept that it was undetectable ground down a lot of resistance.

 

The fact that it hasn't generated a call-to-arms is testament to how beaten down the anti-pressers are.

 

I have a problem with that as well, and it's become a conflict of interest ( @ Transplant - you were right).

 

If they have an in house pressing company and can also now co-incidentally detect poor pressing better that funnels more business through the in house pressing service.

 

In order to get the best grade you now need to use their pressing service. Why wasn't the poor pressing detected before?

 

I'm really having trouble with that one because

 

a) it's almost like grading shadows and tanning - it's entirely subjective.

b) it's inconsistent. I was told I had books that I had pressed (not through CGC) and submitted with flaring or butterflying or crushed spines when in fact I personally don't think there was any, or if it was it was negligible enough that nobody would have given it a second thought a year ago.

 

 

Yaaaay, Roy! (thumbs u <---- the good one!

[ChrisInBaltimore]

I wouldn't mind if somebody pressed their implants between my eyes.

I know this guy with testicular implants.

 

 

Man you weren't supposed to tell people!

[joeypost]

One thing I have learned is this...I know who I am not dealing with. Ever.

[VintageComics]

Twice today I have been lauded for my board actions. Is it time to expect a Boardie of the Year honor? I think my chances are looking good.

Eh....no.

 

Don't let it go to your head. I still need to kick you in the nads in Chicago.

 

 

[Chespirito]

One thing I have learned is this...I know who I am not dealing with. Ever.

 

Ever eva eva???

[fantastic_four]

Frankly, if I were in the anti-pressing camp, the thing I would be most upset at is the new "We can detect a lot of (bad) press jobs" stance. For years, the thing that beat down the resistance of a lot of people was the idea that it was undetectable. Again and again, despite the historic treatment of pressing as, at the very least, part of a restorative process, the concept that it was undetectable ground down a lot of resistance.

 

The fact that it hasn't generated a call-to-arms is testament to how beaten down the anti-pressers are.

 

What's new here? Bad presses have always been detectable, and we have frequently talked about them as such here in the forums back as far as 2004 or 2003. Even when Borock was with CGC he would explicitly point that fact out.

[fantastic_four]

First, keep in mind that pressing does not restore a comic book to it's previous condition, it only gives the appearance of having done so. The creases and wrinkles are still there at a microscopic level.

 

To understand that, it helps if you know the difference between elastic deformation and plastic deformation. If you bend or roll a comic cover in your fingers slightly, but it goes back to being flat as soon as you let go, that is elastic deformation. If you do the same thing but leave a finger bend, that's plastic deformation, which is irreversible. Plastic deformation cannot be pressed out, it can only be obscured or hidden.

 

That's all accurate, but nobody knows how to establish that the broken paper fibers you're describing as "plastic deformation" were redirected by pressing. Also the fibers don't always break--pressing corrects a lot of issues that are far more subtle damage to the fibers.

 

If you establish a method to consistently and reliably detect pressing via microscopic evaluation, please do share it. Nobody has to date. I do agree with your thinking--if anyone determines a way to detect pressing, microscopic evaluation of the fibers is the way it will be done.

 

To make matters worse, the book has been exposed to extreme heat, which could be a catalyst for deterioration of the page quality in the long run.

 

This is accurate, but only to an extremely minor extent. Somewhere in the same neighborhood as what a suntan does to the long-term condition of human skin. We've discussed this issue at great depth in the past.

[miraclemet]

One thing I have learned is this...I know who I am not dealing with. Ever.

 

I'm just looking forward to the Jimmy Swaggart level scandal when some super-anti-pressing collector is revealed to be hoarding pressed books and secretly subbing tons of books under a fake id.

 

[joeypost]

One thing I have learned is this...I know who I am not dealing with. Ever.

 

Ever eva eva???

 

Eva.

[Chespirito]

Jimmy Swaggart....

 

 

 

Post of the week!!

[DiceX]

The Collectors-Society Forums.

Where the butthurt meets the road.

 

 

[namisgr]

Frankly, if I were in the anti-pressing camp, the thing I would be most upset at is the new "We can detect a lot of (bad) press jobs" stance. For years, the thing that beat down the resistance of a lot of people was the idea that it was undetectable. Again and again, despite the historic treatment of pressing as, at the very least, part of a restorative process, the concept that it was undetectable ground down a lot of resistance.

 

The fact that it hasn't generated a call-to-arms is testament to how beaten down the anti-pressers are.

 

You're not paying attention.

 

Some of the not-so-little secrets of pressing have been that it sometimes:

 

- leaves water marks

- leaves waves

- leaves vertical color-breaking lines in pressed overhangs

- leaves color rubs on the front adjacent to the spine

- leaves fuzzed paper around the staples, where the cover has shifted slightly but perceptibly in relation to the staples

- turns slightly indented staples into much more indented ones

 

Many of these were claimed as being bunk in older threads. Now, though, they are explicitly recognized as being the occasional by-products of 'bad' pressing, often by the in-house head of the CGC pressing business. The one I haven't seen him discuss is the staple problem, but Matt and his former business partner specifically used the term 'maverick staples' to describe those likely to worsen from a press job, and they've been well-aware of the problem for a long time.

 

Sure, you can't tell often if at all on modern comics, and many older ones don't show any of the 'bad' signs described above. Still, there are many more books with unsightly pressing-related issues floating around the hobby than ever before, and it's not just the 'face-jobs' with the ridiculous miswraps and exposed pages, either.

[seanfingh]

 

I obviously am communicating poorly. Again, I am not talking about the pressing itself. I am talking about CGC's position on pressing. For years, it was undetectable. That was their position, time and time again. Bad press jobs got lip service occasionally. Of course bad jobs (a la Hooks' waffles) were always known to be detectable.

 

But now, after Matt comes in house, there is a new vibe that CGC is really out there looking for the signs of bad press jobs. Were I inclined to worry about pressing, I would be upset. Why not put that out there before? Maybe the press-fest slows down, because people are worried about damaging books, as opposed to the "damn the torpedoes, press 'em all and let God sort them out" free for all that has come into play in the last 3 years.