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

[VintageComics]

Pro Graders seems to assume paper never moved and will never move again, coin-like.

 

You can't see broken fibers without microscopic evaluation, and poring over every square inch of the front and back cover looking for broken fibers would be quite tedious. And even if you found them, as mentioned earlier, you have no idea what caused them to be there or to be flattened back out. I'm not sure you can see them at all with most minor folds that pressing flattens out.

 

Grading is about what a book presents like at arm's length. What it feels, smells and looks like.

 

It's a very coarse science based on human opinion - so very much an art form. Grading basically conveys an opinion on how that book presents in an experienced person's hands with natural eye sight.

 

Now, if anyone wants to make a microscopic science out of it they can, but up until now that's not what it's been about. Have your books been checked for radioactive exposure? How about smells? Any of those smells bad for the book? The Big Apple pedigree smelled like Kerosene because half the collection was holed up in a room with Kerosene.

 

If I had to guess, I'm pretty sure that the microscope sitting at CGC get's used about every other leap year's day. Those ads with Borock looking through a microscope were great for marketing and making the company look professional and progressive but I'm betting it's not practical to use it very often.

 

I'm sure pretty soon we'll have phone apps to grade our books for us so we don't even need to send them in to be graded. Right now, it's just comics at arm's length with a good eagle eye.

[DiceX]

The shifting, indeed is made more apparent and stark when you have before/after scans. But what visual benefit could you make the argument for that was required for them to pick up the defects on the rear cover that weren't accounted for in the grade?

 

They grade spine ticks less harshly on the back than the front. Whether or not they've always done that, only sometimes done that, or that they should have ever graded that way at all is controversial and up for discussion. I always assumed they graded back-cover defects less harshly based upon grades I've seen them give to books with back-cover defects severe enough to not merit that grade had they been on the front.

 

I've only ever known CGC to give both front and rear cover equal weight. If this isn't the case, then maybe they need the community to do more unpaid detective work, and find visual examples so they can grade comics properly?

 

People can joke around about it all they want but I still say that partially hiding defects on the apex of the spine (not the back cover) is what caused the grade increases.

 

 

I agree, but I'm still going to giggle every time you say it.

 

 

[comicwiz]

The shifting, indeed is made more apparent and stark when you have before/after scans. But what visual benefit could you make the argument for that was required for them to pick up the defects on the rear cover that weren't accounted for in the grade?

 

They grade spine ticks less harshly on the back than the front. Whether or not they've always done that, only sometimes done that, or that they should have ever graded that way at all is controversial and up for discussion. I always assumed they graded back-cover defects less harshly based upon grades I've seen them give to books with back-cover defects severe enough to not merit that grade had they been on the front.

 

I've only ever known CGC to give both front and rear cover equal weight. If this isn't the case, then maybe they need the community to do more unpaid detective work, and find visual examples so they can grade comics properly?

 

People can joke around about it all they want but I still say that partially hiding defects on the apex of the spine (not the back cover) is what caused the grade increases.

 

 

I would say that point might have some merit, but not in cases where the spine wear/crease, previously sharing its full length on the front and back cover, now completely ran from the bind to the entire back. There is no excuse for missing such defects, whether they are a few millimeters or a full inch in length. It's scary how some of those books looked like they were graded without even having a look at the back cover.

[Davenport]

For a moment think about a book's actual/factual "State of Preservation". Only that. Forget about labels and holders and The Game. Just "state of preservation" for a moment.

 

Now link "Grade" directly to "state of preservation". That's all you want to discern. Actual/factual "state of preservation" and assign a "grade" to communicate that reality.

 

Pro Graders don't do that, but Pressers do.

 

Pro Graders could too.

 

Right? If a Presser can come in right behind a Pro Grader and re-assess their given grade, then that grade isn't as accurate as it could be. If somebody dismisses the properties of paper, then somebody else can and will apply those properties for a quick payday.

 

Are you suggesting that when grading we and CGC should ignore defects that can be pressed out?

You're getting close.

 

I'm suggesting that Pro Graders could incorporate the properties of paper when discerning "defects", the way Pressers do.

 

Paper can move, to a degree, without actual/factual damage occurring. Right? So just because super-flat paper may be more visually appealing doesn't mean the actual/factual "state of preservation" has diminished if it's not perfectly flat. That's what an accurate professional assessment should incorporate, whether actual/factual damage has occurred, and not be overly concerned that paper has moved. You know, since paper can do that and be perfectly fine.

 

 

[DamageInc-migration]

Grading is about what a book presents like at arm's length.

 

Isn't that the definition of "eye appeal"? I thought CGC pretty much eliminated eye appeal from their grading?

[Comicopolis]

I believe that pressing causes the text inside of comics to change. If you press a book enough times, you'll have a totally different story.

The evidence is there. It's blatantly obvious and nobody can make me believe any differently.

 

 

Somebody should press every single book written by Jeph Loeb.

 

It could only be an improvement.

[Chip Cataldo]

Somebody should press every single book written by Jeph Loeb.

 

It could only be an improvement.

 

They should press his first name until it's spelled correctly.

 

Peace,

 

Chip

[slym2none]

Somebody should press every single book written by Jeph Loeb.

 

It could only be an improvement.

 

They should press his first name until it's spelled correctly.

 

Peace,

 

Chip

 

 

 

 

-slym

[comix4fun]

Someone even told me once that pressing will make coupons inside of comics disappear.

I didn't believe it so I looked through all of my books and found the ones with clipped coupons, sure enough, the damned things had been pressed.

 

 

 

Dear Dice,

 

Will the moisture used in pressing make the sea monkeys in the ad on the back cover come to life? I am deathly afraid of monkeys of all kinds and I just don't want to risk it.

 

I'll hang up and listen for me answer.

 

Signed,

Petrified of pressing perpetuated primates.

 

This made me lollers in my panties.

 

 

 

 

I live to serve.

 

 

But if you're answering me...that's not a "NO".

[VintageComics]

Grading is about what a book presents like at arm's length.

 

Isn't that the definition of "eye appeal"? I thought CGC pretty much eliminated eye appeal from their grading?

 

That's more conjecture.

 

They didn't eliminate eye appeal, they applied a grading scale to it. Eye appeal is still taken into account, it just may not be taken into account the same way you do.

 

 

[VintageComics]

I would say that point might have some merit, but not in cases where the spine wear/crease, previously sharing its full length on the front and back cover, now completely ran from the bind to the entire back. There is no excuse for missing such defects, whether they are a few millimeters or a full inch in length. It's scary how some of those books looked like they were graded without even having a look at the back cover.

 

I don't remember seeing any books were the defect was entirely moved to the back cover from the front - am specifically talking about the Avengers #1 and the poor scans we used to assess that book.

 

I think what happened is that Wilson moved the defects across the apex of the spine and broke the defect into two smaller defects (front and back) rather than one large defect on either front or back, giving the illusion that there was less wear on the book - and since some of it was right across the apex, the book over all looked structurally higher grade.

 

Anyhow, that's just my theory.

 

 

[DamageInc-migration]

Grading is about what a book presents like at arm's length.

 

Isn't that the definition of "eye appeal"? I thought CGC pretty much eliminated eye appeal from their grading?

 

That's more conjecture.

 

They didn't eliminate eye appeal, they applied a grading scale to it. Eye appeal is still taken into account, it just may not be taken into account the same way you do.

 

 

Well, the definition I gave is straight from Overstreet, so yeah, it might not jive with CGC. I realize they take eye appeal into consideration when giving a book with a large sig on the cover a Blue label, but in other areas I think they ignore eye appeal altogether. But then again, I wouldn't expect them to grade a book at arm's length either, that's Ebay kind of grading.

 

[VintageComics]

Grading is about what a book presents like at arm's length.

 

Isn't that the definition of "eye appeal"? I thought CGC pretty much eliminated eye appeal from their grading?

 

That's more conjecture.

 

They didn't eliminate eye appeal, they applied a grading scale to it. Eye appeal is still taken into account, it just may not be taken into account the same way you do.

 

 

Well, the definition I gave is straight from Overstreet, so yeah, it might not jive with CGC. I realize they take eye appeal into consideration when giving a book with a large sig on the cover a Blue label, but in other areas I think they ignore eye appeal altogether. But then again, I wouldn't expect them to grade a book at arm's length either, that's Ebay kind of grading.

 

The arm's length thing was more of a phrase. The obviously look at books up close, but it's a relative thing.

 

My point was that they don't use microscopes to grade books.

[jimbo_707]

Grading is about what a book presents like at arm's length.

 

Isn't that the definition of "eye appeal"? I thought CGC pretty much eliminated eye appeal from their grading?

 

That's more conjecture.

 

They didn't eliminate eye appeal, they applied a grading scale to it. Eye appeal is still taken into account, it just may not be taken into account the same way you do.

 

 

Well, the definition I gave is straight from Overstreet, so yeah, it might not jive with CGC. I realize they take eye appeal into consideration when giving a book with a large sig on the cover a Blue label, but in other areas I think they ignore eye appeal altogether. But then again, I wouldn't expect them to grade a book at arm's length either, that's Ebay kind of grading.

They seem to virtually ignore certain things that have a major affect on eye appeal, like dust shadows, transfer stains, stamps (think Crowley Copy), and foxing, yet they take points off for NCB creases that have a minor affect on eye appeal.

 

I'd be on board with the suggestion that no points be deducted for any "pressable" defect. That would A) require the CGC to admit they've been getting it wrong for 13 years and B) cut into the money the CGC makes from pressing, so I'm not holding my breath.

[500Club]

I would say that point might have some merit, but not in cases where the spine wear/crease, previously sharing its full length on the front and back cover, now completely ran from the bind to the entire back. There is no excuse for missing such defects, whether they are a few millimeters or a full inch in length. It's scary how some of those books looked like they were graded without even having a look at the back cover.

 

I don't remember seeing any books were the defect was entirely moved to the back cover from the front - am specifically talking about the Avengers #1 and the poor scans we used to assess that book.

 

I think what happened is that Wilson moved the defects across the apex of the spine and broke the defect into two smaller defects (front and back) rather than one large defect on either front or back, giving the illusion that there was less wear on the book - and since some of it was right across the apex, the book over all looked structurally higher grade.

 

Anyhow, that's just my theory.

 

I know you took a lot of flack for the theory, but I completely agree with you.

 

By minimizing the visual impact of the defects by making them spread over different viewing angles, you decrease the apparent wear on the book.

[VintageComics]

I would say that point might have some merit, but not in cases where the spine wear/crease, previously sharing its full length on the front and back cover, now completely ran from the bind to the entire back. There is no excuse for missing such defects, whether they are a few millimeters or a full inch in length. It's scary how some of those books looked like they were graded without even having a look at the back cover.

 

I don't remember seeing any books were the defect was entirely moved to the back cover from the front - am specifically talking about the Avengers #1 and the poor scans we used to assess that book.

 

I think what happened is that Wilson moved the defects across the apex of the spine and broke the defect into two smaller defects (front and back) rather than one large defect on either front or back, giving the illusion that there was less wear on the book - and since some of it was right across the apex, the book over all looked structurally higher grade.

 

Anyhow, that's just my theory.

 

I know you took a lot of flack for the theory, but I completely agree with you.

 

By minimizing the visual impact of the defects by making them spread over different viewing angles, you decrease the apparent wear on the book.

 

Thank you. (thumbs u

[gaz973]

I would say that point might have some merit, but not in cases where the spine wear/crease, previously sharing its full length on the front and back cover, now completely ran from the bind to the entire back. There is no excuse for missing such defects, whether they are a few millimeters or a full inch in length. It's scary how some of those books looked like they were graded without even having a look at the back cover.

 

I don't remember seeing any books were the defect was entirely moved to the back cover from the front - am specifically talking about the Avengers #1 and the poor scans we used to assess that book.

 

I think what happened is that Wilson moved the defects across the apex of the spine and broke the defect into two smaller defects (front and back) rather than one large defect on either front or back, giving the illusion that there was less wear on the book - and since some of it was right across the apex, the book over all looked structurally higher grade.

 

Anyhow, that's just my theory.

 

I know you took a lot of flack for the theory, but I completely agree with you.

 

By minimizing the visual impact of the defects by making them spread over different viewing angles, you decrease the apparent wear on the book.

That may be true but it sure is a ridiculous way to grade. The comic was just as damaged, regardless of the location of the damage.

[Spiderphill]

I would say that point might have some merit, but not in cases where the spine wear/crease, previously sharing its full length on the front and back cover, now completely ran from the bind to the entire back. There is no excuse for missing such defects, whether they are a few millimeters or a full inch in length. It's scary how some of those books looked like they were graded without even having a look at the back cover.

 

I don't remember seeing any books were the defect was entirely moved to the back cover from the front - am specifically talking about the Avengers #1 and the poor scans we used to assess that book.

 

I think what happened is that Wilson moved the defects across the apex of the spine and broke the defect into two smaller defects (front and back) rather than one large defect on either front or back, giving the illusion that there was less wear on the book - and since some of it was right across the apex, the book over all looked structurally higher grade.

 

Anyhow, that's just my theory.

 

I know you took a lot of flack for the theory, but I completely agree with you.

 

By minimizing the visual impact of the defects by making them spread over different viewing angles, you decrease the apparent wear on the book.

Sad part is nobody understood that. The other sad part is CGC is still not catching it. I've seen a few examples as of late.

[500Club]

I would say that point might have some merit, but not in cases where the spine wear/crease, previously sharing its full length on the front and back cover, now completely ran from the bind to the entire back. There is no excuse for missing such defects, whether they are a few millimeters or a full inch in length. It's scary how some of those books looked like they were graded without even having a look at the back cover.

 

I don't remember seeing any books were the defect was entirely moved to the back cover from the front - am specifically talking about the Avengers #1 and the poor scans we used to assess that book.

 

I think what happened is that Wilson moved the defects across the apex of the spine and broke the defect into two smaller defects (front and back) rather than one large defect on either front or back, giving the illusion that there was less wear on the book - and since some of it was right across the apex, the book over all looked structurally higher grade.

 

Anyhow, that's just my theory.

 

I know you took a lot of flack for the theory, but I completely agree with you.

 

By minimizing the visual impact of the defects by making them spread over different viewing angles, you decrease the apparent wear on the book.

That may be true but it sure is a ridiculous way to grade. The comic was just as damaged, regardless of the location of the damage.

Exactly. It's just as damaged. But the damage is diffused over different viewing angles. And, while it's easy to say that a 6mm color breaking stress is a 6mm color breaking stress under any and all circumstances, we are all subject to our perceptions and the impact they have on us.

 

The best thing to come of this thread is getting CGC to be more attuned to this visual manipulation.

[comicwiz]

Sorry this disappearing trick doesn't wash with me. I'd sooner stick with the license to over grading theory.

 

Since the Avengers 1 was mentioned - here are the photos cobbled from the spine shifting thread.

 

Quite frankly, it's always just sounded like an excuse for CGC overlooking, hurrying the grade, or acting like a deer staring at headlights when they saw the front cover.

 

If it's the latter, then that would also mean pretty much admitting the book was graded in a bag with backer.

 

If the "spine" is like this unsolved mystery place where defects disappear, brace yourselves for the CT dots on your CGC blue label books.

 

Like any good mystery yarn, the rubber meets the road with facts, and in the case of the Avengers 1, the photos do all the talking.

 

The transverse wear (and I stopped counting after 18) just didn't disappear - they may be a little smaller on the back cover photo due to the angle and distance, but they are definitely there and visible:

 

 

 

 

Masterchief's most excellent image archive: