• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

THIS MONDAY RESTORATION EXPERT SUSAN CICCONI ON THE COMIC ZONE!

Started by metropoliscomics,

358 posts in this topic

Red Hook

Red Hook

Posted
Posted

Steve, with all due respect, that's the same stonewalling response we've been getting all along, but it simply won't do. I think undisclosed pressing is wrong, it's generally being done for the wrong reasons, and I will continue to regularyly bring up the question.

 

Any action that conspires to artificially and aggressively pump up the price tag on books, and again, not for the good of the book, but for the good of the dealers bottom line (and I do believe many dealers are doing it, because they know CGC looks the other way....), is a dishonest practice. Just because CGC overlooks it, for whatever their reasons, doesn't mean their aren't many collectors who disagree.

 

Accept pressing or don't buy CGC? Come on, their are infinite more choices than that. It goes against good consumer advocacy. You are saying it's an either or situation. I firmly disagree.

 

I'm proposing something else. How about putting pressure on CGC to disclose pressing, either pro or amateur, on every book they know has been pressed. And that includes any access they have to inside information.

 

So it's not as simply as you try to portray it. This issue is not going away anytime soon. Please don't attempt to dismiss the question with the "take it or leave it' position.

 

And finally, the biggest indicator of all.....

 

If it's not restoration, and if there is nothing wrong with it, and it is acknowledged that many books are being currently pressed, then why does no one admit to it?

 

And finally, the big disconnect in logic to me, is this:

 

CGC built it's whole business on the issue of trust, and they built their reputation on the appearance of complete impartiality and disclosure of any features of a book that a buyer needs to make an informed buying decision. If that disclosure by CGC becomes "selective", I believe that in the long term it will severely hurt their reputation and credibility, and that is extremely valuable and irreplaceable currency for any company to spend.

 

Brad

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Red Hook

Red Hook

Posted
Posted

One final point..... I don't want CGC deciding for me just how much I need to know about a book. I want them to tell me everything they know. That's what I'm putting my money down for, not the pretty holder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
awe4one

awe4one

Posted
Posted

Red...I can't say anything that you've not already said quite well. I agree 100% with your views on this subject.

 

And even though it is recycled every couple of months, I think this is one of the few issues deserving of continued debate...

 

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Darthdiesel

Darthdiesel

Posted
Posted

I never really get into these, but I just saw something you posted Brad and felt the need to relieve myself all over your post devil.gif

 

I'm proposing something else. How about putting pressure on CGC to disclose pressing, either pro or amateur, on every book they know has been pressed. And that includes any access they have to inside information.

 

Simply not cost effective. Think of the man hours going into research. And even if they put more resources into it, some pressing jobs are so good (done right) that you really CAN NOT tell if it was the result of pressing professionally or a fortuitous happenstance of stacking. What should they go by? Scans up on Heritage or on ebay where they could be altered at will to hide defects if necessary in order to garner a higher sale price? If CGC made the incorrect call on pressing, I'd see more reason for dealers not to use CGC's services as it does affect their bottom line directly.

 

So it's not as simply as you try to portray it. This issue is not going away anytime soon. Please don't attempt to dismiss the question with the "take it or leave it' position.

 

I think he is being practical. Getting CGC to take on the risks to make the pressing call is a Sisyphean (thanks 'lok) effort. If you and other dealers decide not to use CGC's services directly because of this policy, they may change it if it affects their bottom line enough.

 

And finally, the biggest indicator of all.....

 

If it's not restoration, and if there is nothing wrong with it, and it is acknowledged that many books are being currently pressed, then why does no one admit to it?

 

Because the current market atmosphere is so against any restoration or altering of the books' condition that they feel that they can not open the wallet freely on a book with the stigma of pressing attached to it? better for those of us who are open minded enough to accept these 'worked on' books at lower prices if there are sellers willing or desparate enough to sell them at a loss.

 

And finally, the big disconnect in logic to me, is this:

 

CGC built it's whole business on the issue of trust, and they built their reputation on the appearance of complete impartiality and disclosure of any features of a book that a buyer needs to make an informed buying decision. If that disclosure by CGC becomes "selective", I believe that in the long term it will severely hurt their reputation and credibility, and that is extremely valuable and irreplaceable currency for any company to spend.

 

Brad

 

The converse of the above statement is also true. If dealers use CGC and expect some level of privacy regarding the books they submit and CGC turns around and discloses which books may or may not have restoration/pressing on them and who is selling these books, I would no longer use CGC. CGC is a 3rd party grading service. They are not here to uphold the ethical conduct of dealers to disclose restoration/pressing on their books? I pay to put my books in a slab and slap a label on the top representative of the overall condition of the book as it appears. If I had books bought off the shelf and stored in my collection for over 40 years come back with purple labels noting pressing, I'd be pizzed off at 1) their incompetence and 2) for affecting my bottom line by making the call that these books were pressed without proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. I wouldn't want CGC taking any dealers' word that the books they submitted were resto-free, but in the same vein, I wouldn't want CGC calling out pressed books if they couldn't prove it or stake their reputation behind it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
drbanner

drbanner

Posted
Posted

I wonder why CGC doesn't treat pressing like they treat a spot of glue (or other minor/inconsequential restoration) on a golden age book - note it on the label, but still give the book a blue label?

 

If they can detect it but it would not cause a PLOD under their current definition (i.e., pressing without taking the book apart), give it a blue label with the pressing noted.

 

If they detect it and deem it deserves a PLOD, they continue to give it a PLOD.

 

If they suspect pressing but can't say 100% for certain it's been pressed, it doesn't get a note on the label or a PLOD (just like they treat "suspected restoration" currently).

 

Any scenarios not covered?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Red Hook

Red Hook

Posted
Posted

Good points all Darth.

 

Yes, I know my suggestions aren't necessarily the most practical. But I believe in continuing to float ideas until something sticks. Okay, maybe I have to re-evaluate my assessment of CGC as the company that steadfastly stands between me and dealers who are willing to bend the rules as I see them. And yes, it may be the "rules" in my own head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fantastic_four

fantastic_four

Posted
Posted
I wouldn't want CGC taking any dealers' word that the books they submitted were resto-free, but in the same vein, I wouldn't want CGC calling out pressed books if they couldn't prove it or stake their reputation behind it.

 

There are a LOT of professions where full disclosure isn't given for this exact reason, or for the reason that the professional is in a better position to accurately evaluate criteria than their customers are. Most doctors won't point out little inconsistencies in the human body unless they think they're definitely a health risk; to do it would needlessly worry many people. I work for a company that does review of positive drug tests, and if a physician discovers a legitimate reason for a positive result (medical prescription, poppy-seed bagel, etc), then not only do they not tell the employer, they're prevented by law in most states and professions from doing so because the average person isn't able to make a fair-minded interpretation of complex or indeterminate evidence.

 

The presses without disassembly where CGC can definitely tell it was deliberately done are the ones we should focus on here. The ones where they can't tell one way or the other should continue to not be noted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Red Hook

Red Hook

Posted
Posted
I wonder why CGC doesn't treat pressing like they treat a spot of glue (or other minor/inconsequential restoration) on a golden age book - note it on the label, but still give the book a blue label?

 

If they can detect it but it would not cause a PLOD under their current definition (i.e., pressing without taking the book apart), give it a blue label with the pressing noted.

 

If they detect it and deem it deserves a PLOD, they continue to give it a PLOD.

 

If they suspect pressing but can't say 100% for certain it's been pressed, it doesn't get a note on the label or a PLOD (just like they treat "suspected restoration" currently).

 

Any scenarios not covered?

 

Okay, I'll bite. What if CGC knows for sure, off the record, that a book has been pressed professionally......you won't ever learn about it on the consumer end. I don't believe anymore, that CGC is NEVER sure about a book being pressed. I'm talking about good professional press jobs.

 

Here's an idea.

 

How about keeping known pressing information OFF the label (as is the case now), but appending it to the graders notes. That way, if someone, like moi, is concerned enough about it, he can ascertain by calling for the notes. If the percentage of collectors concerned about it is small, then it's no big hassle for CGC. And the seller can put the book up for sale without the Scarlet Letter P. No stigma for the book, but the availability of the information satisfies those concerned about pressing.

 

Also, you could grandfather this setup into the system. Set a date, after which new submissions that fall into this category would have the info appended to the graders notes.

 

As it is now, my rough rule of thumb is, if it's a 9.6 or higher Silver age book, with a new label, the odds of it having been pressed are substantially higher than books with the older label. Not scientific, but I won't go after or pay for 9.6's because pressing does matter to me, and the temptation for dealers is just too overwhelming. I may just have to end up following my own rule, with no changes to the system forthcoming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sfilosa

sfilosa

Posted
Posted

As I have said many times before, the only thing CGC could do that would KILL themselves, is change something that would:

 

INVALIDATE ALL THE BOOKS THAT THEY HAVE GRADED TO DATE.

 

Therefore:

 

1) They can not change their grading standards to be more strict.

2) Change what they determine to be restoration.

 

 

 

Also Brad, I have no problem with you disliking pressing or with you wanting CGC to disclose it. 893applaud-thumb.gif

 

But I don't see this every being resolved in a manner that would make you happy. Maybe a new grading company could, but not CGC. 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
drbanner

drbanner

Posted
Posted
Okay, I'll bite. What if CGC knows for sure, off the record, that a book has been pressed professionally......you won't ever learn about it on the consumer end. I don't believe anymore, that CGC is NEVER sure about a book being pressed. I'm talking about good professional press jobs.

 

I've always said that CGC must grade each and every book that comes in the doors blindly based on the merits of the book at that time and without a priori prejudice. So, in your scenario of a little bird telling them that a certain book coming their way is pressed, unless they can tell the book has been pressed by physical inspection, it should not get a label note.

 

Here's an idea.

 

How about keeping known pressing information OFF the label (as is the case now), but appending it to the graders notes. That way, if someone, like moi, is concerned enough about it, he can ascertain by calling for the notes. If the percentage of collectors concerned about it is small, then it's no big hassle for CGC. And the seller can put the book up for sale without the Scarlet Letter P. No stigma for the book, but the availability of the information satisfies those concerned about pressing.

 

Also, you could grandfather this setup into the system. Set a date, after which new submissions that fall into this category would have the info appended to the graders notes.

 

Your idea sounds do-able to me...sort of treats pressing like corner creases - it's not noted on the label, but you can find out about it if you call them. Noting it on the label would be better!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing