Cole Schave collection: face jobs?

[Davenport]

Since pressing is not accurately detectable it will never be considered worth trying to detect.

 

Case closed.

Pressing is 100% detectible if (A) you've paid someone to professionally press and they say they did and charge you for it. Or (B) you have a pressing shop under your roof accepting payment from clients to press.

 

There's zero guess-work in either scenario. Declaring known information irrelevant on everyone's behalf is a conscious choice.

[VintageComics]

Did you read my entire post? Because I addressed this point.

 

I did. So you are advocating they guess with an accuracy of less (or more likely much less) than 50%?

[VintageComics]

Since pressing is not accurately detectable it will never be considered worth trying to detect.

 

Case closed.

Pressing is 100% detectible if (A) you've paid someone to professionally press and they say they did and charge you for it. Or (B) you have a pressing shop under your roof accepting payment from clients to press.

 

There's zero guess-work in either scenario. Declaring known information irrelevant on everyone's behalf is a conscious choice.

 

a) I was talking about detection. What you're talking about is not detection, it's disclosure. Two very different things.

 

b) People want professional opinions of what graders can detect with relative accuraccy, but they also want it to be fair. It's not fair to all, meaning impartial unless they can accurately do it the same way to all books that go through CGC's hands. For that reason, they can't label just some of the books.

 

Case closed.

 

With a

 

 

[batman_fan]

Since pressing is not accurately detectable it will never be considered worth trying to detect.

 

Case closed.

Pressing is 100% detectible if (A) you've paid someone to professionally press and they say they did and charge you for it. Or (B) you have a pressing shop under your roof accepting payment from clients to press.

 

There's zero guess-work in either scenario. Declaring known information irrelevant on everyone's behalf is a conscious choice.

 

But we know that will never happen because letting potential buyers know that a book has been pressed (and the number of times it has been pressed) may effect the selling price.

 

Now why CGC is fine with guessing at other things they can't be certain of is another mystery, but that is for another thread.

[Davenport]

Since pressing is not accurately detectable it will never be considered worth trying to detect.

 

Case closed.

Pressing is 100% detectible if (A) you've paid someone to professionally press and they say they did and charge you for it. Or (B) you have a pressing shop under your roof accepting payment from clients to press.

 

There's zero guess-work in either scenario. Declaring known information irrelevant on everyone's behalf is a conscious choice.

 

a) I was talking about detection. What you're talking about is not detection, it's disclosure. Two very different things.

 

b) People want professional opinions of what graders can detect with relative accuraccy, but they also want it to be fair. It's not fair to all, meaning impartial unless they can accurately do it the same way to all books that go through CGC's hands. For that reason, they can't label just some of the books.

 

Case closed.

 

With a

 

Bull.

 

Do CGC's graders have to 100% detect all Pedigreed books? Or do they allow clients to inform them of such?

 

Your "detectible" argument is fallacious. Oh, and

 

 

 

[VintageComics]

Since pressing is not accurately detectable it will never be considered worth trying to detect.

This is very myopic. Just because you do not know how to detect it does not mean that it can't be done. Susan Cicconi has stated that she believes can detect pressing most of the time. I believe it could be as detectable as micro-trimming, etc., with the proper equipment.

 

I also think you overlooked my last suggestion - which was that some books could be certified as unpressed. That is very different from labeling books as pressed and would not require 100% detection - only the crème de la crème would make the cut.

 

I know Susan and I consider her a great person. Louise and I chat with her all the time at East coast shows. Susan also said she wouldn't press books and now does.

 

I sincerely doubt she can accurately detect properly pressed books. Poorly pressed books are not hard to detect. Properly pressed books, the ones that everyone would approve the appearance of, are not.

 

I find it so hard to understand how militant you can be about your stance and yet advocate something so grey as guess work with at best a 50% accuracy.

 

It's those sort of mental gymnastics with no real basis in what is possible that makes the conversation go nowhere.

 

This is not a pressing thread...at least it wasn't supposed to be. It's a shrinkage thread, with the problem at it's core of not pressing, but bad pressing.

 

Using every word in this thread that you disagree with to try to continue to bolster an ant-pressing agenda does not allow any forward motion.

[VintageComics]

Bull.

 

Do CGC's graders have to 100% detect all Pedigreed books? Or do they allow clients to inform them of such?

 

Your "detectible" argument is fallacious. Oh, and

 

The Pedigree angle did indeed cross my mind as I was typing up my post.

 

I didn't type it into my reply because I thought that the answer would be obvious: The difference is that the onus is on the submitter to prove the Pedigree.

 

There is no onus or motivation to prove whether a book was pressed or not.

 

Case closed.

 

And the flower was real. I didn't want you to think I was trying to be offensive in any way.

 

 

[VintageComics]

Since pressing is not accurately detectable it will never be considered worth trying to detect.

 

Case closed.

Pressing is 100% detectible if (A) you've paid someone to professionally press and they say they did and charge you for it. Or (B) you have a pressing shop under your roof accepting payment from clients to press.

 

There's zero guess-work in either scenario. Declaring known information irrelevant on everyone's behalf is a conscious choice.

 

But we know that will never happen because /

 

It will never happen because you need everyone needs CGC to remain impartial.

 

I don't know how anyone can advocate CGC NOT be impartial and still argue that CGC needs to improve the way they do things.

[Davenport]

Bull.

 

Do CGC's graders have to 100% detect all Pedigreed books? Or do they allow clients to inform them of such?

 

Your "detectible" argument is fallacious. Oh, and

 

The Pedigree angle did indeed cross my mind as I was typing up my post.

 

I didn't type it into my reply because I thought that the answer would be obvious: The difference is that the onus is on the submitter to prove the Pedigree.

 

There is no onus or motivation to prove whether a book was pressed or not.

 

Case closed.

 

And the flower was real. I didn't want you to think I was trying to be offensive in any way.

 

I don't think you're being offensive. You're just debating using a flawed argument.

 

It's a company choice not to know or care or label. It's a self-serving policy. And that's fine, just don't argue that "detection" has anything to do with it. If you sent federal agents to CGC with written declarations signed by all supreme court justices that a book was pressed, they still would not label it. And the reason IS NOT because it's undetectable.

[VintageComics]

I don't think you're being offensive. You're just debating using a flawed argument.

 

It's a company choice not to know or care or label. It's a self-serving policy. And that's fine, just don't argue that "detection" has anything to do with it. If you sent federal agents to CGC with written declarations signed by all supreme court justices that a book was pressed, they still would not label it. And the reason IS NOT because it's undetectable.

 

They made their rules based on what they can detect with a degree of accuracy. They stick to that rule, even if a small group of people start disclosing pressing to them before grading so that they can remain impartial.

 

I've got to go to bed but I think I've made my point about the difference between disclosure and detection pretty clearly.

 

And this thread was not supposed to be another pressing thread.

 

 

 

[Davenport]

I don't think you're being offensive. You're just debating using a flawed argument.

 

It's a company choice not to know or care or label. It's a self-serving policy. And that's fine, just don't argue that "detection" has anything to do with it. If you sent federal agents to CGC with written declarations signed by all supreme court justices that a book was pressed, they still would not label it. And the reason IS NOT because it's undetectable.

 

They made their rules based on what they can detect with a degree of accuracy. They stick to that rule, even if a small group of people start disclosing pressing to them before grading so that they can remain impartial.

 

I've got to go to bed but I think I've made my point about the difference between disclosure and detection pretty clearly.

 

And this thread was not supposed to be another pressing thread.

And that's where we politely disagree.

They made their rules based on what generates the most submissions activity. Labeling Pedigrees generates activity and not labeling professional non-additive restoration treatments generates activity.

 

Case closed.

[Bomber-Bob]

And this thread was not supposed to be another pressing thread.

 

I have to agree with Roy that this thread should be about shrinkage, not pressing.

 

[Bomber-Bob]

I am, I trust understandably, eliminating the latter without any evidence of proof from anyone that any CGC employee is unethically granting grades or restoration decisions, i.e., lack thereof, that are undeserved.

 

But on the other aspect let me turn this around to you both - what would you (or anyone who would like to weigh in please) have done by CCG/CGC/CCS in the scenario we are discussing to eliminate your concerns of a "conflict of interest"?

 

Mark, with all due respect, just look at the Shave books and the grades they received. IMO it is safe to say that CGC employees were granting grades that are undeserved. Note I did not use the term 'unethically granting' just 'granting'. To eliminate my concerns of a conflict of interest, the books should not have received those grades. This is true of both the shrinkage examples and spine realignment. Even Timely, an ex CGC employee stated that was bad grading on the Bats 23.

Mark, just get CCS to say they will stop producing the shrinkage and CGC to say they will take shrinkage into consideration when grading and life will be good again.

[jimbo_707]

Did you read my entire post? Because I addressed this point.

 

I did. So you are advocating they guess with an accuracy of less (or more likely much less) than 50%?

No, not at all - I just don't agree with your numbers.

 

But I do want to stay focused on shrinkage, so I'll gladly let the matter drop - for now!

 

(PS - How can you have accuracy of much less than 50% when there are only two alternatives to choose between, pressed and unpressed???)

 

And just so I have a 4th emoticon in this post:

[THE_BEYONDER]

And this thread was not supposed to be another pressing thread.

 

I have to agree with Roy that this thread should be about shrinkage, not pressing.

 

 

 

The 'shrinkage' was caused by improper pressing. This damage was caused by CCS...whose whole platform has been resting on the merits of proper pressing vs. improper pressing by "all the hacks out there".

 

How can this NOT be about pressing? Good grief....

 

A circle jerk of epic proportions is underway

[Davenport]

And this thread was not supposed to be another pressing thread.

 

I have to agree with Roy that this thread should be about shrinkage, not pressing.

 

 

 

The 'shrinkage' was caused by improper pressing. This damage was caused by CCS...whose whole platform has been resting on the merits of proper pressing vs. improper pressing by "all the hacks out there".

 

How can this NOT be about pressing? Good grief....

 

A circle jerk of epic proportions is underway

Yeah, there shouldn't be any discussion of pressing in a pressing-caused-damage thread. And here's why...

 

Since pressing is not accurately detectable it will never be considered worth trying to detect.

 

Case closed.

Yep, case closed.

 

If pressing causes damage, a light pressing can fix it. I guess that's the new mantra or tagline... "Pressing: It's like it never even happened."

 

This entire thread is about a small handful of books that need a light pressing. What's to discuss?

 

[VintageComics]

(PS - How can you have accuracy of much less than 50% when there are only two alternatives to choose between, pressed and unpressed???)

 

And just so I have a 4th emoticon in this post:

 

As I mentioned earlier, it's a 50/50 guess at best but there are books that can look pressed from storage conditions that weren't actually pressed that might be labelled as pressed lowering your accuracy below 50%.

[VintageComics]

How can this NOT be about pressing? Good grief....

 

A circle jerk of epic proportions is underway

 

As has been repeatedly mentioned, this thread is not about pressing (which is a divided subject) but rather about bad pressing, which everyone agrees on.

 

Two very different things.

[DeliBebek]

(PS - How can you have accuracy of much less than 50% when there are only two alternatives to choose between, pressed and unpressed???)

 

And just so I have a 4th emoticon in this post:

 

As I mentioned earlier, it's a 50/50 guess at best but there are books that can look pressed from storage conditions that weren't actually pressed that might be labelled as pressed lowering your accuracy below 50%.

There are a few comics here and there with non-color-breaking spine tics which have obviously not been pressed that would raise your press-guessing percentage much higher than 50% accuracy.

[THE_BEYONDER]

How can this NOT be about pressing? Good grief....

 

A circle jerk of epic proportions is underway

 

As has been repeatedly mentioned, this thread is not about pressing (which is a divided subject) but rather about bad pressing, which everyone agrees on.

 

Two very different things.

 

Just....stop. No one is as stupid as you seem to think they are.

 

Next time, quote my entire comment.