Cole Schave collection: face jobs?

[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%.

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.

 

And there are pressed books which can have defects introduced into the books post pressing, whether from handling, slab damage, shipping damage, or on purpose etc that would again lower your accuracy.

 

 

[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.

 

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

 

Next time, quote my entire comment.

 

 

I genuinely have no idea what you mean by "No one is as stupid as you seem to think they are." but your negative Nancy is shining through brightly. Just. Stop.

 

This thread is about shrunken covers, yes?

 

So all I'm saying is rather than get into another pressing debate, it would probably be more effective to stick to shrunken covers.

 

I didn't quote your entire quote in an effort to make the thread more readable, but if you insist:

 

 

 

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

 

Good golly, I agree with you.

 

The books were improperly pressed in my opinion.

 

There, better?

 

Now what is the circle jerk you are talking about?

[drbanner]

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.

Exactly, and it's the right thing to do. (thumbs u

[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.

 

 

I genuinely have no idea what you mean by "No one is as stupid as you seem to think they are." but your negative Nancy is shining through brightly. Just. Stop.

 

This thread is about shrunken covers, yes?

 

So all I'm saying is rather than get into another pressing debate, it would probably be more effective to stick to shrunken covers.

 

I didn't quote your entire quote in an effort to make the thread more readable, but if you insist:

 

 

 

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

 

Good golly, I agree with you.

 

The books were improperly pressed in my opinion.

 

There, better?

 

Now what is the circle jerk you are talking about?

 

And WHO improperly pressed these books? That's right. CCS. The in-house pressing service at CGC.

 

The self-same company that went on & on about the dangers of improper pressing.

 

 

Is this thing on? Tell me again how this thread isn't about pressing.

 

 

Call me what you want....but the cut the BS.

[Jeffro.]

Beyonder is correct.

How can a discussion about improper pressing not be about pressing? You can't get to improper pressing without the pressing happening in the first place.

[VintageComics]

Beyonder is correct.

How can a discussion about improper pressing not be about pressing? You can't get to improper pressing without the pressing happening in the first place.

 

Jeffro, I am clearly talking about not making this a back and forth, "usual pressing thread" where people are arguing over disclosure from the usual sides and the merits of pressing...which it has devolved into again.

 

I'm not ignoring the fact that it was pressing by CCS that caused this problem.

 

I'm simply trying to stay focused in the subject matter of the thread, which is a poorly pressed comic but it seems that those that dislike pressing dislike it so much that they can't stay focused.

 

Either that or I just can't make my point clearly enough for people to understand it.

 

 

 

 

[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.

 

And there are pressed books which can have defects introduced into the books post pressing, whether from handling, slab damage, shipping damage, or on purpose etc that would again lower your accuracy.

 

This gets us to the point. Applying pseudo-mathematical figures is only a pretense. This statistic can't be calculated theoretically. It can be compiled statistically, but doing so would be pointless. It stands that the success rate of even the most highly-trained press-guesser would still miss enough that it would undermine the integrity of the process.

 

I continue to contend that adding these measures would serve to increase costs and turnaround times without enough added benefit to the customer to make it worthwhile.

[mysterio]

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.

 

 

I genuinely have no idea what you mean by "No one is as stupid as you seem to think they are." but your negative Nancy is shining through brightly. Just. Stop.

 

This thread is about shrunken covers, yes?

 

So all I'm saying is rather than get into another pressing debate, it would probably be more effective to stick to shrunken covers.

 

I didn't quote your entire quote in an effort to make the thread more readable, but if you insist:

 

 

 

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

 

Good golly, I agree with you.

 

The books were improperly pressed in my opinion.

 

There, better?

 

Now what is the circle jerk you are talking about?

 

And WHO improperly pressed these books? That's right. CCS. The in-house pressing service at CGC.

 

The self-same company that went on & on about the dangers of improper pressing.

 

 

Is this thing on? Tell me again how this thread isn't about pressing.

 

 

Call me what you want....but the cut the BS.

 

Yes, the irony is thick. That's one of the points that is being lost as the thread unravels into anti-pressing and disclosure that nobody reasonably expects to happen. There are plenty of things that people would like to see, but that just won't work no matter how hard we wish and say pretty please. Getting back on those soapboxes is cathartic, I'm sure, but does as much to advance these particular arguments as railing on about a return to prohibition if you're a teetotaler.

 

I collect CGC comics, and don't have a problem with a good and professionally done press. You're free to disagree. As a consumer of CGC's product, it troubles me to see them obviously mishandle the grading of books damaged by improper pressing, both shrinkage and RSR, and this has shaken my confidence in their brand. Their dancing around the obvious issue through their inadequate response, in my opinion, is further damaging my view of them daily. That is my bottom line.

[THE_BEYONDER]

How's that for the subject of this thread?

[Jeffro.]

Beyonder is correct.

How can a discussion about improper pressing not be about pressing? You can't get to improper pressing without the pressing happening in the first place.

 

Jeffro, I am clearly talking about not making this a back and forth, "usual pressing thread" where people are arguing over disclosure from the usual sides and the merits of pressing...which it has devolved into again.

 

I'm not ignoring the fact that it was pressing by CCS that caused this problem.

 

I'm simply trying to stay focused in the subject matter of the thread, which is a poorly pressed comic but it seems that those that dislike pressing dislike it so much that they can't stay focused.

 

Either that or I just can't make my point clearly enough for people to understand it.

 

I get all that. My point is that the two are inexorably linked. You can't have a discussion about one without the other coming into play. After all, some people consider even proper pressing to be damaging to the comic. Trying to keep a thread on topic, or your own opinion of what should be on topic, is like herding cats.

 

[mysterio]

How's that for the subject of this thread?

 

It'll get it locked.

[drbanner]

After all, some people consider even proper pressing to be damaging to the comic.

That's true, but any pressing damage can be fixed with a light...

[Jeffro.]

After all, some people consider even proper pressing to be damaging to the comic.

That's true, but any pressing damage can be fixed with a light...

 

vinaigrette ?

[comicwiz]

These discoveries illuminate rather clearly that pressing damages books through overexposure to a machining process designed to convert newsprint to greenbacks.

 

There is no bright red blinking light on the label or a warning/hazard sticker similar to what's found on cigarette packs for crack/resub players to tell them how many times the books already been pressed, and the risks associated to trying to crush it once or twice more to reach that magic number.

 

Furthermore, the spine-shifting play starts to roll-out a plan to bring into the fray samples which no one would ever dream could be optimized for bank. And the Avengers 1 rather dramatically reveals how sweet a pay day attainment.

 

This discussion is at the epicenter of the pressing debate and denying this really just proves people don't understand what's at stake.

[THE_BEYONDER]

How's that for the subject of this thread?

 

It'll get it locked.

 

[Davenport]

How's that for the subject of this thread?

 

It'll get it locked.

Probably.

 

Here's a partial list of the diversionary red herring fallcious arguments we see used every time someone connects-the-dots, starts a thread with their questions or attempts to alert others:

 

• There's nothing CGC can do since pressing is undetectable.
  
• Proper pressing candidates are excruciatingly rare. Pressing can never "take off". Much ado about nothing.
  
• Only a tiny minority of crazed "purists" even care about pressing. Why is are we even discussing it?
  
• We shouldn't be disparaging someone else's books.
  
• We shouldn't be disparaging someone else.
  
• Why are anti-CGC zealots even allowed to post here?
  
• The weight of Edgar Church's stacks was the exact same thing.

 

The percentage-thing, 50% of sumpin' sumpin', is new. Whatever the hell that is.

[VintageComics]

This gets us to the point. Applying pseudo-mathematical figures is only a pretense. This statistic can't be calculated theoretically. It can be compiled statistically, but doing so would be pointless. It stands that the success rate of even the most highly-trained press-guesser would still miss enough that it would undermine the integrity of the process.

 

Fair enough. I'm obviously not a statistician but I do have an idea of what can be done accurately and what can't be. We're both in agreement then.

 

I continue to contend that adding these measures would serve to increase costs and turnaround times without enough added benefit to the customer to make it worthwhile.

 

(thumbs u

[VintageComics]

Here's a partial list of the diversionary red herring fallcious arguments we see used every time someone connects-the-dots, starts a thread with their questions or attempts to alert others:

 

• There's nothing CGC can do since pressing is undetectable.
  
• Proper pressing candidates are excruciatingly rare. Pressing can never "take off". Much ado about nothing.
  
• Only a tiny minority of crazed "purists" even care about pressing. Why is are we even discussing it?
  
• We shouldn't be disparaging someone else's books.
  
• We shouldn't be disparaging someone else.
  
• Why are anti-CGC zealots even allowed to post here?
  
• The weight of Edgar Church's stacks was the exact same thing.

 

The percentage-thing, 50% of sumpin' sumpin', is new. Whatever the hell that is.

 

There has been no intentional diversion or red herrings thrown in. As long as I have been in this thread, everyone was on the same side until the thread devolved into a 'usual' pressing thread. Think about that.

 

My "percentage-thing" was merely an attempt to show how futile it is to debate something that has been debated to death on this forum over the past 8-9 years and how we are losing the focus of the real topic at hand.

 

Have at it folks. Let's start pointing fingers at each other again for another decade.

[MCMiles]

 

Yes, the irony is thick. That's one of the points that is being lost as the thread unravels into anti-pressing and disclosure that nobody reasonably expects to happen. There are plenty of things that people would like to see, but that just won't work no matter how hard we wish and say pretty please. Getting back on those soapboxes is cathartic, I'm sure, but does as much to advance these particular arguments as railing on about a return to prohibition if you're a teetotaler.

 

I collect CGC comics, and don't have a problem with a good and professionally done press. You're free to disagree. As a consumer of CGC's product, it troubles me to see them obviously mishandle the grading of books damaged by improper pressing, both shrinkage and RSR, and this has shaken my confidence in their brand. Their dancing around the obvious issue through their inadequate response, in my opinion, is further damaging my view of them daily. That is my bottom line.

 

Most intelligent post in this whole thread.

[Silver Surfer]

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.

 

 

Yes this isn't about "pressing".