Cole Schave collection: face jobs?

[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.

 

 

Yes this isn't about "pressing".

 

Pete, maybe you could put away your backpack full of sticks and stones for 5 minutes and take the time to read and understand points people are trying to make before just firing off a judgmental reply that shows you're missing the point. It would much better help this thread move along.

 

I was simply trying to show that this is not an average 'pressing' thread where people are arguing over whether pressing is good or bad, but rather a thread about a distinctive type of pressing that resulted in less attractive books and the less attractive books is where the focus should be.

 

 

[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.

 

 

Yes this isn't about "pressing".

 

Pete, maybe you could put away your backpack full of sticks and stones for 5 minutes and take the time to read and understand points people are trying to make before just firing off a judgmental reply that shows you're missing the point. It would much better help this thread move along.

 

I was simply trying to show that this is not an average 'pressing' thread where people are arguing over whether pressing is good or bad, but rather a thread about a distinctive type of pressing that resulted in less attractive books and the less attractive books is where the focus should be.

 

 

This, plus grade bumps for the less attractive and/or damaged books.

[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".

 

Pete, maybe you could put away your backpack full of sticks and stones for 5 minutes and take the time to read and understand points people are trying to make before just firing off a judgmental reply that shows you're missing the point. It would much better help this thread move along.

 

I was simply trying to show that this is not an average 'pressing' thread where people are arguing over whether pressing is good or bad, but rather a thread about a distinctive type of pressing that resulted in less attractive books and the less attractive books is where the focus should be.

 

 

This, plus grade bumps for the less attractive and/or damaged books.

 

[Hepcat]

I was simply trying to show that this is not an average 'pressing' thread where people are arguing over whether pressing is good or bad, but rather a thread about a distinctive type of pressing that resulted in less attractive books and the less attractive books is where the focus should be.

 

What a lot of us are trying to figure out is how and why a less attractive comic has received a noticeably higher grade from CGC. That just doesn't make sense.

 

[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".

 

Pete, maybe you could put away your backpack full of sticks and stones for 5 minutes and take the time to read and understand points people are trying to make before just firing off a judgmental reply that shows you're missing the point. It would much better help this thread move along.

 

I was simply trying to show that this is not an average 'pressing' thread where people are arguing over whether pressing is good or bad, but rather a thread about a distinctive type of pressing that resulted in less attractive books and the less attractive books is where the focus should be.

 

 

Roy not everyone is going to agree with your take on what the burning issue(s) are in this thread so get over it.

[mysterio]

I was simply trying to show that this is not an average 'pressing' thread where people are arguing over whether pressing is good or bad, but rather a thread about a distinctive type of pressing that resulted in less attractive books and the less attractive books is where the focus should be.

 

What a lot of us are trying to figure out is how and why a less attractive comic has received a noticeably higher grade from CGC. That just doesn't make sense.

 

 

That was the point, until the discussion turned to the apparently more achievable goal of ending all pressing everywhere.

[drbanner]

I was simply trying to show that this is not an average 'pressing' thread where people are arguing over whether pressing is good or bad, but rather a thread about a distinctive type of pressing that resulted in less attractive books and the less attractive books is where the focus should be.

What a lot of us are trying to figure out is how and why a less attractive comic has received a noticeably higher grade from CGC. That just doesn't make sense.

It does if you're the one cashing the checks!

[mschmidt]

I was simply trying to show that this is not an average 'pressing' thread where people are arguing over whether pressing is good or bad, but rather a thread about a distinctive type of pressing that resulted in less attractive books and the less attractive books is where the focus should be.

 

What a lot of us are trying to figure out is how and why a less attractive comic has received a noticeably higher grade from CGC. That just doesn't make sense.

 

 

Some of these books obviously had pressable defects - these defects were removed during the over-zealous pressing which also resulted in the shrunken covers.

 

As CGC treated the shrunken cover as a manufacturing defect which didn't affect the grade, they were left with a book with fewer defects than it had had previously - hence the grade bump on some of these books.

[VintageComics]

Roy not everyone is going to agree with your take on what the burning issue(s) are in this thread so get over it.

 

Pete, it's not that we're disagreeing, it's that you can't see that I am agreeing with you. I'm just doing it with different words than you are!

 

[seanfingh]

[VintageComics]

 

I think I'm speaking in Fox.

 

 

[Hepcat]

I was simply trying to show that this is not an average 'pressing' thread where people are arguing over whether pressing is good or bad, but rather a thread about a distinctive type of pressing that resulted in less attractive books and the less attractive books is where the focus should be.

 

What a lot of us are trying to figure out is how and why a less attractive comic has received a noticeably higher grade from CGC. That just doesn't make sense.

 

 

That was the point, until the discussion turned to the apparently more achievable goal of ending all pressing everywhere.

 

Sort of like achieving "peace in our time" I guess.

 

 

 

[Hepcat]

What a lot of us are trying to figure out is how and why a less attractive comic has received a noticeably higher grade from CGC. That just doesn't make sense.

 

 

Some of these books obviously had pressable defects - these defects were removed during the over-zealous pressing which also resulted in the shrunken covers.

 

As CGC treated the shrunken cover as a manufacturing defect which didn't affect the grade, they were left with a book with fewer defects than it had had previously - hence the grade bump on some of these books.

 

The mind boggles.

 

[vaillant]

Roy not everyone is going to agree with your take on what the burning issue(s) are in this thread so get over it.

 

How’s that? Even I, that I am pretty much uninterested in this "pressing controversy" can clearly see the difference in this case.

[vaillant]

The mind boggles.

 

 

I think that’s just because "less attractive" is both objective and to some degree subjective – there are people which don’t care about miswraps while I would always prefer a book in low or midgrade without a miswrap over one in high grade with a miswrap.

[Bomber-Bob]

What a lot of us are trying to figure out is how and why a less attractive comic has received a noticeably higher grade from CGC. That just doesn't make sense.

 

 

Some of these books obviously had pressable defects - these defects were removed during the over-zealous pressing which also resulted in the shrunken covers.

 

As CGC treated the shrunken cover as a manufacturing defect which didn't affect the grade, they were left with a book with fewer defects than it had had previously - hence the grade bump on some of these books.

 

The mind boggles.

 

 

Hep, it turns out you are probably the wisest collector on these boards. You have kept your collection, and a great collection it is, out of slabs thus avoiding all this drama. Kudos to you.

 

[mschmidt]

What a lot of us are trying to figure out is how and why a less attractive comic has received a noticeably higher grade from CGC. That just doesn't make sense.

 

 

Some of these books obviously had pressable defects - these defects were removed during the over-zealous pressing which also resulted in the shrunken covers.

 

As CGC treated the shrunken cover as a manufacturing defect which didn't affect the grade, they were left with a book with fewer defects than it had had previously - hence the grade bump on some of these books.

 

The mind boggles.

 

 

Well, based on CGC's posted stance on the shrunken covers, it seems like the only logical explanation.

 

I certainly don't agree with CGC's position on this ... it doesn't make sense that when you have such a large discrepancy between the cover and the interior page size it isn't reflected in the technical grade ... but, on the other hand, I just don't see the big conspiracy here either. Hopefully CGC will modify their stance on this which'll remove any incentive for anyone else to do this in the future :shrug:

[jimbo_707]

First off, both I and CGC are fully aware of the issues being posted here, and do take them very seriously. It is inevitable that many changes are happening since the merger. We see so many possibilities open up that will improve services for everyone now and in the future, but we also recognize that these changes cannot occur without scrutiny, reassessment, and the changing of perceptions.

 

Since this thread came to light a couple weeks ago, I have been heavily researching how and when cover shrinkage occurs. I've been aware of it for years, first learning about it when I was restoring comics, and noticed how SA Marvel covers would shrink side to side and expand top to bottom when water cleaned. Some changed dimension considerably, others not at all. When I started pressing, I noticed it happen on a book here and there, but the occurrences were rare. I also noticed it on books that were not pressed, and on books that were pressed by others before being sent to me.

 

I've poured over a couple hundred books the past two weeks, and here are my observations: many upressed SA Marvels exhibit covers that fall short of the outer edge of the interior, either a tiny bit (1/64" or 1/32"), and in some cases more noticeable. I've also observed that an aggressive pressing or multiple pressings can cause shrinkage, but sometimes it does not. It appears that shrinkage occurs through one, two, or a combination of these three things; the quality of printing of that book, storage conditions during the course of the book's life, and the process used to press it.

 

While I don't believe anything can be done about natural shrinkage, we have been working on ways to avoid shrinkage from pressing, and have made a number of breakthroughs. The problem is 99% in the SA Marvels, particularly between the years 1960 and 1968, when their printing quality was atrocious. Marvel paper and printing changed over and over during those years (sometimes month to month). The huge variance of how books age from exposure to heat, pressure and humidity during their life of storage is also a big factor in aniticipating shrinkage.

 

One thing that has not been questioned enough is the assertion that cover shrinkage is "99% in the SA Marvels." I no longer actively collect SA, and haven't for over 20 years, so I spend very little time looking at them in the auctions.

 

What I do collect is mid-to-high-grade GA. Having looked at hundreds of books over the past year, I have seen quite a few that have a slight amount of page peek out. It's not at the same level as the Schave books, but it's there. In fact, it seems like every other book has some page peek out. It may be slight -1/64" or 1/32" - but it's there.

 

I took a decade-long break from the hobby, returning last summer. Before that break, I rarely saw GA books with page peek-out. Fanned pages due to spine-roll, sure. But page peek out on books without spine roll? Seldom if ever.

 

What happened between 2002 and 2012? Pressing happened.

 

I believe a side by side comparison of, say, 100 old-label GA books with 100 GA books pressed in the last three years would be very telling. It think it will reveal noticeably more page peek out in the more-recently-slabbed GA books.

 

Finding the time to put together that sort of study will be a challenge, but it is on my list of things to do.

[Straw-Man]

First off, both I and CGC are fully aware of the issues being posted here, and do take them very seriously. It is inevitable that many changes are happening since the merger. We see so many possibilities open up that will improve services for everyone now and in the future, but we also recognize that these changes cannot occur without scrutiny, reassessment, and the changing of perceptions.

 

Since this thread came to light a couple weeks ago, I have been heavily researching how and when cover shrinkage occurs. I've been aware of it for years, first learning about it when I was restoring comics, and noticed how SA Marvel covers would shrink side to side and expand top to bottom when water cleaned. Some changed dimension considerably, others not at all. When I started pressing, I noticed it happen on a book here and there, but the occurrences were rare. I also noticed it on books that were not pressed, and on books that were pressed by others before being sent to me.

 

I've poured over a couple hundred books the past two weeks, and here are my observations: many upressed SA Marvels exhibit covers that fall short of the outer edge of the interior, either a tiny bit (1/64" or 1/32"), and in some cases more noticeable. I've also observed that an aggressive pressing or multiple pressings can cause shrinkage, but sometimes it does not. It appears that shrinkage occurs through one, two, or a combination of these three things; the quality of printing of that book, storage conditions during the course of the book's life, and the process used to press it.

 

While I don't believe anything can be done about natural shrinkage, we have been working on ways to avoid shrinkage from pressing, and have made a number of breakthroughs. The problem is 99% in the SA Marvels, particularly between the years 1960 and 1968, when their printing quality was atrocious. Marvel paper and printing changed over and over during those years (sometimes month to month). The huge variance of how books age from exposure to heat, pressure and humidity during their life of storage is also a big factor in aniticipating shrinkage.

 

One thing that has not been questioned enough is the assertion that cover shrinkage is "99% in the SA Marvels." I no longer actively collect SA, and haven't for over 20 years, so I spend very little time looking at them in the auctions.

 

What I do collect is mid-to-high-grade GA. Having looked at hundreds of books over the past year, I have seen quite a few that have a slight amount of page peek out. It's not at the same level as the Schave books, but it's there. In fact, it seems like every other book has some page peek out. It may be slight -1/64" or 1/32" - but it's there.

 

I took a decade-long break from the hobby, returning last summer. Before that break, I rarely saw GA books with page peek-out. Fanned pages due to spine-roll, sure. But page peek out on books without spine roll? Seldom if ever.

 

What happened between 2002 and 2012? Pressing happened.

 

I believe a side by side comparison of, say, 100 old-label GA books with 100 GA books pressed in the last three years would be very telling. It think it will revel noticeably more page peek out in the more-recently-slabbed GA books.

 

Finding the time to put together that sort of study will be a challenge, but it is on my list of things to do.

 

can somebody get on this immediately? i don't think it's healthy for my heart rate to stay at this elevated level for very long.

[batman_fan]

First off, both I and CGC are fully aware of the issues being posted here, and do take them very seriously. It is inevitable that many changes are happening since the merger. We see so many possibilities open up that will improve services for everyone now and in the future, but we also recognize that these changes cannot occur without scrutiny, reassessment, and the changing of perceptions.

 

Since this thread came to light a couple weeks ago, I have been heavily researching how and when cover shrinkage occurs. I've been aware of it for years, first learning about it when I was restoring comics, and noticed how SA Marvel covers would shrink side to side and expand top to bottom when water cleaned. Some changed dimension considerably, others not at all. When I started pressing, I noticed it happen on a book here and there, but the occurrences were rare. I also noticed it on books that were not pressed, and on books that were pressed by others before being sent to me.

 

I've poured over a couple hundred books the past two weeks, and here are my observations: many upressed SA Marvels exhibit covers that fall short of the outer edge of the interior, either a tiny bit (1/64" or 1/32"), and in some cases more noticeable. I've also observed that an aggressive pressing or multiple pressings can cause shrinkage, but sometimes it does not. It appears that shrinkage occurs through one, two, or a combination of these three things; the quality of printing of that book, storage conditions during the course of the book's life, and the process used to press it.

 

While I don't believe anything can be done about natural shrinkage, we have been working on ways to avoid shrinkage from pressing, and have made a number of breakthroughs. The problem is 99% in the SA Marvels, particularly between the years 1960 and 1968, when their printing quality was atrocious. Marvel paper and printing changed over and over during those years (sometimes month to month). The huge variance of how books age from exposure to heat, pressure and humidity during their life of storage is also a big factor in aniticipating shrinkage.

 

One thing that has not been questioned enough is the assertion that cover shrinkage is "99% in the SA Marvels." I no longer actively collect SA, and haven't for over 20 years, so I spend very little time looking at them in the auctions.

 

What I do collect is mid-to-high-grade GA. Having looked at hundreds of books over the past year, I have seen quite a few that have a slight amount of page peek out. It's not at the same level as the Schave books, but it's there. In fact, it seems like every other book has some page peek out. It may be slight -1/64" or 1/32" - but it's there.

 

I took a decade-long break from the hobby, returning last summer. Before that break, I rarely saw GA books with page peek-out. Fanned pages due to spine-roll, sure. But page peek out on books without spine roll? Seldom if ever.

 

What happened between 2002 and 2012? Pressing happened.

 

I believe a side by side comparison of, say, 100 old-label GA books with 100 GA books pressed in the last three years would be very telling. It think it will revel noticeably more page peek out in the more-recently-slabbed GA books.

 

Finding the time to put together that sort of study will be a challenge, but it is on my list of things to do.

 

can somebody get on this immediately? i don't think it's healthy for my heart rate to stay at this elevated level for very long.

 

Quit surfing the web for porn and you will be fine (thumbs u