Cole Schave collection: face jobs?

[Mr.Diggler]

[BTTTB-migration]

Yeah, it kinda sheds light on why Ewert would ever make such a dumbheaded play. Trimming is factory too (possibly from printing) or maybe it just shrunk back a smidge (occurs naturally over time)

 

More sound bite, more sensationalism, more spin. Why?

 

Even the most pro pressing people dislike trimming, cover shrinking, etc.

Man, just stop it.

 

It's not sensationalism or spin. Just considering how much cover skilled Paper Mechanics have going in. Why they would even attempt something that seems so stupid to most people.

 

I'm just guessing if Paper Mechanics think they start out more than halfway home, they're going to go for it. I mean, why wouldn't they, with the paydays involved?

 

Hi Dav! You wondered where I got your new nickname from, right?

 

"...when what is taken for granted or assumed is allowed to function in any part of an argument as an assertion or judgment, or when the assumption on which an argument proceeds is ambiguous, the resulting fallacy is one of assumption."

 

Have a good day, Petitio!

 

Want me to explain where I got the nickname "douschenozzle" for you? (Note the Canadian spelling).

[originalisbest]

Yeah, it kinda sheds light on why Ewert would ever make such a dumbheaded play. Trimming is factory too (possibly from printing) or maybe it just shrunk back a smidge (occurs naturally over time)

 

More sound bite, more sensationalism, more spin. Why?

 

Even the most pro pressing people dislike trimming, cover shrinking, etc.

Man, just stop it.

 

It's not sensationalism or spin. Just considering how much cover skilled Paper Mechanics have going in. Why they would even attempt something that seems so stupid to most people.

 

I'm just guessing if Paper Mechanics think they start out more than halfway home, they're going to go for it. I mean, why wouldn't they, with the paydays involved?

 

Hi Dav! You wondered where I got your new nickname from, right?

 

"...when what is taken for granted or assumed is allowed to function in any part of an argument as an assertion or judgment, or when the assumption on which an argument proceeds is ambiguous, the resulting fallacy is one of assumption."

 

Have a good day, Petitio!

 

Want me to explain where I got the nickname "douschenozzle" for you? (Note the Canadian spelling).

 

Nah, I'm pretty sure it's just professional jealousy -- one douschenozzle to another.

 

More insights below from the paper/printing industry, I thought it was telling that this link comes from a Hawaii printing source, very likely overall humidity has a greater effect on their work vs. say, a printer in the mountain air of Denver. Anyway, not that covers don't shrink horizontally, but perhaps the interior paper can grow a bit too, with absorption of moisture:

 

http://www.hagadoneprinting.com/images/trainingSupport/customerSolutions/pdf/postpress/Shrinking%20Expanding%20Paper.pdf

[Davenport]

Been here so long I forget there's an off-switch. First time for everything...

 

 

[originalisbest]

Running away -- always an option.

[BTTTB-migration]

Running away -- always an option.

 

[comicwiz]

It's both disturbing and surreal to see this develop, and to see/read people's responses.

 

The notion that plays like this would have happened without certification are looking more and more laughable.

 

This is especially the case when see gamers repeatedly trying their hand at pressing the same book multiple times for the sake of an incremental grade increase, paying zero regard to what they are doing to the book in the process.

 

For anyone who still can't fully understand why this would concern the community, the sad reality is that this could happen to any one of us.

 

We are all a before and after scan away from watching our prized books being discussed, examined under magnified levels of scrutiny, harsh criticism, ridiculed, and devalued, and we have to thank all the gravy train joyriders turning CGC into a wreckers yard where joyrides driven too rough go to die in a slab.

 

[skypinkblu]

I said:

The funny thing about Dav and his notion of what "as published" means, is that I can only presume he'd better not have any admiration of, or presence of, mile high books in his collection (to pick the grandaddy of all pedigrees as an example seems appropriate.) Because the bottom halves of the mile high stacks were gloriously flattened, immensely flattened, as a pancake flattened, with all air squished out of their blinding white pages, and most certainly were discovered in a much more flattened state, than when first published and put out for sale to be purchased by Mr. Church.

 

Garbage all, the lot of them!

 

You keep mentioning Church books, and I pulled out one of mine, Masters #92, it must have been at the top of the stack, because it's definitely not a pancake.I couldn't get a good picture through the slab.

 

However, given that one pedigree has been naturally flattened, that's ONE Pedigree....that was naturally flattened, does that somehow allow for every other book to be un-naturally flattened in an effort to artificially mimic that one pedigree?

 

I've seen lots of damaged books with ripples pressed, with spine rolls fixed, also wonderful...I saw the Sistine Chapel after the ceiling was restored, it's wonderful, but I don't see every painting restored, there is no need...nor do I see a need to "fix" every comic...and I still think that pressing is something that should be disclosed.

 

 

Many collectors, not on this forum still have no knowledge of the practice. I was talking to one at dinner last night, he's 40 years old, buys on eBay, goes to shows, he's been collecting since he was a kid. He had no idea what I was talking about...and this is someone who is well educated with a good job, but he has no knowledge of this forum. He was mystified when I told him. He called it cheating.

 

I'm sure there are lots of other people who would be mystified as well.

 

 

So...press, shrink, irradiate.. .if you own the book, it's yours, but if you sell it..don't hide what you did.

 

I've always looked to CGC as a place that would disclose work that was done by other less honest individuals...I'm very disappointed after reading that these grades are "accurate" and seeing that nothing about "shrinkage" was noted on the labels.

 

You can spin it anyway you want, but it's pretty obvious these books were not purchased in July or August...whenever the deal went down, with already shrunken covers.

 

There were changes made to the books in order to sell them for a higher amount and those changes were not disclosed nor was anything noted by the grading company..

 

In light of the past few months and the "face job" scandal, it's something I would have hoped would have been noted when grading.

 

The reason cited seems to be that it could have been a manufacturing defect.

 

CGC made a change as far as tape, perhaps they need to change their standards on possible "manufacturing defects"

 

If the book doesn't look wonderful because of a shrunken cover, fanned pages, or a production crease...a weird color register, etc...Grade it lower

 

 

Thanks for your thoughts, skypinkblu!

 

Taking as an example, your Church Masters #92, which you note isn't a "flat" book -- I have no problem accepting that, but feel reasonable people would have to agree that the Church books as a whole, perhaps at least half if not a larger majority, were wondrously flat, as discovered by Chuck in 77 or 78, given the descriptions of neat stacks what, 7 feet high? It's well documented in the introductions by Gerber within his photojournals.

 

I extrapolated that it couldn't be just the Church pedigree which is the source of high-grade, nice flat GA books that were kept in stacks. The same is true of the Rockford books (discovered in tall, beautiful stacks) and so too the Oaklands (a more modern pedigree that comes to mind.) But of course it isn't just pedigrees that produced high-grade books from flattened stacks -- it has to be pretty much any high-grade GA book, pedigree or no, as that's how books were kept if found in high-grade -- nice neat stacks. Days well before bags and boards and short and long boxes. Of course some other books were kept scattered about in barbershops, hot attics, moldy basements and outdoor chicken coops, but generally those aren't the ones in discussion here. Maybe Lamont's books that were kept in the barn, but I believe even these were carefully stacked too.

 

You differentiate between naturally flattened vs unnaturally flattened, claim that one is artificial and one is not, but I think there is no perceptible difference, IF done correctly. As Roy said, it's the tree in the forest. And because of this, if one's perception of "as published" being the most desirable state, discounts any flattened book as somehow less than "as published", then the baby is out with the bathwater, because the flatter Church books would have to be considered rejects. My point being, that this flies in the face of both logic and the market reality. There are some who love flattened books just fine, even when it becomes evident that they were pressed (identifiably same book was a 9.2, now a 9.4, etc.) IF no perceptible changes or harm were accidentally introduced in the pressing. I am one of those folks.

 

There's probably no need to fix some comics, but in pursuit of a profit and perhaps the irresistible desire to make them just look "a bit better", sometimes they are pressed anyway. In the best case scenario, the grade either stays the same or improves a tad, but the book's appearance doesn't negatively change. Sometimes it does change for the worse, but that's a case of stuff happens/too bad. When it changes for the worse because of intent to deceive (face jobbing) that falls under the category of bad/deceitful pressing. Don't get too mad at those pursuing profits ethically though please, because if there were no profit motivation, it wouldn't be impossible to collect your favorite titles, but it would be a great deal harder, probably exponentially.

 

If the someone you explained pressing to was truly mystified by the concept, and called it "cheating" based on your explanation, that's an opinion, as valid as any one opinion can be, but an opinion doesn't equate to a provable fact. And the mystification of one can of course be true of many others as well; it might also be false consensus bias at play.

 

In my opinion, if pressing is cheating, I would claim someone taking a book with a folded-back cover corner, reversing that bend and tucking it into a mylar would have to be considered cheating as well. Both treatments make a book look better than the condition in which it was found, with physical manipulation being the only thing done.

 

Some seem to be under the impression that "shrinkage" is easily identifiable, but I would claim it isn't all that evident, not in all cases. Certainly not without before and after scans to guide you. And that alone is testament to CGC graders' impartiality, they grade the book as it sits in front of them and assume no prior knowledge of the book. That's what they told us on this thread, and I take them at their word on that. Telling me that I can "spin" something anyway I want seems an ad hominem approach.

 

You assume that a shrinkage issue is as equally identifiable as (and perhaps equivalent to) a face job, and I find that to be materially incorrect. It is acceptable that you think a book with extended page overhang, whether through cover shrinkage as manufactured, over time in storage, or via a side effect of a well-intentioned press, should be penalized by CGC, but their standards appear to disagree. As long as they apply their standards consistently, the market can decide whether to be accepting or not of books that "look" as though they've suffered shrinkage, and it seems like that's already been the case (a couple of Spideys mentioned from the Schave collection got mediocre results compared to GPA for their respective grades.)

 

So, while I find it unlikely that CGC will alter its standards for high-grade books based on some peoples' negative perception of what can happen as part of the manufacturing process, . You might consider their reasoning "base" (they want to maximize return) but the end result will be better for the book (assuming one doesn't approve of shrinking covers.)

 

I appreciate your taking the time to reply!

 

I appreciate the fact that took so much time to write such a detailed response...but I respectfully disagree with some of your hypotheses.

 

For one thing, although Gerber did mention Mile High, not all the books in the guide are from that collection nor other Pedigrees. Many of the pictures in the Gerber Guides were cropped and many were not high grade examples. Those are tiny pictures, and I know one of the people who submitted some of the pictures, Ernie Gerber went to his house to take photos. Some were even restored books, but you can't see it in those tiny pictures.

 

I stored my books in stacks for years. Not because of the Church collection, but because it was easier for me to fit them into the space I had. Maybe only 15 years, but they also had the weight of bags and boards. There was a minimum of 100 books in most of the stacks.

 

Nothing at the bottom appeared to be flattened, not a one,and I checked...

 

Now I don't live in Arizona, but I have the advantage of NY humidity that should have helped me;)

 

So...yes, perhaps you can extrapolate that some other pedigrees were stacked that way, but can you prove that they were not also pressed before you saw them? From what I understand, pressing is not new, just the information informing SOME of the public, is newish;) .

 

As for this statement, " you can take heart, in that those who press will likely be taking pains to make for a good result, without introducing shrinkage, if at all possible, based on recent auction results"I most respectfully disagree. As long as CGC continues to reward Costanzas and Face Jobs, some people will continue to produce them. As a matter of fact, I'll bet that there are people twisting spines right now just to see how it's done.

 

 

What the heck is " a side effect of a well-intentioned press," ? The press was intended to improve the grade, not to send the comic book to college

 

. The shrinkage was on more than 1 book, so I'm going to "extrapolate" that the person (unless they were oblivious) continued to press them that way to get a higher grade, KNOWING full well that CGC would not downgrade the damage.

 

Now I'm not going to guess why they knew...I'll let you do that.

 

 

In any case, you seem to be looking for ways to make this right any way you can...kind of the way Roy always has, and I'm sure that both of you mean well. You have not convinced me at all...but I'll let you enjoy your lemons out of lemonade.. That's not the worst viewpoint on life after all...just perhaps slightly naive.

 

For me, I'm going to hope once again, that CGC does change it's stance, whether you think it's likely or not....and you may be correct...they won't. I'm not a big time dealer, just a collector, so my opinion probably counts very little...

 

But there are a LOT of us "just collector" types, and we buy the products CGC generates...so maybe someone will consider that;)

 

The easy money certainly comes from the big re-submitters, but the heart of the collecting community is much much larger than just those few.

 

I'm not so sure that community is going to be happy drinking Koolaide and being told to "eat cake" forever.

 

Have a lovely day, I have a few other things I need to do today

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Silver Surfer]

No one can match you way with words SPB.

[BTTTB-migration]

I said:

The funny thing about Dav and his notion of what "as published" means, is that I can only presume he'd better not have any admiration of, or presence of, mile high books in his collection (to pick the grandaddy of all pedigrees as an example seems appropriate.) Because the bottom halves of the mile high stacks were gloriously flattened, immensely flattened, as a pancake flattened, with all air squished out of their blinding white pages, and most certainly were discovered in a much more flattened state, than when first published and put out for sale to be purchased by Mr. Church.

 

Garbage all, the lot of them!

 

You keep mentioning Church books, and I pulled out one of mine, Masters #92, it must have been at the top of the stack, because it's definitely not a pancake.I couldn't get a good picture through the slab.

 

However, given that one pedigree has been naturally flattened, that's ONE Pedigree....that was naturally flattened, does that somehow allow for every other book to be un-naturally flattened in an effort to artificially mimic that one pedigree?

 

I've seen lots of damaged books with ripples pressed, with spine rolls fixed, also wonderful...I saw the Sistine Chapel after the ceiling was restored, it's wonderful, but I don't see every painting restored, there is no need...nor do I see a need to "fix" every comic...and I still think that pressing is something that should be disclosed.

 

 

Many collectors, not on this forum still have no knowledge of the practice. I was talking to one at dinner last night, he's 40 years old, buys on eBay, goes to shows, he's been collecting since he was a kid. He had no idea what I was talking about...and this is someone who is well educated with a good job, but he has no knowledge of this forum. He was mystified when I told him. He called it cheating.

 

I'm sure there are lots of other people who would be mystified as well.

 

 

So...press, shrink, irradiate.. .if you own the book, it's yours, but if you sell it..don't hide what you did.

 

I've always looked to CGC as a place that would disclose work that was done by other less honest individuals...I'm very disappointed after reading that these grades are "accurate" and seeing that nothing about "shrinkage" was noted on the labels.

 

You can spin it anyway you want, but it's pretty obvious these books were not purchased in July or August...whenever the deal went down, with already shrunken covers.

 

There were changes made to the books in order to sell them for a higher amount and those changes were not disclosed nor was anything noted by the grading company..

 

In light of the past few months and the "face job" scandal, it's something I would have hoped would have been noted when grading.

 

The reason cited seems to be that it could have been a manufacturing defect.

 

CGC made a change as far as tape, perhaps they need to change their standards on possible "manufacturing defects"

 

If the book doesn't look wonderful because of a shrunken cover, fanned pages, or a production crease...a weird color register, etc...Grade it lower

 

 

Thanks for your thoughts, skypinkblu!

 

Taking as an example, your Church Masters #92, which you note isn't a "flat" book -- I have no problem accepting that, but feel reasonable people would have to agree that the Church books as a whole, perhaps at least half if not a larger majority, were wondrously flat, as discovered by Chuck in 77 or 78, given the descriptions of neat stacks what, 7 feet high? It's well documented in the introductions by Gerber within his photojournals.

 

I extrapolated that it couldn't be just the Church pedigree which is the source of high-grade, nice flat GA books that were kept in stacks. The same is true of the Rockford books (discovered in tall, beautiful stacks) and so too the Oaklands (a more modern pedigree that comes to mind.) But of course it isn't just pedigrees that produced high-grade books from flattened stacks -- it has to be pretty much any high-grade GA book, pedigree or no, as that's how books were kept if found in high-grade -- nice neat stacks. Days well before bags and boards and short and long boxes. Of course some other books were kept scattered about in barbershops, hot attics, moldy basements and outdoor chicken coops, but generally those aren't the ones in discussion here. Maybe Lamont's books that were kept in the barn, but I believe even these were carefully stacked too.

 

You differentiate between naturally flattened vs unnaturally flattened, claim that one is artificial and one is not, but I think there is no perceptible difference, IF done correctly. As Roy said, it's the tree in the forest. And because of this, if one's perception of "as published" being the most desirable state, discounts any flattened book as somehow less than "as published", then the baby is out with the bathwater, because the flatter Church books would have to be considered rejects. My point being, that this flies in the face of both logic and the market reality. There are some who love flattened books just fine, even when it becomes evident that they were pressed (identifiably same book was a 9.2, now a 9.4, etc.) IF no perceptible changes or harm were accidentally introduced in the pressing. I am one of those folks.

 

There's probably no need to fix some comics, but in pursuit of a profit and perhaps the irresistible desire to make them just look "a bit better", sometimes they are pressed anyway. In the best case scenario, the grade either stays the same or improves a tad, but the book's appearance doesn't negatively change. Sometimes it does change for the worse, but that's a case of stuff happens/too bad. When it changes for the worse because of intent to deceive (face jobbing) that falls under the category of bad/deceitful pressing. Don't get too mad at those pursuing profits ethically though please, because if there were no profit motivation, it wouldn't be impossible to collect your favorite titles, but it would be a great deal harder, probably exponentially.

 

If the someone you explained pressing to was truly mystified by the concept, and called it "cheating" based on your explanation, that's an opinion, as valid as any one opinion can be, but an opinion doesn't equate to a provable fact. And the mystification of one can of course be true of many others as well; it might also be false consensus bias at play.

 

In my opinion, if pressing is cheating, I would claim someone taking a book with a folded-back cover corner, reversing that bend and tucking it into a mylar would have to be considered cheating as well. Both treatments make a book look better than the condition in which it was found, with physical manipulation being the only thing done.

 

Some seem to be under the impression that "shrinkage" is easily identifiable, but I would claim it isn't all that evident, not in all cases. Certainly not without before and after scans to guide you. And that alone is testament to CGC graders' impartiality, they grade the book as it sits in front of them and assume no prior knowledge of the book. That's what they told us on this thread, and I take them at their word on that. Telling me that I can "spin" something anyway I want seems an ad hominem approach.

 

You assume that a shrinkage issue is as equally identifiable as (and perhaps equivalent to) a face job, and I find that to be materially incorrect. It is acceptable that you think a book with extended page overhang, whether through cover shrinkage as manufactured, over time in storage, or via a side effect of a well-intentioned press, should be penalized by CGC, but their standards appear to disagree. As long as they apply their standards consistently, the market can decide whether to be accepting or not of books that "look" as though they've suffered shrinkage, and it seems like that's already been the case (a couple of Spideys mentioned from the Schave collection got mediocre results compared to GPA for their respective grades.)

 

So, while I find it unlikely that CGC will alter its standards for high-grade books based on some peoples' negative perception of what can happen as part of the manufacturing process, . You might consider their reasoning "base" (they want to maximize return) but the end result will be better for the book (assuming one doesn't approve of shrinking covers.)

 

I appreciate your taking the time to reply!

 

I appreciate the fact that took so much time to write such a detailed response...but I respectfully disagree with some of your hypotheses.

 

For one thing, although Gerber did mention Mile High, not all the books in the guide are from that collection nor other Pedigrees. Many of the pictures in the Gerber Guides were cropped and many were not high grade examples. Those are tiny pictures, and I know one of the people who submitted some of the pictures, Ernie Gerber went to his house to take photos. Some were even restored books, but you can't see it in those tiny pictures.

 

I stored my books in stacks for years. Not because of the Church collection, but because it was easier for me to fit them into the space I had. Maybe only 15 years, but they also had the weight of bags and boards. There was a minimum of 100 books in most of the stacks.

 

Nothing at the bottom appeared to be flattened, not a one,and I checked...

 

Now I don't live in Arizona, but I have the advantage of NY humidity that should have helped me;)

 

So...yes, perhaps you can extrapolate that some other pedigrees were stacked that way, but can you prove that they were not also pressed before you saw them? From what I understand, pressing is not new, just the information informing SOME of the public, is newish;) .

 

As for this statement, " you can take heart, in that those who press will likely be taking pains to make for a good result, without introducing shrinkage, if at all possible, based on recent auction results"I most respectfully disagree. As long as CGC continues to reward Costanzas and Face Jobs, some people will continue to produce them. As a matter of fact, I'll bet that there are people twisting spines right now just to see how it's done.

 

 

What the heck is " a side effect of a well-intentioned press," ? The press was intended to improve the grade, not to send the comic book to college

 

. The shrinkage was on more than 1 book, so I'm going to "extrapolate" that the person (unless they were oblivious) continued to press them that way to get a higher grade, KNOWING full well that CGC would not downgrade the damage.

 

Now I'm not going to guess why they knew...I'll let you do that.

 

 

In any case, you seem to be looking for ways to make this right any way you can...kind of the way Roy always has, and I'm sure that both of you mean well. You have not convinced me at all...but I'll let you enjoy your lemons out of lemonade.. That's not the worst viewpoint on life after all...just perhaps slightly naive.

 

For me, I'm going to hope once again, that CGC does change it's stance, whether you think it's likely or not....and you may be correct...they won't. I'm not a big time dealer, just a collector, so my opinion probably counts very little...

 

But there are a LOT of us "just collector" types, and we buy the products CGC generates...so maybe someone will consider that;)

 

The easy money certainly comes from the big re-submitters, but the heart of the collecting community is much much larger than just those few.

 

I'm not so sure that community is going to be happy drinking Koolaide and being told to "eat cake" forever.

 

Have a lovely day, I have a few other things I need to do today

 

 

Yeah, you better run away Sha!

[originalisbest]

I said:

The funny thing about Dav and his notion of what "as published" means, is that I can only presume he'd better not have any admiration of, or presence of, mile high books in his collection (to pick the grandaddy of all pedigrees as an example seems appropriate.) Because the bottom halves of the mile high stacks were gloriously flattened, immensely flattened, as a pancake flattened, with all air squished out of their blinding white pages, and most certainly were discovered in a much more flattened state, than when first published and put out for sale to be purchased by Mr. Church.

 

Garbage all, the lot of them!

 

You keep mentioning Church books, and I pulled out one of mine, Masters #92, it must have been at the top of the stack, because it's definitely not a pancake.I couldn't get a good picture through the slab.

 

However, given that one pedigree has been naturally flattened, that's ONE Pedigree....that was naturally flattened, does that somehow allow for every other book to be un-naturally flattened in an effort to artificially mimic that one pedigree?

 

I've seen lots of damaged books with ripples pressed, with spine rolls fixed, also wonderful...I saw the Sistine Chapel after the ceiling was restored, it's wonderful, but I don't see every painting restored, there is no need...nor do I see a need to "fix" every comic...and I still think that pressing is something that should be disclosed.

 

 

Many collectors, not on this forum still have no knowledge of the practice. I was talking to one at dinner last night, he's 40 years old, buys on eBay, goes to shows, he's been collecting since he was a kid. He had no idea what I was talking about...and this is someone who is well educated with a good job, but he has no knowledge of this forum. He was mystified when I told him. He called it cheating.

 

I'm sure there are lots of other people who would be mystified as well.

 

 

So...press, shrink, irradiate.. .if you own the book, it's yours, but if you sell it..don't hide what you did.

 

I've always looked to CGC as a place that would disclose work that was done by other less honest individuals...I'm very disappointed after reading that these grades are "accurate" and seeing that nothing about "shrinkage" was noted on the labels.

 

You can spin it anyway you want, but it's pretty obvious these books were not purchased in July or August...whenever the deal went down, with already shrunken covers.

 

There were changes made to the books in order to sell them for a higher amount and those changes were not disclosed nor was anything noted by the grading company..

 

In light of the past few months and the "face job" scandal, it's something I would have hoped would have been noted when grading.

 

The reason cited seems to be that it could have been a manufacturing defect.

 

CGC made a change as far as tape, perhaps they need to change their standards on possible "manufacturing defects"

 

If the book doesn't look wonderful because of a shrunken cover, fanned pages, or a production crease...a weird color register, etc...Grade it lower

 

 

Thanks for your thoughts, skypinkblu!

 

Taking as an example, your Church Masters #92, which you note isn't a "flat" book -- I have no problem accepting that, but feel reasonable people would have to agree that the Church books as a whole, perhaps at least half if not a larger majority, were wondrously flat, as discovered by Chuck in 77 or 78, given the descriptions of neat stacks what, 7 feet high? It's well documented in the introductions by Gerber within his photojournals.

 

I extrapolated that it couldn't be just the Church pedigree which is the source of high-grade, nice flat GA books that were kept in stacks. The same is true of the Rockford books (discovered in tall, beautiful stacks) and so too the Oaklands (a more modern pedigree that comes to mind.) But of course it isn't just pedigrees that produced high-grade books from flattened stacks -- it has to be pretty much any high-grade GA book, pedigree or no, as that's how books were kept if found in high-grade -- nice neat stacks. Days well before bags and boards and short and long boxes. Of course some other books were kept scattered about in barbershops, hot attics, moldy basements and outdoor chicken coops, but generally those aren't the ones in discussion here. Maybe Lamont's books that were kept in the barn, but I believe even these were carefully stacked too.

 

You differentiate between naturally flattened vs unnaturally flattened, claim that one is artificial and one is not, but I think there is no perceptible difference, IF done correctly. As Roy said, it's the tree in the forest. And because of this, if one's perception of "as published" being the most desirable state, discounts any flattened book as somehow less than "as published", then the baby is out with the bathwater, because the flatter Church books would have to be considered rejects. My point being, that this flies in the face of both logic and the market reality. There are some who love flattened books just fine, even when it becomes evident that they were pressed (identifiably same book was a 9.2, now a 9.4, etc.) IF no perceptible changes or harm were accidentally introduced in the pressing. I am one of those folks.

 

There's probably no need to fix some comics, but in pursuit of a profit and perhaps the irresistible desire to make them just look "a bit better", sometimes they are pressed anyway. In the best case scenario, the grade either stays the same or improves a tad, but the book's appearance doesn't negatively change. Sometimes it does change for the worse, but that's a case of stuff happens/too bad. When it changes for the worse because of intent to deceive (face jobbing) that falls under the category of bad/deceitful pressing. Don't get too mad at those pursuing profits ethically though please, because if there were no profit motivation, it wouldn't be impossible to collect your favorite titles, but it would be a great deal harder, probably exponentially.

 

If the someone you explained pressing to was truly mystified by the concept, and called it "cheating" based on your explanation, that's an opinion, as valid as any one opinion can be, but an opinion doesn't equate to a provable fact. And the mystification of one can of course be true of many others as well; it might also be false consensus bias at play.

 

In my opinion, if pressing is cheating, I would claim someone taking a book with a folded-back cover corner, reversing that bend and tucking it into a mylar would have to be considered cheating as well. Both treatments make a book look better than the condition in which it was found, with physical manipulation being the only thing done.

 

Some seem to be under the impression that "shrinkage" is easily identifiable, but I would claim it isn't all that evident, not in all cases. Certainly not without before and after scans to guide you. And that alone is testament to CGC graders' impartiality, they grade the book as it sits in front of them and assume no prior knowledge of the book. That's what they told us on this thread, and I take them at their word on that. Telling me that I can "spin" something anyway I want seems an ad hominem approach.

 

You assume that a shrinkage issue is as equally identifiable as (and perhaps equivalent to) a face job, and I find that to be materially incorrect. It is acceptable that you think a book with extended page overhang, whether through cover shrinkage as manufactured, over time in storage, or via a side effect of a well-intentioned press, should be penalized by CGC, but their standards appear to disagree. As long as they apply their standards consistently, the market can decide whether to be accepting or not of books that "look" as though they've suffered shrinkage, and it seems like that's already been the case (a couple of Spideys mentioned from the Schave collection got mediocre results compared to GPA for their respective grades.)

 

So, while I find it unlikely that CGC will alter its standards for high-grade books based on some peoples' negative perception of what can happen as part of the manufacturing process, . You might consider their reasoning "base" (they want to maximize return) but the end result will be better for the book (assuming one doesn't approve of shrinking covers.)

 

I appreciate your taking the time to reply!

 

I appreciate the fact that took so much time to write such a detailed response...but I respectfully disagree with some of your hypotheses.

 

For one thing, although Gerber did mention Mile High, not all the books in the guide are from that collection nor other Pedigrees. Many of the pictures in the Gerber Guides were cropped and many were not high grade examples. Those are tiny pictures, and I know one of the people who submitted some of the pictures, Ernie Gerber went to his house to take photos. Some were even restored books, but you can't see it in those tiny pictures.

 

I stored my books in stacks for years. Not because of the Church collection, but because it was easier for me to fit them into the space I had. Maybe only 15 years, but they also had the weight of bags and boards. There was a minimum of 100 books in most of the stacks.

 

Nothing at the bottom appeared to be flattened, not a one,and I checked...

 

Now I don't live in Arizona, but I have the advantage of NY humidity that should have helped me;)

 

So...yes, perhaps you can extrapolate that some other pedigrees were stacked that way, but can you prove that they were not also pressed before you saw them? From what I understand, pressing is not new, just the information informing SOME of the public, is newish;) .

 

As for this statement, " you can take heart, in that those who press will likely be taking pains to make for a good result, without introducing shrinkage, if at all possible, based on recent auction results"I most respectfully disagree. As long as CGC continues to reward Costanzas and Face Jobs, some people will continue to produce them. As a matter of fact, I'll bet that there are people twisting spines right now just to see how it's done.

 

 

What the heck is " a side effect of a well-intentioned press," ? The press was intended to improve the grade, not to send the comic book to college

 

. The shrinkage was on more than 1 book, so I'm going to "extrapolate" that the person (unless they were oblivious) continued to press them that way to get a higher grade, KNOWING full well that CGC would not downgrade the damage.

 

Now I'm not going to guess why they knew...I'll let you do that.

 

 

In any case, you seem to be looking for ways to make this right any way you can...kind of the way Roy always has, and I'm sure that both of you mean well. You have not convinced me at all...but I'll let you enjoy your lemons out of lemonade.. That's not the worst viewpoint on life after all...just perhaps slightly naive.

 

For me, I'm going to hope once again, that CGC does change it's stance, whether you think it's likely or not....and you may be correct...they won't. I'm not a big time dealer, just a collector, so my opinion probably counts very little...

 

But there are a LOT of us "just collector" types, and we buy the products CGC generates...so maybe someone will consider that;)

 

The easy money certainly comes from the big re-submitters, but the heart of the collecting community is much much larger than just those few.

 

I'm not so sure that community is going to be happy drinking Koolaide and being told to "eat cake" forever.

 

Have a lovely day, I have a few other things I need to do today

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Skypinkblu, thank you for your response! I hope you have a terrific day too.

 

I can accept that you disagree with me on some points just as I've disagreed with you. Where I think we mostly differ on pressing with regard to the shrinkage factor vs. facejobbing, is facejobbing was intentional, trying to hide wear by moving it around to the back, and CGC has said they will now look for this and penalize it. But cover shrinkage, I think was unintentional, a side effect of the goal of proper pressing (squeeze out dents and the like) and perhaps it happened here because too firm a hand was used in the pressing.

 

Despite the fact that CGC didn't apparently downgrade them, when comparing before and after scans, an overall difference in physical appearance is readily apparent, but not one the submitter would have wanted, so that is why I say it was unintentional. Because it hurt their bottom line -- people who noticed a difference in the books became less enthused to bid, I can only assume, because the $ results were poorer (of course there can be other factors at play as well, the right people didn't show up for the auction, etc.) I think because other books, certainly pressed at other times, don't show such shrinkage, that perhaps what happened here was too much pressure applied in going for the "max" appearance, and given the overall negative reaction to the Schave shrinkers, pains will be taken to have pressing results without significant shrinkage, as has been successfully done in the past.

 

Side effects of a well-intentioned press would be those things that detract: a popped staple, a crease that wasn't there before, a ripple, a parasol fanning, or horizontal cover shrinkage. Unintentional because these things make a book look worse, not better, and won't help it sell for more.

 

Take care!

[Davenport]

 

Yeah, you better run away Sha!

Worked for me. Ran like a scalded dog.

 

[originalisbest]

skypinkblu, regarding Church's collection, stacks, sheer numbers and the weight required for a "press" --

 

 

"The collection consisted of between 18,000 and 22,000 comic books" (so, your stacks of a mere 100, even over 15 years, might not be an accurate basis for comparison. And while books from the top of Church's stacks might not appear pressed, generally, the older, '38 through early '40s books nearer the bottom would be.)

 

In Chuck's words:

 

"I've often been asked what when through my mind when I first realized that I had stumbled across the greatest accumulation of Golden Age comics ever discovered. Frankly, even after 25 years have gone by, it still gives me chills to think about staring at that huge closet stacked to the rafters (we can assume stacks numbering in the thousands, not stopping at 100) with mint Golden Age comics. "

[originalisbest]

No one can match you way with words SPB.

 

 

“Some people have a way with words, and other people...oh, uh, not have way.”

 

― Steve Martin

 

 

(it must be why Dav resorts to funny pictures. Don't worry Dav, your feelings won't be hurt -- you can't see this.)

 

While I would consider myself anything but naive, I am honored that skypinkblu likened my outlook to Roy's. I like Roy and his pleasant, positive, friendly demeanor.

[thehumantorch]

It's both disturbing and surreal to see this develop, and to see/read people's responses.

 

The notion that plays like this would have happened without certification are looking more and more laughable.

 

This is especially the case when see gamers repeatedly trying their hand at pressing the same book multiple times for the sake of an incremental grade increase, paying zero regard to what they are doing to the book in the process.

 

For anyone who still can't fully understand why this would concern the community, the sad reality is that this could happen to any one of us.

 

We are all a before and after scan away from watching our prized books being discussed, examined under magnified levels of scrutiny, harsh criticism, ridiculed, and devalued, and we have to thank all the gravy train joyriders turning CGC into a wreckers yard where joyrides driven too rough go to die in a slab.

 

It's also disturbing that Matt Nelson's only comment was

 

What you’re seeing here is a result of the cover shrinking from exposure to humidity, and happens most often on early Silver Age Marvels because they were printed so poorly. The sides of the cover can shrink, although the top and bottom covers will not.

 

and Plitch's only comment was

 

Over the years, CGC has seen a number of books with the covers falling short of the right edge, especially early Marvel issues. Sometimes it occurs naturally over time or possibly from printing, and other times from pressing or restoration.

 

We consider all factors (including those above) when determining the grade of each book. As normal, when the grading team looked at these books we did not know who submitted them or if they were submitted before; we did not know if they were pressed; we grade the book that is in front of us. We feel the grades on these books are justified. All of the graders who saw these books were uniform in their grades.

 

Humidity causes shrinkage and graders grade the book in front of them and the grades are justified. The comments just don't address our concerns and instead seem to be designed to calm the waters.

 

Something's wrong.

[originalisbest]

It's both disturbing and surreal to see this develop, and to see/read people's responses.

 

The notion that plays like this would have happened without certification are looking more and more laughable.

 

This is especially the case when see gamers repeatedly trying their hand at pressing the same book multiple times for the sake of an incremental grade increase, paying zero regard to what they are doing to the book in the process.

 

For anyone who still can't fully understand why this would concern the community, the sad reality is that this could happen to any one of us.

 

We are all a before and after scan away from watching our prized books being discussed, examined under magnified levels of scrutiny, harsh criticism, ridiculed, and devalued, and we have to thank all the gravy train joyriders turning CGC into a wreckers yard where joyrides driven too rough go to die in a slab.

 

It's also disturbing that Matt Nelson's only comment was

 

What you’re seeing here is a result of the cover shrinking from exposure to humidity, and happens most often on early Silver Age Marvels because they were printed so poorly. The sides of the cover can shrink, although the top and bottom covers will not.

 

and Plitch's only comment was

 

Over the years, CGC has seen a number of books with the covers falling short of the right edge, especially early Marvel issues. Sometimes it occurs naturally over time or possibly from printing, and other times from pressing or restoration.

 

We consider all factors (including those above) when determining the grade of each book. As normal, when the grading team looked at these books we did not know who submitted them or if they were submitted before; we did not know if they were pressed; we grade the book that is in front of us. We feel the grades on these books are justified. All of the graders who saw these books were uniform in their grades.

 

Humidity causes shrinkage and graders grade the book in front of them and the grades are justified. The comments just don't address our concerns and instead seem to be designed to calm the waters.

 

Something's wrong.

 

Sorry your concerns weren't addressed. Mine were? Not sure what you expect them to say that could possibly please you.

[Mark 1]

[fantastic_four]

Not sure what you expect them to say that could possibly please you.

 

There is nothing. This thread is like 2004 all over again when all the hubbub about pressing originally began around here, only now some people will be condemning any book with the interior poking out on the right and assume it's pressed. Guilty until proven innocent with no actual way to prove any book innocent just as there's no way to prove a book guilty of having been pressed in the first place lacking before-and-after scans. I have never once heard anyone complain in these forums about the way CGC grades these books with pokethrough on the right until this thread associated that pokethrough with pressing.

[Silver Surfer]

How about the facejobs? If it wasn't for these boards raising these issues this kind of krap would be rampant.

[drbanner]

It's also disturbing that Matt Nelson's only comment was

 

What you’re seeing here is a result of the cover shrinking from exposure to humidity, and happens most often on early Silver Age Marvels because they were printed so poorly. The sides of the cover can shrink, although the top and bottom covers will not.

 

Something's wrong.

Yes, something's wrong...what we're seeing here is not due to "exposure to humidity" as if someone left the books outside of CGC's office in the humid Florida air for a month, it's a result of the improper application of moisture, heat, and pressure to these books by someone who didn't know what they were doing.

 

Matt placing blame on these screwups because the books "were printed so poorly" is just a Red Herring. As can be seen throughout this thread in the "before" pictures, the books looked great before being screwed around with.