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

Archived

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

Insane press and flip Avengers 1.

Started by Spiderphill,

491 posts in this topic

bronze johnny

bronze johnny

Posted
Posted

Perhaps it's time for CGC to be specific as to what degree of pressing is permissible for a blue label? "Basic" pressing for the purpose of removing minor defects that do not require techniques practiced by professionals is a generally accepted practice. Pressing that requires disassembling a book for the purpose of cosmetically improving the look of the front cover is a process that supersedes the generally accepted practice of pressing. It's clear that the book in question required removal of the cover (which can raise a second issue concerning the possibility of staple replacement?). Cover and staple removal is easier to detect and it's CGC's job to determine this.

 

Since the technology is out there, I hope to see someone provide a service where invisible identification numbers can be placed on the book without causing any damage. The id number can then be identified via an "infrared" reading light and will permit us to see to it that a graded book, barring any "peculiarly orchestrated" method, remain in or near the "original" grade range- this will stop the degree of pressing we see with this "8.5- 9.2" book.

 

The situation presented to us here is one of those examples supporting the view that "greed is not good."

 

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites
skypinkblu

skypinkblu

Posted
Posted
And if getting rid of pressing isn't going to happen (partly, at least, because it can be very hard to detect), then it would appear we are stuck with this practice as well. Even though these books have a distinctive look, that look also appears naturally in some SA books, as someone noted. So determining definitively that this particular manipulation has taken place would be difficult, even if CGC had a mind to do so.

 

Well, if the market doesn't reward the practice $$$-wise, then it will stop.

In practice, everyone's going to start look skeptically at books with this pretty obvious roll-to-the-back telltale, and particularly in high grade, the books may not bring the premium the number grade would otherwise merit.

 

Also: even though this can occur "naturally", thinking about all the spine rolls I have ever seen... am I wrong to think that a roll-to-the-front spine roll is FAR more common? (due to the way that books tilt when stacked flat on top of each other) I think it will be pretty easy for people to start thinking "hm, spine roll-to-the-back, something might be going on there", even though that's going to catch some "natural" spine rolls too.

 

I think the horse has left the barn...CGC has already figured out that most people DO buy the label, not the book and that the percentage of people on here, who buy CGC books is just a small part of the market. If they thought otherwise, they'd be flagging books that they knew were pressed or dry cleaned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sqeggs

Sqeggs

Posted
Posted
It's clear that the book in question required removal of the cover (which can raise a second issue concerning the possibility of staple replacement?). Cover and staple removal is easier to detect and it's CGC's job to determine this.

 

I'm pretty sure staple replacement gets a PLOD, unless the staples are "vintage" and that may only be allowed for GA books. hm

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sqeggs

Sqeggs

Posted
Posted
And if getting rid of pressing isn't going to happen (partly, at least, because it can be very hard to detect), then it would appear we are stuck with this practice as well. Even though these books have a distinctive look, that look also appears naturally in some SA books, as someone noted. So determining definitively that this particular manipulation has taken place would be difficult, even if CGC had a mind to do so.

 

Well, if the market doesn't reward the practice $$$-wise, then it will stop.

In practice, everyone's going to start look skeptically at books with this pretty obvious roll-to-the-back telltale, and particularly in high grade, the books may not bring the premium the number grade would otherwise merit.

 

Also: even though this can occur "naturally", thinking about all the spine rolls I have ever seen... am I wrong to think that a roll-to-the-front spine roll is FAR more common? (due to the way that books tilt when stacked flat on top of each other) I think it will be pretty easy for people to start thinking "hm, spine roll-to-the-back, something might be going on there", even though that's going to catch some "natural" spine rolls too.

 

I think the horse has left the barn...CGC has already figured out that most people DO buy the label, not the book and that the percentage of people on here, who buy CGC books is just a small part of the market. If they thought otherwise, they'd be flagging books that they knew were pressed or dry cleaned.

 

I agree completely. The horse has left the barn, crossed the field, and is two counties away by now. Given that, it may be hard for CGC to draw a line in a case like this one. If the book looks like a 9.2 (I realize not everyone agrees that this book does), it would be hard for them not to give it that grade even if they are certain that the book was manipulated in the way this one appears to have been.

 

It's conceivable -- but only just barely -- that they could adopt a policy along the lines of: "Pressing, as such, is acceptable, but if we believe that a book has been subject to substantial manipulation in the course of being pressed, you get a PLOD." Conceivable, but really, really unlikely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spiderphill

Spiderphill

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Perhaps it's time for CGC to be specific as to what degree of pressing is permissible for a blue label? "Basic" pressing for the purpose of removing minor defects that do not require techniques practiced by professionals is a generally accepted practice. Pressing that requires disassembling a book for the purpose of cosmetically improving the look of the front cover is a process that supersedes the generally accepted practice of pressing. It's clear that the book in question required removal of the cover (which can raise a second issue concerning the possibility of staple replacement?). Cover and staple removal is easier to detect and it's CGC's job to determine this.

 

Since the technology is out there, I hope to see someone provide a service where invisible identification numbers can be placed on the book without causing any damage. The id number can then be identified via an "infrared" reading light and will permit us to see to it that a graded book, barring any "peculiarly orchestrated" method, remain in or near the "original" grade range- this will stop the degree of pressing we see with this "8.5- 9.2" book.

 

The situation presented to us here is one of those examples supporting the view that "greed is not good."

 

John

you don't need to disassemble a book to do that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
namisgr

namisgr

Posted
Posted
And if getting rid of pressing isn't going to happen (partly, at least, because it can be very hard to detect), then it would appear we are stuck with this practice as well. Even though these books have a distinctive look, that look also appears naturally in some SA books, as someone noted. So determining definitively that this particular manipulation has taken place would be difficult, even if CGC had a mind to do so.

 

Well, if the market doesn't reward the practice $$$-wise, then it will stop.

In practice, everyone's going to start look skeptically at books with this pretty obvious roll-to-the-back telltale, and particularly in high grade, the books may not bring the premium the number grade would otherwise merit.

 

Also: even though this can occur "naturally", thinking about all the spine rolls I have ever seen... am I wrong to think that a roll-to-the-front spine roll is FAR more common? (due to the way that books tilt when stacked flat on top of each other) I think it will be pretty easy for people to start thinking "hm, spine roll-to-the-back, something might be going on there", even though that's going to catch some "natural" spine rolls too.

 

I think the horse has left the barn...CGC has already figured out that most people DO buy the label, not the book and that the percentage of people on here, who buy CGC books is just a small part of the market. If they thought otherwise, they'd be flagging books that they knew were pressed or dry cleaned.

 

I agree completely. The horse has left the barn, crossed the field, and is two counties away by now. Given that, it may be hard for CGC to draw a line in a case like this one. If the book looks like a 9.2 (I realize not everyone agrees that this book does), it would be hard for them not to give it that grade even if they are certain that the book was manipulated in the way this one appears to have been.

 

It's conceivable -- but only just barely -- that they could adopt a policy along the lines of: "Pressing, as such, is acceptable, but if we believe that a book has been subject to substantial manipulation in the course of being pressed, you get a PLOD." Conceivable, but really, really unlikely.

 

CGC has stated since Steve B's time that poor pressing jobs that damage books will be punished by lower numerical grades. They should step up, be consistent with this philosophy, and also downgrade pressed books that have interior pages extruded to the ridiculous degree of the Avengers #1, or have impacted staples made worse during the pressing process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spiderphill

Spiderphill

Posted
  • Author
Posted
And if getting rid of pressing isn't going to happen (partly, at least, because it can be very hard to detect), then it would appear we are stuck with this practice as well. Even though these books have a distinctive look, that look also appears naturally in some SA books, as someone noted. So determining definitively that this particular manipulation has taken place would be difficult, even if CGC had a mind to do so.

 

Well, if the market doesn't reward the practice $$$-wise, then it will stop.

In practice, everyone's going to start look skeptically at books with this pretty obvious roll-to-the-back telltale, and particularly in high grade, the books may not bring the premium the number grade would otherwise merit.

 

Also: even though this can occur "naturally", thinking about all the spine rolls I have ever seen... am I wrong to think that a roll-to-the-front spine roll is FAR more common? (due to the way that books tilt when stacked flat on top of each other) I think it will be pretty easy for people to start thinking "hm, spine roll-to-the-back, something might be going on there", even though that's going to catch some "natural" spine rolls too.

 

I think the horse has left the barn...CGC has already figured out that most people DO buy the label, not the book and that the percentage of people on here, who buy CGC books is just a small part of the market. If they thought otherwise, they'd be flagging books that they knew were pressed or dry cleaned.

 

I agree completely. The horse has left the barn, crossed the field, and is two counties away by now. Given that, it may be hard for CGC to draw a line in a case like this one. If the book looks like a 9.2 (I realize not everyone agrees that this book does), it would be hard for them not to give it that grade even if they are certain that the book was manipulated in the way this one appears to have been.

 

It's conceivable -- but only just barely -- that they could adopt a policy along the lines of: "Pressing, as such, is acceptable, but if we believe that a book has been subject to substantial manipulation in the course of being pressed, you get a PLOD." Conceivable, but really, really unlikely.

 

CGC has stated since Steve B's time that poor pressing jobs that damage books will be punished by lower numerical grades. They should step up, be consistent with this philosophy, and also downgrade pressed books that have interior pages extruded to the ridiculous degree of the Avengers #1, or have impacted staples made worse during the pressing process.

there's no way to prove it wasn't printed like that so they can't hammer the book. It's just this dude has mastered the loop hole.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DR.X

DR.X

Posted
Posted
CGC has stated since Steve B's time that poor pressing jobs that damage books will be punished by lower numerical grades. They should step up, be consistent with this philosophy, and also downgrade pressed books that have interior pages extruded to the ridiculous degree of the Avengers #1 , or have impacted staples made worse during the pressing process.

 

I would agree with this 100%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
namisgr

namisgr

Posted
Posted
there's no way to prove it wasn't printed like that so they can't hammer the book. It's just this dude has mastered the loop hole.

 

That's a good point, but shouldn't a massive miswrap like this one be penalized numerically, no matter whether it's related to production or pressing? After all, it looks really nasty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gotham Kid

Gotham Kid

Posted
Posted
CGC has stated since Steve B's time that poor pressing jobs that damage books will be punished by lower numerical grades. They should step up, be consistent with this philosophy, and also downgrade pressed books that have interior pages extruded to the ridiculous degree of the Avengers #1 , or have impacted staples made worse during the pressing process.

 

I would agree with this 100%.

 

+1

Link to comment
Share on other sites
etanick

etanick

Posted
Posted

i say more in line with (tsk) to the CGC graders...time to retool the training to look at the back cover more carefully. This is too easy...you see the fugly interior protruding and pay closer attentions. It ain't rocket science. Sure some books were naturally made that way but whether the color breaking ticks are now on the back cover..they are still flaws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing