BB28 from an 8.0 to a 9.0??????????

[garthgantu]

Without a definitive means to detect (on all books) that pressing had occurred, and I'm not talking side by side scans of two separately auctioned books, the designation of restoration is a moot point.

 

Etymology lesson for the day: The true definition of "moot" is "debatable." Now back to your regularly scheduled conspiracy thread...

[Darthdiesel]

I'll tone down the sheep/insufficiently_thoughtful_person comments for you Sometimes the level of insistence that CGC is not doing things the way they want, therefore they must be catering to the bigger accounts/submitters and doing something underhanded gets the better of me.

 

As for SCS, some of us lucky ones still have yet to experience this. In my case, it maybe because I collect bronze and modern slabs predominantly where many of the books don't have overflash as egregious as in silver age or older books? I'm not dismissing SCS as a valid issue but maybe common sense always made me see the possibility of damaging the book in the holder if the slab is subjected to vigorous shaking in transit.

[Snooty Possum-migration]

Without a definitive means to detect (on all books) that pressing had occurred, and I'm not talking side by side scans of two separately auctioned books, the designation of restoration is a moot point.

 

Etymology lesson for the day: The true definition of "moot" is "debatable." Now back to your regularly scheduled conspiracy thread...

Main Entry: moot

Function: adjective

1 a : open to question : DEBATABLE b : subjected to discussion : DISPUTED

2 : deprived of practical significance : made abstract or purely academic

 

[Darthdiesel]

Without a definitive means to detect (on all books) that pressing had occurred, and I'm not talking side by side scans of two separately auctioned books, the designation of restoration is a moot point.

 

Etymology lesson for the day: The true definition of "moot" is "debatable." Now back to your regularly scheduled conspiracy thread...

 

I hear you brother, but my usage of the word 'moot' was to mean “of no significance or relevance.” Thus, a moot point, however debatable, is one that has no practical value. How nicely it ties into my point of the practicality of establishing pressing as restoration without the means to detect it?

 

 

Now... back to irregardless,...

[garthgantu]

Just because you confidently claim it is incorrect doesn't make it so, but I know how you want to look good for the sheep...

Back to the disparaging descriptors of those who disagree with you? At least you're consistent.

 

It seems that you hold CGC liable for not being able to detect it consistently with any degree of certainty.

First, I don't hold CGC 'liable' for anything. I think it's a poor decision for CGC to summarily excuse pressing from the "restoration list" simply because they can't detect it. They could come out and say "hey, pressing is resto," but this would have an adverse affect on their bottom line, so they don't. In this instance, I feel that CGC is putting their business ahead of the good of the market and the customers who populate it. The fact that this happens regularly in the corporate world doesn't make it right. The fact that CGC has presented itself as "the people's champion," making comic book buying "safer for collectors than ever before" makes their approach to the issue of pressing as resto even more disingenuous.

 

how would CGC's hypothetical outing of pressing as resto affect YOU personally and your buying habits? That's what you want to ask. Some folks never cared before and will care even less. Prices they pay for books will not change one iota. you are mistaken if you think that such an announcement will rock the very foundations of the back issue market.

 

What I object to is CGC arbitrarily deciding what is and isn't restoration based on their current restoration detection capabilities. It's not as though there's a laundry list of other forms of "possible restoration" that CGC is ignoring or denying. CGC has positioned itself as the de facto standard on restoration detection, and by doing so has positioned itself as the de facto arbiter of what is and isn't restoration.

 

I guess in your book it's okay for me to object to color touch or trimming because CGC says those are forms of restoration and can detect them with reasonable consistency. But another form of altering a comic book, which has been viewed by many as restoration for decades, is simply swept under the carpet so that CGC can maintain its claim of being able to consistently and comprehensively detect restoration.

 

And for someone like you to be calling me or others sheep because we question such heavy-handed maneuvers on CGC's part is simply laughable.

 

Let's say CGC goes ahead and 'out' pressing - what will come of it? Will HG collections all over suddenly lose value, much like when CGC first came out and established a grading standard back in 2000? Why would they lose value? Can anyone prove that pressing has taken place? Or are you just going to stigmatize all "pancaked" appearing books as de facto pressed books? better yet, why not just state that all HG books above 9.4 and pre 1975 are potential pressing suspects?

 

Why the persistence in establishing that CGC claim pressing is resto? there is nothing practical that would come of it. Nothing you can hang your hat on.

[garthgantu]

Without a definitive means to detect (on all books) that pressing had occurred, and I'm not talking side by side scans of two separately auctioned books, the designation of restoration is a moot point.

 

Etymology lesson for the day: The true definition of "moot" is "debatable." Now back to your regularly scheduled conspiracy thread...

Main Entry: moot

Function: adjective

1 a : open to question : DEBATABLE b : subjected to discussion : DISPUTED

2 : deprived of practical significance : made abstract or purely academic

 

 

Thanks, Snooty... I'm aware of the more recent, bastardized definition of "moot." I was referring to the original meaning of the word

[Snooty Possum-migration]

Thanks, Snooty... I'm aware of the more recent, bastardized definition of "moot." I was referring to the original meaning of the word

 

Etymology lesson for the day: The true definition of "moot" is "debatable." Now back to your regularly scheduled conspiracy thread...

[Darthdiesel]

Back to the disparaging descriptors of those who disagree with you? At least you're consistent.

 

I'm a baaaaaad boy...

 

First, I don't hold CGC 'liable' for anything. I think it's a poor decision for CGC to summarily excuse pressing from the "restoration list" simply because they can't detect it.

 

Circumstances being what they are, do they have any other choice?

 

They could come out and say "hey, pressing is resto," but this would have an adverse affect on their bottom line, so they don't.

 

IMO it's probably has more to do with "Now that we've said it is, what are we going to do about it? nothing because we can detect it 100% and to call out something as pressed just because it is HG without any definitive proof opens us up to lawsuits from disgruntled customers."

 

In this instance, I feel that CGC is putting their business ahead of the good of the market and the customers who populate it.

 

I guess those of us who don't think pressing is resto or don't care whether it is or not, but still buy slabbed books factor anywhere in your statement or probably belong in your version of the comic market The good of which market exactly and which customers? Oh, you guys who don't like pressing. OK..got it

 

The fact that this happens regularly in the corporate world doesn't make it right. The fact that CGC has presented itself as "the people's champion," making comic book buying "safer for collectors than ever before" makes their approach to the issue of pressing as resto even more disingenuous.

 

Methinks, someone is taking the hyped Wizard ads too literally there. Where has CGC presented itself as "the people's champion"? Was it a CGC spokesperson or a happy customer's testimonial. You are a spinmaster - somehow you know these vague statements can be thought of as somewhat true while at the same time torn apart as disingenuous hype by the other side. It's safer for those who consistently bought restored books as unrestored at high premiums or those who were unskilled at grading and kept picking up FNs described as NM at multiples of guide.

 

What I object to is CGC arbitrarily deciding what is and isn't restoration based on their current restoration detection capabilities.

 

dude, it's their company. Let them run it the way they want. don't like it, don't use their services. What I don't agree with is all this continued bashing of CGC's decision without offering a viable method of detecting pressing consistently. All the solutions offered thus far have been ludicrous and ineffectual at best.

 

It's not as though there's a laundry list of other forms of "possible restoration" that CGC is ignoring or denying.

 

Big difference is that these other forms leave a trace of the restorative process behind.

 

CGC has positioned itself as the de facto standard on restoration detection, and by doing so has positioned itself as the de facto arbiter of what is and isn't restoration.

 

Don't they have to in order to do their job? Aren't we still free to subscribe to Overstreet's definition of restoration if we should so choose, much like their grading versus CGC's grading? Remember that CGC's grade, label, judgement of a book is only an opinion - one the market seems to value more than other comic industry figures because of their status as a third party arbiter.

 

I guess in your book it's okay for me to object to color touch or trimming because CGC says those are forms of restoration and can detect them with reasonable consistency. But another form of altering a comic book, which has been viewed by many as restoration for decades, is simply swept under the carpet so that CGC can maintain its claim of being able to consistently and comprehensively detect restoration.

 

They still are tops in the resto detection field regardless of their view on pressing since no one else in the industry can detect it definitively or detect the other forms of resto as consistently as CGC does. I would cast serious doubts on those who would claim they could detect correctly done pressing consistently.

 

And for someone like you to be calling me or others sheep because we question such heavy-handed maneuvers on CGC's part is simply laughable.

 

as are all my other contributions to any and all pressing threads, I'm sure.

[esquirecomics]

The fact that this happens regularly in the corporate world doesn't make it right. The fact that CGC has presented itself as "the people's champion," making comic book buying "safer for collectors than ever before" makes their approach to the issue of pressing as resto even more disingenuous.

 

Methinks, someone is taking the hyped Wizard ads too literally there. Where has CGC presented itself as "the people's champion"? Was it a CGC spokesperson or a happy customer's testimonial. You are a spinmaster - somehow you know these vague statements can be thought of as somewhat true while at the same time torn apart as disingenuous hype by the other side.

 

Let's see, I think it was ....

 

"Certification has driven the thieves out of the hobby, because now collectors can be sure of what they're getting by the CGC grade," said CGC President Steve Borock, an industry expert who previously graded comics for Sotheby's."CGC has become like the 'Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval' for comics. It's opened the hobby up to more collectors, who can buy CGC-graded books without the fear of getting ripped off."

 

http://www.marketwatch.com/tools/quotes/...w&dist=nbk&symb

 

Of course, probably Steve doesn't speak for CGC.

[Foolkiller]

*sigh*

 

yes, the pressing debate rages on --

 

Did anyone produce any proof that professional pressing damages a book? No? I didn't think so.

 

People want all future pressing disclosed -- well unless you pressed the book yourself, how are we going to tell that the book's been pressed?

[esquirecomics]

I am going to do my best to simply respond directly to some points and not allow this discourse to denigrate any further (if that is even possible) into a back and forth on personal opinions that simply do not need to be posted on these threads. Nor will I go out of my way to levy personal attacks. My positions don't need them. Indeed, I hope not to write anything that incites you further to feel compelled to respond yet again, but given some of what you wrote it is probably impossible to not create such a situation. However, if my responses appear to be questions, they are rhetorical in nature. Hopefully this will be the end to this board conversation and the topic can reclaim its focus if ever someone has something substantive and on point.

 

 

focused on sellers/dealers and the issue of disclosure.

 

Yes. Disclosure. And how would you sure that was enforced again? How many flips down the road before disclosure disappears and the book is returned to the ranks of the "unpressed"? Are you personally going to track every book you sold every time it changes hands? Some sellers will do the right thing and disclose pressing, but the unscrupulous would do best by buying from these honest folk and flipping down the road. This possibility makes disclosure a pipe dream and there is NOTHING CGC or honest sellers can do about it today.

 

I have my policy on disclosure, both from a buyers and sellers perspective. I adhere to my policy on disclosure 100% of the time with respective to my role as a dealer. As a buyer, I may or may not require it as I see fit. If I offer to buy a $10,000 comic from a dealer and they are unwilling to assure me they have no personal knowledge of restoration or pressing, then they face the prospect of losing that sale. That is their perrogative. Or, I may simply not care b/c I want that book and I'll buy it.

 

I've voiced my policies and thoughts on disclosure, and I will continue to do so. People can agree. People can disagree. There is absolutely nothing in my buying policy that penalizes honest dealers. And it certainly has nothing to do with CGC.

 

Please identify one post where I have "blamed" CGC for the problems of pressing today or from yesteryear.

 

So you don't think CGC's stance on non-disassembled pressing as not restoration encourages the rampant "press and flip" submissions that the CGC board detectives spot almost weekly by looking at Heritage sales archives? If you don't, then I guess I had you mistakenly placed in the anti-pressing camp all this time

 

Of course it encourages it. And the point is.....? How is that equatable to blaming CGC for the problem of pressing? As we all know, pressing was going on long before CGC. They didn't cause it, nor are they to blame for it. Two things have exposed the problem. One is CGC and the other is the Internet. Both, in combination, now allow the "CGC board detectives" to review scans posted on various sites and arrive at their conclusions.

 

I have said repeatedly that I would never want CGC to guess at whether a book has been pressed. Nor do I want them guessing whether other forms of restoration has been undertaken, or that a book is a pedigree when they are not entirely sure.

 

Anti-pressing camp? This is not a black and white issue no matter how the apparent "pro-pressing" camp wants to portray it. How am I anti-presssing when I have publicly stated I have no objection to pressing, though I have no intentions of doing it? How am I anti-pressing when I am willing to accept pressed books as consignments? Oh, you must mean because I desire full disclosure so that I or other buyers may take that into consideration because some of us do care? If that is what you mean by "anti-pressing", then go right ahead and characterize it that way.

 

I'll let the "insufficiently_thoughtful_person villagers", whomever you believe they are, respond directly to you.

 

You're doing a good enough job, Marc

 

I'll say just this. You obviously read my posts. I have over 500 of them in just a few weeks. Every single one of them identifies who I am. My name is Mar"K".

 

Plus, I have cited to numerous examples where pressing can be reasonably detected. This thead, which I had nothing to do with, is a perfect example.

 

So you are saying, if you were representing the buyer in a suit against the seller for non-disclosure of pressing, or seller fraud based on misreprestentation of condition, you'd feel confident bringing legal action against this seller of the BB 28 CGC 9.0 based on the "evidence" presented here in this thread? Digital evidence that can be manipulated?

 

Based solely on just digital images? I have never said that nor would I bring a case if that were the only evidence.

 

Please cite to one example where I have attacked any specific dealer and unfairly cast aspersions on their inventory, or harmed their reputation.

 

That is the inevitable outcome for your seller's pressing disclosure contract and undisclosed pressing lists you are calling for. Think it through, man. I don't need to spell it all out for you Innocent men are convicted and executed all the time. All your ideas need to do is to condemn a non-pressed high grade book and falsely accuse an honest seller and you've set your witchhunt in motion. Can you assure me that your suspected pressed list will be 100% accurate?

 

With all due respect, last time I checked I don't believe I need either your permission or your blessing. Nor am I aware of what requirement I have to justify or promise anything to you. If any dealer feels that I, or anyone for that matter, have improperly or falsely maligned them, I am confident they will take the proper steps to address the situation. Of course, feel free to patrol the boards and notify those dealers whose inventory has been alleged to include a pressed book so that they can consider their response. If they are indeed pressing books, perhaps they will stop.

 

Can you enforce that pressing disclosure contract you have planned for all hi grade dealers to sign?

 

Yes, I can. It is called a contract. Every state and the federal government recognizes the legal significance of it.

 

If you want to blindly make purchases on the good faith and honesty of those you purchase from, by all means go ahead and do so. That is your business and your money.

 

What is the alternative? Make the seller sign a contract for each high grade/high value book he sells me and if down the road, within the statute of limitations, CGC PLOD's that same book, I turn around, call you up to represent me and sue the seller?

 

Sure, I would be more than happy to represent you under those circumstances. Just make sure you can afford my retainer.

 

where do you get blindly?

 

You wrote: WE are ALL taking it on faith and trust in the person/dealer who sold it to you.

 

That smells and looks like "blindly" to me.

 

how do you do your purchases? Last time I saw you at Tyson's, you had no blacklight in hand while checking out books.

 

I appreciate the fact that you are checking up on me at the shows. By chance do you work for the CIA? I didn't need a blacklight. I only bought CGC books. I have no problem trusting CGC's ability to detect restoration. Will CGC make errors? Of course. CGC staff is only human. But I have no reason to believe this will be a significant number. And what I bought, not that I need to explain, were 3 Lost Valley More Fun Comics for my personal collection. They are not for sale and I highly doubt they were pressed. If anyone is interested, they are on my website for your viewing pleasure. Mark's Lost Valley More Fun Comics - Not Pressed!

 

But do us all a favor and speak for yourself, not ALL of us. There are many of us, including my sheep and village insufficiently_thoughtful_persons, who hold a different opinion. I presume that is allowed on these boards?

 

Baaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

 

You and I will never see eye to eye on this. Without irrefutable means of pressing detection, the question of "is pressing restoration" is not worth answering because regardless of how you answer, the corollary is "How do you prove it?"

 

You're right, we won't agree on this. I disagree with your premise, but I can live with that. Apparently I have enough sheep for a large flock anyway!

 

Next time, learn to take a joke so i'm not up answering your posts at 3 AM.

 

Tell you what. I will work on trying to better identify a joke if you work on your skills to make one. Fair enough?

 

Can we now simply get pie? I'm hungry.

 

Man, this is a long post.

[samurai007]

Not only that, but what about a pedigree collection that was not kept standing upright in boxes, as we store comics nowadays, but sitting in stacks? Will the books on the bottom get a PLOD for "pressing"? Imagine a stack of 300 comics... how high up the stack should be labelled "pressed"? The bottom 10? 25? 100? Whatever number you choose will be entirely arbitrary... the next book up in the stack will be indistiguishable in appearance.

[garthgantu]

And for someone like you to be calling me or others sheep because we question such heavy-handed maneuvers on CGC's part is simply laughable.

 

as are all my other contributions to any and all pressing threads, I'm sure.

 

Not at all - many of your points/arguments are well thought-out and very cogently presented. I just felt the need to point out the hypocrisy of you calling me and other "pressing is resto" proponents "sheep." We're sheep for persisting in our view, but you're not for maintaining your stance. Seems to be a double standard..?

[esquirecomics]

Not only that, but what about a pedigree collection that was not kept standing upright in boxes, as we store comics nowadays, but sitting in stacks? Will the books on the bottom get a PLOD for "pressing"? Imagine a stack of 300 comics... how high up the stack should be labelled "pressed"? The bottom 10? 25? 100? Whatever number you choose will be entirely arbitrary... the next book up in the stack will be indistiguishable in appearance.

 

samurai007, all these questions and issues have been addressed on one of the other pressing threads. Now, of course, perhaps some don't agree with the responses, but they have definitely been addressed. Look for the threads titled "Pressing" and "Restoration Expert Susan Cicconi Denounces Pressing". If you cannot find them, or you don't find the answer to your questions or still feel that you desire more information, let me know.

[Forbush-Man]

Let's see, I think it was ....

 

"Certification has driven the thieves out of the hobby, because now collectors can be sure of what they're getting by the CGC grade," said CGC President Steve Borock, an industry expert who previously graded comics for Sotheby's."CGC has become like the 'Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval' for comics. It's opened the hobby up to more collectors, who can buy CGC-graded books without the fear of getting ripped off."

 

http://www.marketwatch.com/tools/quotes/...w&dist=nbk&symb

 

Of course, probably Steve doesn't speak for CGC.

 

But he does speak for "Good Housekeeping"!

 

I hear his house is immaculant,... but his choice of curtains leaves something to be desired!

[GertHammink-migration]

Hi,

 

I am new to these boards and finally got through all the pages of this topic - whew! Good reading, but much of it hard to understand.

[Harvey Dude]

GertHammink

 

WELCOME TO THE BOARDS.

[esquirecomics]

Yes, indeed, WELCOME GertHammink!!

 

See guys, I can write without being scolding.

[kiltman]

Hi Gert

[Crackandpresstoan11]

Some poor shemp bought the B&B 28 8.0 in a 9.0 slab. Congrats to comgeek.