SD Comic-Con Panel Discussion On Community Issues - Input Solicited

[tth2]

I asked a simple question -- why are all of you anti-pressers not equally against dry cleaning,

As Jim answered in another post, because we have different levels of tolerance. We are no more monolithic about all restoration issues than all or are about social or economic issues.

 

another restorative technique that CGC does not note as restoration and a technique that can have equally stunning results when applied to a dirty book. I'm still waiting for an answer that makes any sense.

This perhaps helps to get at the crux of our difference. My rationale has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the results. It all relates to the degree of fundamental alteration that is being done to the book. My disdain for pressing would not be lessened if you could show me that in 20 years, the pressing becomes undone and the paper reverts back to its curled state.

[tth2]

It really doesn't surprise me that some of the anti-pressing crowd feel that dry cleaning isn't disclosure worthy. It is, after all, something that can be done a lot easier and safer than even professional pressing, and as such falls into a restoration category even further down the scale.

 

Alan

 

Thanks for actually addressing the issue, Alan. Whether I agree with everything you said or not, at least you didn't duck the question or give me an excuse that doesn't make inherent, logical sense.

 

One point with which I'd like to quibble is in this last bit I've quoted. You can actually do quite a bit of damage to a book by dry cleaning if you don't know what you are doing. You can remove ink (remember the Cap #1 in the 6.5 section of the grading guide?), abrade the paper surface (which is inevitable to some extent every time you dry clean the book) resulting in loss of or damage to paper fibers and gloss, and you can unintentionally crease or tear the edges when working around the perimeter of the book. And since any Tom, , and Harry can go to the art supply store and buy a white art eraser, it's a lot more likely to be a widespread, amateur practice than pressing is.

This sounds right to me. If this happened, then in my opinion the dry cleaner should get hit with a double whammy: PLOD for restoration and a reduction in grade for damage caused by poor restoration.

[tth2]

I'm not so sure about a posse or anything like that, but with Esquire, FFB, tth2, Foolkiller, (soon to be attorney) October Fire and others, we certainly have enough of a legal crew here to establish the first ever Supreme Court Of The Comic Book Collectors Society, or some such name. Just think of the possibilities.....

I shudder at the thought. All we would ever produce is plurality opinions with lots of concurring opinions and dissenting opinions, and maybe every once in great while an actual majority opinion (which would undoubtedly be 5-4).

[goldust40]

I agree with this opinion, even though FFB will likely rip it to shreds due to lack of expert analysis and "Strawman" relativist arguments. Using an eraser to clean off soiling on a back cover affects only the surface in a very minor way, whilst pressing affects the entire structure of the book.

 

As has been stated before, this is not a black and white issue.

[Aman619]

Gold, keep in mind that pressing isnt always of the entire book. Using localized presing to a few specific areas as opposed to placing the entire book into a press ALSO "only affects the surface in a very minor way."

[goldust40]

That's a good point, especially if only the cover (or a portion of it) is being pressed........

[Aman619]

yeah, its one of the biggest things I learned in all these pressing discussions. I always heard pressing and thought of a huge press flattening the comic everywhere at once. And its why the analogy to the piles of Church books is so often raised in comparison.

[awe4one]

Gold, keep in mind that pressing isnt always of the entire book. Using localized presing to a few specific areas as opposed to placing the entire book into a press ALSO "only affects the surface in a very minor way."

 

So how much is too much? I understand where you're coming from but can't drill down to this type pressing is acceptable vs. another method. That's a slippery slope to go on and one I suspect the pro-restoration crowd would love the naysayers to jump aboard. Once "some" is accepted..."all" is just around the corner...

 

Jim

[Darthdiesel]

That's a slippery slope to go on and one I suspect the pro-restoration crowd would love the naysayers to jump aboard. Once "some" is accepted..."all" is just around the corner...

 

Jim

 

 

Slip away ....

[awe4one]

That's a slippery slope to go on and one I suspect the pro-restoration crowd would love the naysayers to jump aboard. Once "some" is accepted..."all" is just around the corner...

 

Jim

 

 

Slip away ....

 

[FFB]

I agree with this opinion, even though FFB will likely rip it to shreds due to lack of expert analysis and "Strawman" relativist arguments. Using an eraser to clean off soiling on a back cover affects only the surface in a very minor way, whilst pressing affects the entire structure of the book.

 

As has been stated before, this is not a black and white issue.

 

Yeah, pressing out a blunted corner with a tacking iron affects the structure of the whole book.

 

Or were you saying that a tacking iron doesn't count as restoration?

 

It doesn't matter if cleaning only affects the surface. The surface had grime on it. Grime is a defect. You removed a defect.

 

All I can say is that when the revolution comes and we have the big summit to set industry standards in stone, don't expect them to be called the Tim Hui/Andy Coleman Accords. You guys are nothing but "splitters."

[goldust40]

I agree with this opinion, even though FFB will likely rip it to shreds due to lack of expert analysis and "Strawman" relativist arguments. Using an eraser to clean off soiling on a back cover affects only the surface in a very minor way, whilst pressing affects the entire structure of the book.

 

As has been stated before, this is not a black and white issue.

 

Yeah, pressing out a blunted corner with a tacking iron affects the structure of the whole book.

 

Or were you saying that a tacking iron doesn't count as restoration?

 

It doesn't matter if cleaning only affects the surface. The surface had grime on it. Grime is a defect. You removed a defect.

 

All I can say is that when the revolution comes and we have the big summit to set industry standards in stone, don't expect them to be called the Tim Hui/Andy Coleman Accords. You guys are nothing but "splitters."

 

"Pressing out a blunted corner"?? "With a tacking iron"????

 

Talk about taking a blunt instrument to an argument!!!!!

 

Gotcha, STRAW MAN!!!

 

[FFB]

I agree with this opinion, even though FFB will likely rip it to shreds due to lack of expert analysis and "Strawman" relativist arguments. Using an eraser to clean off soiling on a back cover affects only the surface in a very minor way, whilst pressing affects the entire structure of the book.

 

As has been stated before, this is not a black and white issue.

 

Yeah, pressing out a blunted corner with a tacking iron affects the structure of the whole book.

 

Or were you saying that a tacking iron doesn't count as restoration?

 

It doesn't matter if cleaning only affects the surface. The surface had grime on it. Grime is a defect. You removed a defect.

 

All I can say is that when the revolution comes and we have the big summit to set industry standards in stone, don't expect them to be called the Tim Hui/Andy Coleman Accords. You guys are nothing but "splitters."

 

"Pressing out a blunted corner"?? "With a tacking iron"????

 

Talk about taking a blunt instrument to an argument!!!!!

 

Gotcha, STRAW MAN!!!

 

 

I'm not sure whether you're conceding the point or continuing to argue, so please pick from one of the two responses:

 

1) If conceding:

 

2) If continuing to argue:

[goldust40]

I agree with this opinion, even though FFB will likely rip it to shreds due to lack of expert analysis and "Strawman" relativist arguments. Using an eraser to clean off soiling on a back cover affects only the surface in a very minor way, whilst pressing affects the entire structure of the book.

 

As has been stated before, this is not a black and white issue.

 

Yeah, pressing out a blunted corner with a tacking iron affects the structure of the whole book.

 

Or were you saying that a tacking iron doesn't count as restoration?

 

It doesn't matter if cleaning only affects the surface. The surface had grime on it. Grime is a defect. You removed a defect.

 

All I can say is that when the revolution comes and we have the big summit to set industry standards in stone, don't expect them to be called the Tim Hui/Andy Coleman Accords. You guys are nothing but "splitters."

 

"Pressing out a blunted corner"?? "With a tacking iron"????

 

Talk about taking a blunt instrument to an argument!!!!!

 

Gotcha, STRAW MAN!!!

 

 

I'm not sure whether you're conceding the point or continuing to argue, so please pick from one of the two responses:

 

1) If conceding:

 

2) If continuing to argue:

 

Don't try and squirm out of the argument. You've completely lost and don't deny it.

[Aman619]

Gold, keep in mind that pressing isnt always of the entire book. Using localized presing to a few specific areas as opposed to placing the entire book into a press ALSO "only affects the surface in a very minor way."

 

So how much is too much? I understand where you're coming from but can't drill down to this type pressing is acceptable vs. another method. That's a slippery slope to go on and one I suspect the pro-restoration crowd would love the naysayers to jump aboard. Once "some" is accepted..."all" is just around the corner...

 

Jim

 

I wasnt addressing the "too much or too little aspect in my reply. Just the misstatement arising from the usual misunderstanding that "pressing" entails squeezing an entire comic book in a press. The pressing we speak of here as you know relates more often to non-disassembly spot pressing of specifically targeted areas where creases can be taken away. etc etc thats all I meant.

[esquirecomics]

Panel participants (as of June 28, 2005)

 

Mark S. Zaid - EsquireComics.com

Steve Borock - CGC

Jon Berk - collector all powerful

Mark Wilson - PGCMint

NEW- Tom Gordon III, Gemstone Publishing Managing Editor

 

More to be potentially named.

[THE_BEYONDER]

Hey Scott.

 

The only thing I don't understand is why those that have accepted the practice of pressing feel the need to actively defend it.

 

This is not an attack, but a sincere inquiry regarding your current 'stance'.

[esquirecomics]

Hey Scott.

 

The only thing I don't understand is why those that have accepted the practice of pressing feel the need to actively defend it.

 

This is not an attack, but a sincere inquiry regarding your current 'stance'.

 

Scott's family owns a company that makes the metal that is used in the presses.

[FFB]

Hey Scott.

 

The only thing I don't understand is why those that have accepted the practice of pressing feel the need to actively defend it.

 

This is not an attack, but a sincere inquiry regarding your current 'stance'.

 

Why the "stance" in quotes? Sarcasm? Or just more of your peculiar habit of emphasizing words in your sentences?

 

To answer your question perhaps more honestly and introspectively than I should, here goes: I will take a vocal position on pretty much any issue where I have an opinion and will talk it to death, no matter what it is. I am annoying that way and I refuse to seek treatment for the disorder. Is this surprising to you all of a sudden? You've known me for what, a year and a half now? Have you ever seen me walk away willingly from ANY topic in which I have an interest?

 

Now, the less introspective answer is this: I don't think there is anything wrong with NDP pressing any more than I think there's anything wrong with color touch, piece replacement, wet cleaning, or anything else. They are processes, not "good or evil acts." But some people treat them as though they are evil. I happen to think there are too few of the people who view these merely as "processes," instead of making value judgments about the processes themselves, who are willing to bring perspective to these discussions on a regular basis. I'm just trying to add a little perspective to the debate, because otherwise it'll degenerate as it often does into a silly argument over whether pressing is restoration and whether it could be detected someday with a magic detection machine that will inevitably (we are led to believe) be invented in the future.

 

Although you didn't ask me this question, what I really think you're clumsily trying to ask me is where I stand on disclosure. On the issue of disclosure, I am obviously, clearly, and unequivocally pro-disclosure on the "recognized" forms of restoration such as CT, piece replacement, tear seals, etc., as well as "cosmetic destruction" such as trimming (which isn't really restoration, though CGC treats it that way).

 

NDP (pressing) and dry cleaning are another story. There is part of me that says "Sellers should disclose it all because the buyer has a right to know everything about a book, even the really neurotic collectors like Jim and Tim and Aman." There is another part of me that sympathizes with those sellers who do not disclose pressing because (like it or not!) there is no clear industry standard at this point militating in favor of disclosure of NDP, and sellers who do not disclose NDP can say with a straight face that they are simply following the lead of the hobby's virtually undisputed "certification" company, who hath proclaimed in their infinite wisdom that "pressing" be not "restoration," and shalt not be disclosed (and on the seventh day Borock rested ). On the issue of disclosure of dry cleaning, I have a more concrete belief. I don't think it should have to be disclosed by anyone at this point because I think the industry standard at this point is pretty clearly pointing in favor of a belief that it is no big deal and doesn't need to be disclosed.

 

I am offering a portion of my collection for sale to a buyer soon and one of the books in the portion of my collection that I'm offering is the book I had pressed by Matt Nelson last year when I wanted to learn more about the process. (It is the same grade now that it was pre-pressing -- a 9.2.) I have identified the book on my inventory as a pressed book, although it is in a blue label slab and I am sure that to this buyer it will not make a difference.

 

Having said all of that, even if the industry practice were (or perhaps currently is) not to disclose NDP, I still don't think it would be legal or ethical for any seller to lie about it if asked point blank about the pressing issue. If the pressing issue were material to the buyer, if the buyer asked about the book being pressed, and if the seller lied about it with full knowledge that the book had been pressed, the seller would almost undoubtedly be liable for fraud and deceit unless his home state had very different laws than the vast majority of states in this country. The same goes for dry cleaning, although I've never heard of a collector getting up in arms about dry cleaning. Give it five more years, I guess, and maybe that'll change too.

 

Wherever the hobby comes down on the issue of disclosure of NDP, I think it needs to come down somewhere fast and put in place some real, concrete, published, and ACCESSIBLE industry standards as a result of full and vigorous debate among hobby experts (not just dealers or restoration artists either) so that the issue is put to bed after careful consideration and deliberation. Perhaps then we won't see people chasing after sellers and accusing them of criminal and/or fraudulent activity because they're not disclosing pressing. I do not think that type of adversarial conduct is good for the hobby and it doesn't make the hobby a lot of fun for anyone. It is certainly unnecessary when the issue could be resolved by the adoption of clear industry standards.

[THE_BEYONDER]

Thanks Scott. That's all I was asking.

 

BTW-

Why the "stance" in quotes? Sarcasm? Or just more of your peculiar habit of emphasizing words in your sentences?

 

The latter.