When will the other shoe drop with CGC and the 'crack, press, and resub' game? 3 3

[RockMyAmadeus]

The issue isn't that work is being done to books, as the title of this thread wants people to think. The issue is, as it has always been, disclosure. When you see 3-4-5 different retailers advertising their pressing services on convention floors all over North America, it's clear that disclosure is not an issue, totally unlike the situation in the sports card industry at the moment. Again: it's not the "crime"...it's the cover-up that people have a problem with.

It's a shame that this thread really wasn't about the very necessary and legitimate discussion of restoration views in the comic collecting industry, but was really just another thinly veiled anti-pressing rant, complete with bad faith accusations of ulterior motives, support by others of those bad faith accusations, and over-the-top insulting comments that are, frankly, spoken from a lack of knowledge and understanding.

Pressing and dry cleaning is restoration. By its very nature, it reduces and eliminates non-color breaking bends, dents, folds, and restores the book to an "original" state (as much of an "original" state as can be, as crassus pointed out earlier.) And, frankly, I think it's amazing what is possible with good pressing. When done properly, it is non-invasive, non-destructive, non-additive, and generally undetectable. It does nothing to alter the structure of the underlying book, which is where the hobby has been drawing the line. It neither adds to, nor takes away from, the book when done properly. And, there ARE long term benefits to pressing that help preserve books, when they are returned to as much an "original" state as possible. 

These types of restoration...and much more...are done in other fields, particularly fine art, antiquities, documents, automobiles, and the like, as a matter of course, and is not met with the kind of hostility that pressing in comics is (which, thankfully, is fading.) 

And talking about what is acceptable restoration and what is not is a worthwhile, important, and necessary discussion...without the bad faith accusations and insults that make people who would like to discuss it decide it's not worth it. Why would they want to share their opinions if they're going to be insulted like that? Insults and bad faith accusations have the opposite effect of bringing the issue to the light, which is ostensibly what these people want. It's why bad pressing is tolerated. You want disclosure? Stop insulting people and impugning their motives. 

And yes, the monetary aspect is just as important to discuss as everything else. 

My recommendation for those who are opposed to pressing: learn the telltale signs of inferior pressing. They exist. Accept the fact that pressure on books of any kind....whether a book is stacked in a closet for 40 years, or placed in a bag/board/mylar, or stored tightly in a box with other books, or even sitting in a CGC case...will have some sort of mitigating effects on any "outside the perfectly flat horizontal" wear a book may have. And I hesitate to even call it wear, because a bend doesn't break the fiber bonds that the paper has (keeping in mind that the paper is bent in production to form the spine that creates the pamphlet in the first place.) 

Conversely, if there is anything creating any type of hard edge...whether it's a piece of dirt, or the edge of a board, or food, or any other sort of substance that isn't perfectly flat...it will leave marks/indentations/scratches in the surface of books if there is any sort of pressure....even the pressure of gravity...exerted. So, yes, books stacked in a closet for 40 years will be nice and flat EXCEPT where there is any foreign material that creates any type of edge (I'm overstating the obvious, here.)

If you will accept the "pressing" done naturally by a mylar and board, or stacked in a closet, or placed in a box, or sitting in a slab, then you accept the idea on some level, at least in principle. As I said..it's amazing to find books that naturally survived for decades unscathed. But...you owe it to yourself to recognize that what may appear to you to be natural perfection can have been, at any time, "fixed" by someone anywhere in the intervening time period, simply by someone unbending a bend, or otherwise flattening out the unflat. 

Recognize that a 40+ year old book in "9.8" or better condition is pretty much an impossibility naturally, and understand that there are a lot of people who would rather have that book look and be perfectly flat, rather than have a bent overflash, for example...and they are willing to pay more to have it look that way, even though they know it was "unbent" on purpose....the same way that they'd rather have a 1914 Stutz Bearcat look perfect, even if it's necessary to do some dent removal and paint touch-up along the way. With comics, the current paradigm appears to be "so long as you don't add to, or take from, it's acceptable."

And absolutely discuss the conflicts of interest, and hold the grading companies accountable. There will always be people who will cheat to get ahead, and they exist in all strata. This is an important discussion to have, and the more the issue is brought to the light, the more people will be able to find their level of comfort. 

As this paper gets older and older, there will, of necessity, need to be more efforts at conservation and preservation...including restoration...to preserve these items. If you want "virgin" books that have "never been touched by human hands"...you're going to have to come to terms with the fact that now nearly 90 year old comics are not going to last if there aren't some efforts at preservation taken. We ought to be encouraging proper paper conservation methods, so that the material is preserved, and stop worrying if the material is in its "perfect, natural state." The natural state of paper is to degrade over time. Stopping that degradation is the goal. 

Like I said...it's a shame, because restoration is an important topic to discuss among people who are involved and care about this. This thread had a lot more potential. 

[oakman29]

20 minutes ago, THE_BEYONDER said:

It still is restoration, and many collectors still apply a stigma to it.

Oh I agree 110% , but now since CGC cant "detect" it  its okay.

Funny how they now have a pressing service. Guess the mighty dollar is more important than the health of the hobby.

[comicwiz]

46 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

It neither adds to, nor takes away from, the book when done properly.

This is also a dangerous generalization, and it either needs to have contextual examples or not be used. I have long taken a stance in other hobbies to ask the same. When you take naphtha, goo gone or take a blow dryer blowing out very hot air to peel an undesired sticker or remove a mark/stain off a collectible, you need to carefully consider the referring and adverse side effects these will have on the other components or paper itself. There is nothing additive about curing leaching of PVC plasticizer in vintage toys, and when it shows up as white speckles (aka frosting) which is often confused as "mold", you hear a wide range of curing techniques, which include sticking it out in direct sunlight.  In these cases, people throw up their arms and say "nothing is being added" but it has less to do with additive, and more to do with the side effects of these things having no reason to come into contact with paper, and worse, when it's done by people without tactic, strategy or regard for the damage they are doing - and for what - the sake of making a quick buck?

 

46 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

These types of restoration...and much more...are done in other fields, particularly fine art, antiquities, documents, automobiles, and the like, as a matter of course, and is not met with the kind of hostility that pressing in comics is (which, thankfully, is fading.)

This is contextually inaccurate and lazy to state it in such a way. There is no way anything as aggressive as pressing/cleaning can be done in fine art without it needing to be disclosed. I work with a fine art restorer in more complex appraisal assignments and always have his assessment as a back-up to my own. In ephemera of any sort, you simply cannot disturb the originality of the piece, and the same applies to antiques, particularly furniture. Automobiles still have some checks and balances like number matching, and it would be wrong to confuse tolerance for certain deviations from originality as acceptance. And it doesn't matter how those finer details are parsed, it's reflected in the values of an all original survivor that's been untouched, vs something that has been restored. In fact it's a terrible comparison because inflating a grade by altering the comic is done because of the monetary reward for it - something you would never see in any of the above comparisons when the reconditioning/alteration is performed. Coin dips do nothing additive, nor do the wide range of "doctoring" agents intended to artificially produce toning or other surface appearances lauded by coin collectors, and yet it's a constant cat and mouse game for graders to keep up with the frauds. As an active metal detectorist, I see a number of restorative techniques popping-up almost daily on Facebook groups  - many of them are walking a very thin line of trying to improve the appearance and condition of old items to appear as if they were never recovered from the ground or water, and to mask the environmental damage which they should show. Everything from "cleaning pencils" right through to ultrasonic/electrolysis boxes that look like they were made MacGyver.

If you think there is no hostility in any of these other collecting categories from being duped for undisclosed tampering, alterations or disturbing original patination, you need to do a lot more research before using these comparisons to justify the tampering that's happening with comics.

Edited July 22, 2019 by comicwiz

[THE_BEYONDER]

40 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

The issue isn't that work is being done to books, as the title of this thread wants people to think. The issue is, as it has always been, disclosure. When you see 3-4-5 different retailers advertising their pressing services on convention floors all over North America, it's clear that disclosure is not an issue, totally unlike the situation in the sports card industry at the moment. Again: it's not the "crime"...it's the cover-up that people have a problem with.

It's a shame that this thread really wasn't about the very necessary and legitimate discussion of restoration views in the comic collecting industry, but was really just another thinly veiled anti-pressing rant, complete with bad faith accusations of ulterior motives, support by others of those bad faith accusations, and over-the-top insulting comments that are, frankly, spoken from a lack of knowledge and understanding.

Pressing and dry cleaning is restoration. By its very nature, it reduces and eliminates non-color breaking bends, dents, folds, and restores the book to an "original" state (as much of an "original" state as can be, as crassus pointed out earlier.) And, frankly, I think it's amazing what is possible with good pressing. When done properly, it is non-invasive, non-destructive, non-additive, and generally undetectable. It does nothing to alter the structure of the underlying book, which is where the hobby has been drawing the line. It neither adds to, nor takes away from, the book when done properly. And, there ARE long term benefits to pressing that help preserve books, when they are returned to as much an "original" state as possible. 

These types of restoration...and much more...are done in other fields, particularly fine art, antiquities, documents, automobiles, and the like, as a matter of course, and is not met with the kind of hostility that pressing in comics is (which, thankfully, is fading.) 

And talking about what is acceptable restoration and what is not is a worthwhile, important, and necessary discussion...without the bad faith accusations and insults that make people who would like to discuss it decide it's not worth it. Why would they want to share their opinions if they're going to be insulted like that? Insults and bad faith accusations have the opposite effect of bringing the issue to the light, which is ostensibly what these people want. It's why bad pressing is tolerated. You want disclosure? Stop insulting people and impugning their motives. 

And yes, the monetary aspect is just as important to discuss as everything else. 

My recommendation for those who are opposed to pressing: learn the telltale signs of inferior pressing. They exist. Accept the fact that pressure on books of any kind....whether a book is stacked in a closet for 40 years, or placed in a bag/board/mylar, or stored tightly in a box with other books, or even sitting in a CGC case...will have some sort of mitigating effects on any "outside the perfectly flat horizontal" wear a book may have. And I hesitate to even call it wear, because a bend doesn't break the fiber bonds that the paper has (keeping in mind that the paper is bent in production to form the spine that creates the pamphlet in the first place.) 

Conversely, if there is anything creating any type of hard edge...whether it's a piece of dirt, or the edge of a board, or food, or any other sort of substance that isn't perfectly flat...it will leave marks/indentations/scratches in the surface of books if there is any sort of pressure....even the pressure of gravity...exerted. So, yes, books stacked in a closet for 40 years will be nice and flat EXCEPT where there is any foreign material that creates any type of edge (I'm overstating the obvious, here.)

If you will accept the "pressing" done naturally by a mylar and board, or stacked in a closet, or placed in a box, or sitting in a slab, then you accept the idea on some level, at least in principle. As I said..it's amazing to find books that naturally survived for decades unscathed. But...you owe it to yourself to recognize that what may appear to you to be natural perfection can have been, at any time, "fixed" by someone anywhere in the intervening time period, simply by someone unbending a bend, or otherwise flattening out the unflat. 

Recognize that a 40+ year old book in "9.8" or better condition is pretty much an impossibility naturally, and understand that there are a lot of people who would rather have that book look and be perfectly flat, rather than have a bent overflash, for example...and they are willing to pay more to have it look that way, even though they know it was "unbent" on purpose....the same way that they'd rather have a 1914 Stutz Bearcat look perfect, even if it's necessary to do some dent removal and paint touch-up along the way. With comics, the current paradigm appears to be "so long as you don't add to, or take from, it's acceptable."

And absolutely discuss the conflicts of interest, and hold the grading companies accountable. There will always be people who will cheat to get ahead, and they exist in all strata. This is an important discussion to have, and the more the issue is brought to the light, the more people will be able to find their level of comfort. 

As this paper gets older and older, there will, of necessity, need to be more efforts at conservation and preservation...including restoration...to preserve these items. If you want "virgin" books that have "never been touched by human hands"...you're going to have to come to terms with the fact that now nearly 90 year old comics are not going to last if there aren't some efforts at preservation taken. We ought to be encouraging proper paper conservation methods, so that the material is preserved, and stop worrying if the material is in its "perfect, natural state." The natural state of paper is to degrade over time. Stopping that degradation is the goal. 

Like I said...it's a shame, because restoration is an important topic to discuss among people who are involved and care about this. This thread had a lot more potential. 

Why are you bringing “conservation” into this discussion?

[RockMyAmadeus]

3 minutes ago, comicwiz said:

This is also a dangerous generalization, and it either needs to have contextual examples or not be used. I have long taken a stance in other hobbies to ask the same. When you take naphtha, goo gone or take a blow dryer blowing out very hot air to peel something off a collectible, you need to carefully consider the referring and adverse side effects these will have on the other components or paper itself. In these cases, people throw up their arms and say "nothing is being added" but it has less to do with additive, and more to do with the side effects of these things having no reason to come into contact with paper, and worse, being performed by people willy-nilly and without tactic, strategy or regard for the damage they are doing - and for what - the sake of making a quick buck?

 

This is contextually inaccurate and lazy to state it in such a way. There is no way anything as aggressive as pressing/cleaning can be done in fine art without it needing to be disclosed. I work with a fine art restorer in more complex appraisal assignments and always have his assessment as a back-up to my own. In ephemera of any sort, you simply cannot disturb the originality of the piece, and the same applies to antiques, particularly furniture. Automobiles still have some checks and balances like number matching, and it would be wrong to confuse tolerance for certain deviations from originality as acceptance. And it doesn't matter how those finer details are parsed, it's reflected in the values of an all original survivor that's been untouched, vs something that has been restored. In fact it's a terrible comparison because inflating a grade by altering the comic is done because of the monetary reward for it - something you would never see in any of the above comparisons. Coin dips do nothing additive, nor do the wide range of "doctoring" agents intended to artificially produce toning or other appearances lauded by coin collectors, and yet it's a constant cat and mouse game for graders to keep up with the frauds. As an active metal detectorist, I see a number of restorative techniques popping-up almost daily on Facebook groups  - many of them are walking a very thin line of trying to improve the appearance and condition of old items to appear as if they were never recovered from the ground or water, and to mask the environmental damage which they should show. If you think there is no hostility in any of these other collecting categories from being duped for undisclosed tampering, alterations or disturbing original patination, you need to do a lot more research before using these comparisons to justify the tampering that's happening with comics.

Disagree entirely, especially with your characterizations. You've misstated, mischaracterized, and misinformed. Unfortunately, it's not worth detailing how, and it wouldn't be tolerated anyway. You ought to read what I wrote again, especially where I discuss disclosure. 

42 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

The issue is, as it has always been, disclosure.

If you want to have a discussion about restoration and its place in the hobby, which is a necessary and worthwhile discussion, you ought to do it without the disparaging and dismissive commentary.

Good luck.

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 minute ago, THE_BEYONDER said:

Why are you bringing “conservation” into this discussion?

I'm not, because there isn't any discussion being had. However...were there such a discussion, it's because conservation is part of the discussion, and pressing is part of the conservation process:

https://www.loc.gov/preservation/conservators/durer/treatment.html

(Library of Congress paper conservation)

From that page:

Quote

The goal of the treatment was to improve the condition of the paper support: to remove old hinges and relax the tensions created by the hinge adhesives; reduce dirt, discoloration, and stains; mend tears; fill skinned areas; reduce creases/wrinkles. Having the print in the lab also provided an opportunity to undertake a technical examination of the print.

(emphasis added)

[THE_BEYONDER]

3 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

I'm not, because there isn't any discussion being had. However...were there such a discussion, it's because conservation is part of the discussion, and pressing is part of the conservation process:

https://www.loc.gov/preservation/conservators/durer/treatment.html

(Library of Congress paper conservation)

From that page:

(emphasis added)

So now you consider yourself a conservationist?

 

[comicwiz]

16 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

If you want to have a discussion about restoration and its place in the hobby, which is a necessary and worthwhile discussion, you ought to do it without the disparaging and dismissive commentary.

I recognize my statements may be viewed by you in such a manner, but you should recognize the way you approach the discussion is equally dismissive, and potentially dangerous when you use the examples and generalizations you have.

There simply is no way to approach a discussion on disclosure in this hobby because everyone uses CGC's grade as the ultimate arbitrator. We might rehash this should any trickling investigation reach these shoring discussions, and when we finally get an order by an oversight or regulatory body that demands disclosure with every listing for CGC's comics. Until then, we will never see eye to eye on a practice that inflates the grade and price in the duplicitous ways CPR does (particularly when the grader has enabled and institutionalized it as a pay to play scheme to accumulate undeserved wealth by duping unaware consumers).

Edited July 22, 2019 by comicwiz

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 minute ago, THE_BEYONDER said:

So now you consider yourself a conservationist?

 

Restoration and all that that entails is an important discussion that ought to be had in the comic collecting industry. That conversation cannot be had and will not be had if people don't think they can talk about it without being disparaged.

[RockMyAmadeus]

4 minutes ago, comicwiz said:

I recognize my statements may be viewed by you in such a manner, but you should recognize the way you approach the discussion is equally dismissive, and potentially dangerous when you use the examples and generalizations you have.

There simply is no way to approach a discussion on disclosure in this hobby because everyone uses CGC's grade as the ultimate arbitrator. We might rehash this should any trickling investigation reach these shoring discussions, and when we finally get an order by an oversight or regulatory body that demands disclosure with every listing for CGC's comics. Until then, we will never see eye to eye on a practice that inflates the grade and price in the duplicitous ways CPR does (particularly when the grader has enabled and institutionalized it as a pay to play scheme to accumulate undeserved wealth).

I disagree entirely with your characterizations and statements. 

Good luck.

[lizards2]

8 minutes ago, THE_BEYONDER said:

So now you consider yourself a conservationist?

 

I would posit that most of us are.  I know I am.

[crassus]

1 hour ago, comicwiz said:

I recognize my statements may be viewed by you in such a manner, but you should recognize the way you approach the discussion is equally dismissive, and potentially dangerous when you use the examples and generalizations you have.

There simply is no way to approach a discussion on disclosure in this hobby because everyone uses CGC's grade as the ultimate arbitrator. We might rehash this should any trickling investigation reach these shoring discussions, and when we finally get an order by an oversight or regulatory body that demands disclosure with every listing for CGC's comics. Until then, we will never see eye to eye on a practice that inflates the grade and price in the duplicitous ways CPR does (particularly when the grader has enabled and institutionalized it as a pay to play scheme to accumulate undeserved wealth by duping unaware consumers).

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that while disclosure is obviously important, its beside the point because CGC doesn't disclose and everybody uses CGC and the point of buying and selling CGC slabs is that nobody has to answer any questions about the books in the slabs...

[crassus]

10 hours ago, kav said:

10 hours ago, oakman29 said:

We ( us board members) are pretty well versed in the comic book world.

We know what a pancakes book looks like now, dont we?

yes, yes we do-

I always disclose when I add syrup to mine...."Sweet Copy"!

[comicwiz]

14 minutes ago, crassus said:

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that while disclosure is obviously important, its beside the point because CGC doesn't disclose and everybody uses CGC and the point of buying and selling CGC slabs is that nobody has to answer any questions about the books in the slabs...

In short, you have understood some of the main points, although the statement was meant to also tease out the issues with falsely generalizing the acceptance of reconditioning/alterations, and how disclosure supposedly solves all the problems relating to selling something .

What we have with CGC is a mechanism for alterations to be hidden, while comics in slabs are being pushed with inflated grades and prices.

There is nothing stopping anyone from asking a seller about the encapsulated comic, but CGC's opinion will always be what a seller will fall back on, and it's not only to divest themselves of needing to provide a condition report of work performed to inflate the grade and to create the appearance of a comic in better condition than it really is in, sometimes you have people selling slabs with post-shipping damage, and the seller still believes the grade stands.

 

[comicwiz]

One thing I would like to update as new information comes forward, is that it appears with the Ted Williams example shown below, trimming may have been one of the methods of alterations used along with cleaning, bleaching, and colour toching.

[FlyingDonut]

YAY! Another pressing thread!

Hey....the ship has sailed. A long long long long long time ago.

[James J Johnson]

4 hours ago, namisgr said:

It's not as hard as you may think for early Silver Age Marvels.

A narrow 2 or 3 year band of one type of book is a fairly small representation of the whole. Considering that most hobbyists are not aware of the tells of expert pressing, and only a small percentage are, I stand by my belief that a very small percentage of the hobby's buying public can tell the difference, without before and after images, and in many cases, a guide to point out those differences as they are not all stark differences. . 

As for a book housed in a CGC slab? If done effectively, a small percentage of the already small percentage above can tell the difference.

[James J Johnson]

41 minutes ago, comicwiz said:

One thing I would like to update as new information comes forward, is that it appears with the Ted Williams example shown below, trimming may have been one of the methods of alterations used along with cleaning, bleaching, and colour toching.

I'd have to see that edge of the card in person to be 100% sure, but this looks to me like shrinkage, from the drying process following the bath.

[comicwiz]

1 minute ago, James J Johnson said:

I'd have to see that edge of the card in person to be 100% sure, but this looks to me like shrinkage, from the drying process following the bath.

There's a few others that are more conclusive - this is one of them:

[comicwiz]