How many pressers do we have here?

[nearmint]

One would think so, but I can tell you I personally know someone who spent over $100k for books and had no clue about the guide. The person simply had money to burn.

 

Hey, if he's got money to burn, and isn't smart about it, then burn, baby, burn.

 

I can't bring myself to be worried or concerned about a guy who isn't worried or concerned about himself. In my mind, he's not even part of the discussion.

 

But look at Parrino. Not sure he was too far off from this characterization and his "leaving" the comic community has freaked people out that the market is collapsing. Just one person.

 

Well, we're getting a bit off-topic here. Parrino's departure had nothing to do with a lack of info about resto and pressing.

 

Some people will always scream that the market is collapsing. Parrino paid top dollar for his books, then was surprised when he couldn't make a profit. I'd be worried if he HAD made a profit, as that would mean the major players took his bait, and we'd have an overinflated market. But they were smart buyers, and Parrino took his fishing pole and went home, leaving us with a healthier, more realistic market. It seems to me everything worked right in that scenario.

 

Maybe the next guy that wants to corner the market will think twice.

[Aman619]

Guys, you're both describing buyers who don't adequately research the item they're buying. The fact that it's difficult is irrelevant to me. A big investment is never easy. You have to do the leg work.

 

Mark, there's a very easy response to your question "How would anyone know to find collectors with more experience?" The answer is COMMON SENSE. In every area of my life, if I want to learn something, I look for the person who knows the most about it and ask questions. And the fact that another buyer might be filthy rich is also irrelevant to me. That doesn't mean they don't have to do the leg work

 

Tim, I didn't say to google "pressing" or "resto". I said to google for message boards like this one that cover a variety of subjects. And as for your Ming vase scenario, I'd go straight to the Ming expert from the start..

Ah, but Jeff, remember, that by going to a reputable auction house or reputable dealer, or purchasing something that has been certified by a reputable certification service, in theory I AM going to an expert who as part of his service is verifying that I am indeed buying what I think I'm buying and disclosing any warts that might indicate that the object is not exactly what I thought it was.

 

If I go to a Sotheby's auction and see they are auctioning a Van Gogh, I shouldn't have to do further research as to whether its really a Van Gogh, and I should also expect them to disclose any relevant information that might impact my purchasing decision, such as that it was spray-painted by a vandal and has subsequently been cleaned and restored. I shouldn't have to go and retain a separate expert to confirm all these things. The only thing that Sotheby's is NOT responsible for, and which I should get independent advice about, is what the painting is worth and whether it's a good purchase.

 

exactly! Similarly when a new collector goes to a top national dealer to buy a book, they invariably choose a dealer they are comfortable with, which means one they feel is being truthful. That dealer becomes their guide, guru, rabbi etc. I shudder when I think of some of the crappy dealers many poor souls happenned to begin collecting from! No names, of Course!! I feel I was lucky. But then again, dont we all!?

[Aman619]

NM, IMHO, I think you are giving far too much credit to how message boards are perceived. While I certainly believe this particular board is of great value, particularly for discourses such as this, no doubt the high percentage of the postings even on this site are garbage. And I think publicly most people see it that way and would not be looking for information on message boards.

Mark, I could not agree with you more. I've checked out stock message boards and the eBay comic message boards, and ran away screaming. The writing skills of 90% of the inhabitants make Drdonaldblake and action1kid look like pillars of good grammar and spelling. And the content was even worse. For a newbie to go through and pick out the truth from all the dross would be a heck of a task.

 

I checked these boards out very reluctantly only after another collector who I respected kept after me to give them a shot, and even then only after he suggested some topics for me to search to see some focused discussions. Even 10,000 posts later, I would be the first to admit that 90% of it is just silliness and stupidity, but the other 10% is what makes these boards great. But if I didn't have a background in the hobby already, and hadn't spent months on these boards familiarizing myself with who was completely full of BS and who actually knew what they were talking about, I think the usefulness of these boards would be extremely limited.

 

heres a wacky idea - - lets raise some money here and buy ads to spread the word to come join us here. And rent a barn... and put on a really neat show!

 

no seriously, I just threw that stuff in in case my suggestion reads too darn naive. It would be better if CGC bought the ads, but I think our muckraking consumer protectionist goals are in alignment with theirs 100%

[nearmint]

Guys, you're both describing buyers who don't adequately research the item they're buying. The fact that it's difficult is irrelevant to me. A big investment is never easy. You have to do the leg work.

 

Mark, there's a very easy response to your question "How would anyone know to find collectors with more experience?" The answer is COMMON SENSE. In every area of my life, if I want to learn something, I look for the person who knows the most about it and ask questions. And the fact that another buyer might be filthy rich is also irrelevant to me. That doesn't mean they don't have to do the leg work

 

Tim, I didn't say to google "pressing" or "resto". I said to google for message boards like this one that cover a variety of subjects. And as for your Ming vase scenario, I'd go straight to the Ming expert from the start..

Ah, but Jeff, remember, that by going to a reputable auction house or reputable dealer, or purchasing something that has been certified by a reputable certification service, in theory I AM going to an expert who as part of his service is verifying that I am indeed buying what I think I'm buying and disclosing any warts that might indicate that the object is not exactly what I thought it was.

 

If I go to a Sotheby's auction and see they are auctioning a Van Gogh, I shouldn't have to do further research as to whether its really a Van Gogh, and I should also expect them to disclose any relevant information that might impact my purchasing decision, such as that it was spray-painted by a vandal and has subsequently been cleaned and restored. I shouldn't have to go and retain a separate expert to confirm all these things. The only thing that Sotheby's is NOT responsible for, and which I should get independent advice about, is what the painting is worth and whether it's a good purchase.

 

Tim, you're modifying the scenario to fit your argument. No one said the rich guy spending 100K was buying from "a respectable auction house" rather than buying from Metro, for example.

 

And what's the respectable auction house in the comics world that has a reputation like Sotheby's?

[FFB]

You guys are still lumping pressing with restoration. By CGC standards, IT ISN'T.

 

Fortunately, we don't have to accept CGC's stance as gospel on everything. Pressing IS restoration. To argue otherwise is assinine. The question is, "IT IS SO INSIGNIFICANT THAT IT DOES NOT MATTER."

 

You confuse me when you actually write something completely on point! I think when that happens it is probably your financee posting under your name.

 

Though the question is: "IS IT", not "IT IS" which is a statement.

 

A) When do I write off point?

 

B) Lots of things about you confuse me, Mark. This isn't the place to discuss it though.

 

C) You're right. I meant to type "IS IT," and "IT IS" was a typo. I'll go back to fix it.

[nearmint]

NM, IMHO, I think you are giving far too much credit to how message boards are perceived. While I certainly believe this particular board is of great value, particularly for discourses such as this, no doubt the high percentage of the postings even on this site are garbage. And I think publicly most people see it that way and would not be looking for information on message boards.

Mark, I could not agree with you more. I've checked out stock message boards and the eBay comic message boards, and ran away screaming. The writing skills of 90% of the inhabitants make Drdonaldblake and action1kid look like pillars of good grammar and spelling. And the content was even worse. For a newbie to go through and pick out the truth from all the dross would be a heck of a task.

 

I checked these boards out very reluctantly only after another collector who I respected kept after me to give them a shot, and even then only after he suggested some topics for me to search to see some focused discussions. Even 10,000 posts later, I would be the first to admit that 90% of it is just silliness and stupidity, but the other 10% is what makes these boards great. But if I didn't have a background in the hobby already, and hadn't spent months on these boards familiarizing myself with who was completely full of BS and who actually knew what they were talking about, I think the usefulness of these boards would be extremely limited.

 

It doesn't matter if the grammar is atrocious and you don't know who to believe. What matters is that there are clearly issues being discussed, with posters often having opposing views. A newbie could easily determine the hobby's issues of the day, and discuss them with their "comics guru".

[FFB]

When I say Chris and others like him don't know what the hell they're talking about, they know about the issue but know next to nothing about the limits or particulars of the process.

 

As Chris aptly noted, I was referring to him, not you.

 

Is it because you've actually had a book pressed that you rationalize such statements...or is it it more than that?

 

It's clear you've become part of the gang, so why don't you just stop pretending?

 

You call me out specifically to state that I have no idea about the process? That all I have is an uninformed opinion?

 

And then to lump others into your statement with "and others like him"?

 

I post here with a clear conscience.....how about you?

 

My conscience is in great shape. What exactly am I pretending? Because I don't fall in line with your idiotic "all pressed books are bad, tainted books" opinion, and because I have chosen to learn as much as I can about restoration in all its forms (not JUST this stupid pressing topic) and like to share the information I've learned with other people, then I must be a rampant presser/non-discloser?

 

Like I said before, whatever. Soon as you give me one good reason why I should give two pieces of rabbit caca in a tin can for your opinion, maybe I'll start caring what you think.

[FFB]

One would think so, but I can tell you I personally know someone who spent over $100k for books and had no clue about the guide. The person simply had money to burn.

 

Hey, if he's got money to burn, and isn't smart about it, then burn, baby, burn.

 

I can't bring myself to be worried or concerned about a guy who isn't worried or concerned about himself. In my mind, he's not even part of the discussion.

 

If he doesn't know about the guide, he probably doesn't know about other forms of restoration either, like color touch, etc. You think a little pressing is going to bother the guy when he could unwittingly be buying frankenbooks?

[deathlok]

[FFB]

Guys, you're both describing buyers who don't adequately research the item they're buying. The fact that it's difficult is irrelevant to me. A big investment is never easy. You have to do the leg work.

 

Mark, there's a very easy response to your question "How would anyone know to find collectors with more experience?" The answer is COMMON SENSE. In every area of my life, if I want to learn something, I look for the person who knows the most about it and ask questions. And the fact that another buyer might be filthy rich is also irrelevant to me. That doesn't mean they don't have to do the leg work

 

Tim, I didn't say to google "pressing" or "resto". I said to google for message boards like this one that cover a variety of subjects. And as for your Ming vase scenario, I'd go straight to the Ming expert from the start..

Ah, but Jeff, remember, that by going to a reputable auction house or reputable dealer, or purchasing something that has been certified by a reputable certification service, in theory I AM going to an expert who as part of his service is verifying that I am indeed buying what I think I'm buying and disclosing any warts that might indicate that the object is not exactly what I thought it was.

 

If I go to a Sotheby's auction and see they are auctioning a Van Gogh, I shouldn't have to do further research as to whether its really a Van Gogh, and I should also expect them to disclose any relevant information that might impact my purchasing decision, such as that it was spray-painted by a vandal and has subsequently been cleaned and restored. I shouldn't have to go and retain a separate expert to confirm all these things. The only thing that Sotheby's is NOT responsible for, and which I should get independent advice about, is what the painting is worth and whether it's a good purchase.

 

Since you brought up the Sotheby's auctions, have you looked through those old auction catalogs recently? The lack of disclosure of restoration present on books in those lots is ridiculous. Even if they don't disclose pressing, CGC's current disclosure goes light years beyond what Sotheby's or Christie's used to disclose. For example, "This book is virtually free from restoration." Give me a break!

[tth2]

Ah, but Jeff, remember, that by going to a reputable auction house or reputable dealer, or purchasing something that has been certified by a reputable certification service, in theory I AM going to an expert who as part of his service is verifying that I am indeed buying what I think I'm buying and disclosing any warts that might indicate that the object is not exactly what I thought it was.

 

If I go to a Sotheby's auction and see they are auctioning a Van Gogh, I shouldn't have to do further research as to whether its really a Van Gogh, and I should also expect them to disclose any relevant information that might impact my purchasing decision, such as that it was spray-painted by a vandal and has subsequently been cleaned and restored. I shouldn't have to go and retain a separate expert to confirm all these things. The only thing that Sotheby's is NOT responsible for, and which I should get independent advice about, is what the painting is worth and whether it's a good purchase.

 

Tim, you're modifying the scenario to fit your argument. No one said the rich guy spending 100K was buying from "a respectable auction house" rather than buying from Metro, for example.

No I didn't. The first line of my response above said "a reputable auction house or reputable dealer". I just used the Sotheby's example because I don't know the names of any prominent art dealers. But you could substitute "Joe Blow Art Dealer" in my example above and my point is still valid.

 

And what's the respectable auction house in the comics world that has a reputation like Sotheby's?

Well, even Sotheby's and Christie's don't have the reputations that they once did, so you could say Heritage is just as good. I personally believe they don't deserve much of the grief that they get on these boards.

[tth2]

Since you brought up the Sotheby's auctions, have you looked through those old auction catalogs recently? The lack of disclosure of restoration present on books in those lots is ridiculous. Even if they don't disclose pressing, CGC's current disclosure goes light years beyond what Sotheby's or Christie's used to disclose. For example, "This book is virtually free from restoration." Give me a break!

Yup, that underscores my point even more effectively, that CGC is currently deemed to be the reliable expert, even more so than the reputable auction houses such as Sotheby's and Christie's. Of course, in fairness to those auction houses, there was a much more cavalier attitude towards restoration during the heyday of those auctions. And even with lots of art and antique experts on their staff, Sotheby's and Christie's, and many other reputable auction houses, have all missed fakes and made other mistakes from time to time.

[tth2]

It doesn't matter if the grammar is atrocious and you don't know who to believe. What matters is that there are clearly issues being discussed, with posters often having opposing views. A newbie could easily determine the hobby's issues of the day, and discuss them with their "comics guru".

My point is that the issues are not so clearly being discussed, unless you know what to look for, and many people faced with an initial wall of nonsensical threads and illiterate ramblings, will not even bother going in any further.

 

Look at what this thread is called: "FF3". Why would any newbie wanting to look for threads about restoration even open it up? A lot of the other threads that have discussed restoration and pressing have been under similarly innocuous titles, including all of Ben's notorious "Ewert does it again" threads.

[FFB]

Since you brought up the Sotheby's auctions, have you looked through those old auction catalogs recently? The lack of disclosure of restoration present on books in those lots is ridiculous. Even if they don't disclose pressing, CGC's current disclosure goes light years beyond what Sotheby's or Christie's used to disclose. For example, "This book is virtually free from restoration." Give me a break!

Yup, that underscores my point even more effectively, that CGC is currently deemed to be the reliable expert, even more so than the reputable auction houses such as Sotheby's and Christie's. Of course, in fairness to those auction houses, there was a much more cavalier attitude towards restoration during the heyday of those auctions. And even with lots of art and antique experts on their staff, Sotheby's and Christie's, and many other reputable auction houses, have all missed fakes and made other mistakes from time to time.

 

Susan Cicconi was the restoration consultant at those auctions at Sotheby's. She was cream of the crop as far as detection went at the time.

 

I am also at a loss as to how what I said supports what you said before about being able to rely on the experts when you buy from Sotheby's. Or did I miss your point?

[nearmint]

Ah, but Jeff, remember, that by going to a reputable auction house or reputable dealer, or purchasing something that has been certified by a reputable certification service, in theory I AM going to an expert who as part of his service is verifying that I am indeed buying what I think I'm buying and disclosing any warts that might indicate that the object is not exactly what I thought it was.

 

If I go to a Sotheby's auction and see they are auctioning a Van Gogh, I shouldn't have to do further research as to whether its really a Van Gogh, and I should also expect them to disclose any relevant information that might impact my purchasing decision, such as that it was spray-painted by a vandal and has subsequently been cleaned and restored. I shouldn't have to go and retain a separate expert to confirm all these things. The only thing that Sotheby's is NOT responsible for, and which I should get independent advice about, is what the painting is worth and whether it's a good purchase.

 

Tim, you're modifying the scenario to fit your argument. No one said the rich guy spending 100K was buying from "a respectable auction house" rather than buying from Metro, for example.

No I didn't. The first line of my response above said "a reputable auction house or reputable dealer". I just used the Sotheby's example because I don't know the names of any prominent art dealers. But you could substitute "Joe Blow Art Dealer" in my example above and my point is still valid.

 

And what's the respectable auction house in the comics world that has a reputation like Sotheby's?

Well, even Sotheby's and Christie's don't have the reputations that they once did, so you could say Heritage is just as good. I personally believe they don't deserve much of the grief that they get on these boards.

 

Tim,

I'd want the person I'm learning the game from to be impartial, not the dealer or auction house where I'm going to spend my money. The reality of human nature tells me that's a bad idea.

As someone said earlier, if I'm buying a house, I don't ask the seller or their agent what it's worth, or what kind of shape it's in. I higher my own appraiser to make those determinations.

As for Heritage, they sell a lot of pressed books. Some even accuse them of having a press on their premises. Doesn't bother me, but it bothers some.

So, no, I don't agree that a newbie should feel safe going to a "respectable" auction house or dealer.

Time for me to go night-night.

[nearmint]

Since you brought up the Sotheby's auctions, have you looked through those old auction catalogs recently? The lack of disclosure of restoration present on books in those lots is ridiculous. Even if they don't disclose pressing, CGC's current disclosure goes light years beyond what Sotheby's or Christie's used to disclose. For example, "This book is virtually free from restoration." Give me a break!

Yup, that underscores my point even more effectively, that CGC is currently deemed to be the reliable expert, even more so than the reputable auction houses such as Sotheby's and Christie's. Of course, in fairness to those auction houses, there was a much more cavalier attitude towards restoration during the heyday of those auctions. And even with lots of art and antique experts on their staff, Sotheby's and Christie's, and many other reputable auction houses, have all missed fakes and made other mistakes from time to time.

 

Tim, I don't get it. First you say a newbie should be able to go to a reputable auction house and feel safe about purchasing, then you describe how said auction house has missed fakes and made other mistakes?

[tth2]

I am also at a loss as to how what I said supports what you said before about being able to rely on the experts when you buy from Sotheby's. Or did I miss your point?

Because my original point to Jeff was that people look to reputable auction houses or dealers, or third party certification services, as their experts, meaning that some of the due diligence Jeff wanted people to do was in theory supposed to be supplanted by services such as CGC.

 

Sotheby's were considered the platinum standard, from hiring the best known resto expert at the time, to getting a committee of expert graders. And yet, there will still the flaws that you pointed out. I would say even with the current controversy that CGC are better at detecting restoration (or at least what CGC deems to be restoration) than Sotheby's, and are better graders too. So if the average rich collector thought he could rely on Sotheby's expertise, then there is even more reason why he should be able to rely on CGC's expertise.

[tth2]

Tim, I don't get it. First you say a newbie should be able to go to a reputable auction house and feel safe about purchasing, then you describe how said auction house has missed fakes and made other mistakes?

I kind of drifted off-point.

 

My original point was that there are a lot of wealthy people who rely on Sotheby's, Christie's and other similar "reputable" auction houses as the platinum standard in verifying the authenticity of what they're buying. I know for a fact that if something is sold by one of these establishments, people will drop millions on an object with little further investigation, based on the deemed seal of approval given by these houses. So to come full circle, you find it hard to believe that people can spend big bucks on comics without educating themselves first, and my response is that my first hand observations of the above-described Sotheby's/Christie's phenomenon make it very easy for me to believe that someone could indeed drop $100K+ on a comic without knowing much more about comics than "CGC is the accepted standard of authenticity and if they put a certain grade on a blue label, that means the book is of that grade and it's not restored".

 

Jeff, I actually don't disagree with you that people should do their own diligence and educate themselves before making a big purchase, hence my pointing out that the platinum reputations of Sotheby's and Christie's are not always deserved. But I do disagree with you that in the real world, people don't behave as rationally as you think they might. So I think it's very possible that people buy big dollar comics without a clue about the pressing controversy or the crack-out-and-resubmit game.

[FFB]

I am also at a loss as to how what I said supports what you said before about being able to rely on the experts when you buy from Sotheby's. Or did I miss your point?

Because my original point to Jeff was that people look to reputable auction houses or dealers, or third party certification services, as their experts, meaning that some of the due diligence Jeff wanted people to do was in theory supposed to be supplanted by services such as CGC.

 

I am not sure I buy that. CGC is a grading and certification company, which means they give an opinion: (a) that the book is genuine (not a fake), (b) of the numerical grade and page quality, and © of the existence of restoration, plus a terse, one-line, ambiguous description of some or all of the restoration found on the book. While I am sure you're right that some people (take Steve Filosa for example ) are happy to buy CGC books blindly, I think that for every person like that in the hobby, there are a lot more who consider CGC an opinion and nothing more (albeit a very well informed opinion on the grading issue).

 

Sotheby's were considered the platinum standard, from hiring the best known resto expert at the time, to getting a committee of expert graders. And yet, there will still the flaws that you pointed out. I would say even with the current controversy that CGC are better at detecting restoration (or at least what CGC deems to be restoration) than Sotheby's, and are better graders too. So if the average rich collector thought he could rely on Sotheby's expertise, then there is even more reason why he should be able to rely on CGC's expertise.

 

Such a buyer CAN rely on CGC's expertise. He can be reasonably certain that the book he buys will be about the grade stated on the label and that the book is or isn't restored as stated on the label. The issue here is not one of CGC's expertise -- the issue is that CGC follows the "dealer" industry standard that "pressing isn't restoration so it doesn't need to be disclosed." Think about it -- how many dealers can you name who disclose pressing, not only to their customers, but also to each other in dealer-to-dealer transactions? I can think of Marnin and no one else, and he does it with so much venom and hatred that it makes me question his motives (not to mention his sanity). If virtually NONE of the dealers disclose pressing, how can it be said that it is the industry standard for pressing to be disclosed? And if it isn't the industry standard, then do we want CGC to try to change the industry standard and impose the opinions of some collectors (opinions not shared by CGC or any of the major dealers except Marnin) on the rest of the market? I don't. Today it'll be pressing, but tomorrow it'll be something else that is maybe not so palatable. I think the healthiest thing for the hobby is for the lone certification company in the hobby to follow the industry standards, not try to force new ones on the hobby.

[tth2]

CGC is a grading and certification company, which means they give an opinion: (a) that the book is genuine (not a fake), (b) of the numerical grade and page quality, and © of the existence of restoration, plus a terse, one-line, ambiguous description of some or all of the restoration found on the book. While I am sure you're right that some people (take Steve Filosa for example ) are happy to buy CGC books blindly, I think that for every person like that in the hobby, there are a lot more who consider CGC an opinion and nothing more (albeit a very well informed opinion on the grading issue).

Uh, besides (a), (b) and ©, what else do you need? The only other input you would want from an expert is valuation/desirability, which as I said above is not something you'd want from the auction house, selling dealer or CGC anyway. The only other factors in the buying decision are purely matters of personal preference.

 

The issue here is not one of CGC's expertise -- the issue is that CGC follows the "dealer" industry standard that "pressing isn't restoration so it doesn't need to be disclosed." Think about it -- how many dealers can you name who disclose pressing, not only to their customers, but also to each other in dealer-to-dealer transactions? I can think of Marnin and no one else, and he does it with so much venom and hatred that it makes me question his motives (not to mention his sanity). If virtually NONE of the dealers disclose pressing, how can it be said that it is the industry standard for pressing to be disclosed? And if it isn't the industry standard, then do we want CGC to try to change the industry standard and impose the opinions of some collectors (opinions not shared by CGC or any of the major dealers except Marnin) on the rest of the market? I don't. Today it'll be pressing, but tomorrow it'll be something else that is maybe not so palatable. I think the healthiest thing for the hobby is for the lone certification company in the hobby to follow the industry standards, not try to force new ones on the hobby.

I think this is a cop-out. If you read the trade rags and talked to dealers in the 80s and early 90s, you might very well have come to the conclusion that the "dealer" industry standard was that restoration was okay, and didn't need to be disclosed. Let's think back to who some of the big players were back then: Mark Wilson, John Snyder, Dan Greenhalgh, Calvin Slobodian, Robert Crestohl, Gerry Ross--all of them restored books or commissioned it, and certainly did not disclose. If I recall, record prices were paid back then by the big boys such as Geppi, Snyder, maybe Anderson, maybe Borock, for more than a few GA books that were known and disclosed to be restored. It apparently was not considered to be a significant flaw, certainly not affecting valuation.

 

So what if CGC had started during this period, and Steve Borock was squarely in the restoration is okay camp? Would that mean it would be okay for CGC not to detect it and disclose it because it was market practice not to? I could actually care less about CGC being deemed to pass judgment on the acceptibility of NDA pressing by putting it in a PLOD. I just want disclosure. If CGC doesn't want to stigmatize NDA pressing by putting it in a PLOD because the inner elite have never thought it was bad enough to affect valuation, then disclose it in a blue label, just like "tiny" drop of glue or "dot" of color touch that is disclosed on some GA blue labels. I just want the disclosure so I can have all the facts in hand before deciding to buy a book.