Batman 1 CGC 9.4!!!! 6 6

[Mmehdy]

Just now, Mmehdy said:

what is the point of pressing a GA/SA comic book...to "game" the grading system and get the grade pumped up on steroids. The comic book was not created to be pressed, page enhanced...unrestored should be just that.... restoration to newsstand condition by pressing...and grade enhancing...its a shame, the real 9.8 untouched gets to be lumped in with a jacked up GA/SA comic dilute the true Ga/SA census and true Ga/SA comic book value in the long run...a true rare 9.4...just becomes a pressing/page enhancing game.

 

[Crowzilla]

23 minutes ago, Mmehdy said:

what is the point of pressing a GA/SA comic book...to "game" the grading system and get the grade pumped up on steroids. The comic book was not created to be pressed, page enhanced...unrestored should be just that.... restoration to newsstand condition by pressing...and grade enhancing...its a shame, the real 9.8 untouched gets to be lumped in with a jacked up GA/SA comic dilute the true Ga/SA census and true Ga/SA comic book value.

I think he knows what the purpose of pressing is, he meant what's the point of calling pressing restoration (or discussing it for the zillionth time) since there is no 100% way to detect pressing.

Weren't a majority of the Church copies all pressed anyways? What else do you call a book at the bottom of a stack of 500+ other books for 30+ years if not pressed?

[batman_fan]

6 hours ago, buttock said:

Nah, you just press it so that CGC will give it a higher grade.  

Finally someone that make some sense in this crazy world.

[batman_fan]

2 hours ago, N e r V said:

Even if you wanted to consider pressing resto. there’s not a single person out there that can detect for 100% that a books been pressed all the time so what’s the point. 

It would be nice if they downgraded some of the clear signs of bad pressing (see Sunken Staples for an example).

[N e r V]

1 hour ago, batman_fan said:

It would be nice if they downgraded some of the clear signs of bad pressing (see Sunken Staples for an example).

Yes, I know opinions vary on pressing but I think everyone agrees it’s a shame to see perfectly good books destroyed by bad pressing being done. Just like those who allowed cokes to be spilled on books or let cats pee on them...

[Professor K]

New guy question here. Athough I don't consider pressing to be considered restoration (even though literally it is because pressing is restoring it to a previous state), I am on the fence regarding cleaning. I have in the past cleaned covers of books that were stored for many years with a tissue, even using a dab of saliva (yeah I know gross) on the tissue. Mainly to remove dust residue from the edges. But what does "professional" cleaning consist of? If it consists of using chemicals to not only clean but alter the paper in any way(besides simply cleaning dirt or even writing from it) I would consider that to be restoration.

Edited December 29, 2020 by Professor Chaos
spelling errir

[MasterChief]

4 hours ago, Crowzilla said:

Weren't a majority of the Church copies all pressed anyways? What else do you call a book at the bottom of a stack of 500+ other books for 30+ years if not pressed?

Frankly speaking, I’m of the opinion that if an educated hobbyist is advocating the position that the Church Collection could somehow be considered as having been naturally "pressed"  inasmuch the way that mechanical pressing produces treatment results, whether performed using the disassembled, intact, or localized treatment method, they are being intellectually dishonest in an effort to marginalize the concerns surrounding the issue and/or demonstrating a blatant desire and determination to publicly avoid the truth.

100s of Church books have been manipulated utilizing pressing treatment procedures during the certification age. Even upon those found near or at the bottom of the six-foot stacks. If the Church books were so well preserved by "natural" pressing in those stacks, then why is there such overwhelming evidence, plainly obvious in the Heritage Auction Archives, that mechanical pressing has been used, and continues to be used, to improve the conditional appearance of Church books after initial graded certification? The six-foot stack argument just doesn't add up.  

Edited December 29, 2020 by MasterChief
syntax

[batman_fan]

32 minutes ago, N e r V said:

Yes, I know opinions vary on pressing but I think everyone agrees it’s a shame to see perfectly good books destroyed by bad pressing being done. Just like those who allowed cokes to be spilled on books or let cats pee on them...

"From the Cat Pee Collection". 

Could make for a VERY interesting label notation. 

[Northwest]

18 minutes ago, Professor Chaos said:

New guy question here. Athough I don't consider pressing to be considered restoration (even though literally it is because pressing is restoring it to a previous state), I am on the fence regarding cleaning. I have in the past cleaned covers of books that were stored for many years with a tissue, even using a dab of saliva (yeah I know gross) on the tissue. Mainly to remove dust residue from the edges. But what does "professional" cleaning consist of? If it consists of using chemicals to not only clean but alter the paper in any way(besides simply cleaning dirt or even writing from it) I would consider that to be restoration.

There are two types of cleaning - dry cleaning (not restoration) and  solvent cleaning (restoration). In the former, typically only non abrasive erasers are utilized to remove marks such as dirt, pencil, etc. In the latter, the book (or parts) is restored in a chemical solution that changes the paper. 

 

[jimjum12]

51 minutes ago, batman_fan said:

"From the Cat Pee Collection". 

Could make for a VERY interesting label notation. 

 

[comicdonna]

I'm waiting for the Pepe Le Pew collection.  

[woowoo]

Can you people please keep your reply to 1 line. I had a few drinks and cant seem to read more than 20 words Thank you tonight only.

[batman_fan]

48 minutes ago, jimjum12 said:

 

How does it smell?

[Mmehdy]

13 minutes ago, woowoo said:

Can you people please keep your reply to 1 line. I had a few drinks and cant seem to read more than 20 words Thank you tonight only.

It has been a heck of year...start on New Years eve early...why not..

[woowoo]

38 minutes ago, Mmehdy said:

It has been a heck of year...start on New Years eve early...why not..

Ya i feel like i have had a press and its to tight. Thanks @Mmehdy Happy new year to you

Edited December 29, 2020 by woowoo

[Crowzilla]

2 hours ago, MasterChief said:

Frankly speaking, I’m of the opinion that if an educated hobbyist is advocating the position that the Church Collection could somehow be considered as having been naturally "pressed"  inasmuch the way that mechanical pressing produces treatment results, whether performed using the disassembled, intact, or localized treatment method, they are being intellectually dishonest in an effort to marginalize the concerns surrounding the issue and/or demonstrating a blatant desire and determination to publicly avoid the truth.

I guess I should have used one of these: , I was just joking.

2 hours ago, batman_fan said:

"From the Cat Pee Collection". 

Could make for a VERY interesting label notation. 

Doubt they are going to label notate them, but unfortunately MANY Church copies now belong to/have come from this infamous collection.

[onlyweaknesskryptonite]

3 hours ago, batman_fan said:

"From the Cat Pee Collection". 

Could make for a VERY interesting label notation. 

 

2 hours ago, jimjum12 said:

 

 

2 hours ago, comicdonna said:

I'm waiting for the Pepe Le Pew collection.  

 

1 hour ago, batman_fan said:

How does it smell?

CGC custom Scratch and Sniff Labels! 

[woowoo]

1 hour ago, Crowzilla said:

I guess I should have used one of these: , I was just joking.

Doubt they are going to label notate them, but unfortunately MANY Church copies now belong to/have come from this infamous collection.

you keep forgetting to    

[lou_fine]

On 12/28/2020 at 12:45 AM, LDarkseid1 said:

On 12/28/2020 at 12:31 AM, lou_fine said:

Well, all I can say to this is that if it's due to defects that cannot be easily seen by the naked eye even with the use of enlarged detailed scans and instead, you need to refer to the Graders Notes to even identify them, then should it really hammer the grade down by 4 full increments?    

I can think of other much more readily visual defects than these near invisible defects which seems to be #1 with a bullet right at the top of CGC's grading hit parade.  

Yeah I mean unfortunately there’s no proof I can put forth in this conversation, and as far as that book goes since I’ll never have those graders notes.

I believe you spoke too soon, as these CGC Graders Notes can be yours to share with all of us if you are willing to fork over a measly $10 to them:  

https://www.cgccomics.com/certlookup/0065735001/

 

[LDarkseid1]

2 minutes ago, lou_fine said:

I believe you spoke too soon, as these CGC Graders Notes can be yours to share with all of us if you are willing to fork over a measly $10 to them:  

https://www.cgccomics.com/certlookup/0065735001/

 

Oh that’s soo weird! Wonder why the 9.0 would still be recognized, whilst it is now a 9.6. Unless sent in raw and previous label wasn’t provided to remove the 9.0 grade 🤷‍♂️