A Pressing Matter 2 2

[LearnedHand]

I know pressing is discussed daily and that there are some very strong opinions. My intent here is to challenge some of those with the strong opinions to look at more than just the in-a-vacuum issues. As such, I would appreciate it if we could make a concerted effort to keep all posts on point and not end up in side-conversations or in polarized debates that rehash the same old dogmatic pontification.

 

I’ll start by saying that I am still in a data-gathering mode, so my comments here are not driven by any other agenda. I will also say that I think the issue is not really with pressing at all and that the “issue of pressing” is a bit of a misnomer. The real issue has three facets, two of which (the first two discussed below) comprise a house of cards, as they are very dependent on each other:

 

Facet 1: Is pressing restoration?

 

Ironically, this should be a settled issue, as the authority in the hobby, Overstreet, says it is restoration (the maverick decision made by Overstreet relative to this year’s Guide definitions, to which many of us vehemently objected, is a wholly discrete topic – so let’s keep it out of this discussion please). But CGC says it is not. This schism is at the core of the in-a-vacuum issue.

 

Some would argue that CGC, a for-profit grading company has eclipsed its own purpose. Instead of simply doing what it’s paid to do - grade comic books for a fee - CGC has decided to follow its own rule on this issue, thus, supplanting Overstreet’s respected and time-honored position. CGC can do this, however, as it serves no master but itself. Nothing wrong with that – that’s corporate America.

 

But why has the hobby allowed this? Maybe it’s because people feel Overstreet is becoming more and more irrelevant, or maybe it’s because people are using CGC’s stance to promote selfish agendas. I don't know. In any event the result is that CGC does not give pressed books the PLOD. The natural progeny of this decision is that CGC does not identify or note pressing. The wild-card is that some people (CGC included) believe not all pressing can be detected. If true, then even if CGC reversed its stance, it’s ability to do anything might be limited.

 

Facet 2: Disclosure

 

The definition of pressing is crucial to both sides and, therefore, so hotly debated. Each side of the pressing debate needs a definition to support their view because if it does not, then their argument logically falls apart:

 

If pressing is restoration - then those who do not disclose known (or suspected) pressing are committing a serious ethical violation – identical to not disclosing any other form of restoration. And CGC’s shortcoming on this issue should not absolve anyone for consciously disregarding basic ethical obligations.

 

If pressing is not restoration - then in absolute terms, there is nothing that requires disclosure.

 

Taking the disclosure debate to a logical conclusion:

 

Based on current market realities, there is no objective means by which to detect pressing. And, no one can force disclosure. Within this framework, if pressing is classified as restoration, what does this mean for the hobby? Well, that’s sort of where we are today. It is considered restoration, yet is rampant and has no ill effects on sales. And, if pressing is deemed not to be restoration, what does this mean for the hobby? Well, I think it’s obvious that things would be just as they are now. There are no constraints to pressing today, so to assume a revised definition would change anything makes no sense.

 

The problem is that pressing is probably one of the very few things that in some cases is next to impossible to detect. If the hobby truly wants to know whether books are pressed, the solution is to develop an objective means by which to unequivocally determine it.

 

Facet 3: Market Acceptance

 

Outside the in-a-vacuum issues discussed above, the bigger picture is – even if pressing could be detected, under current market conditions, would it really matter?

 

I believe that many of the debates that rage over whether pressing is or is not restoration may be a waste of time unless we can honestly answer “yes” to the following questions: if (a) pressing were universally resolved by the hobby as restoration, and (b) the grading companies could detect pressing 99% of the time, and © the so-called experts gave pressed books the PLOD (minor) label - would a pressed book, with no other tampering whatsoever, really sell at prices consistent with those at which other PLOD (minor) books sell? And, more importantly, would you pay no more than restored (minor) prices for books that come with PLOD (minor) labels when the books have only been pressed (with no other tampering whatsoever)?

 

Maybe the answer to the first question is – we don’t know today because of current circumstances…maybe. Even so, everyone can answer the second question - and unless your answer is a resounding “yes,” then maybe you don’t see pressing as the equivalent of other forms of minor restoration.

 

As a practical matter, I know that MANY people wish that the answer to the above questions were yes for the hobby at large. In today’s prohibitive market, many people would gladly pay restored prices for books that are only pressed. Example - the Larson Detective Comics #35, a CGC9.2 could not sell in a Heritage Signature Auction at about $13K because it has a PLOD for minor restoration (cover professionally solvent cleaned – meaning no evidence of the cleaning even remains in the book’s paper). If, instead, this book had only been pressed (intact/staples on), can anyone say with a straight face that it still wouldn’t and shouldn’t have sold at that price? And would anyone in the market for a Detective Comics #35 honestly say they would have hesitated for an instant in pulling the trigger at about $13K if this CGC9.2 pedigree copy of a very tough classic covered book had only been pressed?

 

[burntboy]

I know pressing is discussed daily and that there are some very strong opinions. My intent here is to challenge some of those with the strong opinions to look at more than just the in-a-vacuum issues. As such, I would appreciate it if we could make a concerted effort to keep all posts on point and not end up in side-conversations or in polarized debates that rehash the same old dogmatic pontification.

 

I’ll start by saying that I am still in a data-gathering mode, so my comments here are not driven by any other agenda. I will also say that I think the issue is not really with pressing at all and that the “issue of pressing” is a bit of a misnomer. The real issue has three facets, two of which (the first two discussed below) comprise a house of cards, as they are very dependent on each other:

 

Facet 1: Is pressing restoration?

 

Ironically, this should be a settled issue, as the authority in the hobby, Overstreet, says it is restoration (the maverick decision made by Overstreet relative to this year’s Guide definitions, to which many of us vehemently objected, is a wholly discrete topic – so let’s keep it out of this discussion please). But CGC says it is not. This schism is at the core of the in-a-vacuum issue.

 

Some would argue that CGC, a for-profit grading company has eclipsed its own purpose. Instead of simply doing what it’s paid to do - grade comic books for a fee - CGC has decided to follow its own rule on this issue, thus, supplanting Overstreet’s respected and time-honored position. CGC can do this, however, as it serves no master but itself. Nothing wrong with that – that’s corporate America.

 

But why has the hobby allowed this? Maybe it’s because people feel Overstreet is becoming more and more irrelevant, or maybe it’s because people are using CGC’s stance to promote selfish agendas. I don't know. In any event the result is that CGC does not give pressed books the PLOD. The natural progeny of this decision is that CGC does not identify or note pressing. The wild-card is that some people (CGC included) believe not all pressing can be detected. If true, then even if CGC reversed its stance, it’s ability to do anything might be limited.

 

Facet 2: Disclosure

 

The definition of pressing is crucial to both sides and, therefore, so hotly debated. Each side of the pressing debate needs a definition to support their view because if it does not, then their argument logically falls apart:

 

If pressing is restoration - then those who do not disclose known (or suspected) pressing are committing a serious ethical violation – identical to not disclosing any other form of restoration. And CGC’s shortcoming on this issue should not absolve anyone for consciously disregarding basic ethical obligations.

 

If pressing is not restoration - then in absolute terms, there is nothing that requires disclosure.

 

Taking the disclosure debate to a logical conclusion:

 

Based on current market realities, there is no objective means by which to detect pressing. And, no one can force disclosure. Within this framework, if pressing is classified as restoration, what does this mean for the hobby? Well, that’s sort of where we are today. It is considered restoration, yet is rampant and has no ill effects on sales. And, if pressing is deemed not to be restoration, what does this mean for the hobby? Well, I think it’s obvious that things would be just as they are now. There are no constraints to pressing today, so to assume a revised definition would change anything makes no sense.

 

The problem is that pressing is probably one of the very few things that in some cases is next to impossible to detect. If the hobby truly wants to know whether books are pressed, the solution is to develop an objective means by which to unequivocally determine it.

 

Facet 3: Market Acceptance

 

Outside the in-a-vacuum issues discussed above, the bigger picture is – even if pressing could be detected, under current market conditions, would it really matter?

 

I believe that many of the debates that rage over whether pressing is or is not restoration may be a waste of time unless we can honestly answer “yes” to the following questions: if (a) pressing were universally resolved by the hobby as restoration, and (b) the grading companies could detect pressing 99% of the time, and © the so-called experts gave pressed books the PLOD (minor) label - would a pressed book, with no other tampering whatsoever, really sell at prices consistent with those at which other PLOD (minor) books sell? And, more importantly, would you pay no more than restored (minor) prices for books that come with PLOD (minor) labels when the books have only been pressed (with no other tampering whatsoever)?

 

Maybe the answer to the first question is – we don’t know today because of current circumstances…maybe. Even so, everyone can answer the second question - and unless your answer is a resounding “yes,” then maybe you don’t see pressing as the equivalent of other forms of minor restoration.

 

As a practical matter, I know that MANY people wish that the answer to the above questions were yes for the hobby at large. In today’s prohibitive market, many people would gladly pay restored prices for books that are only pressed. Example - the Larson Detective Comics #35, a CGC9.2 could not sell in a Heritage Signature Auction at about $13K because it has a PLOD for minor restoration (cover professionally solvent cleaned – meaning no evidence of the cleaning even remains in the book’s paper). If, instead, this book had only been pressed (intact/staples on), can anyone say with a straight face that it still wouldn’t and shouldn’t have sold at that price? And would anyone in the market for a Detective Comics #35 honestly say they would have hesitated for an instant in pulling the trigger at about $13K if this CGC9.2 pedigree copy of a very tough classic covered book had only been pressed?

 

i was wondering when you were going to join the fray.

 

Very interesting observations and presentation.

 

i'll be happy to comment tomorrow when i'm really awake..........

[dc360]

Damn. I was hoping this would be a pun thread.

 

[shadroch]

After wading thru way too many posts on this subject,I really wasn't expecting much in the line of original thought. Boy,was I wrong.

Very well said.

[Aman619]

I think initially, books 'only' pressed would be massacred in price like other PLODs are. In time, they would peobably be the first PLODS accepted back into the fold. But, thats what I think would have happenned had CGC PLODded them from the gitgo. At this point, there are already a lot of "otherwise" very bright and sincere comic collectors who just dont mind pressing (for profit or otherwise.)

[esquirecomics]

Facet 1: Is pressing restoration?

 

Ironically, this should be a settled issue, as the authority in the hobby, Overstreet, says it is restoration (the maverick decision made by Overstreet relative to this year’s Guide definitions, to which many of us vehemently objected, is a wholly discrete topic – so let’s keep it out of this discussion please). But CGC says it is not. This schism is at the core of the in-a-vacuum issue.

 

Some would argue that CGC, a for-profit grading company has eclipsed its own purpose. Instead of simply doing what it’s paid to do - grade comic books for a fee - CGC has decided to follow its own rule on this issue, thus, supplanting Overstreet’s respected and time-honored position. CGC can do this, however, as it serves no master but itself. Nothing wrong with that – that’s corporate America.

 

Actually, to complicate it further, CGC - notwithstanding its public posture - believes pressing is restoration.

 

Its glossary defines "Comic Book Restoration" as "Any attempt, amateur or professional, to enhance the appearance of a comic book."

 

"Restoration" is defined as "the repairing of a comic book so it will appear as it did when it was in its original condition." While that would not appear to encompass pressing, as Scheradon so aptly pointed out, a "Rolled Spine" is dedined as "a defect caused to the spine of a comic book due to readers folding back pages" and a "Spine Roll" is described as "a defect of a comic book caused by improper storage that results in uneven pages and the bowing of the spine."

 

To quote Scheradon:

 

These are conditions commonly fixed by pressing. Interesting that when reading these glossary definitions, one would logically assume that pressing this type of "defect" out would certainly be an act of repairing the book so that it "appears" as it did in it's original condition as well as an attempt to enhance the appearance of the book.

 

Meaning, CGC considers pressing to be restoration. But apparently no one has told Steve Borock.

 

I'll comment more substantively on the rest within the next 24 hours.

[dc360]

After having read the full post, i'd like to say that i think that you raise some perfectly valid points. I'm in agreement with pretty much everything.

 

But even if CGC were to suddenly reverse their decision and accept Overstreet's deeming of Pressing to be worthy of a PLOD, what happens to all those Blue-labeled books out there on the market already? All of the pressed books that CGC has processed before the decision to PLOD them are currently in Blue labeled holders with no notation of pressing whatsoever. That would mean that people who might be considering resubbing for a higher grade also risk getting a PLOD on a book that they had no real way of inspecting. Frankly, it sounds like people would be more inclined to keep their blue labels, play it safe, and keep a "don't-ask don't-tell" mentality. But that's just me.

 

From that perspective though, I would think that it would be counter-intuitive for CGC to label pressing as resto, because it would mean lost profits on that angle, at least. I think maybe it would be more interesting to examine some of the other hundreds of reasons from CGCs perspective why it would benefit them not to label pressing as resto.

[dc360]

Its glossary defines "Comic Book Restoration" as "Any attempt, amateur or professional, to enhance the appearance of a comic book."

 

"Restoration" is defined as "the repairing of a comic book so it will appear as it did when it was in its original condition." While that would not appear to encompass pressing, as Scheradon so aptly pointed out, a "Rolled Spine" is dedined as "a defect caused to the spine of a comic book due to readers folding back pages" and a "Spine Roll" is described as "a defect of a comic book caused by improper storage that results in uneven pages and the bowing of the spine."

 

To quote Scheradon:

 

These are conditions commonly fixed by pressing. Interesting that when reading these glossary definitions, one would logically assume that pressing this type of "defect" out would certainly be an act of repairing the book so that it "appears" as it did in it's original condition as well as an attempt to enhance the appearance of the book.

 

I always hated this definition of restoration though. Because, for example, if you were to buy a book with a folded corner, and you unfolded the corner and placed the book in a bag and board with 300 other books in a long box, have you just restored it? Of course not. But when you get into these nitpicky types of definitions, by folding the corner back to it's original placement and by pressing it between several hundred other books in a tight area, you've just commited two separate actions of restoration!

 

Am i wrong?

[Aman619]

sigh...

[Moondog]

Very good post, Learned. You address all the issues.

 

One comment really hit home:

 

In today’s prohibitive market, many people would gladly pay restored prices for books that are only pressed.

 

I think there's absolutely no question that collectors would be falling over each other to grab key GA and SA books - that were selling at restored prices if they were only pressed - and it's due to the fact that the vast majority of collectors don't consider pressing restoration.

 

And there is a precedent for this in our hobby.

 

Back in the 80's and early 90's many collectors (myself included) paid multiples of Overstreet for high grade keys that had only been "cleaned and pressed". Cleaning and pressing was a service that Susan, Mark and almost every professional restoration expert (and a lot of amateurs too) provided. It was not considered restoration. It was considered an improvement. Most of the cleaning and pressing was done by dealers, but many collectors had books cleaned and pressed too.

 

[As an aside, it's ironic that those same books, when submitted to CGC, were given PLODs due to their being cleaned. If the cleaning could not be detected they'd have blue labels.]

 

I see a similar situation with pressing. Almost no one considered pressing restoration until it became a matter of economics. Take the 9.0 and get it pressed to 9.2 or 9.4. The unwitting collector pays more for the higher graded book. The dealer makes out at the expense of the collector. The collecting community can only stop this practice if it's determined that pressing is restoration. If pressing is not restoration then prices will continue to skyrocket as more and more prime examples get pressed. This is the heart of the matter.

 

When cleaning became detectable, it was considered restoration. If pressing can ever be detected it too must be considered restoration.

[esquirecomics]

I see a similar situation with pressing. Almost no one considered pressing restoration until it became a matter of economics. Take the 9.0 and get it pressed to 9.2 or 9.4. The unwitting collector pays more for the higher graded book. The dealer makes out at the expense of the collector. The collecting community can only stop this practice if it's determined that pressing is restoration. If pressing is not restoration then prices will continue to skyrocket as more and more prime examples get pressed. This is the heart of the matter.

 

A very astute and accurate point.

[Scheradon]

I think there's absolutely no question that collectors would be falling over each other to grab key GA and SA books - that were selling at restored prices if they were only pressed - and it's due to the fact that the vast majority of collectors don't consider pressing restoration.

 

If the demand is what you say it would be, then collectors wouldn't be getting them all that cheap would they? I mean, the buyers set the prices here and can dictate how high an auction or price reaches. If they are falling all over each other to grab these, then how do you think they can go so cheap?

 

I would disagree with your statement that the "vast majority of collectors don't consider pressing restoration". I'm not sure where you came up with that assumption.

Edited May 17, 2006 by scheradon

[EastEnd]

The simple fact that virtually no major dealer that I'm aware of openly discloses known pressing on items held for sale provides ample evidence that pressed books will sell for less than unpressed ones.

[Zonker]

I would disagree with your statement that the "vast majority of collectors don't consider pressing restoration". I'm not sure where you came up with that assumption.

 

the "vast majority of flippers don't mind bidding up pressed books as long as pressing is not detectable and they can therefore pass them down the food chain..."

[burntboy]

OK Learned, it's morning and i've had my coffee;

 

Facet 1: Is pressing restoration?

 

Ironically, this should be a settled issue, as the authority in the hobby, Overstreet, says it is restoration (the maverick decision made by Overstreet relative to this year’s Guide definitions, to which many of us vehemently objected, is a wholly discrete topic – so let’s keep it out of this discussion please). But CGC says it is not. This schism is at the core of the in-a-vacuum issue.

 

i can't think of any other single statement that has brought this particular issue into such clear focus for me. in my mind these are the 2 real authorities in the hobby and they are simply at odds on this important issue.

 

almost nothing else needs to be discussed until this gets resolved. (and quite frankly, the resolution could go either way..........).

 

BUT, IF it were agreed by both authorities that pressing is resto, the issue of almost anyone's ability to detect quality pressing conclusively leaves us with what???

 

Facet 2: Disclosure

 

The definition of pressing is crucial to both sides and, therefore, so hotly debated. Each side of the pressing debate needs a definition to support their view because if it does not, then their argument logically falls apart:

 

If pressing is restoration - then those who do not disclose known (or suspected) pressing are committing a serious ethical violation – identical to not disclosing any other form of restoration. And CGC’s shortcoming on this issue should not absolve anyone for consciously disregarding basic ethical obligations.

 

If pressing is not restoration - then in absolute terms, there is nothing that requires disclosure.

 

again, very succinct and logical.............and i concur with your thoughts - first determine conclusively whether pressing IS resto and then act accordingly.....

 

 

Facet 3: Market Acceptance

 

Outside the in-a-vacuum issues discussed above, the bigger picture is – even if pressing could be detected, under current market conditions, would it really matter?

 

i think that IF pressing were uniformly deemed to be resto, AND it could be consistently and conclusively detected, pressed books would realize lower prices.

and i further believe that would be true of both slabbed and raw (if disclosed) books relative to non-pressed examples.

 

i also tend to agree that many of the anti-pressing crowd would be quite interested in some of these pressed-only restos at their new lower prices. and i further believe that the pro-pressing (or don't really care crowd) would be VERY interested in these books.

 

as such, the prices would logically fall somewhere between unrestored and restored. of course, the market would dictate where..............

 

SO, first things first, we should try to establish a definitive and authoritative answer to the NUMBER 1 QUESTION (with an appropriately specific definition, if necessary)...........and then take it from there........IMHO.

[Ze-man]

in my mind these are the 2 real authorities in the hobby and they are simply at odds on this important issue.

 

almost nothing else needs to be discussed until this gets resolved. (and quite frankly, the resolution could go either way..........)

 

IF it were agreed by both authorities that pressing is resto, the issue of almost anyone's ability to detect quality pressing conclusively leaves us with what???

 

SO, first things first, we should try to establish a definitive and authoritative answer to the NUMBER 1 QUESTION (with an appropriately specific definition, if necessary)...........and then take it from there........IMHO.

 

Harry, excuse the butchering your post, to me these thoughts sum up very well where we are regarding everything under the pressing umbrella.

 

I dont know how many times we can say it, CGC does not consider NDP type pressing to be restoration, nor would they label it as resto even if they could detect it(or would they?). I dont see them ever changing their stance based on this one fact alone.

Overstreet views pressing differently because they dont have to wear blinders tailored to suit a specific product.

 

As was so aptly pointed out by Shad recently, disclosure only goes as far as the next guy. It bears repeating

Seller X discloses book was pressed to buyer Y

Buyer Y does not do the same when he sells it.

The original disclosure is then lost.

Buyer Y probably makes a tidy profit.

Seller X says "well f me for trying"

 

Sure you could ask the seller if a book was pressed, and based on his answer dig around for the history of the book to see if you can track down recent ownership. But in the end too many books will slip through the cracks and be sold without disclosure of any kind. Either by the original seller, or the second seller, or the third..and so on, and so on.

 

It is all well and good to try and redefine pressing,restoration or conservation to better suit the current playing field. As well as identify/label the various forms of pressing as Red mentioned(especially in terms of how invasive it is). So perhaps one day isolated pressing will carry less of a stigma vs whole book pressing when disclosed by the seller.

But in the end... as you said, what does that leave us with?

No matter how we define, or label it..we will still be left with those who choose to disclose pressing of any kind will be applauded for doing so, and hopefully rewarded for it.

And those that choose not to, wont ever be known unless they are caught red handed in a resub that can be traced. I dont see what else we can really do about it. I am at a loss of what to do personally except alter my buying habits based upon all we have learned to date.

 

 

Figuring out ways to inform and educate the public seems to have the best shot at moving this issue foward. Instead of trying to get the big guns to change their stance on NDP pressing.

 

Ze-

[rodan57]

Shall we play: what if?

 

If pressing were to be suddenly detectable 98% of the time and agreed to be considered restoration by CGC, would CGC be willing to initiate the marketplace upheaval that would be bound to ensue?

 

I believe detectable pressing would work to dissuade future pressing, but a lot of books would find their way out of a blue label and into a purple one over the next few years. Especially should it prove necessary to reslab books after seven years or so. The purple label could kill a lot of aggregate market value very quickly.

 

But if pressing is restoration (and I think it is), could it not be viewed as suggested in an earlier post by Burntboy as a less egregious form of restoration?

 

Could a pressed book fit comfortably in a blue or green labeled slab with the notation "pressed"? Would this lessen the integrity of a blue label?

 

 

p.s.

 

I am really playing the devil's advocate with myself, here, as I am not a fan of any type of restoration, short of the conservation necessary to keep a very old and very damaged book 'alive'. I am still worried that pressing might structurally weaken a comic book over the long term. (With the relatively recent historical introduction of pulp paper and its fragility, I worry that damage might be done on a molecular level and only become apparent as years pass.)

[esquirecomics]

Facet 1: Is pressing restoration?

 

Ironically, this should be a settled issue, as the authority in the hobby, Overstreet, says it is restoration (the maverick decision made by Overstreet relative to this year’s Guide definitions, to which many of us vehemently objected, is a wholly discrete topic – so let’s keep it out of this discussion please). But CGC says it is not. This schism is at the core of the in-a-vacuum issue.

 

Some would argue that CGC, a for-profit grading company has eclipsed its own purpose. Instead of simply doing what it’s paid to do - grade comic books for a fee - CGC has decided to follow its own rule on this issue, thus, supplanting Overstreet’s respected and time-honored position. CGC can do this, however, as it serves no master but itself. Nothing wrong with that – that’s corporate America.

 

But why has the hobby allowed this? Maybe it’s because people feel Overstreet is becoming more and more irrelevant, or maybe it’s because people are using CGC’s stance to promote selfish agendas. I don't know. In any event the result is that CGC does not give pressed books the PLOD. The natural progeny of this decision is that CGC does not identify or note pressing. The wild-card is that some people (CGC included) believe not all pressing can be detected. If true, then even if CGC reversed its stance, it’s ability to do anything might be limited.

 

I've made my position on this issue perfectly clear so don't feel the need to respond again.

 

Except to say that I don't think CGC knows exactly what its position is, which I've addressed earlier in this thread

 

Facet 2: Disclosure

 

The definition of pressing is crucial to both sides and, therefore, so hotly debated. Each side of the pressing debate needs a definition to support their view because if it does not, then their argument logically falls apart:

 

If pressing is restoration - then those who do not disclose known (or suspected) pressing are committing a serious ethical violation – identical to not disclosing any other form of restoration. And CGC’s shortcoming on this issue should not absolve anyone for consciously disregarding basic ethical obligations.

 

If pressing is not restoration - then in absolute terms, there is nothing that requires disclosure.

 

Taking the disclosure debate to a logical conclusion:

 

Based on current market realities, there is no objective means by which to detect pressing. And, no one can force disclosure. Within this framework, if pressing is classified as restoration, what does this mean for the hobby? Well, that’s sort of where we are today. It is considered restoration, yet is rampant and has no ill effects on sales. And, if pressing is deemed not to be restoration, what does this mean for the hobby? Well, I think it’s obvious that things would be just as they are now. There are no constraints to pressing today, so to assume a revised definition would change anything makes no sense.

 

The problem is that pressing is probably one of the very few things that in some cases is next to impossible to detect. If the hobby truly wants to know whether books are pressed, the solution is to develop an objective means by which to unequivocally determine it.

 

I don't think I accept the premise that the concept of disclosure requires pressing being designated as restoration. At the very least, I don't see it as "crucial" to the definition debate. Without a doubt, having that designation understood (given that it is unequivocal that pressing is restoration by every known professional definition), makes the disclosure argument much easier to be sure.

 

But it is not necessarily required. If the consumer demonstrates an interest in knowing whether a book has been pressed, the market will require it regardless of whether it is considered restoration or not.

 

I also don't believe one can say, as of yet, that pressing has "no ill effects" on sales. There is clear evidence that it does. We've seen some books sell for less with pressing having been disclosed. And we absolutely no of buyers, such as myself, who have not purchased books because they were pressed. Does that mean that some openly pressed books have not had their sales price impacted? No, of course not.

 

But the jury is still out on the true impact.

 

Facet 3: Market Acceptance

 

Outside the in-a-vacuum issues discussed above, the bigger picture is – even if pressing could be detected, under current market conditions, would it really matter?

 

I believe that many of the debates that rage over whether pressing is or is not restoration may be a waste of time unless we can honestly answer “yes” to the following questions: if (a) pressing were universally resolved by the hobby as restoration, and (b) the grading companies could detect pressing 99% of the time, and © the so-called experts gave pressed books the PLOD (minor) label - would a pressed book, with no other tampering whatsoever, really sell at prices consistent with those at which other PLOD (minor) books sell? And, more importantly, would you pay no more than restored (minor) prices for books that come with PLOD (minor) labels when the books have only been pressed (with no other tampering whatsoever)?

 

Maybe the answer to the first question is – we don’t know today because of current circumstances…maybe. Even so, everyone can answer the second question - and unless your answer is a resounding “yes,” then maybe you don’t see pressing as the equivalent of other forms of minor restoration.

 

As a practical matter, I know that MANY people wish that the answer to the above questions were yes for the hobby at large. In today’s prohibitive market, many people would gladly pay restored prices for books that are only pressed. Example - the Larson Detective Comics #35, a CGC9.2 could not sell in a Heritage Signature Auction at about $13K because it has a PLOD for minor restoration (cover professionally solvent cleaned – meaning no evidence of the cleaning even remains in the book’s paper). If, instead, this book had only been pressed (intact/staples on), can anyone say with a straight face that it still wouldn’t and shouldn’t have sold at that price? And would anyone in the market for a Detective Comics #35 honestly say they would have hesitated for an instant in pulling the trigger at about $13K if this CGC9.2 pedigree copy of a very tough classic covered book had only been pressed?

 

 

I need to reread your third facet above and think about it further before I answer.

 

An overall thoughtful contribution, regardless of whether I may or may not agree with some of the positions.

[LearnedHand]

Hi Mark,

 

Appreciate your comments and look forward to your (any everyone else’s) further comments. As I’m a big fan of the Socratic method (and as I found about 1/2 free hour today), I’d like to explore some of your statements:

 

I've made my position on this issue perfectly clear so don't feel the need to respond again.

 

I don’t read these Boards very often anymore, but based on what I know, I think you believe pressing is restoration and, like me, I know you support disclosure.

 

I can’t imagine, however, that anyone would seriously take the position (I’m not inferring that you are) that a stronger definition, or pushing the voluntary disclosure issues, will make any difference under the current market dynamics (inability to easily detect pressing) – outside of an abstract discussion. Because of this, I’ve wondered aloud why some people are so absolutely vehement over things that make no practical difference. It led me to a creative little conspiracy theory – and the reasons in my theory for the vehemence are far from altruistic. I’m not sure if I should share it, however, as this thread may turn ugly (or the theory may undermine the point of this thread).

 

I don't think I accept the premise that the concept of disclosure requires pressing being designated as restoration. At the very least, I don't see it as "crucial" to the definition debate. Without a doubt, having that designation understood (given that it is unequivocal that pressing is restoration by every known professional definition), makes the disclosure argument much easier to be sure. But it is not necessarily required.

 

Without pressing defined as restoration, there is no disclosure argument (read this in conjunction with my comments to the next quoted item). And, as I stated in “Taking the disclosure point to a logical conclusion,” the current market realties provide clear evidence that the definition of pressing will have very little (if any) effect without a method of easy detection.

 

If the consumer demonstrates an interest in knowing whether a book has been pressed, the market will require it regardless of whether it is considered restoration or not.

 

It seems like you’re saying that the consumer might want to know about pressing irrespective of whether pressing is defined as restoration. Maybe you should consider this a little more before coming to this conclusion. Here’s some food for thought: History dictates (35+ years of it) that consumers don’t put this standard of disclosure on anything not defined as restoration (such as the unfolding of folded pages, white bread being rubbed across a cover, etc.). Everyone knows these things go on, and they fit within my definition of “tampering,” but they are not considered restoration and there has never been public outcry for their disclosure. If pressing is not to be classified as restoration, agendas aside, is there any logic argument why it would be held to a different standard?

 

The one creative argument I’ve heard for holding pressing (if not classified as restoration) to a different disclosure standard is if pressing is ultimately determined to hurt the books. This argument also has no merit. Simply, if pressing were found to hurt books, it would immediately have a very different connotation, making the current discussions moot.

 

I also don't believe one can say, as of yet, that pressing has "no ill effects" on sales. There is clear evidence that it does. We've seen some books sell for less with pressing having been disclosed.

 

And we absolutely no (sic) of buyers, such as myself, who have not purchased books because they were pressed. Does that mean that some openly pressed books have not had their sales price impacted? No, of course not.

Mark, as you’re hedging both sides of the issue, I’m not sure if I see a clear point here, but you’ve (inadvertently) created an artificial limit to the meaning of “ill-effects on sales.” Ill-effects on sales means a whole lot more:

 

To claim that there is clear evidence of ill-effects means that you can point to a body of objective data sufficient to comprise a true test sample. This data would need to be comprised of: (a) known CGC pressed and CGC non-pressed books; (b) books in both categories of the same exact title, number, and grade; © sales data for a very similar period; and (d) apples to apples – meaning 9.0 to 9.0 or 4.0 to 4.0 comparisons. I would love to see the clear evidence for this, as it might help me come to a conclusion.

 

“Ill-effects on sales” also means that the volume of transactions on pressed books is down – again, based on a true test sample (and a further criteria for a test sample in this category would be to assess the trending for sales volume for a specific period, and then see how pressed books and non-pressed books track against that overall trending data). So, if you (or some people you know) decide to buy or not buy a book is evidence of virtually nothing. Again, I would love to see the clear evidence on this too.

 

Also, assuming your claims can be supported by clear evidence, which remains to be seen, I’ll also point out that even under the nonsensical notion that the buying habits of a few individuals has any affect on sales in the market, I could immediately point to objective and well-publicized data that supports the opposite side of this argument.

 

And on a broader level, if your stance on this point had any categorical merit, you wouldn’t even need to make it. The intent behind most pressing is to realize higher prices. Said differently, a lot of the books worth pressing for the fractional grade increase (and resultant higher value) are the higher end books, many of which are well-known and floating around. If these books were bought, pressed, offered for resale, and regularly realized lower sales prices, this would absolutely herald the death of the incentive for people to press. No one would be pressing any of those books to attempt to achieve a higher grade if it typically meant less money – this would be ridiculous!

 

Logically, your statements must be relative to the other area of books – the ones that are not well-known and not floating around. No need to discuss this area, however, as it’s already covered by the points in my original post and above. And even if many of us would like to protect these treasures from the same fate as their pressed-for-dollars brethren, to paraphrase a poignant comment made by someone else on this thread - disclosure is only as good as the seller. Even if I disclosed that I pressed a book I sell you, there is no guarantee that you’ll pass that knowledge to the person to whom you sell this book. And, with no easy objective way for a hobbyist to inspect a book and detect pressing, I see no panacea for halting NDP or forcing its disclosure.

 

Again, I appreciate your comments as they help challenge (and maybe even dispel) some of the strong opinions and arguments that seem to have major holes in them.

 

I’ll look forward to follow up and your response to my third facet (if I don't reply, it's because I'm in on business travel all next week).

Edited May 20, 2006 by LearnedHand

[esquirecomics]

Excuse the cross-post, but because Peter and I have a running dialogue on this topic and I want to make sure I respond to his intellectual challenges, I post this here as well.

 

Here is the latest submission I provided to Gemstone. It was published in today's Scoop.

 

Making The Grade - The Responses Keep Rolling

 

 

In "Making the Grade - Pressing," [superstars, Scoop, Friday, June 02, 2006], Gemstone Publishing has asked some very specific questions regarding the practice of pressing. In introducing your questions you identify three different types of pressing. The first involves the removal of the staples, while the second can include very concentrated pressing of a specific area of the front or back cover of a book. The third is unintentional due to the chosen storage method.

 

For one thing, your descriptions are far too general in nature and appear, based on even my limited knowledge of the involved techniques, to be incomplete. For example, your first category of pressing typically, if not always, additionally involved the cleaning of the book as well. Moreover, usually each and every page is pressed separately. No matter how pressing is viewed, the fact that the staples were removed and the book was cleaned using some sort of chemical treatment would always result in a determination that the book was "restored."

 

Your second category, which you simply describe as "where a small bend in the cover is pressed or small dimples are pressed," fails to note that most often this type of pressing involves either significant pressure and/or even heat. It is not merely taking a heavy dictionary and sliding it across the comic book. And in many cases it is not simply localized pressing that occurs, the entire book or page is pressed.

 

I have set forth my opinion regarding the definition of restoration at length and will not seek to reiterate my expressed position. However, in addressing your specific concerns regarding pressing let me simply remind your readers what the definition of restoration has been since Gemstone published its 33rd edition of The Overstreet Comic Book Price Guide in 2003:

 

Any attempt, whether professional or amateur, to enhance the appearance of an aging or damaged comic book. These procedures may include all or any of the following techniques: recoloring, adding missing paper, stain, ink, dirt or tape removal, whitening, pressing out wrinkles, staple replacement, trimming, re-glossing, etc.

 

Your own definition very clearly incorporates the type of pressing that you have identified as category two. Indeed, CGC, though publicly decrying pressing through its officials as not constituting restoration, actually defines Comic Book Restoration on its website as "any attempt, amateur or professional, to enhance the appearance of a comic book." This definition also very clearly includes the category two type of pressing. For further information concerning the definition of restoration, I would direct your readers to my detailed analysis which Scoop was kind enough to publish at http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/scoop_article.asp?ai=12139&si=127.

 

The crux of your latest solicitation for comments, however, deals more so with the practical problems surrounding pressing. Many of those who argue that pressing is not restoration rely on the fact that detection of the technique is extremely difficult, and at times virtually impossible. This caveat, of course, is entirely irrelevant to the discussion of whether pressing does fall within the definition of restoration. Why then is the issue of detection so heavily relied upon as part of this debate?

 

If pressing is considered restoration, as both Overstreet and top restoration experts such as Susan Cicconi and Tracey Heft (as well as CGC on its website) believe it is, there is no question among any that it must be disclosed. This is the heart of the issue and anyone who understands this debate is quite cognizant of this fact. A groundswell has been initiated in the last year, such as by the newly formed Network of Disclosure, to actively promote the ethical disclosure of even non-detectable pressing, regardless of whether it is even considered restoration. This has caused a wave of fear or concern among particular entities and numerous individuals. Their agenda is to extricate the mechanics of pressing from the definition of restoration in order to alleviate their ethical obligations of disclosure (and prevent the perceived devaluation of their pressed comics that they wish to sell). I fully recognize the significant practical difficulties surrounding the detection of pressing. It may be years before this problem can be overcome, if ever. But this fact should not be utilized as an excuse to remove an ethical requirement of disclosure because it is simply easier to do so.

 

It is unfortunate that in articulating their concerns regarding pressing some have adopted the argument that pressing results in books being pancaked. To be sure that can happen to some books when pressed poorly or improperly, but there is no reason to believe this occurs with the large majority of pressed comics. Nor is the argument that pressing damages books worthy yet of serious concern. Frankly, there is absolutely no evidence one way or the other that pressing does or does not damage books. No one has conducted any type of experiment, or even has anecdotal evidence to rely upon. That said, the issue of damage is one to explore further as scientific research is conducted on the manipulation of paper, particularly at the microscopic level.

 

At the same time your analogies as far as the second category of pressing in particular are inappropriate. You continue to support the myth that the favorable results of commercial pressing can be achieved unintentionally "through various long-term storage methods." Indeed, you even create a third category of pressing specifically to address "a tightly packed long box of comics." For one thing, I am aware of absolutely no evidence whatsoever that packing 400 comics into a 300 capacity comic long box can achieve similar results to that of the commercial technique of pressing.

 

What you are doing is continuing to stir hysteria regarding the possibility of pedigree collections somehow being designated as "restored" due to the manner in which the books were stored. This, of course, invokes the aura of the Edgar Church/Mile High collection. But, as I have stated in my previous article, the "pressed" manner in which Mr. Church stored his 22,000 comic books did not result in the removal of existing defects, which is what commercial pressing seeks to achieve. To the contrary, it permitted the books to retain and remain in their pristine condition for decades. They never deteriorated to a degree that required pressing. A Church book is pressed nowadays simply for one reason: to increase the profits for the dealer/seller. Though it is obviously oftentimes difficult to independently measure, intent is a key facet of this debate.

 

Your text would give some the impression that you are attempting to justify in advance what appears to be your leaning towards rewriting the definition of restoration to exclude pressing, particularly given that you continually seize upon the question of detection. As you state, "if, however, the pressing is undetectable, how does one detect it? Do we downgrade a book because we think there's been something done to it or because we know there's been something done to it?"

 

No one has rationally suggested that anyone should guess as to whether a book has been pressed. If a book has been improperly pressed and damage has occurred, it should be downgraded. It may be that many, perhaps even the majority of, books which have been pressed will not be identified as having been. That is an issue our community will have to deal with, but it should be a matter of principle that requires us to retain an accepted and rationale definition of restoration that happens to include pressing. The mere fact that detection may elude us should be of little consequence.

 

Taking your statement to its logical conclusion, since micro-trimming is virtually undectectable (as CGC recently came to learn as a result of the Jason Ewert scandal that led to hundreds of trimmed books ending up in blue Universal holders), then it should not be considered restoration either. Even if micro-trimming is viewed as "destruction" rather than restoration your premise is the equivalent of the ad campaign that "what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas." If the events are unknown, or the modification goes undetected, there are no consequences. I have little difficulty believing that few in the comic community share such a philosophy.

 

However, there are many instances where pressing, in fact, can be detected, particularly where the book is a pedigree and has been CGC graded. Several collectors have compiled well-known databases, replete with scans, which have allowed comparison of particular books and led to the identification of pressed books. Heritage Comics' vast database has generated a great deal of discussion of pressed pedigree copies. Moreover, many more collectors routinely query dealers regarding the provenance of a comic book. I receive numerous inquiries for the sales history and prior ownership of books listed on my website, and I always request this information from any individual who consigns books to my site.

 

And let us not forget that despite CGC claims in its public statements that pressing cannot be detected, its former sister company, Paper Collectibles Service (PCS), was pressing books as a for-profit enterprise just down the hallway from CGC. Given that PCS was under the same corporate umbrella as PCS, surely CGC was aware, or could easily have become aware, of which books PCS had pressed. Fortunately PCS has now apparently closed its doors but the hundreds, if not thousands (the number is unknown), of books that it pressed for monetary gain have been disbursed within the community without CGC having noted on its label of the enhancements that took place.

 

I previously suggested to CGC that should a pedigree comic, or any book that was known to have been previously graded by CGC, re-enter its doors with the appearance of a higher grade, thereby evidencing the possibility and perhaps likelihood of it having been pressed (though it could also be a straight resubmission), it should not receive a grade above that which had originally been assessed. The premise was that if CGC did not reward those who pressed books, but at the same time did not punish, then perhaps the notion of pressing would lose favor and the inability of detection would be minimized, at least with respect to the high caliber of pedigree books. It is not necessarily the ideal solution, but at least it seemingly offered one, at least in part. Of course, it was no surprise this suggestion was rejected by CGC officers as it conflicts with the company's current business model.

 

Your final question to your readers contributes to the very problem that exists. You asked "if pressing is not detectible to experienced professionals and seasoned collectors alike, what is the standard on which we speculate on whether or not a book has been pressed?" Again, no one is suggesting the detection of pressing should be a game where one speculates. Simply because there presently does not exist any reliable method of detection does not mean that the issue should be ignored or swept under the rug for an easy solution. In fact, what would occur if Gemstone declared pressing not to be restoration but next year (or two or even ten years from now) it became possible to utilize scanning technology to allow reliable detection to an acceptable degree of certainty? Would Gemstone reverse its decision yet again?

 

The issue Gemstone is now facing seems to me to be a very simple matter. This is a question about the integrity of the Overstreet Guide, the integrity of the Grading Guide and the integrity of Gemstone Publishing. To turn your back on accepted and historical definitional principles merely, or in large part, for the sake of those who wish to act as profiteers and do not wish to face what otherwise would be ethical requirements regarding disclosure is a travesty. In my opinion, and I know it is shared by many, that is how a Gemstone modification to the definition of restoration to exclude pressing will be viewed at this time, whether it is true or not.

 

Instead, what I would suggest to Gemstone and other leaders within our comic community is to focus on removing the unfortunate stigma that has attached itself to restoration (and that includes pressing). That is far more preferable than witnessing Gemstone avoid having to deal with the difficult ethical issues we now face by utilizing the stroke of a pen to reverse your own position 180 degrees simply because we cannot yet determine the ultimate practical solution.