Pressing project results--post here

[esquirecomics]

As for the rest of your post, I agree with all your points about it being restoration, but I don't think we'll ever get to the point where dealers will feel comfortable disclosing pressing so long as there are a few vocal people who scream with evangelical fury that pressers are greedy scum suckers who should rot in hell (or some such). Personally, I don't know why dealers really care what those few collectors say, but it seems that they do.

 

Its interesting (and a shame) that the majority of the dealers don't have the cahones to simply disclose the pressing. Some have and it apparently hasn't harmed their business. And the Network of Disclosure will really publicize these efforts shortly.

 

Frankly, IMHO, I think the monicle (if I am spelling it correctly for the context) of pressing being "greedy scum suckers should rot in hell" is primarily utilized to characterize those who commit undisclosed pressing. To be sure some people just simply despise pressing (some people will always think JFK was murdered by conspiracy), but I do honestly believe that the derrogatory comments arise due to the perceived fraudulent and greedy attitudes of those who hide their conduct.

[Red Hook]

Let's make those who practice undisclosed pressing the victims!

[esquirecomics]

I agree wholeheartedly with the comments offered by Jbud73 and Lou_Fine.

 

Matt, with all due respect, you are being either completely naive or you are far better at spin than I have ever given you credit (and, yes, I suppose that would be a compliment).

 

I won't repeat the comments already offered, but let me ask the following questions:

 

(1) How do you define conservation? In what respect does pressing constitute conservation? Is your definition of conservation supported by any of your peers or professional organizations that relate to the appropriate fields?

 

(2) Do you not believe there is an ethical requirement to disclose conservation treatment? If not, why would the ethical obligations that bind your area of expertise only apply to restoration and not conservation? Can you find any support from among your peers or professional organizations that relate to the appropriate fields that conclude conservation does not need to be disclosed?

 

(3) Should Overstreet maintain its definition of restoration as including pressing, will you adopt that position or continue to reject it?

 

Matt, when the Network of Disclosure goes public, which it will very, very soon, I do believe you will find that the call for disclosure will gain quite a degree of acceptance and place you at odds with many in the community.

 

I have nothing against pressing. I have nothing against restoration. And, just to reiterate, I have nothing against you Matt (in fact, see your PM). Indeed, I think all restoration (to include pressing) should be destigmatized. I would be happy to work with you to achieve that objective (and that is one of the areas I intend to focus on as an Overstreet advisor), which of course would be beneficial to your business. But restoration requires disclosure, and you need to accept that first.

[lou_fine]

Comparing matt to jason ewert is an insult. If I were matt and you said that about me I would be knocking on your front door right now. But matt is too much of a gentleman.

 

JUST SO WE ARE CLEAR PRESSING IS NOT RESTORATION!

 

WHAT EWERT DID WAS NOT RESTORATION EITHER. HE RUINED THOSE BOOKS.

 

Matt Nelson does not ruin books by pressing them.

 

Collector;

 

You seem to feel very strongly on your point here.

 

Maybe Ewert is just ahead of his time here. After all, undisclosed pressing was certainly not a very accepted practice in the bad old days prior to CGC.

 

It is only now with CGC in place and everybody coming up with all sorts of reasons why this is now a "positive" activity in the sense of bringing the book to its full potential. As further proof of this, the pro-pressers constantly argue that if it is done properly, it is totally undetectable unless you have before and after scans of the book.

 

Exactly how did Ewert ruined those books from an appearance point of view? Especially when you considered that nobody (including the CGC resto checkers) was able to detect that anything had been done to the book. The only way it was discovered was from a before and after scan of the book.

 

Like Matt Nelson has already stated, CGC can only grade what's in front of them. If they can't tell that anything's been done to the book, does it really matter? It is what it is, and CGC can only fairly grade what they see.

 

BTW: Nobody should take this as my endorsement of micro-trimming because I certainly do not. I am only using this example to show Collector the error in his argument for pressing.

[Aman619]

 

But if disclosure is to ever move foward, and pressing is to become more accepted for what it is I think it needs to be determined wether or not the different types of pressing should be dealt with the same way the various forms of recognized restoration are.

 

Kenny, I have to be honest. Pressing is already accepted, and disclosure is not going to move forward because it's impractical for so many different reasons. I'm not saying this to be arrogant, or because it fits my business model. I have had many discussions with just about everyone in this business concerning the issues at hand--this is what I do for a living, after all. Pressing has been around since before I was born, and will continue regardless of any outcome of any argument, because in the practical world, it works.

 

This is not a practice whose fate is being decided as we speak. It is a practice that is going strong, and growing stronger every passing week. It is not the BSD's vs. the little guys, nor the pressers vs. the non-pressers, nor CGC vs. everyone else.

 

I came to the conclusion long ago that it would be better if pressing was shared with everyone, rather than keeping it to myself. If pressing is not going to go away, isn't it better to level the playing field and give everyone the same opportunity? Personally, I'd rather give a guy the chance to get his own upgrades before releasing his books into the market. Because if he doesn't, someone else will.

 

So make pressing as widely known as possible, so everyone can make their own decision regarding their books. But if you go about it in a negative way, which is what the prevailing attitude is on the boards, you're propagating the very stigma that people blame on pressing. It's like telling your best friend you hate his girlfriend, and then the guy ends up marrying her. Now you've got a choice; either make nice with the girlfriend, or go find a new best friend. (pulps, maybe? I hear big little books are coming back)

 

Word is being spread through the message boards, Scoop and GPA newsletters, advertising, and word of mouth. It's not a disease that is running rampant through the hobby. It is simply a tool used when buying and selling comics--just like slabbing, auction houses, the internet, and the price guide. This is not my opinion. This is fact, proven by the number of people pressing, selling and knowingly buying pressed books. It is a business that works, period.

 

Im going to comment on a few of your explanations. But Ill keep them short because much of it has already been commented upon.

 

 

 

to this whole burst of logic above, I can only say: H O W C O V E N I E N T !

[Aman619]

Actually, as I was reading the last 30 or so entries, I kept coming back to how convenient your whole take on pressing for profit is in your mind! Fascinating. You've got it all clearly worked out in your head and completely fail to see (or is it acknowlege?) just how shady the whole game you are playing is. Its kinda sad, because while you are winning now, getting away with it, and really seem to believe what you are saying, (do you? or is it just CONVENIENT now to operate under such beliefs?) you are just profiting from a moment of insanity in the market that wont last.

 

I just love the "everybody's doing it" argument! how CONVENIENT.

[esquirecomics]

I recommend everyone who is interested in this topic read some of the latest posts in the thread in the General Section that debates the definition of restoration. There is a discussion of how the paper currency community views pressing. Fascinating parallels.

 

http://www.pcgscurrency.com/

[FFB]

As for the rest of your post, I agree with all your points about it being restoration, but I don't think we'll ever get to the point where dealers will feel comfortable disclosing pressing so long as there are a few vocal people who scream with evangelical fury that pressers are greedy scum suckers who should rot in hell (or some such). Personally, I don't know why dealers really care what those few collectors say, but it seems that they do.

 

Its interesting (and a shame) that the majority of the dealers don't have the cahones to simply disclose the pressing. Some have and it apparently hasn't harmed their business. And the Network of Disclosure will really publicize these efforts shortly.

 

Frankly, IMHO, I think the monicle (if I am spelling it correctly for the context) of pressing being "greedy scum suckers should rot in hell" is primarily utilized to characterize those who commit undisclosed pressing. To be sure some people just simply despise pressing (some people will always think JFK was murdered by conspiracy), but I do honestly believe that the derrogatory comments arise due to the perceived fraudulent and greedy attitudes of those who hide their conduct.

 

Nope, you're not spelling it correctly.

 

As for what the Network of Disclosure will or will not accomplish, I will wait and see with great interest.

 

I would also love to see you go a week without mentioning JFK or the CIA in one of your posts.

 

You know I love ya, you mouthy bastich.

[gpanalysis]

You know I love ya, you mouthy bastich.

 

Pleeeeeease you two, get a room already!

[FFB]

Actually, as I was reading the last 30 or so entries, I kept coming back to how convenient your whole take on pressing for profit is in your mind! Fascinating. You've got it all clearly worked out in your head and completely fail to see (or is it acknowlege?) just how shady the whole game you are playing is. Its kinda sad, because while you are winning now, getting away with it, and really seem to believe what you are saying, (do you? or is it just CONVENIENT now to operate under such beliefs?) you are just profiting from a moment of insanity in the market that wont last.

 

I just love the "everybody's doing it" argument! how CONVENIENT.

 

What's funny is, Matt's post is exactly the "solution" to the problem many people had with PCS. When PCS's services were announced, the furor was all about "Pressing for the few, at the expense of the many!" Matt is offering the same services for the many (really, for anyone who wants to send him a book), and people have conveniently forgotten all about the problems they had with PCS. Now the problem is that people might sell Matt's pressed books without disclosure. Since Matt doesn't really have control over what other people do with books he pressed, isn't the issue what he should do with his own auctions?

 

Matt, have you taken a position yet on the issue of whether you'll disclose pressing in your own auctions if asked? My recollection is that you said you would disclose, if asked. Isn't this more than what most other dealers have already committed to doing? Indeed, it's exactly the same thing many other beloved dealers, such as Doug Schmell, have agreed to do, isn't it? (And I say this with no slam on Doug -- it's simply a point of comparison.)

 

 

Sorry guys -- didn't mean to interrupt the lynching. As you were.

[FFB]

You know I love ya, you mouthy bastich.

 

Pleeeeeease you two, get a room already!

 

Georgie, I love you too, at least, as much as one straight man can love another straight man without it getting creepy and weird.

[gpanalysis]

You know I love ya, you mouthy bastich.

 

Pleeeeeease you two, get a room already!

 

Georgie, I love you too, at least, as much as one straight man can love another straight man without it getting creepy and weird.

 

[FFB]

You know I love ya, you mouthy bastich.

 

Pleeeeeease you two, get a room already!

 

Georgie, I love you too, at least, as much as one straight man can love another straight man without it getting creepy and weird.

 

 

Shouldn't you be working on adding page quality to your website results?

[esquirecomics]

As for the rest of your post, I agree with all your points about it being restoration, but I don't think we'll ever get to the point where dealers will feel comfortable disclosing pressing so long as there are a few vocal people who scream with evangelical fury that pressers are greedy scum suckers who should rot in hell (or some such). Personally, I don't know why dealers really care what those few collectors say, but it seems that they do.

 

Its interesting (and a shame) that the majority of the dealers don't have the cahones to simply disclose the pressing. Some have and it apparently hasn't harmed their business. And the Network of Disclosure will really publicize these efforts shortly.

 

Frankly, IMHO, I think the monicle (if I am spelling it correctly for the context) of pressing being "greedy scum suckers should rot in hell" is primarily utilized to characterize those who commit undisclosed pressing. To be sure some people just simply despise pressing (some people will always think JFK was murdered by conspiracy), but I do honestly believe that the derrogatory comments arise due to the perceived fraudulent and greedy attitudes of those who hide their conduct.

 

Nope, you're not spelling it correctly.

 

Figures.

 

As for what the Network of Disclosure will or will not accomplish, I will wait and see with great interest.

 

True indeed. Time will tell.

 

I would also love to see you go a week without mentioning JFK or the CIA in one of your posts.

 

Hey, I don't mention JFK very much, and the CIA pays me a $1 for everytime I use its name!

 

You know I love ya, you mouthy bastich.

 

Does Elizabeth know this?

[gpanalysis]

You know I love ya, you mouthy bastich.

 

Pleeeeeease you two, get a room already!

 

Georgie, I love you too, at least, as much as one straight man can love another straight man without it getting creepy and weird.

 

 

Shouldn't you be working on adding page quality to your website results?

 

Remind me to slow down your connection to our service

 

Good point... so, following on that question, and putting a lot of the arguments for and against aside, isn't "knowing" the history of a book just more information? Isn't having information a good thing? One can say "I don't care whether the book is pressed or not", and in the most extreme cases (but possibly non-existent) whether a book is trimmed. However, wouldn't you like to know that a book has been pressed, regardless of whether it influences your final decision on what to pay, keep, sell, etc? Isn't any and all information about an "object" that we collect part of full disclosure? I would argue all information about what has been done to a comic book, and what it has been through (or who owned it) is ultimately neutral until the community that collects it places certain "value" on how each bit of information is acted upon... would you agree?

[esquirecomics]

Actually, as I was reading the last 30 or so entries, I kept coming back to how convenient your whole take on pressing for profit is in your mind! Fascinating. You've got it all clearly worked out in your head and completely fail to see (or is it acknowlege?) just how shady the whole game you are playing is. Its kinda sad, because while you are winning now, getting away with it, and really seem to believe what you are saying, (do you? or is it just CONVENIENT now to operate under such beliefs?) you are just profiting from a moment of insanity in the market that wont last.

 

I just love the "everybody's doing it" argument! how CONVENIENT.

 

What's funny is, Matt's post is exactly the "solution" to the problem many people had with PCS. When PCS's services were announced, the furor was all about "Pressing for the few, at the expense of the many!" Matt is offering the same services for the many (really, for anyone who wants to send him a book), and people have conveniently forgotten all about the problems they had with PCS. Now the problem is that people might sell Matt's pressed books without disclosure. Since Matt doesn't really have control over what other people do with books he pressed, isn't the issue what he should do with his own auctions?

 

Exclusivity was certainly one of the problems that people had with PCS but that paled in comparison, IMHO, the fact that an independent grading company, through its parent corporation, was involved in manipulation of grades. This, to me, was a gross conflict of interest, either in appearance or in actuality. The exclusivity just made the taste worse.

 

I do agree that Matt is not responsible for the actions of his customers. What they do with their books is their business, not his. Nor would I expect for him to reveal his customers or "out" someone if they were caught selling a pressed book without disclosure. Of course, Matt's current viewpoints on the topic preclude any of the above meaning anything. I would hope that one day Matt would concede pressing is restoration, that disclosure is ethically required, and if he caught a customer not disclosing a book he knew to be pressed he would not do business with that person again. One can dream!

 

 

Sorry guys -- didn't mean to interrupt the lynching. As you were.

 

[awe4one]

What's funny is, Matt's post is exactly the "solution" to the problem many people had with PCS. When PCS's services were announced, the furor was all about "Pressing for the few, at the expense of the many!" Matt is offering the same services for the many (really, for anyone who wants to send him a book), and people have conveniently forgotten all about the problems they had with PCS. Now the problem is that people might sell Matt's pressed books without disclosure.

 

You need to go back and re-read those threads. The vast majority were against CCG getting into the pressing business and the appearance of collusion. The select clientele argument was a by-product of the secrecy the whole endeavor was operating under.

 

Sorry guys -- didn't mean to interrupt the lynching. As you were.

 

Just because you don't agree with the questions brought up doesn't a lynching make...

 

Jim

[Ze-man]

Since Matt doesn't really have control over what other people do with books he pressed, isn't the issue what he should do with his own auctions?

 

 

 

This quote sums up everything in a nutshell perfectly. Matt presses books for a living, he happens to sell presed books as well. If he were to disclose they were pressed in his auctions upfront what is to stop some shady guy from buying them and selling them undisclosed down the road?

 

Absolutely nothing.

 

This money making technique has a built in backdoor. It's a real bona fide plausible backdoor. But just because it is there does not mean it has to be used as a crutch as to why one does not choose to do differently. It is a choice. Money is one thing, we all want it. I get that. Heck, I want the world for my 2 year old, but at what cost? If put in the same situation I am not sure if I would feel right pressing books and selling them undisclosed based on the off chance someone might buy them and make more money down the road. I would take the opposite approach, lead the way, try and change the current playing field by my actions rather then hide behind a plausible rational.

 

Easy for me to say because I dont have it sitting in my lap. And I obviously view the act of pressing for profit differently then Matt does. I will give you that.

 

 

Ze-

[Red Hook]

You know I love ya, you mouthy bastich.

 

Pleeeeeease you two, get a room already!

 

Georgie, I love you too, at least, as much as one straight man can love another straight man without it getting creepy and weird.

 

Oh, I think it's totally creepy and weird.

[esquirecomics]

Since Matt doesn't really have control over what other people do with books he pressed, isn't the issue what he should do with his own auctions?

 

 

 

This quote sums up everything in a nutshell perfectly. Matt presses books for a living, he happens to sell presed books as well. If he were to disclose they were pressed in his auctions upfront what is to stop some shady guy from buying them and selling them undisclosed down the road?

 

Absolutely nothing.

 

This money making technique has a built in backdoor. It's a real bona fide plausible backdoor. But just because it is there does not mean it has to be used as a crutch as to why one does not choose to do differently. It is a choice. Money is one thing, we all want it. I get that. Heck, I want the world for my 2 year old, but at what cost? If put in the same situation I am not sure if I would feel right pressing books and selling them undisclosed based on the off chance someone might buy them and make more money down the road. I would take the opposite approach, lead the way, try and change the current playing field by my actions rather then hide behind a plausible rational.

 

Easy for me to say because I dont have it sitting in my lap. And I obviously view the act of pressing for profit differently then Matt does. I will give you that.

 

 

Ze-

 

I never understand the argument that because someone else may not subsequently disclose the work it gives a free pass to all that come before and after. What a world.

 

Oh were legal ethics to work that way, I'd be having much more fun! Come to think of it, maybe I'll go have an affair. As long as my spouse doesn't know, there are no consequences. And, heck, so many other people have done it.