Pressing project results--post here

[Red Hook]

And I assume you could have made those stress marks disappear if you'd taken this demonstration to the next level...right?

 

Ha ha, Brad, I keep telling you, there is no "next level!" These books were all pressed the same as I would any others. If someone wants to test this, they should anonymously submit a few books to me, and then post the results. I'm really surprised someone hasn't done this already.

 

So you are saying that if I had asked you to remove the stress marks near the spine, you could not have done this? Come on, man....you're an artiste!

 

Here's a direct question....

 

Do you or have you done pressing after disassembling a book?

 

Hmmm, ask it a different way. I can't answer that without giving away secrets. Let me know directly what you're getting at.

 

Okay....I'll play.

 

Could you have removed the stress marks? On that particular book?

 

[Aman619]

what is kinda funny is that you are trending toward belittling Mark for his Quixotic quest (or is it an 'agenda'?) yet - - you feel your "pressing public" (I love that) is afraid to come on here (so that they are in effect invisible to us) because they will get flamed here. Who would be afraid to get "flamed" by a ranting fool?

 

But, I feel like Im in the minority here in being vocal against pressing. So please invite them all to come discuss it with us! There are plenty of converts and pro-pressers, and those who, although they believepressing to BE restoration, still accept it because it has taken hold and cannot be detected anyway.

 

Or do they not care to be known as part of th e"pressing public?" Such a secret society. Such shame!! I think even NAMBLA members are more vocal in their activities than you pressers!

[Darrell F]

Ok I will post my results finally.

 

Here are Matt's notes.

 

Batman #202

press to 7.0 - 7.5

notes: stain in tombstone, edge and spine wear

 

Detective #627

press to 9.4

notes: 7 tiny spine stress, vein spine back cover

 

Detective #496

press to 9.4 - 9.6

notes: six spine stress

 

Batman 202

Like all of the books I submitted, this book had quite a few ncbc. You cannot tell on any of the books that they were pressed. I held this book against a Batman 200 that came from the same collection and there was no visible differance.

 

Detective 627

Not much to say about this one. All of the creases are gone and it looks a lot better than it did before.

 

Detective 496

Same as all the others. The book is not a pancake like some have suggested.

 

None of my books were high dollar books. Hell I don't have that many high dollar books but Matt was a complete professional through out the process and he was a pleasue to deal with. He kept us informed at all the different stages. I want to say thank you to Matt for allowing me to take part in this experiment because it was a real eye opener. I went into this thinking that my book would be flattened and that I would be able to tell it had been pressed. I will try to get some after scans but while you are waiting for those here is a before scan of the 202.

 

[Darthdiesel]

Actually, both Darthdiesel and Red Hook submitted CGC books--I forgot to list that information on the original post. So we will get to see how a few come back.

 

Darth

Weird Wonder Tales #16 CGC 7.5 (press to 9.0 - 9.2)

Chamber of Chills #23 CGC 4.5 (press to 5.0 - 5.5)

Rawhide Kid #133 CGC 5.0 (press to 5.5)

 

The Rawhide and Chamber were both very marginal candidates. I think my evaluations may have been liberal. The Weird Wonder Tales was much nicer. There were some very light vertical bends near the spine of the front cover that will determine how well it does. After it was finished, I felt that it may grade slightly lower than my first estimate, maybe 8.5 to 9.0. But still a nice upgrade for such a tough book.

 

All 30 centers...

 

Adventure on the POTA 5:

 

 

Marvel SuperHeroes 58:

 

 

Chamber of Chills 23 CGC 4.5:

 

 

Rawhide Kid 133 CGC 5.0:

 

 

 

Weird Wonder Tales 16 CGC 7.5:

 

 

 

I have to re-upload the scans of the slabs....will fix in a moment...

[Matt Nelson]

And the reason there is still all this controversy is because of a very small number of individuals who continue to propagate their agenda. I'm not saying it's bad to have an agenda. But this whole thing must be put into perspective.

 

Matt, what agenda do you think is at work that has propagated this controversy? Honestly, I would like to know as I have difficulty grasping what it could be for the vast majority of us.

 

I certainly believe that most of those, such as you, who speak in favor of pressing have an agenda. Some hide it. Others don't. For you it is both obvious and understandable. This directly impacts your business (more so than the random dealer), though frankly I strongly disagree with some of your arguments and feel you would do far better with your business to simply be more upfront and declare pressing for what it is (and for what I honestly believe you know it is), disclose the books you pressed when you personally sell them and join forces to destigmatize the negative view of restoration.

 

With all due respect, I don't think you have a strong enough grasp on the mechanics of the restored comic market, slabbing, high end books, or pressing to assume my business would do better by taking your side. Business is doing just fine as it is. I really believe that what you're pushing would do much more harm to the hobby than what you believe undisclosed pressing will cause. This is not a defensive remark on my part--it's something that has been heavily discussed among many people who are very active in comics, and know the market inside and out.

 

That being said, let me appeal to you to stop the hard line you take in this hobby, and focus on becoming the honest dealer that you want to be. It's impossible to succeed by doing both. I know, because it's been attempted before, and met with failure. It's fine to have strong beliefs in something, but it's always better to conduct yourself with subtlety and a positive attitude.

 

I respect what you do for a living, and your accomplishments are something to be admired. But using the same approach in this field that you do on the job is not the way to go about getting what you want. It takes years of education, hard work, networking, creativity, a little luck, and above all, a positive vibe. Pounding people's heads into a wall day after day will not get you where you want to go. It will make you a few fast friends, but not the kind that will stick around for the long haul.

[Matt Nelson]

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?

 

Yep.

 

And for the record, I'm not against disclosure. I just take a pragmatic view toward the problem, which is why I think working toward an industry standard for disclosure when a buyer asks is the way to go. I think there's a pretty good chance that a lot of dealers will sign on to that policy, whereas I do not believe there will be significant dealer participation if the standard is to disclose affirmatively without being asked.

 

I agree with Scott here. Dealers would be much more willing to disclose if asked, as opposed to trying to nail down every pressed book. Of course, for it to really work, the person who inquired would hopefully buy the book even though the dealer disclosed that it was pressed.

[Matt Nelson]

 

Wow! This is some deep stuff. Okay, let me try it this way: pressing is part of the restoration process (the end after all the work is done, and the book needs to lay flat), but restoration is NOT part of the pressing process! Pressing a book after the restoration is finished makes them look so much nicer, especially after a cover has been handled during the structural repair and color touch stages.

 

Given your own words:

 

"Slight restoration

Slight jobs usually cover cleaning, pressing, support and seals, and averages $60-$200 per book. The best candidates for this service are just about any book, particularly copies that are very solid overall (in the GD to VG range), and exhibit minor defects like tears, spine splits, spine rolls, dirty covers or pages, or detached covers. Given the right book, the impact of light work can dramatically improve the appearance for little cost."

 

What constitutes restoration?

 

Cleaning Y/N

Pressing Y/N

Supports Y/N

Seals Y/N

 

and if this process so benefits GD to VG books then why are most of the books that receive this treatment in the HG range? and why did those books in the GD to VG range in your experiment not achieve anywhere near dramatic improvement?

 

Hi Mushroom, you're quoting from the restoration section of my website, which is a service meant for low grade books. Pressing is a part of the restoration process, but pressing by itself better suits high grade books. Check out the conservation service for more details on that. If I was to disassmble and restore the lower graded books used in the project, they would have certainly graded higher. Hope this clears things up.

[Matt Nelson]

And I assume you could have made those stress marks disappear if you'd taken this demonstration to the next level...right?

 

Ha ha, Brad, I keep telling you, there is no "next level!" These books were all pressed the same as I would any others. If someone wants to test this, they should anonymously submit a few books to me, and then post the results. I'm really surprised someone hasn't done this already.

 

So you are saying that if I had asked you to remove the stress marks near the spine, you could not have done this? Come on, man....you're an artiste!

 

Here's a direct question....

 

Do you or have you done pressing after disassembling a book?

 

Hmmm, ask it a different way. I can't answer that without giving away secrets. Let me know directly what you're getting at.

 

Okay....I'll play.

 

Could you have removed the stress marks? On that particular book?

 

 

Sorry Brad! I got sidetracked. I think I could have removed those stress marks. I would have to see the book again to be sure I'm thinking of the right thing we're talking about here. It's possible I left them because they broke color. What are you getting at? You want another free pressing?

[jbud73]

And the reason there is still all this controversy is because of a very small number of individuals who continue to propagate their agenda. I'm not saying it's bad to have an agenda. But this whole thing must be put into perspective.

 

Matt, what agenda do you think is at work that has propagated this controversy? Honestly, I would like to know as I have difficulty grasping what it could be for the vast majority of us.

 

I certainly believe that most of those, such as you, who speak in favor of pressing have an agenda. Some hide it. Others don't. For you it is both obvious and understandable. This directly impacts your business (more so than the random dealer), though frankly I strongly disagree with some of your arguments and feel you would do far better with your business to simply be more upfront and declare pressing for what it is (and for what I honestly believe you know it is), disclose the books you pressed when you personally sell them and join forces to destigmatize the negative view of restoration.

 

With all due respect, I don't think you have a strong enough grasp on the mechanics of the restored comic market, slabbing, high end books, or pressing to assume my business would do better by taking your side. Business is doing just fine as it is. I really believe that what you're pushing would do much more harm to the hobby than what you believe undisclosed pressing will cause. This is not a defensive remark on my part--it's something that has been heavily discussed among many people who are very active in comics, and know the market inside and out.

 

That being said, let me appeal to you to stop the hard line you take in this hobby, and focus on becoming the honest dealer that you want to be. It's impossible to succeed by doing both. I know, because it's been attempted before, and met with failure. It's fine to have strong beliefs in something, but it's always better to conduct yourself with subtlety and a positive attitude.

 

I respect what you do for a living, and your accomplishments are something to be admired. But using the same approach in this field that you do on the job is not the way to go about getting what you want. It takes years of education, hard work, networking, creativity, a little luck, and above all, a positive vibe. Pounding people's heads into a wall day after day will not get you where you want to go. It will make you a few fast friends, but not the kind that will stick around for the long haul.

 

If I read this response correctly - and I'd like to think that I did, its an appeal to acquiescence. Basically real world business practises and transparent efficacy have no place in the comics, especially at the upper echelon. Any effort to enact them on the existing cabal will meet with firm resistance and the bearer will face being ostracized - I again find it ironic how Matt attributes being an 'honest dealer' as being mutually exclusive of the transparency and accountability that Mark Zaid is trying to push in the comics industry.

 

Essential this plea amounts to informing Zaid that he will need to capitulate to the existing status quo and get a "little dirt on him" before he can affect change from the inside. I'm tempted to quote Darth Vader here, however there is no need as Matt took care of that for me, with this morally bereft beauty.

 

It's fine to have strong beliefs in something, but it's always better to conduct yourself with subtlety and a positive attitude.

 

Translation: Ethics have zero place in comicdom, its better to subtly over everybody with a smile on your face and purport your undying love of comics.

[Harvey Dude]

let me appeal to you to stop the hard line you take in this hobby, and focus on becoming the honest

dealer that you want to be. It's impossible to succeed by doing both.

 

Hi Matt,

 

First and foremost, I have no problems with pressing or restoration.

It is the undisclosing of the work in which I have issues.

 

Let me appeal to you to be more forthright in your auctions. I believe it to be a unethical to

press books and then to sell them on eBay as unrestored knowing full well that many people believe

unrestored to mean no work has been performed on the material. That was my belief until I read

these boards. Don’t you believe your eBay auctions are in conflict with the AIC code of ethics?

I believe some of your colleagues have gone on record to state that they would not engage in

such business practices.

[jbud73]

Yep.

 

And for the record, I'm not against disclosure. I just take a pragmatic view toward the problem, which is why I think working toward an industry standard for disclosure when a buyer asks is the way to go. I think there's a pretty good chance that a lot of dealers will sign on to that policy, whereas I do not believe there will be significant dealer participation if the standard is to disclose affirmatively without being asked.

 

Scott, while I can see where you are going with this, the "only if asked" policy hinges on a huge assumption - that the prospective buyer even knows to ask the question.

 

If the prospective buyer doesn't know what pressing is, then disclosure by a dealer would not make a difference anyway. Or are you suggesting that a dealer has a duty not only to disclose pressing, but also to: (a) give an informative lecture about what pressing is to a prospective buyer, or (b) apply one of Marnin's ridiculous "PRESSED" logos to the book to give the buyer the impression that pressing is bad and scary?

 

I'm suggesting that the logic of an argument that is based on the assumption perfect knowledge has the danger of degenerating to the lowest common denomenator. For example before the mass outing of pressing, many dealers were deniying that their wares had been pressed when asked. Why? Because the question was generally did you press book X. The answer of course was that they did not perform the pressing themselves, however had the book pressed by another individual and therefore could rationalize answering no. The underlying current of an exchange whereby a dealer will only become transparent "if asked" allows for too many loopholes in a process that is already rampant with them. While I understand that the alternative is more difficult to institutionalize, is it not more valuable?

 

I view the "if asked"scenerio as lacking the pragmatic consequences of a standard that compells disclosure and free information exchange between collectors and dealers. Now I know that this may be a more difficult standard to achieve, however it is a goal that has more practical implications. That is, if dealers are caught in non-disclosure sitiuations, they can't hide behind statements like, "well I wasn't asked specifically X" or the phrasing of the question led me to believe the buyer was interested in "Y" - or well I didn't have "Z" done to a book, I paid another person to do it.

[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 pick spin!

 

Fair enough! I see you successfully spinned again in GPAnalysis' new e-newsletter. You are very good at avoiding responding to most of the debate and challenges I and others have presented.

 

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?

 

 

I just mentioned in a previous post about changing my conservation service to represent structural repair, and give pressing its own category. But I realize that doesn't change your question (simply substitute "pressing" for conservation).

 

My definition of pressing/conservation is irrelevent. So much has already been written on this topic. To engage you in the fine details of the definition of restoration is in my opinion, a giant waste of time. It does not address the real problems faced with the goals you are trying to achieve.

 

That is a complete cop-out Matt. If I had wanted to ask you specifically about pressing, I would have used that word in my question. I asked you where you stand on defining what is meant by conservation? It was you who identified pressing as a form of conservation. Surely it is completely fair and appropriate to ask you to support your premise.

 

Look, you hold yourself out to be an expert in this field and I have no interest in disputing that whatsoever. I'll concede the fact. Your definitions therefore matter. And if you don't have your own definitions, then please respectfully point to those definitions you operate under as a professional. These are very general principles, not "fine details". Even as one or the other, they clearly matter to the discussion as they define everything we are talking about.

 

And before you simply state that you rely on CGC's interpretations, I note that your business started in 1996. CGC didn't open its doors until 1999. So whose interpretations did you rely on before CGC?

 

Also, are you a member of any professional organizations that pertain to restoration or conservation services?

 

(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?

 

 

Again, should I substitute the word "pressing" for conservation here again? Because this time, it doesn't seem to work, because I don't consider pressing to be restoration. And neither does CGC. When Susan opens a grading company, she can try to disclose all the pressed books she sees. Good luck to her on that.

 

You're trying to force academic subtleties onto people without acknowledging the pragmatics of the situation.

 

Again, a very skillful shuffle to the side. These are very straight forward questions that you, as a professional expert in the field, should be prepared and able to answer. That you are declining to do so while at the same time deflecting to irrelevant matters says a lot Matt.

 

And, I'm sorry, who the hell is CGC? A company created by those in the coin industry a mere 7 years ago whose operations and definitions conflict with the fundamental practices and definitions that this hobby has had for years. Again, you started business in 1996. CGC started in 1999. Were you a maverick for those 3 years and therefore felt bolstered by the presence of CGC or did you conform to your peers?

 

This is not a competition between you and Susan. At no point did I bring Susan into this debate. Of course, Susan - who has years more experience and sophisticated training than you (and I presume that is not in debate and it is certainly not intended to be a slight to you or your talents) disagrees with you. Tracey Heft, another expert in the field, disagrees with you. Numerous of the professional organizations that apply to your field disagree with you on definitions.

 

All of that is fine. You are entitled to disagree with them all. I can respect that completely. More power to you. But why do you disagree? What are your arguments? What is your rationale for distinguishing yourself from these other experts and organizations? You can't simply state because CGC does.

 

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

 

 

I will continue to go about my business as I do now. I hate to break it to you, but Overstreet's glossary does not necessarily dictate the ebb and flow of the market.

 

I interpret that as a yes. It is clear to me now. Essentially your responses are in line with whatever CGC, the all powerful wizard, says. It is as if you have no opinion of your own. That is too bad. I, for one, would be very much interested in your personal/professional opinions. I wonder how you viewed Overstreet during the time when you first started collecting and became aware of the "bible", as well as especially when you became an advisor in 1994 and before the creation of CGC in 1999.

 

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.

 

 

Well, place my money on the bettin' table! $500 says I will never be placed at odds with this community because of pressing. You come up with a way to quantify the results, and I'll do it. What timeframe are we talking about here?

 

$500. You're on. I'll come up with terms and propose them to you. We'll do it publicly so everyone can see how the challenge progresses.

 

 

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.

 

I like you too, Mark. I also love your parental tone with me. It gives your argument an air of...righteousness. All kidding aside...

 

If my tone sounds parental or condescending, then I do apologize. I assure you it is nothing more than perhaps reflective of my legalistic writing style.

 

Unfortunately, all kidding aside, your responses are nonexistent and lacking of the intellectual professionalism I would expect from someone of your caliber in your industry. Experts in their fields can walk the walk and talk the talk to substantively support their positions. Yet all you've done is deflect from the very serious, and non-attacking, questions I posed you. I still remain, and I am sure others do as well, very interested in receiving serious direct answers from you. It doesn't matter if I, or others, perhaps won't agree with them, and I would hope that no one would attack you based on those views. I certainly won't. And I will condemn anyone who does attack you on that basis. This is a very professional and mature debate that allows for different opinions.

 

But at this time I don't know what your specific views are because you have avoided my questions.

 

Okay, now that I've answered your questions, let me pose a few of mine:

 

Despite the fact that you did not see fit to answer my questions, I am more than happy to answer yours. And if you, or anyone, does not feel I sufficiently addressed the question, then please ask me to elaborate further and I shall to the best of my ability.

 

#1 - How does the issue of undetectibility factor into your quest for disclosure?

 

Disclosure is based on the premise of ethical obligations or agreed upon policies. It may, of course, vary from person to person, but there is a minimum standard that is to be applied. In general it should only be made when there is a reasonable certainty if not absolute knowledge of the fact that there is an issue that needs to be disclosed. No one is asking anyone to guess about whether a book has been restored, conserved, pressed, whatever. Some people feel comfortable in guessing. I do not. Perhaps that is from my legal training, or simply my perception of ethical requirements.

 

The elusiveness of detectability for certain techniques is irrelevant in the world of ethical obligations. It does not remove the requirement. Indeed, it enhances the requirement. That some would chose to exploit that elusiveness for their own personal benefit should not detract from the general ethical obligations that exist.

 

#2 - What is your solution to the fact that no one, not even CGC, can detect pressing with certainty?

 

I directly addressed this point in my most recent submission to Scoop. Let me first say that this debate is not solely about CGC and its business practices. How many times do people remind us that CGC actually reflects a miniscule component of our hobby? The ethical requirements that apply to disclosue apply to all books, raw or slabbed, and all dealers, sellers and collectors alike.

 

Nevertheless, I expect CGC to no more guess at detecting pressing than I would for it to determine detection of any form of restoration. If they can't detect it, the book would have to receive a blue label just as what would happen with missed color touch, micro-trimming, etc. I believe CGC should decline to re-grade comics it knows it previously graded so as not to reward those who press books. Yet this does not punish those who do. It simply does not provide a vehicle for exploitation that CGC would knowingly be a party to.

 

I am quite intrigued and intend to pursue further how the Collector's Universe, CCG's competitor, handles third-party grading of currency, which also faces a nearly identical debate surrounding pressing. There the company does not punish pressed currency, but rewards originality. Although there are problems with implementing their model at this time, it is worthy of further consideration and review.

 

#3 - If you ignore #1 and #2, and you are depending solely on the kind nature and honesty of all collectors and dealers to disclose?

 

I am not sure what you mean by if I "ignore" other than to assume you are insinuating that perhaps I would chose not to respond to your questions, which of course is not the case.

 

That aside, I am not sure how to answer your question particuarly as I did answer #1 and #2.

 

"Kind nature and honesty"? How is our comic hobby any different from any other facet of life? What prevents my spouse from cheating? My business partner from doing things behind my back? Why is it our community seems to desire to remove itself from the ethical obligations and appropriate conduct that governs us in other walks of life?

 

There is an obligation to disclose restoration. Pressing aside, I presume you agree with that well-settled premise. Were we relying on the "kind nature and honesty" of comic book dealers, particularly in the 1970s and 1980s not to try and fraudulently pass restored books as unrestored?

 

Have unethical dealers intentionally failed to disclose restoration within our community? Of course. I can name quite a few. I still see them at conventions. Some who have had "issues" in this area have posted on these boards. Now, some of them apparently have stopped these types of practices, and why is that? Because they got caught. It is a deterrent, and it impacts on dealer's reputations. If you have bad reputation, and word spreads (ala Jason Ewert), you will see that dealer's business minimized if not extinguished.

 

I would like to think that those dealers who continually demonstrate their kind nature and honesty will be rewarded, as they should be.

 

 

#4 - Do you think I'm a bad Overstreet Advisor because I press books for people who maybe don't disclose? Or because I don't put a banner on all of my auctions stating that "some of these may be pressed!" Or both?

 

I am not aware that being an Overstreet Advisor requires any adherence to any specific set of views or practices. Nothing of the sort was certainly made clear to me or provided in my membership packet.

 

To all reading this, there is no membership packet.

 

And I have made it quite clear, and I thought I had in this thread but I will reiterate, that I do not feel you are responsible for the actions of your customers. I would hope, but not necessarily expert or condemn, that you, as a professional with ethics, would not continue doing business with customers who you feel are not abiding by the ethical requirements in your field.

 

If you cleaned a book or replaced pieces, and your customer then placed that book up for sale on ebay without disclosing the work you performed, would you do anything? Would you say anything? How would you feel? Personally, I don't think you have any affirmative obligation to say or do anything. I would like to think I could imagine how you would feel. And I would hope that you would no longer perform any work for that person. I have certainly faced similar circumstances in my professional field. Clients who lie to me, or do something against my recommendations lose me as their lawyer. My choice. My ethical choice.

 

I do feel, given my well-established and I think articulated view, that since pressing is restoration it must be disclosed. So, yes, I do feel that your conduct to knowingly sell books yourself that you know for a fact to be pressed is a bad practice and, quite candidly, unethical. It could also be argued as being fraudulent (though that legal case has yet to be presented of course).

 

But the community, in practice, is somewhat admitedly divided. I believe you and others will start to feel certain pressure from your customers when the Network of Disclosure hopefully gains momentum and people want to know why your auctions do not reveal that a book has been pressed when you clearly know the history.

 

I also believe you do yourself and your arguments a real disservice by intentionally hiding this fact. You should jump from the treetops promoting your work, especially if you believe it will not impact the value of a book when known.

 

#5 - If Overstreet does not include pressing in their restoration definition, will you, for the LOVE OF GOD, relax? Or will it continue for ever and ever and ever......

 

I'm sorry, but this is the one question that does not deserve the dignity of an answer. Let me get this straight. You can forego whatever Overstreet does or says because Overstreet does not control the market place but I should coordinate my principles from whatever Overstreet does or says?

 

C'mon Matt, I would hope we're on an equal playing field here. No hypocrisy is warranted.

 

I look forward to hopefully and respectfully reading your substantive answers to the questions I previously posed and to further contributions to this discussion.

 

[esquirecomics]

And the reason there is still all this controversy is because of a very small number of individuals who continue to propagate their agenda. I'm not saying it's bad to have an agenda. But this whole thing must be put into perspective.

 

Matt, what agenda do you think is at work that has propagated this controversy? Honestly, I would like to know as I have difficulty grasping what it could be for the vast majority of us.

 

I certainly believe that most of those, such as you, who speak in favor of pressing have an agenda. Some hide it. Others don't. For you it is both obvious and understandable. This directly impacts your business (more so than the random dealer), though frankly I strongly disagree with some of your arguments and feel you would do far better with your business to simply be more upfront and declare pressing for what it is (and for what I honestly believe you know it is), disclose the books you pressed when you personally sell them and join forces to destigmatize the negative view of restoration.

 

With all due respect, I don't think you have a strong enough grasp on the mechanics of the restored comic market, slabbing, high end books, or pressing to assume my business would do better by taking your side. Business is doing just fine as it is. I really believe that what you're pushing would do much more harm to the hobby than what you believe undisclosed pressing will cause. This is not a defensive remark on my part--it's something that has been heavily discussed among many people who are very active in comics, and know the market inside and out.

 

That being said, let me appeal to you to stop the hard line you take in this hobby, and focus on becoming the honest dealer that you want to be. It's impossible to succeed by doing both. I know, because it's been attempted before, and met with failure. It's fine to have strong beliefs in something, but it's always better to conduct yourself with subtlety and a positive attitude.

 

I respect what you do for a living, and your accomplishments are something to be admired. But using the same approach in this field that you do on the job is not the way to go about getting what you want. It takes years of education, hard work, networking, creativity, a little luck, and above all, a positive vibe. Pounding people's heads into a wall day after day will not get you where you want to go. It will make you a few fast friends, but not the kind that will stick around for the long haul.

 

Matt, this is a very dangerous slipperly slope I see you advocating, or appealing to me to advocate. It would appear to me to be in conflict with my own principles and ethics.

 

I also note that again you have chosen to avoid answering my direct questions and instead deflected to a tactic of simply belitting the level of expertise, whatever that might be, of the questioner.

 

I've heard this argument before, that somehow what I and others have been advocating will have a potentially negative impact on the hobby rather than the intended positive impact we hope it will bring. Yet everyone, such as yourself, speaks in generalities rather than specifics. Quite frankly, I do see the potential for some harm to the overall community were some of the promoted practices of integrity and ethics, particularly surrounding pressing, to really take shape. But I don't hide that fact and I am more than happy to discuss how these possibilities balance with one another.

 

I also keep hearing of these "others" in the community who share views that are never expressed openly, much less publicly. I encourage debate and discussion on this and many other topics fundamental and important to our hobby. I'll be happy to engage in this debate publicly and privately.

 

Matt, please convey to these individuals my interest in hearing from them. I am more than willing to maintain confidentiality. I do have experience with that.

[FFB]

If the prospective buyer doesn't know what pressing is, then disclosure by a dealer would not make a difference anyway. Or are you suggesting that a dealer has a duty not only to disclose pressing, but also to: (a) give an informative lecture about what pressing is to a prospective buyer, or (b) apply one of Marnin's ridiculous "PRESSED" logos to the book to give the buyer the impression that pressing is bad and scary?

 

I'm suggesting that the logic of an argument that is based on the assumption perfect knowledge has the danger of degenerating to the lowest common denomenator. For example before the mass outing of pressing, many dealers were deniying that their wares had been pressed when asked.

 

Really? Like who? Are you just making a worst-case assumption here, or do you actually know of specific dealers who are still active members of the hobby who have lied about books not being pressed when they were asked the question?

 

Why? Because the question was generally did you press book X. The answer of course was that they did not perform the pressing themselves, however had the book pressed by another individual and therefore could rationalize answering no. The underlying current of an exchange whereby a dealer will only become transparent "if asked" allows for too many loopholes in a process that is already rampant with them. While I understand that the alternative is more difficult to institutionalize, is it not more valuable?

 

I view the "if asked"scenerio as lacking the pragmatic consequences of a standard that compells disclosure and free information exchange between collectors and dealers. Now I know that this may be a more difficult standard to achieve, however it is a goal that has more practical implications. That is, if dealers are caught in non-disclosure sitiuations, they can't hide behind statements like, "well I wasn't asked specifically X" or the phrasing of the question led me to believe the buyer was interested in "Y" - or well I didn't have "Z" done to a book, I paid another person to do it.

 

Good luck to your group in trying to force the affirmative duty down dealers' throats through endless bloviating, chest pounding, and internet-chat-board-intimidation. There's nothing like a hurricane of churlish wind-baggery to make someone change his mind.

 

Absent the more vocal participants in this debate displaying any willingness to understand the other side of the debate or to compromise in any way, I have a feeling that in a few years' time, this is going to wind up being not much more than what it is now -- a few shrill collectors who waste their time typing post after post while hoping for a change in human nature, and growing increasingly disenchanted with the hobby along the way. This is why I think that the "disclosure if asked" policy stands the best chance of making a real difference. I think most dealers would agree to do it, and those who really and truly care about pressing will have their concerns taken care of. You can always educate newbies about pressing through articles in the Overstreet guide, GPAnalysis, and other venues, and then they can decide whether or not pressing is an important enough issue for them to want to ask the question when they buy books.

[esquirecomics]

Good luck to your group in trying to force the affirmative duty down dealers' throats through endless bloviating, chest pounding, and internet-chat-board-intimidation. There's nothing like a hurricane of churlish wind-baggery to make someone change his mind.

 

Absent the more vocal participants in this debate displaying any willingness to understand the other side of the debate or to compromise in any way, I have a feeling that in a few years' time, this is going to wind up being not much more than what it is now -- a few shrill collectors who waste their time typing post after post while hoping for a change in human nature, and growing increasingly disenchanted with the hobby along the way.

 

What's your basis for these derrogatory accusations Scott? Quite frankly, IMHO, you always seem to revert to this name-calling position at some point. What does it add to the discussion? Did others above do this? They are intriguing word usages. You are far better than I am with descriptive words to be sure. "Bloviating". "Chest pounding". "Intimidation". "Churlish wind-baggery". Very professional argument to be sure.

 

"Willingness to understand"? "Compromise"?

 

Let me ask you something, and I am not inferring your post was directed at me, but that is irrelevant.

 

Nevertheless, do you believe my very direct questions to Matt above constituted "intimidation", "bloviating" or "chest pounding" in any way? Were they fair or unfair questions? Inappropriate or appropriate?

 

Do you believe Matt substantively answered them satisfactorily?

 

What is the other side of the debate to which you refer?

 

I presume the compromise is the equivalent of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, although for pressing I suppose it would be more aptly termed "ask, tell".

[FFB]

Good luck to your group in trying to force the affirmative duty down dealers' throats through endless bloviating, chest pounding, and internet-chat-board-intimidation. There's nothing like a hurricane of churlish wind-baggery to make someone change his mind.

 

Absent the more vocal participants in this debate displaying any willingness to understand the other side of the debate or to compromise in any way, I have a feeling that in a few years' time, this is going to wind up being not much more than what it is now -- a few shrill collectors who waste their time typing post after post while hoping for a change in human nature, and growing increasingly disenchanted with the hobby along the way.

 

What's your basis for these derrogatory accusations Scott? Quite frankly, IMHO, you always seem to revert to this position at some point. Nice terms. You are far better than I am with descriptive words to be sure. "Bloviating". "Chest pounding". "Intimidation". "Churlish wind-baggery". Very professional argument.

 

"Willingness to understand"? "Compromise"?

 

Let me ask you something, and I am not inferring your post was directed at me, but that is irrelevant.

 

Nevertheless, do you believe my very direct questions to Matt above constituted "intimidation" in any way? Where they fair or unfair questions? Inappropriate or appropriate?

 

Do you believe Matt substantively answered them?

 

What is the other side of the debate to which you refer?

 

I presume the compromise is the equivalent of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, although for pressing I suppose it would be more aptly termed "ask, tell".

 

Thanks Mark. I will spare you MHO about the position you typically revert to in these and all discussions.

 

As for your questions, I don't answer to you and I don't have the energy to respond to eight questions here and what I am sure will be 20 questions in the next post - along with the standard refrains of "you dodged my question," "you lack professionalism in your argument," and "my code of ethics and integrity, etc."

[jbud73]

First item - Darth could you Thumbnail or reduce the scans I hate having to scroll righ twhen Scott is telling me to

 

Second Item - Liz he's using the big words again and worse this time ethnocentric ones at that. I had a general idea what "bloviate" meant, but I have to admit to looking it up.

 

This word is almost entirely restricted to the United States; it doesn’t appear in any of my British English dictionaries, not even the big Oxford English Dictionary or the very recent New Oxford Dictionary of English. Yet it has a long history.

 

It’s most closely associated with U S President Warren Gamaliel Harding, who used it a lot and who was by all accounts the classic example of somebody who orates verbosely and windily. It’s a compound of blow, in its sense of “to boast” (also in another typical Americanism, blowhard), with a mock-Latin ending to give it the self-important stature that’s implicit in its meaning.

 

You made me check two dictionaries before resorting to the internet Needless to say I expect the real cheese next time with the Spinach Crepe's

 

Ok, now to your points. I do understand the arguments on the other side of the debate - I admit to find them wanting, but I understand them nevertheless. But when they allow for a practice such as a top professional restorer to offer books he's restored for sale in public auction without disclosure, I have to question their basis.

 

Scott, I believe that you and I agree that pressing is restoration. I know we have a difference of opinion on the pragmatic appeal and implications of it (probably less than you think) I was pretty early to chime in that I believe work on the level displayed by Matt to be non-damaging to the comic at the time of application. I also consider it to be the most minute form of restoration possible. I have always been in favour adopting a restoration scoring system based on Matt Nelson's formula - in fact some of my earliest posts here were kudos to him for coming up with a more standardized classification system.

 

It might be that the "if asked" option is the only workable olive branch in the future, I honestly don't know. All I have tried to do is point out inconsistencies and out right hypocrisy that I have witnessed in this discussion - I know a Kansas City Suffle when I see one. I will argue for a resotration definition that strives to be the utmost in transparency and is inclusive rather than narrowly defined to cater to financial incentives.

 

As always I respect your opinion and understand the pragmatic stance you have taken in this discussion.

[FFB]

First item - Darth could you Thumbnail or reduce the scans I hate having to scroll righ twhen Scott is telling me to

 

Second Item - Liz he's using the big words again and worse this time ethnocentric ones at that. I had a general idea what "bloviate" meant, but I have to admit to looking it up.

 

This word is almost entirely restricted to the United States; it doesn’t appear in any of my British English dictionaries, not even the big Oxford English Dictionary or the very recent New Oxford Dictionary of English. Yet it has a long history.

 

It’s most closely associated with U S President Warren Gamaliel Harding, who used it a lot and who was by all accounts the classic example of somebody who orates verbosely and windily. It’s a compound of blow, in its sense of “to boast” (also in another typical Americanism, blowhard), with a mock-Latin ending to give it the self-important stature that’s implicit in its meaning.

 

You made me check two dictionaries before resorting to the internet Needless to say I expect the real cheese next time with the Spinach Crepe's

 

Ok, now to your points. I do understand the arguments on the other side of the debate - I admit to find them wanting, but I understand them nevertheless. But when they allow for a practice such as a top professional restorer to offer books he's restored for sale in public auction without disclosure, I have to question their basis.

 

Scott, I believe that you and I agree that pressing is restoration. I know we have a difference of opinion on the pragmatic appeal and implications of it (probably less than you think) I was pretty early to chime in that I believe work on the level displayed by Matt to be non-damaging to the comic at the time of application. I also consider it to be the most minute form of restoration possible. I have always been in favour adopting a restoration scoring system based on Matt Nelson's formula - in fact some of my earliest posts here were kudos to him for coming up with a more standardized classification system.

 

It might be that the "if asked" option is the only workable olive branch in the future, I honestly don't know. All I have tried to do is point out inconsistencies and out right hypocrisy that I have witnessed in this discussion - I know a Kansas City Suffle when I see one. I will argue for a resotration definition that strives to be the utmost in transparency and is inclusive rather than narrowly defined to cater to financial incentives.

 

As always I respect your opinion and understand the pragmatic stance you have taken in this discussion.

 

And for that last kind comment, you'll get the real cheese in the next batch of crepes!

 

On a more serious note, I agree with most of what you said, especially in terms of professional pressing being a very mild and non-harmful form of restoration, not conservation, not preservation (unless you're pressing a badly creased and wrinkled book so that it doesn't catch an edge every time you put it back into the mylar -- maybe then it's conservation AND restoration).

 

Where I disagree (aside from the affirmative-disclosure vs. disclosure-when-asked issue, and my opinion on that is purely based on pragmatism and my wanting to see real progress made instead of years and years of bitter arguments over a standard that I think most dealers won't agree to) is in your characterization of Matt's responses to questions. I think he's done a pretty good job of trying to respond. No one answers every question perfectly in a format like this (it ain't a deposition for Chrissakes), and especially not when certain questions are asked in an extremely loaded manner by people (such as yourself ) who are not really interested in an answer so much as they are interested in trying to trip him up. So cut him some slack if he misses a question here and there and if you have to re-ask it, or if he gets a little defensive, as most of us would under the circumstances. This thread is supposed to be a "post your pressing results" thread anyway, not a "jump in with your questions about Matt's ethics, and jump on Matt if you disagree with the answers he gives" thread. This thread started out as a very civil, informative discussion and it turned a bit ugly (unnecessarily) in the last couple of pages. Let's get back to the posting of results and a discussion of what could and could not be fixed. We can discuss the ethics of it all in any number of the other 50 pressing threads around here.

[marvelcollector]

It's fine to have strong beliefs in something, but it's always better to conduct yourself with subtlety and a positive attitude.

 

 

How....Machievellian...

[Matt Nelson]

I do feel, given my well-established and I think articulated view, that since pressing is restoration it must be disclosed. So, yes, I do feel that your conduct to knowingly sell books yourself that you know for a fact to be pressed is a bad practice and, quite candidly, unethical. It could also be argued as being fraudulent (though that legal case has yet to be presented of course).

 

 

You know Mark, I'm willing so swim through your long-winded responses and even try to reply to them, but when I read something like this, it infuriates me. Are you insinuating that you would consider suing me over my practices in the future? Tell me straight up before I go any further.