Pressing project results--post here

[Darthdiesel]

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

 

I love you like a brother, but aren't my scans legitimate contributions to the initial intent of this thread to evaluate the pressing experiment results? Bigger, higher res scans will help evaluate the before/after scans better when it is already near impossible to do so. Besides, the back and forth will take this into another page and you won't have to see my scans anymore until I post the "after" results.

 

I hate having to scroll through Zaid's endless "churlish bloviations" (FFB )but you don't see me asking him to refrain from quoting while posting in rainbow colors...

 

I've behaved lately but the only bullying I see in this thread are those responding to, nay, goading Matt Nelson to post his views and when he does, pizzzing all over it, in a most "passive-agressive" manner. I would politely ask that those who don't care for Matt and his business practices, limit their accusatory and reputationally demeaning posts to the scads of worthless pressing threads in Comic general. This threads' primary intent is to explore and debate Matt Nelson's work and its value to the hobby based on evaluation of the experiment's results, not force him to accept what other vocal forumites have defined for the rest of us as "good cutomer service" or "good business ethics"

[Darthdiesel]

I didn't call anyone names. I described your conduct and the conduct of others as I saw it. And there was nothing friendly about the discussion that was going on before then, unless you think accusing someone of being evasive, disingenuous, and unethical is a "friendly" thing to do.

 

Like brothers from another mother...

[esquirecomics]

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

 

I love you like a brother, but aren't my scans legitimate contributions to the initial intent of this thread to evaluate the pressing experiment results? Bigger, higher res scans will help evaluate the before/after scans better when it is already near impossible to do so. Besides, the back and forth will take this into another page and you won't have to see my scans anymore until I post the "after" results.

 

I hate having to scroll through Zaid's endless "churlish bloviations" (FFB )but you don't see me asking him to refrain from quoting while posting in rainbow colors...

 

"rainbow colors"? What's wrong with my colors? Only because I hate these annoying quote brackets. Geez, are you anti-rainbow colors?

 

I've behaved lately but the only bullying I see in this thread are those responding to, nay, goading Matt Nelson to post his views and when he does, pizzzing all over it, in a most "passive-agressive" manner. I would politely ask that those who don't care for Matt and his business practices, limit their accusatory and reputationally demeaning posts to the scads of worthless pressing threads in Comic general. This threads' primary intent is to explore and debate Matt Nelson's work and its value to the hobby based on evaluation of the experiment's results, not force him to accept what other vocal forumites have defined for the rest of us as "good cutomer service" or "good business ethics"

 

I haven't been able to pizzzzzz on Matt's views (not that I would anyway) because he hasn't answered my questions.

 

But you are right (g-d forbid) that this thread has been derailed from its intended topic so I will refrain from continuing the dialogue here and instead start a specific thread on this issue in the General Section. Thanks for the suggestion!!!

[Comicdey]

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

 

I love you like a brother, but aren't my scans legitimate contributions to the initial intent of this thread to evaluate the pressing experiment results? Bigger, higher res scans will help evaluate the before/after scans better when it is already near impossible to do so. Besides, the back and forth will take this into another page and you won't have to see my scans anymore until I post the "after" results.

 

I hate having to scroll through Zaid's endless "churlish bloviations" (FFB )but you don't see me asking him to refrain from quoting while posting in rainbow colors...

 

"rainbow colors"? What's wrong with my colors? Only because I hate these annoying quote brackets. Geez, are you anti-rainbow colors?

 

I've behaved lately but the only bullying I see in this thread are those responding to, nay, goading Matt Nelson to post his views and when he does, pizzzing all over it, in a most "passive-agressive" manner. I would politely ask that those who don't care for Matt and his business practices, limit their accusatory and reputationally demeaning posts to the scads of worthless pressing threads in Comic general. This threads' primary intent is to explore and debate Matt Nelson's work and its value to the hobby based on evaluation of the experiment's results, not force him to accept what other vocal forumites have defined for the rest of us as "good cutomer service" or "good business ethics"

 

I haven't been able to pizzzzzz on Matt's views (not that I would anyway) because he hasn't answered my questions.

 

But you are right (g-d forbid) that this thread has been derailed from its intended topic so I will refrain from continuing the dialogue here and instead start a specific thread on this issue in the General Section. Thanks for the suggestion!!!

 

Thank you

[esquirecomics]

Done.

 

Questions for Matt Nelson

 

Back to the regularly scheduled broadcast.

[FFB]

 

You may not have used the actual word "disingenuous," but that is essentially what you (and others) have accused him of being.

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/disingenuous.html

dis·in·gen·u·ous

adjective

Definition:

1. withholding information: withholding or not taking account of known information

 

 

In a sentence: The disingenuous policy of "only tell if asked" benefits retailers of altered goods.

 

No?

 

Like I've said what seems like a thousand times -- the solution needs to be one that dealers en masse are likely to agree to, otherwise you've accomplished nothing other than further polarizing collectors and dealers. The disclose-truthfully-when-asked policy allows those who care about pressing to get the information that is important to them, and is likely to achieve widespread compliance by dealers. As people in the collecting public are further educated about what pressing is and isn't, each collector can make up his own mind about whether he or she cares about pressing, and if he cares about it, he can get the information.

 

Scott, I can understand and appreciate the direction you have chosen to take. But it baffles me as a lawyer who's profession relies heavily on the written word that Matts very eloquent tapdance around the various issues does not raise your dander a wee bit. Perhaps because you have a working relationship with him you view this differently then I.

En masse solutions are one thing. Trying to get people to change one person at a time is more likely the way to get there if you ask me.Similar to lobbying for votes in Congress)

If Matt was to be a true to form leader he would change the way he lists his books, openly discloses what was done to each book then whatever stigma surrounds pressing will be all the less stigmacticy(did I just make up a word?) And let the chips fall by as they may. Thinking of oneself first is not what I call a leader in the field though.

 

Its a pickle to be sure.

 

Ze-

 

I guess I just don't see the "tap dancing" the way you do. Matt doesn't think pressing is restoration, just like many other people in the hobby don't think pressing is restoration. I disagree with him on that (just as I disagree with everyone else who thinks it isn't restoration), but he hasn't been unclear about his position on the matter. Equally clear is the fact that he doesn't agree that pressing alone should fall under the restoration definitions of Overstreet, AIC, IIC, Susan Cicconi, Webster's, dictionary.com, and any other definitional sources. You may not agree with him on that, but that's his position and he's stated it clearly.

 

And in the end, it doesn't really matter whether pressing is restoration or something else. Like Jon Berk said at the panel in San Diego, the issue is whether or not it needs to be disclosed, whatever it is. Some people say yes, some people say yes if the buyer asks, and some people say no. Just like the issue of whether a seller must disclose if he unbends a slight corner bend with his fingers, different people take a different view of the issue.

 

You also asked Matt how he presses books. He declined to answer, for obvious reasons and with a clear response as to why he wouldn't tell you.

 

You then asked Matt whether he always presses the whole book, or whether sometimes he presses just part of it. He said (basically, but without giving away any trade secrets) that you don't press every book the same way.

 

You then said that all pressing needs to be disclosed so that the "word on pressing" can get out there. Matt explained that in his view, the word on pressing is already getting out there. He also said that he does not think it is fair for the word to be put out there with an intentionally negative slant, and that people should be given the information matter-of-factly, so they can make up their own minds.

 

Brad asked if Matt could have gotten the stress marks out of the spine of one of his books had he taken the pressing "to the next level." Matt said, "there is no next level" and that the books "were all pressed the same as I would any others." I don't see any tap dancing there. It's a direct answer to the question.

 

Davenport then asked Matt how his services present a level playing field. Matt responded that by making his services available to everyone instead of only a select few, that levels the playing field.

 

You then asked Matt if he lists pressing among his services in his ebay auctions. You then answered your own question by stating "no, you don't." I suppose you consider it tap dancing because Matt didn't answer a question that you already answered for yourself? But then Matt answers it anyway, by stating that his website lists pressing among conservation services, thereby implying what you already knew, which is that the word "pressing" does not appear in his ebay ads.

 

Brad then asks whether Matt has ever pressed a book after disassembling it. Personally, I do not see how the answer could be anything but yes, since Matt offers full restoration services, which typically are finished off with a pressing. Matt responds that he doesn't want to answer without giving away any trade secrets, and asks Brad to ask the question another way. Brad asks if Matt could have removed the stress marks from the spine. Matt says maybe, but that he'd have to see the book again because he doesn't know whether or not they broke color.

 

Lou_fine then asks Matt what he meant when he said he doesn't press books twice. Matt replies that it's not that it's dangerous to press a book twice -- it just doesn't make sense to do it because any pressable defects would have been removed the first time. Lou_fine then asks whether Matt discloses that books have been conserved when he sells them on ebay. Matt says that in light of CGC's planned changes to the restoration label and the use of the term "conserved," Matt will probably remove "pressing" from the list of "conservation" services and will just call it "pressing." He will also add "pressing" to the list of services on his ebay ads.

 

Mark then asked Matt how he defines "conservation." Matt replied that he already said that he's going to remove pressing from the list of services labeled as "conservation." (Which, while not a direct answer, is probably a better response than Mark was hoping for.) Matt says that his definition of restoration/conservation is irrelevant. Mark also asks whether Matt thinks that there is an ethical duty to disclose conservation, and if not, why is this different from the duty to disclose restoration, and are there any peers or professional associations who think conservation need not be disclosed? Matt says he doesn't consider pressing to be restoration, thus implying (without saying) that he does not believe it needs to be disclosed. Mark also asked whether Matt would adopt Overstreet's definition of restoration if Overstreet changes it back to include pressing. Matt says no.

 

George Pantela then told me and Mark Zaid to get a room. I responded by proclaiming my 100% heterosexual, viking-style, manly love for George Pantela.

 

Mark Z. asked Matt what agenda Matt thought Mark had. Matt did not answer this question, although I am not sure it was a serious question since the answer is kind of obvious -- free Scotch from nervous dealers and professional graders who want to placate him at conventions.

 

Mushroom asks whether several things are restoration, including pressing. Matt says that pressing is part of the restoration process, but that it is not restoration if used by itself.

 

Mark then accuses Matt of avoiding most of the issues he and others have presented.

 

Mark then has more questions!

 

Mark still wants to know how Matt defines conservation. Mark asks whose interpretations Matt relied upon before CGC opened its doors. Mark asks Matt whether he's a member of any professional associations relating to conservation. Mark asks Matt "who the hell is CGC?" Mark also asks why Matt does not agree with the others who think pressing is restoration. Mark then hints at the possibility of a future lawsuit. Matt says and and says he doesn't want to play anymore.

 

So really, the only "unanswered" question I see (apart from questions requiring him to disclose trade secrets and apart from the last few questions from Mark, where Matt withdrew from the discussion after seeing a not-so-subtle mention of a future lawsuit) is the question of whether Matt thinks pressing (or "conservation") needs to be disclosed. And while he didn't answer it directly in response to that post, is there any doubt among us that his answer is "No, unless someone asks me about a particular book"?

 

So where is all this "tap dancing"? Or do you just call it tap dancing because he doesn't agree with you and everyone else about everything?

[esquirecomics]

First, I never asserted, insinuated, hinted, or whatever terminology one wishes to use that a lawsuit was forthcoming or even being considered in general or specifically against Matt. I merely stated what numerous attorneys on these boards have stated many, many times, i.e., that a legal argument for fraud and other claims can be articulated under certain factual circumstances and in particular states.

 

Second, please count me in where free scotch is involved.

[Red Hook]

Brad then asks whether Matt has ever pressed a book after disassembling it. Personally, I do not see how the answer could be anything but yes, since Matt offers full restoration services, which typically are finished off with a pressing. Matt responds that he doesn't want to answer without giving away any trade secrets, and asks Brad to ask the question another way. Brad asks if Matt could have removed the stress marks from the spine. Matt says maybe, but that he'd have to see the book again because he doesn't know whether or not they broke color.

 

Knowing Matt, he could have answered my question fully at that point, but he ain't on a witness stand, he isn't under oath, so he apparently is willing to let the assumptions fall where they may.

 

Well, I am going out on a limb and declaring that Matt does indeed take books apart and reinserts or replaces staples after pressing. Technically, I believe that CGC frowns upon this...but a rather huge side issue here, in my opinion, is that CGC is neither capable nor interested in looking for "high end" structural manipulations of the books that they look at en masse on a daily basis. It simply would be too time consuming.

 

Of course, if you were to flag a specific book, say, a Ewert suspect, and ask them to check for micro-trimming ....after careful examination they might be able to come to a conclusion. But if someone is really good at micro-trimming, or pressing with dis-assembly and/or staple re-insertion or replacement....then I frankly think the odds are that they are going to get away with it.

 

This is not meant as a condemnation of CGC.....I just think it's a statement based on the reality of the volume of books they look at, and the growing finesse of the finaglers. I happen to think that Matt is currently hacking the CGC system as well as anyone out there. And he's kinda' proud of it too. That's what keeps coming through in all his posts. The hubris.

 

So, that said....there are always going to be Matts and Jasons trying to push the envelope. Some will get caught, some won't. And then there are the dealers that have lost more than a little touch with the art and the aesthetics of the books that have become little more than profit-producing fodder to them. There are exceptions of course, but it's still all about the money.

 

At this point....all I can say is that nothing is as it seems. I really believe that CGC over-stated and continues to over-state their detection abilities. That said, the responsibility reverts once again to the consumer. And the only path at that point is to educate oneself.

 

I admire Matt's abilities. I appreciate the time he took to do the pressing of the books I sent him. But I do sense it's just a game for him at this point. He may have devised a nice cash cow methodology....but I think I'd rather hang with the guys in Comics General who are creating threads of their collections. That's why I started collecting 40 years ago.

 

Red

[Matt Nelson]

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.

 

Hi Matt;

 

Thanks for responding to several of my postings from the weekend.

 

All I can say is that if you ever decide to leave the resto business, you should probably strongly entertain the idea of going into politics with the way you are able to deflect questions and put a positive spin into all of your responses.

 

It seems one of the common points being brought out with your experiment here is that the ideal books were not being presented to you for pressing. As a result, the before and after improvements to most of these books were not that great, and in fact hardly even noticeable in several cases.

 

Your comments above, along with similar comments made by others in this thread, seem to indicate that the benefits of pressing would be most noticeable with high grade books. Based upon some of your work that I have seen, the opposite would appear to be true. For example, the following before and after scans of this Superman book that underwent the pressing process would indicate a massive improvement in grade to me:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the other thread where these scans came from, it was stated that this book underwent your basic pressing process for only your minimal fee for a book in this value range. From my point of view, the above scans indicate that a simple pressing job can do amazing wonders for an extremely low grade book. I am not sure why people were turning in books that would barely see a noticeable improvement from your pressing when they should have been turning in these low grade beaters.

 

Can you confirm for us that the above book was done using your most basic press job for the minimal fee only, as others have claimed, and would have still garnered a blue label by CGC after it was all said and done.

 

Thanks again, Matt!

 

P.S. Amazingly beautiful job BTW!!!

 

Thanks! Yes, this book was pressed for the appropriate fee listed on the website, and was not disassembled at any time. As far as the results compare to the project books, wait until the Golden Age books come back for comicdey and the other remaining participants. These books respond better to pressing. You'll see they made much better improvements than the Silver and Bronze did, similar to the Superman above.

[sckao]

 

By the way, that was an amazing summation of the thread by FFB.. one that should not go unlauded.

 

 

 

Now can you explain how magnets work? Or how a bill becomes a law?

[Aman619]

how did he do that? did he really reread it all and take notes?? such dedication! I can hardly remember my own posts!

[Forbush-Man]

 

You may not have used the actual word "disingenuous," but that is essentially what you (and others) have accused him of being.

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/disingenuous.html

dis·in·gen·u·ous

adjective

Definition:

1. withholding information: withholding or not taking account of known information

 

 

In a sentence: The disingenuous policy of "only tell if asked" benefits retailers of altered goods.

 

No?

 

Best post so far.

[ronm3-migration]

Hey Mark why dont you rip into CGC for creating this environment?

If CGC changes its position on pressing then there will be no market for it.

You cant blame Matt he is only trying to make a living.

Why not go after the cause of it?

[esquirecomics]

Hey Mark why dont you rip into CGC for creating this environment?

If CGC changes its position on pressing then there will be no market for it.

You cant blame Matt he is only trying to make a living.

Why not go after the cause of it?

 

Ronm, I don't blame Matt for anything.

 

And you're right, he is merely selectively exploiting the environment that CGC has created. But what you suggest does not present mutually exclusive objectives.

 

I see the same thing in my intel law cases. The CIA keeps invoking what is called the state secrets privilege to shut down my cases. The Judges keep going along with it and refuse to perform the function the Supreme Court instructed them to do more than 50 years ago. Knowing that the Judges won't challenge the agencies, the Executive Branch keeps exploiting that weakness and increasingly invokes the privilege. I'm challenging the Executive Branch for improperly invoking the privilege and I am trying to get the Judicial Branch to do its job. Both objectives serve the same purpose and co-exist.

 

So in answer to your question, yes, absolutely, I'm working on addressing the CGC angle as well.

[Aman619]

been there done that. This issue has migrated from CGCs part in resto detection and pressing UN-detection,thru PCS, to, of late, a discussion about and with the people DOING the pressing. Matt has been upfront enough to show up and tout his services, and therefore the discusion has centered around HIS place in this whole pressing movement.

[ronm3-migration]

its like picking up the corner drug dealer. There will be a new one to replace him if he is arrested. You need to go after the supplier.

You need CGC to put pressed books in purple labels.

Your major problem here is that you cant detect pressing to a %100 certainty.

I dont understand how Cicconi can issue press free certificates on something she cant detect %100.

If she states she can detect it %100 you have a good shot at going places with this.

If you are relying soley on comic dealers being honest about it then you have no shot at all and you will be spinning your wheels until you have no choice but to give in.

[Matt Nelson]

Brad then asks whether Matt has ever pressed a book after disassembling it. Personally, I do not see how the answer could be anything but yes, since Matt offers full restoration services, which typically are finished off with a pressing. Matt responds that he doesn't want to answer without giving away any trade secrets, and asks Brad to ask the question another way. Brad asks if Matt could have removed the stress marks from the spine. Matt says maybe, but that he'd have to see the book again because he doesn't know whether or not they broke color.

 

Knowing Matt, he could have answered my question fully at that point, but he ain't on a witness stand, he isn't under oath, so he apparently is willing to let the assumptions fall where they may.

 

 

I could have answered it fully, but if posting on these boards has taught me anything, it's to answer questions very carefully, especially when I think someone is trying to make a bigger point from my response. Which you did.

 

 

Well, I am going out on a limb and declaring that Matt does indeed take books apart and reinserts or replaces staples after pressing. Technically, I believe that CGC frowns upon this...but a rather huge side issue here, in my opinion, is that CGC is neither capable nor interested in looking for "high end" structural manipulations of the books that they look at en masse on a daily basis. It simply would be too time consuming.

 

 

You're going to have to take my word for it on this one, but there is no way I take books apart when only pressing. I'll give you three very good reasons. #1 - I don't want to run the risk of a purple label. I hear these things are worth less in purple labels. #2 - I don't want to run the risk of ruining my reputation. It's all I have in my line of work. Dealers can continue to deal regardless of their rep, as long as they turn up the books. Doesn't work that way for guys like me. And #3 (assuming #1 and #2 don't matter), it's just way too time consuming. I would get only a tenth of the books done if I disassembled everything. And if you think I only disassemble the expensive ones, see #1 and #2.

 

You grossly underestimate CGC's ability to spot restoration and disassembly. This isn't a comment made because I do business with them. It's from my experience submitting to them thousands of books that I myself have checked for restoration.

 

And as far as interest, here's a scenario for you: CGC puts dozens, hundreds, thousands of disassembled books in blue holders because they are "not interested." And then one day, another grading company comes along that happens to take it seriously, and can spot it. I don't think I need to spell out how deep in the do-do CGC would be once cross-grading begins. Like me, CGC has only their reputation to depend on. Believe me, they take it as seriously as I do.

 

 

Of course, if you were to flag a specific book, say, a Ewert suspect, and ask them to check for micro-trimming ....after careful examination they might be able to come to a conclusion. But if someone is really good at micro-trimming, or pressing with dis-assembly and/or staple re-insertion or replacement....then I frankly think the odds are that they are going to get away with it.

 

 

I don't disagree with this statement. Yes, there could very well be another trimmer that comes along with a better technique. But given the diligence of the board members, I don't think the person would get away with it for long. In the meantime, you have to put your trust in CGC that they will catch it. If someone is not willing to do that, then they have every right not to use CGC products.

 

I really think the press-o-meter (great name, by the way) concept that has been mentioned around here could actually be a viable device for spotting trimming. Call it the trim-o-tron or something. But if it was used on books over a value threshold, say $500 or $1000, it could really curb future attempts to trim. Something that works like a fingerprint database the FBI uses, where CGC scans a book upon arrival, and the database is searched for a match. Either the edges are compared during restoration check, or the system is actually sophisticated enough to spot a difference in size. If CGC added a couple bucks to the cost of their express and walk-thru tiers to cover the costs, I don't think many people would have a problem with that. People could also send in scans of their CGC books for some sort of discount on grading fees, so previously graded books are accounted for as well. This may be problematic for the database if the scan qualities vary, but I suppose there are ways around this.

 

Just an idea.

 

 

This is not meant as a condemnation of CGC.....I just think it's a statement based on the reality of the volume of books they look at, and the growing finesse of the finaglers. I happen to think that Matt is currently hacking the CGC system as well as anyone out there. And he's kinda' proud of it too. That's what keeps coming through in all his posts. The hubris.

 

 

Hubris...arrogance. I'm curious to know which posts send off that signal? I'm proud of what I do, and I'm not afraid to claim that I'm good at it. If what I'm good at happens to be a controversial topic for some, I can see why you would call it hubris. Otherwise, it's just plain old believing in myself, which I personally think is a healthy thing.

 

But to assume that my pride is from "hacking the CGC system," especially when you have absolutely no evidence to back that assumption up, is quite a surprise coming from you, Brad. You certainly sound like a different guy on this post than the one I talked to on the phone.

 

 

So, that said....there are always going to be Matts and Jasons trying to push the envelope. Some will get caught, some won't. And then there are the dealers that have lost more than a little touch with the art and the aesthetics of the books that have become little more than profit-producing fodder to them. There are exceptions of course, but it's still all about the money.

 

 

Again, I'm being mentioned in the same sentence with Jason. The difference between trimming and pressing has already been discussed on these boards many times when these comparisons have been made. I'm amazed you of all people would still lump me in.

 

Or is this borne from your assumption that I'm disassembling books? To jump from an unfounded presumption to such an accusation is quite discouraging coming from you. It seems to me that you assume my character is such that I cannot contain myself, and playing "by the rules" won't make me enough money. I have to, I must disassemble that book and risk everything just to eke out an extra grade point and a few bucks.

 

 

 

At this point....all I can say is that nothing is as it seems. I really believe that CGC over-stated and continues to over-state their detection abilities. That said, the responsibility reverts once again to the consumer. And the only path at that point is to educate oneself.

 

 

I am a huge advocate of collectors educating themselves--not just on the nuances of pressing, but of everything--grading, storage techniques, the history of comics, restoration spotting, market trends, you name it. CGC will inadvertently allow some collectors to become lazy. They think they don't have to learn how to grade comics since they're paying someone else to do it for them. Big mistake.

 

What is your solution or suggestion to CGC concerning your opinion of their overstating detection abilities? If you think it's a problem, suggest something. If someone presents a problem here on the boards, they need to accompany those problems with realistic, viable solutions. Otherwise, they are doing nothing but blowing a lot of hot air. I don't mean that you're doing this, Brad. Just a general statement I'm making to no one in particular.

 

 

I admire Matt's abilities. I appreciate the time he took to do the pressing of the books I sent him. But I do sense it's just a game for him at this point. He may have devised a nice cash cow methodology....but I think I'd rather hang with the guys in Comics General who are creating threads of their collections. That's why I started collecting 40 years ago.

 

Red

 

That's fine, and I respect that. Believe it or not, I actually love comics, especially Gold and Atomic Age books, and I grew up being a self-proclaimed "comic geek." My career in comics has been a double-edged sword in this regard, because my hobby became work, and my spare time is now filled with non-work related pursuits. Otherwise I'd be right there with you, creating a thread of my own collection.

[Ze-man]

Matts very eloquent tapdance around the various issues

 

 

 

I guess I just don't see the "tap dancing" the way you do. Matt doesn't think pressing is restoration, just like many other people in the hobby don't think pressing is restoration. I disagree with him on that (just as I disagree with everyone else who thinks it isn't restoration), but he hasn't been unclear about his position on the matter. Equally clear is the fact that he doesn't agree that pressing alone should fall under the restoration definitions of Overstreet, AIC, IIC, Susan Cicconi, Webster's, dictionary.com, and any other definitional sources. You may not agree with him on that, but that's his position and he's stated it clearly.

Not one of the issues I was speaking of

 

 

 

And in the end, it doesn't really matter whether pressing is restoration or something else. Like Jon Berk said at the panel in San Diego, the issue is whether or not it needs to be disclosed, whatever it is. Some people say yes, some people say yes if the buyer asks, and some people say no. Just like the issue of whether a seller must disclose if he unbends a slight corner bend with his fingers, different people take a different view of the issue.

Bingo, example numero uno! Matt presses books, Matt sells those books. While the rational of not disclosing his books were pressed because some unknown person, at some unknown time down the road will sell them undisclosed for more money is valid. I just dont like it. It smacks of decipt to me. Call it a song and dance,spin city,rationalizing, tapdancing, whatever. If you ask me this stance while true in theory seems to be more self serving so he can sleep at night.Since I am not him I have no idea other then what I read. I have never said, nor implied I didnt accept, or respect what he had to say. I just didnt like it. I would respect him more if he just came out and said "I press books to make money, if it could be detected I might change my stance. But we cant so there..blah.

 

 

 

 

You also asked Matt how he presses books. He declined to answer, for obvious reasons and with a clear response as to why he wouldn't tell you.

Not really an issue I was speaking about.

Once again, I just did not like the non educational aspects of his answer. He didnt tap dance a bit other then the trade secret thing.He basically didnt say anything at all.. All we know now about pressing is what we knew before his experiment. "See that crease?, its gone... poof, neat aint it?" Perhaps he will break down some aspects of what was done to each book once all the books have been posted. Not a detail of the entire process., just the name of the process. That is all I have ever been interested in.

 

 

 

 

You then asked Matt whether he always presses the whole book, or whether sometimes he presses just part of it. He said (basically, but without giving away any trade secrets) that you don't press every book the same way.

Ok, thats a tap dance, skirting around the issue etc... We KNOW every book is different, just answer the question, or dont. He does not have 5,000 different processes for 5,000 different books. This thread had specific books submitted..all with before scans. Take a scan... make a list and say "this was done, this was not...this was done, this was not." Ya know, an educational type of thing!

 

 

 

 

 

You then said that all pressing needs to be disclosed so that the "word on pressing" can get out there. Matt explained that in his view, the word on pressing is already getting out there. He also said that he does not think it is fair for the word to be put out there with an intentionally negative slant, and that people should be given the information matter-of-factly, so they can make up their own minds. Why would it be a negatize slant if he disclosed he pressed his books? He said the phrase "Get the word out on pressing" Not me. So I simply asked him why doesn't he use his auctions for just such a thing, educate the public in the place where it is least known.?... if pressing aint bad, and doesn't hurt the books.. why keep it inder the rug, or behind a question waiting to be asked.? ..His answer sparked many replies..and yes I would call his answer the ol' razzle dazzle'um appproach.

 

 

 

 

 

Brad asked if Matt could have gotten the stress marks out of the spine of one of his books had he taken the pressing "to the next level." Matt said, "there is no next level" and that the books "were all pressed the same as I would any others." I don't see any tap dancing there. It's a direct answer to the question.

No tap dancing.. perhaps untruths... who knows, not me..but no tap dancing.

 

 

 

 

 

Davenport then asked Matt how his services present a level playing field. Matt responded that by making his services available to everyone instead of only a select few, that levels the playing field.

Just to let you know, all that means is more people = more books =more money.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You then asked Matt if he lists pressing among his services in his ebay auctions. You then answered your own question by stating "no, you don't." I suppose you consider it tap dancing because Matt didn't answer a question that you already answered for yourself? But then Matt answers it anyway, by stating that his website lists pressing among conservation services, thereby implying what you already knew, which is that the word "pressing" does not appear in his ebay ads.

Scott, cmon..I see ya workin bro, but cmon I would rather he not reply to me at all, then reply to me with that kinda double speak. A simple answer is always best. Too many words (tapdancing) seems to only help confuse the original question.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Brad then asks whether Matt has ever pressed a book after disassembling it. Personally, I do not see how the answer could be anything but yes, since Matt offers full restoration services, which typically are finished off with a pressing. Matt responds that he doesn't want to answer without giving away any trade secrets, and asks Brad to ask the question another way. Brad asks if Matt could have removed the stress marks from the spine. Matt says maybe, but that he'd have to see the book again because he doesn't know whether or not they broke color.

Not an issue I was speaking of

 

 

 

 

 

Lou_fine then asks Matt what he meant when he said he doesn't press books twice. Matt replies that it's not that it's dangerous to press a book twice -- it just doesn't make sense to do it because any pressable defects would have been removed the first time. Lou_fine then asks whether Matt discloses that books have been conserved when he sells them on ebay. Matt says that in light of CGC's planned changes to the restoration label and the use of the term "conserved," Matt will probably remove "pressing" from the list of "conservation" services and will just call it "pressing." He will also add "pressing" to the list of services on his ebay ads.

Sounds good, but he can word his website anyway he wants to right now. Why wait? As it is worded now it at the least keeps the buyer from knowing the books might have been pressed, or what pressing even is. Considering almost all of the books listed are pressed(just a reasonable assumption on my part). well..it seems like relavant details to me. He and I obviously differ on this issue, big news flash huh.

 

 

 

 

 

Mark then asked Matt how he defines "conservation." Matt replied that he already said that he's going to remove pressing from the list of services labeled as "conservation." (Which, while not a direct answer, is probably a better response than Mark was hoping for.) Matt says that his definition of restoration/conservation is irrelevant. Mark also asks whether Matt thinks that there is an ethical duty to disclose conservation, and if not, why is this different from the duty to disclose restoration, and are there any peers or professional associations who think conservation need not be disclosed? Matt says he doesn't consider pressing to be restoration, thus implying (without saying) that he does not believe it needs to be disclosed. Mark also asked whether Matt would adopt Overstreet's definition of restoration if Overstreet changes it back to include pressing. Matt says no.

Not an issue I was speaking of.

 

 

 

 

 

George Pantela then told me and Mark Zaid to get a room. I responded by proclaiming my 100% heterosexual, viking-style, manly love for George Pantela.

Most certainly NOT an issue I was speaking of!

 

 

 

 

Mark Z. asked Matt what agenda Matt thought Mark had. Matt did not answer this question, although I am not sure it was a serious question since the answer is kind of obvious -- free Scotch from nervous dealers and professional graders who want to placate him at conventions.

Too many Marks, and Matts in this post, I am confused.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mushroom asks whether several things are restoration, including pressing. Matt says that pressing is part of the restoration process, but that it is not restoration if used by itself.

Aww,,you were doing so well to.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mark then accuses Matt of avoiding most of the issues he and others have presented.

What issues?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mark then has more questions!

Mark has to ask questions, I heard he took an oath or something.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mark still wants to know how Matt defines conservation. Mark asks whose interpretations Matt relied upon before CGC opened its doors. Mark asks Matt whether he's a member of any professional associations relating to conservation. Mark asks Matt "who the hell is CGC?" Mark also asks why Matt does not agree with the others who think pressing is restoration. Mark then hints at the possibility of a future lawsuit. Matt says and and says he doesn't want to play anymore.

I always wonder WHAT IF it could be detected. Would those who say it isnt a form of restoration..no matter how they define it..change their tune?

 

 

 

 

 

 

So really, the only "unanswered" question I see (apart from questions requiring him to disclose trade secrets and apart from the last few questions from Mark, where Matt withdrew from the discussion after seeing a not-so-subtle mention of a future lawsuit) is the question of whether Matt thinks pressing (or "conservation") needs to be disclosed. And while he didn't answer it directly in response to that post, is there any doubt among us that his answer is "No, unless someone asks me about a particular book"?

Why does everyone think I want him to divulge trade secrets.. of course I asked him.I wanted to know. We have to ask him if a book was pressed in his auction. I thought that was his mo.

 

 

 

 

 

 

So where is all this "tap dancing"? Or do you just call it tap dancing because he doesn't agree with you and everyone else about everything?

 

Call it what you want. I happened to use "Tap dancing". Alot of words, instead of direct answers. I could accept his answers wether or not I agree with him if I felt like I was not talking to a person who was spending more time NOT answering questions, then answering them. Heck, I would rather he tell me to stfu and mind my beeswax, now THAT I could respect. I still respect the fact that he is even here at all. this is a pretty volatile topic, on many levels. He just happens to be at the center of it right now.

 

I asked you why you were not irked, and got a whopper of a dissertation instead!!..Well done man...well done!

 

 

Ze-

[tth2]

Well, I am going out on a limb and declaring that Matt does indeed take books apart and reinserts or replaces staples after pressing. Technically, I believe that CGC frowns upon this...but a rather huge side issue here, in my opinion, is that CGC is neither capable nor interested in looking for "high end" structural manipulations of the books that they look at en masse on a daily basis. It simply would be too time consuming.

 

 

You're going to have to take my word for it on this one, but there is no way I take books apart when only pressing. I'll give you three very good reasons. #1 - I don't want to run the risk of a purple label. I hear these things are worth less in purple labels. #2 - I don't want to run the risk of ruining my reputation. It's all I have in my line of work. Dealers can continue to deal regardless of their rep, as long as they turn up the books. Doesn't work that way for guys like me. And #3 (assuming #1 and #2 don't matter), it's just way too time consuming. I would get only a tenth of the books done if I disassembled everything. And if you think I only disassemble the expensive ones, see #1 and #2.

Matt, I'm really glad to see that you responded to this point, and that your answer is so unequivocal. I was really surprised Brad made this statement, and I was going to ask him what was the basis for such a major accusation. It would have really surprised me if it were true, because I figured your customers would be very unhappy to get the occasional PLODs back (assuming CGC are totally incompetent at spotting disassembly, as Brad also states further in his post). I just couldn't see why you'd take the risk, at least not without their express consent.

 

You grossly underestimate CGC's ability to spot restoration and disassembly. This isn't a comment made because I do business with them. It's from my experience submitting to them thousands of books that I myself have checked for restoration.

Well said. I think people need to step back a moment and take a little reality check. CGC are in fact pretty darn good at detecting restoration, and people have lost sight of that, since most of the very high-profile attention is on the ones they missed. They've missed some/most of the micro-trimming, but let's face it, that was very high quality trimming, and in the minds of many, it took a thief to catch a thief.

 

I have bad news for everyone here, the Treasury Dept misses really high quality counterfeited money all the time too. And they're always trying to catch up to new techniques because the counterfeiters are always raising their game. All they can do is catch enough sufficiently frequently to deter most counterfeiters. I'm not sure how CGC can be held to a higher standard than an arm of the federal govt charged with protecting the lifeblood of commerce.

 

Of course, if you were to flag a specific book, say, a Ewert suspect, and ask them to check for micro-trimming ....after careful examination they might be able to come to a conclusion. But if someone is really good at micro-trimming, or pressing with dis-assembly and/or staple re-insertion or replacement....then I frankly think the odds are that they are going to get away with it.

 

 

I don't disagree with this statement. Yes, there could very well be another trimmer that comes along with a better technique. But given the diligence of the board members, I don't think the person would get away with it for long. In the meantime, you have to put your trust in CGC that they will catch it. If someone is not willing to do that, then they have every right not to use CGC products.

Well, notwithstanding my defense of CGC's ability to detect restoration, I'd like to know that CGC is not relying on the boards to catch micro-trimming, and have instituted some comparison-based techniques themselves to raise their game. Geez, even if they haven't, I'd like them to say they have just to help deter some would-be micro-trimmers.

This is not meant as a condemnation of CGC.....I just think it's a statement based on the reality of the volume of books they look at, and the growing finesse of the finaglers. I happen to think that Matt is currently hacking the CGC system as well as anyone out there. And he's kinda' proud of it too. That's what keeps coming through in all his posts. The hubris.

 

 

Hubris...arrogance. I'm curious to know which posts send off that signal? I'm proud of what I do, and I'm not afraid to claim that I'm good at it. If what I'm good at happens to be a controversial topic for some, I can see why you would call it hubris. Otherwise, it's just plain old believing in myself, which I personally think is a healthy thing.

 

But to assume that my pride is from "hacking the CGC system," especially when you have absolutely no evidence to back that assumption up, is quite a surprise coming from you, Brad. You certainly sound like a different guy on this post than the one I talked to on the phone.

I too was surprised by the rather hostile tone that Brad's posts suddenly took on.

[esquirecomics]

I have bad news for everyone here, the Treasury Dept misses really high quality counterfeited money all the time too. And they're always trying to catch up to new techniques because the counterfeiters are always raising their game. All they can do is catch enough sufficiently frequently to deter most counterfeiters. I'm not sure how CGC can be held to a higher standard than an arm of the federal govt charged with protecting the lifeblood of commerce.

 

I agree. Of course, we don't see the Treasury Dept throwing its hands up and saying "well, if we can't detect it, you can spend it."