Legitimate Non-Threatening Questions Posed To Matt Nelson

[Ze-man]

Nick -- getting answers is important -- but let's be honest, pressing isn't as problematic an issue as trimming etc.

 

I'm curious why you dont think so. We may not see the effects of pressing of a book now, but what about 5 years from now?

 

I was thinking the same thing as I ate lunch reading this thread. So here is my non answerable, hypothetical question.

 

If the various forms of Professional Pressing were detectable(Or god forbid it was found to be detrimental to the longevity of the book.) How do you think that would change what we see taking place today.

 

 

OG, I emailed you this question.. I expect an answer NOW. I am waiting.

 

Ze-

[Silver Surfer]

Have to admit I have lost almost all interest in participating in this topic but I do think it is important to discuss how restoration experts in the field view pressing. Personally I will still buy a pressed book although I must admit that I am not thrilled about the reality that a few years from now most high grade books will probably have been doctored in this fashion. For me trimming is a bigger threat to this industry because it has the potential to destroy a number of high grade books for good.

[buttock]

Here's my question(s) to everyone.

 

Why is it necessary to categorize all modifications into only 2 categories? Is conservation/restoration a continuum or discrete classes? Is it possible to clearly deliniate between the two (e.g. is blowing dust off a book cleaning? What amount of dust/dirt removal constitutes professional cleaning?) If not, is there any point in continuing the discussion in the direction it's going?

 

Probably not necessary, although I believe these are the two primary categories that are utilized in the profession. I recall Tracey Heft's patent application might have discussed some variations. Your questions are valid, and also discussed, at least in part, in Heft's application. At times it is likely impossible to determine which was intended because intent would be a factor, and thus there is considered methods that cross over into both, such as pressing.

 

The question about where to draw the line as far as degree has been raised in the context of CGC grading as well. CGC allows small amounts of glue or color touch within a blue universal label. How much glue or color touch is the straw that breaks the camel's back and sends the book to a PLOD is unknown, though the question has been asked.

 

Do you have any thoughts on these issues or just raised it as a question?

 

My opinion would be: let's separate things out on a different basis - based on something like; additions to the book, or alterations in structure. Things that actually should be considered alongside defects. Color touch, solvent cleaning, pieces added, bleaching, etc all change the book permanantly in a fashion that's not necessarily good.

 

Pressing, dry cleaning, can be categorized as "non-restorative aesthetics" or something. Then the whole issue of spectra of cleaning/pressing goes away.

 

Then things like deacidification and sealing tears that could potentially get worse could be classified as "conservation", as their intent is to actually prolong the life of the book.

[CentaurMan]

My opinion would be: let's separate things out on a different basis - based on something like; additions to the book, or alterations in structure. Things that actually should be considered alongside defects. Color touch, solvent cleaning, pieces added, bleaching, etc all change the book permanantly in a fashion that's not necessarily good.

 

Pressing, dry cleaning, can be categorized as "non-restorative aesthetics" or something. Then the whole issue of spectra of cleaning/pressing goes away.

 

Then things like deacidification and sealing tears that could potentially get worse could be classified as "conservation", as their intent is to actually prolong the life of the book.

 

 

Now we're getting somewhere! I'm much more disturbed by solvent cleaning than pressing. Of course, I'm not grade-conscious (I'm lucky to find ANY copies of the books I want, much less in 6.0 or better), so some of the finer points of the pressing debate are lost on me.

[esquirecomics]

Here's my question(s) to everyone.

 

Why is it necessary to categorize all modifications into only 2 categories? Is conservation/restoration a continuum or discrete classes? Is it possible to clearly deliniate between the two (e.g. is blowing dust off a book cleaning? What amount of dust/dirt removal constitutes professional cleaning?) If not, is there any point in continuing the discussion in the direction it's going?

 

Probably not necessary, although I believe these are the two primary categories that are utilized in the profession. I recall Tracey Heft's patent application might have discussed some variations. Your questions are valid, and also discussed, at least in part, in Heft's application. At times it is likely impossible to determine which was intended because intent would be a factor, and thus there is considered methods that cross over into both, such as pressing.

 

The question about where to draw the line as far as degree has been raised in the context of CGC grading as well. CGC allows small amounts of glue or color touch within a blue universal label. How much glue or color touch is the straw that breaks the camel's back and sends the book to a PLOD is unknown, though the question has been asked.

 

Do you have any thoughts on these issues or just raised it as a question?

 

My opinion would be: let's separate things out on a different basis - based on something like; additions to the book, or alterations in structure. Things that actually should be considered alongside defects. Color touch, solvent cleaning, pieces added, bleaching, etc all change the book permanantly in a fashion that's not necessarily good.

 

Pressing, dry cleaning, can be categorized as "non-restorative aesthetics" or something. Then the whole issue of spectra of cleaning/pressing goes away.

 

Then things like deacidification and sealing tears that could potentially get worse could be classified as "conservation", as their intent is to actually prolong the life of the book.

 

This is certainly one way to go. Similar to what CGC was trying to do with its switch to the restoration and conservation scales that seem to have faded away. Definitely one could create distinct categories for types of restoration, conservation or where they overlap.

 

Have you read Heft's patent application? He does address some of this. Take a look at that and tell us whether that is along the lines what you were thinking. I know FFB and I have both posted it somewhere.

[esquirecomics]

Here it is:

 

Tracey Heft's Patent Application on Restoration-Conversation

[Mushroom]

In the real "art" world,suppose I were to find an unknown Picasso,that had been exposed to the elements for quite some time.If I took it to an art restorer,and had it fixed,how would this effect the value?

 

If the restored Picasso was in an auction with an unrestored Picasso of similar desireability (age, size etc etc etc) then it would receive significantly less.

[buttock]

Here it is:

 

Tracey Heft's Patent Application on Restoration-Conversation

 

I like the numerical assignment series, as well as the increased number of categories. However, I think there's a "non-invasive aesthetic" category that still needs to be defined.

 

I'd also put forth that there should be 4 degrees of restoration - at least as recognized by CGC. Slight, light, moderate, and extensive.

[batman_fan]

Mark, I commend you for your efforts in getting this issue clearly defined and pushing for disclosure, but I am afraid your efforts won't pay off, but good luck!

 

Do you think Jason Ewert would still be selling?

 

Personally, I think Ewert is still selling. Do I have proof? No, but I see no reason for him to stop.

[codfish]

Mark,

 

Has it occurred to you yet that this topic might be gettin' old?

 

If you're tired of it or annoyed by it, then why bother continuing to read and post in these threads? I never understand why people would waste their valuable time and energy on something they have no real interest in.

 

In my over 2,000 posts, I don't believe I have ever made a post in the Modern Comics section. Why? Because I don't really collect or have much interest in Modern Comics (aside from a few obscure titles).

 

I see many threads here in comic general that don't really interest me or I have no real opinion or "dog in the fight", so guess what? I DON'T POST IN THEM!

 

But, if you feel the need to waste your valuable (or maybe I'm handing too much credit out) time reading and posting in threads like this, that you have no real interest in contributing to, then feel free, as it's your life and time you can never get back in doing so.

 

So very true. I know from being on many forums in the past I have vented about repetition in such threads but I fianlly learned to just ignore what I figure would get me PO'ed. There are a gazillion other threads that one could go to.

 

I am not anti-pressing I do not consider many of the people on Mark's side to be anti-pressing but people have to understand there are alot of people out there are against it or would PREFER not to have a book that has some work done to it.

 

When I look at this whole issue I cannot help but see that alot of work out there seems to be done needlessly EXCEPT for the fact that it a "legal" way to make (alot) more money. That is what I feel alot of people think and just of those people out there that bought a book in a certain grade only to find out that it was not originally in that grade. It is like buying a car and later finding out that it had been in a accident or it was not all original.

 

There is no harm in disclosure but there certainly is harm when people fail to grasp the feeling of either side of an issue. I fully accept that many folks don't care one bit about pressing or the position on professionals but there are many that do. Unfortunately many of those who do care about such issues as Mark is championing right now do not have the same voice as those who would appear to care more about dollars and not so much about about conserving and restoring those books that are truly at risk.

 

As much as people tire of Mark's position many of us are tired of those people who talk out the side of their mouth about fairness to books and collectors while clearly manipulating the definitions in influential publications to their benefit. I sit back and all I see is one set of voices being heard and it is, not surprisingly, the voices of all the power players in the industry and hobby. The voice of the average collector is being lost and most of them are not even aware of it and that it could affect their bottom line (bottomline being grading perspectives and financial). at one time manipulating books for bigger gains was rampant and people got pissed off about it now it seems that alot of effort is going into removing things that many people would call restoration into a non-restoration catagory.

 

Even the experts are split. Susan Ciccone is all for disclosure and against unnecessary pressing while Matt Nelson is not. The battle will rage until we all state our positions and opinions and try and hammer acceptable definitions and policies that we can all accept and had a hand in making.

 

I would love to see a time where people were happy with 8.0's and 9.0's and didn't feel the need to do anything to manipulate a book into a higher grade for bragging right, money or whatever. I would like to see restoration and conservation applied to those treasures truly at risk of disappearing from history.

 

/rant

 

In the end though if threads like this annoy you or think they will just ignore them. Otherwise you could say something that will make a friend an enemy and who the hell needs that?

[Foolkiller]

The voice of the average collector is being lost and most of them are not even aware of it and that it could affect their bottom line (bottomline being grading perspectives and financial). at one time manipulating books for bigger gains was rampant and people got pissed off about it now it seems that alot of effort is going into removing things that many people would call restoration into a non-restoration catagory.

 

This is a good post, and one that is articulate and well thought out in your positions and statements...

 

I agree with your basic position. But where I disagree is that all of the positions being driven by the "disclosure" crowd are so pure and benevolent. I'm tired of those who are against disclosure being painted as the ones who are defending something inherently in the wrong and being motivated by greed. I think this great "cause" that is being championed smacks of other motives as well, and why its dogged pursuit by some is a mask, while for others, a true passion.

 

Frankly, I think both sides have learned to talk out of the side of their mouths.

[tth2]

The voice of the average collector is being lost and most of them are not even aware of it and that it could affect their bottom line (bottomline being grading perspectives and financial). at one time manipulating books for bigger gains was rampant and people got pissed off about it now it seems that alot of effort is going into removing things that many people would call restoration into a non-restoration catagory.

 

This is a good post, and one that is articulate and well thought out in your positions and statements...

 

I agree with your basic position. But where I disagree is that all of the positions being driven by the "disclosure" crowd are so pure and benevolent. I'm tired of those who are against disclosure being painted as the ones who are defending something inherently in the wrong and being motivated by greed. I think this great "cause" that is being championed smacks of other motives as well, and why its dogged pursuit by some is a mask, while for others, a true passion.

 

Frankly, I think both sides have learned to talk out of the side of their mouths.

What do you think is the hidden agenda of the pro-disclosure crowd?

[awe4one]

I agree with your basic position. But where I disagree is that all of the positions being driven by the "disclosure" crowd are so pure and benevolent. I'm tired of those who are against disclosure being painted as the ones who are defending something inherently in the wrong and being motivated by greed. I think this great "cause" that is being championed smacks of other motives as well, and why its dogged pursuit by some is a mask, while for others, a true passion.

 

Frankly, I think both sides have learned to talk out of the side of their mouths.

 

I'm not sure I shouldn't be insulted by this comment. There is no hidden motive whatsoever in my case. I've been against this from the beginning and haven't really changed off that stance in the two years we've been discussing the topic.

 

If I've changed at all it's in realizing that it wasn't the pressing itself that was bothering me but the motives behind the process. To include the manipulation of the system to bleed a few more bucks from collectors. I wish this was a completely honest hobby but have learned with a venagence it's not. So I speak out on dishonest cr@p ...and it's not just pressing. But I do see pressing for profit without disclosure as one of major problems going on currently so it takes center stage...

 

Jim

[Red Hook]

The voice of the average collector is being lost and most of them are not even aware of it and that it could affect their bottom line (bottomline being grading perspectives and financial). at one time manipulating books for bigger gains was rampant and people got pissed off about it now it seems that alot of effort is going into removing things that many people would call restoration into a non-restoration catagory.

 

This is a good post, and one that is articulate and well thought out in your positions and statements...

 

I agree with your basic position. But where I disagree is that all of the positions being driven by the "disclosure" crowd are so pure and benevolent. I'm tired of those who are against disclosure being painted as the ones who are defending something inherently in the wrong and being motivated by greed. I think this great "cause" that is being championed smacks of other motives as well, and why its dogged pursuit by some is a mask, while for others, a true passion.

 

Frankly, I think both sides have learned to talk out of the side of their mouths.

 

You never addressed my answer to your direct question to me that I posted two days ago.

[Foolkiller]

The voice of the average collector is being lost and most of them are not even aware of it and that it could affect their bottom line (bottomline being grading perspectives and financial). at one time manipulating books for bigger gains was rampant and people got pissed off about it now it seems that alot of effort is going into removing things that many people would call restoration into a non-restoration catagory.

 

This is a good post, and one that is articulate and well thought out in your positions and statements...

 

I agree with your basic position. But where I disagree is that all of the positions being driven by the "disclosure" crowd are so pure and benevolent. I'm tired of those who are against disclosure being painted as the ones who are defending something inherently in the wrong and being motivated by greed. I think this great "cause" that is being championed smacks of other motives as well, and why its dogged pursuit by some is a mask, while for others, a true passion.

 

Frankly, I think both sides have learned to talk out of the side of their mouths.

 

You never addressed my answer to your direct question to me that I posted two days ago.

 

I'm sorry Red, I've only been reading this thread in dribs and drabs, I definitely will.

[Foolkiller]

I agree with your basic position. But where I disagree is that all of the positions being driven by the "disclosure" crowd are so pure and benevolent. I'm tired of those who are against disclosure being painted as the ones who are defending something inherently in the wrong and being motivated by greed. I think this great "cause" that is being championed smacks of other motives as well, and why its dogged pursuit by some is a mask, while for others, a true passion.

 

Frankly, I think both sides have learned to talk out of the side of their mouths.

 

I'm not sure I shouldn't be insulted by this comment. There is no hidden motive whatsoever in my case. I've been against this from the beginning and haven't really changed off that stance in the two years we've been discussing the topic.

 

If I've changed at all it's in realizing that it wasn't the pressing itself that was bothering me but the motives behind the process. To include the manipulation of the system to bleed a few more bucks from collectors. I wish this was a completely honest hobby but have learned with a venagence it's not. So I speak out on dishonest cr@p ...and it's not just pressing. But I do see pressing for profit without disclosure as one of major problems going on currently so it takes center stage...

 

Jim

 

Don't be insulted -- I'm not targetting you or any one particular person -- not even Mark here -- because as I've said before, despite the fact that I'm not particularly happy with him right now or in agreement with any of his approach, I'm not saying that he's got some sinister motive -- I think this is a belief he holds passionately. What I'm suggesting is that everyone is assigning greed as the only motivating factor (and I agree it's the majority) for people to defend pressing -- and that pressing is somehow the "party line" sort of position. What I'm suggesting is that being anti - disclosure can be about greed too... if you intend to set yourselves up with a system specifically designed to combat the principle you've spent months and years convincing others is a bad thing -- and now you're the person with the method to detect it and want to market it to others -- and that's just one thought about looking at it from a "greed" standpoint -- do I think that's really the case? I have no idea. But I was getting tired of the idea that this "disclosure crusade" is somehow some noble venture when all it is is just another person expressing an opinion -- and one that is no more laudable than the opposite position.

[Foolkiller]

Besides, we have the time and energy to cover all aspects of restoration. Right, Nick?

 

I have to treat you and Nick a little differently here -- so let me ask you guys, what is your personal hope about the disclosure of pressing -- I understand you believe it's restoration -- but is intentional manipulation of a book always the wrong thing (even though I concede that it is all about the money)?

 

And I guess my broken record point is that if it doesn't damage the book, and the alteration is that slight (let's say again, for the sake of argument I accept that pressing is restoration) then what is the terrible thing about the non disclosure.

 

Hi Brian.

 

I'll rehash my main issues as concisely as possible:

 

- I do consider pressing to be restoration, although there are many levels/degrees of it. The spot pressing Matt has done in his examples are pretty slight, but if it's not restoration, what is it? Conservation?

 

- I acknowledge that there are disagreements about pressing. Aside from you, most of the arguments I've heard supporting pressing come from people that directly or indirectly are making money from the practice. I haven't heard too many pure collectors come out in favor of pressing. That's pretty telling.

 

- I never expected that pressing would be stopped. What I continue to seek is a heightened level of awareness on the part of the consumer that the practice exists, that it can potentially raise the grade of a book (along with the price), and that in conjunction with crack-and-resub, can place before the buyer a product that has a backstory that should be made available.

 

- If someone has no problem with pressed books, then they have my blessing to add as many of them to their collections as possible.

 

- As seen in the Ewert situation....where greed is the mother of invention, there is the large risk that higher levels and more sophisticated types of manipulation will be employed as the lesser ones are accepted. So I choose to adapt a zero-tolerance definition of restoration (reasonable), as a way of drawing a line in the sand and making sellers accountable. I don't want to have a debate in five years about micro-trimming, or see a restoration expert doing a demo on MT on the boards here and explaining how it doesn't do any damage to the book...just makes them look prettier.

 

- The buyer is always at a disadavantage. Information always benefits the buyer. Lack of information benefits the seller. I believe the buyer has the right to as much information about a book as is available. Otherwise it's not an honest transaction.

 

- The fact that this discussion continues is proof that it's still a hot topic. A lot of progress has been made. Imagine if, two years ago, when Ewert denied he had his auction books pressed, Matt had come on with his demo at that time. It would have blown minds. Two years later, we realize that pressing is SOP for many individuals.

 

- I have a descending order of goals. Near the top of my list is making the general buying public aware that the practice exists. There's been a lot of progress made there. I'm happy to let the market decide if pressed books should be penalized price-wise. I tend to think that there would be some buyers that would pass on (or negotiate more realistic prices for) resubbed pressed books, but I wouldn't lose any sleep if many buyers didn't alter their buying habits regarding pressed books.

 

- In the end it's about the right to make an informed personal choice. I'm very happy with the progress and the ongoing discussions. I disagree with Matt on certain points but it's really good that he came on and is adding fact to the discussions.

 

- And finally, from a personal perspective, when it comes to ephemera like comics, I believe a very conservative non-impact approach is the best.

 

• I respect the fact that these fragile books got here in their present conditions over the course of 40-50-60 years.

 

• I respect that they are what they are.

 

• They have character.

 

• And stop a moment and think about this.....If a book happens to arrive in the year 2006 in vf or better shape all on it's own, through the chance and happenstance of decades......it's something to marvel at. It takes the special-ness of naturally highgrade books away, when they are made more common by the artificial manipulations of profit-seekers who care more about the money than the books themselves.

 

Brad

 

Brad,

 

Couple of things: There are quite a few collectors who recognize they have pressed books and have no problem with it, and feel no need to comment on the issue because for them it is a non issue. I don't think I'm the only collector out there who supports the notion that disclosure should not be a requirement unless asked. I put the onus on the consumer. The question becomes, does the seller have a DUTY to disclose the pressing? My answer is an emphatic NO.

 

I respect the idea that a collector may want to know whether a book has been pressed -- because they may not want a pressed book in their collection, and that's fine. BUT -- what is being asked now is that somehow dealers MUST disclose the information. Why? Because there are some collectors who don't like pressing? Well, until it starts affecting value -- they are not doing anything wrong, to me, by saying nothing voluntarily on the issue of pressing. You cannot say that for the other forms of restoration.

 

Is pressing restoration? Let's assume for a moment it is. But let's say OS categorizes pressing as a non harmful, non additive form of pressing, but because it is a very minor alteration, calls it restoration/conservation and says it will not effect the value of a book. Now do dealers have a duty to disclose? Nope.

 

Why are we not saying that the buyer has the burden here? If not all parties agree, why is it not the buyer's responsibility? Is even the seller in the best position to ALWAYS know when a book has been pressed. Let's say the original seller sold the book and pressed it first. It passes through 5 hands before someone realizes it's been pressed -- who is liable -- will it be possible to even trace back to the original seller -- especially when the question of whether it is really disclosable is up for debate? There's no uniformity or common market agreement here.

 

You have a right to make an informed choice -- by simply asking the dealer the question. The dealer has an obligation to answer you honestly. But it is the buyer's burden.

 

You are not entitled to all information about every product you buy, and comic books are no different.

[awe4one]

Well, until it starts affecting value -- they are not doing anything wrong, to me, by saying nothing voluntarily on the issue of pressing. You cannot say that for the other forms of restoration.

 

Why are you quantifying the issue by value? They are hiding a condition that will impact the buyer. That's the issue here. They are purposely not relating an issue that some buyers may care about. Those that don't care won't be bothered with the revelation.

 

Is pressing restoration? Let's assume for a moment it is. But let's say OS categorizes pressing as a non harmful, non additive form of pressing, but because it is a very minor alteration, calls it restoration/conservation and says it will not effect the value of a book. Now do dealers have a duty to disclose? Nope.

 

Again with the value...they are selling a product. A product that has a condition collectors may very well care about. They have a duty to disclose that condition. It's no different as with other forms of resto or even if a MVS has been cut out. They need to disclose the info as it impacts what the collector is buying...

 

Why are we not saying that the buyer has the burden here? If not all parties agree, why is it not the buyer's responsibility?

 

Because the seller KNOWS it's pressed. They are selling the product. It's not the buyer's responsibility to "figure it out".

 

Is even the seller in the best position to ALWAYS know when a book has been pressed. Let's say the original seller sold the book and pressed it first. It passes through 5 hands before someone realizes it's been pressed -- who is liable -- will it be possible to even trace back to the original seller -- especially when the question of whether it is really disclosable is up for debate? There's no uniformity or common market agreement here.

 

Irrelevent...if the seller doesn't know, then he doesn't know. That's not what we're discussing here.

 

You have a right to make an informed choice -- by simply asking the dealer the question. The dealer has an obligation to answer you honestly. But it is the buyer's burden.

 

Bull...the seller is the one putting the product out there. No one asked him/her to. He/she is the one benefiting the most in this transaction. It's their comic and it's the same with all other resto, disclose what you know. Why people are trying to defend this nondisclosure practice with semantics is really curious. We demand full disclosure on comics we buy in regards to resto...pressing is a resto process until the loophold experts saw an out. Now they are trying to exploit that hole by "redefining" resto. Nothing has changed other than the attempt to change collectors minds. Regardless, the onus is still there for pressing to be disclosed despite the howls of those trying to work the system...

 

Jim

[Foolkiller]

The whole discussion is about value. you can't claim it's all about dealer greed and then take value out of the equation. For many collectors, the discussion is about value too.

 

The argument you are making works in the reverse as well. If you are bothered by pressing then just ask about it.

[awe4one]

The seller is on the point to disclose. Though value has some relevence, it doesn't when we're taking about disclosure. The practices performed on a comic needs to be disclosed whether it's $1.50 or $1,500. Though greed or value is a factor in "why" dealers press, it's not a standard for not disclosing...

 

Jim