Legitimate Non-Threatening Questions Posed To Matt Nelson

[mica]

Did someone mention strawman?

Wish he'd disclose that corner bending.

[Silver Surfer]

I will say that I don't buy the notion that a professionally pressed book is not detectable and while I am not totally against pressing at this stage I do think that it is bad for the hobby and for books in the long term. I have held professionally pressed books and they were pancaked. Maybe you could press a book once and get away with it but what going to happen after its been sold and resold and pressed three times in the process. Bending a corner back with your finger is just hair splitting and getting away from the real issue.

[Scheradon]

If you're talking about bending back a corner or something very minor, the result would absolutely be the same as using a tacking iron, weighted glass, or any other method. If it corrects the defect, has the same lasting effect (i.e. doesn't revert to a bent state five minutes later, and equally shows no evidence of manipulation, there is no difference.

 

Clearly, pressing something or correcting something with one's finger would only be useful for correcting a limited range of flaws. No one is saying you could can do all types of pressing "digitally".

 

Like I've said...I'd like to see a comparative study with some examples. I really want to see what type of "Bent" corner we're talking about here.

[FFB]

How is bending a corner back pressing? Are you implying that the person who bent it back did so in such a way that the bend has disapeared? Have they just bent it back or applied pressure? Was it bent in such a way to create a color breaking crease? Has the grade been increased do to this? It's hard to assess your view without a few more details.

 

You're applying pressure to flatten the paper. That's what pressing is. If you are removing a defect (by flattening a bent corner, which, if the bend does not break color, is absolutely possible to do without leaving a trace that the corner was once bent), then you are returning the book to an original or assumed state. That means that finger pressing meets the definition of restoration that has been quoted many times on the boards. (And, for the record, I do consider finger pressing to be a form of restoration because it meets the IIC's and AIC's definitions of restoration, which I think are good definitions).

 

Whether the grade is increased or not is irrelevant. What matters is whether you are removing defects, i.e., returning the book to a state that is closer to its original or assumed-original state. If you dry-mount-press a book with half the cover missing, it's still going to be a "POOR" copy regardless of whether some defects are removed, and yet the book is still "pressed" and has been restored to an extent.

 

So the question remains -- if you remove a bend using your finger, does this need to be disclosed? If so, why? If not, why not?

[Scheradon]

Did someone mention strawman?

Wish he'd disclose that corner bending.

 

[FFB]

I will say that I don't buy the notion that a professionally pressed book is not detectable and while I am not totally against pressing at this stage I do think that it is bad for the hobby and the books in the long term. I have held professionally pressed books and they were pancaked. Maybe you could press a book once and get away with it but what going to happen after its been sold and resold and pressed three times in the process. Bending a corner back with your finger is just hair splitting and getting away from the real issue.

 

Everyone who responded in the thread about Matt Nelson's pressing jobs said that their books were absolutely not pancaked and that they would not have been able to tell the book was pressed if they hadn't seen the book beforehand. Maybe the "professionally pressed books" you saw were not pressed the "right way."

 

As for the real issue, it seems to me that I am speaking to exactly the "real issue" -- whether pressing needs to be disclosed. It is these lame attempts at characterizing my question as "straw man arguments" by people who can't think of a good explanation who are "getting away from the real issue."

[FFB]

If you're talking about bending back a corner or something very minor, the result would absolutely be the same as using a tacking iron, weighted glass, or any other method. If it corrects the defect, has the same lasting effect (i.e. doesn't revert to a bent state five minutes later, and equally shows no evidence of manipulation, there is no difference.

 

Clearly, pressing something or correcting something with one's finger would only be useful for correcting a limited range of flaws. No one is saying you could can do all types of pressing "digitally".

 

Like I've said...I'd like to see a comparative study with some examples. I really want to see what type of "Bent" corner we're talking about here.

 

John,

 

I have some books from a recent collection of late 1970s and early 1980s books that some friends of mine and I picked up that almost all have the same defect -- the lower right corner overhang is bent/curled over, but color is not broken. Hopefully I'll have some time this weekend to show some before and after scans with the results of "finger pressing" so you can see what I mean.

[Silver Surfer]

See my PM.

[Scheradon]

How is bending a corner back pressing? Are you implying that the person who bent it back did so in such a way that the bend has disapeared? Have they just bent it back or applied pressure? Was it bent in such a way to create a color breaking crease? Has the grade been increased do to this? It's hard to assess your view without a few more details.

 

You're applying pressure to flatten the paper. You didn't say anything about flattening, you said "bending a corner back". That's not flattneing. That's what pressing is. Bending a corner back? If you are removing a defect (by flattening a bent corner, which, if the bend does not break color, is absolutely possible to do without leaving a trace that the corner was once bent), then you are returning the book to an original or assumed state. Do you have some examples for us to study? That means that finger pressing meets the definition of restoration that has been quoted many times on the boards. (And, for the record, I do consider finger pressing to be a form of restoration because it meets the IIC's and AIC's definitions of restoration, which I think are good definitions). Now if you think that the rest of us are having a hard sell at getting dealers/sellers to disclose NDP as it is, and the "anti-disclosure" brigade is already on the warpath about that, then your even more hardlined stance will really get them going. But hey, go for it. Like I said, I'm not against finger pressing disclosure; I'm just willing to compromise with disclosure of the more invasive forms of pressing.

 

Whether the grade is increased or not is irrelevant. If you haven't increased the grade, then you haven't improved the book. If you haven't improved the book, what have you "restored"? What matters is whether you are removing defects, i.e., returning the book to a state that is closer to its original or assumed-original state. This kind of contradicts your first statement. If you remove defects, you will be improving the grade. If you dry-mount-press a book with half the cover missing, it's still going to be a "POOR" copy regardless of whether some defects are removed, and yet the book is still "pressed" and has been restored to an extent. i guess we're back to the arguement of what would an already 10.0 book be if you cracked it out and had it pressed. The simple answer would be you wouldn't do that, just like you wouldn't dry mount press a poor book with half a cover.

 

So the question remains -- if you remove a bend using your finger, does this need to be disclosed? If so, why? If not, why not?

[Scheradon]

If you're talking about bending back a corner or something very minor, the result would absolutely be the same as using a tacking iron, weighted glass, or any other method. If it corrects the defect, has the same lasting effect (i.e. doesn't revert to a bent state five minutes later, and equally shows no evidence of manipulation, there is no difference.

 

Clearly, pressing something or correcting something with one's finger would only be useful for correcting a limited range of flaws. No one is saying you could can do all types of pressing "digitally".

 

Like I've said...I'd like to see a comparative study with some examples. I really want to see what type of "Bent" corner we're talking about here.

 

John,

 

I have some books from a recent collection of late 1970s and early 1980s books that some friends of mine and I picked up that almost all have the same defect -- the lower right corner overhang is bent/curled over, but color is not broken. Hopefully I'll have some time this weekend to show some before and after scans with the results of "finger pressing" so you can see what I mean.

 

Sounds good

[FFB]

How is bending a corner back pressing? Are you implying that the person who bent it back did so in such a way that the bend has disapeared? Have they just bent it back or applied pressure? Was it bent in such a way to create a color breaking crease? Has the grade been increased do to this? It's hard to assess your view without a few more details.

 

You're applying pressure to flatten the paper. You didn't say anything about flattening, you said "bending a corner back". That's not flattneing. That's what pressing is. Bending a corner back? If you are removing a defect (by flattening a bent corner, which, if the bend does not break color, is absolutely possible to do without leaving a trace that the corner was once bent), then you are returning the book to an original or assumed state. Do you have some examples for us to study? That means that finger pressing meets the definition of restoration that has been quoted many times on the boards. (And, for the record, I do consider finger pressing to be a form of restoration because it meets the IIC's and AIC's definitions of restoration, which I think are good definitions). Now if you think that the rest of us are having a hard sell at getting dealers/sellers to disclose NDP as it is, and the "anti-disclosure" brigade is already on the warpath about that, then your even more hardlined stance will really get them going. But hey, go for it. Like I said, I'm not against finger pressing disclosure; I'm just willing to compromise with disclosure of the more invasive forms of pressing.

 

Whether the grade is increased or not is irrelevant. If you haven't increased the grade, then you haven't improved the book. If you haven't improved the book, what have you "restored"? What matters is whether you are removing defects, i.e., returning the book to a state that is closer to its original or assumed-original state. This kind of contradicts your first statement. If you remove defects, you will be improving the grade. If you dry-mount-press a book with half the cover missing, it's still going to be a "POOR" copy regardless of whether some defects are removed, and yet the book is still "pressed" and has been restored to an extent. i guess we're back to the arguement of what would an already 10.0 book be if you cracked it out and had it pressed. The simple answer would be you wouldn't do that, just like you wouldn't dry mount press a poor book with half a cover.

 

So the question remains -- if you remove a bend using your finger, does this need to be disclosed? If so, why? If not, why not?

 

Come on, John. If an edge or corner is bent and you "unbend" it, you've "flattened" the corner.

 

As for the "more invasive forms of pressing," what does that mean? If someone presses a book without heat, then it doesn't need to be disclosed? If someone presses the book without humidity of some kind, it doesn't need to be disclosed? I guess my question is, where is the industry consensus supporting these lines in the sand? The answer is, there aren't any. And barring such industry consensus, how can one accuse a dealer of being unethical by not affirmatively disclosing these things? And worse, what if a more anal collector somewhere disagrees with you on that? Do dealers need to satisfy the hypothetical "most anal collector" in terms of what needs to be disclosed? Or do we just say "OK, Mark Zaid decides what needs to be disclosed?" Or will some other collector's particular set of sensibilities form the yardstick by which we measure the duty of disclosure of pressing?

 

I also disagree with you about whether you need to increase the grade in order for something to constitute "restoration." If you are removing any defects, you're restoring the book. But removal of one defect does not necessarily cause the book to jump up a grade level. Let's say you've got a book with bent overhang along the top edge (like RedHook's PC Avengers did), plus a color-breaking subscription crease right down the middle of the book. Assume the rest of the book is essentially perfect. That book would grade at FN 6.0 before the press job. Let's say you press out the bend in the overhang. You've removed a significant defect, yet the book would still grade no higher than FN 6.0. But have you restored the book? According to the IIC's and AIC's and Overstreet's definitions of restoration, absolutely! Whether or not an artifact is improved enough to jump up from one grade level to the next (especially since grading is subjective from grader to grader) is not part of what determines whether a book is restored or not under the various definitions of restoration.

[Scheradon]

Ok, my last post for the night (it's 3:25am here)

 

Come on, John. If an edge or corner is bent and you "unbend" it, you've "flattened" the corner.

 

When you are talking about a bent corner, and then simply bending it back, I'm picturing just that. No pressing, flattening, or smoothing it out. I can take a piece of paper right here in front of me and do what you described without any pressing. This is why I was asking for further details from you.

 

As for the "more invasive forms of pressing," what does that mean? If someone presses a book without heat, then it doesn't need to be disclosed? If someone presses the book without humidity of some kind, it doesn't need to be disclosed? I guess my question is, where is the industry consensus supporting these lines in the sand? The answer is, there aren't any. And barring such industry consensus, how can one accuse a dealer of being unethical by not affirmatively disclosing these things? And worse, what if a more anal collector somewhere disagrees with you on that? Do dealers need to satisfy the hypothetical "most anal collector" in terms of what needs to be disclosed? Or do we just say "OK, Mark Zaid decides what needs to be disclosed?" Or will some other collector's particular set of sensibilities form the yardstick by which we measure the duty of disclosure of pressing?

 

Come on Scott, perhaps the more invasive methods are the ones performed by professional restoration artists using tools other than their hands for a small fee to the person who submitted the book to them. I don't think too many people will have any trouble dividing common sense lines in the sand between those methods and finger pressing.

 

I also disagree with you about whether you need to increase the grade in order for something to constitute "restoration." If you are removing any defects, you're restoring the book. But removal of one defect does not necessarily cause the book to jump up a grade level. Let's say you've got a book with bent overhang along the top edge (like RedHook's PC Avengers did), plus a color-breaking subscription crease right down the middle of the book. Assume the rest of the book is essentially perfect. That book would grade at FN 6.0 before the press job. Let's say you press out the bend in the overhang. You've removed a significant defect, yet the book would still grade no higher than FN 6.0. But have you restored the book? According to the IIC's and AIC's and Overstreet's definitions of restoration, absolutely! Whether or not an artifact is improved enough to jump up from one grade level to the next (especially since grading is subjective from grader to grader) is not part of what determines whether a book is restored or not under the various definitions of restoration.

 

Here's the problem with your 6.0 analogy: If the defects are as you say, then either the book would have been a 5.5 before the pressing and gone to a 6.0 or after the removal of said defects, the book would probably garner a 6.5. CGC would have downgraded the book for having those defects, thus by removing them, there should be a grade increase. Your removal without increase theory only really works within the poorest grade where the book is so many defects below the next grade bump that the removal of some still leaves it poor.

[FFB]

Ok, my last post for the night (it's 3:25am here)

 

Come on, John. If an edge or corner is bent and you "unbend" it, you've "flattened" the corner.

 

When you are talking about a bent corner, and then simply bending it back, I'm picturing just that. No pressing, flattening, or smoothing it out. I can take a piece of paper right here in front of me and do what you described without any pressing. This is why I was asking for further details from you.

 

Rather than go around in circles on the point, let's take this one up after I've posted the scans I mentioned.

 

As for the "more invasive forms of pressing," what does that mean? If someone presses a book without heat, then it doesn't need to be disclosed? If someone presses the book without humidity of some kind, it doesn't need to be disclosed? I guess my question is, where is the industry consensus supporting these lines in the sand? The answer is, there aren't any. And barring such industry consensus, how can one accuse a dealer of being unethical by not affirmatively disclosing these things? And worse, what if a more anal collector somewhere disagrees with you on that? Do dealers need to satisfy the hypothetical "most anal collector" in terms of what needs to be disclosed? Or do we just say "OK, Mark Zaid decides what needs to be disclosed?" Or will some other collector's particular set of sensibilities form the yardstick by which we measure the duty of disclosure of pressing?

 

Come on Scott, perhaps the more invasive methods are the ones performed by professional restoration artists using tools other than their hands for a small fee to the person who submitted the book to them. I don't think too many people will have any trouble dividing common sense lines in the sand between those methods and finger pressing.

 

OK, what if Matt is pressing his own books for no fee? Then it's not more invasive? What does the fee have to do with it? What if an "amateur" figures out how to press out defects with a tacking iron? (How hard could THAT be to figure out? It's a warm piece of metal.) As for "using tools other than the hands," why are we supposed to draw this artificial distinction, especially when using one's hands can be more effective at removing certain defects than the use of a dry mount press (considered by some to be the tool of the devil, despite its limitations)?

 

I also disagree with you about whether you need to increase the grade in order for something to constitute "restoration." If you are removing any defects, you're restoring the book. But removal of one defect does not necessarily cause the book to jump up a grade level. Let's say you've got a book with bent overhang along the top edge (like RedHook's PC Avengers did), plus a color-breaking subscription crease right down the middle of the book. Assume the rest of the book is essentially perfect. That book would grade at FN 6.0 before the press job. Let's say you press out the bend in the overhang. You've removed a significant defect, yet the book would still grade no higher than FN 6.0. But have you restored the book? According to the IIC's and AIC's and Overstreet's definitions of restoration, absolutely! Whether or not an artifact is improved enough to jump up from one grade level to the next (especially since grading is subjective from grader to grader) is not part of what determines whether a book is restored or not under the various definitions of restoration.

 

Here's the problem with your 6.0 analogy: If the defects are as you say, then either the book would have been a 5.5 before the pressing and gone to a 6.0 or after the removal of said defects, the book would probably garner a 6.5. CGC would have downgraded the book for having those defects, thus by removing them, there should be a grade increase. Your removal without increase theory only really works within the poorest grade where the book is so many defects below the next grade bump that the removal of some still leaves it poor.

 

That simply is not true. You cannot necessarily take a book with multiple defects and bump it up from one grade level to the next just by removing one of the multiple defects. And a book with a full-length sub crease will not grade higher than 6.0. But adding a small defect to a FN 6.0 with a sub crease will not necessarily drop the book down to 5.5 either. The same is true of a VG copy with defects consistent with the VG level, plus a small amount of pencil writing on the cover (other than a distributor code or owner name or other "writing defects" that are allowed in the higher grades). If you erase that small bit of pencil writing from the cover of a VG copy, the book will probably still grade exactly at VG -- but you've definitely "restored" the book by removing the defect.

[Red Hook]

 

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

 

Brian, that is just outright, 100% crazy.

 

I couldn't disagree more strongly. Thus, the adversarily nature of the comic book buyer/seller relationship will continue, along with the distrust.

 

The need for vigilance and education of the buying public has never been stronger.

 

Brad

[Foolkiller]

brad --

 

this is one of those discussions we should have in person -- whenever I see you next baltimore or whenever -- maybe in chicago if I can get my a** out there.

[Red Hook]

[Foolkiller]

I understand that the reason you feel disclosure is easier for the dealer to disclose is because he/she is in the best position to know.

 

For me, the only reason to disclose information as a seller is when it is going to materially affect the value of the product. Now -- I understand that this can be dicey because if the product is being represented to be something that it is not... well... that should also mandate disclosure as well, regardless of value. But from my view, pressing does alter the book sufficiently to require such disclosure.

 

That's sounds on the surface a hypocritical statement...so is the product being misrepresented? And how in god's name is this a good thing? For any buyer?

 

Jim

 

As FFB noted, I meant to say pressing does not alter the book sufficiently to require disclosure.

 

Is the product being misrepresented... not really -- and is it a good thing? It's neither. To me, pressing is just a non factor.

[Red Hook]

 

Is the product being misrepresented... not really -- and is it a good thing? It's neither. To me, pressing is just a non factor.

 

If it didn't contribute to a higher grade being received and a resultant higher market value, then you could call it a non-factor.

[Foolkiller]

 

Is the product being misrepresented... not really -- and is it a good thing? It's neither. To me, pressing is just a non factor.

 

If it didn't contribute to a higher grade being received and a resultant higher market value, then you could call it a non-factor.

 

Fundamentally, I understand what you're saying. But when I say "non factor" it expresses no preference of pressing v. not pressing. Natural preservation v. slight adjustment and manufactured product? I'm more about the aesthetics, and if there is a tiny alteration that doesn't add anything unnatural or take anything away really -- does it matter? Not for me.

 

This is more about the mandated disclosure aspect because the debate about calling it restoration isn't truly that important for me. But this crusade to get it disclosed as a mandate is important, and I feel it's very important to voice the other side of the coin and not make it seem like there's some moral cause for righteousness that is voiced in one opinion and not in the other.

[nik]

resultant higher market value, then you could call it a non-factor.

 

 

This I believe is the key about pressing. Pretty much every example of pressed books sitting in slabs with higher grades were books that had a significant value attached to it. Lets face it, if someone pressed a Youngblood #1 in VF/NM to a 9.4 or 9.6 would anyone truly give a hoot

 

Take an FF5 in 8.0 and possibly (if its a good candidate) press it to a 9.0 you get people that are concerned.

 

I have been going back and forth in my mind about the pressing issue, hearing both sides, pros and cons, disclosure or non-disclosure, restoration or not restoration, can it be detected or not.

 

The only thing I can suggest is, if its not considered restoration, disclose it, whats the difference.

 

If you dont believe it will make a difference in the market as far as final price, disclose it if you are that confident, and let the true market decide as far as value of a book.