Legitimate Non-Threatening Questions Posed To Matt Nelson

[mica]

That's what's happenning, isn't it? The people arguing about this issue all have stakes in the high grade game, to one extent or another, don't they? As for my comment, it just irks me on a personal level when people paint using broad strokes. To me, the implication that this anti-pressing movement is being perpetrated for "the good of the hobby as a whole" is laughable almost to the point of being offensive. If you guys want to debate this issue, fine, but don't drag the rest of us into it by making false claims about how it pretains to the community at large.

 

Andy, I can see your point...but I suspect that asking for disclosure & honesty...and maintaining pressure on dealers to behave in an ethical way...is beneficial to all collectors.

 

Obviously, within the next five posts, somebody will explain why it isn't and paint me as a 'foot solider' or crank, but there you have it...my humble opinion.

 

I see your point as well, but the "ethics" of pressing and its disclosure are certainly matters up for debate (hence this thread).

So..then...it's OK to continue?

[october]

That's what's happenning, isn't it? The people arguing about this issue all have stakes in the high grade game, to one extent or another, don't they? As for my comment, it just irks me on a personal level when people paint using broad strokes. To me, the implication that this anti-pressing movement is being perpetrated for "the good of the hobby as a whole" is laughable almost to the point of being offensive. If you guys want to debate this issue, fine, but don't drag the rest of us into it by making false claims about how it pretains to the community at large.

 

Andy, I can see your point...but I suspect that asking for disclosure & honesty...and maintaining pressure on dealers to behave in an ethical way...is beneficial to all collectors.

 

Obviously, within the next five posts, somebody will explain why it isn't and paint me as a 'foot solider' or crank, but there you have it...my humble opinion.

 

I see your point as well, but the "ethics" of pressing and its disclosure are certainly matters up for debate (hence this thread).

So..then...it's OK to continue?

 

I never said the discussion should stop, I said people should stop referring to pressing as a hobby-wide problem and a "solution" as being beneficial to all collectors.

[drbanner]

 

[Aman619]

you are right... but cmon. just because only 1 in 30 collectors are worried about the issue shouldnt mean they have to be silent, or not take steps to prevent it, right? What it really means IMO (or should mean perhaps), is that maybe those 29 out of 30 NOT afffected ought to just stay out of the discussion since it does not affect them in the least. Everyone's opinion is valid of course so Im not saying to anyone "mind your own business." But why NOT just keep the discussion between those it DOES affect? Why should all manner of disinterested (except at a voyeurs level) opinions be involved in what (BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION) does not matter to them or what they collect.

 

If pressing doesnt bother someone, or just isnt on their radar or a worry for their collection, then dont all their comments beyond stating "I dont mind pressing. So be it." boil down to, basically, (as has crept thru many comments), a sort of reverse snobby "have-not's envy"? I dont mean to provoke a class war... so I hope you know what I mean by that. If its affects so few, then let just those affected hash it out amongst themselves....

 

That's what's happenning, isn't it? The people arguing about this issue all have stakes in the high grade game, to one extent or another, don't they? As for my comment, it just irks me on a personal level when people paint using broad strokes. To me, the implication that this anti-pressing movement is being perpetrated for "the good of the hobby as a whole" is laughable almost to the point of being offensive. If you guys want to debate this issue, fine, but don't drag the rest of us into it by making false claims about how it pretains to the community at large.

 

again, a personal interest or stake in pressing MAY be PART of the motivation. Your srgument is the flip side of mine in that I say exclude thos who arenr interested or affected, but you say that since so few ARE, the majority should ignore THEIR concerns.

 

no way out of that box Im afraid, by seeking to work together. So that means the ones affected who care must go it alone and not seek widespread assistance or agreement. However, I dont think the "plan" was ever to reach the masses of comic collectors since quite obviously only the high end has been affected and stands to be further dilluted.

[FFB]

From what I've heard from several people, Susan had a hard enough time detecting slight color touch and glue on some books in the old Sotheby's auctions when she was the restoration consultant. I'm going to need more than just her say-so before I'll believe that she can detect professional pressing with any degree of reliability.

 

C'mon, Scott...are you now saying that the best-known, most respected restorer in the business isn't all she's cracked up to be?

 

And you know this because of Chinese whispers?

 

It'll never stand up in court, my learned friend.

 

So because she is the best at restoring books, she must be able to detect a procedure that just about everyone else concedes is undetectible if done correctly, simply because she says she believes she can? I don't think so.

 

No, you're missing the point.

 

You posted that Susan had declared intact pressing 'undetectable'. Susan was then quoted as saying something different...and that came from the horse's mouth, not yours.

 

Whether she can or she can't, neither you nor I have evidence either way.

 

However, you mis-quoted her and then attempted to undermine her expertise...even though you were prepared to quote her when you thought it supported your argument...and that was the point.

 

You are obviously confused. I did not misquote her, nor did I state that Susan declared intact pressing "undetectable." Davenport quoted her directly from her website and I questioned whether she could actually do what she said she could do with respect to detecting pressing with reliability.

 

As for "evidence either way," you're right. Neither person has it. But that doesn't mean that I have to accept her statement as gospel, especially when she has had issues with detecting color touch and glue in the past when she was acting as a paid restoration consultant.

[mica]

I never said the discussion should stop, I said people should stop referring to pressing as a hobby-wide problem and a "solution" as being beneficial to all collectors.

Cool. I'm in it for the help it may provide to a "SEGMENT" of the collecting community.

 

 

 

Oh and the chicks.

[Red Hook]

From what I've heard from several people, Susan had a hard enough time detecting slight color touch and glue on some books in the old Sotheby's auctions when she was the restoration consultant. I'm going to need more than just her say-so before I'll believe that she can detect professional pressing with any degree of reliability.

 

C'mon, Scott...are you now saying that the best-known, most respected restorer in the business isn't all she's cracked up to be?

 

And you know this because of Chinese whispers?

 

It'll never stand up in court, my learned friend.

 

So because she is the best at restoring books, she must be able to detect a procedure that just about everyone else concedes is undetectible if done correctly, simply because she says she believes she can? I don't think so.

 

You've a right to your opinion. No one is perfect. But having to witness you dragging the Sotheby's reference out of your arse every time her name comes up is akin to watching someone with an obsessive compulsive disorder. Some people wash their hands 50 times a day.....you get a boner every time Susan's name comes up and then feel compelled to regurgitate the tired Sotheby's reference. You gotta' get some new material, dude.

 

But if you're going to keep doing it (which you are), and you're really interested in being fair (which you aren't)....then present the facts, the whole story, including the names of the people who are denigrating her, so people can judge for themselves and judge the source.

 

Or make it your signature. That'll work.

[OldGuy]

That does not mean that I accept everything she says about detecting pressing blindly.......

 

Susan is blind?! WOW! She really is good.

[FFB]

That does not mean that I accept everything she says about detecting pressing blindly.......

 

Susan is blind?! WOW! She really is good.

 

[Foolkiller]

does he really get a boner over Susan Cicconi... ?

[FFB]

From what I've heard from several people, Susan had a hard enough time detecting slight color touch and glue on some books in the old Sotheby's auctions when she was the restoration consultant. I'm going to need more than just her say-so before I'll believe that she can detect professional pressing with any degree of reliability.

 

C'mon, Scott...are you now saying that the best-known, most respected restorer in the business isn't all she's cracked up to be?

 

And you know this because of Chinese whispers?

 

It'll never stand up in court, my learned friend.

 

So because she is the best at restoring books, she must be able to detect a procedure that just about everyone else concedes is undetectible if done correctly, simply because she says she believes she can? I don't think so.

 

You've a right to your opinion. No one is perfect. But having to witness you dragging the Sotheby's reference out of your arse every time her name comes up is akin to watching someone with an obsessive compulsive disorder. Some people wash their hands 50 times a day.....you get a boner every time Susan's name comes up and then feel compelled to regurgitate the tired Sotheby's reference. You gotta' get some new material, dude.

 

But if you're going to keep doing it (which you are), and you're really interested in being fair (which you aren't)....then present the facts, the whole story, including the names of the people who are denigrating her, so people can judge for themselves and judge the source.

 

Or make it your signature. That'll work.

 

You are really emotional about this, and you get really upset whenever someone points out that Susan just might not be infallible. Maybe you're the one with the problem.

[Red Hook]

I meant a hard-on.

 

There is a diffence.

[blazingbob]

How did "boner" get through the filter?

[drbanner]

Did she really miss restoration on books she evaluated as Sotheby's paid "restoration consultant"?!?!

 

I must've missed that one, but then again, I'm not a paid "lack of restoration detection ability" consultant.

[Red Hook]

No, I'll say it right now. Susan in not infallible.

 

Neither is CGC.

 

Or you.

 

Or anybody else.

 

But it is tiring to see you pull out the belt every time her name comes up. You seem to get off on it.

[Red Hook]

Did she really miss restoration on books she evaluated as Sotheby's paid "restoration consultant"?!?!

 

I must've missed that one, but then again, I'm not a paid "lack of restoration detection ability" consultant.

 

Has CGC missed restoration while accepting big $$$ for protecting the collector from all those restoration baddies out there?

[OldGuy]

How did "boner" get through the filter?

 

It's got more then one meaning?

[FlyingDonut]

How did "boner" get through the filter?

 

It's got more then one meaning?

 

So does [embarrassing lack of self control] and [embarrassing lack of self control], but they don't get through.

[FFB]

No, I'll say it right now. Susan in not infallible.

 

Neither is CGC.

 

Or you.

 

Or anybody else.

 

But it is tiring to see you pull out the belt every time her name comes up. You seem to get off on it.

 

Exactly how many times have I done that in the more than two years I've been here?

[FFB]

No, I'll say it right now. Susan in not infallible.

 

Neither is CGC.

 

Or you.

 

Or anybody else.

 

But it is tiring to see you pull out the belt every time her name comes up. You seem to get off on it.

 

Exactly how many times have I done that in the more than two years I've been here?

 

Let me help you out -- the answer is "twice." Once in March 2006, and then again today.