Legitimate Non-Threatening Questions Posed To Matt Nelson

[Davenport]

Steroids are very different, in that they (themselves) are illegal. Pressing is not illegal. Its application to comic books is not illegal. It’s simply under fire right now in this hobby ONLY when not disclosed. Very, very different things and I see your example as anything but analogous.

 

I get confused by the "pressing is not illegal" train of thought. The same argument could be made for undisclosed trimming. There are no laws against it, "trimming is not illegal" (that I know of). One could argue that all comics are trimmed at the factory, so they're only creating a better non-factory edge...it improves the appearance. And "minimally invasive" too (another excuse used) if only a micro-sliver is removed.

 

It's also a great way to get tarred and feathered though, if people find out. Right?

 

I'm not a lawyer, but isn't there a spirit to all the laws created that force full disclosure from merchants? Isn't the spirit of those laws to give consumers the information they need to make fully informed value judgements for themselves?

[gpanalysis]

If you could detect some of the pressing, or remove the incentive for crack-press-reslab, would this be a viable first step? If not, then you'll disagree with what I think could be a first-step approach; otherwise what I propose is as follows:

 

- all books that come into CGC are scanned (high res)

- if a book is scanned and identified as having been previously submitted (through a simple scan/comparison utility) then a careful comparison of scans, grader's notes, any other documentation (missing previous pedigree info, etc) should be taken into account when re-grading OR if previously notable creases, spine rolls, etc that have been removed through pressing are identified, then return the book and do NOT re-grade/certify it

- if CGC's position is that they would re-grade it regardless, then add previous certification information to the new serial number to identify this book as having been previously certified, and make all info available - this does not necessarily mean the book was pressed or altered - just more information at hand as to the history of a book, and ultimately facilitates a more accurate census

- research/identify current technologies (available now) that can be used to further identify re-submitted (and possibly pressed) books.

- the above process will also help with any other forms of restoration or otherwise that may pass through undetected

 

This will NOT work for raw books that have been pressed and submitted for the first time to CGC - i.e. this is not a 100% solution - but it is a start to at least further discussion on moving forward for those advocating the disclosure of pressing. And I think it removes much of the incentive for pressing books in the first place.

[Mushroom]

Steroids are very different, in that they (themselves) are illegal. Pressing is not illegal. Its application to comic books is not illegal. It’s simply under fire right now in this hobby ONLY when not disclosed. Very, very different things and I see your example as anything but analogous.

 

I disagree. Steroids are not illegal. Many everyday people rely on steroids to control or help cure illnesses and conditions. Steroids are only illegal when they are used to abuse or to take an unfair advantage over somebody else.

 

Sounds to me like the analogy does work!

[PedigreeMan]

On the future of the detection of pressing:

 

If we take as anecdotal or even inaccurate Learned Hand's past statements that pressing was just as rampant fifteen to twenty years ago, and that, in fact, most of it has taken place during only the last seven years or so, one has to conclude that there is a great electronic history of these artificial changes being made to the books. Everyone points to Heritage's archive as being the great equalizer, but it's really only one small database of the potential trove of books that have been manipulated. There remain petabytes of data currently hidden from view but that are just waiting to be mined for historical and provenance aspects.

 

Eventually, a lot of that data will be made public.

 

For instance, at some point eBay will no doubt put its entire database of past transactions online. From there it wouldn't take an enterprising young hacker with an interest in social networking software much to write a data-mining program that creates a lineage of all books -- both CGC and raw -- that have been passed around eBay over the years. Who knows what patterns will come to the surface from that one experiment alone?

 

Now think of all those bits and pieces of private data you have hanging around your PC that you think are only of interest to you. In the coming years, how much of that will find its way onto the Internet as your ego forces you to post it because it's the answer to some esoteric question posted on some fringe message board?

 

Or, more sinisterly, what if those browser toolbars and file indexing systems you install are surreptitiously sending information back to their home companies? Or that free email account that may or may not be deleting your mail once you move it to the trash? Or that free file hosting site? Not to mention all of the trojans and backdoors and whatnot that are floating around there. Imagine if Matt Nelson got one of those on his PC and someone stole his client list and then posted it online?

 

Think I'm crazy? This is Google's stated goal: To have all of the world's data indexed online. And they're not alone in this dream. The data is out there, and as cheap storage and computing power grows, the linkages between seemingly randoms pieces of it will start to fall into place. Eventually, the only secrets will be those we completely keep to ourselves. And who the hell can do that?

 

In other words, those of you envisioning a magical "Press-o-Detector 5000" in your futures are sadly mistaken. Rather, those books that have been worked on with "undetectable" techniques will all eventually be outed through the due diligence and obsessive compulsions of those of us in the hobby who actually give a damn and who know how to get the answers.

 

Alan

[october]

petabytes of data

 

Dork.

[Aman619]

If you could detect some of the pressing, or remove the incentive for crack-press-reslab, would this be a viable first step? If not, then you'll disagree with what I think could be a first-step approach; otherwise what I propose is as follows:

 

- all books that come into CGC are scanned (high res)

- if a book is scanned and identified as having been previously submitted (through a simple scan/comparison utility) then a careful comparison of scans, grader's notes, any other documentation (missing previous pedigree info, etc) should be taken into account when re-grading OR if previously notable creases, spine rolls, etc that have been removed through pressing are identified, then return the book and do NOT re-grade/certify it

- if CGC's position is that they would re-grade it regardless, then add previous certification information to the new serial number to identify this book as having been previously certified, and make all info available - this does not necessarily mean the book was pressed or altered - just more information at hand as to the history of a book, and ultimately facilitates a more accurate census

- research/identify current technologies (available now) that can be used to further identify re-submitted (and possibly pressed) books.

- the above process will also help with any other forms of restoration or otherwise that may pass through undetected

 

This will NOT work for raw books that have been pressed and submitted for the first time to CGC - i.e. this is not a 100% solution - but it is a start to at least further discussion on moving forward for those advocating the disclosure of pressing. And I think it removes much of the incentive for pressing books in the first place.

 

excelent plan. Hey Stevie B? Whaddayasay? Why shouldnt CGC, out self proclaimed "protector" take this next step to protect us from improved books? Why NOT make the effort to catalogue each book you grade so you can notate it the next time you see it? WOuldnt that be of great service to your customers, us? Rmember us? the ones you claim to be protecting?

 

sorry for the sarcastic tone, but you gotta admit, not doing something similar to this proposal does question your determination to protect us from more than just the occasional Dupcak scammer. How about going after the everyday pressing-for-profit guys?

[Aman619]

On the future of the detection of pressing:

 

If we take as anecdotal or even inaccurate Learned Hand's past statements that pressing was just as rampant fifteen to twenty years ago, and that, in fact, most of it has taken place during only the last seven years or so, one has to conclude that there is a great electronic history of these artificial changes being made to the books. Everyone points to Heritage's archive as being the great equalizer, but it's really only one small database of the potential trove of books that have been manipulated. There remain petabytes of data currently hidden from view but that are just waiting to be mined for historical and provenance aspects.

 

Eventually, a lot of that data will be made public.

 

For instance, at some point eBay will no doubt put its entire database of past transactions online. From there it wouldn't take an enterprising young hacker with an interest in social networking software much to write a data-mining program that creates a lineage of all books -- both CGC and raw -- that have been passed around eBay over the years. Who knows what patterns will come to the surface from that one experiment alone?

 

Now think of all those bits and pieces of private data you have hanging around your PC that you think are only of interest to you. In the coming years, how much of that will find its way onto the Internet as your ego forces you to post it because it's the answer to some esoteric question posted on some fringe message board?

 

Or, more sinisterly, what if those browser toolbars and file indexing systems you install are surreptitiously sending information back to their home companies? Or that free email account that may or may not be deleting your mail once you move it to the trash? Or that free file hosting site? Not to mention all of the trojans and backdoors and whatnot that are floating around there. Imagine if Matt Nelson got one of those on his PC and someone stole his client list and then posted it online?

 

Think I'm crazy? This is Google's stated goal: To have all of the world's data indexed online. And they're not alone in this dream. The data is out there, and as cheap storage and computing power grows, the linkages between seemingly randoms pieces of it will start to fall into place. Eventually, the only secrets will be those we completely keep to ourselves. And who the hell can do that?

 

In other words, those of you envisioning a magical "Press-o-Detector 5000" in your futures are sadly mistaken. Rather, those books that have been worked on with "undetectable" techniques will all eventually be outed through the due diligence and obsessive compulsions of those of us in the hobby who actually give a damn and who know how to get the answers.

 

Alan

 

I love it! TWO very positive posts in a row! You just may be right. Everthing uploaded to a server online is backed up repeatedly. It all still exists digitally in archives. Too bad all the ebay scans are so lousy, but Id guess a healthy percentage will be usable, wont they?

[heydude-migration]

This is Google's stated goal: To have all of the world's data indexed online. And they're not alone in this dream. The data is out there, and as cheap storage and computing power grows, the linkages between seemingly randoms pieces of it will start to fall into place. Eventually, the only secrets will be those we completely keep to ourselves.

This would be scary if my life weren't extremely boring.

[nearmint]

For instance, at some point eBay will no doubt put its entire database of past transactions online.

 

Really? Why would they do that?

[Aman619]

probably so they can charge for access...

[PedigreeMan]

For instance, at some point eBay will no doubt put its entire database of past transactions online.

 

Really? Why would they do that?

 

It would be an additional revenue stream.

 

Yeah, this data wouldn't necessarily start out free, but it would be out there.

 

Alternatively, imagine if Google bought them outright. Those archives would be online faster than you can say, "Don't be evil!"

[Flaming_Telepath]

Steroids are very different, in that they (themselves) are illegal.

 

 

When did this happen?

[Red Hook]

On the future of the detection of pressing:

 

If we take as anecdotal or even inaccurate Learned Hand's past statements that pressing was just as rampant fifteen to twenty years ago, and that, in fact, most of it has taken place during only the last seven years or so, one has to conclude that there is a great electronic history of these artificial changes being made to the books. Everyone points to Heritage's archive as being the great equalizer, but it's really only one small database of the potential trove of books that have been manipulated. There remain petabytes of data currently hidden from view but that are just waiting to be mined for historical and provenance aspects.

 

Eventually, a lot of that data will be made public.

 

For instance, at some point eBay will no doubt put its entire database of past transactions online. From there it wouldn't take an enterprising young hacker with an interest in social networking software much to write a data-mining program that creates a lineage of all books -- both CGC and raw -- that have been passed around eBay over the years. Who knows what patterns will come to the surface from that one experiment alone?

 

Now think of all those bits and pieces of private data you have hanging around your PC that you think are only of interest to you. In the coming years, how much of that will find its way onto the Internet as your ego forces you to post it because it's the answer to some esoteric question posted on some fringe message board?

 

Or, more sinisterly, what if those browser toolbars and file indexing systems you install are surreptitiously sending information back to their home companies? Or that free email account that may or may not be deleting your mail once you move it to the trash? Or that free file hosting site? Not to mention all of the trojans and backdoors and whatnot that are floating around there. Imagine if Matt Nelson got one of those on his PC and someone stole his client list and then posted it online?

 

Think I'm crazy? This is Google's stated goal: To have all of the world's data indexed online. And they're not alone in this dream. The data is out there, and as cheap storage and computing power grows, the linkages between seemingly randoms pieces of it will start to fall into place. Eventually, the only secrets will be those we completely keep to ourselves. And who the hell can do that?

 

In other words, those of you envisioning a magical "Press-o-Detector 5000" in your futures are sadly mistaken. Rather, those books that have been worked on with "undetectable" techniques will all eventually be outed through the due diligence and obsessive compulsions of those of us in the hobby who actually give a damn and who know how to get the answers.

 

Alan

 

 

Interesting theory. Extremely interesting.

[Ze-man]

If you could detect some of the pressing, or remove the incentive for crack-press-reslab, would this be a viable first step? If not, then you'll disagree with what I think could be a first-step approach; otherwise what I propose is as follows:

 

- all books that come into CGC are scanned (high res)

- if a book is scanned and identified as having been previously submitted (through a simple scan/comparison utility) then a careful comparison of scans, grader's notes, any other documentation (missing previous pedigree info, etc) should be taken into account when re-grading OR if previously notable creases, spine rolls, etc that have been removed through pressing are identified, then return the book and do NOT re-grade/certify it

- if CGC's position is that they would re-grade it regardless, then add previous certification information to the new serial number to identify this book as having been previously certified, and make all info available - this does not necessarily mean the book was pressed or altered - just more information at hand as to the history of a book, and ultimately facilitates a more accurate census

- research/identify current technologies (available now) that can be used to further identify re-submitted (and possibly pressed) books.

- the above process will also help with any other forms of restoration or otherwise that may pass through undetected

 

This will NOT work for raw books that have been pressed and submitted for the first time to CGC - i.e. this is not a 100% solution - but it is a start to at least further discussion on moving forward for those advocating the disclosure of pressing. And I think it removes much of the incentive for pressing books in the first place.

 

excelent plan. Hey Stevie B? Whaddayasay? Why shouldnt CGC, out self proclaimed "protector" take this next step to protect us from improved books? Why NOT make the effort to catalogue each book you grade so you can notate it the next time you see it? WOuldnt that be of great service to your customers, us? Rmember us? the ones you claim to be protecting?

 

sorry for the sarcastic tone, but you gotta admit, not doing something similar to this proposal does question your determination to protect us from more than just the occasional Dupcak scammer. How about going after the everyday pressing-for-profit guys?

 

 

I wish it could be so, this same scenario has been brought up many times in the past. From talking about an fbi fingerprint recognition type of software that could be used to see if a book was a resub, or an in house scan database to be used as a comparision tool, it is just not feasible. The time it would take to make that work is staggering. Unless told unpon submission, or it has tell tale pedigree markings, they dont reseach every book submitted.

Most of those earlier threads discussion re subbed books were before NBP pressing was even a glimmer on the horizen, or just dawning. The sad reality is CGC(Steve) do not consider pressing to be a bad thing unless done improperly. So why would they track it to go after the pressing for profit guys? K

 

It has become quite clear CGC is not the police in our hobby, but rather just another business in our hobby. They will do their best with the book in front of them to detect restoration. thats it. All the things that we might want them to implement for the betterment our hobby just dont fall into their current business model. Or philosphy for that matter.

 

I think this quote is what I would hope for the most, if a book is known to have come through before. Say so. Even if only on a "as it comes up" book by book basis.

if CGC's position is that they would re-grade it regardless, then add previous certification information to the new serial number to identify this book as having been previously certified, and make all info available

[LearnedHand]

Responses to Tim (TTH2), Mushroom and George from GPA:

 

Tim (TTH2):

 

Peter, it's too difficult and frustrating to respond by writing. This is a discussion that would conducted much more easily in person. You're not going to be in SD, are you?

I completely agree Tim, but I won’t be in SD this year.

 

Suffice to say that illegality is irrelevant to me, and the constant raising of it as a strawman in these discussions is extremely frustrating. You keep saying we should stop bogging down in technicalities, so I was trying to explain the principles underlying my views, but you keep bogging it down in technicalities like steroids are illegal but pressing is not. Various drugs could be legal but banned by athletic organizations because they unfairly enhance performance, just like pressing could be legal but frowned upon/banned by some comic collector association. Blood doping in its most basic form is completely legal, as it's just restoring a person's own blood to him, but it's banned, rightfully so, by the IOC and others.

 

Tim,

 

We can continue to gloss over every material facet that doesn’t support the anti-NDP argument, but that’s going to be worthless. The fact is that the procedure (pressing) is not wrong, it’s not banned, and it’s not under fire. The non-disclosure of pressing (NDP) itself is the only issue. And NDP is not banned – it’s just seen as unethical - by some.

 

Your example, and many others, make the same faulty assumptions – that the procedure (pressing) is wrong, that it can be detected, and that there are consequences. All of this is untrue. I spoke to another lawyer (who’s on the Boards) today and he analogized it to a cocaine manufacturer (presser) and the street pusher (CGC) and that the pusher doesn’t know cocaine is illegal, until he gets busted in a sting operation. This type of analogy is patently wrong. It assumes that the thing itself is illicit, that the illicit thing is then not disclosed, and that it can be detected with an ability to enforce consequences.

 

I gave him a different example with which he agreed, because what the anti-NDP crowd can’t get their minds around is that the analogy should assume the thing itself is not illicit (like aspirin being sold by a pharmacist), and that the distributor has laced 0.001% of the aspirin with some inert and legal drug that cannot be detected (and the pharmacist, knowing that some aspirin are laced, is unable to detect this). So the only issue (like with pressing) is that the non-disclosure itself has some people thinking that they are being suckered because they aren’t getting exactly that for which they think they are paying. Also, if there are any consequences (if the rare example ever came to light), consequences might include no more than a warning or a fine.

 

While I like your blood doping (BD) analogy, it still isn’t analogous (and it makes some of the faulty assumptions described above). True, BD isn’t illegal, but this is where the analogy diverges from pressing. BD isn’t restoring blood. It puts the person’s blood back into them after the body has already replenished what was removed. Thus, it puts more blood into a given body than naturally occurs there, so it’s actually adding something. And, BD is banned by the IOC. Keeping it simple, pressing adds nothing and is NOT banned anywhere. And, BD has very temporary affects, meaning if someone wants to hide BD, it is so much harder, as you can look at every prior recorded performance by the athlete. An equivalent in this hobby would be for a book to be professionally graded many times with varying grades, all of which can be easily accessed by the general public.

 

Mushroom (cool name):

 

Steroids are not illegal? Other than the 0.3% topical solutions for poison ivy/oak, please tell me what pharmacy in the U.S. I can walk into, without a doctor’s prescription, and buy true steroids like Dianabol, Anavar, Winstrol-V, etc.?

 

Seriously, I know what you meant. Maybe Tim and I should have qualified our comments (steroids without a prescription), thus, I would ask that you read Tim’s follow-up and mine (above) to see if they clarify that illegality is not the issue.

 

George - GPA:

 

If you could detect some of the pressing, or remove the incentive for crack-press-reslab, would this be a viable first step? If not, then you'll disagree with what I think could be a first-step approach; otherwise what I propose is as follows:

 

- all books that come into CGC are scanned (high res)

- if a book is scanned and identified as having been previously submitted (through a simple scan/comparison utility) then a careful comparison of scans, grader's notes, any other documentation (missing previous pedigree info, etc) should be taken into account when re-grading OR if previously notable creases, spine rolls, etc that have been removed through pressing are identified, then return the book and do NOT re-grade/certify it

- if CGC's position is that they would re-grade it regardless, then add previous certification information to the new serial number to identify this book as having been previously certified, and make all info available - this does not necessarily mean the book was pressed or altered - just more information at hand as to the history of a book, and ultimately facilitates a more accurate census

- research/identify current technologies (available now) that can be used to further identify re-submitted (and possibly pressed) books.

- the above process will also help with any other forms of restoration or otherwise that may pass through undetected

 

This will NOT work for raw books that have been pressed and submitted for the first time to CGC - i.e. this is not a 100% solution - but it is a start to at least further discussion on moving forward for those advocating the disclosure of pressing. And I think it removes much of the incentive for pressing books in the first place.

 

George,

 

Some very good points. I guess the first question is – would CGC’s business model support all the extra infrastructure and equipment expenditure to make this a viable plan (by the way, I queried CGC on just these issues about 6 - 9 months ago). Assuming the answer is yes (this is a pure assumption), then would everyone be willing to have the sub fees bumped up by another (say) $10 per book to cover all the additional resources? Again, I’m not suggesting an answer, just offering the practical reality of this scenario.

 

And you’re right, this limited detection will do nothing but create a very pothole-like playing field, with a minute fraction of books perhaps erroneously stigmatized, because we are left to jump to conclusions about why a book went from 9.2 to 9.4. It could be due to pressing, or it could just as easily be because grading is an art and the first time it was graded, 3 human beings assigned it: 9.4/9.2/9.2, but the second time, this unpressed book was assigned 9.4/9.4/9.2. Nothing nefarious, just one on-the-fence-person that changed his mind. And, as you correctly point out, this does nothing for pressed and resubbed books for which no before/after scans are available, and it does nothing for pressed raw books. I agree it would have some tiny value as a first step. My concern is that the first step is also the last, if the detectability issue precludes any further movement – in which case we are left with some fractional percentage of books (probably just some very high grade books and some pedigrees) forever stigmatized while most pressed books go unnoticed.

[Aman619]

its not perfect, but you dont see it as a deterrent?

[tth2]

And NDP is not banned – it’s just seen as unethical - by some.

Trimming isn't banned either, nor is any kind of comic book restoration/conservation/enhancement technique. Let's get real, we ARE talking about comic books here, so no action that one chooses to take with one's own books are ever going to be banned. If your whole position on disclosure only hinges upon whether the disclosed act is banned, then nothing in the comic book world would ever need to be disclosed.

[esquirecomics]

I've kept an eye on this thread but, as may have been noticed (or not), I've refrained from posting. A variety of reasons have underscored why. Legal work, family, and, frankly, I've said pretty much all I need to say with respect to substantive posts unless something new comes along.

 

But I want to make one general comment. If anyone posted some specific question to me that I need to respond to, please let me know. I'm not re-reading through all the prior posts in detail. As should be known by now, unlike some others, I do not avoid confrontation or answering hard questions.

 

Although I have been involved with comics since the early 1970s, I was out of the hobby for a significant period of time during certain years. As a result I had no idea about CGC until late 2003 or early 2004. Quite candidly, I knew nothing of pressing until I came on these boards, which was in January 2005. It was obviously after that when I found out about the controversy that I am so familiar with, and apparently such an integral part of today. That means, I've only known about this issue for not even 18 months.

 

And, yes, I spent upteen tens of thousands of dollars on books, especially through Heritage in 2004 and early 2005, before I came to learn what was going on. Did I unknowingly buy pressed books? Yes I did. Would I have bought those books had I known what I know today? I don't know because I never had the choice put to me at the time in order to render an informed decision. So, yes, what led me to be engaged in this debate is the feeling that I was personally taken advantage of by not being given information that I feel could have led me to modify my decision. I'd like to make sure others do not find themselves in the same position. With full knowledge in hand, if they want to purchase pressed books, by all means they should do so. Nothing wrong with making an informed decision.

 

I don't know why the personal experience I had that led me to take an interest should be of concern to anyone though. Does anyone question John Walsh's motive for or interest in chasing criminals because what led him to be involved was his personal experience in having his child murdered? Or the numerous people who formed non-profits regarding the diseases that affected their loved ones or themselves? It doesn't matter, unless of course there is some hidden interest that contradicts or conflicts with the objective.

 

For me, I can't imagine what it could be. I gain nothing by the positions I have espoused except to know that I am following my ethical principles. Frankly, I stand to lose a lot financially given all the CGC/Heritage books I now own.

 

In any event, its been a long birthday day for me. Saw the Nats beat the Os and weathered quite a storm here in the DC area! So, nuff said. For now.

 

 

[esquirecomics]

This conversation began in the Restoration Section in the thread about the results from Matt Nelson's pressing demonstration. The contents soon spilled over into a substantive debate. It was accurately pointed out that this discussion was an aside to the topic of the thread. As I dislike when a thread gets pulled off topic, I will initiate a separate thread in the General Section here.

 

I have been responding to Matt Nelson's substantive comments wherein he has tried to explain his expert opinions regarding restoration, conservation and pressing. I do not believe any of the questions below have been substantively answered by Mr. Nelson.

 

I do not see this as attacking in any way, intimidating or hostile. Mr. Nelson is an expert in this field and I do not see why he would be unwilling to address these questions. I am not looking for him to persuade me towards his positions, but I would like to better understand them. If anyone thinks these questions are inappropriate, then please state so and indicate why you think so.

 

I've posed similar questions to Tracey Heft and Susan Cicconi, both recognized experts (and Mr. Nelson's peers) in the restoration field and neither have been unwilling to engage in a back and forth substantive and professional dialogue. And Mr. Heft, as everyone knows, openly conducts commercial pressing so this is clearly not my attempt to isolate Mr. Nelson.

 

Questions

 

(1) How do you define conservation? In what respect does pressing constitute conservation? Is your definition of conservation supported by any of your peers or professional organizations that relate to the appropriate fields?

 

(2) Do you not believe there is an ethical requirement to disclose conservation treatment? If not, why would the ethical obligations that bind your area of expertise only apply to restoration and not conservation? Can you find any support from among your peers or professional organizations that relate to the appropriate fields that conclude conservation does not need to be disclosed?

 

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

 

 

12 days later.

[Ze-man]

 

12 days later.

 

 

At least when it was MY birthday he had the decency to reply to my post. He didnt tell me anything I wanted to hear though..

 

btw, Happy b day to you.