Legitimate Non-Threatening Questions Posed To Matt Nelson

[tth2]

He has said he`ll disclose if asked. So if he`s got a book you want, then ask him if it`s pressed, and if it`s not, then you can buy it.

Why should I have to ask if someone has fooled with a book every time I want to buy one? Why can't he just disclose it up front? Instead of thousands of collectors having to ask about the thousands of raw books on eBay, why can't the ones who are pressing simply disclose it up front about the books they're selling?

 

The reason is very obvious...money. And I refuse to do business with people that aren't forthcoming about what they're selling because they know it'll hurt their bottom line. It's a passive way of deceiving collectors, and it's wrong no matter how one tries to slice it.

So it`s not a disclosure issue at all. He doesn`t just have to disclose it, he has to disclose it in a certain way that`s convenient for you.

 

Why are you guys dancing around this issue and dressing it up in terms of disclosure or non-disclosure? I get the feeling that no matter what he did, you would find fault with it and refuse to buy from him regardless. If you think pressing is wrong, or that the guy is committing fraud, then just say so and stop clouding the issue with all this disclosure stuff.

[Forbush-Man]

The reason is very obvious...money. And I refuse to do business with people that aren't forthcoming about what they're selling because they know it'll hurt their bottom line. It's a passive way of deceiving collectors, and it's wrong no matter how one tries to slice it.

 

[tth2]

He has said he`ll disclose if asked. So if he`s got a book you want, then ask him if it`s pressed, and if it`s not, then you can buy it.

Why should I have to ask if someone has fooled with a book every time I want to buy one? Why can't he just disclose it up front? Instead of thousands of collectors having to ask about the thousands of books on eBay, why can't the ones who are pressing simply disclose it up front about the books they're selling?

 

The reason is very obvious...money. And I refuse to do business with people that aren't forthcoming about what they're selling because they know it'll hurt their bottom line. It's a passive way of deceiving collectors, and it's wrong no matter how one tries to slice it.

 

I would assume this refusal to be forthcoming about the products one sells could potentially cause buyers to question the answer they receive as well. Pressing being undetectable and all, how would a buyer ever really know?

So again, it`s not actually a disclosure issue at all. If Matt said he`ll disclose pressing up front and actually does so, as Sho Nuff wants him to do, you seem to be saying that you`d still pass on the books that he doesn`t say are pressed because at this point you basically don`t believe him anymore.

[THE_BEYONDER]

He has said he`ll disclose if asked. So if he`s got a book you want, then ask him if it`s pressed, and if it`s not, then you can buy it.

Why should I have to ask if someone has fooled with a book every time I want to buy one? Why can't he just disclose it up front? Instead of thousands of collectors having to ask about the thousands of books on eBay, why can't the ones who are pressing simply disclose it up front about the books they're selling?

 

The reason is very obvious...money. And I refuse to do business with people that aren't forthcoming about what they're selling because they know it'll hurt their bottom line. It's a passive way of deceiving collectors, and it's wrong no matter how one tries to slice it.

 

I would assume this refusal to be forthcoming about the products one sells could potentially cause buyers to question the answer they receive as well. Pressing being undetectable and all, how would a buyer ever really know?

So again, it`s not actually a disclosure issue at all. If Matt said he`ll disclose pressing up front and actually does so, as Sho Nuff wants him to do, you seem to be saying that you`d still pass on the books that he doesn`t say are pressed because at this point you basically don`t believe him anymore.

 

No. I will never buy books from Matt regardless.

 

I'm not pressing him for answers, nor do I need to know anymore about his practices than I already do.

 

I'd rather just deal with those that have nothing to disclose in the 1st place.

[Ze-man]

To me it simply comes down to the fact that I cannot stand the entire "Ask me if a book is pressed and I will tell you,but for those who dont know to ask...tuff beans policy"

 

The whole "Nothing is wrong with pressing, so why should I need to tell people"

 

It is all just too convenient.

 

 

NDP is the one thing I cannot control, and is the one thing I cannot stand most of all. People getting over on other people. All because of a loophole that allows people to improve their books and flip them for more money. Nothing is done to help the book other then aesthetically. Which I know some feel is not a bad thing.

To those of you who press for profit, dont try and say it is anything other then what it is. "A cash cow", and nothing we can say or do will sway you until you are forced to change by as of yet unknown discoveries in our hobby.

 

Ze-

[Davenport]

 

But I have not once seen an external reason to indicate what possible obligation could exist for the dealer to "have" to disclose. Nobody has said, here's the logic behind it other than we as individuals think we are entitled to it. That doesn't constitute a rationale or any logic.

http://www.therestorationlab.com/index.php

"However, I am fully aware that some competitors of mine not only appraise books but also work as dealers and brokers. Is there not a major conflict of interest here? They seek out entire collections for purchase, restoration and resale at a profit. According to the American Institute of Conservation, such activity constitutes an egregious violation of the Code of Ethics and Standards."

 

 

"I consider undisclosed intact pressing to be unethical and deceptive."

__________________________________________________________

http://www.conservators.org.nz/code.asp

 

Code of Ethics

Technical Disclosure: There must be no secrecy about any techniques or materials used in conservation, particularly amongst members of the profession.

Conflicts of Interest: No conservator should knowingly enter into contractual or other working arrangements or agreements which place the conservator in a position of a conflict of interest.

_____________________________________________________________

http://aic.stanford.edu/about/coredocs/coe/index.html

AIC Code of Ethics

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

Disclosure: In professional relationships, the conservation professional should share complete and accurate information relating to the efficacy and value of materials and procedures.

 

Conflict of Interest: The conservation professional should avoid situations in which there is a potential for a conflict of interest that may affect the quality of work, lead to the dissemination of false information, or give the appearance of impropriety.

B. Minimum Accepted Practice

• Conservation professionals must remove themselves from situations in which the potential for a real or perceived conflict of interest exists. Such situations may include: monetary gain from the sale of a cultural property examined or treated by the conservation professional

 

DOCUMENTATION

24. Documentation: The conservation professional has an obligation to produce and maintain accurate, complete, and permanent records of examination, sampling, scientific investigation, and treatment. When appropriate, the records should be both written and pictorial.

B. MINIMUM ACCEPTED PRACTICE

The obligation to produce documentation cannot be waived for any reason.

A written record should be made any time that cultural property is examined, analyzed, sampled, treated, altered, and/or damaged...

[ShoNuff-migration]

So it`s not a disclosure issue at all. He doesn`t just have to disclose it, he has to disclose it in a certain way that`s convenient for you.

No, it's a disclosure issue. Matt is puposefully not disclosing this information up front because he knows it will affect the amounts he gets for his books. He also knows that many aren't aware that he can press lower grade books into higher grade ones, or that it's not feasible to ask hundreds of different sellers thousands of times if each book they're interested in bidding on has been pressed. Like I said, it's passive deception, no matter how you try to slice it.

 

Why are you guys dancing around this issue and dressing it up in terms of disclosure or non-disclosure? I get the feeling that no matter what he did, you would find fault with it and refuse to buy from him regardless. If you think pressing is wrong, or that the guy is committing fraud, then just say so and stop clouding the issue with all this disclosure stuff.

And why are you trying to put words into other peoples mouths? I put it in terms of disclosure and non-disclosure because that's what I feel the issue is. And your "feeling" that I would find fault with whatever he does is absolutely wrong. If Matt would simply start disclosing in his auctions now if he's pressed a book, then I wouldn't have a problem with him. I think it's up to the individual to decide if pressing is acceptable to them. However, I think pressing a book and then selling it without disclosing up front what's been done to it is wrong. If anyone is clouding the issue, I think it's the apologists who keep shouting that Matt will diclose that work has been done to a book if someone asks. How convenient for both Matt and his pocket book.

[Forbush-Man]

 

But I have not once seen an external reason to indicate what possible obligation could exist for the dealer to "have" to disclose. Nobody has said, here's the logic behind it other than we as individuals think we are entitled to it. That doesn't constitute a rationale or any logic.

http://www.therestorationlab.com/index.php

"However, I am fully aware that some competitors of mine not only appraise books but also work as dealers and brokers. Is there not a major conflict of interest here? They seek out entire collections for purchase, restoration and resale at a profit. According to the American Institute of Conservation, such activity constitutes an egregious violation of the Code of Ethics and Standards."

 

 

"I consider undisclosed intact pressing to be unethical and deceptive."

__________________________________________________________

http://www.conservators.org.nz/code.asp

 

Code of Ethics

Technical Disclosure: There must be no secrecy about any techniques or materials used in conservation, particularly amongst members of the profession.

Conflicts of Interest: No conservator should knowingly enter into contractual or other working arrangements or agreements which place the conservator in a position of a conflict of interest.

_____________________________________________________________

http://aic.stanford.edu/about/coredocs/coe/index.html

AIC Code of Ethics

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

Disclosure: In professional relationships, the conservation professional should share complete and accurate information relating to the efficacy and value of materials and procedures.

 

Conflict of Interest: The conservation professional should avoid situations in which there is a potential for a conflict of interest that may affect the quality of work, lead to the dissemination of false information, or give the appearance of impropriety.

B. Minimum Accepted Practice

• Conservation professionals must remove themselves from situations in which the potential for a real or perceived conflict of interest exists. Such situations may include: monetary gain from the sale of a cultural property examined or treated by the conservation professional

 

DOCUMENTATION

24. Documentation: The conservation professional has an obligation to produce and maintain accurate, complete, and permanent records of examination, sampling, scientific investigation, and treatment. When appropriate, the records should be both written and pictorial.

B. MINIMUM ACCEPTED PRACTICE

The obligation to produce documentation cannot be waived for any reason.

A written record should be made any time that cultural property is examined, analyzed, sampled, treated, altered, and/or damaged...

 

Nice post, Davenport! Just about says it all right there!

[ShoNuff-migration]

I'd start buying from him as well if he'd start disclosing what work, if any, had been done to his books.

I should clarify this statement I made earlier. The longer Matt chooses not to preemptively dislose pressing in his auctions, the less likely I become willing to deal with him in the future. As Beyonder has already alluded...Matt's current methods are not speaking very highly of his character.

[Foolkiller]

Since you are comparing apples and oranges, you skipped this part:

 

7. Confidentiality: Except as provided in the Code of Ethics and Guidelines for Practice, the conservation professional should consider relationships with an owner, custodian, or authorized agent as confidential. Information derived from examination, scientific investigation, or treatment of the cultural property should not be publish ed or otherwise made public without written permission.

 

The kind of disclosure you cited as an example isn't the same kind as we're discussing here, and the reason for the disclosure of the materials is for a variety of different reasons other than simple curiousity. There are good reasons that certain techniques are harmful to the preservation of historical artifacts and thus they are presenting a uniform guideline for not simply the disclosure but also for the accepted practices and scientifically proven methods. Disclosure is done to the client so that they are aware of what has been done to their artifact, not for the purposes of resale.

 

I am sure if you get a book pressed, Matt will tell you the process and disclose the methodology he employs.

 

Moreover, there is no evidence that shows that pressing harms a book. The burden should be on the party moving for the disclosure (i.e. the change in common practice of non disclosure) to prove there is some reason why disclosure should be mandated other than broad philosophical whinings and statements that there is inconclusive evidence. In the face of inconclusive evidence regarding sales and pressed books, the policy ought to be maintained of no obligation to disclose.

[THE_BEYONDER]

How about we publically declare that all of Matt's books are pressed...and he can come on here & tell us which one's were not?

 

Wouldn't that be easier than allowing Matt to set a precedent forcing collectors to ask about every comic they purchase?

[Foolkiller]

Why are we assuming that Matt is the only person pressing? I presume there are others doing the exact same thing, and you'll have no chance of getting them to disclose.

 

The position you are putting dealers in is to be even more secretive. If I were them I would simply close ranks, not discuss the issue at all, and continue to press and ignore the pressing debate entirely.

 

Why should Matt do something that no one else in the industry does, disclose all pressed books? The point of the matter is, this is an absolutely moot debate until they start seeing sales affected. In the Ewert incident, there were no teeth until CGC took action and banned him from submitting. Once the trimming issue got out, there's no collectors who I know of who would buy a trimmed book at the same price as a non trimmed book. Trimming is destruction of part of the book.

 

Not so with pressing, and thus until there's a reason for them to disclose, why on earth would you ever do it, unless there was an incentive, either in the positive or negative, to do so.

[THE_BEYONDER]

You're missing the point. There should be NO NEED to ask if a book has been pressed.

[Foolkiller]

Why?

[october]

You're missing the point. There should be NO NEED to ask if a book has been pressed.

 

There's the way things "should" be and then there's the way things are. Never the twain shall meet until you FORCE pressers to disclose. All this talk is just fantasy and grandstanding. That's just a fact.

 

That's the problem though, you can't force them to disclose until you can actually detect who is doing it. Since that isn't going to happen anytime soon, looks like we are screwed.

[THE_BEYONDER]

Buyers don't ask me if my books have been pressed. Why? Because they know I would tell them if they were. Well...that...and because a large percentage of buyers don't even know to ask the question in the 1st place.

 

Matt is creating a terrible atmosphere for sellers. His actions impact those who choose not to market in pressed books.

[Flaming_Telepath]

Just so we're clear -- you're saying that if Matt affirmatively discloses pressing, you'll start buying those books from him? Sure you would.

 

Don't you get tired of putting words into peoples' mouths?

 

What I said was that if Matt implimented a practice of pro-active disclosure, I would buy from him again. I didn't say what I'd buy from him, just that I'd buy from him.

 

At this moment in time, I will buy nothing, whether pressed or not, because of what I consider to be unethical practices. However, if he adopted a practice of full, proactive disclosure, I would consider buying, but yes, it would be the books that hadn't been worked on.

 

At the moment, they're all tarred with the same brush, and I feel absolutely no desire to check out each item with him directly.

 

And Brian, my dollars are minimal, I agree, but what if we can get this to snow-ball? What if I'm joined by another two or three previous buyers? What if they become a dozen? Or two dozen? Or fifty buyers who withdrew their patronage?

 

You and Scott have sat your high horses and told us that what we're doing here is blowing hot air with no chance of change.

 

Now you're telling us that taking proactive action with our wallets will also have no chance of change.

 

You might be right with point 1, but you sure are sh!te ain't right with 2. It's only a question of numbers.

[THE_BEYONDER]

You're missing the point. There should be NO NEED to ask if a book has been pressed.

 

There's the way things "should" be and then there's the way things are. Never the twain shall meet until you FORCE pressers to disclose. All this talk is just fantasy and grandstanding. That's just a fact.

 

 

That's not 'fact'...that's opinion.

[Foolkiller]

Just so we're clear -- you're saying that if Matt affirmatively discloses pressing, you'll start buying those books from him? Sure you would.

 

Don't you get tired of putting words into peoples' mouths?

 

What I said was that if Matt implimented a practice of pro-active disclosure, I would buy from him again. I didn't say what I'd buy from him, just that I'd buy from him.

 

At this moment in time, I will buy nothing, whether pressed or not, because of what I consider to be unethical practices. However, if he adopted a practice of full, proactive disclosure, I would consider buying, but yes, it would be the books that hadn't been worked on.

 

At the moment, they're all tarred with the same brush, and I feel absolutely no desire to check out each item with him directly.

 

And Brian, my dollars are minimal, I agree, but what if we can get this to snow-ball? What if I'm joined by another two or three previous buyers? What if they become a dozen? Or two dozen? Or fifty buyers who withdrew their patronage?

 

You and Scott have sat your high horses and told us that what we're doing here is blowing hot air with no chance of change.

 

Now you're telling us that taking proactive action with our wallets will also have no chance of change.

 

You might be right with point 1, but you sure are sh!te ain't right with 2. It's only a question of numbers.

 

No. What I'm telling you (and not from a high horse Nick) is that this has no chance because people don't care. You are a minority view in a minority segment of the hobby (high grade).

 

The big buyers are already aware of pressing. I would venture to say that anyone investing thousands and thousands of dollars in high end books is aware of a practice like pressing that has been going on for 20 years.

 

I say you're (not you personally) are blowing hot air because this viewpoint is simply something you want without justification for why it is needed

[october]

You're missing the point. There should be NO NEED to ask if a book has been pressed.

 

There's the way things "should" be and then there's the way things are. Never the twain shall meet until you FORCE pressers to disclose. All this talk is just fantasy and grandstanding. That's just a fact.

 

 

That's not 'fact'...that's opinion.

 

Not really. What has been accomplished here? After literally thousands of posts on the subject Matt is still selling pressed books without disclosure and doing well at it. All this talk hasn't even made a dent in the most public and obvious "offender". Talk about a dog without a bite!

 

If you REALLY want to make a difference, if you REALLY want to get something done, organize a boycott. Take names of those who refuse to buy from Matt because of his nondisclosure policies and send him the list. Go on every message board you can find and get the word out. Hand out leaflets at cons. Take an ad out in Overstreet. You guys are so incensed over his actions but you all seem content to sit back and argue with the same freaking dozen people over and over again. It hasn't accomplished much and it won't accomplish much.