Legitimate Non-Threatening Questions Posed To Matt Nelson

[OldGuy]

 

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!

 

Yea, nice post, if anyone here were actually interested in answers.

[mica]

Yea, nice post, if anyone here were actually interested in answers.

I like things out in the open. Deep down so do you.

Otherwise there would be numerous "E-Mails" back and forth between you and Comic Keys, and no publicly accessible links in the old Signature line.

[OldGuy]

Otherwise there would be numerous "E-Mails" back and forth between you and Comic Keys, and no publicly accessible links in the old Signature line.

 

 

You might be supprised at how many e-mails we've exchanged.

[mica]

Otherwise there would be numerous "E-Mails" back and forth between you and Comic Keys, and no publicly accessible links in the old Signature line.

 

 

You might be supprised at how many e-mails we've exchanged.

So we get the best of both worlds.

[Aman619]

Otherwise there would be numerous "E-Mails" back and forth between you and Comic Keys, and no publicly accessible links in the old Signature line.

 

 

You might be supprised at how many e-mails we've exchanged.

 

IS HE STILL ACTIVE?

AFTER STLComics I havent tracked him anywhere.

He must still have a lot to say about the old CGC/Heritage/trilateral commission conspiracy stuff.

[OldGuy]

Otherwise there would be numerous "E-Mails" back and forth between you and Comic Keys, and no publicly accessible links in the old Signature line.

 

 

You might be supprised at how many e-mails we've exchanged.

 

IS HE STILL ACTIVE?

AFTER STLComics I havent tracked him anywhere.

He must still have a lot to say about the old CGC/Heritage/trilateral commission conspiracy stuff.

 

He's around, not very active, but around and posting "here and there" from time to time.

[FlyingDonut]

Otherwise there would be numerous "E-Mails" back and forth between you and Comic Keys, and no publicly accessible links in the old Signature line.

 

 

You might be supprised at how many e-mails we've exchanged.

 

IS HE STILL ACTIVE?

AFTER STLComics I havent tracked him anywhere.

He must still have a lot to say about the old CGC/Heritage/trilateral commission conspiracy stuff.

 

He's around, not very active, but around and posting "here and there" from time to time.

 

He's posting constantly on the GoldComics.com forum.

[mica]

He's posting constantly on the GoldComics.com forum.

You mean he's Feulman?

[Aman619]

really?

[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.

 

20 days later.

 

On "day one" I suggested you e-mail him. On "day two" I pointed out that it seemed no one was interested in actually getting answers because no one had yet e-mailed him. It would seem that there is still no interest in actually getting answers.

 

OG, you must have missed my post above where I did state I had e-mailed Matt. I sent him the questions that I posted on the boards because I never assumed he would see them and I wanted to make sure he was aware that they existed. He e-mailed me back and said that he did plan on responding. You know the rest.

 

So, yes, I am very much interested in actually getting answers.

[Foolkiller]

 

Now where I have a problem is if Matt said he would respond and yet never has. While I don't think he should be responding to the thread, you can't say you are going to respond then never follow through.

 

If indeed Matt said via email he would respond to the questions posted here I think he has to either a) come on and answer the questions or b) explain why he's changed his mind to Mark via email.

[esquirecomics]

 

Now where I have a problem is if Matt said he would respond and yet never has. While I don't think he should be responding to the thread, you can't say you are going to respond then never follow through.

 

If indeed Matt said via email he would respond to the questions posted here I think he has to either a) come on and answer the questions or b) explain why he's changed his mind to Mark via email.

 

He did indeed. Most people seomtimes fail to realize that simply because matters might get heated on the boards that it doesn't mean the same environment exists behind the scenes. Matt and I have occasionally corresponded via e-mail and I always send him (and others) an advance copy of an article or "controversial" post where I mention him (or others) to alert them so they can properly and timely respond.

 

He indicated he was busy at that very moment, to which I replied no problem, that is understandable, and that I look forward to his response. That was almost a month ago.

[OldGuy]

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.

 

20 days later.

 

On "day one" I suggested you e-mail him. On "day two" I pointed out that it seemed no one was interested in actually getting answers because no one had yet e-mailed him. It would seem that there is still no interest in actually getting answers.

 

OG, you must have missed my post above where I did state I had e-mailed Matt. I sent him the questions that I posted on the boards because I never assumed he would see them and I wanted to make sure he was aware that they existed. He e-mailed me back and said that he did plan on responding. You know the rest.

 

So, yes, I am very much interested in actually getting answers.

 

[LearnedHand]

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.

 

Tim,

 

My position has been consistently based on the following facts:

 

(a) Pressing is a perfectly acceptable practice.

(b) There is no clear evidence to suggest that pressing negatively affect sales prices.

© Non-disclosed pressing, and only non-disclosed pressing, is considered unethical – by some.

(d) Virtually all pressing cannot be detected, making voluntary disclosure and definitions limited deterrents.

 

In case it’s not clear, hinging any of my points on an act being banned has NEVER formed a part of any of my arguments – it’s something with which you constantly pepper your non-analogous examples (to which I and others respond).

 

Frankly, because you simply poke at other peoples’ opinions and never really provide your own, I don’t know what your position is, or its basis. Instead of simply twisting peoples’ words and chalking up every pertinent fact as a technicality, why not just tell us what you think. For instance – based on fact, do you disagree that pressing cannot be detected, or that voluntary disclosure and definitions offer limited deterrent? Etc.

 

I also get the feeling that you think I am against disclosure. Where you got this notion, I’ll never know. As I’ve clearly said on many occasions, disclosure is good, and we all have an ethical duty. My issues are that (a) disclosure is not a panacea, and it is hopelessly hamstrung because it relies on people disclosing (which will not have 100% participation or anything near this) and is also sensitive to those that disclose being 100% forthcoming; and (b) some people have an entitlement attitude. I think reality dictates that there be some synergy. If someone doesn’t affirmatively disclose but will disclose if asked – ask. If you don’t trust the person, don’t deal with them. Any potential purchaser should have some responsibility over his own undertakings.

[Calamerica]

That'd be the Deathlok/Calamerica showdown. An absolute blinder!

 

[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.

 

20 days later.

 

28 days later.

 

Matt, if you believe ignoring me and these questions, especially while responding to questions/claims in other threads, will succeed, I assure you that this will not be the case. I will continue to keep this thread alive every week or so. More and more people will see it, access it, read it, form their own opinions and perhaps come up with their own questions.

 

You had personally informed me that you would respond. That was a month ago. We're still waiting.

 

These are professional questions above. No hidden tricks. No hidden agendas. A professional expert, as many of us have said you are, should have the ability to formulate and discuss their trade opinions without concern. Susan Cicconi always does. Tracey Heft always does. That I or others may not agree with some of your views should be of no consequence to you.

 

This is not a personal debate. It is designed to be a professional discussion. I welcome your views.

[Foolkiller]

I don't agree with the other b.s. that Mark posted in this "non threatening thread"'s most recent post -- as if somehow Matt should respond because "other people will see it" and it's going to become some massive problem for him (which is a laughable statement)...

 

BUT:

 

IF YOU PROMISED MARK A RESPONSE, THEN IT IS ONLY FAIR THAT YOU RESPOND IN SOME WAY TO THE QUESTIONS. I was all for not responding, don't believe it's to your benefit etc., but integrity is measured by our word and at the very least, if you said you would respond to these questions, then I think you owe it to him to come on, post your answers, and be done with it. Make it clear you are not engaging in a back and forth, and make it clear you won't feel compelled to answer any other questions.

 

But I feel if you made a promise -- you should follow through.

[drbanner]

For those that missed it, from earlier today (link):

 

Hi Mark, I don't see the need to answer your questions. I'm not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mine. I'm not on trial here either. The definition matter has been laid to rest; horse particles are being picked out of the concrete at this point.

 

Like your earlier comment about suing me, I'm not really sure how to take your sting operation comment. I don't understand why you're hell-bent on attacking me, or trying to catch me doing something. I wish you'd just chill out and deal some funny books like the rest of us. Leave the hard line at work.

 

If you disagree with the way I do business, let's agree to disagree, shake hands and have a few beers at San Diego.

[Red Hook]

Hi Mark, I don't see the need to answer your questions. I'm not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mine. I'm not on trial here either. The definition matter has been laid to rest; horse particles are being picked out of the concrete at this point.

 

Like your earlier comment about suing me, I'm not really sure how to take your sting operation comment. I don't understand why you're hell-bent on attacking me, or trying to catch me doing something. I wish you'd just chill out and deal some funny books like the rest of us. Leave the hard line at work.

 

If you disagree with the way I do business, let's agree to disagree, shake hands and have a few beers at San Diego.

 

ie....do not....rock...the boat.

[Foolkiller]

For those that missed it, from earlier today (link):

 

Hi Mark, I don't see the need to answer your questions. I'm not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mine. I'm not on trial here either. The definition matter has been laid to rest; horse particles are being picked out of the concrete at this point.

 

Like your earlier comment about suing me, I'm not really sure how to take your sting operation comment. I don't understand why you're hell-bent on attacking me, or trying to catch me doing something. I wish you'd just chill out and deal some funny books like the rest of us. Leave the hard line at work.

 

If you disagree with the way I do business, let's agree to disagree, shake hands and have a few beers at San Diego.

 

If I'm being fair here, I'd have to say that Matt really should actually provide the answers. He's right in his assessment, but if he wants to take the high road, then he needs to come on and just answer the questions directly that Mark posed, because he said he would.

 

Make it the last round, no follow ups, and basically tell Mark he's putting him on ignore and let's move on...

 

But as I said earlier, posting you won't answer the questions doesn't really fulfill the promise he made offline. That's my problem.

 

I may disagree with Mark over the nature of the pressing -- but where we don't disagree is that people have to be taken at their word and to follow through if they explicitly stated that they would.