The New Pressing Project Results Thread

[Matt Nelson]

I willl never question your cajones again!

 

[esquirecomics]

Well, here's the thing. Of course you disassemble books. Definitely for purposes other than solely pressing. I mean...that's what you do. And you recently spoke in detail to another board member regarding staple replacement. And you are a very active practitioner of pressing. So, my question is, what would stop you from popping a cover off, pressing it, and then reassembling it?

 

Why should I believe that there is some invisible line that, for some ethical or practical reason, you wouldn't cross? You are a great restoration expert. You're one of the greatest exponents of pressing out there at the moment, and will press books to get a jump in grade and make a profit. I'm not condemning you for it, I'm just stating fact. To me it makes no sense that you wouldn't use your skill to fully explore a books potential by disassembling it. You're one of the few good enough to do it and probably get it back in a blue holder.

 

That's what I believe.

Brad, the question was asked and answered. In the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, what entitles you to continue calling him a liar? You declined to participate in a mystery shopper exercise to try to find actual evidence that would then truly entitle you to refute Matt's denials. Even Matt has now said he'd be okay with you trying to set him up in a sting operation just to shut you up.

 

Your continued badgering of Matt conjures unpleasant images of an interrogation, with you as the interrogator. Basically, whatever comes out of the mouth of the interrogatee will not satisfy you unless it is what you want to hear, and you will keep applying the electric shock until you get what you want to hear. Whether what is ultimately said is actually true, or just the result of coercion, has become completely irrelevant to you.

 

I don't know Tim, at least one could say that badgering possibly worked since Matt at least was willing to publicly address Brad's questions. He continues to avoid doing so with mine, despite telling me he would. Of course, my questions are more substantive (no offense intended here Brad) and require actual thought rather than just a simple denial. And I haven't even begun to consider setting Matt up for a sting operation!

 

But I digress. Back to your thread.

 

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.

 

Matt, your response is unfortunate on so many different levels. You are well aware this is not a personal issue between us. It is not about attacking anyone. It never has been, though some have tried to make it out to be and I recognize it has been beneficial for you to follow that line of deflective thought to avoid participating in a nonconfrontational, professional substantive discussion which is all I have ever sought to engender.

 

I don't know from what textbook you are reading that leads you to believe the definition matter has been laid to rest, particularly because you have refused to answer simple questions I would believe any expert would have no problems sharing his opinions regarding, but simply because certain board members continue to promote that view will not stop the discussion. As I believe will be clear from next year's Overstreet Guide (the one that sets the industry standards), the debate is quite alive and a mature substantive discussion is to be encouraged. Hopefully one day you will see fit to participate. In the interim your absence will no doubt be obvious and raise questions. But that is certainly your choice to make.

 

And I would be happy to share some beers with you in San Diego.

[esquirecomics]

Matt may be one of Scott's current worship-objects, but it doesn't take much to see that Matt was being less than honest with us. Of course he takes books apart and replaces staples in order to remove spine stress. If he had any real balls he would have owned up to it.

 

 

Brad, why are you still hung up on this staple thing? I'd like to know how it "doesn't take much" to see that I'm lying. It's like you're staring at a model ship in a bottle, and you think someone smashed the bottle and reglued the pieces back around the ship. You can't see the seams where the glass was glued, but you're convinced that's how it was done. Is it possible, just maybe, that I don't disassemble books?

 

Take some books you're convinced need disassembly to fix spine problems, photograph the prongs, and send them to me anonymously for pressing. You say you don't want to set up a sting operation on me, but I have nothing to hide. I'd rather we get this settled than you continue with these blind accusations.

 

And by the way my balls are very real, both of them.

 

Why I mentioned "sting operation".

[maxstuf]

Did we lose some posts here??

[Matt Nelson]

Well, here's the thing. Of course you disassemble books. Definitely for purposes other than solely pressing. I mean...that's what you do. And you recently spoke in detail to another board member regarding staple replacement. And you are a very active practitioner of pressing. So, my question is, what would stop you from popping a cover off, pressing it, and then reassembling it?

 

Why should I believe that there is some invisible line that, for some ethical or practical reason, you wouldn't cross? You are a great restoration expert. You're one of the greatest exponents of pressing out there at the moment, and will press books to get a jump in grade and make a profit. I'm not condemning you for it, I'm just stating fact. To me it makes no sense that you wouldn't use your skill to fully explore a books potential by disassembling it. You're one of the few good enough to do it and probably get it back in a blue holder.

 

That's what I believe.

Brad, the question was asked and answered. In the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, what entitles you to continue calling him a liar? You declined to participate in a mystery shopper exercise to try to find actual evidence that would then truly entitle you to refute Matt's denials. Even Matt has now said he'd be okay with you trying to set him up in a sting operation just to shut you up.

 

Your continued badgering of Matt conjures unpleasant images of an interrogation, with you as the interrogator. Basically, whatever comes out of the mouth of the interrogatee will not satisfy you unless it is what you want to hear, and you will keep applying the electric shock until you get what you want to hear. Whether what is ultimately said is actually true, or just the result of coercion, has become completely irrelevant to you.

 

I don't know Tim, at least one could say that badgering possibly worked since Matt at least was willing to publicly address Brad's questions. He continues to avoid doing so with mine, despite telling me he would. Of course, my questions are more substantive (no offense intended here Brad) and require actual thought rather than just a simple denial. And I haven't even begun to consider setting Matt up for a sting operation!

 

But I digress. Back to your thread.

 

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.

 

Matt, your response is unfortunate on so many different levels. You are well aware this is not a personal issue between us. It is not about attacking anyone. It never has been, though some have tried to make it out to be and I recognize it has been beneficial for you to follow that line of deflective thought to avoid participating in a nonconfrontational, professional substantive discussion which is all I have ever sought to engender.

 

I don't know from what textbook you are reading that leads you to believe the definition matter has been laid to rest, particularly because you have refused to answer simple questions I would believe any expert would have no problems sharing his opinions regarding, but simply because certain board members continue to promote that view will not stop the discussion. As I believe will be clear from next year's Overstreet Guide (the one that sets the industry standards), the debate is quite alive and a mature substantive discussion is to be encouraged. Hopefully one day you will see fit to participate. In the interim your absence will no doubt be obvious and raise questions. But that is certainly your choice to make.

 

And I would be happy to share some beers with you in San Diego.

 

My defensiveness towards you is not a line of deflective thought. Anyone in my position would feel anger and frustration toward your harsh, uncompromising way of debating. Even though I believe you don't hate me as a person, the fact that you attack my livelihood does make me take it personally.

 

And I have been participating--quite heavily over the past few months, with pieces in GPA, Scoop, discussions on the boards, and conversations with many dealers and collectors. Just because I don't answer your questions doesn't mean I'm "absent." When I feel the need to pose three questions to you, and demand answers from you about your law practice, I will then answer your questions.

[esquirecomics]

Well, here's the thing. Of course you disassemble books. Definitely for purposes other than solely pressing. I mean...that's what you do. And you recently spoke in detail to another board member regarding staple replacement. And you are a very active practitioner of pressing. So, my question is, what would stop you from popping a cover off, pressing it, and then reassembling it?

 

Why should I believe that there is some invisible line that, for some ethical or practical reason, you wouldn't cross? You are a great restoration expert. You're one of the greatest exponents of pressing out there at the moment, and will press books to get a jump in grade and make a profit. I'm not condemning you for it, I'm just stating fact. To me it makes no sense that you wouldn't use your skill to fully explore a books potential by disassembling it. You're one of the few good enough to do it and probably get it back in a blue holder.

 

That's what I believe.

Brad, the question was asked and answered. In the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, what entitles you to continue calling him a liar? You declined to participate in a mystery shopper exercise to try to find actual evidence that would then truly entitle you to refute Matt's denials. Even Matt has now said he'd be okay with you trying to set him up in a sting operation just to shut you up.

 

Your continued badgering of Matt conjures unpleasant images of an interrogation, with you as the interrogator. Basically, whatever comes out of the mouth of the interrogatee will not satisfy you unless it is what you want to hear, and you will keep applying the electric shock until you get what you want to hear. Whether what is ultimately said is actually true, or just the result of coercion, has become completely irrelevant to you.

 

I don't know Tim, at least one could say that badgering possibly worked since Matt at least was willing to publicly address Brad's questions. He continues to avoid doing so with mine, despite telling me he would. Of course, my questions are more substantive (no offense intended here Brad) and require actual thought rather than just a simple denial. And I haven't even begun to consider setting Matt up for a sting operation!

 

But I digress. Back to your thread.

 

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.

 

Matt, your response is unfortunate on so many different levels. You are well aware this is not a personal issue between us. It is not about attacking anyone. It never has been, though some have tried to make it out to be and I recognize it has been beneficial for you to follow that line of deflective thought to avoid participating in a nonconfrontational, professional substantive discussion which is all I have ever sought to engender.

 

I don't know from what textbook you are reading that leads you to believe the definition matter has been laid to rest, particularly because you have refused to answer simple questions I would believe any expert would have no problems sharing his opinions regarding, but simply because certain board members continue to promote that view will not stop the discussion. As I believe will be clear from next year's Overstreet Guide (the one that sets the industry standards), the debate is quite alive and a mature substantive discussion is to be encouraged. Hopefully one day you will see fit to participate. In the interim your absence will no doubt be obvious and raise questions. But that is certainly your choice to make.

 

And I would be happy to share some beers with you in San Diego.

 

My defensiveness towards you is not a line of deflective thought. Anyone in my position would feel anger and frustration toward your harsh, uncompromising way of debating. Even though I believe you don't hate me as a person, the fact that you attack my livelihood does make me take it personally.

 

And I have been participating--quite heavily over the past few months, with pieces in GPA, Scoop, discussions on the boards, and conversations with many dealers and collectors. Just because I don't answer your questions doesn't mean I'm "absent." When I feel the need to pose three questions to you, and demand answers from you about your law practice, I will then answer your questions.

 

That you may be defensive Matt is separate and apart from the fact that you continually deflect responding to any of my substantive questions, whether on these boards or in the articles I have written that - in fact - directly pertain to your public comments and positions. Debate is not about compromise. I am not in a negotiation with you to reach a mutually agreeable position, even though I have offered that to you to no avail.

 

Debate is about setting forth respective opinions, which can certainly be done in a mature and professional way (of which I continually try to foster), and having a back and forth discussion from which others can then draw their own opinions. You decline to engage in such an exercise, which is certainly your right. As it is of mine to note that fact, as well as anyone else who believes your decision not to respond to my comments reflects a notable or intriguing absence.

 

In one of these threads you posed to me some very specific questions about restoration. I answered every single one in detail and in full. Yet you failed to reciprocate to answer my questions despite having promised to do so. If you ever wish to ask me questions regarding my areas of legal expertise (national security law, freedom of information, sovereign and diplomatic immunity, etc), I would not hesitate to respond. As someone with expertise in these fields I hold certain positions and I would have little difficulty explaining why that is, something that seems to escape you as an expert in restoration, whether by intent or not I will not speculate.

 

Nor have I ever attacked your livelihood. Have I been critical of the manner in which you operate aspects of your business? Indeed I have. Just as I have with CGC and Heritage and numerous others. I object to the fact that you press books and then sell them without disclosure. Not that you press books. Not that you restore books. In fact, I have repeatedly offered to you to join forces in an effort to remove the unfortunate stigma of restoration (which by my definition would include pressing). Although that would seemingly, if successful, be a positive factor for your business, you would rather attempt to turn this into a "me vs you" affair.

 

I am not looking to debate you on whether we should debate, although I would prefer to term it as simply a discussion. You have declined to engage me in intellectual dialogue on the topic of your expertise. You've set forth your reason why and people can interpret that in whatever way they see fit.

 

But when you are ready to continue the dialogue, I'll be waiting. You know where to find me.

 

And I am still up for the beer. See you in SD.

[esquirecomics]

Nor am I seeking to start a debate or discussion with anyone else about the situation between Matt and myself. I posted only to respond to Matt, and I really don't have any interest in doing so again in light of his position. He has said his peace, I have said mine.

[ciorac]

Nor am I seeking to start a debate or discussion with anyone else about the situation between Matt and myself. I posted only to respond to Matt, and I really don't have any interest in doing so again in light of his position. He has said his peace, I have said mine.

 

Aren't we imperious?

Here is the way I translate your last few posts: (best read with an English accent, sounding like a King)

 

"We have spoken, and spoken only to Matt. No one else is permitted to comment on what has been spoken by us. We are not simply Esquire...we are the imperious personage whom you are not permitted to speak to. How dare young Matthew not answer my repeated attempts at gaining information from him. Is he not aware that we are the imperious ones?? How could he not know this? Everyone must answer whatever queries utter from our royal mouth, because..after all...we are the imperious ones."

 

I would offer that you need to get over yourself pal. Matt needn't respond to any questions you pose. This refusal to answer you does not in of itself imply reluctance to share information that, if disclosed, would reflect poorly on him. Perhaps, he simply does not wish to respond to such an overbearing bore as yourself.

[esquirecomics]

Nor am I seeking to start a debate or discussion with anyone else about the situation between Matt and myself. I posted only to respond to Matt, and I really don't have any interest in doing so again in light of his position. He has said his peace, I have said mine.

 

Aren't we imperius?

Here is the way I translate your last few posts: (best read with an English accent, sounding like a King)

 

"We have spoken, and spoken only to Matt. No one else is permitted to comment on what has been spoken by us. We are not simply Esquire...we are the imperius personage whom you are not permitted to speak to. How dare young Matthew not answer my repeated attempts at gaining information from him. Is he not aware that we are the imperius ones?? How could he not know this? Everyone must answer whatever queries utter from our royal mouth, because..after all...we are the imperious ones."

 

I would offer that you need to get over yourself pal. Matt needn't respond to any questions you pose. This refusal to answer you does not in of itself imply reluctance to share information that, if disclosed, would reflect poorly on him. Perhaps, he simply does not wish to respond to such an overbearing bore as yourself.

 

Wow. Amazing that so much verbiage came from someone on their very first post. Shocking. Never seen that before. I am honored you chose me to devirginize yourself on these boards in such a fashion!

[Timulty]

And yet, for a newbie he comes off as a pro at that. I wonder, if perhaps a wolf is in sheep's clothing. But I digress, Mark your tone can come off a little haughty but I can definitely understand your point. The problem I see here is that you two need a face to face. It might simplify things greatly.

[esquirecomics]

And yet, for a newbie he comes off as a pro at that. I wonder, if perhaps a wolf is in sheep's clothing. But I digress, Mark your tone can come off a little haughty but I can definitely understand your point. The problem I see here is that you two need a face to face. It might simplify things greatly.

 

The intent of that post was not to further derail this thread as I promised tth2 I wouldn't do that. All I wanted to do was respond to Matt since he decided to post here rather than in the post I created for him. Clearly the last several posts were more a personal back and forth and I hope that third parties don't now try to dissect what either of us have written, at least not in this thread.

 

By now most are familiar with my legalistic tone and if it comes across inappropriate at times, my apologies. As far as the poster above, well, we all know what that's about. Not worth additional posts by me or anyone else.

[Aman619]

I dont like these repeated attempts to make Mark's tone or personality the issue. Its a distraction form the issues at hand.

[ciorac]

Wow. Amazing that so much verbiage came from someone on their very first post. Shocking. Never seen that before. I am honored you chose me to devirginize yourself on these boards in such a fashion!

 

 

Why thank you sir. I hope the devirginization was as good for you as it was for me.

[ciorac]

I dont like these repeated attempts to make Mark's tone or personality the issue. Its a distraction form the issues at hand.

 

Don't you mean from the issues that you percieve to be issues? Perhaps Matt doesn't see any issue here at all.

 

That is the crux of it as I understand things.

[ciorac]

I dont like these repeated attempts to make Mark's tone or personality the issue. Its a distraction form the issues at hand.

Oh and I don't like little green men who shoot beams from their sunglassess, but what does that have to do with anything?

 

And who cares what you or I like for that matter?

[Ze-man]

I dont like these repeated attempts to make Mark's tone or personality the issue. Its a distraction form the issues at hand.

Oh and I don't like little green men who shoot beams from their sunglassess, but what does that have to do with anything?

 

And who cares what you or I like for that matter?

 

I care, what Aman likes anyways.

 

Ze-

[Aman619]

I dont like these repeated attempts to make Mark's tone or personality the issue. Its a distraction form the issues at hand.

Oh and I don't like little green men who shoot beams from their sunglassess, but what does that have to do with anything?

 

And who cares what you or I like for that matter?

 

I care, what Aman likes anyways.

 

Ze-

 

Im confused how what I said could have been objectionable to anyone,, and thanx for caring! But I dont care anymore...

[Comicdey]

My Whiz copy arrived in the mail yesterday and boy does it look good. I'll post a scan tonight with my comments. Still waiting on the "restored" planet that I sent, but I need to pay for that one anyway.

[Comicdey]

Here is my second example in the pressing project. Whiz #56

 

This book has a severe misfold on the interior as can be seen in the earlier posts which I will continue with. Here is the end results. It's quite a beauty even with it's non-pressing related flaws.

 

Matt indicated to me that he might have to take out the pages to refold and press them and then re-install them and it would likely garner a PLOD if ever sent in due to the staple hole alignment. Well I've looked at it closely, and I'd never be able to tell and the staple appears tight as it should with no new staple holes or other apparent restoration. If he took it apart, there is no evidence of that unless he filled holes in the paper, which I do not believe he did. Matt please comment on this one when you get a chance as to the process and Thanks for making it a stellar example compared to the previously difficult to store issue. I'm guessing this one would come back Blue if sent in. No signs of pressing damage/distortion or really any significant changes other than the re-alignment.

 

Before

 

After

 

 

Captain Marvel 51 Pressing comments to follow.......

 

Before:

 

 

After:

 

Before

 

After

[tth2]

Here is my second example in the pressing project. Whiz #56

 

This book has a severe misfold on the interior as can be seen in the earlier posts which I will continue with. Here is the end results. It's quite a beauty even with it's non-pressing related flaws.

 

Matt indicated to me that he might have to take out the pages to refold and press them and then re-install them and it would likely garner a PLOD if ever sent in due to the staple hole alignment. Well I've looked at it closely, and I'd never be able to tell and the staple appears tight as it should with no new staple holes or other apparent restoration. If he took it apart, there is no evidence of that unless he filled holes in the paper, which I do not believe he did. Matt please comment on this one when you get a chance as to the process and Thanks for making it a stellar example compared to the previously difficult to store issue. I'm guessing this one would come back Blue if sent in. No signs of pressing damage/distortion or really any significant changes other than the re-alignment.

Wow, significant improvement on both books! If Matt did disassemble your book, he should definitely expressly disclose that to you. I can't imagine he would want a customer to be unpleasantly surprised by a PLOD. You should specifically PM or email him on this point, rather than trust that he'll read this thread.

 

Question for everyone who participated in this project, did Matt provide you with a written certificate of some sort describing the actions taken on each book?