A Not So Pressing Matter-Article on GP Analysis

[Thegoldenage]

I just read this article by Learned Hand on GP Analysis. It is great stuff, and really gets to the heart of the pressing matter. Read on...

 

A NOT SO PRESSING MATTER

 

 

The hobby has certainly evolved since I began collecting comic books more than thirty years ago. Mail order grading descriptions used to state “good to mint.” We now have a ten-point scale. Restoration, once commonplace, has become stigmatized. And, in the last five years or so, high-grade comic books have become a commodity thanks in large part to the Comics Guaranty, LLC (CGC). While there are many emerging hobby dynamics, intact pressing (pressing) of comic books has become the topic-du-jour. According to a tiny but vocal minority, non-disclosed pressing (NDP) of very high-grade books is rampant, and unethical. While most hobbyists seem apathetic to the issue, this vocal minority wants it eradicated (I’ll refer to those who want it eradicated as Anti-NDP’ers).

 

The purpose of this article is to discuss the various NDP arguments and their root causes. And, instead of focusing on any one particular facet in a vacuum, which would be of limited value, this article will take a holistic approach to the entire topic. This will help determine the rationale, validity, and value of the various NDP arguments.

 

Origin and Brief (but Important) History

 

The type of pressing being discussed is the intact procedure that simply applies pressure (often in conjunction with heat and moisture) to manipulate the book back to the structural appearance it had before improper storage caused the apparent defects. Pressing can successfully remove defects such as spine rolls, certain types of creases, warping, etc. Many people did not (and do not) consider pressing to be restoration because, unlike virtually all restoration procedures, it does not involve disassembly and it does not alter the comic book’s original constitution.

 

It’s also very important to note that: (a) when properly performed, pressing is impossible to detect because the procedure itself leaves no physical evidence; (b) even when improperly performed, the apparent defects (ripples, excessive flattening, etc.) can almost always be attributable to other causes, thus, the defects themselves are not necessarily conclusive evidence that the book has been pressed; and © there is no evidence, direct, circumstantial, or anecdotal, that suggests pressing is harmful.

 

Many believe that pressing is specific to very high-grade books. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Historically, books sought as pressing candidates were higher value books (typically Golden Age) in the middle grades. One key reason was profit potential. For instance, if a given book in VG is worth $100, even if the dealer purchased it at $45, his potential profit margin is limited to $55. If, however, this same book has a market value of (say) $450 in VF, and pressing the book can enhance it to VF, then the dealer’s profit margin is about $400 (almost 10X cost). Another key reason is that, for every example of any given book in very high-grade, there are many examples of the same book in the middle grades, offering yet another (volume) benefit.

 

CGC has played a pivotal role in demographics of potential pressing candidates. Until recently, comic book grades were described with words. First there was – Good, Fine, Mint, etc. In 1992, The Official Overstreet Comic Book Price (the Guide) introduced a 100-point numeric grading scale. This met with little success and was later replaced by a 10-point scale. This too met with little success until the emergence of CGC. CGC formally implemented the 10-point scale, thus, redefining grading nomenclature.

 

In fact, before CGC implemented numeric grading, only very sophisticated parties might argue over whether a book was a NM+ or NM/M during a sales negotiation. And there was no objective third party that the buyer and seller, two subjective interested parties, would allow to resolve the issue. Reported sales data soon made it clear that very high-grade unrestored encapsulated books could result in never-before-seen sales prices. This heralded the incentive for pressing very high-grade books. Today, the very high-grade market is all about fractional (virtually notional) grade distinctions, evident by the emergence of the current quasi-mathematical formulae (where each marginal grade increase over CGC9.0 loosely equates to some Guide multiple). Therefore, it made little sense to press a very high-grade book before the emergence of CGC.

 

I ask that you keep this Origin and Brief (but Important) History in mind as you read this article, as it will help put the rest of the discussion in perspective.

 

The Guide

 

While some people believe that the Guide’s purpose is to dictate to the hobby, this is incorrect. As Robert M. Overstreet has indicated since the Guide’s inception in 1970, the Guide is, in essence, the hobby’s blue book. Its fundamental role is to report market realties, including nomenclature, trends, and sales data. Like the Kelley Blue Book for automobiles, the Guide has an indirect relationship with, and no vested interest in, any specific sales transactions. Because of this indirect relationship, the Guide can maintain a more egalitarian and idealistic view of the hobby than an interested party.

 

Anti-NDP’ers argue that CGC has influenced the Guide’s definition of restoration to preclude pressing.

 

This year’s Guide revised the restoration definition, requiring foreign matter to be present, thereby excluding pressing as a form of restoration (this revision was later retracted as a pre-production error). According to some Anti-NDP’ers, the reason for such a landmark change was skullduggery and conspiracy between the Guide and CGC, as the Guide’s restoration definition has always included pressing. The reality is that (while this revision came without fanfare) the Guide’s restoration definition has changed many times over the years, presumably due to less nefarious reasons - hobby evolution and changing perceptions.

 

In fact, the Guide only addressed restoration for the first time in its 10th edition. It stated that, while procedures such as spine roll removal were restoration, they did not devalue a book because these procedures do not “alter the original state of a comic book.” (Storage, Preservation, and Restoration of Comic Books, by Ernst W. Gerber and William Sarill). By the 12th edition, the Guide stated that pressing was not restoration. The Guide vacillated on restoration definitions until the 24th edition reversed some of the earlier definitions by indicating that pressing was, once again, considered restoration. The Guide continued to loosely define restoration as the “fine art of repairing a comic book to look as close as possible to its original condition” until 2003. With its 33rd edition, the Guide’s definition of restoration became more comprehensive and included the procedure of “pressing out wrinkles.”

 

Anti-NDP’ers argue that the Guide’s definition of restoration plays a key role in either deterring or propagating NDP.

 

It’s true that many look to the Guide for guidance. And, the Guide has clearly defined pressing as restoration since 2003. Despite this, NDP has apparently grown over the last 5 years. Thus, even a clear definition has no noticeable deterrent effect on NDP. Looking at this more broadly, the Guide has been unequivocal for many years about that which constitutes restoration, “repairing a comic book to look as close as possible to its original condition.” Yet this had no effect on unscrupulous dealers that passed off restored books as unrestored. CGC changed this dynamic, not a Guide definition.

 

Therefore, while a good definition is certainly necessary, it is without merit to argue that a definition has any bearing on NDP. Practical realities dictate that a definition (alone) has been, and will continue to be, academic so long as pressing cannot be detected.

 

Anti-NDP’ers argue that pressing is restoration because its intent is to bring the book back to an earlier, more perfect state.

 

Before we settle on a definition that requires intent, it’s important to realize that such a definition (which presupposes that we can even determine intent), would classify a book as: (a) unrestored - if intent is absent, regardless of results; and (b) restored - if intent is present, even if there is a complete failure to alter the book.

 

Example: if Edgar Church purchased a warped book and placed it at the bottom of a stack of books, this book would be: (a) restored if he intentionally put it at the bottom of the stack (even if the defects were still present 35 years later); and (b) unrestored if he inadvertently put it at the bottom of the stack (even if the compression brought the book closer to its original condition).

 

The Guide is currently polling its advisors to resolve a restoration definition. My hope is that the Guide’s decision also considers this article.

 

Anti-NDP’ers argue that the Guide should continue to define pressing as restoration so that if it ever becomes detectable, the definition will force CGC to designate pressed books as restored, thereby exposing NDP’ers.

 

This proposal would have no affect on raw books. This proposal further assumes that CGC will alter its business model (which is predicated on assessing each book based on physical evidence), and that an ability to detect pressed books would have an affect on the nearly one million (and counting) books that CGC has already encapsulated. Both of these arguments are purely notional and without merit. Pressing was already defined as restoration, yet this had (and has) no affect on CGC’s position. Moreover, CGC is under no obligation to change its business model. Finally, there is no affirmative duty on anyone to resubmit previously encapsulated books for re-grading.

 

CGC

 

While some people think that CGC is a hobby benefactor, this is incorrect. CGC is simply an appraisal service that provides a third party opinion for a price. In essence, the consumer pays CGC for: (a) an opinion on the book’s grade and on whether the book is unrestored or restored; and (b) the book’s encapsulation. It’s important to keep in mind that CGC employees simply perform the same rudimentary inspection that any experienced hobbyist can perform, except that CGC employees may have more experience doing it and perform the inspection under optimum conditions. CGC has no special ability to detect that which no one else can detect.

 

Therefore, CGC’s business model is understandably pragmatic – it simply assesses each book based on the physical evidence observed. And, unlike the Guide, CGC’s business model requires CGC to partake in a direct relationship with the hobby. Every single CGC opinion is subject to question, thus, CGC’s success depends on it providing a consistently good product in order to maintain customer confidence.

 

Anti-NDP’ers argue that CGC does not set hobby policy and, therefore, CGC should recognize pressing as restoration.

 

It’s true that CGC should not set hobby policy. But again, it’s important to keep in mind that CGC is not a hobby benefactor. It is a for-profit company that does not need to align with any specific hobby desires; therefore, it has no duty or obligation to recognize pressing as restoration. And if CGC’s business model does not support market demands, CGC will either need to adjust or it will disappear.

 

CGC continues to thrive despite its position on pressing. Perhaps this is because many people don’t realize CGC’s position on pressing. Or perhaps it’s because CGC interviewed many hobbyists and dealers before setting its policies in order to gauge what the hobby wanted, and determined that this business model largely satisfies the hobby.

 

Anti-NDP’ers argue that, even if CGC does not consider pressing to be restoration, CGC should still note pressing when it is detected

 

For whatever reason, the hobby views CGC as a restoration detection expert. If people want to know if a book is pressed, CGC should note this, just as CGC notes color touch, glue, etc. Color touch, glue, etc., however, cannot be confused with another form of restoration. This cannot be said of pressing, as defects due to improper pressing can almost always be attributable to other causes too. Therefore, because people aren’t paying CGC to guess at the causes of defects, CGC’s practical approach is to grade based on the defects observed, not guess at their indeterminate causes.

 

Disclosure

 

People should operate in a fair and good faith manner. If they did, there would be no need for government regulatory bodies, or a company like CGC to do a restoration check.

 

Anti-NDP’ers argue that all known pressing should be disclosed.

 

Disclosure would certainly help allay some Anti-NDP’er issues. Pressing has been around for many years, however, and myriad pressed books have been sold and resold during this time, so this knowledge has been lost in very many cases. Therefore, it’s illogical to assume that the current sellers are even aware that some of their books were pressed, thus, disclosure is of limited value. And, because disclosure is voluntary, it is not universal, lending to another limitation in value. Moreover, even if we assumed every dealer had knowledge of all books that have been pressed since pressing’s inception, voluntary disclosure would not mitigate dealers operating unethically.

 

Anti-NDP’ers argue that NDP can be uncovered by comparing before and after scans of a book.

 

This method is possibly the only available NDP deterrent. It is completely dependent, however, on having both before and after scans available. Example: a book can be pressed many times before its origin becomes publicly known, so there would be no “before” scan – and every NDP’er knows this. This argument also assumes that it is impossible for a book to receive 2 grades for any other reason, which has been proven to be untrue.

 

Root Causes

 

The root cause of NDP is probably some combination of three factors: (a) capitalism and a desire to increase profits; (b) purportedly substituting ethics for monetary gain via a virtually risk-free procedure; and © in the case of encapsulated books, exploiting CGC’s business model for personal gain.

 

One root cause of the Anti-NDP’ers issue with NDP is that it harms the buyer. As mentioned above, pressing has been around for many years and there is no evidence to suggest that pressing physically damages books. Perhaps this is why many Anti-NDP’ers state that pressing is perfectly acceptable to them, so long as it’s disclosed. Therefore, the root cause of this argument must be about monetary harm.

 

But we all know that, from a monetary standpoint, there is no known harm: (a) encapsulated books - if someone purchases a CGC9.6 (that has NDP), he is getting exactly what he paid for – a CGC9.6. And when he eventually resells this book, the blue label and numeric grade assure his investment is secure; and (b) raw books - the same argument applies, as the inability to detect the pressing will not stigmatize the initial purchase or the book’s eventual resale. The only instance where there may be monetary harm to a buyer is when an encapsulated book, or well-known raw book (such as a pedigree copy), is discovered to have NDP after the purchase. In this case, if every potential buyer in the hobby knew this information and almost all of them were anti-pressing (and would not pay unrestored value for a pressed book), then this could chill the eventual resale. While this possibility certainly exists, there is no clear evidence that supports any such conclusion. Certainly, there may be a few examples where a book increased in grade (for an indeterminate reason) and sold for less during its second offering, but this would be atypical. And, a few such examples do not provide enough data for an accurate test sample from which to draw any valid conclusions.

 

Another root cause of the Anti-NDP’ers issue with NDP is that they feel they are over-paying for NDP books. Anti-NDP’ers argue that they would not pay the same Guide multiple for a CGC9.0 that was pressed to a CGC9.6 (for instance) as they would for a non-pressed CGC9.6. Anti-NDP’ers seem to feel they are being sold defective merchandise without knowledge of the defect or the opportunity to haggle over price. As discussed above, the book is permanently altered into the higher grade. Therefore, this Anti-NDP’er argument seems to be a self-serving excuse to try and pay less, as the book is not like a CGC9.6, it is a CGC9.6.

 

The final root cause of the Anti-NDP’ers issue with NDP is that it is unethical. Whether or not NDP is unethical is a matter of opinion. Nonetheless, a desire for honest dealing is certainly valid. As much as some people may want information, efforts to force disclosure will probably continue to meet with little success due to all the reasons discussed above.

 

And, even if we assume the impossible became reality, this suggests the discovery of a technical pressing detection method (let’s call it the Press-O-Meter). If CGC discovers the Press-O-Meter, only those pressed books submitted to CGC would be identified. Pressed books already encapsulated would remain unidentified (with nothing but negative incentive to resubmit), and raw books would continue to comprise the majority of unidentified pressed books. In fact, to alleviate the NDP concern, almost all books in collectible grade, millions of them, would need to be encapsulated. And, if another entity discovered the Press-O-Meter, this would (presumably) complicate matters and create a divide, as the Press-O-Meter’s entity would be identifying books as pressed, while CGC would not. Most importantly, the Press-O-Meter would regularly report false-positives simply because most defects that can be attributed to (improper) pressing can also be attributable to other causes.

 

CONCLUSION

 

Unlike virtually every form of restoration, which can be detected by the hobbyist with enough skill and scrutiny, pressing cannot. Therein lies the problem.

 

Anti-NDP’ers are focused exclusively on the very high-grade market, and act as if they have a birthright to unrestored books. Anti-NDP’ers argue that there is mass outcry against NDP, yet it’s clear that the Anti-NDP’ers are a tiny minority. Anti-NDP’ers argue that pressing alters the molecular state of paper, yet there is no evidence to suggest that pressing has any detrimental affects. Anti-NDP’ers argue that most dealers are nefarious, thus, mandating disclosure. Yet, most dealers are glad to discuss what they know, and there is no regulatory body to impose mandatory disclosure. Anti-NDP’ers argue that NDP books that are revealed would suffer in the marketplace, yet there is no clear evidence to support this claim, and based on the fact that most people are apathetic to pressing, a more likely result is that pressed books will encounter no long-term negative market affects.

 

Someone once said that if you do not like the landscape, then perhaps the answer is to change the way you think about the landscape. Because pressing cannot be definitively detected, I accept the fact that virtually any book I buy may be pressed. As a purist, however, I am very particular about those to whom I give my business, and I also continue to look for books that I can reasonably conclude are still virgin. Because I am an idealist, I am hopeful the hobby will adopt a viable code of ethics, as we all have an ethical duty. If we receive a book back from CGC knowing that it has restoration, the blue label does not absolve us from our ethical duty. If the book is raw, the same applies. At the end of the day, one (perhaps) unfortunate undercurrent should not overshadow or deter the enjoyment offered by collecting comic books.

 

Peter J. Bilelis, Esq.

 

Peter J. Bilelis is Legal Counsel for a multi-national corporation. He has been a Golden Age comic book and comic art collector for over 30 years, and has been acknowledged by The Official Overstreet Comic Book Price on numerous occasions since 1984 for his Golden Age knowledge and his data contributions to the Guide. He can be contacted at pbilelis@yahoo.com

[blutobc]

A well explained position by an non-anti-NDP'er.

Once again not something that hasn't already been stated on these boards, but nice to see it being discussed in other venues...whether you're anti-NPD or simply "ho hum" about the whole thing.

 

I think both sides have merit, but this article expresses the practical reality of the issue. Wanting a million dollars and actually getting them are two separate issues. Wanting full disclosure and getting it from an entire hobby is just as unlikely.

 

Nice article, but he did have to put in one little dig

"Anti-NDP’ers are focused exclusively on the very high-grade market, and act as if they have a birthright to unrestored books"

[codfish]

Only a lawyer could write so much and say so little

[esquirecomics]

Geez, yet another pressing thread. But from the other side. Go figure.

 

I've only had a chance to skim the article, but do not most of you find it nothing less than ironic that someone who has repeatedly, with a passion at times, criticized those of us who have continued this discussion as merely wasting our time on irrelevant academic matters would then devote so much of his own time from his work and family to tell us that yet again in a lengthy novel of his own?

 

I have always encouraged the substantive discussion to occur on both sides, but I wish I had such people who devote that much energy to a topic for which they supposedly care so little helping me on legal cases. I would win all the time.

[mica]

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

I agreed with this part of the thesis.

[THE_BEYONDER]

In reading this article, I couldn't help but feel it was 'adapted' from something I read back in school....

 

 

Is it Kant's 'Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals' that I'm thinking of?

[Aces]

Only a lawyer could write so much and say so little

 

Peter J. Bilelis is Legal Counsel for a multi-national corporation.

The "One-Worlders" are after our comics now!

[Scheradon]

While I appreciate him articulating his opinion on the subject, I wish he would have just stuck to that. Instead, he labeled anyone opposed to his view as "anti-NDPers" and proceeded to state what we thought as one big homologous opinion.

 

Where does one begin with this heap of unsubstantiated wishful facts?

 

Anti-NDP’ers are focused exclusively on the very high-grade market, and act as if they have a birthright to unrestored books.

 

ERRRR! Wrong. Not everyone who is against NDP are focused exclusively in the HG market. Nice overgeneralization stated as fact.

 

Anti-NDP’ers argue that there is mass outcry against NDP, yet it’s clear that the Anti-NDP’ers are a tiny minority.

 

This reminds me of some kind of political spin rhetoric. You know like when Bush says there's weapons of mass destruction, then Chaney says it, then Powell, then Rice, then people start to believe it, then they find out they're wrong.

 

Anti-NDP’ers argue that pressing alters the molecular state of paper, yet there is no evidence to suggest that pressing has any detrimental affects.

 

I wonder how many scientific studies he researched to make this claim. The truth is we don't know yet. He doesn't know and we don't know. This seems like something the big tobacco companies would have said some years ago.

 

Anti-NDP’ers argue that most dealers are nefarious, thus, mandating disclosure. Yet, most dealers are glad to discuss what they know, and there is no regulatory body to impose mandatory disclosure.

 

Yep, they're so glad, that they'd love to tell you about it. In fact, they're shouting from the rafters about their pressed books.

 

Anti-NDP’ers argue that NDP books that are revealed would suffer in the marketplace, yet there is no clear evidence to support this claim, and based on the fact that most people are apathetic to pressing, a more likely result is that pressed books will encounter no long-term negative market affects.

 

That's funny that he uses this as one of the "anti-NDPer's" arguments, when it's one of the main reasons Matt Nelson and others don't openly disclose pressed books upfront. I always like how this one goes both ways when it's convenient.

 

One last sentence which I got a good laugh from...

 

Someone once said that if you do not like the landscape, then perhaps the answer is to change the way you think about the landscape.

 

I picture him looking out his backyard and discovering a massive amount of garbage and sewage distributed about due to upchurning from a past dump that used to exist beneath it, that was undisclosed to him prior to purchase and him rather than getting upset about it, just simply changing the way he thinks about it.

 

 

He certainly puts a lot of effort into something he sees as pointless or academic. I can't wait to read about something he thinks is truly important.

[Aman619]

yeah. it was well written, and moving in parts. And actually pretty even-handed in others. But I kept reading these 'clunkers' of statements that were stated as 'facts' but are just opinions, like many of the sentences you picked out, that just dont ring true to my ears. Not to mention the various contradictions. oh well. I guess I feel just like he does when they read Marks posts.

[THE_BEYONDER]

Seems pretty clear to me that the purpose of this article is to foster the use of the label "Anti-NDPer". Amazing how those of us that are PRO-DISCLOSURE are now being painted as the bad guys.

 

Great stuff.

 

I'm looking forward to taking this 'debate' to the next level.

[Red Hook]

Paint me pro-disclosure thank you!

[Pirate]

pro-disclosure here, can you make a snappy sig for this red, like if you're going to sell to me, it better not be pressed. That way anyone I deal with will know to tell me

[Red Hook]

oooooooh. Hmmm.....never thought of it that way.

 

Putting the responsibility on the seller.

 

What are you, an anarchist?

[Foolkiller]

Good, well written, well thought out article Peter.

[EastEnd]

He keeps repeating this notion that pressing is impossible to detect. I couldn't disagree more. As a number of astute detectives on these boards have demonstrated, pressing is very detectable by its very nature. A book appears one way before it's pressed and another way after it's pressed. All you need to do is match up the book. If CGC had some scanning software that could quickly match up books by the details of how they're centered, cut, etc., (and the willingness to disclose identified pressing) this resub game would be over.

[Red Hook]

CGC would be the last entity on earth interested in discovering a Press-O-Meter, as Peter refers to it.

[drbanner]

He keeps repeating this notion that pressing is impossible to detect. I couldn't disagree more. As a number of astute detectives on these boards have demonstrated, pressing is very detectable by its very nature. A book appears one way before it's pressed and another way after it's pressed. All you need to do is match up the book. If CGC had some scanning software that could quickly match up books by the details of how they're centered, cut, etc., (and the willingness to disclose identified pressing) this resub game would be over.

 

Except for the thousands of books for which no pre-press scan is available, and the thousands of scan "pairs" that are available that don't show "non-color breaking creases" in the first place (in other words, the vast majority of pressed books in blue labels). From reading the participants comments in Matt's pressing experiment thread, it appears everyone agrees with what CGC and others have been saying all along - without prior knowledge of the book's condition, it is impossible to detect that a book has been pressed when the pressing was done correctly (professionally).

 

The article is a little rambling, but is written from a practical perspective on the situation, and not from a philosophical "is it or isn't it restoration?" perspective. He says he's an idealist that wishes all work was disclosed by the seller, but also a realist that prefers to buy from trusted sellers and looks at skepticism from books bought elsewhere (assume they've been pressed if he doesn't know better).

 

Dunno, extremists on both sides probably think this article as anti-their side, but it reads fairly moderately to me (the use of the somewhat negative "Anti-NDPers" term notwithstanding).

[FFB]

Geez, yet another pressing thread. But from the other side. Go figure.

 

I've only had a chance to skim the article, but do not most of you find it nothing less than ironic that someone who has repeatedly, with a passion at times, criticized those of us who have continued this discussion as merely wasting our time on irrelevant academic matters would then devote so much of his own time from his work and family to tell us that yet again in a lengthy novel of his own?

 

I have always encouraged the substantive discussion to occur on both sides, but I wish I had such people who devote that much energy to a topic for which they supposedly care so little helping me on legal cases. I would win all the time.

 

Great comeback, and nice job of mischaracterizing Learned_Hand's past positions on the issue. Bravo. The guy has written probably more than a dozen book-length posts about the pressing issue, and he has never said he doesn't care about it. I see nothing inconsistent in someone writing an article to point out that the other side of the debate wants two things that, realistically, it is never going to get: reliable detection and industry-wide disclosure. I don't agree with everything Peter said, but what he said was better written than just about anything else I've read on either side of the debate. As for "opinion dressed as fact," I could find plenty of those in everyone else's posts on the topic, so it isn't like Peter is the only offender.

[mica]

As for "opinion dressed as fact," I could find plenty of those in everyone else's posts on the topic, so it isn't like Peter is the only offender.

Then spread the love around. Don't ever stop giving BOTH sides your equal attention.

[FFB]

As for "opinion dressed as fact," I could find plenty of those in everyone else's posts on the topic, so it isn't like Peter is the only offender.

Then spread the love around. Don't ever stop giving BOTH sides your equal attention.