A Not So Pressing Matter-Article on GP Analysis

[burntboy]

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).

 

Dr Banner - agree with your take on the article, wholeheartedly..............

 

thought it was VERY well-written and pretty even handed...........(although, i too, wish he hadn't used the term "anti-NDPers", and used it SO often).

[Thegoldenage]

Here is a link to the article...

 

A Not So Pressing Matter

 

Also, Scoop will be publishing the article in their upcoming San Diego Comic Con Edition.

[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.

 

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).

 

Far too many questionable sweeping statements in his write-up in my view... e.g.,"impossible to detect" when it should read "difficult to detect." A "tiny minority" care about NDP when that statement is at best unproven and most likely false. Reads a bit too much like a NY Times editorial to be viewed as useful in my humble opinion.

[Thegoldenage]

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.

 

[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).

 

Far too many questionable sweeping statements in his write-up in my view... e.g.,"impossible to detect" when it should read "difficult to detect." A "tiny minority" care about NDP when that statement is at best unproven and most likely false. Reads a bit too much like a NY Times editorial to be viewed as useful in my humble opinion.

Well, like I said it's a bit rambling and there may be some broad-brushed generalizations, but it's not in any way, shape or form a "pro-pressing" article.

 

In any event, my post was more in response to your comment that you "couldn't disagree more" that pressing was just about impossible to detect, especially in the context of using scans to check. It's not like one of comic-keys cyber-fantasy books where he takes a decent book to begin with, trims it, color touches it, scans it, then trims and color touches the scan such that one only needs the end product (scan) to see what the fraud he's perpetrating. With pressed books, you simply cannot tell from looking only at the after scan that the book has been worked on.

[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.

 

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).

 

Far too many questionable sweeping statements in his write-up in my view... e.g.,"impossible to detect" when it should read "difficult to detect." A "tiny minority" care about NDP when that statement is at best unproven and most likely false. Reads a bit too much like a NY Times editorial to be viewed as useful in my humble opinion.

Well, like I said it's a bit rambling and there may be some broad-brushed generalizations, but it's not in any way, shape or form a "pro-pressing" article.

 

In any event, my post was more in response to your comment that you "couldn't disagree more" that pressing was just about impossible to detect, especially in the context of using scans to check. It's not like one of comic-keys cyber-fantasy books where he takes a decent book to begin with, trims it, color touches it, scans it, then trims and color touches the scan such that one only needs the end product (scan) to see what the fraud he's perpetrating. With pressed books, you simply cannot tell from looking only at the after scan that the book has been worked on.

 

Understand your point and I think he should limit his statement to exactly that scenario. A blanket "impossible to detect" is a false statement because many pressed books have in fact been detected by members of this board.

[drbanner]

Understand your point and I think he should limit his statement to exactly that scenario. A blanket "impossible to detect" is a false statement because many pressed books have in fact been detected by members of this board.

 

Actually, I don't believe many of those books were identified as being only pressed. Sure, lots of "upgrades" have been identified (without any evidence that pressing brought them to the higher grade), as have trimmed books, cleaned books, and those two books with the staple issues, but other than nearmint's example where he had his book pressed, I can't think of another like that?

[EastEnd]

Understand your point and I think he should limit his statement to exactly that scenario. A blanket "impossible to detect" is a false statement because many pressed books have in fact been detected by members of this board.

 

Actually, I don't believe many of those books were identified as being only pressed. Sure, lots of "upgrades" have been identified (without any evidence that pressing brought them to the higher grade), as have trimmed books, cleaned books, and those two books with the staple issues, but other than nearmint's example where he had his book pressed, I can't think of another like that?

 

Very curious. What type of evidence are you looking for before you'll be convinced that many of those books were pressed?

[Davenport]

 

Understand your point and I think he should limit his statement to exactly that scenario. A blanket "impossible to detect" is a false statement because many pressed books have in fact been detected by members of this board.

 

When CGC can detect the "impossible to detect" technique of pressing a comic, and prints "pressed" on their label, are they only guessing? Just making an assumption based on other techniques being present? A "best guess" because there's zero visual indicators, none whatsoever, that pressing was performed?

 

 

[uclapeterg]

This could be "wet" pressing, not the dry pressing that's so difficult to detect.

[Thegoldenage]

Good point. Wet pressing is easy to detect, as the book has to be disassembled, and the paper feels rougher afterwards. It also changes the dimensions of the paper.

[Davenport]

Good point. Wet pressing is easy to detect, as the book has to be disassembled, and the paper feels rougher afterwards. It also changes the dimensions of the paper.

The "wet" part of a "wet pressing" being a aqueous chemical wash. Right? Isn't that "cleaned" and pressed?

So everytime "pressed" is printed on a CGC label it indicates a chemical cleaning? Because that's what they're detecting?

[FFB]

Good point. Wet pressing is easy to detect, as the book has to be disassembled, and the paper feels rougher afterwards. It also changes the dimensions of the paper.

The "wet" part of a "wet pressing" being a aqueous chemical wash. Right? Isn't that "cleaned" and pressed?

So everytime "pressed" is printed on a CGC label it indicates a chemical cleaning? Because that's what they're detecting?

 

That's right, except that CGC no longer notes pressing on the label even when the book is disassembled, cleaned and pressed. Now they just say "Cover cleaned." We discussed this when the Larson copy of Detective #35 was offered. When it was in the old label, it used to say "Cover cleaned and pressed." Steve said that the decision was made to avoid confusion among collectors on the pressing issue.

[OldGuy]

Steve said that the decision was made to avoid confusion among collectors on the pressing issue.

 

Well, thank God he did that, I'd hate for there to be any confusion on the matter.

 

 

[Nostalgic Attic]

.... unlike virtually all restoration procedures, it does not involve disassembly and it does not alter the comic book’s original constitution.

 

This goes to the heart of the issue in my mind. Did I miss something? Has it been proven that pressing while applying heat/ moisture does not alter the book's original constitution?

[LearnedHand]

I was surprised to see my article reprinted on these Boards – thanks to thegoldenage and to everyone who read it. Frankly, I was also surprised by some of the angry comments. Obviously my article has conclusions drawn from fact, and the article is based on my opinion. As some people correctly pointed out, it was meant to offer a practical even-handed perspective. In fact, to keep the article’s intent clear (practical discussion), the only place where you’ll find express evidence of what “I want” is in the conclusion.

 

Anyone who has read my posts on this subject knows that my definition of unrestored is more demanding than Overstreet’s, and that I believe in disclosure, so I’m not sure why people keep making the faulty assumption that I am a pro-NDP’er (if this term is acceptable). The distinction: what “I want” has no bearing on things that cannot be changed, so I accept reality. (i.e. Matt Nelson’s recent experiment - it was so much more conducive to pressing detection than any real life situation. The owner of each book was intimately familiar with each book before it was pressed, and even under these perfect circumstances, the owners themselves could not detect the pressing!)

 

Unfortunately, a few people on these Boards have difficulty when others do not see things as they do. That’s okay. But I think it’s less than forthcoming for these people to assassinate and condemn differing opinions. I wonder how many of these individuals act like this at home with their spouses, parents, or children, or at work. The most disappointing part is that, based on agreeable conversations I’ve had with some of the most committed anti-NDP’ers (or pro-disclosure people ), I believe a face-to-face discussion would be different.

 

What I believe would foster a constructive conversation on these threads is if the pro-disclosure (PD) crowd would engage in a fact-based discussion. For instance, can the PD crowd provide a substantive counter-argument to how a Guide definition will quantifiably deter NDP? Or how disclosure will resolve how to identify the thousands of books that have been pressed over the last 20+ years? Or how it will resolve books being pressed today by NDP’ers that do not disclose? Or how CGC is supposed to detect something it has stated it cannot detect? I’ve asked for substantive counter-arguments to these fundamental points on several occasions on several threads and have yet to receive responses.

 

 

 

Scott (FFB) - thanks for being kind enough to respond to the clownish statements made by another lawyer on these Boards who has proven time and again that he is impotent (in these discussions) in performing the most basic function of any lawyer – making logical and fact-based substantive arguments (or counter-arguments).

[burntboy]

Scott (FFB) - thanks for being kind enough to respond to the clownish statements made by another lawyer on these Boards who has proven time and again that he is impotent (in these discussions) in performing the most basic function of any lawyer – making logical and fact-based substantive arguments (or counter-arguments).

 

OUCH!!!!!!!!!

[Red Hook]

Tonight at 10!........

When Lawyers Attack Lawyers!!!

 

(stay tuned)

[Davenport]

 

What I believe would foster a constructive conversation on these threads is if the pro-disclosure (PD) crowd would engage in a fact-based discussion.

For instance, can the PD crowd provide a substantive counter-argument to how a Guide definition will quantifiably deter NDP?

Guide definitions do not deter anything. Never have, never will. They only communicate standards for the collecting community.

Your question is like implying Stoplights and signs are worthless because drivers have to voluntarily comply. Useless because they do not "quantifiably" deter anyone who absolutely refuses to stop.

 

Or how disclosure will resolve how to identify the thousands of books that have been pressed over the last 20+ years?

 

Why does disclosure have to resolve the identity of every pressed comic in existence before it has any merit? Isn't disclosure a point-in-time ethical act? The choice of conducting a win/win transaction, instead of intentional win/lose profiteering.

Disclosure is a standard that could be adopted, even if no one used it. Even if it was only a higher ideal of what could be possible in a better marketplace.

 

 

Or how it will resolve books being pressed today by NDP’ers that do not disclose?

 

It won't. How does the buisiness world "resolve" that there will always be Enron-types who'll practice non-disclosure if it lines their pocket? Yet they still set standards, don't they?

 

Or how CGC is supposed to detect something it has stated it cannot detect?

 

Wouldn't it be different if they had the will to detect and deter the practice of undisclosed grade manipulations, even if they can't 100% of the time? If the rules were very clear that undisclosed alterations are "a cheat", even if they're not caught? Wouldn't it be different?

It's that way for the nearly impossible to detect trimming alterations.

 

I’ve asked for substantive counter-arguments to these fundamental points on several occasions on several threads and have yet to receive responses.

[FFB]

Or how it will resolve books being pressed today by NDP’ers that do not disclose?

 

It won't. How does the buisiness world "resolve" that there will always be Enron-types who'll practice non-disclosure if it lines their pocket? Yet they still set standards, don't they?

 

Or how CGC is supposed to detect something it has stated it cannot detect?

 

Wouldn't it be different if they had the will to detect and deter the practice of undisclosed grade manipulations, even if they can't 100% of the time? If the rules were very clear that undisclosed alterations are "a cheat", even if they're not caught? Wouldn't it be different?

It's that way for the nearly impossible to detect trimming alterations.

 

I’ve asked for substantive counter-arguments to these fundamental points on several occasions on several threads and have yet to receive responses.

 

Good post, Kevin. One thing that is an important difference between "Enron" type misconduct and NDP is that when it is done correctly, there is no way to detect NDP with any degree of certainty. Contrast that with financial misfeasance, which can be detected and confirmed with actual, mathematical certainty by forensic accountants. I think that is the biggest problem -- how does the industry enforce the standards it would create if the standard calls for disclosure of pressing?

 

Those who believe that pressing should be disclosed will do so whether Overstreet changes the definition of restoration to exclude pressing or not. While those who are inclined not to disclose will almost certainly cling to an Overstreet definition that does not include pressing as support for the notion that they need not disclose it, if the existence of pressing is a material factor in a buyer's purchase decision, and if the seller knows that, the seller has a legal and moral duty to disclose it regardless of what Overstreet's definition says.