A Not So Pressing Matter-Article on GP Analysis

[mica]

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.

Good post.

[Davenport]

 

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.

Honestly, I don't think the "industry" could enforce anything. There's nothing inherently evil in altering a used magazine. But when someone takes it to a "collectibles market", to pass it off as a unaltered example to a collector, the marketplace needs some rules of conduct, to guide behaviors toward fairness.

 

The CGC'd back issue market standards are always evolving. I see it as a continuum with "Safe and consumer friendly" on one end and "War Games" (strange game...the only winning move is not to play ) on the other.

 

Who's trying to move the needle, and in which direction? Well, buyer beware, and folks have to decide for themselves. But the needle is being moved, one direction or the other.

[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.

 

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.

 

Thank you Scott for once again serving as the Board's policeman to make sure I am kept in line. I simply do not know what we would do without you. Anarchy would certainly exist if someone did not keep me in check.

 

I probably should not have said Peter doesn't care. More appropriately he believes, and he has made this perfectly clear, that those of us who favor disclosure (and I will not utilize the term "anti-NDP" as he is obviously using that in a derrogatory fashion) are wasting our time with this effort. Hence, my comment on how ironic it was that Peter spent so much time refuting the views that I and others share. I would submit, however, that most people would generically equate "don't care" with "wasting time". Still, the analogy is not perfect. I particularly don't care that people wished you happy birthday, but it was not a waste of time as it was a nice thing to do. So I will correct myself, based on your astute observation, to say "waste of time".

 

Peter is an excellent writer, which is why whatever he says needs to be taken seriously. In my opinion, however, he writes a lot but says little. He is critical of others for not suggesting solutions but he falls victim to that same criticism. He demands answers from others without recognizing that sometimes answers are not forthcoming yet that does not eliminate the existence of the problem. And even to the extent some of us have suggested answers, he denigrates those solutions as not rising to the level to meet his satisfaction or standards. He is, of course, entitled to those opinions, but that does not mean others have to share them.

 

Sometimes problems do not have easy solutions. Sometimes the solutions must come one step at a time in a slow process. This is very likely one of those times. That fact that Peter won't or can't accept it notwithstanding. For many of us principes guide our motives. Perhaps we will be successful, perhaps not. But I, for one, would rather face the obstacles head on and try to make a difference than accept defeat from the outset.

 

It is attitudes such as that, which is fortunately shared by many, that lead to changes.

[esquirecomics]

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).

 

Strong words Peter, yet you don't even exhibit the professionalism of identifying me by name. Please feel free to do so. And now you feel the need to sink down to such a level as to denigrate my legal argumentative skills (even if "limited" to "these discussions", what is that about?) in order to make your point?

 

You can say whatever you want my friend if that enhances your manhood or something, but it is quite clear that no matter how skillful your writing may be, there are quite a number of people - such as myself - who disagree with you. And there are quite a few people who have agreed with my "impotent" writings. Just deal with it.

 

No one is asking you to participate in a movement you don't believe in. Why are are you denigrating those who are motivated by principles that you simply don't appear to hold?

[LearnedHand]

Poster: esquirecomics

Subject: Re: A Not So Pressing Matter-Article on GP Analysis

 

 

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

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.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Thank you Scott for once again serving as the Board's policeman to make sure I am kept in line. I simply do not know what we would do without you. Anarchy would certainly exist if someone did not keep me in check.

 

I probably should not have said Peter doesn't care. More appropriately he believes, and he has made this perfectly clear, that those of us who favor disclosure (and I will not utilize the term "anti-NDP" as he is obviously using that in a derrogatory fashion) are wasting our time with this effort. Hence, my comment on how ironic it was that Peter spent so much time refuting the views that I and others share. I would submit, however, that most people would generically equate "don't care" with "wasting time". Still, the analogy is not perfect. I particularly don't care that people wished you happy birthday, but it was not a waste of time as it was a nice thing to do. So I will correct myself, based on your astute observation, to say "waste of time".

 

Peter is an excellent writer, which is why whatever he says needs to be taken seriously. In my opinion, however, he writes a lot but says little. He is critical of others for not suggesting solutions but he falls victim to that same criticism. He demands answers from others without recognizing that sometimes answers are not forthcoming yet that does not eliminate the existence of the problem. And even to the extent some of us have suggested answers, he denigrates those solutions as not rising to the level to meet his satisfaction or standards. He is, of course, entitled to those opinions, but that does not mean others have to share them.

 

Sometimes problems do not have easy solutions. Sometimes the solutions must come one step at a time in a slow process. This is very likely one of those times. That fact that Peter won't or can't accept it notwithstanding. For many of us principes guide our motives. Perhaps we will be successful, perhaps not. But I, for one, would rather face the obstacles head on and try to make a difference than accept defeat from the outset.

 

It is attitudes such as that, which is fortunately shared by many, that lead to changes.

 

Thanks for the compliment on my writing style.

 

I say a whole lot more than you pal, and with many fewer words. My article was under 6 pages and addressed the entire pressing issue. Your GPA article was almost 10 pages and addressed what? The fact that a definition matters and people should email Gemstone to tell them that?

 

And you are dead wrong on the term Anti-NDP’er meant in a derogatory manner. This never even occurred to me because it’s so ridiculous. But feel free to continue doing what you’ve done to date – argue nonsense in lieu of anything of substance.

 

BTW - I think I've finally mastered the use of graemlins.

[mica]

And you are dead wrong on the term Anti-NDP’er meant in a derogatory manner. This never even occurred to me ...

probably because you didn't put much thought into it.

BTW - I think I've finally mastered the use of graemlins.

Aim high.

[Harvey Dude]

Sometimes problems do not have easy solutions. Sometimes the solutions must come one step at a time in a slow process. This is very likely one of those times. ...For many of us principes guide our motives.

 

[LearnedHand]

Hi Mark,

 

I think it's to your credit that you decided to edit your very inappropriate post, but let's go with what you originally wrote (before you decided to edit it with no indication that you edited it):

 

Strong words Peter, without the guts to tackle me head-on. You don't even exhibit the professionalism of identifying me by name. Please feel free to do so. And now you feel the need to sink down to such a level as to denigrate my legal skills in order to make your point?

 

You can say whatever you want my friend if that enhances your manhood or something, but it is quite clear that no matter how skillful your writing may be, there are quite a number of people - such as myself - who disagree with you. Just deal with it. No one is asking you to participate in a movement you don't believe in. Why are are you denigrating those who are motivated by principles that you simply don't appear to hold?

 

Now we’re talking about guts and manhood? C’mon Mark, grow up. This discussion has become absurd. I could respond in kind by pointing out that you’ve ducked every head-on challenge I’ve made to you on this topic. And I could talk about your need to prove something by the fact that you create threads about yourself, post photos of yourself from the news, etc. But why? Let’s get past this and agree to a more constructive approach, as this type of conversation is reminiscent of a Jerry Springer episode. And, I think it’s a shame because we agree on a lot more than that on which we disagree - but we get carried away sometimes. Okay?

 

Now, to your only point deserving of a response:

 

You say you disagree with me. On what? I don’t know, as you never retort with substantive fact-based responses. Instead, you inexplicably “disagree” and your comments only attack the fact that I have something to say. When was the last time anyone swayed a judge using these obtuse tactics? And, it’s all a little confusing because when we spoke on the phone a few weeks ago (for 3.5 hours) you agreed with almost every single thing I said.

 

Anyway, instead of you continuing to provide vague responses and purposely mischaracterizing my position, I’d like to break it down one more time to the most basic elements to determine that with which you disagree. I think that:

 

- pressing is a form of restoration. Do you disagree?

 

- properly performed pressing cannot be detected (see all available clear evidence). Do you disagree?

 

- disclosure is a good thing, but of limited value. Do you disagree?

 

- you can define pressing however you want, but a definition alone will change nothing (history is dispositive on this point). Do you disagree?

 

- the hobby needs to adopt a viable code of ethics. Do you disagree?

 

- calling NDP unethical is a matter of opinion. Do you disagree?

 

- if change is desired, the people desiring the change should lead the way. Do you disagree?

 

For once, Mark, fact-based logical responses would be most appreciated so that I can understand why you disagree – at least then I can understand and respect your opinion. Hope you can meet me half way and turn this around.

 

[Harvey Dude]

I know you addressed this to Mark but let me add my comments.

 

 

- pressing is a form of restoration. Do you disagree? I would agree that pressing is a form of restoration.

 

- properly performed pressing cannot be detected (see all available clear evidence). Do you disagree? I disagree. Some pressing cannot be detected but I own some books that have faint creases down the middle. I can't say with certainty but they may have been professionally pressed to mitigate the creases.

 

- disclosure is a good thing, but of limited value. Do you disagree? I disagree. Disclosure is a great thing and certainly of value to me. Accurate information is necessary to make informed decisions.

 

- you can define pressing however you want, but a definition alone will change nothing (history is dispositive on this point). Do you disagree? I disagree. I believe the definition of pressing as presented in Websters is accurate so these discussions have certainly changed the way that I have purchased books. Generally, I do not buy new label books anymore as I perceive that the books have a higher probability of being pressed based on my first-hand observation of sales. I have spent tens of thousands of dollars a year on books but I have drastically reduced my funds allocated towards comics due to the unethical practices that I have encountered. The collecting community is not that large so every loss of a collector is detrimental to the hobby.

 

The hobby needs to adopt a viable code of ethics. Do you disagree? I agree that the hobby needs a viable code of ethics.

 

- calling NDP unethical is a matter of opinion. Do you disagree? It is a matter of opinion but from my optic most discussions have used it in a negative light.

 

- if change is desired, the people desiring the change should lead the way. Do you disagree? I agree that everyone should do what is right and change the direction of the hobby to benefit the hobby.

[Psiknight]

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?

 

Nope. I could actually understand this article...