what's wrong with pressing/cover cleaning?

[Hawkman]

i honestly don't know, so i'm asking.

 

pressing to me just seems to straighten out a curved spine. i can't think of any damage it would do or why anyone would be bothered by it. but i'd like to hear from board members why they don't like it and what damage it does

 

same with cover cleaning. unless the cleaning process damages the paper, i can't see why there would be an issue with removing surface dirt.

 

these two issues never seemed like resto to me, but i don't know as much as some board members.

[esquirecomics]

Its all about education and an informed community.

 

Here is one side of the argument for your consideration. I'll leave it to others to address the opposing views.

 

Restoration of the Overstreet Comic Book Price Guide’s Definition of Restoration

 

 

This article actually contains both sides of the debate:

 

Making The Grade - The Responses Keep Rolling

[Aloha]

Good post from both of you. I've been wondering many of the same things myself.

[Dad&Son-migration]

Like Mark said it's about educating.

The best thing to do is stand by the choice you like because it makes you happy as a collector and learn that both sides should just agree to disagree.

 

I don't think pressing is restoration in my opinion. Nor do I feel cleaning is either. I mean if cleaning a cover is considered restoration then would wiping the dust off a book that's been sitting for years be restoration too

 

As long as any work done is disclosed so that buyers have all the facts to make an informed purchase it's all good !!!

[garthgantu]

Dad&Son:

 

I think the difference between (dry) cleaning and wiping the dust off a book's cover(s) is that dry cleaning often does remove some of the comic's original material - however small that amount may be.

 

Another reason that some may frown on dry cleaning, pressing or both is that you are paying a higher price for a book that previously could have been obtained for less... and often paying a very substantial mark-up for that 'improvement' to the book that took place.

 

Even if you don't disapprove of clearning or pressing, you might balk at paying $500 more for a book after these processes, knowing that whoever performed those processes probably charged all of $50 or $100 to do so.

[Dad&Son-migration]

Dad&Son:

 

I think the difference between (dry) cleaning and wiping the dust off a book's cover(s) is that dry cleaning often does remove some of the comic's original material - however small that amount may be.

 

I know.. I was trying to be ironical

 

 

Even if you don't disapprove of clearning or pressing, you might balk at paying $500 more for a book after these processes, knowing that whoever performed those processes probably charged all of $50 or $100 to do so.

 

This is why I mentioned, " As long as it's disclosed". Also, one of the reasons I moved away from high priced slabs for the moment. Buying "raw" in VF/NM- is working pretty good for my enjoyment of the hobby right now.

[Mr. Zipper]

If you walked into a car dealership and -- the same price -- had the pick of:

 

Car A - Perfect condition. Never dirty or dented, or

 

Car B - Was dirty and dented, but cleaned and the dents were banged out. Looks identical to A.

 

Which would you pick?

[Dad&Son-migration]

If you walked into a car dealership and -- the same price -- had the pick of:

 

Car A - Perfect condition. Never dirty or dented, or

 

Car B - Was dirty and dented, but cleaned and the dents were banged out. Looks identical to A.

 

Which would you pick?

 

I'd pick the one that had that ol' comic smell

[Mr. Zipper]

If you walked into a car dealership and -- the same price -- had the pick of:

 

Car A - Perfect condition. Never dirty or dented, or

 

Car B - Was dirty and dented, but cleaned and the dents were banged out. Looks identical to A.

 

Which would you pick?

 

I'd pick the one that had that ol' comic smell

 

They should make that into an air freshener spray.

 

[Dad&Son-migration]

If you walked into a car dealership and -- the same price -- had the pick of:

 

Car A - Perfect condition. Never dirty or dented, or

 

Car B - Was dirty and dented, but cleaned and the dents were banged out. Looks identical to A.

 

Which would you pick?

 

I'd pick the one that had that ol' comic smell

 

They should make that into an air freshener spray.

 

 

it may entice some collectors to leave the basement .... if they made if a scent for perfume I'd be spending more time with my wife...

[PovertyRow]

The title if the thread is worth highlighting. The wuation being, "what's wrong with pressing/cleaning?"

 

The thing is there is really nothing "wrong" with pressing or cleaning or even advanced restoration processes. I recently highlighted Mister B saying a similar thing about not seeing "a problem" with pressing.

 

The implication is that there is something wrong with restorative techniques beyond pressing cleaning, but not wrong with these particular two restoration techniques. And since there is nothing "wrong" or "no problem" with clean or clean press, then it must not be restoration in some eyes (Hawkman - not really addressing you on this - I know your "wrong" was a real question). But it is becoming more and more prevelant for preception of restoration to take on an almost moral tone. The morality should be in how any treated book is presented, how consistenly and accuratley any work done should be revealed.

 

But there is no rightness or wrongness, no problem or "not a problem" in the processes themselves (as long as they are carried out properly and professionally with archival materials and techniques.)

 

You can say a cleaned and pressed book is not restored. However, I fail to see how a book that has been subject to two separate processes in an attempt to return the appearance of the book to a previous state could be considered an unrestored book.

 

The reluctance in admitting c/p to the terminology of restoration is, in my opinion, largely based on two factors: the difficulty of detecting a well done clean/press and the prevelance of cleaned/pressed books hitherto unconfirmed AS c/p. There is certainly a comfort level to be had in the knowledge that even should more books begin to be revealed as c/p, well, they still are not restoration. So they are "okay".

 

Morality is not a technique or a process. Right and wrong can only be applied to restoration itself in a technical way as regards the rightness and wrongness of the materials/processes used.

 

When morality comes into play it becomes a human issue. And should deal with the rightness or wrongness of how any book altered to revert its appearance to a previous state is handled when it comes to buying or selling..

 

Calling it resto or not calling it resto does not avoid that key issue: the book has been reverted in appearance to a previous (inherently better) state.

[esquirecomics]

The title if the thread is worth highlighting. The wuation being, "what's wrong with pressing/cleaning?"

 

The thing is there is really nothing "wrong" with pressing or cleaning or even advanced restoration processes. I recently highlighted Mister B saying a similar thing about not seeing "a problem" with pressing.

 

Yes, the better question is "what's wrong with not disclosing pressing/cleaning?"

[bluechip]

The title if the thread is worth highlighting. The wuation being, "what's wrong with pressing/cleaning?"

 

The thing is there is really nothing "wrong" with pressing or cleaning or even advanced restoration processes. I recently highlighted Mister B saying a similar thing about not seeing "a problem" with pressing.

 

Yes, the better question is "what's wrong with not disclosing pressing/cleaning?"

 

 

To paraphrase a line from "Fiddler on the Roof," you are both right.

[PovertyRow]

The title if the thread is worth highlighting. The wuation being, "what's wrong with pressing/cleaning?"

 

The thing is there is really nothing "wrong" with pressing or cleaning or even advanced restoration processes. I recently highlighted Mister B saying a similar thing about not seeing "a problem" with pressing.

 

Yes, the better question is "what's wrong with not disclosing pressing/cleaning?"

 

Actually, Mark, in my view that is not a better question. Because as long as c/p is not perceived as restoration then there will be no compulsion to reveal it. While not a lawyer let me phrase it in this way. You are seeking an action. I am seeking a precedent upon which to more accurately base the action you seek.

 

The precedent I am seeking is the view that pressing and cleaning are, in fact restoration. And that restoration is, in fact, any process intended to cause the appearance of a book to revert to its original (or closer to its original) state. Cleaning (dry) and pressing do exactly that: help revert the book to an apearance closer to its original state. It is, in fact, the sole function of c/p.

 

Right now we have a mixed view. Some say c/p is resto. Some say it is not. The main reasons, as I said previously, for it not being resto is that "..since there is nothing "wrong" or "no problem" with clean or clean press, then it must not be restoration in some eyes" This is absolute key and supports the perception that resto is inherently wrong. So if a process is perceived by the right people as "wrong" or "harmful" it must fall under the blanket of "restoration". And if a process is perceived by the "right people" as not "wrong" or "harmful" then it is not restoration. That is what I disagree with. It is key.

 

Call c/p what it is. Restoration that may devalue a book but much less than ct, tear seals, pieces added, etc. In many cases there will still be a net gain if the c/p was sufficient to go from, for example, a 9.2 to a 9.6.

[esquirecomics]

The title if the thread is worth highlighting. The wuation being, "what's wrong with pressing/cleaning?"

 

The thing is there is really nothing "wrong" with pressing or cleaning or even advanced restoration processes. I recently highlighted Mister B saying a similar thing about not seeing "a problem" with pressing.

 

Yes, the better question is "what's wrong with not disclosing pressing/cleaning?"

 

Actually, Mark, in my view that is not a better question. Because as long as c/p is not perceived as restoration then there will be no compulsion to reveal it. While not a lawyer let me phrase it in this way. You are seeking an action. I am seeking a precedent upon which to more accurately base the action you seek.

 

The precedent I am seeking is the view that pressing and cleaning are, in fact restoration. And that restoration is, in fact, any process intended to cause the appearance of a book to revert to its original (or closer to its original) state. Cleaning (dry) and pressing do exactly that: help revert the book to an apearance closer to its original state. It is, in fact, the sole function of c/p.

 

Right now we have a mixed view. Some say c/p is resto. Some say it is not. The main reasons, as I said previously, for it not being resto is that "..since there is nothing "wrong" or "no problem" with clean or clean press, then it must not be restoration in some eyes" This is absolute key and supports the perception that resto is inherently wrong. So if a process is perceived by the right people as "wrong" or "harmful" it must fall under the blanket of "restoration". And if a process is perceived by the "right people" as not "wrong" or "harmful" then it is not restoration. That is what I disagree with. It is key.

 

Call c/p what it is. Restoration that may devalue a book but much less than ct, tear seals, pieces added, etc. In many cases there will still be a net gain if the c/p was sufficient to go from, for example, a 9.2 to a 9.6.

 

Ok, let me clarify. I would state that my phrasing is "better" at this time in light of the very debate you identify, i.e., is it restoration or not? Until that question is answered - and I agree 100% with your position and, as you may recall, have publicly argued this fact - the issue of disclosure can still exist independent of the answer.

[joker-fish]

why is everyone so against pressing,but i am sure everyone at one time or another has had a book that was at some previous point stacked with a few hundred books on top of it straightening out a few NCB creases,or a slight wave in the book or other minor defects

[Flaming_Telepath]

why is everyone so against pressing,but i am sure everyone at one time or another has had a book that was at some previous point stacked with a few hundred books on top of it straightening out a few NCB creases,or a slight wave in the book or other minor defects

 

That's like comparing being hit with a balloon....and being hammered with a steel bar.

 

Apples and oranges.

[bluechip]

 

 

I vote to call cleaning and pressing ... :"cleaning and pressing."

 

 

 

I vote simply to disclose everything and let each person decide for him or herself whatever additional judgmental or non-judgmental terms they may want to put on it in their own minds, be they "problem" or "restoration" or "not restoration" or "preservation" or whatever.

[FFB]

why is everyone so against pressing,but i am sure everyone at one time or another has had a book that was at some previous point stacked with a few hundred books on top of it straightening out a few NCB creases,or a slight wave in the book or other minor defects

 

That's like comparing being hit with a balloon....and being hammered with a steel bar.

 

Apples and oranges.

 

What he's describing isn't completely different from a conservator who presses a paper item with a sheet of weighted glass or a vice press, nor is it different in terms of the forces being applied when spot pressing a bent edge or corner. Not everyone uses a dry mount press, and those who do don't always use a dry mount press on every book for every kind of defect. In fact, many defects that would take a book from 9.6 to 9.8 are not removable with a dry mount press, but are easily removed by more "mundane" methods (such as localized pressure applied by hand). I know that you guys don't equate this kind of pressing with dry mount pressing, but given the fact that this kind of pressing can actually result in a great dollar amount being "added" to the value of the book, I don't understand your reluctance to acknowledge that "some" professional pressing is in fact akin to exactly that the original poster was talking about.

 

As tired as some people are about having people compare Church stacks with "professional pressing," the fact is that the processes are not that different in many cases when a dry mount press is not being used.

[trevorlsmith]

why is everyone so against pressing,but i am sure everyone at one time or another has had a book that was at some previous point stacked with a few hundred books on top of it straightening out a few NCB creases,or a slight wave in the book or other minor defects

 

Why does this argument keep coming up? And over and over again it is illustrated with Church's storage methods. This position was even taken by some experienced comic dealers in a Scoop article some time(?) ago.