Good Intentions… will they result in the Positive, Unexpected or Negative?

[BronzeBruce13]

I understand... its all good.

 

Excellent inclusion with the "Resistance". I totally overlooked that.

I renumbered your list for you...

 

BTW... How do you see the resistance developing?

 

 

 

No problem Bruce and I hope I didn't come off with an attitude in my response. I was somewhat rushed...

 

I think your categories are good, but I added some modifiers (in bold).

 

I will look at it from a political perspective. About 20% of the people have strong views on one side, and another 20% have strong views on the other side. Most people -- who tend to avoid conflict -- fall somewhere in the middle. Given this, here are my numbers:

 

(1) Indifference (little demand for change/due to they just don't care or unaware of what's going on) 40%

(2) Increased Demand for Disclosure (in significant numbers to make potential impact) 20%

(3) Resistance to disclosure (It's no big deal, none of your business, etc) 20%

(4) Increased Participation in the "Pressing Game" by the "Now Informed" 10%

(5) Spike in "Sell Offs" from Unhappy CGC Collectors / those just disgusted with hobby 10%

 

regards - Steve

 

[Davenport]

 

I like the way your mind works, Davenport... when they start selling tix to that alternate universe, grab one for me and I'll pay ya back

Sure thing.

 

It's just hard to follow the logic behind Pressing sometimes.

 

It'd be like looking in the mirror with morning bed-head and thinking you're hair was seriously damaged. It's not. It's f'n hair. Combing it doesn't repair anything. Looks better, sure. Set your head on fire, now your f'n hair's damaged.

 

Same with paper. Pressing won't repair true damage. Just takes what moved and moves it back, looks better.

[Aman619]

except that the entire value system of hair was never built upon conditioners.

[Davenport]

except that the entire value system of hair was never built upon conditioners.

True. But you'd think an applicable Grading System for paper artifacts would incorporate the fact that paper has a certain degree of movement and flex before damage occurs. Maybe not downgrade so harshly, just because it slightly moved, curled, or dented. Consideration for what paper can do, and still be in an undamaged preserved state.

[Ze-man]

 

I like the way your mind works, Davenport... when they start selling tix to that alternate universe, grab one for me and I'll pay ya back

Sure thing.

 

It's just hard to follow the logic behind Pressing sometimes.

 

It'd be like looking in the mirror with morning bed-head and thinking you're hair was seriously damaged. It's not. It's f'n hair. Combing it doesn't repair anything. Looks better, sure. Set your head on fire, now your f'n hair's damaged.

 

Same with paper. Pressing won't repair true damage. Just takes what moved and moves it back, looks better.

 

I will just gloss over the fact you tried to compare bed head hair combing with pressing.

 

I have heard the restored car thing many times, but hair? I give you props though for being original.

 

And I am curious, What type of pressing are you talking about, as there are multiple ways to skin a cat. Depending on what flaws a book has will dictate what type you use. Also what do you mean by true damage? Because if the paper is seriously bent, nothing will bring it back, and will most times remain visible afterwards.

 

Newsprint and Cover stock is some pretty forgiving stuff is it is not brittle. Whether you unbend an outer edge curl with your finger, or by other means.

 

The intent is the same, only the results are different. Scott brought that point up many moons ago. And I wrestled with it for quite awhile. If you uncurl a corner bend with your finger to make it look better,or help to straighten a spine roll with your fingers are you then required to disclose it? Because some forms of pressing are not much more invasive then doing just that, but people demand it be disclosed because it improved the book and is "unfair" to sell it to someone without telling them. Why should the pro way need to be disclosed while the other is just something everyone does to their books to make their books look better, or help preserve them from being damaged further.

 

This point has always stuck with me.

 

Ze-

[Aman619]

Ze, thats subject to the porno dilemma. The answer is, we know it when we see (or do ) it. It may not hold up in court, but to me, theres a difference. When you or I unbend a bent corner we might notice as we place our book back in its mylar, it's innocent. But if we consult Matt as to which books and which defects he can manipulate into a higher grade, then pay him to do it EXPERTLY? Thats a whole different thing.

 

Scott also uses the argument about flicking off crumbs. If I do it for Matt does it, however, is the same thing to me. Even if he uses $200 tweezers and I use my finger. But if I flick it off there might be residue or paper damage I will leave there. If Matt were to fix that too? Restoration.

 

So I admire the facility of the arguments made, but....

[Monkeyman]

I don't really know enough about the comic market to make general comments, but I can speak for myself. I believe that I would be fairly representative of a decent portion of the market as I've heard similar stories to my own many times: collected in the 70s, got out of it for 20 years, began again in the late 90s when I started to have some discretionary income, ignorantly began buying from local dealers and on eBay (picking up a few books from Ewert along the way), discovered CGC and joined the boards around the time the Ewert scandal broke. This was a real eye opener for me and I have continued to to try and educate myself on the ways I can be scammed (of which there seem to be many). From all of this I have come to a few conclusions about my collecting going forward:

 

- I will most likely never begin collecting Golden Age books as it is just too dangerous. Unfortunate, because it seems like an interesting area where just finding the books is the focus, not finding the highest graded copy.

- I have never spent more than $1,000 on a comic, but I have on art. I believe that this will continue as I have just become too suspicious to drop large amounts on comics. Not only am I worried about getting ripped off, but the purchase just isn't fun when I'm worried.

- I am much less trustful of CGC than when they first started and will no longer pay large multiples for high grade books. In fact, I no longer pay up for any books except in rare occasions when I am very comofortable with the seller. I have also joined the NOD and am likely to deal with other members in the future.

- I will restrict my purchases to a few dealers that I know well and others with great reputations (I include board members because I feel that we generally try and hold ourselves to a higher standard and that there is a sense of community here and we don't scam each other). This means that it will be hard for dealers to get me to make a first time purchase. It is also unfortunate for new dealers trying to build a reputation.

 

If others are like me I predict the following:

 

- Less and less buyers of Golden Age, and expensive books in general.

- People generally looking for other, safer areas to spend their money

- Lower prices for CGC books (the caveat to this is that many collectors buy for the label and don't really care what is in the case so I'm probably wrong on this one)

- Concentration of sales with fewer, well trusted dealers and a difficult market for new dealers to enter. Perhaps the boards are a precurser of the market of the future. Collectors with similar interests and standards banding together to sell/trade books among themselves.

 

I'm sure that others will have much different opinions and experiences than I have, but all I can say is that the whole resto/trimming/pressing/resub game has caused me to rethink what and how I collect and that the vintage comic market has lost much of my future spending. I still love collecting comics, but I won't be investing the money I might have.

 

Anyone else feel the same?

 

Mike

[BronzeBruce13]

I've considered that as well Dav... why didn't CGC decide NOT to deduct for minor indentations, curls, crimps, etc. Simply put, do not penalize a book for "non-permanent" paper defects/soiling that could be reversed by finger, stacked dictionaries, erasers, bread, tack irons or even a heavy duty press.

 

If that was CGC's chosen course of action however, there would probably not be enough separation in the high grade end of the market and there would be less 9.6s and more 9.8s perhaps? Not having a system that produces the 9.6 to 9.8 supply we currently have may not have been a system that would have worked?

 

I also think in order for a professional collectibles grading business to be successful long term there needs to be a fair amount of opportunity for collectors/dealers to seek out and obtain upgrades... which also provides additional revenue. Pressing was the "upgrade vehicle" I figure CGC realized was going to be necessary for their survival from the beginning. Understanding that they could not detect and control it anyway made the decision easy... at least that's my hunch.

 

 

except that the entire value system of hair was never built upon conditioners.

True. But you'd think an applicable Grading System for paper artifacts would incorporate the fact that paper has a certain degree of movement and flex before damage occurs. Maybe not downgrade so harshly, just because it slightly moved, curled, or dented. Consideration for what paper can do, and still be in an undamaged preserved state.

[Dad&Son-migration]

 

I like the way your mind works, Davenport... when they start selling tix to that alternate universe, grab one for me and I'll pay ya back

Sure thing.

 

It's just hard to follow the logic behind Pressing sometimes.

 

It'd be like looking in the mirror with morning bed-head and thinking you're hair was seriously damaged. It's not. It's f'n hair. Combing it doesn't repair anything. Looks better, sure. Set your head on fire, now your f'n hair's damaged.

 

Same with paper. Pressing won't repair true damage. Just takes what moved and moves it back, looks better.

 

I will just gloss over the fact you tried to compare bed head hair combing with pressing.

 

I have heard the restored car thing many times, but hair? I give you props though for being original.

 

And I am curious, What type of pressing are you talking about, as there are multiple ways to skin a cat. Depending on what flaws a book has will dictate what type you use. Also what do you mean by true damage? Because if the paper is seriously bent, nothing will bring it back, and will most times remain visible afterwards.

 

Newsprint and Cover stock is some pretty forgiving stuff is it is not brittle. Whether you unbend an outer edge curl with your finger, or by other means.

 

The intent is the same, only the results are different. Scott brought that point up many moons ago. And I wrestled with it for quite awhile. If you uncurl a corner bend with your finger to make it look better,or help to straighten a spine roll with your fingers are you then required to disclose it? Because some forms of pressing are not much more invasive then doing just that, but people demand it be disclosed because it improved the book and is "unfair" to sell it to someone without telling them. Why should the pro way need to be disclosed while the other is just something everyone does to their books to make their books look better.

 

This point has always stuck with me.

 

Ze-

 

Nice!!! Fully agree.. and people.. you should listen to this dude.. he's not just ..well.. "blowing hot air" ... he started a cool thread many months ..(geez..maybe years back) and is why I got into trying pressing after I read it...

 

nicely said from someone who knows because he vested time to practice...

[Ze-man]

Just trying to keep things moving. If we dont say things, then what would there be to reply to?

 

[Aman619]

when I posted it said there WAS no post to reply to! did you edit or delete it back there?

weird.

[Ze-man]

when I posted it said there WAS no post to reply to! did you edit or delete it back there?

weird.

 

I might have been editing my post. Or I might have pressed ok submit the wrong way.

 

 

Sorry bout that.

[Aman619]

no. no problem. its just always weird when that happens, when th e"post you are repling to no longer exists!" I doubt my sanity for a sec when that happens.

[Davenport]

 

And I am curious, What type of pressing are you talking about, as there are multiple ways to skin a cat. Depending on what flaws a book has will dictate what type you use. Also what do you mean by true damage? Because if the paper is seriously bent, nothing will bring it back, and will most times remain visible afterwards.

 

Newsprint and Cover stock is some pretty forgiving stuff is it is not brittle. Whether you unbend an outer edge curl with your finger, or by other means.

 

The intent is the same, only the results are different. Scott brought that point up many moons ago. And I wrestled with it for quite awhile. If you uncurl a corner bend with your finger to make it look better,or help to straighten a spine roll with your fingers are you then required to disclose it? Because some forms of pressing are not much more invasive then doing just that, but people demand it be disclosed because it improved the book and is "unfair" to sell it to someone without telling them. Why should the pro way need to be disclosed while the other is just something everyone does to their books to make their books look better, or help preserve them from being damaged further.

 

This point has always stuck with me.

 

Ze-

Look, I know I'm out of step with current market-think on pressing. Just opinions and confusion, like to keep it simple...

 

Comics are factory produced. Printed, pressed, folded, stapled, trimmed. All attributes that can be reworked.

 

In simple-think the opposite of production is re-production. Re-press a factory press job and it's re-producing that production attribute. Re-trim a factory trim, it's an attempt at re-producing that attribute. Relax and re-fold, same thing. Re-staple, same thing. Reproduction, reproduced, post-production, whatever. A do-over from what was "factory". If so, it should be disclosed.

 

And very different from repair attempts like seals, reattachments or reinforcment. Repair attempts and reproduction attempts seem like seperate goals. Stabilizing a factory attribute, as opposed to altering a factory attribute (for improved appearance). Different. In simple-think, anyway. Repairs should be disclosed.

 

Simple.

[Aman619]

nicely put!

[nearmint]

Not responding to anyone in particular here, but just to clarify...

 

My post concerning a possible significant increase in the practice of pressing as a direct result of the public becoming educated about the process was in no way an argument against disclosure or education. I'm no longer a NOD member, but I still fully support both "up-front" disclosure and education of the community in a responsible manner.

[Dad&Son-migration]

Not responding to anyone in particular here, but just to clarify...

 

My post concerning a possible significant increase in the practice of pressing as a direct result of the public becoming educated about the process was in no way an argument against disclosure or education. I'm no longer a NOD member, but I still fully support both "up-front" disclosure and education of the community in a responsible manner.

 

Jeff you made a lot of good points earlier. I actually have a lot of the same values and business principles you have...

 

The thing with disclosing pressing is that you aren't really giving away the farm on the practice.. there are things that only the dedicated will take the time to notice and adjust to.. It's not an exact science and I can certainly say that every book has a little difference then the last one.. and you need to adapt.. learn from it.. and you get quicker at it...

[batman_fan]

I am both shocked and amazed. Here we have a thread discussing pressing where everyone is considerate. Clearly express their point of view. Read and respond in professional manner. I must say, for me at least, the world seems a little better tonight. I actually mean that. I think it is great to have this type of exchange. Bravo to all the people posting so far.

[adamstrange]

I doubt my sanity for a sec when that happens.

 

We've doubting it for much longer than that.

[Ze-man]

 

And I am curious, What type of pressing are you talking about, as there are multiple ways to skin a cat. Depending on what flaws a book has will dictate what type you use. Also what do you mean by true damage? Because if the paper is seriously bent, nothing will bring it back, and will most times remain visible afterwards.

 

Newsprint and Cover stock is some pretty forgiving stuff is it is not brittle. Whether you unbend an outer edge curl with your finger, or by other means.

 

The intent is the same, only the results are different. Scott brought that point up many moons ago. And I wrestled with it for quite awhile. If you uncurl a corner bend with your finger to make it look better,or help to straighten a spine roll with your fingers are you then required to disclose it? Because some forms of pressing are not much more invasive then doing just that, but people demand it be disclosed because it improved the book and is "unfair" to sell it to someone without telling them. Why should the pro way need to be disclosed while the other is just something everyone does to their books to make their books look better, or help preserve them from being damaged further.

 

This point has always stuck with me.

 

Ze-

Look, I know I'm out of step with current market-think on pressing. Just opinions and confusion, like to keep it simple...

 

Comics are factory produced. Printed, pressed, folded, stapled, trimmed. All attributes that can be reworked.

 

In simple-think the opposite of production is re-production. Re-press a factory press job and it's re-producing that production attribute. Re-trim a factory trim, it's an attempt at re-producing that attribute. Relax and re-fold, same thing. Re-staple, same thing. Reproduction, reproduced, post-production, whatever. A do-over from what was "factory". If so, it should be disclosed.

 

And very different from repair attempts like seals, re attachments or reinforcement. Repair attempts and reproduction attempts seem like separate goals. Stabilizing a factory attribute, as opposed to altering a factory attribute (for improved appearance). Different. In simple-think, anyway. Repairs should be disclosed.

 

Simple.

 

I think it should be noted that books were not pressed when first created.

 

Yes the paper used to create comics was put under tremendous pressure, and yes the books were stacked by the hundreds when first printed. But as part of the manufacturing process the books were not pressed individually, so there is no re-pressing going on. Only pressing of various methods.

 

And secondly, the books were originally cut as a whole. So if a book is trimmed afterwards it is not re trimmed, it is just... trimmed. But I can see how it is very similar.

 

You speak about a good many things in your reply to my post. But I asked a few simple questions regarding your initial post. Mainly, What types of pressing were you talking about that could not undo damage, and what type of damage were you talking about? So I am confused why you quoted me when your reply did not address much of what I brought up. So.. Based on your last post you are saying if something is undone that was not part of the original printing process it should be disclosed. And THAT was my point I guess.. where is the line drawn?

 

If money is being made?

 

If the book is altered?

 

Where does one draw the line between results and intent?

 

Because if doing things we all do as collectors to tweak our books is not worth disclosing, then why are the various forms of pressing held to a different standard. Both are forms of manipulation aren't they?

 

Mind you, I am not trying to pick a fight, but rather trying to understand what you are getting at.

 

Because it really isn't that simple.

 

 

 

 

Ze-