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

[Sid]

Doesn't Matt just do the same thing minus the 'leaving the scar' part? He just does it better.

[BronzeBruce13]

Awesome contribution to this thread Sid... honest and insightful. While I can see those opposed to pressing disagreeing with most of it, I'm sure you won them over with the last paragraph. Well done.

 

Love the CGC Shepherd analogy too.

(nice to meet ya BTW)

 

 

The reaction in my opinion will be indifferent. My opinion is based on a few things that I believe effect the hobby and I've seen during my reading into this.

 

First, the pressing issue is already pretty well understood between people who shell out the money for the books. Does anyone care if a book has been pressed to increase the price by $50? The question really comes to play, for me, when the book value increases by hundreds and thousands of dollars. Educating people such as myself who spends 4-5 hundred max on the books is in good intention but I would never truly take it seriously just because the effect it has on the books I buy is almost non-existent.

 

Second, the people entering the hobby with the money to spend. Nobody enters the hobby, drops thousands of dollars, just because they are suddenly that much in love with the comics. I believe these people are entering with investment in mind and as far as they would be concerned the CGC label is all that is holy. Thus educating these people would be telling sheep about the fox. Be careful! but we all know they don't really care as long as a Shepherd is looking out for the fox. That Shepherd would be the CGC and the trust they put in it offsets the knowledge.

 

Now my personal opinion on this issue, I don't consider pressing to be a restoration and whether disclosed or not would not effect my decision on the book. Would it be better disclosed? As far as I am concerned no but as far as the community is concerned yes. I believe that looking one jump ahead and saying 'well they won't disclose and reap the benefit' defeats the purpose of being a dealer/seller.

 

Honesty and integrity has to start somewhere and why not be the first domino? Perhaps the second and the third and the fourth will stand on that ground also? Isn't it better knowing you were the starting line up to keep the dominoes standing as opposed to being the first one to topple, because that'll just topple the rest of them for sure.

[BronzeBruce13]

Maybe to you, not to me. That's why I'm asking the question...

 

What to do, and how to consider your "interior page example" is clearer from a practical stance... since comics are meant to be read and unbending a interior page facilitates its purpose.

 

That said, you didn't answer the "cover" corner example though. Lets assume its clear that there is nothing on that corner (text or illustration that you "need" to see)... feel the same way? Technically speaking.

 

 

 

 

it is a ridiculous idea. what if in your example it were an interior page. And it was folded in half toward the spine such that you couldnt read the page. So in reading the comic you of course unfold it to read . Are you supposed to now fold it back in after you read the book so that you havent "restored" the book? What if you quickly shoved a book into a mylar, folded the lower corner, immediately pulled it out of the mylar and fixed the cover. Is THAT restoration? Does time affect the fix, whether the damage sat there for years or only seconds?

 

I dont think so. I dont think unfolding a page especially when it leave a nasty scar is restoration. The damage is done. But sending the book to Matt to minimize the visible scar IS retoration IMO. Living with the scar is not.

[Davenport]

perhaps a new category is warranted and could be more to the point:

 

Pre-Grading Enhancement any undetectable (therefore realistically unmanageable) technique that does not clearly fall into the restoration category (trimming, color touch, etc.) and is employed to aesthetically improve the appearance of a comic prior to submission to CGC. This exclusively refers to various (non-disassembled) pressing and cleaning techniques that are not, and never will be, detectable if executed correctly (with skill); therefore said professional grading service will/can only downgrade against their presence when attempts to apply them are done poorly thereby causing visible damage.

 

there's my first shot... what can be changed or added to improve it?

 

 

Here's my take at a fourth category:

 

Enhancement: work done to revive the appearance of original materials so as to increase or improve grade, value or attractiveness. Perhaps performed covertly, if undetectable by consumers or trained examiners and undisclosed at market.

 

 

And a question: Your "Pre-Grading Enhancement" definition mentions non-disassembly. But isn't disassembly/reassembly also an acceptable (to CGC) pre-grading enhancement, if expertly done?

[BronzeBruce13]

Yours is more straightforward... mine more detailed. Both created with our positions evident.

 

Your definition is definitely good Dav... but I'm not sure the last sentence is very clear. Also, if I'm nitpicking, I'm also not sure using "perhaps" before "performed covertly" is the best word. I would also add "disclosed or undisclosed" since there are dealers/collectors openly willing to provide that information if asked.

 

As for "non-disassembly" I knew we would end up talking about this too at some point. I'm still not sure where I stand on this completely... it's even more complicated in some ways. Technically, taking something apart and putting it back together (exactly as it was) without making any improvement wouldn't be restoration. However, if you do make any improvements in the process... it's viewed differently somehow?

 

The complicated part of this is for me is... you can make improvements that "are not" considered restoration (for arguments sake) by themselves (pressing), but IF this same technique is performed in concert with disassembly, its apparently viewed by CGC as restored? (I think anyway - correct me if I'm mistaken)

 

Perhaps its just the fact that "taking a comic completely apart" (regardless of whether it was pressed or not) is what garners a "Qualified or Restored" designation from CGC. To me, in my gut, disassembly is over the (my) line. It feels "intrusive" and the comic unduly "tampered with"... regardless of how easy or not it is to identify. I suppose this is similar to how some view pressing.

 

I realize my current "undeveloped" view on this may seem somewhat contradictory to my position on pressing and its detectability... but that's how it "feels" at this point. I'm still struggling with it to be honest.

 

Anyway, going to the park with my daughters now... I'll be back to pick up in a couple/few hours. In fact, why don't all of you parents get off you chatboard-addicted asses and play with your kids.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here's my take at a fourth category:

 

Enhancement: work done to revive the appearance of original materials so as to increase or improve grade, value or attractiveness. Perhaps performed covertly, if undetectable by consumers or trained examiners and undisclosed at market.

 

 

And a question: Your "Pre-Grading Enhancement" definition mentions non-disassembly. But isn't disassembly/reassembly also an acceptable (to CGC) pre-grading enhancement, if expertly done?

[Aman619]

sorry about the use of "ridiculous" cause it seems to have set you off. my interior page analogy came to mind as a stronger example of the same issue on the cover. In order to look under the fold one has to unfold it...even if alas there is only white paper underneath.

 

Overall, though, to me, these what ifs that compare true Matt-style professional pressing to collectors (or dealers) rearranging folds etc is an exaggeration IMO and does a disservice to the discussion because it muddies the waters in Sophistic debates. Matt/pressers dont merely unfold corners. You know that. They make it "all better" to the fullest extent physically possible. Noone would send them a book with a folded corner to unfold for a $35 fee. Well, I dont THINK anyone would...

[Scheradon]

Second, the people entering the hobby with the money to spend. Nobody enters the hobby, drops thousands of dollars, just because they are suddenly that much in love with the comics. I believe these people are entering with investment in mind and as far as they would be concerned the CGC label is all that is holy. Thus educating these people would be telling sheep about the fox. Be careful! but we all know they don't really care as long as a shephard is looking out for the fox. That shephard would be the CGC and the trust they put in it offsets the knowledge.

 

Sid, I just wanted to address this paragraph from your post.

 

As a "sheep" that was blindly putting trust in the "shephard", I can tell you it feels a little like the "shephard" was also guarding the "foxes" when I learned all about the pressing and cleaning that was going on in the "shephard's" blue labels.

 

Some of us "sheep" do care.

[Sid]

Second, the people entering the hobby with the money to spend. Nobody enters the hobby, drops thousands of dollars, just because they are suddenly that much in love with the comics. I believe these people are entering with investment in mind and as far as they would be concerned the CGC label is all that is holy. Thus educating these people would be telling sheep about the fox. Be careful! but we all know they don't really care as long as a shephard is looking out for the fox. That shephard would be the CGC and the trust they put in it offsets the knowledge.

 

Sid, I just wanted to address this paragraph from your post.

 

As a "sheep" that was blindly putting trust in the "shephard", I can tell you it feels a little like the "shephard" was also guarding the "foxes" when I learned all about the pressing and cleaning that was going on in the "shephard's" blue labels.

 

Some of us "sheep" do care.

 

But you are not in the hobby just for investment purposes, are you? Most people putting forth a ton of money that are new to the hobby are in it for the investment and ultimately these are the people who care about the cgc label more then the actual book.

[BronzeBruce13]

No problem, and It didn't set me off... but IMO in the spirit of this discussion it is unnecessary to "label" anyone's exploratory comment(s) and/or question(s) in a negative manner, regardless of how valid/intelligent/etc. you personally consider them. Just respond to it and support your position whether its in agreement or opposition. I think that's the best way to maintain and build upon a civil discussion.

 

My question(s) were put forth to illustrate the point that depending on how you characterize various aspects of this debate (particularly "what constitutes restoration technically") many extreme examples and scenarios exist that make establishing a line for "majority agreement" very difficult... or impossible. I still don't feel you answered my question either, you segued off on a tangent.

 

Either way, I'm happy to have your input in the discussion Aman as you often have interesting takes on things... and even when I may think one of your contributions is less than on point, relevant or clear (and I have, like one you made yesterday that I asked for additional clarification), I'll continue to take them as seriously as possible and do my best to give you an honest response.

sorry about the use of "ridiculous" cause it seems to have set you off. my interior page analogy came to mind as a stronger example of the same issue on the cover. In order to look under the fold one has to unfold it...even if alas there is only white paper underneath.

 

 

 

I don't believe you understood the point I was trying to make. I also disagree entirely with your notion that civil discussion meant to explore even the extreme ends of a debate does it a disservice. Its necessary, and in this case, all things considered, one of the underlying roadblocks preventing more progress. Opposing it's inclusion is counterproductive in my view.

 

Overall, though, to me, these what ifs that compare true Matt-style professional pressing to collectors (or dealers) rearranging folds etc is an exaggeration IMO and does a disservice to the discussion because it muddies the waters in Sophistic debates.

 

 

I have no idea what the below comment was in reference to Aman... as it has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I was trying to illustrate the difficulties in defining restoration... not what Matt, pressers or collectors do, nor if people would pay for unbending a corner? You lost me.

 

Matt/pressers don't merely unfold corners. You know that. They make it "all better" to the fullest extent physically possible. Noone would send them a book with a folded corner to unfold for a $35 fee. Well, I dont THINK anyone would...

[Scheradon]

Pre-Grading Enhancement any undetectable (therefore realistically unmanageable) technique that does not clearly fall into the restoration category (trimming, color touch, etc.) and is employed to aesthetically improve the appearance of a comic prior to submission to CGC. This exclusively refers to various (non-disassembled) pressing and cleaning techniques that are not, and never will be, detectable if executed correctly (with skill); therefore said professional grading service will/can only downgrade against their presence when attempts to apply them are done poorly thereby causing visible damage.

 

there's my first shot... what can be changed or added to improve it?

 

Bruce,

 

I'm glad to see you taking part in these discussions.

 

I noticed your definition specifically mentions "prior to submission to CGC". I would say:

 

Enhancement:

Any currently undetectable technique, which fails to have a concensus as being restoration or not, and is performed to aesthetically improve the appearance of a comic book.

 

I'm thinking it could just be left at that. I see where you're focus is probably on the resubs and such, but what about raw books and sales?

 

If you are going to keep the definition strictly to professional grading, I would change the "CGC" to "a professional grading company". Hate to single one out, even if they are the predominant one.

 

I think this idea could be tinkered around with. Perhaps a final "Enhancement" definition can be added along with Restoration and Conservation definitions

 

I'm thinking on the fly here, so don't expect perfect thoughts, but should the "Enhancement" definition also mention that one should disclose "Enhancements" as well as Restoration or atleast strongly recommend it?

 

Something like, "Enhancements, while virtually undetectable, should be disclosed to a potential buyer" or "Enhancements, while currently no consensus has been made, are strongly recommended being disclosed to a potential buyer".

 

Well, I could ramble on and on with possible dialogue to use, but I'll let some others share their opinions and try to chime back in later.

[Foolkiller]

Hmmmm....

 

Enhancement -- now disclosing that I might be able to get behind as a definition. I like the direction of this discussion.

[Scheradon]

Second, the people entering the hobby with the money to spend. Nobody enters the hobby, drops thousands of dollars, just because they are suddenly that much in love with the comics. I believe these people are entering with investment in mind and as far as they would be concerned the CGC label is all that is holy. Thus educating these people would be telling sheep about the fox. Be careful! but we all know they don't really care as long as a shephard is looking out for the fox. That shephard would be the CGC and the trust they put in it offsets the knowledge.

 

Sid, I just wanted to address this paragraph from your post.

 

As a "sheep" that was blindly putting trust in the "shephard", I can tell you it feels a little like the "shephard" was also guarding the "foxes" when I learned all about the pressing and cleaning that was going on in the "shephard's" blue labels.

 

Some of us "sheep" do care.

 

But you are not in the hobby just for investment purposes, are you? Most people putting forth a ton of money that are new to the hobby are in it for the investment and ultimately these are the people who care about the cgc label more then the actual book.

 

No, but I partially fit the type of person I felt you were outlining.

 

I came back into this hobby somewhere around 2001-2002 buying raw BA Marvel comics. I progressed rather quickly into buying HG slabs and had spent thousands buying Blue Labeled books before I became aware of the type of enhancements that CGC did not consider restoration. I actually thought, by some microscopic or some other high tech way, that CGC could and did detect for pressing and cleaning. I had seen these notations on a purple restored label. I, like some others, did not know they were distinguishing between different forms of these processes.

 

Now, while my sole purpose is not buying strictly for investment (I buy because I love pristine BA books!), I do consider my collection an "investment". And, as an investment, I, like anyone else I presume, don't like to see that devalue. The funny thing is, many on the other side of the debate might take their stances with the same mindest in place (not wanting to see their investment devalue).

[Ze-man]

 

 

I have no idea what the below comment was in reference to Aman... as it has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I was trying to illustrate the difficulties in defining restoration... not what Matt, pressers or collectors do, nor if people would pay for unbending a corner? You lost me.

 

Matt/pressers don't merely unfold corners. You know that. They make it "all better" to the fullest extent physically possible. No one would send them a book with a folded corner to unfold for a $35 fee. Well, I dont THINK anyone would...

 

I think he was talking about your previous post about a unbending a badly bent corner, or the point I raised regarding Scott's analogy of unbending an outer edge with one's fingers versus sending a book and having it worked by a pro. Both being very similar in nature, yet one form requires disclosure, and one does not

 

Both processes are very simple, but if it is done proffesionally and it takes a book from a 9.6 to a 9.8 by tweaking one bent corner well then all of a sudden it becomes something bad, or at the least frowned upon.

 

I would like to comment that the point aman brought up about a book that is sent in to be pressed has had been made "all better" to the fullest possible extent.

 

One must keep in mind that sometimes a book being sent in to be pressed requires perhaps only 1 or 2 very minor flaws worked on. So that was why I felt it unfair to say unbending a book with your finger is that far removed from a book having 1 flaw removed that might bump it up a grade to a 9.8 and was confused why people felt it was necessary to ask for full disclosure of one form and not the other.(yes I understand because a pro did it people want to know) But the flaw that was lessened was not that much different.

 

Sure it is a limited scenario we are talking about, but it is one that probably occurs all too often. Meaning that if you are going to send in a HG book to CGC you of course try and make it look as nice as possible before you slip it in the mylar, if only to help preserve it. So to me having 1 or 2 minor flaws worked on locally isn't really all that much different.( straighten a minor edge curl, or a bent corner)

 

So my point was that in some scenarios the difference between the two are not that far apart. Yet one is held to a different standard because of the results achieved.

 

And is just one of the many facets of this conversation to add into the big picture. I did not mean to re hash this again, but I guess I did, sorry

 

 

 

 

Ze-

[BronzeBruce13]

Thanks John... and some good input at improving the definition.

 

Before I address the above in more detail let me speak on the notion you raised about pressing being done on raw books that are NOT headed for professional grading. I'll admit that I never really considered that this was happening anymore. Now that we're in the encapsulation era, if a book was pressed, I'd assume its slated for professional grading... where the maximum benefit for doing so could/would be realized. I would surmise if it is happening, its only happening in numbers so low that it is basically a non-issue.

 

If I'm wrong however, and "Raw Pressing" is happening on a larger scale too, it makes me think "Game Over Man". What makes you think this is the case?

 

 

I'm glad to see you taking part in these discussions.

 

I noticed your definition specifically mentions "prior to submission to CGC". I would say:

 

Enhancement:

Any currently undetectable technique, which fails to have a concensus as being restoration or not, and is performed to aesthetically improve the appearance of a comic book.

 

I'm thinking it could just be left at that. I see where you're focus is probably on the resubs and such, but what about raw books and sales?

 

If you are going to keep the definition strictly to professional grading, I would change the "CGC" to "a professional grading company". Hate to single one out, even if they are the predominant one.

 

I think this idea could be tinkered around with. Perhaps a final "Enhancement" definition can be added along with Restoration and Conservation definitions

 

I'm thinking on the fly here, so don't expect perfect thoughts, but should the "Enhancement" definition also mention that one should disclose "Enhancements" as well as Restoration or at least strongly recommend it?

 

Something like, "Enhancements, while virtually undetectable, should be disclosed to a potential buyer" or "Enhancements, while currently no consensus has been made, are strongly recommended being disclosed to a potential buyer".

 

Well, I could ramble on and on with possible dialogue to use, but I'll let some others share their opinions and try to chime back in later.

[BronzeBruce13]

Very glad to have you aboard "oh, about to be married one"

 

Its time to watch the Sopranos and Entourage... I'll be back later to work on refining the enhancement definition further. What do you think?

 

Comic Enhancement (v2) any undetectable (therefore realistically unmanageable) technique applied to a comic book that does not clearly fall into the restoration or preservation categories (ex; trimming, color touch, repair, etc.) and is employed to aesthetically improve the appearance of a comic for various reasons. This definition is currently limited to various (non-disassembled) pressing and cleaning techniques that are not, and arguably never will be, detectable if executed correctly (with skill). Therefore from a detection and grading perspective, they can only theoretically be identified and downgraded against when attempts to apply them are done poorly thereby causing visible damage.

 

 

Hmmmm....

 

Enhancement -- now disclosing that I might be able to get behind as a definition. I like the direction of this discussion.

[Foolkiller]

Very glad to have you aboard "oh, about to be married one"

 

Its time to watch the Sopranos and Entourage... I'll be back later to work on refining the enhancement definition further. What do you think?

 

Comic Enhancement (v2) any undetectable (therefore realistically unmanageable) technique applied to a comic book that does not clearly fall into the restoration or preservation categories (ex; trimming, color touch, repair, etc.) and is employed to aesthetically improve the appearance of a comic for various reasons. This definition is currently limited to various (non-disassembled) pressing and cleaning techniques that are not, and arguably never will be, detectable if executed correctly (with skill). Therefore from a detection and grading perspective, they can only theoretically be identified and downgraded against when attempts to apply them are done poorly thereby causing visible damage.

 

 

Hmmmm....

 

Enhancement -- now disclosing that I might be able to get behind as a definition. I like the direction of this discussion.

 

I'm watching the same thing right now. I should have called you for the show today.

[Scheradon]

Thanks John... and some good input at improving the definition.

 

Before I address the above in more detail let me speak on the notion you raised about pressing being done on raw books that are NOT headed for professional grading. I'll admit that I never really considered that this was happening anymore. Now that we're in the encapsulation era, if a book was pressed, I'd assume its slated for professional grading... where the maximum benefit for doing so could/would be realized. I would surmise if it is happening, its only happening in numbers so low that it is basically a non-issue.

 

If I'm wrong however, and "Raw Pressing" is happening on a larger scale too, it makes me think "Game Over Man". What makes you think this is the case?

 

I think the thought hit me because I just got home from the Kansas City Planet Comic Con where I've spent the last two days gawking at hundreds of high dollar unslabbed wall books with a very small minority of slabbed books there.

 

It struck me after listening to dealers talking to one another and getting the impression that while many of them are still not on the CGC bandwagon, they are all about maximizing their gains. I feel these guys are and have been using all the old tricks in the book (including pressing and cleaning) to make their books all the prettier to potential buyers. Not everyone or every book, but I do feel enough to warrent awareness.

[BronzeBruce13]

... it'll be interesting to see if there's anything to your hunch.

 

 

I think the thought hit me because I just got home from the Kansas City Planet Comic Con where I've spent the last two days gawking at hundreds of high dollar unslabbed wall books with a very small minority of slabbed books there.

 

It struck me after listening to dealers talking to one another and getting the impression that while many of them are still not on the CGC bandwagon, they are all about maximizing their gains. I feel these guys are and have been using all the old tricks in the book (including pressing and cleaning) to make their books all the prettier to potential buyers. Not everyone or every book, but I do feel enough to warrant awareness.

[BronzeBruce13]

John... Dav... Brian...

Any other thoughts on refining the definition or has this played out and I'm the last one to realize it?

[garthgantu]

I actually thought, by some microscopic or some other high tech way, that CGC could and did detect for pressing and cleaning. I had seen these notations on a purple restored label. I, like some others, did not know they were distinguishing between different forms of these processes.

 

Interesting point...

 

I've previously posited the notion that CGC's primary rationale for using Purple labels on restored books was based more on the goal of further distinguishing unrestored from restored books as a way of making the unrestored books even more appealing, rather than on helping the would-be buyer be aware of the work done on a restored book.

 

Now I'm wondering if the PLOD is also a stealthy way of indoctrinating some buyers into thinking that "whatever's noted on the PLOD label must be checked for on all books, and therefore a Blue label book must not have any of those kinds of 'manipulation' done to them." It's certainly misleading to have PLODs listing "pressed" or "cleaned" among the work done to them, and not list such work on a blue label book, as it suggests that no such work was done to the book in the blue label. A reasonable assumption for the casual buyer who doesn't hang on these boards 4 hours a day...but a bad assumption given the realities of the market and CGC's position in it.