To press or not to press? Pressing info please.
3 3

114 posts in this topic

6,185 posts
28 minutes ago, NoMan said:

Link?

Took me a minute, like I said, back then there was exactly ONE comic book pressing video, and it was this one. Now there are dozens to wade through. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,644 posts
58 minutes ago, F For Fake said:

Took me a minute, like I said, back then there was exactly ONE comic book pressing video, and it was this one. Now there are dozens to wade through. 

 

YOU HAVE MADE MY DAY!!!        Many, many, many thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,185 posts
Just now, NoMan said:

YOU HAVE MADE MY DAY!!!        Many, many, many thanks.

My pleasure!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,644 posts

that video was brilliant. brilliant in 15 different ways!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37,149 posts
1 hour ago, NoMan said:

Link?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16,376 posts
Posted (edited)

Is it time for George Foreman yet?

 

Screen Shot 2019-06-20 at 11.55.23 AM.png

 

"Get into my comfort zone!"

"The fat drips right off!"

"I'm not gonna pay a lot for this muffler!"

"Punch out those flaws!"

 

Foreman.jpg

Edited by Dick Pontoon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56,329 posts
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, THE_BEYONDER said:

, because prior to this age of encapsulation, “smoothing out wrinkles “ was considered restoration.  

Except that the "lay the book under a stack of encyclopedias for a year" (which I did, as did others) was usually an effective method of "smoothing out wrinkles", and completely "undetectable." Or, what if the wrinkle is such that merely bending back the paper in the opposite direction resolved the problem?

While, no, not as effective as (and much more time consuming than) modern pressing, it still accomplished a measure of a "press." It's one of the reasons why Church's books were so nice: he stacked them vertically, and the ones at the bottom benefited from the weight of the books above them. 

That's always been the problem with calling this "restoration", a designation to which many people have objected, and fairly so. It's not the same thing as tear seals, color touch, trimming, pieces added, etc....deliberate acts that do not occur by happenstance.

But I agree with your overall contention about the origins of the practice.

Edited by RockMyAmadeus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39,793 posts
Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Except that the "lay the book under a stack of encyclopedias for a year" (which I did, as did others) was usually an effective method of "smoothing out wrinkles", and completely "undetectable." Or, what the wrinkle is such that merely bending back the paper in the opposite direction resolved the problem?

While, no, not as effective as (and much more time consuming than) modern pressing, it still accomplished a measure of a "press." It's one of the reasons why Church's books were so nice: he stacked them vertically, and the ones at the bottom benefited from the weight of the books above them. 

That's always been the problem with calling this "restoration", a designation to which many people have objected, and fairly so. It's not the same thing as tear seals, color touch, trimming, pieces added, etc....deliberate acts that do not occur by happenstance.

But I agree with your overall contention about the origins of the practice.

C'mon.  Are we really going to do the stacking circle jerk again?    The stacking of the Church books didn't remove defects, as the books didn't have defects in the first place.   You can stack books to the moon, but it still doesn't compare to the modern day practice of pressing in which heat/moisture is added to relax the paper fibers.

Of course pressing is restoration.  When you remove a NCB bend, you've effectively restored the book to a previous state.     

Pressing has become an acceptable form of restoration.  Nothing more.

Edited by THE_BEYONDER

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56,329 posts
6 minutes ago, THE_BEYONDER said:

C'mon.  Are we really going to do the stacking circle jerk again?    The stacking of the Church books didn't remove defects, as the books didn't have defects in the first place.   You can stack books to the moon, but it still doesn't compare to the modern day practice of pressing in which moisture is added to relax the paper fibers.

Of course pressing is restoration.  When you remove a NCB bend, you've effectively restored the book to a previous state.     

Pressing has become an acceptable form of restoration.  Nothing more.

Sure, let's. 

No one has any way of knowing if the Church books didn't have defects in the first place. As you well know, some of them, especially those he bought second-hand and later in his life, DID have, or developed from his improper handling, defects. It is not reasonable to say that, in the course of his collecting, a book he bought didn't accidentally get bumped or mishandled, creating a slight bend that would, in the course of the ensuing four decades, be "pressed out" at or near the bottom of a stack. The same is especially true for the second-hand books he bought.

I've said, in multiple places, and at multiple times, that pressing is market accepted restoration. But "unbending a bend" is 1. often undetectable, and 2. not "restoring the book to a previous state" in the same way that color touch, trimming, tear seals, adding pieces, etc. is. It's not Capital "R" "Restoration" in the same way.

If we're going to reduce it to its absolutely absurd, then closing an opened book is "restoring the book to a previous state." Right? Now, I'm not mocking you, and I'm not being flippant, so don't be offended. But having a book OPEN is not its "as made" state. So, if merely closing the book isn't restoration...and I would agree, that's silly to call it restoration...then, where's the line that marks "restoration"?  So, say I have a book that has an ultra slight 1/2" bend that's 10 degrees above the horizontal plane which occurred at the time of manufacture on the machines, and I, not noticing it, put that book in a bag and board and that "bend" works out over time. Have I "restored" the book to a previous state? But, again, closing an open book also "restores" it to a previous state. The odds are great that no one will ever be able to tell that that bend ever existed. So if it's not on purpose...is it "restoration"?  Does it belong in the same class as deliberate manipulation of a book to make it appear better than it is?

Consider: as made, many current books...especially Image books...are a LOT "fluffier" and "wavier" than they are after they've sat in a restricting bag and board over time, which tends to flatten them out. Is THAT restoration? In that case, they're NOT being "restored to a previous state", and...if adopting the strictest of definitions...a flat copy would not be the "original state."

Don't forget: I agree with your initial contention.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,050 posts
20 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Sure, let's. 

No one has any way of knowing if the Church books didn't have defects in the first place. As you well know, some of them, especially those he bought second-hand and later in his life, DID have, or developed from his improper handling, defects. It is not reasonable to say that, in the course of his collecting, a book he bought didn't accidentally get bumped or mishandled, creating a slight bend that would, in the course of the ensuing four decades, be "pressed out" at or near the bottom of a stack. The same is especially true for the second-hand books he bought.

I've said, in multiple places, and at multiple times, that pressing is market accepted restoration. But "unbending a bend" is 1. often undetectable, and 2. not "restoring the book to a previous state" in the same way that color touch, trimming, tear seals, adding pieces, etc. is. It's not Capital "R" "Restoration" in the same way.

If we're going to reduce it to its absolutely absurd, then closing an opened book is "restoring the book to a previous state." Right? Now, I'm not mocking you, and I'm not being flippant, so don't be offended. But having a book OPEN is not its "as made" state. So, if merely closing the book isn't restoration...and I would agree, that's silly to call it restoration...then, where's the line that marks "restoration"?  So, say I have a book that has an ultra slight 1/2" bend that's 10 degrees above the horizontal plane which occurred at the time of manufacture on the machines, and I, not noticing it, put that book in a bag and board and that "bend" works out over time. Have I "restored" the book to a previous state? But, again, closing an open book also "restores" it to a previous state. The odds are great that no one will ever be able to tell that that bend ever existed. So if it's not on purpose...is it "restoration"?  Does it belong in the same class as deliberate manipulation of a book to make it appear better than it is?

Consider: as made, many current books...especially Image books...are a LOT "fluffier" and "wavier" than they are after they've sat in a restricting bag and board over time, which tends to flatten them out. Is THAT restoration? In that case, they're NOT being "restored to a previous state", and...if adopting the strictest of definitions...a flat copy would not be the "original state."

Don't forget: I agree with your initial contention.

 

I still like my video about all you comic book nerds pfft...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 posts
Posted (edited)

UPDATE.

 

So heres what I decided to do for step 1

I just completed my first submission to CGC/CCS for pressing and grading.

This first submission is group 1 of my testing.

Group 1 consist of 3 total books, 2 golden age and 1 modern, all being pressed then graded and all mid grade FMV books within the 100-300 range.

The modern book is a 9.4-9.6 grade before pressing, Marvel Team Up 95. This book was not originally a book I planned to grade as my personal grade on the book is a 9.6 and in my opinion the market for this book is a bit flooded. I did plan to keep this book as its one of my favorite 80s covers (dont know why I just like it). I will be taking detailed photos of each book and defect to be compared to finished product before sending. This book is clean but has a very slight bottom right non color breaking and also non impact corner bend and also two very slight indentations on the cover. Lastly and to be noted this book has a speck sized chip missing bottom center front cover that is pretty much not noticeable without close examination and is I believe a manufacturing defect. That defect isn't fixable through pressing and im hoping slides by due to being the type of defect it is.

The golden age books are both already listed in the can you spare a grade section. One of which I had decided to keep as a reading copy but I changed my mind on because I didn't want to send a higher value key on this run (wonder woman 105). Both golden age books are mid to high grade books and both books have very different defects to give a better idea of different situations.

Captain marvel adventures 145 and 92

 

In step two of this test I will select similar books of similar values and defects and send them to a independent pressor from this board and document those books in the same manners.

In step three ill compare final products from both step one and two and post high res picks here with those comparisons for the community to see and then discuss in whatever capacity they wish. 

 

This test does not have enough books being submitted to come to any real conclusions but at least is good info to be compared to other like test.

Edited by explosive&kitkat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39,793 posts
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Sure, let's. 

No one has any way of knowing if the Church books didn't have defects in the first place. As you well know, some of them, especially those he bought second-hand and later in his life, DID have, or developed from his improper handling, defects. It is not reasonable to say that, in the course of his collecting, a book he bought didn't accidentally get bumped or mishandled, creating a slight bend that would, in the course of the ensuing four decades, be "pressed out" at or near the bottom of a stack. The same is especially true for the second-hand books he bought.

I've said, in multiple places, and at multiple times, that pressing is pressing is pressing is market accepted restoration . But "unbending a bend" is 1. often undetectable, and 2. not "restoring the book to a previous state" in the same way that color touch, trimming, tear seals, adding pieces, etc. is. It's not Capital "R" "Restoration" in the same way.

If we're going to reduce it to its absolutely absurd, then closing an opened book is "restoring the book to a previous state." Right? Now, I'm not mocking you, and I'm not being flippant, so don't be offended. But having a book OPEN is not its "as made" state. So, if merely closing the book isn't restoration...and I would agree, that's silly to call it restoration...then, where's the line that marks "restoration"?  So, say I have a book that has an ultra slight 1/2" bend that's 10 degrees above the horizontal plane which occurred at the time of manufacture on the machines, and I, not noticing it, put that book in a bag and board and that "bend" works out over time. Have I "restored" the book to a previous state? But, again, closing an open book also "restores" it to a previous state. The odds are great that no one will ever be able to tell that that bend ever existed. So if it's not on purpose...is it "restoration"?  Does it belong in the same class as deliberate manipulation of a book to make it appear better than it is?

Consider: as made, many current books...especially Image books...are a LOT "fluffier" and "wavier" than they are after they've sat in a restricting bag and board over time, which tends to flatten them out. Is THAT restoration? In that case, they're NOT being "restored to a previous state", and...if adopting the strictest of definitions...a flat copy would not be the "original state."

Don't forget: I agree with your initial contention.

 

I was expecting a much larger wall of text. :shy:

"market accepted restoration"

Exactly.

No need to enter into the absurd here.

 

Let's entertain the idea that CGC's holder wasn't defective from the get-go, and once books  were encapsulated they could no longer be damaged (without damaging the slab itself).

Would pressing still be an acceptable form of restoration today?   Traditionally, collectors paid premiums for super HG copies because they cherished the books 'State of Preservation'.  That a book "survived" in pristine shape was what made these books coveted.   If CGC didn't need to "fix" the very books they were encapsulationg, would they have taken the stance they have now?  Would they have thrown their arms in the air proclaiming "pressing is undetectable", or would they have invested some money into R&D and upped their resto detection game?

Should a NM/MT copy of a book that was preserved that way,  be worth the same as a NM- copy that was pressed to appear so?

 

 

Structural grade has replaced the state of preservation, and yet people still continue to pay crazy premiums.  What exactly are they paying these premiums for????

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by THE_BEYONDER

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
356 posts
On 6/19/2019 at 7:35 AM, Karl Liebl said:

Curious...  How exactly does a comic book get like that?  It looks like humid bag wrinkles, I don't have anything that looks like that.

I think you did a good job BUT...  The book looks like it has a grainy or lumpy finish.  I don't see that in my CCS books.  

Moisture damaged lot of books from a seller that found a short box of books in his cellar. The majority were bagged individually so the weren't all stuck together. Paper stock on the Atlas books differed from the big 2 but multiple sessions including humidity introduction improved the book even further but it was just something I did for the he'll of it as the novelty of pressing sounded interesting so I figured, why not try for myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
3 3