When will the other shoe drop with CGC and the 'crack, press, and resub' game? 3 3

[lizards2]

26 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

There is no other shoe waiting to drop when it comes to pressing. It's common knowledge, an open "secret", which the market has generally accepted. There's no fraud involved where people are concealing the fact that books are being pressed. There are pressers who advertise their services on convention floors all over the nation. Some buyers don't like it....but at this point, it's not a secret that it's happening.

What would be analogous is if trimming was being done on the same scale in comics as in cards, and CGC was missing it on that scale. And trimming materially alters the book, permanently and irrevocably, obviously.

Proper pressing doesn't materially alter the book to make it appear better than it is. It only flattens out what is already there. In other words, that tear is still there, that color break is still there, that missing piece is still missing...but that bend, dent, scratch, or wave is gone, and isn't coming back. It doesn't merely appear better....it IS better, because that damage 1. didn't alter the structure of the paper/ink/sizing, and 2. is now gone. There is a legitimate argument to be made for the underlying paper structure to be weaker in the "fixed" area, but that's not generally the case unless the fibers break, which is nearly always going to leave a mark. 

 Yes, it's restoration...but it is market acceptable restoration, and not additive or destructive restoration, and done properly, no one is going to be able to tell you with certainty whether a random book has been pressed or not. 

I can't believe how many books I've seen in the sales forum, where the hucksters say that "that fold (which is actually a visible color breaking crease) will be fixed by a press."

On the other hand, I can't believe how many CGC 9.4 books I've cracked out that have color breaking creases on the corners.  Personally, that's not a 9.4 to me, but I guess corner creases are a fetish of mine that I find most unappealing.

[comicwiz]

Mosers cards weren't trimmed. The alterations are however noticeable with before/after comparisons, much like the TOS 57 example I'll include below. The Feds were called in using examples like the Stan Musial card, which had a blemish/stain on it which wasn't visible when the card sold for 10 times the previous sale price of the exact same card. Much like the FTC, the FBI investigation might care to establish what alteration, but they are more concerned about whether that alteration inflated the grade/value. No one outside these hobbies will hear yours or my opinion on whether pressing is restoration, what they will want to establish is whether a willing buyer was aware of the undisclosed work done on the book, and whether there is merit in the appreciation in price based on these stealth alterations. The more the hobby gravitates to price upsurges based on incremental grade increases assisted by graders through undetected alterations, the more likely it will become that a buyer will suddenly become an "unwilling" owner of something they are able to compare with a before picture, without any hope in understanding the justifable reason to have paid an inflated price, as they will almost always see it as decietful. Read the FTC ruling on Halperin, that language is extremely important in understanding how decisions on "inflated" and potentially "fraudulant" mispresentation occur.

As a sidebar, I should also point point out that the use of chemicals to remove stains has become something of an elephant in the room in comic "cleaning" practices. There is no way the use of naphtha or lighter fluid to clean stains from comics should ever be considered non-restorative, but try to get anyone who "conserves" comics to admit whether they use it. This isn't even remotely something I'd consider "acceptable" - it's straight out vandalism, and this is just another "sorry we can't detect" alteration beign done on comics that isn't being flagged by CGC:

 

Edited July 21, 2019 by comicwiz

[RockMyAmadeus]

2 hours ago, crassus said:

I agree, ultimately its not an either/or, but there is also little doubt that full and universal disclosure of pressing would curb the enthusiasm of the speculation which drives the hyper inflation that now defines the market. Its not only that part of the market you lose because of the fraction of collectors who don't want pressed books, its the loss of the speculative incentive that is created by "taking a chance" that "maybe it will" press up a notch or two. 

From experience, there are a lot of "industrial pressers" out there who don't do a complete job when pressing a book. So, even though there are hundreds of thousands of pressed books out there...there are a good percentage of those what have not had their "condition potential realized."

And, there are a lot of books out there that have been badly pressed, and look like it. Those, too, can be fixed, to a degree. The goal is to make the book look as natural as possible, and not look like it's been pressed, which can be done, even with ugly pressing. Ugly pressing is...well, it's out there. So, that's a factor, too.

[THE_BEYONDER]

I don’t think it’s a far reach to suggest that CGC could be caught in a conflict of interest debacle, being that they hammer books for defects that their own in-house pressing service can “fix” for a price.

[THE_BEYONDER]

16 minutes ago, comicwiz said:

 

 

Do my old eyes deceive me, or is there less book above the comics code in the after photo?

[RockMyAmadeus]

A proper eraser can remove a good deal of distribution paint/ink overspray.

I don't use chemicals (other than water) of any kind in my pressing, and never have. I have removed a lot of accumulated stray dirt, ink rub, and distributor overspray from thousands of comics. I make no effort to conceal that fact. I have shown multiple examples of "before and after" to demonstrate how dry cleaning works. 

Dry cleaning is also not being disguised in the hobby. Removing matter from the surface of books that wasn't originally part of the book doesn't materially alter the book itself...when done properly. Yes, there is the potential for problems with dry cleaning, and those should be discussed openly and honestly. But dry cleaning isn't being concealed and is market acceptable.

Was the Curator TOS #57 cleaned with an eraser...or was a chemical solvent used? Since I don't use chemical solvents aside from water, I don't have any experience in detecting them, so I wouldn't know whether CGC is letting them pass as unrestored. To my eye, the TOS #57 looks erased...in fact, it's got that classically erased look to it, where they got everything on the surface, but that which had impregnated itself into the paper over time could not, obviously, be removed.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

15 minutes ago, THE_BEYONDER said:

I don’t think it’s a far reach to suggest that CGC could be caught in a conflict of interest debacle, being that they hammer books for defects that their own in-house pressing service can “fix” for a price.

You're not wrong.

[THE_BEYONDER]

Just now, RockMyAmadeus said:

You're not wrong.

[crassus]

12 minutes ago, THE_BEYONDER said:

I don’t think it’s a far reach to suggest that CGC could be caught in a conflict of interest debacle, being that they hammer books for defects that their own in-house pressing service can “fix” for a price.

Yes, although again we are all to some degree complicit in that. The one thing I have learned the hard way over the last couple of years (unrelated and forbidden subject) is how tough it is to avoid or resolve conflicts of interest when so many people have become deeply invested in those conflicts, and for those trying to bury or fend off concerns of conflict of interest, implicating as many people in that interest as possible is a powerful wall of defense. Suddenly you can count on a multitude of help and a good layer of apathy to cover up your conflicts of interest. 

[bc]

16 minutes ago, THE_BEYONDER said:

Do my old eyes deceive me, or is there less book above the comics code in the after photo?

Maybe they took that part and added it to the bottom right under Hawkeye's foot 

Just kidding, assume the bottom cover had a curl that was pressed out.

Don't see any difference with the before & after on the code section - think it's an optical delusion.

[RockMyAmadeus]

4 minutes ago, crassus said:

Yes, although again we are all to some degree complicit in that. The one thing I have learned the hard way over the last couple of years (unrelated and forbidden subject) is how tough it is to avoid or resolve conflicts of interest when so many people have become deeply invested in those conflicts, and for those trying to bury or fend off concerns of conflict of interest, implicating as many people in that interest as possible is a powerful wall of defense. Suddenly you can count on a multitude of help and a good layer of apathy to cover up your conflicts of interest. 

indeed.

"You must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard Feynman

[RockMyAmadeus]

1 minute ago, bc said:

Maybe they took that part and added it to the bottom right under Hawkeye's foot 

Just kidding, assume the bottom cover had a curl that was pressed out.

I noticed that, too. Something to beware of when examining scans.

[THE_BEYONDER]

1 minute ago, bc said:

Maybe they took that part and added it to the bottom right under Hawkeye's foot 

Just kidding, assume the bottom cover had a curl that was pressed out.

Don't see any difference with the before & after on the code section - think it's an optical delusion.

The bottom was messing with my head , but like you....assume there was a slight curl prior .

[THE_BEYONDER]

4 minutes ago, bc said:

 

 

Don't see any difference with the before & after on the code section - think it's an optical delusion.

The after scan is larger, but the white space above the code is smaller . 

[crassus]

39 minutes ago, lizards2 said:

I can't believe how many books I've seen in the sales forum, where the hucksters say that "that fold (which is actually a visible color breaking crease) will be fixed by a press."

On the other hand, I can't believe how many CGC 9.4 books I've cracked out that have color breaking creases on the corners.  Personally, that's not a 9.4 to me, but I guess corner creases are a fetish of mine that I find most unappealing.

Mine too. And don't stop at "not a 9.4", in many cases they are not 9.2s or even 9.0s either...and you can find some pretty big corner creases on 8.5s now also. Granted, like you, they are among my least favourite defect, so maybe we are prejudiced against colour breaking creases, but in all my time, cb corner creases were treated as serious eye sores....times change. I think what is colour "breaking" is also a sliding scale, since the break can be more or less severe, and then it becomes very subjective. 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Here's an example of dry cleaning:

This copy had a lot of small tape adhesive residue transfer. You can see it in the yellow area below the C and O of "MARVEL COMICS GROUP" banner and it was in those letters as well. It had become smeared and smudged over time. It looked pretty ugly in hand.

Here's the results:

That was removed tiny bit by tiny bit, by hand, under magnification, using fine tools to physically remove the adhesive residue without disturbing the underlying ink. Took 3 hours to do it. No chemicals of any kind were involved at any time.

I consider that restoration work, because it is. But...it didn't alter the book itself in any way: it just removed what was sitting on top of it. So, I consider it market acceptable restoration.

Edited July 21, 2019 by RockMyAmadeus

[bc]

6 minutes ago, THE_BEYONDER said:

The after scan is larger, but the white space above the code is smaller . 

I can't tell from the scans - doesn't help with the size difference you noted (as well as two different generation of cases). Likely was also made on two different scanners ?

Need to dig my micrometer out.....

[bc]

5 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Here's an example of dry cleaning:

This copy had a lot of small tape adhesive residue transfer. You can see it in the yellow area below the C and O of "MARVEL COMICS GROUP" banner and it was in those letters as well. It had become smeared and smudged over time. It looked pretty ugly in hand.

Here's the results:

That was removed tiny bit by tiny bit, by hand, under magnification, using fine tools to physically remove the adhesive residue without disturbing the underlying ink. Took 3 hours to do it. No chemicals of any kind were involved at any time.

I consider that restoration work, because it is. But...it didn't alter the book itself in any way: it just removed what was sitting on top of it. So, I consider it market acceptable restoration.

Links aren't displaying - prompts for an AOL login.

Edited July 21, 2019 by bc

[ADAMANTIUM]

4 minutes ago, bc said:

15 minutes ago, THE_BEYONDER said:

The after scan is larger, but the white space above the code is smaller . 

I can't tell from the scans - doesn't help with the size difference you noted (as well as two different generation of cases). Likely was also made on two different scanners ?

Need to dig my micrometer out.....

it's the same amount of "white space", the "before" has the ink or what not covering up the squiggly line of the comics authority box, you had it right the first time with "optical illusion"

imo

[THE_BEYONDER]

2 minutes ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Here's an example of dry cleaning:

This copy had a lot of small tape adhesive residue transfer. You can see it in the yellow area below the C and O of "MARVEL COMICS GROUP" banner and it was in those letters as well. It had become smeared and smudged over time. It looked pretty ugly in hand.

Here's the results:

That was removed tiny bit by tiny bit, by hand, under magnification, using fine tools to physically remove the adhesive residue without disturbing the underlying ink. Took 3 hours to do it. No chemicals of any kind were involved at any time.

I consider that restoration work, because it is. But...it didn't alter the book itself in any way: it just removed what was sitting on top of it. So, I consider it market acceptable restoration.

It’s grade manipulation.  Let’s call it what it is.