cicirolo
Noob
Joined: March 2021
Posts: 3
|
Post by cicirolo on Mar 2, 2021 3:27:31 GMT -8
A few questions:
1. What is a silicone backer? Can a silicone backer be archival? Do they even make those? Are you talking about the dividers they sell that you put the comics' title on?
2. What are the conceivable ways comics could have silicone residue without being pressed? And if this is "however unlikely" doesn't that mean this type of detection is likely reliable? Or reliable enough for the slab companies?
3. I assumed the sandwich Ditch referred to was a Fullback sandwich. I also assume you yourself use the best archival supplies available. So is it wrong to assume you don't store any comics in a silicone sandwich? If so, why? A Fullback sandwich wouldn't be weird, but a silicone one would be.
4. Do you think CGC/CBCS could detect pressing with the same consistency and/or reliability that they currently have with resto and trimming detection? For sake of argument assume they really wanted to detect it.
|
|
Buzzetta
TCBF Member
Joined: January 2017
Posts: 395 
|
Post by Buzzetta on Mar 2, 2021 8:06:32 GMT -8
A few questions: 1. What is a silicone backer? Can a silicone backer be archival? Do they even make those? Are you talking about the dividers they sell that you put the comics' title on? 2. What are the conceivable ways comics could have silicone residue without being pressed? And if this is "however unlikely" doesn't that mean this type of detection is likely reliable? Or reliable enough for the slab companies? 3. I assumed the sandwich Ditch referred to was a Fullback sandwich. I also assume you yourself use the best archival supplies available. So is it wrong to assume you don't store any comics in a silicone sandwich? If so, why? A Fullback sandwich wouldn't be weird, but a silicone one would be. 4. Do you think CGC/CBCS could detect pressing with the same consistency and/or reliability that they currently have with resto and trimming detection? For sake of argument assume they really wanted to detect it. What is interesting is the stance they are taking on cards. While they will not count pressing as restoration in comics, they are counting it as restoration when it comes to sports cards. This is due to the type of paper that is used on vintage baseball cards and the ability to see a 'crushing' effect in the fibers when a card is pressed. Now, why can't they do that with a comic? This is due to the different paper stock. On a smaller scale, most baseball cards are like corrugated cardboard so the impact and crushing can be more readily seen than on a comic book cover. Side note: There is a large list of things that CGC will not currently grade due to shenanigans in the industry and the appearance of counterfeits over the years. |
|
Buzzetta
TCBF Member
Joined: January 2017
Posts: 395
|
Post by Buzzetta on Mar 2, 2021 8:59:20 GMT -8
It was considered restoration from day one, then CGC/Steve Borock came to town and told everybody it was perfectly acceptable and they bought it. Now there's an entire industry devoted to the pressing of books to increase the "value". Borock said it was undetectable.
If you're running a business and your job is to detect things then why would you set up your business to detect something that is undetectable the MAJORITY OF THE TIME? You wouldn't.
People don't like that it's undetectable and blamed Borock for it, which is ridiculous.
I meant to reply this to you... but accidentally picked the 'quote' next to it... What is interesting is the stance they are taking on cards. While they will not count pressing as restoration in comics, they are counting it as restoration when it comes to sports cards. This is due to the type of paper that is used on vintage baseball cards and the ability to see a 'crushing' effect in the fibers when a card is pressed. Now, why can't they do that with a comic? This is due to the different paper stock. On a smaller scale, most baseball cards are like corrugated cardboard so the impact and crushing can be more readily seen than on a comic book cover. Pressing in cards though is far easier to ascertain than pressing in comics. Side note: There is a large list of things that CGC will not currently grade due to shenanigans in the industry and the appearance of counterfeits over the years. |
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Mar 2, 2021 9:43:08 GMT -8
Borock said it was undetectable.
If you're running a business and your job is to detect things then why would you set up your business to detect something that is undetectable the MAJORITY OF THE TIME? You wouldn't.
People don't like that it's undetectable and blamed Borock for it, which is ridiculous.
I meant to reply this to you... but accidentally picked the 'quote' next to it... What is interesting is the stance they are taking on cards. While they will not count pressing as restoration in comics, they are counting it as restoration when it comes to sports cards. This is due to the type of paper that is used on vintage baseball cards and the ability to see a 'crushing' effect in the fibers when a card is pressed. Now, why can't they do that with a comic? This is due to the different paper stock. On a smaller scale, most baseball cards are like corrugated cardboard so the impact and crushing can be more readily seen than on a comic book cover. Pressing in cards though is far easier to ascertain than pressing in comics. Side note: There is a large list of things that CGC will not currently grade due to shenanigans in the industry and the appearance of counterfeits over the years. Yes, and this was well known about cards vs comic paper.
20 years ago we may not have had the technology at the time to either detect this sort of crushing or at least may not have had it be affordable enough to make it practical.
Grading companies are business and there's always a sliding scale between cost and profit.
They MAY have been able to detect pressing on a microscopic scale but how much time would that add to each book (slowing down turnaround times) and how much more would it cost (making people complain)
One other note, I've been having the pressing discussion for almost 2 decades now. It's important to remember that nothing happens in a vacuum.
20 years ago I don't remember thinking about detecting the crush of paper fibres....our own ability to understand stuff grows over time and the tech and capability back then has grown, as have comic values.
So discussing 'why didn't they detect pressing' 20 years ago is a very different discussion than having the same discussion today, when technology has increased a zillionfold and there may be a greater, vested, financial interest.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jimmers Nice Guy on Mar 2, 2021 21:39:30 GMT -8
Borock said it was undetectable.
If you're running a business and your job is to detect things then why would you set up your business to detect something that is undetectable the MAJORITY OF THE TIME? You wouldn't.
People don't like that it's undetectable and blamed Borock for it, which is ridiculous.
I meant to reply this to you... but accidentally picked the 'quote' next to it... What is interesting is the stance they are taking on cards. While they will not count pressing as restoration in comics, they are counting it as restoration when it comes to sports cards. This is due to the type of paper that is used on vintage baseball cards and the ability to see a 'crushing' effect in the fibers when a card is pressed. Now, why can't they do that with a comic? This is due to the different paper stock. On a smaller scale, most baseball cards are like corrugated cardboard so the impact and crushing can be more readily seen than on a comic book cover. Pressing in cards though is far easier to ascertain than pressing in comics. Side note: There is a large list of things that CGC will not currently grade due to shenanigans in the industry and the appearance of counterfeits over the years. Aye. |
|
