Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2017 17:15:11 GMT -8
This thread was seriously going Off-Topic so I moved the OT posts to The Off-Topic Thread in the moderation area. You guys can continue to fight in there if you want...knock yourselves out...just don't do it in here. Help make America great again...keep it neat and tidy...one thread at a time.  I am not interested in "knocking myself out." I'd rather discuss the issues at hand, but I also think it's reasonable to respond to comments made. Let's keep in mind the course of the discussion, here. |
|
|
|
Post by Ditch Fahrenheit on Sept 10, 2017 17:55:34 GMT -8
This thread was seriously going Off-Topic so I moved the OT posts to The Off-Topic Thread in the moderation area. You guys can continue to fight in there if you want...knock yourselves out...just don't do it in here. Help make America great again...keep it neat and tidy...one thread at a time. I am not interested in "knocking myself out." I'd rather discuss the issues at hand, but I also think it's reasonable to respond to comments made. Let's keep in mind the course of the discussion, here. I don't disagree. That's why I left your first response intact. I moved everything after that point. If you and/or Stu prefer, I can move the original comment and response as well. I'm not taking sides, I'm just trying to keep the thread on track. |
|
|
|
Post by 50 Fiddy on Sept 10, 2017 19:07:49 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Stu on Sept 11, 2017 4:47:48 GMT -8
No...I've never talked about it. Here's the outline version: The emergence of commercial grading companies begged the question of restoration detection levels. I'm a curious fellow and it seemed fun, so I devised various tests to determine some of these levels. During this process, I taught myself new skills through design of experiment. Pressing was one of those skills, and I became extremely proficient. Once I learned what I needed, I stopped. Part of what I learned prevents me from investing in comics. My feelings about pressing in the hobby are a little complex. I like the fact that a book can be made more presentable through pressing. I dislike improper pressing which damages the book, or adds observable defects to the book, or changes the book from its natural state (elimination of spine bloom for example). I also dislike how pressing is now omnipresent in the quest for slightly higher grades which net huge returns. Almost everything of value is pressed now, even when the probability of an increase in grade is low or nonexistent. But until the price bubble bursts, and it will eventually, pressing will continue to be a huge part of the monetary side of this hobby. No amount of discussion will change that. Thanks! |
|
|
|
Post by Jeffro on Sept 11, 2017 12:32:00 GMT -8
I believe that pressing should have been considered restoration from day one. Other than having one corner of one book spot pressed prior to buying it, I haven't pressed anything. I have thought about it though. It IS restoration. I love pressing, especially high grade Silver Age books. It amazes me what's possible. I am blown away that a book that is an 8.0, for example, can become a 9.4. When I went over results with customers, I was always tickled pink when we got exceptionally good results...not because I was bragging about my skill, but because it was POSSIBLE in the first place. It's the same feeling one gets when restoring a classic car: to be able to make it look like it did when it was brand new. There's something very thrilling about that. The type of resto, however, is called market acceptable restoration. It doesn't add or take away anything, so it's not anywhere near as invasive as other forms. But, no doubt, it is restoration. I guess I should have said that it should have been considered resoration by CGC from day one. |
|
|
|
Post by Stu on Sept 11, 2017 15:19:20 GMT -8
It IS restoration. I love pressing, especially high grade Silver Age books. It amazes me what's possible. I am blown away that a book that is an 8.0, for example, can become a 9.4. When I went over results with customers, I was always tickled pink when we got exceptionally good results...not because I was bragging about my skill, but because it was POSSIBLE in the first place. It's the same feeling one gets when restoring a classic car: to be able to make it look like it did when it was brand new. There's something very thrilling about that. The type of resto, however, is called market acceptable restoration. It doesn't add or take away anything, so it's not anywhere near as invasive as other forms. But, no doubt, it is restoration. I guess I should have said that it should have been considered resoration by CGC from day one. The common answer to a statement like this made me think: is pressing truly undetectable? I would ask those with pressing experience like Ditch and OS. If you had unlimited time, unlimited cash, the motivation, and access to the latest technology, could you easily and consistently detect pressing as well as they can now detect trimming and restoration? Would an electron microscope do the trick? I did find this website: www.conservation-wiki.com/wiki/Fiber_IdentificationAnd yeah, it would've been great for the hobby if CGC had considered it restoration from the beginning. They didn't even need to be able to detect it, they just needed to release a statement saying that if they did detect it, it would get a Purple. Be all nebulous about it. But then, that's a lost revenue stream. It's ironic that it's called market acceptance restoration considering the market was forced to accept it after the fact. Can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. |
|
|
|
Post by Ditch Fahrenheit on Sept 12, 2017 16:53:38 GMT -8
I guess I should have said that it should have been considered resoration by CGC from day one. The common answer to a statement like this made me think: is pressing truly undetectable? I would ask those with pressing experience like Ditch and OS. If you had unlimited time, unlimited cash, the motivation, and access to the latest technology, could you easily and consistently detect pressing as well as they can now detect trimming and restoration? Would an electron microscope do the trick? I did find this website:
www.conservation-wiki.com/wiki/Fiber_Identification
And yeah, it would've been great for the hobby if CGC had considered it restoration from the beginning. They didn't even need to be able to detect it, they just needed to release a statement saying that if they did detect it, it would get a Purple. Be all nebulous about it. But then, that's a lost revenue stream. It's ironic that it's called market acceptance restoration considering the market was forced to accept it after the fact. Can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. I actually know quite a lot about this since I was constantly using SEMs to do cross-sectional analysis of vias/contacts/gates in semiconductor manufacture. An electron microscope, whether an SEM or TEM is destructive testing. The sample is usually very small in order to achieve base vacuum quickly, and is coated with metal through evaporation or sputtering in order make it conductive for the e-beam. So, that's out since you don't want to destroy the comic book in order to complete the test. An SEM would be useful to analyze and detect damaged fiber, but frankly I think a regular stereo microscope with a bright-field attachment would be more useful if you were going down that route. It would also be non-destructive. I've never tried it, but it wouldn't surprise me if certain types of defects that were pressed out could still be detected because of permanent fiber deformation. Another route would be to look for silicone contamination. Most (not all) pressers use SRP (silicone release paper), and since it's used in conjunction with heat, water, and pressure it is no doubt present on the comic book cover and elsewhere. The perfect tool to detect silicone is probably XPS (X-Ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy), but like the SEM it's destructive testing. Another method might be using a quadrupole, but it requires a vacuum. XRF (X-Ray Fluorescence) could probably be used as it's non-destructive, quick and portable; but I have no idea if the signature signal would be strong enough to detect routinely. If I were pursuing this, I would definitely check out the viability of hand-held XRF scanners. In addition, an experienced presser can detect many types of improper presses visually; staple imprints is a dead give-away, for example, and I see this all the time unfortunately. I would disagree that the commercial graders detect trimming and other types of restoration well. The fact is that they don't. They catch the big, obvious stuff and anything that glows under the blacklight, but an experienced scammer can get away with all kinds of things. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2017 19:16:57 GMT -8
The common answer to a statement like this made me think: is pressing truly undetectable? I would ask those with pressing experience like Ditch and OS. If you had unlimited time, unlimited cash, the motivation, and access to the latest technology, could you easily and consistently detect pressing as well as they can now detect trimming and restoration? Would an electron microscope do the trick? I did find this website:
www.conservation-wiki.com/wiki/Fiber_Identification
And yeah, it would've been great for the hobby if CGC had considered it restoration from the beginning. They didn't even need to be able to detect it, they just needed to release a statement saying that if they did detect it, it would get a Purple. Be all nebulous about it. But then, that's a lost revenue stream. It's ironic that it's called market acceptance restoration considering the market was forced to accept it after the fact. Can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. I actually know quite a lot about this since I was constantly using SEMs to do cross-sectional analysis of vias/contacts/gates in semiconductor manufacture. An electron microscope, whether an SEM or TEM is destructive testing. The sample is usually very small in order to achieve base vacuum quickly, and is coated with metal through evaporation or sputtering in order make it conductive for the e-beam. So, that's out since you don't want to destroy the comic book in order to complete the test. An SEM would be useful to analyze and detect damaged fiber, but frankly I think a regular stereo microscope with a bright-field attachment would be more useful if you were going down that route. It would also be non-destructive. I've never tried it, but it wouldn't surprise me if certain types of defects that were pressed out could still be detected because of permanent fiber deformation. This, more than anything else, would be the key to the whole "pressing can be detected" argument, EXCEPT...there are many, many cases where there is no fiber deformation (like a light bend, for example), wherein the underlying paper structure is not damaged in any permanent or obvious way. However, it is true that in many situations, the underlying structure IS damaged, but that's really not the point: using the "encyclopedia for a year" method would have exactly the same results. I've been "pressing" in this way ever since I obtained my first comic in the very early 90's and it was bent, or I bent it. The issue, then, isn't detecting pressing, but whether or not pressing is, or should be called, restoration. It's clearly not in the same category as other forms of restoration, just as dipping is not in the same category as other forms of coin restoration. It's a big non-issue, frankly, because whether someone manually bends back a light bend, or has it professionally pressed, there's not going to be any substantive difference between those two things, and "fixing bends and the like" just isn't the OMGWTFBBQ!!!!! that some people want to make it. Only in comics do you have people screeching at the top of their lungs about these things. It's very queer to be doing so. But that wouldn't prove anything, because the presence or absence of silicone doesn't necessarily mean a book has, or has not, been pressed. I don't use SRP, and never have, but if I have a book with a silicone backer, for example, it would show the same thing, would it not? I'll disagree with the use of "improper" here...the fact is, perfect pressing is, as you mentioned, time consuming and not in any way at all worth it except for the most valuable books. So, the "quick" type pressing that is done that results in staple imprints (though, of course, that's not ALWAYS a dead give-away, either) is what is cost effective for relatively low value books. The gains one can get in appearance are much greater than the loss of impacting staples into the paper, and, again, impacted staples are also very common as a matter of original production in any event. Unfortunately, this is true. There are types of color touch which do not flouresce under blacklight, for example. |
|
|
|
Post by Stu on Sept 13, 2017 3:29:51 GMT -8
I actually know quite a lot about this since I was constantly using SEMs to do cross-sectional analysis of vias/contacts/gates in semiconductor manufacture. An electron microscope, whether an SEM or TEM is destructive testing. The sample is usually very small in order to achieve base vacuum quickly, and is coated with metal through evaporation or sputtering in order make it conductive for the e-beam. So, that's out since you don't want to destroy the comic book in order to complete the test. An SEM would be useful to analyze and detect damaged fiber, but frankly I think a regular stereo microscope with a bright-field attachment would be more useful if you were going down that route. It would also be non-destructive. I've never tried it, but it wouldn't surprise me if certain types of defects that were pressed out could still be detected because of permanent fiber deformation. This, more than anything else, would be the key to the whole "pressing can be detected" argument, EXCEPT...there are many, many cases where there is no fiber deformation (like a light bend, for example), wherein the underlying paper structure is not damaged in any permanent or obvious way. However, it is true that in many situations, the underlying structure IS damaged, but that's really not the point: using the "encyclopedia for a year" method would have exactly the same results. I've been "pressing" in this way ever since I obtained my first comic in the very early 90's and it was bent, or I bent it. The issue, then, isn't detecting pressing, but whether or not pressing is, or should be called, restoration. It's clearly not in the same category as other forms of restoration, just as dipping is not in the same category as other forms of coin restoration. It's a big non-issue, frankly, because whether someone manually bends back a light bend, or has it professionally pressed, there's not going to be any substantive difference between those two things, and "fixing bends and the like" just isn't the OMGWTFBBQ!!!!! that some people want to make it. Only in comics do you have people screeching at the top of their lungs about these things. It's very queer to be doing so. But that wouldn't prove anything, because the presence or absence of silicone doesn't necessarily mean a book has, or has not, been pressed. I don't use SRP, and never have, but if I have a book with a silicone backer, for example, it would show the same thing, would it not? I'll disagree with the use of "improper" here...the fact is, perfect pressing is, as you mentioned, time consuming and not in any way at all worth it except for the most valuable books. So, the "quick" type pressing that is done that results in staple imprints (though, of course, that's not ALWAYS a dead give-away, either) is what is cost effective for relatively low value books. The gains one can get in appearance are much greater than the loss of impacting staples into the paper, and, again, impacted staples are also very common as a matter of original production in any event. Unfortunately, this is true. There are types of color touch which do not flouresce under blacklight, for example. If you had unlimited resources, time, etc, how would you go about detecting pressing? (Pretend you really want to detect it and you would be credited with any discoveries made). In this unlimited context, do you think you could detect pressing as reliably as they can now detect trimming, CT, or restoration in general? In your opinion could CGC/CBCS detect pressing as reliably as they can now detect resto if there were correctly motivated to do so? |
|
|
|
Post by Stu on Sept 13, 2017 3:31:24 GMT -8
The common answer to a statement like this made me think: is pressing truly undetectable? I would ask those with pressing experience like Ditch and OS. If you had unlimited time, unlimited cash, the motivation, and access to the latest technology, could you easily and consistently detect pressing as well as they can now detect trimming and restoration? Would an electron microscope do the trick? I did find this website:
www.conservation-wiki.com/wiki/Fiber_Identification
And yeah, it would've been great for the hobby if CGC had considered it restoration from the beginning. They didn't even need to be able to detect it, they just needed to release a statement saying that if they did detect it, it would get a Purple. Be all nebulous about it. But then, that's a lost revenue stream. It's ironic that it's called market acceptance restoration considering the market was forced to accept it after the fact. Can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. I actually know quite a lot about this since I was constantly using SEMs to do cross-sectional analysis of vias/contacts/gates in semiconductor manufacture. An electron microscope, whether an SEM or TEM is destructive testing. The sample is usually very small in order to achieve base vacuum quickly, and is coated with metal through evaporation or sputtering in order make it conductive for the e-beam. So, that's out since you don't want to destroy the comic book in order to complete the test. An SEM would be useful to analyze and detect damaged fiber, but frankly I think a regular stereo microscope with a bright-field attachment would be more useful if you were going down that route. It would also be non-destructive. I've never tried it, but it wouldn't surprise me if certain types of defects that were pressed out could still be detected because of permanent fiber deformation. Another route would be to look for silicone contamination. Most (not all) pressers use SRP (silicone release paper), and since it's used in conjunction with heat, water, and pressure it is no doubt present on the comic book cover and elsewhere. The perfect tool to detect silicone is probably XPS (X-Ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy), but like the SEM it's destructive testing. Another method might be using a quadrupole, but it requires a vacuum. XRF (X-Ray Fluorescence) could probably be used as it's non-destructive, quick and portable; but I have no idea if the signature signal would be strong enough to detect routinely. If I were pursuing this, I would definitely check out the viability of hand-held XRF scanners. In addition, an experienced presser can detect many types of improper presses visually; staple imprints is a dead give-away, for example, and I see this all the time unfortunately. I would disagree that the commercial graders detect trimming and other types of restoration well. The fact is that they don't. They catch the big, obvious stuff and anything that glows under the blacklight, but an experienced scammer can get away with all kinds of things. Great response, thanks! |
|
|
|
Post by Ditch Fahrenheit on Sept 13, 2017 6:16:41 GMT -8
But that wouldn't prove anything, because the presence or absence of silicone doesn't necessarily mean a book has, or has not, been pressed. I don't use SRP, and never have, but if I have a book with a silicone backer, for example, it would show the same thing, would it not? I'll disagree with the use of "improper" here...the fact is, perfect pressing is, as you mentioned, time consuming and not in any way at all worth it except for the most valuable books. So, the "quick" type pressing that is done that results in staple imprints (though, of course, that's not ALWAYS a dead give-away, either) is what is cost effective for relatively low value books. The gains one can get in appearance are much greater than the loss of impacting staples into the paper, and, again, impacted staples are also very common as a matter of original production in any event. I don't know what a 'silicone backer' is. With few exceptions, all the backing boards used in the hobby that I know about are either SBS or SBS soaked or coated with calcium carbonate. If someone were to use a silicone-coated board, or a peanut butter coated board for some reason, unless they also store their comics in an equally weird fashion with two boards creating a sandwich, the obvious answer is that the silicone (or peanut butter) would only be on the back of the comic book. With regard to staple imprints, I very much disagree with you. Deep staple imprints, the kind that break fibers, flatten staples, and and can be seen through most of the wraps require pressures that comic books do not experience during production or storage. This is very much a byproduct of improper pressing. The cost effectiveness of the press does not enter the equation. A proper press will ALWAYS take measures to protect the spine bloom and staples. The fact that commercial grading companies do not take these obvious defects into account when grading only reinforces their inadequacy. The fact that both CGC and CBCS now have in-house pressing factories should come as no surprise since a 'quick press' is an easy revenue stream for them to capitalize. I don't have a problem with pressing per se, as long as it's done properly and effects no additional damage. The fact that commercial grading companies turn a blind eye to pressing-induced defects and irreversible damage when they themselves are causing the defects and damage is completely unacceptable and puts the entire commercial grading process into question. The value of a commercially graded book is directly proportional to the reputation and character of the company doing the grading. This issue, along with a half dozen others, are time bombs. |
|
|
|
Post by Stu on Sept 13, 2017 7:44:25 GMT -8
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2017 8:52:30 GMT -8
But that wouldn't prove anything, because the presence or absence of silicone doesn't necessarily mean a book has, or has not, been pressed. I don't use SRP, and never have, but if I have a book with a silicone backer, for example, it would show the same thing, would it not? I'll disagree with the use of "improper" here...the fact is, perfect pressing is, as you mentioned, time consuming and not in any way at all worth it except for the most valuable books. So, the "quick" type pressing that is done that results in staple imprints (though, of course, that's not ALWAYS a dead give-away, either) is what is cost effective for relatively low value books. The gains one can get in appearance are much greater than the loss of impacting staples into the paper, and, again, impacted staples are also very common as a matter of original production in any event. I don't know what a 'silicone backer' is. With few exceptions, all the backing boards used in the hobby that I know about are either SBS or SBS soaked or coated with calcium carbonate. If someone were to use a silicone-coated board, or a peanut butter coated board for some reason, unless they also store their comics in an equally weird fashion with two boards creating a sandwich, the obvious answer is that the silicone (or peanut butter) would only be on the back of the comic book. Your point was "pressing detection." Since there are conceivable ways, however unlikely, for a book to have "silicone remnants" without it having been pressed, this isn't a reliable method of detection. And it's not at all weird to store books in a "board sandwich", in case you were wondering. While not common, due to cost, it's certainly not weird. I've done it with certain books for 25+ years. I'll have to disagree with you there, though we may be talking about different things. The saddle stitching process was high speed and could be over (or under) calibrated so that staples were driven further into the paper, especially if they were offset, than was strictly necessary. I've seen this many times, on books that were never pressed. As well, again, storage of books over time could impact staples without the books being pressed; a stack of books squashed under something heavy over many years might have the same effect. Sure it does. You're applying pressure to the book; if the staples are offset in any way, there's going to be some measure of impact into the cover going on that's unavoidable, without an elaborate setup to protect the staples which, while possible, greatly adds to the effort and time necessary to press the book. The problem is, of course, the balancing act: too little pressure, and the pressable defects don't come out. Too much pressure, and offset staples get pushed into the cover, among other things. Of course, but the difference in pressure needed to protect the spine "bloom", and that required to prevent the staples from being impacted at all, is different. The pressure required to crush a spine is far beyond what is necessary to properly press a book. That kind of pressure will, of course, do serious damage to the staple area by necessity. You get no argument from me on that score. As I have said, over and over again, pressing is an art as much as a science. The commercial pressers, for the most part, don't get that. If pressing damage is being ignored...and I agree that it probably is, to an extent (because, after all, it's damage, whether it's caused by pressing or not)...that's going to have to be addressed by the market at some point. [/quote] |
|
|
|
Post by Ditch Fahrenheit on Sept 13, 2017 10:24:19 GMT -8
I don't know what a 'silicone backer' is. With few exceptions, all the backing boards used in the hobby that I know about are either SBS or SBS soaked or coated with calcium carbonate. If someone were to use a silicone-coated board, or a peanut butter coated board for some reason, unless they also store their comics in an equally weird fashion with two boards creating a sandwich, the obvious answer is that the silicone (or peanut butter) would only be on the back of the comic book. Your point was "pressing detection." Since there are conceivable ways, however unlikely, for a book to have "silicone remnants" without it having been pressed, this isn't a reliable method of detection. And it's not at all weird to store books in a "board sandwich", in case you were wondering. While not common, due to cost, it's certainly not weird. I've done it with certain books for 25+ years. I'll have to disagree with you there, though we may be talking about different things. The saddle stitching process was high speed and could be over (or under) calibrated so that staples were driven further into the paper, especially if they were offset, than was strictly necessary. I've seen this many times, on books that were never pressed. As well, again, storage of books over time could impact staples without the books being pressed; a stack of books squashed under something heavy over many years might have the same effect. Sure it does. You're applying pressure to the book; if the staples are offset in any way, there's going to be some measure of impact into the cover going on that's unavoidable, without an elaborate setup to protect the staples which, while possible, greatly adds to the effort and time necessary to press the book. The problem is, of course, the balancing act: too little pressure, and the pressable defects don't come out. Too much pressure, and offset staples get pushed into the cover, among other things. Of course, but the difference in pressure needed to protect the spine "bloom", and that required to prevent the staples from being impacted at all, is different. The pressure required to crush a spine is far beyond what is necessary to properly press a book. That kind of pressure will, of course, do serious damage to the staple area by necessity. You get no argument from me on that score. As I have said, over and over again, pressing is an art as much as a science. The commercial pressers, for the most part, don't get that. If pressing damage is being ignored...and I agree that it probably is, to an extent (because, after all, it's damage, whether it's caused by pressing or not)...that's going to have to be addressed by the market at some point. [/quote] With regard to your double-packed, silicone-coated backing board sandwich example  , I'm not going to address your straw man argument because that's just a sophomoric debate tactic rather than a valid discussion point. Finding 'conceivable ways, however unlikely' does not rule out detection, as I'm sure you are actually aware. Stu asked for a method and, if pursued, I think this one might bear fruit. I think you might be falling prey to emotional reasoning since you appear hostile to the mere possibility of pressing detection technology. With regard to improper pressing causing staple imprints, you DO realize that there is a difference between the initial saddle stitch and the imprint created afterwards right? An addition, I've analyzed and recreated the pressure required to cause these imprints, and it's far in excess of any storage conditions. But then, if you're using 'double-packed, silicone-coated backing board sandwiches' to store your valuable books, I guess anything is possible. I'm surprised at the rest of your responses in this post. Protecting the spine and staple area while accomplishing a proper press is not a well-kept industry secret, and it's done every day by experienced pressers. |
|
|
|
Post by Stu on Sept 13, 2017 11:05:57 GMT -8
I don't know what a 'silicone backer' is. With few exceptions, all the backing boards used in the hobby that I know about are either SBS or SBS soaked or coated with calcium carbonate. If someone were to use a silicone-coated board, or a peanut butter coated board for some reason, unless they also store their comics in an equally weird fashion with two boards creating a sandwich, the obvious answer is that the silicone (or peanut butter) would only be on the back of the comic book. Your point was "pressing detection." Since there are conceivable ways, however unlikely, for a book to have "silicone remnants" without it having been pressed, this isn't a reliable method of detection. And it's not at all weird to store books in a "board sandwich", in case you were wondering. While not common, due to cost, it's certainly not weird. I've done it with certain books for 25+ years. 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. |
|
, I'm not going to address your straw man argument because that's just a sophomoric debate tactic rather than a valid discussion point. Finding 'conceivable ways, however unlikely' does not rule out detection, as I'm sure you are actually aware. Stu asked for a method and, if pursued, I think this one might bear fruit. I think you might be falling prey to emotional reasoning since you appear hostile to the mere possibility of pressing detection technology.