Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2017 14:35:37 GMT -8
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. 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. I "appear hostile to the mere possibility of pressing detection technology"...? Where on EARTH do you get such an idea? I think you're projecting your own emotional response and seeing things that aren't there. I have zero problem with pressing detection technology; I'm merely pointing out the quite correct point that the presence of silicone in comics is not PROOF (that's the key word, there) of pressing, and therefore cannot be used as a reliable method of detecting it. It's called "falsifiablity", and if something can be shown to be falsifiable, even once, the hypothesis doesn't stand...far from being a "straw man" argument or a "sophomoric debate tactic." If I can show that silicone remnants can appear on a book that has not been pressed, the hypothesis is falsified, and CANNOT be used to "prove" that book has been pressed. You're better than this. Trimming is trimming. It is detectable, even if not detected. Tear sealing, no matter how expertly done, is detectable. A tear seal is either there or it is not, and cannot be explained as anything else. Color touch is color touch. It is either there or it is not; regardless of whether or not it is actually detectable. Pressing, on the other hand, is NOT detectable, the vast majority of the time, when done by quality pressers. Anyone can point to BAD pressing. But I can...and have, many thousands of times...pressed books, and the "finest pressing detectives in the land" couldn't tell it was pressed. Not because I'm the greatest presser in the world...I'm not...but because pressing is NOT intrusive the majority of the time, does NOT add or detract from the basic structure of a book, and does NOT introduce elements that could not REASONABLY be described as something else. And if it can reasonably be called something else, guess what...? It's not proof of pressing. Ok, silly sarcasm isn't necessary, and doesn't advance the discussion. You'll have to show examples and explain how and what you think is the difference between the initial saddle-stiched indentation present on some books, and the "imprint" you're discussing. Analysis is fine, but without disclosure of how you conducted these analyses, how can they possibly be reviewed? You certainly don't expect everyone to simply take your word for it, do you...? That really depends on how one is doing such protection, does it not...? Again...without discussion of actual methods, there's no way to review what you're saying, and accepting what you say at face value is as spurious as you claim my comments to be. Of course the spine and staple areas have to be protected...but that can be accomplished in a number of ways, can't it? There are "pressers" who attempt to create tiny "buffers" under the staples, to support the staples from being indented...this method is time consuming, and not very effective, while introducing other problems of their own. The single most effective way to protect the spine and staples is very, very simple: don't smash the  out of the books. The key to successful pressing is GENTLENESS, not fancy "spine and staple protection" methods. Might want to dial back the invective a bit, eh? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2017 14:38:16 GMT -8
In point of fact, I can take 100 similar books, press half of them, and no one would be able to tell which ones were pressed, and which ones were not. Not because I'm the greatest presser known to man, but because pressing, done properly, is generally undetectable. And I would be COMPLETELY willing to put that to the test, scientifically. Not something someone "hostile" to the "mere possibility" of pressing detection would be willing to do, is it...?  |
|
|
|
Post by Ditch Fahrenheit on Sept 13, 2017 16:07:28 GMT -8
Here's what I originally said in response to Stu's question... linkSquishee, you injected yourself into this discussion and made it all about you. It's patently obvious by your bizarre responses and tactics that this threatens you in some way. I'm not sure if it's the potential for detection, or the fact that you seem to be unclear as to how to perform a press without introducing new damage. I don't get it. But this will be my last post on the subject as I think my original response to Stu was straightforward and self-explanatory. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2017 16:36:18 GMT -8
Here's what I originally said in response to Stu's question... linkSquishee, you injected yourself into this discussion and made it all about you. It's patently obvious by your bizarre responses and tactics that this threatens you in some way. I'm not sure if it's the potential for detection, or the fact that you seem to be unclear as to how to perform a press without introducing new damage. I don't get it. But this will be my last post on the subject as I think my original response to Stu was straightforward and self-explanatory. What in the bloody hell are you talking about...? I didn't "inject" myself into anything; this was an ongoing discussion that YOU SAID was important to have. "Bizarre responses and tactics"...? "this threatens you in some way"...? Whose posts are you reading...? I am not only NOT "unclear as to how to perform a press without introducing new damage", I have years of excellent results to back me up...and if you're going to dismiss ALL of that by saying "well, the grading companies simply won't acknowledge pressing damage, so ALL those results mean nothing", then I will question YOUR motives. What are your results? Processes? Analyses? Of what value are blanket statements with no specifics? Of what value are your statements with no examples, explanations of methods, or end results? Show me what you've done, and explain how you've done it, and maybe we can have a SCIENTIFIC discussion, rather than a PERSONAL one. What the hell happened to you...? There are CLEARLY motivations at play here that have nothing whatsoever to do with pressing, and have everything to do with our interpersonal relationship, which has CLEARLY gone off the rails. And that's a damn shame. If you want your forum to be anti-slabbing, if you think there's absolutely ZERO value in the slabbing companies, and you and Stu are going to form your own He-Man, Slabbing-Hater club, that's fine...but you MIGHT want to be upfront about that, and unequivocally and openly declare your motives and intentions, so everyone knows where you're coming from. |
|
|
|
Post by mrwoogieman on Sept 14, 2017 10:22:55 GMT -8
I'm not clear where the underlying drama comes from, but I read the last couple days' comments boiling down to this:
Stu - is there a reliable test to see if a book was pressed or not?
Ditch - maybe, if they look for embedded silicon bits since pressers use silicon release paper as part of the process
OS - silicon bits can find their way onto comics that weren't pressed, possibly, so testing for them wouldn't be proof of pressing, just proof of silicon bits
That's it as far as I can comprehend. Why all the drama? Because Ditch believes the presence of silicon embedded in the paper fibers is effective enough as a useful test and OS says that unless it's 100% it fails as a reliable test?
|
|
|
|
Post by Stu on Sept 14, 2017 11:03:13 GMT -8
I'm merely pointing out the quite correct point that the presence of silicone in comics is not PROOF (that's the key word, there) of pressing, and therefore cannot be used as a reliable method of detecting it. But is it, like all the other resto techniques CGC/CBCS use, reliable enough? That's what matters. I still haven't heard a valid reason as to why silicone would be on a comic if it wasn't pressed. The mysterious "silicone backers"? Maybe, if I knew what those were. If it's not proof it's a hell of a clue. This is another straw man argument because as you know this applies to all of CGC/CBCS' resto detecting techniques, yet they still do it confidently every day.The "even once" is BS. That's not how the real world works though. Proving one thing once does not disqualify it from becoming accepted, it would have to be a percentage of the time. You keep using qualifiers like "the majority of the time". Yeah, we know that, that's why we're discussing it. Let's concentrate on "the minority of the time" so that maybe someday pressing CAN be reliably detected the vast majority of time. I bet your knowledge would be very helpful if you used it for good. But conversely, it's not proof that it hasn't been pressed, right? |
|
|
|
Post by Phoenixperson on Sept 16, 2017 7:12:44 GMT -8
What if the presser does not use silicone release paper? What if the presser only used copy paper?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ditch Fahrenheit on Sept 16, 2017 11:12:52 GMT -8
What if the presser does not use silicone release paper? What if the presser only used copy paper? Much like staple imprints, an experienced presser can sometimes tell if a press has been done incorrectly because of the clues left on the book. I've run tests using standard copy paper, and depending on the process recipe and book type, sometimes its use can leave these tell-tale signs. One of the reasons SRP is used is because it typically doesn't stick to the ink (and remove it), nor transfer a texture. Copy paper is not recommended because of these issues. |
|
|
|
Post by Phoenixperson on Sept 16, 2017 12:36:03 GMT -8
Thanks, Phoenixperson had no idea.
|
|
splash
Advanced Noob
Joined: September 2017
Posts: 18 
|
Post by splash on Sept 17, 2017 9:55:12 GMT -8
I wouldn't listen to anything Organic Squishee says about pressing comics. There have been complaints about his work. He is *SNIP* over at CGC and people have been complaining about him over there for many years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stu on Sept 17, 2017 11:30:16 GMT -8
I wouldn't listen to anything Organic Squishee says about pressing comics. There have been complaints about his work. He is *SNIP* over at CGC and people have been complaining about him over there for many years. You're full of . The only person I ever heard comp!ain about anything related to *SNIP* pressing is the troll *SNIP* and that was just about pricing. He was very happy with *SNIP* work. Show me a thread where someone complains about the quality of his work. Should be easy if people have been complaining about his work for years (here's the answer, you are lying and can't do this). It's obvious he does better work than the jackhole who was CBCS' official presser. Maybe you should get your head out of your ass? |
|
splash
Advanced Noob
Joined: September 2017
Posts: 18
|
Post by splash on Sept 17, 2017 13:18:05 GMT -8
I wouldn't listen to anything Organic Squishee says about pressing comics. There have been complaints about his work. He is *SNIP* over at CGC and people have been complaining about him over there for many years. You're full of . The only person I ever heard comp!ain about anything related to *SNIP* pressing is the troll *SNIP* and that was just about pricing. He was very happy with *SNIP* work. Show me a thread where someone complains about the quality of his work. Should be easy if people have been complaining about his work for years (here's the answer, you are lying and can't do this). It's obvious he does better work than the jackhole who was CBCS' official presser. Maybe you should get your head out of your ass? Start a thread over there asking for advice on pressers and see what happens.  |
|
|
|
Post by Stu on Sept 17, 2017 13:40:27 GMT -8
You're full of . The only person I ever heard comp!ain about anything related to *SNIP* pressing is the troll *SNIP* and that was just about pricing. He was very happy with *SNIP* work. Show me a thread where someone complains about the quality of his work. Should be easy if people have been complaining about his work for years (here's the answer, you are lying and can't do this). It's obvious he does better work than the jackhole who was CBCS' official presser. Maybe you should get your head out of your ass? Start a thread over there asking for advice on pressers and see what happens. Just one link. After all the years you claimed this is going on, you can't show me one link. That's because you are a lying piece of . Prove me wrong, tough guy. Show me one complaint about his work that's not from *SNIP*. |
|
splash
Advanced Noob
Joined: September 2017
Posts: 18
|
Post by splash on Sept 17, 2017 14:09:48 GMT -8
Start a thread over there asking for advice on pressers and see what happens. Just one link. After all the years you claimed this is going on, you can't show me one link. That's because you are a lying piece of . Prove me wrong, tough guy. Show me one complaint about his work that's not from *SNIP*. Why would there be a link? Do you think people complain publicly? |
|
|
|
Post by Stu on Sept 17, 2017 14:32:56 GMT -8
Just one link. After all the years you claimed this is going on, you can't show me one link. That's because you are a lying piece of . Prove me wrong, tough guy. Show me one complaint about his work that's not from *SNIP*. Why would there be a link? To prove you're not a liar. Put up or shut up. I don't think they complain at all. |
|
, 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.
out of the books. The key to successful pressing is GENTLENESS, not fancy "spine and staple protection" methods. 
