BCW Supplies

There definitely are standards, such as the Library of Congress Preservation Directorate Specification Number 300-300 – 09 Specifications for Board Stock, Buffered For the Storage of Artifacts, which you can find here; http://www.loc.gov/preservation/resources/supply/specs/300-300_09.pdf Please note that the specification does NOT require a 3% buffer throughout the paperboard. The specification does, however, state in section 1.1 Fiber "The stock must be made from rag or other high alpha-cellulose content pulp, minimum of 87%, as defined in ISO 18902. It must not contain any post consumer waste recycled pulp." And, in section 1.2 Lignin the specification states that "The stock must give a negative reading for lignin as determined by the phloroglucinol test when tested according to ASTM D 1030, X5 spot stains, and shall have a Kappa number of 5 or less when tested according to TAPPI T 236." Given the test results from the Chicago Paper Testing Laboratory that I posted on 18 August 2011, we can see that the Bill Cole Thin X-Tender is 21.7% Groundwood. Groundwood is mechanical pulp, or recycled paper, and cannot be considered alpha-cellulose. Therefore, the content of Bill Cole's Thin X-Tenders cannot be a minimum of 87% alpha-cellulose which would disqualify their product under section 1.1 of the Library of Congress Preservation Directorate Specification Number 300-300 – 09 Specifications for Board Stock. Further, Groundwood contains lignin which would disqualify the product under section 1.2 of the Library of Congress Preservation Directorate Specification Number 300-300 – 09 Specifications for Board Stock. You will also note that the pH level of the BCW product was not 5 to 6 as the newsletter posted above suggests. It was 8.47 in the data from the Chicago Paper Testing Laboratory. And, further, you will note that the BCW product contains no Groundwood, or recycled paper, because SBS is considered virgin paperboard. You can find the test results here; http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=5041204&fpart=1 In all fairness, none of the boards tested would qualify according to the Library of Congress Preservation Directorate Specification Number 300-300 – 09 Specifications for Board Stock, Buffered For the Storage of Artifacts. That's why we don't recommend BCW Comic Backing Boards for long-term storage. We recommend that you change your comic bags and boards every 3 to 5 years, as do most reputable manufacturers of comic supplies. The fact remains, however, that the BCW product does not contain recycled paper while the Bill Cole product obviously does. And, that's why the BCW board doesn't require as much calcium carbonate buffer as the Bill Cole product. I'm grateful that Mike Schmidt did his informal study of BCW products, and that it was brought to my attention. As a result, I have done quite a bit of research, and even spent a day with Mike Beecher at the Chicago Paper testing Laboratory, so that I would have a better understanding of the paperboard that we are providing. Recently, I was offered an alternative to the SBS that we are providing for our customers, and at a considerable savings. I sent samples of the paperboard to Mike Beecher at the Chicago paper Testing Laboratory and I was able to quickly and easily interpret the results. The pH was 8.73, which is good. But, the Fiber analysis revealed that the board was 2.8% Bleached Kraft Softwood, 26.3% Bleached Kraft Hardwood, and 70.9% Groundwood and unbleached fibers. By the standards of some of the members here, this would be a better product, and we could put the difference in our pockets. However, I know that the SBS that we are providing is a better solution for comic backing boards which is why we will continue to offer the SBS product to our customers. As has been stated previously on this forum, results can be interpreted a number of ways. So, I guess the question really comes down to, who would you believe? Would you believe the people who vaguely refer to some implied standard, or would you believe the people who refer to a specific and credible standard and provide you with the documentation? Would you believe the people who simply refer to the pH level of SBS paperboard (and incorrectly, I might add), or would you believe the people who provided the scientific data from an independent laboratory? I'll leave you all with this; at the end of the day that I spent with Mike Beecher at Chicago Paper Testing Laboratory, when all of the testing was done and the results were in, I asked Mike to suppose, for a moment, that he was a comic book collector, and tell me what boards he would use for his comic book collection. He said "Definitely the SBS board."

Pretty sure they got no game. The correct answer is yes, the results were posted. You will find them here; http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=5041204&fpart=1

Nicely done, Mike. You have proven beyond any doubt that the E. Gerber board is indeed buffered throughout. This morning I received a call from George Kues of E. Gerber as we have a good working relationship. George asked that I make a correction regarding our conversation last week. When I called to ask about the Half-Backs and Full-Backs I asked specifically about whether or not they were made from "Archival Mat Board" and George indicated that they were. However, George did not use the word "Archival" and I believe he misunderstood me because E. Gerber Half-Backs and Full-Backs are not made from "Mat" board. They are, in fact, made from "VAT" board. As you can clearly see, it would be easy to confuse the word "Mat" and "VAT" since they sound very similar. And, since George did not correct me when I used the word "Archival" I believed that he was offering "Archival" Mat Board which is why I stated that E. Gerber Half-Backs and Full-Backs are made from Archival Mat Board. It should also be noted that some companies do offer Archival Mat Board, most of which is inert. However, a small percentage of Archival Mat Board is buffered and will absorb some residual acid. It would seem that there is quite a double standard here. It was obvious to me from the beginning that Mike's study was just a just a poorly veiled attack on our company and our products. Although other SBS boards were included to make it a little less obvious, there is no doubt about the agenda. One need only take note of our dubious award to understand the purpose of Mike's post. While it is true that I should have refrained from making comments about our competitors products, few seem to have taken issue with the fact that others have made similar comments about our products. Further, it has been suggested that my company has intentionally mislead it's customers. The singular purpose being to defame BCW for financial gain. Given that the sole purpose is to discredit BCW it is no surprise that claims have been made that the data that has been presented from the testing of our products is fraudulent. The conclusion of Mike's study is preconceived, and the hypothesis and data has been crafted to support it. However, the scientific method dictates that these steps are to be done in the opposite order. It is interesting to note that a Biochemist has been presented as an expert to refute the information that a 3% buffer is a 3% buffer with examples that are not applicable to the subject at hand, and that a lawyer has been presented to threaten a potential lawsuit on behalf of a 3rd party whom I am reasonably certain he does not represent. I have stated that I am having the products tested that were represented in Mike's study and provide the results here on the forum which I will do because I am a man of my word, regardless of what some here may think. And, I will refrain from posting anything further until I receive the data from the lab. However, I will leave you all with a few thoughts to ponder in the meantime; The National Information Standards Organization's definition of "acid-free" does not preclude paper or board from containing residual acid from the manufacturing process provided that the paper or board is adequately buffered. Therefore, E. Gerber's Half-Backs and Full-Backs, Bill Cole's Thin-X-Tenders, and BCW's Comic Backing Boards can contain acid from the manufacturing process and still be considered "acid-free". Any board made using the sulfate process (i.e. bleached) is going to have some residual acid in it. Only board manufactured using the sulfite process will be entirely alkaline. And, board manufactured using the sulfite process does not require an alkaline reserve. Mike's original question was Are "acid-free" backing boards truly acid-free? The answer is no, regardless of whether they are being manufactured by BCW, Bill Cole, or E. Gerber. And finally, whether or not a buffered comic backing board will ever become acidic depends greatly on how much acid is in the comic book with which the board is stored. If there is more acid in the comic book than the buffer can absorb, the comic backing board will eventually become acidic.

Like I said, I didn't expect anyone to take my word for it, so the boards are on the way to the lab. However, it has already been shown that, regardless of the test results that I present, they will just be discarded as propaganda. However, everyone here appears to trust Mike. I'm sure that he still has that pH pencil and an E. Gerber Half-Back lying around. Mike, how about peeling the white coating from an E. Gerber Half-Back, marking the gray core, and posting that picture?

Jim Lallathin is a 30 year veteran of the paper industry and he has a degree in Pulp and Paper Technology. I believe he knows what he is talking about. But, I'm going to have the board tested and provide the results. And, if it turns out that Mr. Lallathin is wrong I will post that, too. I realize that some folks here don't believe that I am interested in the truth, but I am. And, that's why I am spending so much time on this. It actually matters to me if we are providing a product that is not good for your books. That's why I have said repeatedly that if you use SBS board you want to change them out every 3 to 5 years. I have also said that MCP is the way to go, even though we don't offer it. I said that about MCP because, during my research, I have found that MCP has 200 times the capacity to absorb acid than SBS board. I realize that many here believe that I am just trying to sell backing boards. But, please understand that we could easily add the same board to our line and the point would be moot. That isn't why I am investing my time.

Yesterday I had a vendor in my office. His name is Jim Lallathin and as it turns out, he is a graduate of Miami University of Oxford and his degree is in Pulp and Paper Technology. I showed him Mike's study and explained that we have a difference of opinion regarding the conclusions that have been drawn from Mike's data. Specifically, about the differences between the E. Gerber Comic Backing Boards and BCW Comic Backing Boards. I explained to Mr. Lallathin that I had contacted E. Gerber and asked what type of board the Half-Backs and Full-Backs were made of, and I was told that it was Archival Mat Board. I happened to have samples of both E. Gerber Half-Backs and Bill Cole's Thin-X-Tenders in my office and Mr. Lallathin asked to see them. When I handed Mr. Lallathin the E. Gerber Half-Backs he immediately said "That's not Mat Board. That's VAT Board", and he went on to explain how it was made. As he was explaining the process he peeled the white coating off of the board and told me that the gray paper that is sandwiched in between the thin white paper coating is recycled paper, which is acidic. In fact, because it is recycled paper, there's no telling just how much acid is in it. Then, he went on to explain that the thin layer of bleached paper on either side had to have a high alkaline content because the recycled paper sandwiched in the middle is not stabilized. He also explained that because the board is made of recycled paper it is far less expensive than solid bleached sulfate. When we opened the package of Bill Cole's Thin-X-Tenders we found that they were exactly the same thing. Now, I don't expect everyone here to take my word for it, so I have sent samples of the boards to the independent laboratory where we have our testing done and I'll share the results in this thread. Of course, some here might say that the samples I had tested weren't actually E. Gerber Half-Backs or Bill Cole's Thin-X-Tenders, so perhaps we can convince Mike to peel the white coating from an E. Gerber Half-Back and Bill Cole Thin-X-Tender, mark on it with his pHydrion pencil, and post pictures of them for us.

As promised, I asked Dana Kellum about the e-mail to ComicDoc. He said that he did not state that BCW Comic Extenders would prevent mold & mildew or refer to the Royal Art Salon (I assumed he did from ComicDoc's post, and that he was making a comparison between our product and Bienfang Acid Free Board). Dana stated that his e-mail was the part that reads; ComicDoc, do you still happen to have the e-mail referenced above, and/or the subsequent e-mail where Mr. Kellum stated that he had put one in between each page of a book and corrected a mold / mildew problem? If so, please forward them to me at ken@bcwsupplies.com.

Now that you mention it, I did see that. I was responding to Drew regarding the comparison that Dana was making for you when he was quoting the Royal Art Salon and I did not read that part very closely. I apologize, and I just checked our web site to make sure the same claim wasn't being made there. I will be speaking to Mr. Kellum about that very quote tomorrow morning. As for a long term evaluation, there's no need. I wouldn't want you leaving the Extenders in your books for more than 3 to 5 years. Since both sides are coated and the alkaline reserve is approximately 10% the books will be fine for a while. But, you're better off with MCP. And, while we're on the topic, in my research I found that MCP has 200 times more buffer capacity than regular comic boards.

Hello Bernard, The BCW Comic Extenders are not intended for long term storage. They should be changed every 3 to 5 years. They are intended to be a cost effective alternative to Bill Cole's product, but as Mike points out, it is not the same thing. As I stated way back in this thread, we believe that MCP and polyester (Mylar and Mellinex are brand names of polyester) are the way to go. So, as Mike said, for long term storage you're already doing the right thing, but the BCW Comic Extenders are not a long term solution. Did I understand you correctly? You got the impression from Dana Kellum that a BCW Comic Extender prevents mold and mildew? I guess I need to go back through the thread where you asked about using them as I did not read the entire thing. One thing is interesting, though. The anecdotal evidence that you provide seems to contradict the theory that BCW Comic Extenders "are certain to cause undue strain on the staples which can lead to the staples popping through the paper."

I have to agree with this. I did the best I could to detail the conversation, but it was an hour and a half and there was a lot of information exchanged. Also, several hours elapsed before I was able to post. This may be a result of the variance of interpretation Drew mentions. Perhaps "suggested" would be a better word. But, I don't think it matters much to the point of the conversation. From what I took away from the conversation, it was all of these. Again, I'm not sure it matters much to the point of the discussion, but I'm glad that Drew stated his position just the same. The closest thing to this was my suggestion to have independent testing done on the various manufacturers boards with an emphasis that the boards should be "bought off the shelf at a comic shop" to approximate aging. I have no concerns whatsoever about the Gerber or Cole board. Buffered throughout boards such as Gerbers and Coles are the standard used by conservators everywhere for ephemera. I also specifically declined comment about Cole's extenders, because I have little knowledge about the product. I pointed out that Ken should have done likewise with the entire thread. These items were part of the conversation from my side of it. But again, there was a lot of information discussed. And, as Drew pointed out, there will be some variance in the interpretation. I certainly agree that I should not have commented on the Bill Cole product. And, I do hope that Drew is not implying that we can't work together to determine which testing methods will help us determine which conclusions are correct. I explained why the above is not "a fact", this is an inaccurate conclusion. Good point. It is not a fact, but rather, one of the main points where we differ in our opinion about the conclusion. Further, it is one of those things that we should test to determine which conclusion is correct. The above doesn't agree with the data. Again, I believe this is one of the main points that we disagree on. That is, whether the calcium carbonate absorbs any significant amount of acid from the board itself. And, we should find a way to test to see which hypothesis is correct. This test is what I was referring to about sealing a board in polyester for some period of time before doing the hot extraction test when I was responding to Mike. That would not come close to explaining why the pH of the coating was 7 I think that would depend greatly on how stable the core board is, how much of the coating is actually calcium carbonate, and what else the coating is comprised of. Jack has stated that the coating can't all be calcium carbonate or it would flake off. I'm sure he's right about that. What another manufacturer claims or doesn't claim about their product is not relative to ours. What is pertinent in this case is whether or not our board meets the description of "acid free" as defined by the National Information Standards Institution in the Guidelines for Information About Preservation Products.

Molecular formula CaCO3 Exact mass 100.0869 g/mol Appearance Fine white powder Density 2.71 g/cm3 (calcite) 2.83 g/cm3 (aragonite) Melting point 825 °C (aragonite) 1339 °C (calcite)[2] Boiling point decomposes Solubility in water 0.00015 mol/L (25°C) Solubility product, Ksp 4.8×10−9[1] Solubility in dilute acids soluble Acidity (pKa) 9.0 Refractive index (nD) 1.59 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_carbonate I guess that goes to show you can't always rely on wikipedia.

Yes sir, I can. Drew's pH level of 9.5 to 9.75 came from memory, and when I asked him what his reference was during our phone conversation today he couldn't remember where it came from. I mistakenly gave the pKa value as the pH level. Thanks for your help with this. :thumbsup:

Good points, Mike. I am now wondering about a few things between the definitions from the glossary of the Guidelines for Information About Preservation Products, your comments, and the test results. I'm certainly not going to argue about the meaning of the word in where the definition of alkaline reserve is concerned. But, the test results indicate that the alkaline reserve in the BCW Current Board is 4.36% and the glossary of the Guidelines for Information About Preservation Products uses the term alkaline reserve and buffer interchangeably. The statement "However free of acid a paper or board may be immediately after manufacture, over time the presence of residual chlorine from bleaching, aluminum sulfate from sizing, or pollutants in the atmosphere may lead to the formation of acid unless an alkaline substance is added to the paper or board." does not seem to exclude the coating applied after the board is manufactured, and it doesn't seem to be specific about the amount of the alkaline substance that is added. Regarding your second point, your conclusions were that 1.) the coating on a regular backing board wears off over time, and 2.) that this doesn't happen with boards manufactured by E. Gerber or Bill Cole. So, essentially I think you're correct. But, I have a couple of thoughts on this. First, I'm not sure I would use the term "wears off" relative to the coating. I think I would use the term "becomes saturated" in reference to the calcium carbonate. I believe that the boards are all made using a sulfate manufacturing process (it is my understanding that boards manufactured using the sulfite process are not white, they are gray throughout). So, whether or not this ever happens to the E. Gerber or Bill Cole product would depend on whether or not there was enough calcium carbonate to absorb all of the residual acid contained in the E. Gerber or Bill Cole board. If 3% is more than enough to absorb all of the residual acid contained in the board then your right. If there is more residual acid in the board that the buffer can absorb then at some point even the E. Gerber or Bill Cole board would become acidic. In reference to your comment about doing the hot extraction test a couple of months after the board is manufactured, I think we would have to seal a board completely in a material such as polyester to be sure that it didn't react with the pollutants in the air and then do the hot extraction test. That should tell us whether or not the acid from the board itself is being absorbed by the calcium carbonate. Mr. Blackburn suggests that "a stabilized acid base process sheet of paper will not absorb any significant level of alkaline content from the coating" so it would be interesting to see if this is true. And finally, regarding your statement that you still don't see how we can call the board "acid free" I'll refer back to my comments above about the test results and the definitions of alkaline reserve, buffer, and acid free, as stated in the glossary of the Guidelines for Information About Preservation Products. The test results indicate that the pH level of the BCW Comic Board is 8.01, the alkaline reserve is 4.36%, and the glossary of the Guidelines for Information About Preservation Products uses the terms alkaline reserve and buffer interchangeably. Perhaps the definitions in the glossary of the Guidelines for Information About Preservation Products need to revised. One thing is for sure; if Drew worked at the National Information Standards Institution, they would have been worded differently.

We received a call from Drew (grinin) today. Drew's reason for calling was to verify that it is indeed a representative of BCW that is posting on the forum as BCW Supplies. I had a chance to discuss the issues at hand with Drew at length and we were on the phone for an hour and a half. First, allow me to say that if Mike and namisgr do stop by for a visit they can bring Drew with them. During the conversation there were several things that Drew and I agreed on, and there were a few things that we agreed to disagree on until such time as we can determine how to prove the point one way or the other. I believe that the first thing that we agreed on is that BCW Supplies should provide the name of the person posting on behalf of the company. My name is Ken O'Brien and I am the Director of Sales & Marketing for BCW Diversified, Inc. I am a twenty year veteran of the collectibles industry, and my background is in plastics. Another thing that we agreed on was that I should state clearly that we at BCW Diversified, Inc. are not conservationists. And finally, Drew and I agreed that we should work together for the benefit of everyone concerned rather than to continue to argue the various points contained within this thread. During the conversation there were a few comments that I made which Drew urged me to address. His concerns were primarily regarding the comments that were either made or implied with respect to products offered by E. Gerber and Bill Cole. The first comment that Drew wanted me to address was the conclusion that I suggested regarding E. Gerber full-backs and half-backs not absorbing any residual acid because they are made of Archival Mat Board. That being said, there is no argument about the material that E. Gerber full-backs and half-backs are made from. Typically, Archival Mat Board is inert because collectors and conservationists do not want the board to react with the artifact in any way. However, E. Gerber half-backs and full-backs are buffered, and it is logical to assume that they absorb residual acid to some degree. I did actually correct myself on this particular point, but I believe Drew, and perhaps others following along, may have missed it. Neither one of us are sure to what degree the E. Gerber Archival Mat Boards absorb the residual acid that migrates from a comic book, but we have agreed that we should work together to determine what testing methods should be used to demonstrate the degree to which E. Gerber Archival Mat Boards absorb acid. Another of Drew's points of contention was the implication that Bill Cole's Life-X-Tenders Plus may cause damage to comic books because they contain copper which is typically undesirable in conservation. However, I did address this when Mike pointed out that Bill Cole's Life-X-Tenders Plus utilize Corrosion Intercept technology. One of the points that we discussed is my conclusion, based on the data in Mike's study, that the acid from the SBS board does not migrate to the comic book. This conclusion is based on the fact that the pH level of the uncoated side of the new BCW Comic Backing Board was unchanged after two years of use. Further, that my conclusion is supported by Mr. Blackburn's statement that "a stabilized acid base process sheet of paper will not absorb any significant level of alkaline content from the coating." Drew's contention is that there is a change in the pH level of the uncoated side of the used BCW Comic Backing Board but that it is not detectable with a pHydrion pencil. In addition, Drew contends that that the SBS board does not absorb any significant level of residual acid from a comic book because most of the calcium carbonate coating has been saturated by the board itself. My response was that, if he were correct, the SBS board would turn yellow while still sealed in the package. To support his position, Drew stated that the pH level of calcium carbonate is 9.5 to 9.75, and that the pH level of the coated surface of the BCW Comic Backing Board was 7.0. His reasoning was that if the calcium carbonate didn't absorb some of the acid from the SBS board then he would expect the coated surface to also be at the 9.5 to 9.75 level. In all fairness, Drew was going from memory and he was fairly close. Upon checking I found that calcium carbonate has a pH level of 9.0. However, during our discussion about the nature of the coating on the SBS board (which I will address in a moment), Drew stated that he didn't believe that the coating was comprised of pure calcium carbonate. If he is correct, that might explain why the pH level of the coated board is 7.0 (as indicated by the data presented in Mike's study) rather than pH 9.0. With regard to the coating, both Drew and Mike have stated in this thread that the coating is not the buffer. I have maintained all along that the coating is the buffer. Drew and Mike's assertion is that the coating may be buffered, but the coating is not the buffer. Further, Drew commented that my statement was "not an industry accepted definition." However, during my conversation with Drew on the phone today I explained that my reference comes from the Guidelines for Information About Preservation Products that is published by the National Information Standards Institution. In the glossary they state; Here's a link so that you may all download your own copy of the Guidelines for Information About Preservation Products; http://www.niso.org/apps/group_public/download.php/6512/Guidelines%20for%20Information%20About%20Preservation%20Products.pdf Here are the results from the independent laboratory where we had our boards tested; Acidity Alkalinity, Hot Extraction, TAPPI T-435 (pH) BCW Silver Extender 8.35 pH BCW Current Board 8.01 pH Alkaline Reserve, ASTM D-4988-96 (%) BCW Silver Extender 10.04 % BCW Current Board 4.36 % The pH level of the BCW Current Comic Board is actually 8.01 (much closer to that of calcium carbonate than Mike's data indicates). And, the alkaline reserve, or buffer, is actually 4.36%. And finally, what about the claim that the description of BCW Comic Backing Boards is misleading? Also taken from the glossary of the Guidelines for Information About Preservation Products; At the conclusion of our conversation I expressed to Drew that what was most concerning to me was that he claimed that our test data was fabricated. I explained that if we are to work together to determine the truth of the matter we must develop a relationship based on trust. Without the element of trust that we are working on a common goal I could post the results of the lab tests for all to download only to be accused of doctoring the paperwork and we would be right back to arguing which would not benefit anyone. I truly believe that by the end of the conversation Drew understood that we are not here to mislead anyone. We are here for the same reason that he an Mike are here; to determine, beyond any doubt, the truth about SBS as it relates to comic backing boards. And, that we each believe in the conclusions that we have drawn from the data that Mike has presented. And further, that we need to work together to determine what tests are required to prove one hypothesis or the other for the benefit of everyone concerned.

By the way, if you do happen to stop by, you can bring namisgr with you. He seems like a decent sort, but leave grinin at home.

Mike, thanks for the heads up. If Life-X-Tenders Plus truly work using Corrosion Intercept technology then it's a great product. And, it should work for more than the 10 years that Bill Cole states on his web site. Bill Cole's web site does state that Life-X-Tenders Plus use a technology developed by Bell Labs, but stops short of stating that it was Corrosion Intercept technology. Perhaps they didn't want to invite any competition. One thing this thread has done is to prompt us to look beyond the obvious. We certainly understand how SBS board works to absorb the residual acid migrating from the pages of a comic book, but we didn't look any further than that. Please keep in mind that we have maintained all along that SBS boards are for short term storage of your comic books, and that we recommend that you change the bags and SBS boards every 3 to 5 years. We will continue offer SBS boards as a short term storage solution, and we agree that the web site and packaging could use some revision. It also appears that we could add a number of items to our line that are more effective for preserving comic books and other collectibles. If you ever happen to be passing through Anderson, Indiana, please stop by and say hello. We'll even buy you lunch.

grinin, look at the e-mail again. In particular, the parts in bold. Dana clearly quoted the Royal Art Salon. And, just so that you are aware, the person posting on behalf of BCW Supplies is not Dana Kellum. Please feel free to give us a call. Better yet, come and visit. We will be happy to discuss this in person and show you what we do at BCW.

Archival Mat Board is typically inert, and it has yet to be proven that the E. Gerber board is actually buffering. Even E. Gerber doesn't make the claim that their full-backs and half-backs absorb any residual acid. What is most telling is that grinin simply claims that the data that we presented is fabricated. It should be fairly obvious to anyone reading along that it wouldn't matter what we presented. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence absolute denial is the tactic.

I believe that your claim of "Ownage" is a little premature. We're just getting warmed up.

Mr. Kellum did not claim to be a "technical expert". If you read the e-mail again you will note that he said he was the Manager of Internet Sales. Again, if you read the e-mail more closely you will note that Mr. Kellum is making a comparison for our friend ComicDoc. And, he most definitely attributes the information on Bienfang Acid Free Board to the Royal Art Salon (with quotation marks). You're right about one thing, though; you can find this information, almost verbatim, on artsupply.com. Of course, you can also find it at foamcoreheaven.com, mediaforprinting.com, chicagoairbrushsupply.com, thefind.com and villagesupplies.net. When faced with evidence that clearly contradicts your opinion you simply deny it's validity. Otherwise, you might be compelled to explain how a board that you claim does not have a 3% buffer of calcium carbonate can have an alkaline reserve of 4.36%.

Thank you for the clarification. We were referring to the Life-X-Tenders Plus. While we were doing some research on Archival Mat Board we came across this article from the folks at True Art Information. They said; Here's a link for your reference: http://www.trueart.info/archival_boards.htm It makes sense if you think about it. What happens when the copper is oxidizing? We found this article on wikipedia interesting; Here's a link to this article for your reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper

Please post the "industry accepted definition" that you refer to. If BCW Comic Boards are not buffered then how would you explain an alkaline reserve of 4.36%? Alkaline Reserve, ASTM D-4988-96 (%) BCW Current Board 4.36 % We are referring to a post that was made on this very forum regarding testing that was conducted in August of 2006. And, we are offering the same board today as we did then. Admittedly, the data is dated, but the technology behind the manufacture of SBS hasn't changed in decades.

I have been told that I am much better looking than he is.

If this statement were true then solid bleached sulfate boards would turn yellow while they are still sealed in the package. If this statement were NOT true then it would defy the laws of chemistry. As Mr. Blackburn pointed out, the SBS sheet is stabilized. We will add to that statement by saying a coating of calcium carbonate buffer is then applied which is 3% of the total board by weight.

Let's modify this this example so that it is relative to the boards in question since they both have a 3% buffer of calcium carbonate. 1. Let's take 2 solutions, both at a pH of 7.0: (i) 10% Tris-Hydrochloride. (ii) 10% Tris-Hydrochloride. 2. Let's add a drop of vinegar (5% acetic acid) to each and measure the pH. 3. Result? Both buffers will maintain very close to pH 7.0. 4. The lesson? Equal buffers will yield equal results. The point that we are trying to make with the example above is that namisgr does not explain how an alkaline reserve works, nor does he explain how boards that are both buffered with 3% calcium carbonate can show dramatically different results after 2 years of use.