Ze-man

90%?, really. Bills25 asked about how to detect cleaned staples so I tried to tailor my response around that. And why are you yelling?

I explained it earlier in this thread. No, you explained what replaced staples might look like..with some mighty fancy red arrows I might add! ( or did I miss a post? ) In my experience detecting if staples were cleaned comes down to a few things, sorry if some of this is redundant. If the paper surrounding clean looking staples displays rust migration but the staples do not..then the staples were probably cleaned or replaced. And if they were cleaned they will show some kind of scraping, or pock marks where the rust ate away the metal but was cleaned off. Get a loupe and take a close look under light, the surface of the metal will tell a story under magnification. If the staples were not removed but cleaned..look for the exposed side to be cleaner the what's is sitting next to the paper. Looking at the texture of the staple at the centerfold and compare it to the exterior also helps Sometimes a staple can be buffed/polished after cleaning making it harder to detect....I would look for an area, even a tiny area on the staple that displays a different wear pattern. Well, thats a start

Mrs. Finch looks hammered.

Would love to see some examples of your work, we love photos around here.

Of all the people here , Scott(FFB) is probably the most learned person when it comes to the science of paper. He has probably forgot more about the science behind paper then I have read..which is alot. His 42 answer was a joke, and from the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. You asked about washing paper, but used the term "deacidificate" which was kinda funny hence why we were cracking wise. To answer your question in part, yeah, various forms of wet washing can de acidify paper simply because when you wash something, things are washed out of the paper.(you should see the water after you wash the interior of a GA book) You can also add various cleaning and buffering agents depending on what you are doing. Or you can also get deacidifying sprays that work without washing.

Deacidificate? Are you GW?

While Methyl Cellulose can be used as a binding or fixative. Try a wheat starch based glue. It acts much more like real glue compared to cellulose which is mainly used as a sizing agent. And since both are water soluble , I would go with the stronger one.

Yup, I had been asked by enough people in PM's about it that I tore a reader comic to take those photos. It served as good enough example to illustrate what a tear seal looks like, both the professional kind and the kind that might be sealed to deceive. There is indeed a great wealth of knowledge on these boards, dozens of people with a lot of restoration detection expertise and I am honestly baffled why more of them don't share what they know in this sub forum, even if it's redundant. Ya just can't have too much good info. Guess it's boring stuff to most funny book fans.

I think if an entire cover was dry cleaned that should be disclosed and is borderline restorative. As opposed to if somebody swipes a few times on the BC spine of a book, that is so minor as to not really bother me. But that's just me. And MasterCPU, look up...University Products, or Talas Online for all kinds of archival supplies.

I agree, this and other threads was where I first cut my teeth in learning what restoration actually is, and is among the best resources on the web that discuss it. It's one thing to show examples of poorly done, or obvious restoration. And another to try and show/discuss the types of things people need to know in spotting resatoration when buying comics. The types of things that go unoticed until they get their book back in a PLOD. And your post reminds me I have a lot of stuff to upload that show examples of spotting CT, staples replaced and different types of spine reinforcement. Just need to find the time to get it all written up! And while I dont want to speak for Pov I think his "out dated" comment was more about some restoration processes having changed since he dabbled in resto years ago. Every time we speak it is always interesting to see which ones have remained unchanged, and where others evolved.

Glad they got there safely Allan, you been buying some serious books dood. Did your postman ask who Handsome Allan was?

Ditto, I have not looked at this thread in over a week, it was worth waiting.

Could be, does the bunny shoot lasers out of his eyes and melt the lollypop? I love this thread, thanks for posting this stuff gents,

As a dad I am cracking up(and proud) to see Ellens interest in this thread. She even ran to her comic pile after looking through it this morning and looked for her animal books. So if you would humor me and allow Ellen to post her 3 favorite animal books, actually her only 3 animal books (given to her by fellow boardies btw) She also asked why her Dumbo comics didn't count because he is funny and an animal, yes she actually thinks like this. Well, you guys expain it to her.

5 1/2 going on 10 btw, great Sylvester info ft88

That #1008 looks like a Dr. Seuss Road Runner cover. In one post you pegged 2 of Ellens favorite cartoon shows. I think you better watch out if you come to Chicago this year, she just might whack you on the knee and take your funny books.

Hank, that Looney Toons #25 is as close to a newstand fresh book as one could ever hope for. Simply Amazing.

This cover is simply amazing, must get this book! Incredibly fun thread guys, I am not sure if me or my daughter enjoyed it more. More please.

I forwarded all of this to Matt and will see if he can shed some light as to who had the work done(and if the book in this thread really is his work) And if it is, was it done for the same guy who listed it on Craigslist as NM.

This place is awesome, nice catch Fedora. All this time we were looking at a photo copy of a restored ASM 1 Thats a riot.

To be honest with you it is a crahhpshoot trying to tell from a scan, I am just guessing but the black line of the book is suspect as are the staple areas. The BC LRC also looks wonky as well. Again, seeing the book in person would be worth a thousand photos. Like you when I first saw the photos in this thread I thought the cover was a repro, it still might be. But why would somebody cut a repro cover so short on both sides? I fear the more I type the better the odds are I will have to put my foot in my mouth when proved incorrect.

Now thats more like it! Will teach me to spout off about a book based on crahppy photos. But yeah, this book was trimmed at the least, that ulc is a wreck. Obvious CT, possibly washed, pieces added, tears sealed, who knows. No real point in guessing what was done anymore, lets just say you should stay far away, especially for $4,000! You said it yourself..it was too good to be true, the black dots on the interior are nice though.

Could be, but I don't know how you think you can tell that from some krappy cell-phone photos. The middle photo is the tell, tanned interiors against a miscut cover that shows no hint of tanning. Actually the third photo shows this as well. Top middle of the interior appears to have a tear seal(or something), and the top staple area shows hints of possible rust migration against a bone white cover. While the hand puppet shadow show was nice, better photos would help. But until then, guessing is fun isn't it.

Impossible to say from those terrible photos , but if I were to guess I would say it was a photo copy wrapped around a nice interior. Not to mention something is just not quite right about that outer edge. I would ask for hi res photos, and or if you could see the book in person before making ANY kind of deal. Something stinks about this one.

Well after an hour of looking at this thread Ellen (my 5 year old daughter) gives this cover her stamp of approval for best cover in the thread. (thumbs u A close second was the big bird eating the spaceship. She wanted to say, "I like the comic book with the wizard, and how she stops the sword with her bracelet"