Official Foxing Thread

[ninanina]

Ok.

 

[PovertyRow]

Ok.

 

 

So rarely has so much wisdom been conveyed in so few words!

[PovertyRow]

bleach and wonder bread?

 

No please! no no no! Now had you said Hydrogen Peroxide/Plaster of Paris gas impregnation method I would say "hmmmmmm - not too shoddy" - but to parapharde Dirty Dee in Pootie Tang: "No bleach! NO BLEACH! Arrgghhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

 

"paraphrade"???????

[Arty]

Just found this:

 

Short summary: "The bottom line is there is no truly reasonable & effective way of defoxing a book"

 

The long story:

 

"How Do I Get Rid of Foxing?

 

I could imagine some tricky sod removing foxing with laundry bleach which might look okay the first couple years, but Chlorox does immediate damage to the cellulose content of paper, & the residue salts cause increasing damage in the long run. There are additional chemical means of neutralizing the residue salts, but those additional chemicals also have long-term effects.

Foxing can also be masked temporarily with peroxide, but peroxide damages paper even more quickly than Chlorox. Both methods are essentially those of the ignorant or the crooked. Unfortunately foxing is most frequently caused by a living organism which may or may not continue to grow. In ideal conditions of temperature & humidity for the book, this fungus either ceases to grow or develops at a such a low rate that the chemical solution residues are the more harmful in that chemical residues will hasten rather than person_having_a_hard_time_understanding_my_point the natural break-down of paper but the arrested fungus may remain only a minor speckling of discoloration.

Some tests on these foxing detect no fungus present, so some archivists posit the possibility of multiple causes, leaving an element of "mystery" about the cause & nature of foxing. One thing is fairly standard: foxing occurs best in papers that contain iron impurities or high acidity. Iron is usually introduced into paper during manufacture, from water containing iron, from old papers manufactured with aid of iron machinery & iron beaters. Foxing caused exclusively by iron, & not by fungus, archivists distinguish as "dendritic growth stain" & at its ugliest it is a big fan-shaped discoloration that apparently follows some metalic molecular pattern. Fungal foxing usually requires paper acidity, acidity being the result of bonding agents used from the 1890s through 1980s on cheaper papers, though it's possible the acidity of some foxed books is a by-product of the fungus itself. Both forms of foxing are treated the same way, by washing the paper in an oxidizing agents, which requires submersal in dilute chemical then rinsing.

Talus, a company in New York, sells powdered Chloramine- specifically for use in removing foxing from archival materials, including books. Unfortunately it requires the powder to be dissolved in water & the foxed item to be immersed in the water, then submersed a second time to rinse out the Chlor-T residues. So it treats one signature-leaf at a time, the book having first to be disbound.

State of the art archival preservationists have found that even the Chloramine-T leaves a residue after rinsing, & is harmful over time, but no better option has been proposed. It is restricted to use on items truly worthy of preservation, & which have egregious foxing. All de-foxing chemical bleaches have to be rinsed. A book of considerable age & rarity that is being devoured by fungus, it can be disbound, each separated signature soaked in dilute Chloramine-T, then rinsed to remove residues, & rebound. This is not very useful for entire books of only average value.

There is a very dangerous & impossible to do at home method of removing foxing from books that used Chloramine gas. I've seen reports that this is safe for the book & may be the only method guaranteed not to replace foxing with waterdamage. But the technique requires resources only the aerospace industry could provide. The book has to be laced in a riffled-open position so all the pages can be gassed, & the gas chamber better be air tight. I've never known of this being done by booksellers, & no standard archival resource mentions it as a viable option, though the Univeristy of Washington experimented with it to good results with the assistance of Boeing Aerospace back in the late 1970s -- I've heard nothing about it since.

Some archivists claim (hope rather) calcium hypochlorite leaves less residue even than Chloramine-T soaks, but others have said calcium hypochlorite clings so well to paper it is extremely hard to rinse out & so is not preferable to Chlor-T. Again, it's a submersal technique, hardly practical for books.

One old method is a three-part deal, requiring three hotographic chemical trays. The first tray has potassium permaganate diluted one to 16 parts water. Each page is submersed for a half-minute this solution, then moved to a second tray with sodium meta-bisulphite diluted one to sixteen parts water, again for a half-minute. The third tray should be a "flushing" tray with water running thrugh it continuously. This a rinse, to wash out the killed & loosened foxing, & to remove the chemicals themselves. This elaborate method has pretty much been displaced by Chloramine-T or by calcium hypochlorite which requires only one rather than two distinct baths before rinse.

Sodium borohydride in a 5% solution is also used. The majority of archivists don't seem to use it, but a few claim it does not need to be rinsed, because its residues leave a deposit of alkalinity that might actually benefit the paper.

Exposure one sheet at a time to UV light (artificially generated, or mere sunlight exposure) is the only "safe" bleaching method & even that is not safe for paper containing lignen, which will rapidly oxidize from ultra violet exposure, with darkening effect as lousy as the foxing. It works best with slight moistening of the surface & strong UV radiation. If it's just the random page it might be a tolerable method, otherwise it takes one hell of a long time. The moisture-&-UV method is reportedly the least damaging of all methods (except possibly the unavailable gas-chamber method). The Paper Conservator #21, 1997, has a lengthy article on the method: "Aqueous light bleaching of modern rag paper: an effective tool for stain removal." It is useful for cleaning foxed color plates that have been removed, treated, & reinserted, but doing it to an entire book would not be time effective.

All methods requiring water (dampening, or submersive) risk damage to water soluable inks. Most dyes used in books are color-fast but very old books with color plates sometimes used indigo in the inking mix to achieve purple & blue colorations that will bleed when dampened. Further, rinsing with fresh water (from the tap) risks introducing iron impurities to the paper, damaging over time, so dionized or distilled water is sometimes recommended. High quality papers can sometimes be wetted in a manner that will dry unharmed, but an awful lot of papers will either change their thickness or wrinkle before they dry, & that damage is irreversible. Spot-testing helps in the decision process. By & large it is a trade-off & defoxing is recommended only when the level of foxing is more detrimental.

But I'm afraid any bookseller who claims to have a magic method of foxing removal is likely spraying a mist of dilute Chlorox that damages the cellulose in the paper & does permanent harm, though if he can sell the cleaned-up book quickly enough by making it look momentarily nice & bright, he's probably succeeded at his only real goal. All functional methods apart from UV exposure require submersal so one would expect signs of a book having been disbound & rebound, with some slight evidence of contact with water if not outright overt water damage.

The bottom line is there is no truly reasonable & effective way of defoxing a book, perhaps at most these methods are credible for a single fox-stained illustration plate or a few egregiously fungally-darkened pages that'll look better slightly wrinkled than they look all splotchy. Books stored in temperature controlled rooms (in the 60-67 degrees F range) with no more than 50% humidity will not develop foxing, & foxing that is established will be retarded in further growth. If you live in the Philipines or South Carolina or Dallas where humidity can be 100% then books that have foxing started in them are pretty much doomed & will infect nearby books as well, unless a first-rate dehumidifier is in place. There is perhaps another bottom line, that paper is not so permanent as we would dream, & all we can do is limit the decay of books so they will last a lot longer than our own lifetime, but eventual decay is inescapable. [Paghat]

There's really only one technique which *might* work and at the same time will not damage the book in other ways (e.g., by impregnating corrosive material on the pages). Wait until it is a fine, sunny day. Then take a piece of moist cotton wool or tissue and very gently moisten the page. If residue transfers itself from the page to the tissue at this stage, take a fresh moist tissue and repeat the process until all such residue has been removed. The tissue should brush over the page with feather-lightness; no pressure at all should be applied, or the page will *certainly* wrinkle when dried (it will very likely wrinkle anyway!). Then place the open page in a sunny spot (it doesn't have to be direct sunlight; behind glass works fine) until it has thoroughly dried. Don't leave it there *too* long, or the page may start to fade. 20-30 minutes is probably about right - less if it's very hot. Test the process on a page that doesn't matter too much before touching the title page, etc.

The main things are can go wrong are: (1) As I've already said, the page may wrinkle. Nevertheless, it may look better wrinkled than foxed. And, if you've done it carefully (without stretching the fibres of the paper by applying pressure to it while wet), the wrinkling will be much reduced after the book has been back on the shelf for a few weeks. (2) If you dab at spots of foxing, rather than washing the whole page smoothly, it may dry leaving a watermark stain. (3) It may not work anyway. (4) It may not only not work, but it may leave you with a page which has wrinkles and watermarks in addition to being foxed!!

Finally, when it comes to any advice on this subject from this newsgroup, remember, "Nothing Costs More than Something for Free" (title of a play by Yukio Mishima)! [John Wilson]

I've had some success wth this method and the best thing is "it can't hurt if you're careful". Maybe? Take a slice of white bread and remove the crust. Spread a newspaper to catch the crumbs. Remember white bread is made with bleached flour and is moist. Gently rub the bread on the page in a circular motion and it will soon crumble, ball up, and if you're lucky, start to darken. The light abrasion applied will not harm the paper, the bleach will help whiten and the moist bread will remove some soiling and lighten stains. Don't expect perfection but look for improvement. And - hold the mayo. [sharon Sudderth]"

 

 

 

[Zonker]

Thanks Arty! Great post!

 

By the way...the Wonder Bread solution rides again!

 

Take a slice of white bread and remove the crust. Spread a newspaper to catch the crumbs. Remember white bread is made with bleached flour and is moist. Gently rub the bread on the page in a circular motion and it will soon crumble, ball up, and if you're lucky, start to darken. The light abrasion applied will not harm the paper, the bleach will help whiten and the moist bread will remove some soiling and lighten stains. Don't expect perfection but look for improvement. And - hold the mayo.

[fantastic_four]

Where'd all that come from?

[Zonker]

By the way, Arty's post prompted me to do a belated Google search on "paper foxing." I had somehow assumed this was a comics-only term (like plod, ret-con, 'raw' books), but no, it has a long history in book collecting.

 

See for example

http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/don/dt/dt1434.html

 

And from what I can tell, no one really knows what it is exactly! Seems some important variables are:

 

1) production process (different books have different tendencies towards foxing); and

 

2) storage conditions (RH less than 75% seems to be important to prevent foxing and person_having_a_hard_time_understanding_my_point growth of foxing)

[Arty]

Where'd all that come from?

 

rec.collecting.books FAQ

 

Foxing

 

 

 

[PovertyRow]

An interesting article. I have a few quibbles with it...there are few real details and just makes - well - generally - generalizations. For example, the reference to peroxide. There is no indication of how the peroxide is applied but it is assured that it is more harmful than Clorox (also with no indication of how the Clorox is applied). I have experimented with impregnation of "hydrogen peroxide" (NOT just "peroxide" - an example of what I mean by few real details) via a plaster of paris block that has had hydrogen peroxide applied to it and the resulting evaporating fumes are brought into the paper. The pages are not soaked in peroxide - just the fumes in an enclosed environment. (and PLEASE do not try this at home. These are not specific instructions - just the overall mehtod of hp gaseous impregnation.)

 

Then there is the reference that "Unfortunately foxing is most frequently caused by a living organism which may or may not continue to grow" which also troubles me because if we are actually talking about a specific effect (in this case - foxing) then it should be caused by specific conditions. I am not sure what the resulting "less frequnet" causes of foxing could be. And if it is even foxing.

 

I also tend to get my hackles up with "There's really only one technique which *might* work and at the same time will not damage the book in other ways (e.g., by impregnating corrosive material on the pages). Wait until it is a fine, sunny day. Then take a piece of moist cotton wool or tissue and very gently moisten the page." Moisten it with WHAT? If water, then say so. If DISTILLED water, then specify. (I would vote for distilled).

 

I am not damning you for sharing, Arty. You KNOW (I hope) I think the world of ya! And I also appreciate the post - but mainly because it is an example of what not to follow.

 

If one decides to publish techniques etc, they really do have to be accurate to a tremendously anal degree. And one should not make the assumption that because they are writing to a specialized newsgroup that everyone is on the same page!

 

And again, Arty - I am not slamming you for the post and feel bad having to say something negative about it. I hate myself!

[joe_collector]

If one decides to publish techniques etc, they really do have to be accurate to a tremendously anal degree. And one should not make the assumption that because they are writing to a specialized newsgroup that everyone is on the same page!

 

Hye POV, you get what you pay for, and I really don't think we should be hammering on something you can DL for free. I respect people who take the time to compile anything gratis, and am quite a bit more lenient on some missing details.

[PovertyRow]

If one decides to publish techniques etc, they really do have to be accurate to a tremendously anal degree. And one should not make the assumption that because they are writing to a specialized newsgroup that everyone is on the same page!

 

Hye POV, you get what you pay for, and I really don't think we should be hammering on something you can DL for free. I respect people who take the time to compile anything gratis, and am quite a bit more lenient on some missing details.

 

Hey Joe - *I* am hammering on that post best I can see - don't see any "we" hammering on it. But your desire apparantly, to hammer me made you ignore the implications of what I said. You ignored the fact that someone decided to publish to a usergroup (which implies specialized interest) an at-first-glance quite thorough but, upon close examination, lacking in important detail post. That is fine. I accept I have been strict on your posts but mainly because you are strict in your own posts. You often demands much in others in the face of your opinions, and I, in turn, demand much from you. BUT...The reason I took the approach I did is something that, I hoped, was apparant at least to regular readers here: that I know the readers here may sometimes try something on their own (often I have sugested the same BUT with the caveat they try it on quarter bin books) and hoped that some folk wouldn't rush off to try Clorox or whatever. And if they WERE going to rush off and try something, at least they would, hopefully, experiment first on cheap books and also have the proper tools and procedures at hand.

 

If you look back at my restoration posts you will see what may appear, at times, ridiculous amounts of detail. Why? Because someone is going to actually TRY something and I'll be damned before my words are going to lead someone down a path that will damage their books.

 

That is why I am so taxing on this topic. Had you really understood what I was saying and hoping to convey, maybe your dislike of me would have been superceded by your concern for accurate and detailed processes that could be applied to cherished possesions.

 

 

 

[joe_collector]

I agree with what you are saying, but re-read your comments and see Hyper-Anal Man come into action.

[PovertyRow]

I agree with what you are saying, but re-read your comments and see Hyper-Anal Man come into action.

 

I disagree - I am not Hyper-Anal Man. When I see things that may lead others down the less than primrose path I am Super-Duper-Hyper-Extremo-Anal Man. The reality is, once you START a reaction trying resto, it is usually impossible to STOP said reaction. We are talking about real people and real books - not just theory. And in that context, I will look as stupid or as anal-retentive as need be to insure that anything I recommend is really understood fully. And will do the same for other recommendations I question in my own mind.

 

Now I am NOT a pro restorer and have never clamed to be. But I have an advantage in these forums. I am a collector who put in literally thousands of hours "playing" with restoration, and spending a small bit of time in a restorer's lab, and seeing some truly horrendous results frm my experiemnts (thank god on those cheap bin books). And as a collector I have felt and can understand the desire to fix what appears, on the surface (pardon the pun) a seemingly simple problem. But as a rabid and anal experimenter, I have also realized that Nathaniel Hawthore's last words in Rapuccini's Daughter, "is THIS the upshot of your experiment?" are most apt.

 

PS - Rapuccini's Daughter died - sorry for the spoiler but it is well over 100 years old so "nyah nyah" to spoiler naysayers!

[fantastic_four]

Virtually EVERY user who regularly posts in these forums--particularly this grading/restoration one--is "hyper-anal" in our desire for high grade comics as compared to the mainstream comic collector. You're not being anal, you're delving deep into an esoteric topic that required further clarification. And you're not doing it primarly because you want to bolster your own ego or destroy somebody else's, you're doing it most to advance everyone's understanding.

 

I'm pretty sure you didn't need somebody else telling you that, but I thought I'd point it out nonetheless.

[joe_collector]

I'm pretty sure you didn't need somebody else telling you that, but I thought I'd point it out nonetheless.

 

Hey, you're entitled to your opinion, but I've had enough of this backseat driving on the Net, where some guy takes the time to post something of interest, and leaves out a few details, and is then belittled by others who have produced nada for public consumption.

 

If you want to talk the talk, then start walking the walk, and do your own Expert Guide (it's not a $100 million movie we're talking about, just a bunch of text) and open yourself up to the same level of criticism and belittlement. Otherwise, it's the just the usual hot-air, Net-antagonism we see each and every day.

[PovertyRow]

I'm pretty sure you didn't need somebody else telling you that, but I thought I'd point it out nonetheless.

 

Hey, you're entitled to your opinion, but I've had enough of this backseat driving on the Net, where some guy takes the time to post something of interest, and leaves out a few details, and is then belittled by others who have produced nada for public consumption.

 

If you want to talk the talk, then start walking the walk, and do your own Expert Guide (it's not a $100 million movie we're talking about, just a bunch of text) and open yourself up to the same level of criticism and belittlement. Otherwise, it's the just the usual hot-air, Net-antagonism we see each and every day.

 

Well, I thought this place WAS a public internet forum. And I thought that I HAD put myself up for criticism and belittlement in all of the resto threads I have contributed in detail to. And I also have made similar contributions to the MOPO (Movie Poster) collector's group/newsgroup (also a public internet forum ) on various paper restoration techniques.

 

So I have to assume you are talking about someone who has never put their opinions, ideas and findings out there on the internet for anyone who cares to see them, well, to see them.

[joe_collector]

And I also have made similar contributions to the MOPO (Movie Poster) collector's group/newsgroup (also a public internet forum ) on various paper restoration techniques.

 

Gimme a link to the FAQ you created and I'll humbly apologize.

[PovertyRow]

And I also have made similar contributions to the MOPO (Movie Poster) collector's group/newsgroup (also a public internet forum ) on various paper restoration techniques.

 

Gimme a link to the FAQ you created and I'll humbly apologize.

 

A FAQ I created? A FAQ is your qualification for validity on the internet? OK - this is some of what I have posted about restoration takenh from How To Spot Restoration. I have posted a lot more in other threads as relevant. Is this FAQ-like enough for you?

 

*** Post ***

Black light - yep - but do it in as dark a room as you can and edge the book towards the black light source and very slowly rotate it.

 

2) Trimmed. If you press the book flat on a hard smooth surface and look along the edge, if the edges are all even the book HAS been trimmed. If you still think the book is trimmed after it passes this test then open the book up to the centerfol. Try very gently pressing it flat and see if there are signs of cutting (lighter edge colors, slight roughness, differences in overall color)

 

3) Get a good ground glass loupe. Examine the staple area. See if the depressions match the staples. See if slightly darker (aka metallic) stains match where the staples are now. Then ignore the impressions on the inside pages and look to where the stapels are embedded in the book. Be sure they align with the depressions on the TOP pages.

 

4) Take special care with the centerfold. Examine it carefully for replacement or reinforcement. Slight areas that have different reflectivity can indicate archival tape or japan paper.

 

5) Check for any color from the cover that has bled into the pages below or the back of the cover. Thi8s can indicate magic marker ::shudder:: desecration.

 

6) Examine the inside back and front covers for a green ink transfer stain. If it appears mottled it has proabbly been subject to removal but has proved too extensive for total removal. If you find this is the case, re-examine the staples VERY carefully as ink transfer removal generally means dismantling.

 

7) FEEL the surface of the book. Should it have a gloss cover? If so does it feel slightly slick or dioes it feel slightly rough? If rough again angle it to a light and see if it appears matted. That could be age or it could be a wet wash.

 

8) Then examine the inside cover. If it seems unnaturally white with a slightly rough "tooth" to it, It may have been "float rinsed".

 

9) Examine the corners and and the staple areas for a slight dulling or difference in reflectivity. This can again indicate archival tape or japan paper as in step 4 above.

 

10) Check for white paper areas that are whiter than the immedate areas. That could be leaf forming.

 

11) Try to get either the same book or a book an issue or two above and below. Check the height of the book. If the book you are looking at is unnaturally thcik, it could have been subject to methyl cellulose vacuum impregnation probably followed by a freeze-dry process (unprobable in all but the pricier books as the costy of this equipment is slightly prohibitive).

 

*** Post ***

What does a tear seal look like? feel like? Is there an obvious way to tell? What about cleaning? Spine unrolling?

 

A tear seal. There are four main techniques used.

 

The first (no particular order) is to use glue( preferably archival glue with a neutral PH but no way to tell except to trust in the restorer). Use a silicon release film (aka dry mount release) - it holds up to dry mounting heat and will factor into the spine roll removal below. It is like thick, stiff saran wrap. Place some of the glue on a surface - a paper plate - whatever. You only need a bit. Take a toothpick. Dip it in the glue. Swirl it around the edge of the paper plate (or whatever you put the glue on). Place a small square of the silicon release film under the area you are going to seal. Then carefully lift a torn edge towards you. With the tip of the toothpick, drag the glue along the very edge of the tear. I mean literally only the edge should have a tiny bead of glue. (lots of practice on pieces of paper to get it right). Then hold the two edges of the tear together. It is ok to let them touch the release film - glue won’t stick to it. After a minute or two the seal is done. This type of seal is easily identified as a slightly greyish line along the edge of the tear. The line is usually a slightly twisty line that follows the angles of the tear.

 

The second - the most acceptable amateur restoration - is to use real archival "tear repair tape" - you can get it in most art supply stores, and just add as small a piece as you can to the tear. Just like using a piece of scotch tape to tape paper together. This is easily detected by a dulling on the side where the paper has been taped and the back side displaying no dulling. (The tape is quite transparent but does not reflect light the same as the plain paper does.)

 

The third is using Japan Paper and methyl-cellulose or wheat/rice paste. The pastes are basically water soluble fine powders that, when mixed with water, act almost like wallpaper paste. Methyl cellulose is almost "powdered paper" that is also water soluble. Thi8s is applied much like the archival tape. But the Japan paper can be a LOT finer (thinner) than the tape. It can be a bit hard to detect but look for a slightly dull "sheen" that reflects light differently than the rest of the surface.

 

The fourth is "heat seal" paper. This is very fine Japan paper that is coated on one side with a heat-meltable adhesive (always neutral ph). A "heat iron" - basically a plastic handle that stays cool with a few inches of very smooth metal rod (tapering almost to a point) that gets hot when you plug it in. You can place the heat-seal paper on the tear and gently glide the heat iron over it to seal it. Again, depending on the quality, it can be hard to detect but look for that slightly dull "sheen" that reflects light differently than the rest of the surface.

 

Cleaning can be VERY difficult to detect. It is usually performed on the cover since the cover is primarily used to determine grade. There is dry cleaning and wet cleaning. Both require very carefully removing the staples and separating the cover from the book. Wet cleaning entails immersing the cover in a suitable bath. Then placing it between sheets of acid-free blotter paper (you can buy acid-free "sketch books" from most art stores - a tip - you can also get alkaline buffered ones that that neutralize airborne acids - they make excellent buffer sheets when framing paper- things like movie posters or lobby cards). Anyway, after the cover is blotted relatively dry - just damp, it is placed between another sheet of acid free paper on the bottom and a sheet of release film on the top (so the heat from the dry mount press does not cause anything to stick). Use lowish - 200 or so degrees - for maybe 15-30 seconds. The cover will be pressed flat, be dry with no dimensional changes, and ready to re-assemble.

 

Spine roll removal. Not difficult but takes real care. Dismantle the book. Get several sheets of acid free paper and "spritz" them with a plant sprayer or similar thing using distleed water. They should be just damp. Take the interior pages and layer them - damp paper - page - damp paper - page etc. This basically "humidifies" the pages. Then press each page in a dry mount press under low temp with an acid free paper on the bottom and silicon release on the top. This will make the pages flat and remove the spine roll areas. Do this for every page. Take the centerfold. VERY carefully fold it in half (do NOT apply pressure to the center folded edge yet). Align the top, bottom and edges top be sure they are square and then very gently slide along where the fold should be. Repeat for the rest of the pages. Do not make a real impression in the edge. You just want to :"gauge" where the fold should be. The start with the centerfold and add a page. Gently slide along the edge to begin to establish the correct fold. Repeat for the rest of the pages. Then take the "sandwiched" pages and press them - paper below - release above. Next take the cover and do the same thing. Gently align and then make a mild fold along the edge. Then press. Then start adding pages to the cover and finally press the whole book. Last thing is to add back the staples.

 

This can be very difficult to detect depending upon the degree of spine roll. One thing to look for is a slight dulling of the cover. This can be caused from the "hydration" process of placing the cover between slightly dampened sheets of archival paper. This can remove a bit of the gloss. Also, look to the interior pages for a line - not really a "line" but an "area maybe 1/4 - 1/2 inch or so in width - maybe wider for a bad spine roll - but look for a "width" running along the edge of the spine that has a slightly "maneuvered" look. I cannot put it better than that. It is actually an area that reflects light differently because it contains paper that HAS been maneuvered. The bulk of the pages remain intact - it is only the areas that have been rolled then unrolled that display this discrepancy.

 

Feel free to ask for more details. It is a most fascinating topic.

 

*** A Post ***

Basically Dry Cleaning is using an eraser type material to remove things like light soiling, pencil etc. The best way to accomplish dry cleaning is to pick up a template at an art supply store. This template is a thin piece of aluminum with various shapes cut into it. Long thin rectangles, cirlces, etc. Costs a buck or two. Then get a white eraser like a Mars white plastic or similar. You can slice these to very fine thicknesses for use. (see below)

 

First off you do not wnat to use an eraser to just earse an entire cover. You WILl remove ink. The template with the shapes cut out are ideal for cleaning up the white etxt on a cover. Simply align a properly proportioned cut-out from your aluminum template on top of the white lettering. Slice off a price or eraser to fit. Erase. Make sure the edge of the template does not go over an inked area. You may have to slide it along the lettering to get it all. And this can be a very laborious process.

 

Also, you ca get a "cleaning pad" - which contains basically very finely granulated white eraser substance in a small "pillow" shaped pad about 3 x 5 inches. You raise the pad above the cover and gently squeeze some of the granules onto the cover. Then very gently move the pad in a circular motion, often stopping and lifting to see if ink is being lifted.

 

these techniques can remove general dirt from the white areas. The cover is definetly "picked up" because the whites "pop" more than they did, creating added contrast.

 

You can usually tell this from a slight "smoothing" of the paper. If you are not sure what that means buy a very low grade book from the same poeriod and preferably publisher and erase as above. You will soon get a feel for what it looks like.

 

**A Post **

Cover Only Trim

You need magnification and good lighting at different angles to detect a cover edge trim. You want to examine the color of the exposed edge and compare it to that of the other edges. You want to examine the cut itself, determine the angle of the cut and if there are angle fluctuations (here I am talking about the edge of the comic itself - so I am talking minute fluctuations over a paper-thin edge. NOT the wangle at which the entire cover was cut.) Check for signs of the type of cutter used: guillotine, paper cutter, razor and straightedge. A guillotine cutter gives the best edge of the three, very straight and true. If the edge is getting worn - well - you know about Marvel Chipping. A regular paper cutter may show dimpling or waviness along the cut, especially if the paper was not held down really hard and flat and the blade was not tightly pressed into the edge. A razor/straighedge can make for very irregular angles on the edge itself due to the razot being held in the hand and the angle of the hand changing. However, a razor in a holder, like a matte cutter, can make for very clean and even cuts. Examine the ink at the very edge and see how the dots are broken. Are they cleanly sliced or is there a bif or pulling or scraping? Then compare to the other edges. If all the edges look the same check for signs of the cover being removed, concentrating on the staples and the staple holes and impressions.

 

**A Post**

::What IS Gloss?::

The glossiness of paper comes from a couple of things: the amount of "calendering" paper has gone through (basically a process that can smooth out the surface and bring out a sheen) and the "hardness" of the paper - in paper manufacture, clay minerals (mainly kaolinite) are in the mix and make for a paper that can take a very smooth glossy finish. One way to think of it is stones. A soft stone like Calcite (Mohs 3) will never take a brilliant polish the way the much harder star ruby (Mohs 9) will.

 

Now some paper come through with a gloss added in manufacture, and some of the real slick modern books may be of such ilk. But overall, calendering and clay minerals are what is responsible for that glossy coating. It is inherent to the paper itself and cannot be recreated with a spray.

 

::Advisability Of Re-Glossing::

Anything that completly coats the surface of a cover may well be considered irreversible, unless it is dissolvable by certain 100% evaporating no-residue solvents like Naptha. However, that requires that the substance that created the fake gloss did no damage to the paper. And it can take some time (sometimes a few years) for the damage to appear. I understand restoration, firmly believe it is an important and necessary aspect of maintaing the longevity of the comics that really need it (a color touch is NOT what I am talking about! ) but I consdier reglossing a more drastic restoration step than a piece (or even several pieces) replacement. A more benign gloss is a methyl cellulose solution, but it really doesn't recreate that gloss we are used to in the 50's and later books. And while it does no real harm to ther paper it would require a water wash to remove it, which brings the cover into a whole new realm of restoration.

 

 

 

[joe_collector]

A FAQ I created? A FAQ is your qualification for validity on the internet?

 

Nope, as long as it's a permanent link to a document you created, it could be a FAQ, a webpage, an online article, etc. As long as it's not just some online post or forum comment.

 

It has nothing to do with validity, and far more with putting your name on something that can be easily referenced.

[PovertyRow]

A FAQ I created? A FAQ is your qualification for validity on the internet?

 

Nope, as long as it's a permanent link to a document you created, it could be a FAQ, a webpage, an online article, etc. As long as it's not just some online post or forum comment.

 

It has nothing to do with validity, and far more with putting your name on something that can be easily referenced.

 

Just For You

 

And with this five minute act all of my practice, sharing etc is suddenly valid whereas before, it meant nothing becuase this place itself is not justification. Or have I misconstrued "As long as it's not just some online post or forum comment." to be a rousing endorsement of this place?

 

edted to remove word "validity"