Smudging :: A method of cloaking CT?

[comicwiz]

You said you brought your resto light with you - I assume a "black light"?

 

I used a portable black light lamp that was discussed in this thread .

 

Smudges in white light is one thing but if you didn;t see any CT under black light - or under magnification under white light - well - sounds like it may have just been fingerprint smudging.

 

POV, I can appreciate your advice on resto like anyone else on this board, but it seems like your using circular logic to respond to my inquiry.

 

My point is that because some smudges were so heavy on the book, it was impossible to see what was underneath. Keep in mind that I use the lamp to put to rest suspicions -- I don't check everything I look at. My suspicion was that these smudges were not an accident, and I wanted to see if I could pick anything up with the black light in a dark room. Unfortunately, it didn't help because the smudges were not showing me what was underneath. I didn't have the option of doing a 1600 dpi scan to look at the book under any degree of magnification other than my 3x magnifying glass, but even then, I couldn't see anything but smudging. No cover colours were apparent due to the heavy smudging along the spine.

 

Again, my suspicion stemmed purely from the fact that a structurally sound copy of some tough books to find, ranging from F-VF grade, and the owner wouldn't have thought to wash his hands before handling the books? I know -- that same concern for washing his hands would have also informed him to put the books in a bag and board instead of wrapping them in newspaper. Still, I could not help but think that there was something, just not right about the smudges being there.

 

The other point; if the smudges were hiding something -- mainly CT -- would a good restoration expert be able to detect CT that may be covered by a smudge? That question has not yet been answered. I don't know enough about naptha, but if it is a chemical agent, OR it is a form of chemical/dry cleaning, then I'm certain that this is not a solution that a restoration detection outfit like CGC would use, because in doing so, they would be moving beyond detection, and into removal of foriegn agents (smudging) on a cover.

[mrwoogieman]

the VM&P is a solvent. The pros will take a cover off a book and soak it in this stuff. It takes all sorts of ugly color transfer off of the cover but does not harm the book b/c of 100% evaporation. Does not leave any stains that I can see, but if you soak the interior pages there definitely is a chemical smell that needs to be taken care of.

 

My own experiences, I've used a cotton swab to apply it directly to color transfers and other smudges on covers without removing the covers from the books. It takes the color transfer off without affecting the cover colors at all. I've also used it to take off tape and old stickers, with these though you need to soak the paper with it to loosen up the old glue.

 

If you're going to give it a try, you can find this stuff in a good hardware store. Make sure you're in a well-ventilated area and make sure you try it out on some cheap books/back covers first! Good luck.

[comicwiz]

It takes the color transfer off without affecting the cover colors at all.

 

In a situation where there are blotches/smudges (small areas on the cover), will using a solvent like VM&P cause discoloration differences? Will you see any fading in the areas where the solvent has been applied? I ask this only because of your final comment:

 

...make sure you try it out on some cheap books/back covers first!

[fantastic_four]

My point is that because some smudges were so heavy on the book, it was impossible to see what was underneath.

 

You seem to be thinking of the smudges as a top layer that is resting above whatever was on the comic prior to the smudging, but my understanding of a smudge is that it is a redistribution of the gloss, ink, or whatever else was there prior to the smudge, such as possibly color touch. It seems to me that unless the smudge was EXCEPTIONALLY smudgy--so much so that the ink was difficult to see--that at least some of the color touch would still not rest below the ink, gloss, or the material which caused the smudge (finger oil, I presume) and would show through at least in part. If you black-lighted a large number of smudges and found no CT, it sounds to me like the odds of there having been a color touch is rather low.

 

Did you ask the owner questions about how he obtained the books? If the smudged books were all obtained from the same source, then perhaps the original owner enjoyed eating sandwiches while he read his comics! If the smudged books were obtained from different sources, then unless the current owner likes to eat sandwiches while he reads his comics, then it's slightly more suspicious.

[rob_react]

It takes the color transfer off without affecting the cover colors at all.

 

In a situation where there are blotches/smudges (small areas on the cover), will using a solvent like VM&P cause discoloration differences? Will you see any fading in the areas where the solvent has been applied? I ask this only because of your final comment:

 

...make sure you try it out on some cheap books/back covers first!

 

In general you want to practice first on cheap books before trying any restorative technique on any book of value. I assume that's what that final comment was in reference to.

[comicwiz]

Did you ask the owner questions about how he obtained the books? If the smudged books were all obtained from the same source, then perhaps the original owner enjoyed eating sandwiches while he read his comics!

 

The guy collected newspapers, and cartoons from all sorts of early newspapers (saw a bunch of early B&W superman dailies). He had a room filled with newspapers, hung in the same fashion as you would see in a library (wooden shaft in the middle, with the paper being hung up from the bind). I did ask him where the books came from, and he said he bought them from different sources, and that most of the books were purchased many years back. Judging from his age (I'd guess about 67), he must have had these books in his possession for at least 25-30 years minimum. I tried to get a sense of dating also from the newspaper he was wrapping the comics with, but then he explained how he replaces them every once in a while. The newspaper sheet wrapping the Action 13 was from 1978!

 

The smudges were obviously transfered from newpaper handling. They ranged from a charcoal grey to light grey in colour. On the covers, its was IMPOSSIBLE to see the original cover inks that the smudges were covering, in plain light or using a black light.

[rob_react]

Also, to the topic at large, my first question is... who cares if the ugly, distracting smudges are covering up an area of color touch? I would think that as soon as a big, ugly smudge was on an area that would make any area of CT underneath irrelevant.

 

Without being able to test it, I'm betting that unless the area were TOTALLY obscured you could still spot certain amateur CT (especially if it bleeds obviously) or pro CT like acrylic pretty easily. Colored pencil, I imagine would be impossible to detect if it were still there, but the act of smudging would probably blow that away anyway...

 

[comicwiz]

Also, to the topic at large, my first question is... who cares if the ugly, distracting smudges are covering up an area of color touch? I would think that as soon as a big, ugly smudge was on an area that would make any area of CT underneath irrelevant.

 

Not if you feel comfortable with removing smudges, but then discover they were hiding CT. I've heard of using dry erasure methods with cleaning pads, but I wouldn't want to discover after buying the books, and removing the smudges, that the cover was CT'd. Removing smudges -- I can live with. But removing restoration or colour touch... not for me.

 

Colored pencil, I imagine would be impossible to detect if it were still there, but the act of smudging would probably blow that away anyway...

 

Exactly my thinking...

[mrwoogieman]

Yeah, I was just advising that you practice on your cheap books first until you get the hang of how much to use, soaking time, etc. I've tried it on several different color covers and have never seen it fade or otherwise compromise the existing colors, and no staining or other discoloration is present after it evaporates. I've also used it on cardstock covers and interior pages as well. I think it would work well taking newsprint smudges off; I'll smudge up a book tonight and give you a report.

[mrwoogieman]

One thing I should add is that I haven't yet sent in a comic to CGC that I've used the VM&P on so I can't say for certain it won't come back restored. Maybe someone else has first-hand knowledge?

[comicwiz]

I think it would work well taking newsprint smudges off; I'll smudge up a book tonight and give you a report.

 

Thanks mrwoogieman

[fantastic_four]

E-mail Matt Nelson a scan of one or more of the books and ask him if he can remove the smudges without leaving any chemical residue. Tracey Heft and Susan Cicconi could remove them also, but I find Matt is better in tune with the recent wave of very slight restorative techniques where there is nothing detectable which remains on the book after the work is done, but if you specifically instruct Tracey or Susan as to what you want done, I have no doubts at all that they would do it. If the restorer you choose thinks he or she can remove the fingerprints with no residue, then send them a few books and also get them to look them over for restoration; he offers restoration detection fairly cheaply if my memory serves.

 

You could try removing the smudges yourself, but if you don't have experience with Naptha, you could screw up the book, [!@#%^&^] off the owner, ruin the deal, and probably be forced to buy the book you screw up.

 

Any way this goes, if the price he wants is low enough to make it worth your while, you're going to have to ask him to do SOMETHING to a sampling of the books to put your mind at ease and tell him you'll buy the rest if the sampling turns out OK. This sounds like a great learning experience for you! I wish I was in this situation...the experience with restoration and protecting yourself from it you'll gain will prove valuable if you keep buying books like this for a long while to come.

[comicwiz]

One thing I should add is that I haven't yet sent in a comic to CGC that I've used the VM&P on so I can't say for certain it won't come back restored. Maybe someone else has first-hand knowledge?

 

I've actually used the cleaning pad on several copies of underground comics; 1 got submitted and came back blue label. The only problem with the cleaning pads is if you have cover defects like creases and tears to work around. There are also some very stubborn stains that you need to really dig into -- not for the faint of heart, and definitely not something you want to do on a premium book without some experience. Another thing; if you dig in too deep, you will remove cover inks! As well, depending on the severity of the stains, you can sometimes notice a negligable difference in cover inks, and some slight fading in the areas where dry erasure was used. To be honest, I am quite stunned that the VM&P doesn't cause fading -- considering that it sounds like it works so well. I too would like to hear some testimonials -- if any -- of people who have used it and got away with not getting the PLOD.

[comicwiz]

You could try removing the smudges yourself, but if you don't have experience with Naptha, you could screw up the book, [!@#%^&^] off the owner, ruin the deal, and probably be forced to buy the book you screw up.

 

Any way this goes, if the price he wants is low enough to make it worth your while, you're going to have to ask him to do SOMETHING to a sampling of the books to put your mind at ease and tell him you'll buy the rest if the sampling turns out OK. This sounds like a great learning experience for you! I wish I was in this situation...the experience with restoration and protecting yourself from it you'll gain will prove valuable if you keep buying books like this for a long while to come.

 

I know the idea wouldn't fly with him; but my inital thought was to visit him again and bring a cleaning pad, my scanner and notebook, and work on one smudge and go from there. I feel comfortable enough with dry erasure using a cleaning pad, but I've never faced smudges that severe. Unfortunately, I don't have the convenience of driving over the book to Matt, otherwise I'd probably give that idea a go. I guess if no one else offers up any advice, I may just pass on the idea altogether. A shame though because those books were whispering sweet song in my ear....

[mrwoogieman]

okay, the naphtha does not work on newsprint smudges. I defaced my highly coveted Sectaurs #1 in the process. So, maybe he IS a crafty old [!@#%^&^]......

[PovertyRow]

POV, I can appreciate your advice on resto like anyone else on this board, but it seems like your using circular logic to respond to my inquiry.

 

Com - I wasnl;t using any logic to reposnd to your inquiry - I was just trying to understand exactly what you were saying. You left out some details you added in your reply so will read and consider and respond to them!

 

My point is that because some smudges were so heavy on the book, it was impossible to see what was underneath. Keep in mind that I use the lamp to put to rest suspicions -- I don't check everything I look at. My suspicion was that these smudges were not an accident, and I wanted to see if I could pick anything up with the black light in a dark room. Unfortunately, it didn't help because the smudges were not showing me what was underneath.

 

OK - that is something not previously revealed to that extent. But considering the smudges. I have to wonder what they were made of? The nice thing about black light when used properly (and it sounds like you know how to use it properly) is that it differentiates between materials - that is - between the inherent inks and things like various paints etc. So I had to wonder what the smudges were composed of to not show any distinction under the black light.

 

The other point; if the smudges were hiding something -- mainly CT -- would a good restoration expert be able to detect CT that may be covered by a smudge?

OK - am not trying to do tit for tat but that almost sounds circular. What I mean is, what substance would make a convincing fingerprint smudge that would not be revealed by the black light? Now I confess to not being the world expert on black light. My experimenting has focussed on the typical paints, inks etc that are used in CT. So I am genuinely flummoxed by something that is deep enough to cover CT but not be revealed by the BL.

 

I didn't have the option of doing a 1600 dpi scan to look at the book under any degree of magnification other than my 3x magnifying glass, but even then, I couldn't see anything but smudging. No cover colours were apparent due to the heavy smudging along the spine.

 

OK - I use a range of magnifiers up to 25x. 3x is ok but you should invest in at least a 10x loupe - will only be about $25 or so. And believe me, you will get much use from it. Also the smudging - I am curious - was it black smudging? Did you lightly run a (clean dry ) finger over it to see if any residue was transferred to your finger? Again, am intirqued by this.

 

I don't know enough about naptha, but if it is a chemical agent

I have used VMP (Varnish Makers and Paint) Naptha for one thing only, and have espoused its use for one thing only - a cover soak to remove that yellow/green transfer stain (used to be called "ink transfer stain" back in the 80's but now it seems to just be "transfer stain") from the inside covers of a book. VMP Naptha evaporates essentially 100% and leaves no odor or residue behind. If applied properly, it s not detectable.

 

Am genuinely interested in hearing more about this. It is one of the frustrating things - trying to use words to describe something like this.

 

 

 

 

 

[Aman619]

Yknow Ive been reading this and scratching my head...but I think Ive finally got it (unless you already stated this): when you handle newpapers a lot, you get the ink on you fingers. So as he pulled apart the papers separating a few sheets at a time for each comic, he got all smudged up. And handles each comic with his smudgey fingers and voila!

 

I still cant get a sense of how opaque the smudges were without actually seeing them...so if he had sweaty palms or was eating something greasy, his fingers would have picked up (and transferred) even more smudges to the comics.

 

Either way, in todays CGC graded frame of mind, beautiful comics with tragic flaws like these arent looked upon very kindly...you were right to walk away. And I dont get the sense that there was any foul play color touch wise involved. But - - -I wasnt there was I?

[comicwiz]

Thanks Pov; I really do appreciate your contributions to this thread.

 

OK - that is something not previously revealed to that extent. But considering the smudges. I have to wonder what they were made of?

 

My best assumption is that the smudges were transferred by the owners hands, after handling his newspapers (the guy had a room filled with old newspapers and periodicals). Not having a lavatory nearby (I asked to use it and had to go upstairs), he probably didn't wash his hands after handling newspapers, and transferred the smudges that way. As I mentioned, after flipping through the comics, and unwrapping three of four of them, I noticed when I walked into the car that my fingers were all dirty.

 

So I had to wonder what the smudges were composed of to not show any distinction under the black light.

 

I would have to imagine combination of newspaper inks and residue from it that has broken down over the years.

 

Also the smudging - I am curious - was it black smudging?

 

The smudges ranged from a deep charcoal grey colour (along the spine) to light grey in colour (outer edges), as evidenced in the scan of the Action 13 I included in this thread.

 

Did you lightly run a (clean dry ) finger over it to see if any residue was transferred to your finger? Again, am intirqued by this.

 

I must confess, I didn't really want to try touching the smudged areas; I handled the books with a hankerchief in each hand. If I were a betting man (which I am clearly not), I would say that those smudges had been transferred onto the cover a long time ago, and were a part of it. I doubt that they would transfer any residue, and if so, it would be very minimal -- the only proof I have of this is that my hankerchiefs were clean as a whistle. The smudges appeared to be "impressed" onto the cover.

[comicwiz]

Yknow Ive been reading this and scratching my head...but I think Ive finally got it (unless you already stated this): when you handle newpapers a lot, you get the ink on you fingers. So as he pulled apart the papers separating a few sheets at a time for each comic, he got all smudged up. And handles each comic with his smudgey fingers and voila!

 

Exactly.

 

I still cant get a sense of how opaque the smudges were without actually seeing them...so if he had sweaty palms or was eating something greasy, his fingers would have picked up (and transferred) even more smudges to the comics.

 

Its actually pretty easy to dirty up fingers with newsprint -- one of the main reasons why I choose to read the news online now.

 

Either way, in todays CGC graded frame of mind, beautiful comics with tragic flaws like these arent looked upon very kindly...you were right to walk away. And I dont get the sense that there was any foul play color touch wise involved. But - - -I wasnt there was I?

 

I've decided to pass on the books altogether, and I'm glad I did. I know some basic conservation methods, but the smudges on these books were excessive, and I just don't know if I'd be willing to buy them, attempt to clean up the smudges, only to discover they were hiding another major defect.