Do You Feel The Church Books Being Stored in Stacks

[EastEnd]

are "pressed" in the way we use the term "pressing" in the various "pressing threads"?

 

No comparison. The Church books didn't have defects to begin with. All the stacking did was preserve the original state.

 

Agree 100 (thumbs u %.

 

So you guys think that 18,000 comics were purchased over a 10+ year period, never stored in bags, boards, or mylar, and none of them had defects that could be improved by pressing(or long-term stacking)? Take a look at Chuck's original list. They're not all NM, NM/MT, or MT. And Chuck isn't exactly known for being a conservative grader.

 

The older ones were in fact nicer, with the exception of some of the very earliest copies. So, maybe some of them did benefit from the added weight. Who will know? The storage conditions were IDEAL, that is why they are so nice.

 

What the heck is the point of this idiotic dicussion anyway? Are we saying we think all the Church books were pressed/restored? Lunacy,

 

I grow fatigued at the limits that the pro-pressing crowd will go to find the most far fetched analogies they can to try and prove that what a professional restoration expert does with his heat, moisture, and extreme pressure using a mechanical contrivance that has been proven to flatten and improve grades on comic books.....is not restoration.

 

Good heavens folks. Can we not all see how pathetic that is?

 

just stop it. Please

 

Amen brother.

[PovertyRow]

are "pressed" in the way we use the term "pressing" in the various "pressing threads"?

 

No comparison. The Church books didn't have defects to begin with. All the stacking did was preserve the original state.

 

Agree 100 (thumbs u %.

 

So no defects were removed. The Church books were still in essence pressed. And if you remove intent.. how then does one draw the line when trying to define exactly what was pressed, and what was not?

 

 

Ze-

 

Ahh Kenny - those kids at school they teased you Kenny, though they've never tasted hell. Tonight we turn the tables!

 

You touched on the soul of my post here. My question was - and I quote - "Do You Feel The Church Books Being Stored in Stacks are "pressed" in the way we use the term "pressing" in the various "pressing threads"?"

 

Was pressure applied due to the stack? Of course. Just as pressure is applied in a tightly packed comic box. The appetizer question is: "If there is nothing to press out, does it matter?" Does it make a difference? The meat of the question is "Would not this kind of storage be considered true conservation?" Assume the books were indeed, overall, free of things like creases, waves, spine rolls etc. From what I know Edgar Church got the books, went through them once or twice then stored them in those stacks. So minimal damage to begin with.

 

One of the key things I rarely see mentioned is the weight of the stacks helped reduce the amount of air hitting the books, maintaining the white pages. This combined with excellent temperature/humidity.

 

So the question is really, to my mind: what is more important? The fact that a book without folds, bends etc has been subject to pressure thereby maintaining its original condition OR the fact that a book has been subject to pressing in order to remove such existing defects?

 

To my mind the first scenario is an ideal form of conservation. The second scenario is simply restoration.

 

Such is Codger Man.

 

[Ze-man]

 

To my mind the first scenario is an ideal form of conservation. The second scenario is simply restoration.

 

Such is Codger Man.

 

So if both books are put under weight(stacking or pressing) how is one conservation, and the other resto?(aside from long term storage to preserve a book over the years) Temperature? Results of actually removing a given flaw? On what level is a flaw lessened and is ok and when is it not?

 

What if both books had no visible flaws to start with but still benefited aesthetically from either procedure , even if only on a minor level.

 

I am of course being devils advocate, but so were you when you made your initial post. All leading us towards intent to remove a flaw versus having it possibly happen over time.. perhaps without intent.

 

Ze-

 

[PovertyRow]

 

To my mind the first scenario is an ideal form of conservation. The second scenario is simply restoration.

 

Such is Codger Man.

 

So if both books are put under weight(stacking or pressing) how is one conservation, and the other resto?(aside from long term storage to preserve a book over the years) Temperature? Results of actually removing a given flaw? On what level is it ok and when is it not?

 

What if both books had no visible flaws to start with but still benefited aesthetically from either procedure , even if only on a minor level.

 

I am of course being devils advocate, but so were you when you made your initial post. All leading us towards intent to remove a flaw versus having it possibly happen over time.. perhaps without intent.

 

Ze-

 

Jeeze let me REANSWER since you - well - you know - dang the work I have to do and so few years left to live!

 

The key here: "A book without folds bends etc" and the major key idea "maintaining its original condition" vs "that a book has been subject to pressing in order to remove such existing defects". That is how one is conservation and the other restoration.

 

To retain original condition vs to remove accumulated defects to revert to an appearance of original condition. I see a tremendous difference. On THAT level it is to my mind OK to subject a book to a stack or to pressure in order to PRESERVE the original condition.

 

Now you asked:

"What if both books had no visible flaws to start with but still benefited aesthetically from either procedure , even if only on a minor level."

 

Frankly I am kind of surprised you would ask this. it is so theoretical and honestly, unlikely. But to give benefit of the doubt, what kind of non-flaws did you have in mind?

 

BTW - I was not and am not playing "Devil's Advocate". I have expressed a few times here that there is a tremendous difference between sotrage conditions that prevent defects from accumulating (including pressure like a stack) vs removing accumulated defetcs that could be addressed by pressing. I simply see the storage to prevent as ideal conservation and the pressing to revert as restoration. No Devil's Advocate here. Just wanted a separate thread to address this specifc concept, of which the Church books are an ideal candidate.

[PovertyRow]

are "pressed" in the way we use the term "pressing" in the various "pressing threads"?

 

No comparison. The Church books didn't have defects to begin with. All the stacking did was preserve the original state. You'd need a stack all the way to the moon to achieve pressing of the sort that is done mechanically and with heat.

 

This is the kind of thing that warps my poor brain. The first half of what you posted was most insightful. The books without defects were simply preserved.

 

But yourt "stack to the moon" to achieve the sort of pressing done mechanically is way off base. There is simply NOT a lot of pressure when a pro restorer who knows what they are doing presses a book in a dry mount press. I used to own one. I know. This is not a steamroller we are talking about.

[Ze-man]

 

To my mind the first scenario is an ideal form of conservation. The second scenario is simply restoration.

 

Such is Codger Man.

 

So if both books are put under weight(stacking or pressing) how is one conservation, and the other resto?(aside from long term storage to preserve a book over the years) Temperature? Results of actually removing a given flaw? On what level is it ok and when is it not?

 

What if both books had no visible flaws to start with but still benefited aesthetically from either procedure , even if only on a minor level.

 

I am of course being devils advocate, but so were you when you made your initial post. All leading us towards intent to remove a flaw versus having it possibly happen over time.. perhaps without intent.

 

Ze-

 

Jeeze let me REANSWER since you - well - you know - dang the work I have to do and so few years left to live!

 

The key here: "A book without folds bends etc" and the major key idea "maintaining its original condition" vs "that a book has been subject to pressing in order to remove such existing defects". That is how one is conservation and the other restoration.

 

To retain original condition vs to remove accumulated defects to revert to an appearance of original condition. I see a tremendous difference. On THAT level it is to my mind OK to subject a book to a stack or to pressure in order to PRESERVE the original condition.

 

Now you asked:

"What if both books had no visible flaws to start with but still benefited aesthetically from either procedure , even if only on a minor level."

 

Frankly I am kind of surprised you would ask this. it is so theoretical and honestly, unlikely. But to give benefit of the doubt, what kind of non-flaws did you have in mind?

 

BTW - I was not and am not playing "Devil's Advocate". I have expressed a few times here that there is a tremendous difference between sotrage conditions that prevent defects from accumulating (including pressure like a stack) vs removing accumulated defetcs that could be addressed by pressing. I simply see the storage to prevent as ideal conservation and the pressing to revert as restoration. No Devil's Advocate here. Just wanted a separate thread to address this specifc concept, of which the Church books are an ideal candidate.

 

 

No worries Pov, I was just trying to get at what you brought up. Do I feel the books stored Church style are pressed versus what people refer to as pressing in various threads. And my answer was partially, only the results are different.

 

After seeing firsthand what it takes to press out a flaw in a book has led me to see the difference between stacking a book under 100 other books is not that far removed from actually pressing a book. A book stored in a Church stack that had no flaws was still in some form, pressed. So that is why pressing does not bother me on the level it does others.

 

 

And I brought up if a book has no flaws and is pressed is it still restored, because you brought that up last time we spoke. Not me.

 

 

Ze-

 

 

 

 

 

[EastEnd]

are "pressed" in the way we use the term "pressing" in the various "pressing threads"?

 

No comparison. The Church books didn't have defects to begin with. All the stacking did was preserve the original state. You'd need a stack all the way to the moon to achieve pressing of the sort that is done mechanically and with heat.

 

This is the kind of thing that warps my poor brain. The first half of what you posted was most insightful. The books without defects were simply preserved.

 

But yourt "stack to the moon" to achieve the sort of pressing done mechanically is way off base. There is simply NOT a lot of pressure when a pro restorer who knows what they are doing presses a book in a dry mount press. I used to own one. I know. This is not a steamroller we are talking about.

 

Didn't mean to warp your brain but my line about the moon was not meant to imply that stacking with tremendous weight will work. The point I was making is that stacking -- no matter the weight -- does not yield the same results as dry mount pressing. The difference is the application of heat... and yes I agree that not much pressure is needed. Imagine a wrinkled teeshirt under a thousand other teeshirts -- the wrinkles will still be there when you pull it out. But now take a heated iron to it and press a little bit and eureka -- no wrinkles. Dry mount pressing of comics is conceptually the same.

[esquirecomics]

are "pressed" in the way we use the term "pressing" in the various "pressing threads"?

 

No comparison. The Church books didn't have defects to begin with. All the stacking did was preserve the original state.

 

Agree 100 (thumbs u %.

 

So you guys think that 18,000 comics were purchased over a 10+ year period, never stored in bags, boards, or mylar, and none of them had defects that could be improved by pressing(or long-term stacking)? Take a look at Chuck's original list. They're not all NM, NM/MT, or MT. And Chuck isn't exactly known for being a conservative grader.

 

The older ones were in fact nicer, with the exception of some of the very earliest copies. So, maybe some of them did benefit from the added weight. Who will know? The storage conditions were IDEAL, that is why they are so nice.

 

What the heck is the point of this idiotic dicussion anyway? Are we saying we think all the Church books were pressed/restored? Lunacy,

 

I grow fatigued at the limits that the pro-pressing crowd will go to find the most far fetched analogies they can to try and prove that what a professional restoration expert does with his heat, moisture, and extreme pressure using a mechanical contrivance that has been proven to flatten and improve grades on comic books.....is not restoration.

 

Good heavens folks. Can we not all see how pathetic that is?

 

just stop it. Please

 

 

Pov asked a question. I provided my answer. And the same people as always responded to counter. With all due respect to both, I'm not interested in rehasing the same old back and forth. You're not going to convince me, and I'm not going to convince you.

 

If anyone who is not familiar with the debate wishes some additional insight, please read the article below and feel free to PM me and I will happily answer any questions.

 

Article on Definition of Restoration

 

[PovertyRow]

If anyone who is not familiar with the debate wishes some additional insight, please feel free to PM me and I will happily answer any questions.

 

Mark - why would you want to remove new opinions from the thread and handle them privately? Why not field the questions publicly?

[PovertyRow]

I'd like some engineer or physicist who is on the Boards to calculate how many yards high a stack of comics would need to be in order to achieve a pounds-per-square-inch rating that equals pressing in a press.

 

Dennis

 

Actually pressing in a press is variable. As I have mentioned before, the presses usually used are spring loaded with variable pressure. There is no fixed psi. Depends on the person handling the press. Which can also determine the Amateur from the Professional.

[esquirecomics]

If anyone who is not familiar with the debate wishes some additional insight, please feel free to PM me and I will happily answer any questions.

 

Mark - why would you want to remove new opinions from the thread and handle them privately? Why not field the questions publicly?

 

I just posted my article from Scoop/GPA where I addressed the Church issue. I happily answered your straightforward question. Quite frankly, I have better things to do than respond to the same questions from the same people in a circular fashion. Nothing personal to you or anyone else.

[nearmint]

It's getting difficult to keep the anti-pressers' arguments straight. In one thread, beyonder is talking about the great number of Church books that have been pressed, while in this thread taxguy and Esquire talk about the Church collection as whole not having and defects that would benefit from pressing.

[PovertyRow]

If anyone who is not familiar with the debate wishes some additional insight, please feel free to PM me and I will happily answer any questions.

 

Mark - why would you want to remove new opinions from the thread and handle them privately? Why not field the questions publicly?

 

I just posted my article from Scoop/GPA where I addressed the Church issue. I happily answered your straightforward question. Quite frankly, I have better things to do than respond to the same questions from the same people in a circular fashion. Nothing personal to you or anyone else.

 

I don't take this whole issue personally. I am not a comic book. But first you said If anyone who is not familiar with the debate wishes some additional insight, please feel free to PM but now you say I have better things to do than respond to the same questions from the same people . If people familiar with the debat question you with the same stuff ignore them. My point was concerning people NEW to the debate, which you brought up.

[nearmint]

I don't take this whole issue personally. I am not a comic book.

 

Would make an excellent sig line! (thumbs u

[PovertyRow]

I don't take this whole issue personally. I am not a comic book.

 

Would make an excellent sig line! (thumbs u

 

[nearmint]

[PovertyRow]

 

(thumbs u

[djpinkpanther67]

I think they were stored in optimal conditions, though not with the INTENT of removing any defects to better realize the books grade (and resale) potential. To me, that's the difference between stacking them so as to MAINTAIN their current condition, and pressing them to IMPROVE it.

And that's all I will say about that

[PovertyRow]

It's getting difficult to keep the anti-pressers' arguments straight. In one thread, beyonder is talking about the great number of Church books that have been pressed, while in this thread taxguy and Esquire talk about the Church collection as whole not having and defects that would benefit from pressing.

 

We have to consider how long ago the Church collection was "found" by Chuck. Long time ago. Books have passed hand after hand after hand. The pristine environemnt they spent their formative years is gone. I have to wonder how many OW-W Church books we see now began life as pure W. They ARE ideal pressing candidates overall, the ones that have spent many years going from place to place, carefully stored probably for the most part but with the inevitable impact that comes from handling (guess it would be hard to resist reading such a book).

 

Remember - before this collection was obtained it was unknown and just lay there dormant. But 30 years later? Time is going to take its toll.

[DrWatson]

 

(thumbs u

Nice sig pov. However, I do think of you as being light tan around the edges, fairly wordy and having a slight acidic smell.