Life-Span of a CGC Archival Case

[fantastic_four]

Thought this thread needs a

 

Just wondering if the CGC holder is actually better than using Mylites, Fullbacks, and Microchamber paper when it comes to preserving?

 

Mylites, yes, because Mylites seal acids in similarly to the way the CGC case does. Open-topped Mylars are the best. CGC has always used microchamber paper so that's moot. The Barex the inner well is made from is archival, tests were run on it in the early 2000s organized by Tracey Heft to determine the archival protectiveness of the Barex inner well and it was found to be similar to or equivalent to Mylar. The CGC case is pretty archivally safe aside from being too sealed up. The main design issue I've always been puzzled as to why they don't correct is to just build slits or vents down the sides of the inner well and outer case between the sealed posts to allow the book to breathe. That should make it even better than Mylar open-tops from an archival perspective.

 

The damage caused while in the case Green points out is another matter. It's not specifically the case causing the damage but rather the case potentially not preventing damage during mishandling as well as Mylar can. Both containers will cause damage depending upon what happens to the comic, i.e. if it's dropped, tossed around by a shipper, etc, but those corners on the CGC case do indeed seem rougher on books with overhang than a standard Mylar is. Nobody's figure out a better way to seal the book for certification to date, however, and since certification's main value is when a book is changing hands and that's also the time it's going to most likely get shipped thereby exposing it to its greatest risk for being mishandled, there's not much to be done about it until some inventive engineer somewhere designs a better case.

[VintageComics]

Hey Everyone,

 

I was just curious if anybody out there would like to chime in and help me and the rest community on the topic of the life span of a CGC case.

 

I know its' supposed to be real sturty and archival safe, but I have heard many people saying you should replace by getting it reholdered every 7 years.

 

Some people I have talked to will only hold a book in a CGC case if they plan to sell the book and crack open the book if they want it for their own personal collection and put the book in a Mylar or Mylite and save the CGC label.

 

I am sure this topic has been brought before, but I haven't seen it talked about since I signed up, so I was wondering if we could get a discussion going on this.

 

Let my education begin..............

 

This post is proof that SOT used to be able to post lucid and logical posts. All those years of Vodka partying and look where he is now.

 

 

[The Madness]

Thought this thread needs a

 

Just wondering if the CGC holder is actually better than using Mylites, Fullbacks, and Microchamber paper when it comes to preserving?

 

Mylites, yes, because Mylites seal acids in similarly to the way the CGC case does. Open-topped Mylars are the best. CGC has always used microchamber paper so that's moot. The Barex the inner well is made from is archival, tests were run on it in the early 2000s organized by Tracey Heft to determine the archival protectiveness of the Barex inner well and it was found to be similar to or equivalent to Mylar. The CGC case is pretty archivally safe aside from being too sealed up. The main design issue I've always been puzzled as to why they don't correct is to just build slits or vents down the sides of the inner well and outer case between the sealed posts to allow the book to breathe. That should make it even better than Mylar open-tops from an archival perspective.

 

The damage caused while in the case Green points out is another matter. It's not specifically the case causing the damage but rather the case potentially not preventing damage during mishandling as well as Mylar can. Both containers will cause damage depending upon what happens to the comic, i.e. if it's dropped, tossed around by a shipper, etc, but those corners on the CGC case do indeed seem rougher on books with overhang than a standard Mylar is. Nobody's figure out a better way to seal the book for certification to date, however, and since certification's main value is when a book is changing hands and that's also the time it's going to most likely get shipped thereby exposing it to its greatest risk for being mishandled, there's not much to be done about it until some inventive engineer somewhere designs a better case.

 

Wait, but wouldn't exposing the books to air degrade the comic?

[fantastic_four]

Thought this thread needs a

 

Just wondering if the CGC holder is actually better than using Mylites, Fullbacks, and Microchamber paper when it comes to preserving?

 

Mylites, yes, because Mylites seal acids in similarly to the way the CGC case does. Open-topped Mylars are the best. CGC has always used microchamber paper so that's moot. The Barex the inner well is made from is archival, tests were run on it in the early 2000s organized by Tracey Heft to determine the archival protectiveness of the Barex inner well and it was found to be similar to or equivalent to Mylar. The CGC case is pretty archivally safe aside from being too sealed up. The main design issue I've always been puzzled as to why they don't correct is to just build slits or vents down the sides of the inner well and outer case between the sealed posts to allow the book to breathe. That should make it even better than Mylar open-tops from an archival perspective.

 

The damage caused while in the case Green points out is another matter. It's not specifically the case causing the damage but rather the case potentially not preventing damage during mishandling as well as Mylar can. Both containers will cause damage depending upon what happens to the comic, i.e. if it's dropped, tossed around by a shipper, etc, but those corners on the CGC case do indeed seem rougher on books with overhang than a standard Mylar is. Nobody's figure out a better way to seal the book for certification to date, however, and since certification's main value is when a book is changing hands and that's also the time it's going to most likely get shipped thereby exposing it to its greatest risk for being mishandled, there's not much to be done about it until some inventive engineer somewhere designs a better case.

 

Wait, but wouldn't exposing the books to air degrade the comic?

 

That would be most people's first guess, yes. The Library of Congress did "advanced aging" tests in the mid-20th century that suggested differently, however. They did their tests on paper sealed up entirely on all four sides, sealed on one side, sealed on two sides, sealed on three sides, and sealed on no sides and found that the paper that degraded the fastest occurred on paper in a completely-sealed container. Conservator explanations for this are that the acid in the paper that slowly releases over time begins to eat away at the paper if it's in a sealed container. The idea of allowing it to "breathe" is to allow the acid in the paper to dissipate into the environment; sealing it traps that acid in and causes it to eat away at the book. The worse the paper, the more acid that gets released, and older comics are printed on some rather crappy paper. Newspapers are on even worse paper. CGC knew all of this, and that's why they put the microchamber paper into the slab to absorb at least some acid that tends to release over time. What they should have done instead was to design vents up the sides.

 

We've posted links to the LoC studies and far more verbose descriptions of the testing they did over in the "Grading and Restoration Issues" forum in past years. I don't remember which years, somewhere between 2003 and 2009.

 

As an aside, if you look at the Bill Cole or E. Gerber list of Mylar bags they sell, you'll see a type they list as "L" sleeves that are open on two sides. That's because during the LoC advanced aging tests they found the best results with acid dissipated on bags open on at least two sides. My memory is telling me there wasn't much difference between two open sides, three open sides, and all open sides, but I forget exactly. I just remember completely sealed being the worst and one open side being worse than two or more. That's why Cole and Gerber 4-mil Mylars are open on the top. They can't really make them open on two sides, however, because then you couldn't practically store them in boxes, but they do sell the bags open on two sides in case you want them for maximum archival storage. You'd typically store books horizontally in those bags and limit the size of any stacks you put them in--or don't stack them at all. Not terribly practical for a large collection.

[VintageComics]

As an interesting side note, I looked at a collection where most of the books were sealed in those old glass "archive" holders - can't remember what they were called.

 

Are those air-tight? I ask because every book looked to be tanned, probably due to no buffer (like a backing board or interleaving paper) being present.

 

 

[Transplant]

As an interesting side note, I looked at a collection where most of the books were sealed in those old glass "archive" holders - can't remember what they were called.

 

Are those air-tight? I ask because every book looked to be tanned, probably due to no buffer (like a backing board or interleaving paper) being present.

 

They aren't glass, it's plastic. They were also sold with dessicants. But they aren't airtight.

[fantastic_four]

As an interesting side note, I looked at a collection where most of the books were sealed in those old glass "archive" holders - can't remember what they were called.

 

Are those air-tight? I ask because every book looked to be tanned, probably due to no buffer (like a backing board or interleaving paper) being present.

 

I've never seen holders made of glass. "Archive" is the brand name of Bill Cole's 4-mil Mylar bags, I believe. The most similar container I've seen that you might be referring to had a brand name of "fortress," but I don't know if the clear part was glass, I've never owned one.

[VintageComics]

As an interesting side note, I looked at a collection where most of the books were sealed in those old glass "archive" holders - can't remember what they were called.

 

Are those air-tight? I ask because every book looked to be tanned, probably due to no buffer (like a backing board or interleaving paper) being present.

 

I've never seen holders made of glass. "Archive" is the brand name of Bill Cole's 4-mil Mylar bags, I believe. The most similar container I've seen that you might be referring to had a brand name of "fortress," but I don't know if the clear part was glass, I've never owned one.

 

Can't remember what they were cal....FORTRESS! Sorry, couldn't remember for a sec.

 

As an interesting side note, I looked at a collection where most of the books were sealed in those old glass "archive" holders - can't remember what they were called.

 

Are those air-tight? I ask because every book looked to be tanned, probably due to no buffer (like a backing board or interleaving paper) being present.

 

They aren't glass, it's plastic. They were also sold with dessicants. But they aren't airtight.

 

I wasn't sure what they were made of - they were quite heavy, and the covers of nearly every book I looked at seemed to have that brown hue - the type of brown where the inside of the cover was brown but the outside wasn't.

 

Not conclusive as I didn't open one up but was curious about it.

[The Madness]

Thought this thread needs a

 

Just wondering if the CGC holder is actually better than using Mylites, Fullbacks, and Microchamber paper when it comes to preserving?

 

Mylites, yes, because Mylites seal acids in similarly to the way the CGC case does. Open-topped Mylars are the best. CGC has always used microchamber paper so that's moot. The Barex the inner well is made from is archival, tests were run on it in the early 2000s organized by Tracey Heft to determine the archival protectiveness of the Barex inner well and it was found to be similar to or equivalent to Mylar. The CGC case is pretty archivally safe aside from being too sealed up. The main design issue I've always been puzzled as to why they don't correct is to just build slits or vents down the sides of the inner well and outer case between the sealed posts to allow the book to breathe. That should make it even better than Mylar open-tops from an archival perspective.

 

The damage caused while in the case Green points out is another matter. It's not specifically the case causing the damage but rather the case potentially not preventing damage during mishandling as well as Mylar can. Both containers will cause damage depending upon what happens to the comic, i.e. if it's dropped, tossed around by a shipper, etc, but those corners on the CGC case do indeed seem rougher on books with overhang than a standard Mylar is. Nobody's figure out a better way to seal the book for certification to date, however, and since certification's main value is when a book is changing hands and that's also the time it's going to most likely get shipped thereby exposing it to its greatest risk for being mishandled, there's not much to be done about it until some inventive engineer somewhere designs a better case.

 

Wait, but wouldn't exposing the books to air degrade the comic?

 

That would be most people's first guess, yes. The Library of Congress did "advanced aging" tests in the mid-20th century that suggested differently, however. They did their tests on paper sealed up entirely on all four sides, sealed on one side, sealed on two sides, sealed on three sides, and sealed on no sides and found that the paper that degraded the fastest occurred on paper in a completely-sealed container. Conservator explanations for this are that the acid in the paper that slowly releases over time begins to eat away at the paper if it's in a sealed container. The idea of allowing it to "breathe" is to allow the acid in the paper to dissipate into the environment; sealing it traps that acid in and causes it to eat away at the book. The worse the paper, the more acid that gets released, and older comics are printed on some rather crappy paper. Newspapers are on even worse paper. CGC knew all of this, and that's why they put the microchamber paper into the slab to absorb at least some acid that tends to release over time. What they should have done instead was to design vents up the sides.

 

We've posted links to the LoC studies and far more verbose descriptions of the testing they did over in the "Grading and Restoration Issues" forum in past years. I don't remember which years, somewhere between 2003 and 2009.

 

As an aside, if you look at the Bill Cole or E. Gerber list of Mylar bags they sell, you'll see a type they list as "L" sleeves that are open on two sides. That's because during the LoC advanced aging tests they found the best results with acid dissipated on bags open on at least two sides. My memory is telling me there wasn't much difference between two open sides, three open sides, and all open sides, but I forget exactly. I just remember completely sealed being the worst and one open side being worse than two or more. That's why Cole and Gerber 4-mil Mylars are open on the top. They can't really make them open on two sides, however, because then you couldn't practically store them in boxes, but they do sell the bags open on two sides in case you want them for maximum archival storage. You'd typically store books horizontally in those bags and limit the size of any stacks you put them in--or don't stack them at all. Not terribly practical for a large collection.

 

VERY interesting, good info!

[fantastic_four]

Oh, and by the way--love the username. My name on every other forum I use is "Enigmatic Clarity", and I've almost changed my name here to that for a few years. Now if I do, I'd feel like we were wearing the same outfit.

[slym2none]

...

 

I have not personally seen Saran Wrap caused damage on comic books, but I will take your word for it if you say you have.

 

 

In fact those are the only books I've ever bought that were obviously damaged by the material they were wrapped in, so in general you're right. You could actually see an image of the books' inks on the plastic wrap -- sort of a Shroud of Turin effect. I'm 90% sure that the plastic was genuine Saran Wrap -- it's fairly distinctive. Maybe the books you've encountered were actually in "Brand X" polyethylene wrap, the same as standard comic-book bags.

 

Jack

 

I appreciate your input.

 

 

I've seen that shroud effect on many occasions. It's kind of like picking up pictures with Silly Putty. Even when a small amount of ink is removed, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the comic is detectably degraded. I’ve seen lots of glossy, beautiful, mint, white paper books come out of sticky, welded together, yellowed, Saran Wrap that bore a faint image of the cover on it.

 

I’m not ashamed to admit that tearing high-grade books out of those awful wraps is one of my great pleasures! That never gets old for me.

 

Even a Post-It can lift a bit of color, but you can’t detect the damage to the spot where it was lifted.

 

- Lee Hester

 

I recently seen this happening to backing boards. Looked like the book was stored for a long time in the polybag with board. The back cover image was on the backing board. The back cover didn't look damaged in any way from just looking at it.

My only concern is ok the book wasn't moved for who knows how many years. Say the book is moved and the board shifts. Will the image on the backing board now transfer back to the back cover giving it a double image effect? I don't know because I never seen this sort of thing before. Only just recently.

 

I would think that since the board is still more highly absorbent, it would not re-transfer the image back to the back cover of a comic.

 

A side note - it is one thing to get a book in an old bag already, quite another to pull one out of your own collection, that you bagged & boarded yourself, and the bag is yellow and an imprint of the back cover remains on the backing board after you have peeled the comic off.

 

 

 

 

-slym (still has a few comics in those stiff Ultra-Pro holders)

[NewWorldOrder]

Hey Everyone,

 

I was just curious if anybody out there would like to chime in and help me and the rest community on the topic of the life span of a CGC case.

 

I know its' supposed to be real sturty and archival safe, but I have heard many people saying you should replace by getting it reholdered every 7 years.

 

Some people I have talked to will only hold a book in a CGC case if they plan to sell the book and crack open the book if they want it for their own personal collection and put the book in a Mylar or Mylite and save the CGC label.

 

I am sure this topic has been brought before, but I haven't seen it talked about since I signed up, so I was wondering if we could get a discussion going on this.

 

Let my education begin..............

 

This post is proof that SOT used to be able to post lucid and logical posts. All those years of Vodka partying and look where he is now.

 

 

Honestly I do not even recalling starting this thread.

[InvstmntComcSuply]

Thought this thread needs a

 

Just wondering if the CGC holder is actually better than using Mylites, Fullbacks, and Microchamber paper when it comes to preserving?

 

Mylites, yes, because Mylites seal acids in similarly to the way the CGC case does. Open-topped Mylars are the best. .... The CGC case is pretty archivally safe aside from being too sealed up. The main design issue I've always been puzzled as to why they don't correct is to just build slits or vents down the sides of the inner well and outer case between the sealed posts to allow the book to breathe. That should make it even better than Mylar open-tops from an archival perspective.

 

 

Wait, but wouldn't exposing the books to air degrade the comic?

 

That would be most people's first guess, yes. The Library of Congress did "advanced aging" tests in the mid-20th century that suggested differently, however. They did their tests on paper sealed up entirely on all four sides, sealed on one side, sealed on two sides, sealed on three sides, and sealed on no sides and found that the paper that degraded the fastest occurred on paper in a completely-sealed container. Conservator explanations for this are that the acid in the paper that slowly releases over time begins to eat away at the paper if it's in a sealed container. The idea of allowing it to "breathe" is to allow the acid in the paper to dissipate into the environment; sealing it traps that acid in and causes it to eat away at the book. The worse the paper, the more acid that gets released, and older comics are printed on some rather crappy paper. Newspapers are on even worse paper. CGC knew all of this, and that's why they put the microchamber paper into the slab to absorb at least some acid that tends to release over time. What they should have done instead was to design vents up the sides.

 

We've posted links to the LoC studies and far more verbose descriptions of the testing they did over in the "Grading and Restoration Issues" forum in past years. I don't remember which years, somewhere between 2003 and 2009.

 

As an aside, if you look at the Bill Cole or E. Gerber list of Mylar bags they sell, you'll see a type they list as "L" sleeves that are open on two sides. That's because during the LoC advanced aging tests they found the best results with acid dissipated on bags open on at least two sides. My memory is telling me there wasn't much difference between two open sides, three open sides, and all open sides, but I forget exactly. I just remember completely sealed being the worst and one open side being worse than two or more. That's why Cole and Gerber 4-mil Mylars are open on the top. They can't really make them open on two sides, however, because then you couldn't practically store them in boxes, but they do sell the bags open on two sides in case you want them for maximum archival storage. You'd typically store books horizontally in those bags and limit the size of any stacks you put them in--or don't stack them at all. Not terribly practical for a large collection.

 

NO. We have had this exact same discussion at least once or twice before. You are mis-remembering and leaving out some of the fundamental findings of the LOC study. The LOC study found that in accelerated aging studies (submit paper to high heat/humidity) that there was no difference in 2 or 4 sided mylars, both performed about the same, which was Terrible because they caused more aging than paper not in Mylar. However, once you introduced an alkaline reserve (either fullback, halfback or microchamber paper), both the 2 and 4 sided Mylar performed equally, but now much Better than bare paper.

 

One thing the accelerated aging studies did not take into account is pollution. If you consider pollution from offgassing of carpet, cardboard, other parts of the collection, etc. and then factor in dust, vermin, etc. it overwhelming favors flapped mylars over open topped mylars.

[VintageComics]

Hey Everyone,

 

I was just curious if anybody out there would like to chime in and help me and the rest community on the topic of the life span of a CGC case.

 

I know its' supposed to be real sturty and archival safe, but I have heard many people saying you should replace by getting it reholdered every 7 years.

 

Some people I have talked to will only hold a book in a CGC case if they plan to sell the book and crack open the book if they want it for their own personal collection and put the book in a Mylar or Mylite and save the CGC label.

 

I am sure this topic has been brought before, but I haven't seen it talked about since I signed up, so I was wondering if we could get a discussion going on this.

 

Let my education begin..............

 

This post is proof that SOT used to be able to post lucid and logical posts. All those years of Vodka partying and look where he is now.

 

 

Honestly I do not even recalling starting this thread.

 

Proof that those brain cells are long gone.

 

 

[NewWorldOrder]

Thought this thread needs a

 

Just wondering if the CGC holder is actually better than using Mylites, Fullbacks, and Microchamber paper when it comes to preserving?

 

Mylites, yes, because Mylites seal acids in similarly to the way the CGC case does. Open-topped Mylars are the best. .... The CGC case is pretty archivally safe aside from being too sealed up. The main design issue I've always been puzzled as to why they don't correct is to just build slits or vents down the sides of the inner well and outer case between the sealed posts to allow the book to breathe. That should make it even better than Mylar open-tops from an archival perspective.

 

 

Wait, but wouldn't exposing the books to air degrade the comic?

 

That would be most people's first guess, yes. The Library of Congress did "advanced aging" tests in the mid-20th century that suggested differently, however. They did their tests on paper sealed up entirely on all four sides, sealed on one side, sealed on two sides, sealed on three sides, and sealed on no sides and found that the paper that degraded the fastest occurred on paper in a completely-sealed container. Conservator explanations for this are that the acid in the paper that slowly releases over time begins to eat away at the paper if it's in a sealed container. The idea of allowing it to "breathe" is to allow the acid in the paper to dissipate into the environment; sealing it traps that acid in and causes it to eat away at the book. The worse the paper, the more acid that gets released, and older comics are printed on some rather crappy paper. Newspapers are on even worse paper. CGC knew all of this, and that's why they put the microchamber paper into the slab to absorb at least some acid that tends to release over time. What they should have done instead was to design vents up the sides.

 

We've posted links to the LoC studies and far more verbose descriptions of the testing they did over in the "Grading and Restoration Issues" forum in past years. I don't remember which years, somewhere between 2003 and 2009.

 

As an aside, if you look at the Bill Cole or E. Gerber list of Mylar bags they sell, you'll see a type they list as "L" sleeves that are open on two sides. That's because during the LoC advanced aging tests they found the best results with acid dissipated on bags open on at least two sides. My memory is telling me there wasn't much difference between two open sides, three open sides, and all open sides, but I forget exactly. I just remember completely sealed being the worst and one open side being worse than two or more. That's why Cole and Gerber 4-mil Mylars are open on the top. They can't really make them open on two sides, however, because then you couldn't practically store them in boxes, but they do sell the bags open on two sides in case you want them for maximum archival storage. You'd typically store books horizontally in those bags and limit the size of any stacks you put them in--or don't stack them at all. Not terribly practical for a large collection.

 

NO. And we have had this exact same discussion at least once or twice before. You are mis-remembering and leaving out some of the fundamental findings of the LOC study. The LOC study found that in accelerated aging studies (submit paper to high heat/humidity) that there was no difference in 2 or 4 sided mylars, both performed about the same, which was Terrible because they caused more aging than paper not in Mylar. However, once you introduced an alkaline reserve, both the 2 and 4 sided Mylar performed much Better than bare paper and again about the same.

 

One thing the accelerated aging studies did not take into account is pollution. If you consider pollution from offgassing of carpet, cardboard, other parts of the collection, etc. and then factor in dust, vermin, etc. it overwhelming favors flapped mylars over open topped mylars.

 

Just put a lid on your comic box.

 

I have comics from the 90's I left in my humid Philadelphia basement for 15 years in crappy bags and boards and when I took them out the books were still fresh as a daisy.

 

Closed or open Mylars with a nice full-back backing board will never hurt or age your comic books any time in your lifetime.

[InvstmntComcSuply]

 

Closed or open Mylars with a nice full-back backing board will never hurt or age your comic books any time in your lifetime.

 

Agreed wholeheartedly.

However, unexpected dust, dirt, insects and pollution is far better handled by closed top mylars than open tops. (thumbs u

[DiceX]

Thought this thread needs a

 

Just wondering if the CGC holder is actually better than using Mylites, Fullbacks, and Microchamber paper when it comes to preserving?

 

Mylites, yes, because Mylites seal acids in similarly to the way the CGC case does. Open-topped Mylars are the best. .... The CGC case is pretty archivally safe aside from being too sealed up. The main design issue I've always been puzzled as to why they don't correct is to just build slits or vents down the sides of the inner well and outer case between the sealed posts to allow the book to breathe. That should make it even better than Mylar open-tops from an archival perspective.

 

 

Wait, but wouldn't exposing the books to air degrade the comic?

 

That would be most people's first guess, yes. The Library of Congress did "advanced aging" tests in the mid-20th century that suggested differently, however. They did their tests on paper sealed up entirely on all four sides, sealed on one side, sealed on two sides, sealed on three sides, and sealed on no sides and found that the paper that degraded the fastest occurred on paper in a completely-sealed container. Conservator explanations for this are that the acid in the paper that slowly releases over time begins to eat away at the paper if it's in a sealed container. The idea of allowing it to "breathe" is to allow the acid in the paper to dissipate into the environment; sealing it traps that acid in and causes it to eat away at the book. The worse the paper, the more acid that gets released, and older comics are printed on some rather crappy paper. Newspapers are on even worse paper. CGC knew all of this, and that's why they put the microchamber paper into the slab to absorb at least some acid that tends to release over time. What they should have done instead was to design vents up the sides.

 

We've posted links to the LoC studies and far more verbose descriptions of the testing they did over in the "Grading and Restoration Issues" forum in past years. I don't remember which years, somewhere between 2003 and 2009.

 

As an aside, if you look at the Bill Cole or E. Gerber list of Mylar bags they sell, you'll see a type they list as "L" sleeves that are open on two sides. That's because during the LoC advanced aging tests they found the best results with acid dissipated on bags open on at least two sides. My memory is telling me there wasn't much difference between two open sides, three open sides, and all open sides, but I forget exactly. I just remember completely sealed being the worst and one open side being worse than two or more. That's why Cole and Gerber 4-mil Mylars are open on the top. They can't really make them open on two sides, however, because then you couldn't practically store them in boxes, but they do sell the bags open on two sides in case you want them for maximum archival storage. You'd typically store books horizontally in those bags and limit the size of any stacks you put them in--or don't stack them at all. Not terribly practical for a large collection.

 

NO. And we have had this exact same discussion at least once or twice before. You are mis-remembering and leaving out some of the fundamental findings of the LOC study. The LOC study found that in accelerated aging studies (submit paper to high heat/humidity) that there was no difference in 2 or 4 sided mylars, both performed about the same, which was Terrible because they caused more aging than paper not in Mylar. However, once you introduced an alkaline reserve, both the 2 and 4 sided Mylar performed much Better than bare paper and again about the same.

 

One thing the accelerated aging studies did not take into account is pollution. If you consider pollution from offgassing of carpet, cardboard, other parts of the collection, etc. and then factor in dust, vermin, etc. it overwhelming favors flapped mylars over open topped mylars.

 

Just put a lid on your comic box.

 

I have comics from the 90's I left in my humid Philadelphia basement for 15 years in crappy bags and boards and when I took them out the books were still fresh as a daisy.

 

Closed or open Mylars with a nice full-back backing board will never hurt or age your comic books any time in your lifetime.

 

Not true. I've seen collections that were in open top mylars where the top inch of every book was browned.

I've even bought books from big dealers online and the books received have with this exact problem.

 

 

[NewWorldOrder]

Thought this thread needs a

 

Just wondering if the CGC holder is actually better than using Mylites, Fullbacks, and Microchamber paper when it comes to preserving?

 

Mylites, yes, because Mylites seal acids in similarly to the way the CGC case does. Open-topped Mylars are the best. .... The CGC case is pretty archivally safe aside from being too sealed up. The main design issue I've always been puzzled as to why they don't correct is to just build slits or vents down the sides of the inner well and outer case between the sealed posts to allow the book to breathe. That should make it even better than Mylar open-tops from an archival perspective.

 

 

Wait, but wouldn't exposing the books to air degrade the comic?

 

That would be most people's first guess, yes. The Library of Congress did "advanced aging" tests in the mid-20th century that suggested differently, however. They did their tests on paper sealed up entirely on all four sides, sealed on one side, sealed on two sides, sealed on three sides, and sealed on no sides and found that the paper that degraded the fastest occurred on paper in a completely-sealed container. Conservator explanations for this are that the acid in the paper that slowly releases over time begins to eat away at the paper if it's in a sealed container. The idea of allowing it to "breathe" is to allow the acid in the paper to dissipate into the environment; sealing it traps that acid in and causes it to eat away at the book. The worse the paper, the more acid that gets released, and older comics are printed on some rather crappy paper. Newspapers are on even worse paper. CGC knew all of this, and that's why they put the microchamber paper into the slab to absorb at least some acid that tends to release over time. What they should have done instead was to design vents up the sides.

 

We've posted links to the LoC studies and far more verbose descriptions of the testing they did over in the "Grading and Restoration Issues" forum in past years. I don't remember which years, somewhere between 2003 and 2009.

 

As an aside, if you look at the Bill Cole or E. Gerber list of Mylar bags they sell, you'll see a type they list as "L" sleeves that are open on two sides. That's because during the LoC advanced aging tests they found the best results with acid dissipated on bags open on at least two sides. My memory is telling me there wasn't much difference between two open sides, three open sides, and all open sides, but I forget exactly. I just remember completely sealed being the worst and one open side being worse than two or more. That's why Cole and Gerber 4-mil Mylars are open on the top. They can't really make them open on two sides, however, because then you couldn't practically store them in boxes, but they do sell the bags open on two sides in case you want them for maximum archival storage. You'd typically store books horizontally in those bags and limit the size of any stacks you put them in--or don't stack them at all. Not terribly practical for a large collection.

 

NO. And we have had this exact same discussion at least once or twice before. You are mis-remembering and leaving out some of the fundamental findings of the LOC study. The LOC study found that in accelerated aging studies (submit paper to high heat/humidity) that there was no difference in 2 or 4 sided mylars, both performed about the same, which was Terrible because they caused more aging than paper not in Mylar. However, once you introduced an alkaline reserve, both the 2 and 4 sided Mylar performed much Better than bare paper and again about the same.

 

One thing the accelerated aging studies did not take into account is pollution. If you consider pollution from offgassing of carpet, cardboard, other parts of the collection, etc. and then factor in dust, vermin, etc. it overwhelming favors flapped mylars over open topped mylars.

 

Just put a lid on your comic box.

 

I have comics from the 90's I left in my humid Philadelphia basement for 15 years in crappy bags and boards and when I took them out the books were still fresh as a daisy.

 

Closed or open Mylars with a nice full-back backing board will never hurt or age your comic books any time in your lifetime.

 

Not true. I've seen collections that were in open top mylars where the top inch of every book was browned.

I've even bought books from big dealers online and the books received have with this exact problem.

 

 

Could it be the books were already brown before the person put each comic in the mylar to begin with?

[NewWorldOrder]

 

Closed or open Mylars with a nice full-back backing board will never hurt or age your comic books any time in your lifetime.

 

Agreed wholeheartedly.

However, unexpected dust, dirt, insects and pollution is far better handled by closed top mylars than open tops. (thumbs u

 

Very true.

 

I just think either way if you have a lid on the comic box you should be good to go.

 

Damn those nosey Spiders!

[InvstmntComcSuply]

 

Closed or open Mylars with a nice full-back backing board will never hurt or age your comic books any time in your lifetime.

 

Agreed wholeheartedly.

However, unexpected dust, dirt, insects and pollution is far better handled by closed top mylars than open tops. (thumbs u

 

Very true.

 

I just think either way if you have a lid on the comic box you should be good to go.

 

 

That is what a lot of people with tanned top edges thought too.