How do you tell if a book has been cleaned?

[divad]

I am not saying not to sniff your comics David! (I am a closet sniffer myself, it always has a story to tell) I just wanted you to elaborate on what you said when you said "smell.. seriously" because while you, me and others here might know exactly what you are talking about, many others who read these threads do not.

 

A comic can smell for a variety of storage reasons, even to the point of smelling stongly of kerosene but that does not mean they have been reglossed in some manner. Thats why I personally go more by visual clues, texture and handfeel when trying to determine if a book was reglossed in some way.

 

I dont think we are at opposite ends here, I just thought you didn't spell out your comment enough so those reading would learn why you said what you did.

 

Kenny,

 

Why the assumption we are at opposite ends? It's just a discussion. I am often posting on the fly and don't really want to take the time to explain it all, just give the thread some direction. I'm glad that you are more of the "grade school teacher" than me, as it leaves me more time for other pursuits.

 

A comic can smell for a variety of storage reasons, even to the point of smelling stongly of kerosene but that does not mean they have been reglossed in some manner. Thats why I personally go more by visual clues, texture and handfeel when trying to determine if a book was reglossed in some way.

 

Above is a good example of how things work here. I didn't say that "smelling stongly of kerosene" = re-glossing. Nor did I say that I don't pay attention to every detail and sense available to me. Yet the way you have phrased your response is in opposition to what no one said, but implied as I having said it.

 

My response in person would be . . . duh. But we'd still be friends, and you'd know that I understood and respected you.

[divad]

Thanks FFB for shedding some light on reglossing!

I don't remember this topic being hit upon in the past and was curious about any tell-tale signs of it being done!

 

Smell . . . seriously.

 

Ya know David, in the interest of edumacating people it would help if you elaborated just a little bit.

 

I doubt most people know that over the years books have been sprayed(reglossed)with everything from, Hairspray, Spray Starch, and even clear coat laquer. And some of these do leave behind a distinct smell, but they also look and feel as stiff as a board so sniffing them is not really necessary.

 

Not that there anything wrong with that though!

 

Sniff away, it might even give you a buzz.

 

Ya' know, people like to laugh about it around here, but properly stored comics have a distinct smell, which improperly stored or chemically treated books don't have. I have seen books on occasion that have obviously been re-glossed. Some have had an almost kerosene-like smell (a subtle petrochemical flavor, if you will.) Real comics don't smell like this. It's not that you can sniff a book, and say, "reglossed with Alberto VO5" but you can say, "Something is not right here . . ."

 

...except that some books will smell that way even if they have not been tampered with.

Big Apple books smell like kerosene

White Mountain books have a distinct smell

Church books have a distinct smell

 

etc.etc..so it may be a clue but there should be others as well.

 

R.

 

 

Roy,

I agree. Each have their unique smell for some icky reason - particularly the Big Apple books, which btw, I don't understand why smelly, tanned books would be designated a pedigree

-dd

[Ze-man]

Well duh

 

 

 

Happy Halloween folks, off to go throw candy and comics at kids.

 

 

[joeypost]

Thanks FFB for shedding some light on reglossing!

I don't remember this topic being hit upon in the past and was curious about any tell-tale signs of it being done!

 

Smell . . . seriously.

 

Ya know David, in the interest of edumacating people it would help if you elaborated just a little bit.

 

I doubt most people know that over the years books have been sprayed(reglossed)with everything from, Hairspray, Spray Starch, and even clear coat laquer. And some of these do leave behind a distinct smell, but they also look and feel as stiff as a board so sniffing them is not really necessary.

 

Not that there anything wrong with that though!

 

Sniff away, it might even give you a buzz.

 

Ya' know, people like to laugh about it around here, but properly stored comics have a distinct smell, which improperly stored or chemically treated books don't have. I have seen books on occasion that have obviously been re-glossed. Some have had an almost kerosene-like smell (a subtle petrochemical flavor, if you will.) Real comics don't smell like this. It's not that you can sniff a book, and say, "reglossed with Alberto VO5" but you can say, "Something is not right here . . ."

 

...except that some books will smell that way even if they have not been tampered with.

Big Apple books smell like kerosene

White Mountain books have a distinct smell

Church books have a distinct smell

 

etc.etc..so it may be a clue but there should be others as well.

 

R.

 

 

Roy,

I agree. Each have their unique smell for some icky reason - particularly the Big Apple books, which btw, I don't understand why smelly, tanned books would be designated a pedigree

-dd

 

Maybe the owner read them in the bathroom.

[VintageComics]

The story behind the big apples is an interesting one. I think the books were stored in two areas. One area caused the books to tan while the other did not.

 

The books smell like kerosene because the books were locked in a house for a long time before they were found.

 

To be fair I owned a BA Ped GA Green Lantern #25 that was CGC graded 8.5. I cracked that book out and let me tell you the "light tan pages" were nicer than most bronze books you see today. The tanning was razor thin on the outside edges while the interiors were white. The book had 9.6 structure so it was down graded harshly only because of the PQ. When held in hand (and not in the CGC slab) the book was definately a ped quality book.

 

R.

 

 

[FFNut]

Are Mars erasers really kosher?

[PovertyRow]

Just a general reply.

 

The term "re-glossing" is just not accurate. (Yes, I know I was going to keep out of things but a few things herer and therer I shall do.

 

To use the term "re-glossing" implies something has been "glossed" to beging with. Now I have no idea about newer books but BA/SA/GA etc - gloss was never applied to a book.

 

It was, as Scott (FFB) said - a result of clay being added to the paper mix and being sent through rollers that made the glossy surface (it also mader a harder paper finish that allowed inks to be applied without spreading the way they do on plain old newsprint - resulting is a very crisp printing (press a magic marker against a tissue or paper towel and you will see an exaggerated spreading). This proces of running the paper mix through rollers is called "calendering".

 

"Re-glossing" is adding an external agent to recreate an inherently internal process. It has no business in restoration, at least to my mind.

 

[PovertyRow]

Not sure if this was mentioned but another way to detect dry cleaning is a slight "smearing" of black text on a white background, as in the ad-filled back cover of a book.

[FFNut]

The story behind the big apples is an interesting one. I think the books were stored in two areas. One area caused the books to tan while the other did not.

 

The books smell like kerosene because the books were locked in a house for a long time before they were found.

 

To be fair I owned a BA Ped GA Green Lantern #25 that was CGC graded 8.5. I cracked that book out and let me tell you the "light tan pages" were nicer than most bronze books you see today. The tanning was razor thin on the outside edges while the interiors were white. The book had 9.6 structure so it was down graded harshly only because of the PQ. When held in hand (and not in the CGC slab) the book was definately a ped quality book.

 

R.

 

 

What a cover.

[FFB]

Sorry Ze, I actually missed a post. My bad.

 

 

Piper, the reason cleaning gets a PLOD is because the book is dis-assembled AND the paper is treated with a solvent or water. Dry cleaning is basically removal of dirt with an erasure or similar. It's tough to detect and really does not do anything to the book. It's almost like simply wiping off a layer of dust.

 

R.

 

 

It's not "almost like simply wiping off a layer of dust." That IS a kind of dry cleaning. Dry cleaning is the removal of surface grime, which may or may not be bonded with the surface of the cover. Wiping off dust is still "dry cleaning." Any conservator of paper artifacts will tell you this. The only reason comic collectors argue about this is out of ignorance and out of fear that any kind of "restoration" will cause the value of a book to drop.

 

It actually IS LIKE WIPING OFF A LAYER OF DUST because all you are doing is removing what is on the paper and not what is in the paper (not on a molecular level mind you)...and I wasn't arguing it I was simply pointing out my understanding of CGC's rationale for not giving it a PLOD.

 

Lawyers.

 

 

I should have worded my post differently. (This is what I get for posting in a hurry when my wife is nagging me to get off the boards.) It seemed like I was disagreeing with you when the point I was trying to make is that wiping off dust is yet another kind of dry cleaning. I only brought it up because I've seen multiple people in the past use the "wiping off dust" analogy to argue that dry cleaning is not restoration. Upon rereading it, it came across more obnoxiously than I meant it to be.

 

I am going to owe you many apology beers if you and I ever meet in person at a convention, Roy!

[FFB]

Just a general reply.

 

The term "re-glossing" is just not accurate. (Yes, I know I was going to keep out of things but a few things herer and therer I shall do.

 

To use the term "re-glossing" implies something has been "glossed" to beging with. Now I have no idea about newer books but BA/SA/GA etc - gloss was never applied to a book.

 

It was, as Scott (FFB) said - a result of clay being added to the paper mix and being sent through rollers that made the glossy surface (it also mader a harder paper finish that allowed inks to be applied without spreading the way they do on plain old newsprint - resulting is a very crisp printing (press a magic marker against a tissue or paper towel and you will see an exaggerated spreading). This proces of running the paper mix through rollers is called "calendering".

 

"Re-glossing" is adding an external agent to recreate an inherently internal process. It has no business in restoration, at least to my mind.

 

Don't forget about the glossing agents added to the inks though. It's true that there is not a layer of gloss added to the book after it is printed, but the cover inks themselves usually have gloss agents added and do add some "gloss" over and above that caused by the calendaring of the paper.

[PovertyRow]

Just a general reply.

 

The term "re-glossing" is just not accurate. (Yes, I know I was going to keep out of things but a few things herer and therer I shall do.

 

To use the term "re-glossing" implies something has been "glossed" to beging with. Now I have no idea about newer books but BA/SA/GA etc - gloss was never applied to a book.

 

It was, as Scott (FFB) said - a result of clay being added to the paper mix and being sent through rollers that made the glossy surface (it also mader a harder paper finish that allowed inks to be applied without spreading the way they do on plain old newsprint - resulting is a very crisp printing (press a magic marker against a tissue or paper towel and you will see an exaggerated spreading). This proces of running the paper mix through rollers is called "calendering".

 

"Re-glossing" is adding an external agent to recreate an inherently internal process. It has no business in restoration, at least to my mind.

 

Don't forget about the glossing agents added to the inks though. It's true that there is not a layer of gloss added to the book after it is printed, but the cover inks themselves usually have gloss agents added and do add some "gloss" over and above that caused by the calendaring of the paper.

 

Inks certainly contribute to gloss. Some of the precodes I collected really had little contribution to the glossiness. Hell, some of them, even in HG, were just printed so poorly that there was almost no gloss even from calendering. On the other hand, some of the Atlas (especially) pre-codes I collected had incredibly heavy, deep and glossy inks - you know that 3-d effect you get when looking at the cover at an angle? It is something, though, that a "re-glossing" will not reproduce, as those brilliantly glossy inks have a well defined border, (On the side, I have also noticed a tendency in those "so glossy they are 3-d" books to sometimes impossibly heavy transfer stains on the inside cover. Damned if you do and damned if you don't!

 

But primarily I was just addressing the calendering of glossy paper itself and efforts to reproduce the calendering by a "re-gloss". But ink or paper, never liked the term "re-gloss". I feel it is misleading.

[Ze-man]

Just a general reply.

 

The term "re-glossing" is just not accurate. (Yes, I know I was going to keep out of things but a few things herer and therer I shall do.

 

To use the term "re-glossing" implies something has been "glossed" to beging with. Now I have no idea about newer books but BA/SA/GA etc - gloss was never applied to a book.

 

It was, as Scott (FFB) said - a result of clay being added to the paper mix and being sent through rollers that made the glossy surface (it also mader a harder paper finish that allowed inks to be applied without spreading the way they do on plain old newsprint - resulting is a very crisp printing (press a magic marker against a tissue or paper towel and you will see an exaggerated spreading). This proces of running the paper mix through rollers is called "calendering".

 

"Re-glossing" is adding an external agent to recreate an inherently internal process. It has no business in restoration, at least to my mind.

 

No need to "keep out of things" Pov, we haven't brought up pressing, yet!

 

And I don't think anyone was saying re-glossing is a good thing, or part of an archival type restoration process. But rather a term(for lack of a better word) describing something that people have done to comics by spraying or brushing on a glossing agent to make it look shiny.

 

So how about we just call the bad, naughty method "glossing" instead of "re -glossing"

 

And can you believe I am leaf casting now? Strange days indeed.

[PovertyRow]

 

And I don't think anyone was saying re-glossing is a good thing, or part of an archival type restoration process. But rather a term(for lack of a better word) describing something that people have done to comics by spraying or brushing on a glossing agent to make it look shiny.

 

So how about we just call the bad, naughty method "glossing" instead of "re -glossing"

 

And can you believe I am leaf casting now? Strange days indeed.

 

No Ken. I never perceived or implied that anyone said adding gloss to a book was a positive thing.

 

But I KNOW that sometimes this is where I CAN be frustrating to deal with. Sometimes it may sound like I am being petty or trying to start a fight. But things like "re-glossing" does imply the book was originally glossed (it was not) and it basically gives false perceptions and leads to false "knowledge" to those foraying into restoration. I prefer the term "adding an artifical gloss"" but just "glossing" is ok, I guess.

 

Leaf casting? How is that going? Tell more!

[Ze-man]

You frustrating?, why I have no idea what you mean you cantankerous old coot!

 

I did some research and learned that George W calls it "glossification"

 

OK, enough with the gloss talk.

 

Leafcasting, ugh...spent the day experimenting with different papers, pulp, slurry, sizing , glue in an effort to nail down the correct combination for hydrogen bonding, texture,and strength. It is an amazing, but arduous process to perfect on a home built leafcaster.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Mutie Fan]

Thanks FFB for shedding some light on reglossing!

I don't remember this topic being hit upon in the past and was curious about any tell-tale signs of it being done!

 

Smell . . . seriously.

 

What would one look er... smell for?

[piper]

[buttock]

A couple of tips I've found over the years - none of which are 100%.

 

1) Books that have been wet or solvent cleaned CAN SOMETIMES have the inks bleed through the cover - especially the red. HOWEVER, this can be seen on un-cleaned books.

 

2) Shrunken cover should be a dead giveaway.

 

3) Wet washed covers often feel thicker and a bit rougher than they should

 

Overall cleaning is like porno - hard to define, but you know it when you see it.

 

And I've heard people used to use Pam cooking spray to "re-gloss" books. Yikes!