Hypothesis: Pressing causes long-term damage to comics 2 2

[tb]

BR, I skipped the details for brevity since I didn't think anyone else would try it.

 

Each interior wrap has four pages. I placed the wrap in front of me as I would if I would read it. I then gently slid my index finger along the spine from top to bottom. Next, I very gently folded the wrap 180 degrees so I was looking at page 2 with the spine to the right. Again, I slid my index finger down the spine trying to apply the same pressure every time. During the folding, I tried to be very careful. At some point, the spine will start to split and a very slight rip would tear it immediately. I counted the folds until the spine was completely separated.

 

I deliberately picked paper that was old and weakened to start with (see pictures) in order to be able to skip the aging oven step. If you use fresh paper, I imagine you might need many more iterations.

 

This is obviously very ad hoc and only meant to see if the technique would have any merit at all. I was surprised the results were so consistent for book 2.

 

I was not aware that there are so many different machines available for automating this test. Given that, I think the way to proceed would be to either get access to such a device, possibly using the paid service you mentioned, or buy one. First, we would need to find out which one works best for the kind of paper we are interested in.

[bronze_rules]

Thanks tb, I just wanted to try on press/non-pressed sample to see if there was any magnitude in the difference. I think with enough pages, the average should give a feel close enough to a real machine (with a lot more effort, of course). And seeing as your results were so close to newsprint, they seemed pretty reasonably accurate. I think as long as you apply a similar enough approach to both, the relative avg. comparisons (as yours) should be reasonably good.

 

BR, I skipped the details for brevity since I didn't think anyone else would try it.

 

Each interior wrap has four pages. I placed the wrap in front of me as I would if I would read it. I then gently slid my index finger along the spine from top to bottom. Next, I very gently folded the wrap 180 degrees so I was looking at page 2 with the spine to the right. Again, I slid my index finger down the spine trying to apply the same pressure every time. During the folding, I tried to be very careful. At some point, the spine will start to split and a very slight rip would tear it immediately. I counted the folds until the spine was completely separated.

 

I deliberately picked paper that was old and weakened to start with (see pictures) in order to be able to skip the aging oven step. If you use fresh paper, I imagine you might need many more iterations.

 

This is obviously very ad hoc and only meant to see if the technique would have any merit at all. I was surprised the results were so consistent for book 2.

 

I was not aware that there are so many different machines available for automating this test. Given that, I think the way to proceed would be to either get access to such a device, possibly using the paid service you mentioned, or buy one. First, we would need to find out which one works best for the kind of paper we are interested in.

[FFB]

When doing a MIT fold endurance test for paper strength, you generally cut a strip from the sample and fold that (or multiple strips from different parts of each folio, because paper strength will tend to vary from the outside to the center of the folio in paper that was in a bound volume like a magazine). You don't want to use the spine as the hinge for folding because it has already been weakened over the years by the folding action of reading the book and it isn't representative of the strength of the fibers in the paper itself, which is what you are trying to measure.

 

You can do a MIT fold test by hand, but as you quickly found out, it is a ton of work and takes forever if you're doing it manually.

 

Another thing to remember is that the fold endurance test is just one kind of test for the strength of paper. There are burst tests, tear resistance tests, and other tests, each of which uses a different machine and tests a different aspect of paper strength. The reason I mention this is that I am not sure that buying a used MIT fold tester will get us where we want to be. I think a better idea is to see if we can line up a conservator or university lab that has this equipment and is willing to help us run the tests. We can do the pressing ourselves. I like the idea that Slym had, of cutting each book into three sections. We can press one with heat and humidity, one with heat alone, and use one as a control.

[bronze_rules]

FFB, Don't know if you caught up on the prior threads, but this looks very comprehensive and

I would suggest a battery of outsourced tests would be much cheaper than buying one or two instruments, as well as more thorough. Also, what (constant) size area would you recommend for the a fold test strip, as I suspect smaller strips would break faster.

 

P.S. A very comprehensive battery of tests and analysis of statistical pre and post pressing can be accomplished from this lab for a price est. ranging from a few hundred to 2k max. We can do the preliminary stuff here, but if we find significant differences, maybe that's the next step. You telling me CGC can't afford 2k for preliminary research?

 

http://www.ipst.gatech.edu/testing_services/paper_physical_testing/pricing_policy.html

[tb]

I don't think anyone will disagree that getting access to a lab would be the best way to proceed. I just wish that we, as a hobby, were better organized so we could go about approaching researchers more professionally and with one voice. Jon Berk once mentioned some of the initiatives that the "American Association of Comic Book Collectors"(?) took, including assistance with grading for Sotheby's/Christie's and paying Tracey Heft to evaluate CGC's holder. I wish we had a more active organization like that today.

 

In terms the spine issue, isn't the spine exactly what is of most interest to us? Other tests are fine, of course, but the problem with the spine is that this is where you have forces acting parallel to the fibres. I am not a specialist in stress-strain analysis, but I have some experience with it and can't imagine that the spine would not stand out as a huge hotspot if you were to do a finite element analysis on the process? The spine is where brittle books almost always come apart first in my experience.

 

Another thing I have noticed from 1920s pulps is that sometimes what might have been a light crease 80 years ago will fracture today at the lightest touch. This makes me extra concerned about pressing the spine of comic books since the manufacturing/folding process itself may have weakened the fibres. Pressing such books 70 years later, without a formal understanding of what we are doing to the paper, is a little scary to me.

 

When doing a MIT fold endurance test for paper strength, you generally cut a strip from the sample and fold that (or multiple strips from different parts of each folio, because paper strength will tend to vary from the outside to the center of the folio in paper that was in a bound volume like a magazine). You don't want to use the spine as the hinge for folding because it has already been weakened over the years by the folding action of reading the book and it isn't representative of the strength of the fibers in the paper itself, which is what you are trying to measure.

 

You can do a MIT fold test by hand, but as you quickly found out, it is a ton of work and takes forever if you're doing it manually.

 

Another thing to remember is that the fold endurance test is just one kind of test for the strength of paper. There are burst tests, tear resistance tests, and other tests, each of which uses a different machine and tests a different aspect of paper strength. The reason I mention this is that I am not sure that buying a used MIT fold tester will get us where we want to be. I think a better idea is to see if we can line up a conservator or university lab that has this equipment and is willing to help us run the tests. We can do the pressing ourselves. I like the idea that Slym had, of cutting each book into three sections. We can press one with heat and humidity, one with heat alone, and use one as a control.

[Timmay]

[Ze-man]

It is uber boring isn't it!

 

[george bailey-migration]

 

Ze-man wrote:

The problem I have in testing the spines of books is that they can very greatly from top to bottom. So if you are having control groups from one area, and working on others that differ greatly the results might not have anything to do with pressing, but more how worn the book is beforehand for whatever the reason. Testing as similar paper samples as possible from the book is the best way to get a baseline of results and then go from there. Not to mention it depends greatly on who is pressing the book and how they are prepping it when talking about overstressing a spine when pressing it.

--------

My main concern with pressing would have to be "fixing" a spine roll. A very presentable VG copy with a heavy spine roll can easily be turned into a FN or better by pressing. The problem here is that you are pressing the paper at an already weakened point.

To get a clear picture of what pressing does I believe aged spines must be taken into consideration. Whether you artificially age test strips that have been folded, or use nicer sections of the spine, this must be a mandatory part of the testing.

 

[tb]

I liked bronze_rules' suggestion of making a list of criteria for testing: Mr. Bailey's observation on spine roll is interesting and something I wouldn't have thought of myself.

 

Below is a picture of otherwise intact pages with a brittle spine. My own impression is that over 90% of brittle books are throw away because the spine breaks. 40 years from now, the majority of Golden Age comics could look like this one. Since it is the weakest link in the chain, I think it should be given special attention in the testing. It doesn't have to be the fold test, but the issue should be brought up to the experts who help us design the tests. There may be particular aspects of our problem that they normally don't deal with during endurance testing of modern materials.

 

I'd be glad to contribute towards paying for the testing.

[bronze_rules]

Good points all. Tappi suggests using 2.5cm (and 135degree both directions)strips as a standard and there is an older (but interesting paper) with some pragmatic results on older newsprint from 1900s-1930s here: where, barrow had to alter the machine to 90 deg. to get barely any folds on some older stuff. They also often apply a constant tension (which we will likely not be able to emulate by hand).

https://www.ideals.uiuc.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/7202/librarytrendsv30i2_opt.pdf?sequence=3

 

However, If we believe the spine is pressed more often than the rest of the body, it might just be more important to focus on that region, as ultimately, there are no rules that force you to use the non-spine surface as the test region, other than convention. And I agree with tb's reasoning that being that it is the weak link in the chain, extra attention should be paid to it. I mentioned I saw mass produced file folders being tested at the spine. What is important is to be consistent from sample to sample so that the relative comparisons are consistent. That should be all that really matters. Using 1/2 or 3rs of the book as control and modified samples already someone forces the majority of the each samples properties to be consistent (pre and post press) right off the bat. And if anyone is concerned about uniformity of stress on the books, just (randomly) modify which 1/2 or third are control, so that the end results become awash and the test results are blind to the non-uniformity.

 

 

 

 

[FFB]

You can test the spine if you want to, but that isn't going to prove or disprove that the pressing weakened it, and I thought that was the point of the test. As Kenny noted, the spine of a book will not be the same strength at all points along the spine. If you're trying to prove that a pressing job will damage an already weakened spine on a book with degraded paper, you don't need to conduct the test. We can confirm that without any additional testing. I have a book that suffered a two-inch spine split while being pressed by a noted comic restoration professional (not Matt Nelson). I am sure Kenny has seen numerous spine splits on some of his experimental books. If the spine is weak, the book should not be pressed in this manner (as opposed to the kind of pressing used following a washing and resizing, which is completely different) in the first place.

 

I understood the point of the test to be whether the brief exposure to heat, humidity, and gentle pressure would significantly affect the strength of paper that was in reasonably good shape to begin with (i.e., what one might refer to as a "good pressing candidate"). I don't have a problem with testing samples of unbent paper near the spine, but I think the results would be unreliable if you tested the fold point on the spine line itself because the strength of the paper along the spine line is going to vary up and down the length of the spine before you press it.

[tb]

I certainly don't want to fall victim to analysis paralysis: it would be a huge step forward if just we could make something happen for a start. If you have ideas for a specific set of experiments, I will support it, help cover any expenses, and be very grateful.

 

I think it is a major embarrassment to our hobby that we know so little about the forces that slowly have been destroying it for decades. If it were up to me, we should not only be doing research on pressing but eventually also on quantifying the effects that the environment has on comics. I thought it was extremely interesting how BR was able to assign scores of 1.88 and 2.12 to my two books. I would love to know where the books in my current collection rank on such a scale and how quickly the scores will change over time. There are surely things we can do to quantify that, for example by cutting books in half, storing them in different conditions for 5 years, and then measure whatever score we choose for each half. Yes, it would be boring as heck and certainly not as entertaining as talking about pressing. But it could actually have an impact on prolonging the life of Golden Age comics whereas the thousands of hours we have been talking have had absolutely none. That's why this thread has been so refreshing to me.

[bronze_rules]

1000+ folds on a bottom 1.5cm (non_spine) strip of a 1965 slightly acidic classics illustrated (no break) with the gingerly finger press along the fold. I start to lose objectivity and take shortcuts, and my significant other is getting peeved without my attention.

 

So, yeah I think the lab/automated equip. would be the best way to go. Although, one glaring observation I did make is that the pressed (steam iron) copy seemed to lack luster. It had kind of a dull, white washed sheen, that the un-pressed copy did not. Quite similar to the earlier photo and comment from a text that I mentioned. So some type of brightness/print deterioration (fading--pre/post press samples, better than the eye)? test to measure that quality attribute could be useful here.

 

probably not the best photo to see it, but also, the yellow border box appears kind of burnt near the perimeters from the steam press(non-uniform, compared to original).

 

[Bosco685]

This is an incredible thread, but it also shows how little I really know about protecting my books for the long-term. Thanks to all who have spent countless hours researching paper conservation/preservation and the effect of pressing on a comic's long-term condition.

 

Would someone be able to summarize the current recommendations for CGCd books versus raw? I know the real intent of the thread was to study the pressing concerns, but it would be a shame not to reinforce the message of proper conservation/preservation techniques for those new to this thread.

 

I never thought of buying archive paper for my collection, but always went with traditional bags/boards and periodic changeout every few years.

 

Is there a separate thread that contains recommendations already? If there is, so sorry to hijack this fantastic thread.

[Ze-man]

1000+ pages on a bottom 1.5cm (non_spine) strip of a 1965 slightly acidic classics illustrated (no break) with the gingerly finger press along the fold. I start to lose objectivity and take shortcuts, and my significant other is getting peeved without my attention.

 

So, yeah I think the lab/automated equip. would be the best way to go. Although, one glaring observation I did make is that the pressed (steam iron) copy seemed to lack luster. It had kind of a dull, white washed sheen, that the un-pressed copy did not. Quite similar to the earlier photo and comment from a text that I mentioned. So some type of brightness/print deterioration (fading--pre/post press samples, better than the eye)? test to measure that quality attribute could be useful here.

 

probably not the best photo to see it, but also, the yellow border box appears kind of burnt near the perimeters from the steam press(non-uniform, compared to original).

 

 

 

How did you prep the cover you ironed? How hot was your iron and did you really steam it?

 

Regardless, I honestly do not think you can compare your steam ironed comic to that wet blotted page in the photo. Wetting, and pressing individual folios is totally different then pressing a comic. Could pressing leave behind visible clues a cover was pressed?, possibly. But to try and assign specific visible attributes to pressing is guesswork for the most part unless you had a pre pressed example compare it to.

 

And wtf happened to my earlier post? Bailey(whoever that is) quoted part of it , but the post itself isn't there anymore.

 

 

 

 

[Bosco685]

And wtf happened to my earlier post? Bailey(whoever that is) quoted part of it , but the post itself isn't there anymore.

Any comment included in that post about the CGC process?

[Ze-man]

And wtf happened to my earlier post? Bailey(whoever that is) quoted part of it , but the post itself isn't there anymore.

Any comment included in that post about the CGC process?

 

I said Plitch wears army boots. Does that count?

 

 

[Bosco685]

And wtf happened to my earlier post? Bailey(whoever that is) quoted part of it , but the post itself isn't there anymore.

Any comment included in that post about the CGC process?

 

I said Plitch wears army boots. Does that count?

That did it. Time to start the smooching healing process.

 

[bronze_rules]

1000+ folds on a bottom 1.5cm (non_spine) strip of a 1965 slightly acidic classics illustrated (no break) with the gingerly finger press along the fold. I start to lose objectivity and take shortcuts, and my significant other is getting peeved without my attention.

 

So, yeah I think the lab/automated equip. would be the best way to go. Although, one glaring observation I did make is that the pressed (steam iron) copy seemed to lack luster. It had kind of a dull, white washed sheen, that the un-pressed copy did not. Quite similar to the earlier photo and comment from a text that I mentioned. So some type of brightness/print deterioration (fading--pre/post press samples, better than the eye)? test to measure that quality attribute could be useful here.

 

probably not the best photo to see it, but also, the yellow border box appears kind of burnt near the perimeters from the steam press(non-uniform, compared to original).

 

 

 

 

How did you prep the cover you ironed? How hot was your iron and did you really steam it?

 

Regardless, I honestly do not think you can compare your steam ironed comic to that wet blotted page in the photo. Wetting, and pressing individual folios is totally different then pressing a comic. Could pressing leave behind visible clues a cover was pressed?, possibly. But to try and assign specific visible attributes to pressing is guesswork for the most part unless you had a pre pressed example compare it to.

 

And wtf happened to my earlier post? Bailey(whoever that is) quoted part of it , but the post itself isn't there anymore.

Hi,

 

It was a general steam iron with high heat and steam, using one sheet of white xerox paper as a buffer. I understand all books are not pressed this way, however, often we start out with extreme cases to look for significant comparisons right off the bat. If we are convinced there is a significant difference between samples, then we can work backwards to gentler processes and monitor if the degree of that property change remains significant. Also, it is not neccessary to be visible to the human eye.

Once you have isolated the property to look for, there are far more advanced pieces of equipment to observe such properties than the human eye. You have to understand that one of my goals is to ultimately find attributes for pressing 'detection'; not just effects.

The nice thing is that both goals use very similar analysis and experiments, although, you really have to be more careful with the detection methodology, as you wouldn't want to alter the item being tested (which is why I like types of spectral analysis best; most mechanical tests mentioned destroy the structure of the original item in the process).

 

We've already pretty much established a reliable method to compare pre and post pressed samples, using different portions of the same comic for comparison. I didn't show it, but I only pressed the top half.

 

 

 

 

[whisp]

That figure 117 is just an other reason I don't want pressed books in which it is actually a method of finding what books are pressed by spot pressing. Also in my opinion that is damage since the paper courseness is smoothed and not as it was originally.