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

[whisp]

 

What are you basing that statement on? There is quite a bit of scientific evidence that suggests that it is acidity, and not necessarily the lignin content of the paper, that determines paper strength and permanence upon aging. Springhill Offset is alum-rosin sized, which means it is inherently acidic. I will grant you that high lignin content paper tends to react more with atmospheric pollutants than lignin free paper, but that's why it's not appropriate to compare the Springhill Offset results 1:1 with high lignin content groundwood. But that does not mean you should make the logical leap that we can learn nothing from the Springhill Offset results and simply disregard them as though high lignin content paper will react the opposite way upon aging. It simply means that they will age at different rates, with the high lignin content paper aging faster.

 

 

The process and chemistry of making newsprint versus freesheet is so different. Depending on when that test was done, the brightness on that Springhill Offset was either 83 bt., 86 bt., or what it is today, 90 bt. Offset standards have changed through the years. In comparison, newsprint today is 59-60 bt. And back as recent as the 1970's, it was 56 bt. That is a huge difference in brightness and the amount and types of chemicals used in the process to "whiten" the sheet are very different. I understand the acidity, but there are lots of differences in composition besides that and I can't imagine them not having an impact. Can you get a ratio? I don't know, perhaps. But in order to get one, you have to test the newsprint and the coated groundwood. And if you do that, you have a much better answer regardless of the freesheet test.

 

Are there any tests out there on newsprint and/or coated groundwood? How about those two grades from samples manufactured in the 1940's or 50's? The grade standards were a little different then, so it could make a difference within similar grades. Either one of those I would love to see. But even those wouldn't be a "be all end all" because of all the variables involved. But I'd rather slice and disect that one.

 

So would I (that's why tb's experiment sounds so interesting), but we are getting far afield of the original point that fantastic_four raised when he started the thread. The question was whether a typical dry mount press job would cause "long term damage" to a comic. My point was that it will cause at most negligible damage on a molecular level, but nothing appreciable in terms of fold strength, suppleness, tear strength, or any other test of paper freshness or strength. It doesn't seem like you're disputing that, right?

 

Anyway, if you want some data for testing newsprint from the 1970s exposed to accelerated aging, this 1979 study from the JAIC has some data. http://aic.stanford.edu/jaic/articles/jaic18-02-001_3.html It took about 17 days for the unwashed sample (the control sample) of newsprint to turn brittle when aged in a 90C 50%RH oven.

 

If you look at the plot line for the 90C/50%RH sample in the Library of Congress tests for the Springhill Offset paper and follow it to the bottom of the graph (where it would endure zero folds), it took about 17 days for the Springhill Offset to get there. So really, the accelerated aging tests show that the Springhill Offset paper performs pretty closely to 1970s newsprint, despite all of the differences in methods of manufacture, brightness levels, etc.

 

I'll grant you that newsprint quality varied from publisher to publisher over the decades, but all of this misses the point. The point is that I do not believe that a few minutes at 60-65C in a dry mount press is going to cause appreciable damage to the paper strength, even if you have to introduce humidity to relax the fibers to remove a warp. Whatever damage is caused by a few minutes in the press is going to be dwarfed by the damage caused by whoever owns the book and doesn't store it in ideal conditions over the next 30 years.

 

So are you saying pressing does cause damage but very very minor damage?

[nocutename]

Thanks for the interesting read.

[joeypost]

 

What are you basing that statement on? There is quite a bit of scientific evidence that suggests that it is acidity, and not necessarily the lignin content of the paper, that determines paper strength and permanence upon aging. Springhill Offset is alum-rosin sized, which means it is inherently acidic. I will grant you that high lignin content paper tends to react more with atmospheric pollutants than lignin free paper, but that's why it's not appropriate to compare the Springhill Offset results 1:1 with high lignin content groundwood. But that does not mean you should make the logical leap that we can learn nothing from the Springhill Offset results and simply disregard them as though high lignin content paper will react the opposite way upon aging. It simply means that they will age at different rates, with the high lignin content paper aging faster.

 

 

The process and chemistry of making newsprint versus freesheet is so different. Depending on when that test was done, the brightness on that Springhill Offset was either 83 bt., 86 bt., or what it is today, 90 bt. Offset standards have changed through the years. In comparison, newsprint today is 59-60 bt. And back as recent as the 1970's, it was 56 bt. That is a huge difference in brightness and the amount and types of chemicals used in the process to "whiten" the sheet are very different. I understand the acidity, but there are lots of differences in composition besides that and I can't imagine them not having an impact. Can you get a ratio? I don't know, perhaps. But in order to get one, you have to test the newsprint and the coated groundwood. And if you do that, you have a much better answer regardless of the freesheet test.

 

Are there any tests out there on newsprint and/or coated groundwood? How about those two grades from samples manufactured in the 1940's or 50's? The grade standards were a little different then, so it could make a difference within similar grades. Either one of those I would love to see. But even those wouldn't be a "be all end all" because of all the variables involved. But I'd rather slice and disect that one.

 

So would I (that's why tb's experiment sounds so interesting), but we are getting far afield of the original point that fantastic_four raised when he started the thread. The question was whether a typical dry mount press job would cause "long term damage" to a comic. My point was that it will cause at most negligible damage on a molecular level, but nothing appreciable in terms of fold strength, suppleness, tear strength, or any other test of paper freshness or strength. It doesn't seem like you're disputing that, right?

 

Anyway, if you want some data for testing newsprint from the 1970s exposed to accelerated aging, this 1979 study from the JAIC has some data. http://aic.stanford.edu/jaic/articles/jaic18-02-001_3.html It took about 17 days for the unwashed sample (the control sample) of newsprint to turn brittle when aged in a 90C 50%RH oven.

 

If you look at the plot line for the 90C/50%RH sample in the Library of Congress tests for the Springhill Offset paper and follow it to the bottom of the graph (where it would endure zero folds), it took about 17 days for the Springhill Offset to get there. So really, the accelerated aging tests show that the Springhill Offset paper performs pretty closely to 1970s newsprint, despite all of the differences in methods of manufacture, brightness levels, etc.

 

I'll grant you that newsprint quality varied from publisher to publisher over the decades, but all of this misses the point. The point is that I do not believe that a few minutes at 60-65C in a dry mount press is going to cause appreciable damage to the paper strength, even if you have to introduce humidity to relax the fibers to remove a warp. Whatever damage is caused by a few minutes in the press is going to be dwarfed by the damage caused by whoever owns the book and doesn't store it in ideal conditions over the next 30 years.

 

So are you saying pressing does cause damage but very very minor damage?

 

So would reading a comic, or leaving it in a hot car or warehouse, or improper storage techniques, or if the relative humidity was too high, or mailing a book improperly (or even properly).

[whisp]

 

What are you basing that statement on? There is quite a bit of scientific evidence that suggests that it is acidity, and not necessarily the lignin content of the paper, that determines paper strength and permanence upon aging. Springhill Offset is alum-rosin sized, which means it is inherently acidic. I will grant you that high lignin content paper tends to react more with atmospheric pollutants than lignin free paper, but that's why it's not appropriate to compare the Springhill Offset results 1:1 with high lignin content groundwood. But that does not mean you should make the logical leap that we can learn nothing from the Springhill Offset results and simply disregard them as though high lignin content paper will react the opposite way upon aging. It simply means that they will age at different rates, with the high lignin content paper aging faster.

 

 

The process and chemistry of making newsprint versus freesheet is so different. Depending on when that test was done, the brightness on that Springhill Offset was either 83 bt., 86 bt., or what it is today, 90 bt. Offset standards have changed through the years. In comparison, newsprint today is 59-60 bt. And back as recent as the 1970's, it was 56 bt. That is a huge difference in brightness and the amount and types of chemicals used in the process to "whiten" the sheet are very different. I understand the acidity, but there are lots of differences in composition besides that and I can't imagine them not having an impact. Can you get a ratio? I don't know, perhaps. But in order to get one, you have to test the newsprint and the coated groundwood. And if you do that, you have a much better answer regardless of the freesheet test.

 

Are there any tests out there on newsprint and/or coated groundwood? How about those two grades from samples manufactured in the 1940's or 50's? The grade standards were a little different then, so it could make a difference within similar grades. Either one of those I would love to see. But even those wouldn't be a "be all end all" because of all the variables involved. But I'd rather slice and disect that one.

 

So would I (that's why tb's experiment sounds so interesting), but we are getting far afield of the original point that fantastic_four raised when he started the thread. The question was whether a typical dry mount press job would cause "long term damage" to a comic. My point was that it will cause at most negligible damage on a molecular level, but nothing appreciable in terms of fold strength, suppleness, tear strength, or any other test of paper freshness or strength. It doesn't seem like you're disputing that, right?

 

Anyway, if you want some data for testing newsprint from the 1970s exposed to accelerated aging, this 1979 study from the JAIC has some data. http://aic.stanford.edu/jaic/articles/jaic18-02-001_3.html It took about 17 days for the unwashed sample (the control sample) of newsprint to turn brittle when aged in a 90C 50%RH oven.

 

If you look at the plot line for the 90C/50%RH sample in the Library of Congress tests for the Springhill Offset paper and follow it to the bottom of the graph (where it would endure zero folds), it took about 17 days for the Springhill Offset to get there. So really, the accelerated aging tests show that the Springhill Offset paper performs pretty closely to 1970s newsprint, despite all of the differences in methods of manufacture, brightness levels, etc.

 

I'll grant you that newsprint quality varied from publisher to publisher over the decades, but all of this misses the point. The point is that I do not believe that a few minutes at 60-65C in a dry mount press is going to cause appreciable damage to the paper strength, even if you have to introduce humidity to relax the fibers to remove a warp. Whatever damage is caused by a few minutes in the press is going to be dwarfed by the damage caused by whoever owns the book and doesn't store it in ideal conditions over the next 30 years.

 

So are you saying pressing does cause damage but very very minor damage?

 

So would reading a comic, or leaving it in a hot car or warehouse, or improper storage techniques, or if the relative humidity was too high, or mailing abook improperly (or even properly).

 

In which I would hope we would try and do those things as less as possible for those of us that want to kep our comics pristine as possible. Thus pressing = BAD.

[joeypost]

 

What are you basing that statement on? There is quite a bit of scientific evidence that suggests that it is acidity, and not necessarily the lignin content of the paper, that determines paper strength and permanence upon aging. Springhill Offset is alum-rosin sized, which means it is inherently acidic. I will grant you that high lignin content paper tends to react more with atmospheric pollutants than lignin free paper, but that's why it's not appropriate to compare the Springhill Offset results 1:1 with high lignin content groundwood. But that does not mean you should make the logical leap that we can learn nothing from the Springhill Offset results and simply disregard them as though high lignin content paper will react the opposite way upon aging. It simply means that they will age at different rates, with the high lignin content paper aging faster.

 

 

The process and chemistry of making newsprint versus freesheet is so different. Depending on when that test was done, the brightness on that Springhill Offset was either 83 bt., 86 bt., or what it is today, 90 bt. Offset standards have changed through the years. In comparison, newsprint today is 59-60 bt. And back as recent as the 1970's, it was 56 bt. That is a huge difference in brightness and the amount and types of chemicals used in the process to "whiten" the sheet are very different. I understand the acidity, but there are lots of differences in composition besides that and I can't imagine them not having an impact. Can you get a ratio? I don't know, perhaps. But in order to get one, you have to test the newsprint and the coated groundwood. And if you do that, you have a much better answer regardless of the freesheet test.

 

Are there any tests out there on newsprint and/or coated groundwood? How about those two grades from samples manufactured in the 1940's or 50's? The grade standards were a little different then, so it could make a difference within similar grades. Either one of those I would love to see. But even those wouldn't be a "be all end all" because of all the variables involved. But I'd rather slice and disect that one.

 

So would I (that's why tb's experiment sounds so interesting), but we are getting far afield of the original point that fantastic_four raised when he started the thread. The question was whether a typical dry mount press job would cause "long term damage" to a comic. My point was that it will cause at most negligible damage on a molecular level, but nothing appreciable in terms of fold strength, suppleness, tear strength, or any other test of paper freshness or strength. It doesn't seem like you're disputing that, right?

 

Anyway, if you want some data for testing newsprint from the 1970s exposed to accelerated aging, this 1979 study from the JAIC has some data. http://aic.stanford.edu/jaic/articles/jaic18-02-001_3.html It took about 17 days for the unwashed sample (the control sample) of newsprint to turn brittle when aged in a 90C 50%RH oven.

 

If you look at the plot line for the 90C/50%RH sample in the Library of Congress tests for the Springhill Offset paper and follow it to the bottom of the graph (where it would endure zero folds), it took about 17 days for the Springhill Offset to get there. So really, the accelerated aging tests show that the Springhill Offset paper performs pretty closely to 1970s newsprint, despite all of the differences in methods of manufacture, brightness levels, etc.

 

I'll grant you that newsprint quality varied from publisher to publisher over the decades, but all of this misses the point. The point is that I do not believe that a few minutes at 60-65C in a dry mount press is going to cause appreciable damage to the paper strength, even if you have to introduce humidity to relax the fibers to remove a warp. Whatever damage is caused by a few minutes in the press is going to be dwarfed by the damage caused by whoever owns the book and doesn't store it in ideal conditions over the next 30 years.

 

So are you saying pressing does cause damage but very very minor damage?

 

So would reading a comic, or leaving it in a hot car or warehouse, or improper storage techniques, or if the relative humidity was too high, or mailing abook improperly (or even properly).

 

In which I would hope we would try and do those things as less as possible for those of us that want to kep our comics pristine as possible. Thus pressing = BAD.

 

Don't you have a sales thread to troll?

[whisp]

 

What are you basing that statement on? There is quite a bit of scientific evidence that suggests that it is acidity, and not necessarily the lignin content of the paper, that determines paper strength and permanence upon aging. Springhill Offset is alum-rosin sized, which means it is inherently acidic. I will grant you that high lignin content paper tends to react more with atmospheric pollutants than lignin free paper, but that's why it's not appropriate to compare the Springhill Offset results 1:1 with high lignin content groundwood. But that does not mean you should make the logical leap that we can learn nothing from the Springhill Offset results and simply disregard them as though high lignin content paper will react the opposite way upon aging. It simply means that they will age at different rates, with the high lignin content paper aging faster.

 

 

The process and chemistry of making newsprint versus freesheet is so different. Depending on when that test was done, the brightness on that Springhill Offset was either 83 bt., 86 bt., or what it is today, 90 bt. Offset standards have changed through the years. In comparison, newsprint today is 59-60 bt. And back as recent as the 1970's, it was 56 bt. That is a huge difference in brightness and the amount and types of chemicals used in the process to "whiten" the sheet are very different. I understand the acidity, but there are lots of differences in composition besides that and I can't imagine them not having an impact. Can you get a ratio? I don't know, perhaps. But in order to get one, you have to test the newsprint and the coated groundwood. And if you do that, you have a much better answer regardless of the freesheet test.

 

Are there any tests out there on newsprint and/or coated groundwood? How about those two grades from samples manufactured in the 1940's or 50's? The grade standards were a little different then, so it could make a difference within similar grades. Either one of those I would love to see. But even those wouldn't be a "be all end all" because of all the variables involved. But I'd rather slice and disect that one.

 

So would I (that's why tb's experiment sounds so interesting), but we are getting far afield of the original point that fantastic_four raised when he started the thread. The question was whether a typical dry mount press job would cause "long term damage" to a comic. My point was that it will cause at most negligible damage on a molecular level, but nothing appreciable in terms of fold strength, suppleness, tear strength, or any other test of paper freshness or strength. It doesn't seem like you're disputing that, right?

 

Anyway, if you want some data for testing newsprint from the 1970s exposed to accelerated aging, this 1979 study from the JAIC has some data. http://aic.stanford.edu/jaic/articles/jaic18-02-001_3.html It took about 17 days for the unwashed sample (the control sample) of newsprint to turn brittle when aged in a 90C 50%RH oven.

 

If you look at the plot line for the 90C/50%RH sample in the Library of Congress tests for the Springhill Offset paper and follow it to the bottom of the graph (where it would endure zero folds), it took about 17 days for the Springhill Offset to get there. So really, the accelerated aging tests show that the Springhill Offset paper performs pretty closely to 1970s newsprint, despite all of the differences in methods of manufacture, brightness levels, etc.

 

I'll grant you that newsprint quality varied from publisher to publisher over the decades, but all of this misses the point. The point is that I do not believe that a few minutes at 60-65C in a dry mount press is going to cause appreciable damage to the paper strength, even if you have to introduce humidity to relax the fibers to remove a warp. Whatever damage is caused by a few minutes in the press is going to be dwarfed by the damage caused by whoever owns the book and doesn't store it in ideal conditions over the next 30 years.

 

So are you saying pressing does cause damage but very very minor damage?

 

So would reading a comic, or leaving it in a hot car or warehouse, or improper storage techniques, or if the relative humidity was too high, or mailing abook improperly (or even properly).

 

In which I would hope we would try and do those things as less as possible for those of us that want to kep our comics pristine as possible. Thus pressing = BAD.

 

Don't you have a sales thread to troll?

 

How am I trolling here?

 

You listed things that where negative and simalar to pressing books thus through deduction if those where bad then pressing was bad.

 

I think I have been pretty civil in this thread.

 

[joeypost]

 

What are you basing that statement on? There is quite a bit of scientific evidence that suggests that it is acidity, and not necessarily the lignin content of the paper, that determines paper strength and permanence upon aging. Springhill Offset is alum-rosin sized, which means it is inherently acidic. I will grant you that high lignin content paper tends to react more with atmospheric pollutants than lignin free paper, but that's why it's not appropriate to compare the Springhill Offset results 1:1 with high lignin content groundwood. But that does not mean you should make the logical leap that we can learn nothing from the Springhill Offset results and simply disregard them as though high lignin content paper will react the opposite way upon aging. It simply means that they will age at different rates, with the high lignin content paper aging faster.

 

 

The process and chemistry of making newsprint versus freesheet is so different. Depending on when that test was done, the brightness on that Springhill Offset was either 83 bt., 86 bt., or what it is today, 90 bt. Offset standards have changed through the years. In comparison, newsprint today is 59-60 bt. And back as recent as the 1970's, it was 56 bt. That is a huge difference in brightness and the amount and types of chemicals used in the process to "whiten" the sheet are very different. I understand the acidity, but there are lots of differences in composition besides that and I can't imagine them not having an impact. Can you get a ratio? I don't know, perhaps. But in order to get one, you have to test the newsprint and the coated groundwood. And if you do that, you have a much better answer regardless of the freesheet test.

 

Are there any tests out there on newsprint and/or coated groundwood? How about those two grades from samples manufactured in the 1940's or 50's? The grade standards were a little different then, so it could make a difference within similar grades. Either one of those I would love to see. But even those wouldn't be a "be all end all" because of all the variables involved. But I'd rather slice and disect that one.

 

So would I (that's why tb's experiment sounds so interesting), but we are getting far afield of the original point that fantastic_four raised when he started the thread. The question was whether a typical dry mount press job would cause "long term damage" to a comic. My point was that it will cause at most negligible damage on a molecular level, but nothing appreciable in terms of fold strength, suppleness, tear strength, or any other test of paper freshness or strength. It doesn't seem like you're disputing that, right?

 

Anyway, if you want some data for testing newsprint from the 1970s exposed to accelerated aging, this 1979 study from the JAIC has some data. http://aic.stanford.edu/jaic/articles/jaic18-02-001_3.html It took about 17 days for the unwashed sample (the control sample) of newsprint to turn brittle when aged in a 90C 50%RH oven.

 

If you look at the plot line for the 90C/50%RH sample in the Library of Congress tests for the Springhill Offset paper and follow it to the bottom of the graph (where it would endure zero folds), it took about 17 days for the Springhill Offset to get there. So really, the accelerated aging tests show that the Springhill Offset paper performs pretty closely to 1970s newsprint, despite all of the differences in methods of manufacture, brightness levels, etc.

 

I'll grant you that newsprint quality varied from publisher to publisher over the decades, but all of this misses the point. The point is that I do not believe that a few minutes at 60-65C in a dry mount press is going to cause appreciable damage to the paper strength, even if you have to introduce humidity to relax the fibers to remove a warp. Whatever damage is caused by a few minutes in the press is going to be dwarfed by the damage caused by whoever owns the book and doesn't store it in ideal conditions over the next 30 years.

 

So are you saying pressing does cause damage but very very minor damage?

 

So would reading a comic, or leaving it in a hot car or warehouse, or improper storage techniques, or if the relative humidity was too high, or mailing abook improperly (or even properly).

 

In which I would hope we would try and do those things as less as possible for those of us that want to kep our comics pristine as possible. Thus pressing = BAD.

 

Don't you have a sales thread to troll?

 

How am I trolling here?

 

You listed things that where negative and simalar to pressing books thus through deduction if those where bad then pressing was bad.

 

I think I have been pretty civil in this thread.

 

 

Did you even read FFB post? The second a book comes off the press (printing press) it is downhill from there. The effects of pressing are comparable to any other agent that acts against the integrity of the book.

 

Handling a book = BAD.

Reading it = BAD

Everytime you re-bag it = BAD

Doing nothing to the book = BAD

 

So if I followed your logic owning a book = BAD since it is ageing anyway.

 

Considering books have been around since the 1930's and have not turned to powder. Considering they are digging up newspaper that has been in the ground 60 years and is still in good enough shape to read. Considering the lengths collectors go with proper storage techniques and micr-chamber paper and UV protection and temperature/humity control I would say the minute or two a book is in the press has little impact on the book compared to all the other outside forces it is constantly fighting against.

[whisp]

They are all bad things that some collectors try and prevent. Hence Acid free boards, hence plastic sleeves be it regular or mylar, hence CGC encapsulation and all the other methods of storage medium. So if we are all trying to prevent these minor damages from happening to our books why would you go do something that speeds up the process such as pressing?

 

I am well aware of the natural issues of degregation of a book but pressing is not natural!

 

 

Handling a book = natural (people read and need to put the books away in sleeves and such along with shipping handling and whatever else)

 

Reading it = natural (that is the whole point of a comic book is to read it so it is bound to happen)

 

Rebagging = natural (Supposively with mylar and fullbacks you do not need to resleeve which was stated in this thread earlier when I asked about the lifespan of different storage mediums)

 

Doing nothing to a book = ?? nothing happens if nothing happens

 

Owning a book = (this is dependent on who owns the book and if he/she is pressing them)

 

Pressing a book = not natural (this is done second hand and does not need to be done)

 

Funny how we try and prevent all these things to our books that you have listed but yet some people do one of those negative things to books which is pressing regardless of how minor the damage is.

[John A III]

So would reading a comic, or leaving it in a hot car or warehouse, or improper storage techniques, or if the relative humidity was too high, or mailing abook improperly (or even properly).

 

In which I would hope we would try and do those things as less as possible for those of us that want to kep our comics pristine as possible. Thus pressing = BAD.

 

but by that logic reading the books = Bad. So am I suppose to disclouse if I've read my comic book?

[whisp]

So would reading a comic, or leaving it in a hot car or warehouse, or improper storage techniques, or if the relative humidity was too high, or mailing abook improperly (or even properly).

 

In which I would hope we would try and do those things as less as possible for those of us that want to kep our comics pristine as possible. Thus pressing = BAD.

 

but by that logic reading the books = Bad. So am I suppose to disclouse if I've read my comic book?

 

YES

 

 

Interestingly enough some people on ebay actually disclose if the book has been read or not in their ebay auction. Usually that they have been unread.

[John A III]

So would reading a comic, or leaving it in a hot car or warehouse, or improper storage techniques, or if the relative humidity was too high, or mailing abook improperly (or even properly).

 

In which I would hope we would try and do those things as less as possible for those of us that want to kep our comics pristine as possible. Thus pressing = BAD.

 

but by that logic reading the books = Bad. So am I suppose to disclouse if I've read my comic book?

 

YES

 

 

Interestingly enough some people on ebay actually disclose if the book has been read or not in their ebay auction. Usually that they have been unread.

 

but yet you'd still buy a book that has been read or handled. Everything that happens to a book, inculding pressing, is all on the secondary market. There is no natural or unnatural treatment. There is common and uncommon. It wasn't common for people to take great care of their comics in the 1940's and 50's, it is common now. it wasn't common for pressing 60 years ago (?), it is becoming more comon now.

[whisp]

So would reading a comic, or leaving it in a hot car or warehouse, or improper storage techniques, or if the relative humidity was too high, or mailing abook improperly (or even properly).

 

In which I would hope we would try and do those things as less as possible for those of us that want to kep our comics pristine as possible. Thus pressing = BAD.

 

but by that logic reading the books = Bad. So am I suppose to disclouse if I've read my comic book?

 

YES

 

 

Interestingly enough some people on ebay actually disclose if the book has been read or not in their ebay auction. Usually that they have been unread.

 

but yet you'd still buy a book that has been read or handled. Everything that happens to a book, inculding pressing, is all on the secondary market. There is no natural or unnatural treatment. There is common and uncommon. It wasn't common for people to take great care of their comics in the 1940's and 50's, it is common now. it wasn't common for pressing 60 years ago (?), it is becoming more comon now.

 

A book will be handled regardless and is something we don't have control over (unless you are sitting right at the press with white gloves and taking your copy right off the press). We have control over if we press or not.

[John A III]

true we have control to press or not, but we don't have control over how other people treat their books. So some may treat them poorly and intorduce flaws that can be pressed out, and others may enjoy better looking books, so they press out the flaws.

 

Now I know that isn't the scenerio in the crack/press/resub 'game', but it is a legitament use of pressing.

[whisp]

Well I don't know how to answer your statement because I have seen two sides of the topic where one thinks that non colour breaking creases are flaws and some that say that they are not flaws which goes back to whether it is restoration or not.

 

I will note that when CGC grades or using the overstreet grading guide that they are listed as flaws that reduce the grade.

 

My opinion is that it is a flaw being removed by pressing thus restoration since it is being restored to a previous condition. Some of these guys say that it is not restoration.

 

I think when you have a community divided such as we are on the topic that it must be a negative thing thus why I do not like pressing and would like to keep my books pressed free in their damaged natural state.

[John A III]

I think flaws are dependent on the person. And I'm not here to debate the restoration classification. I believe it is, by any defenition of restoration, restoration. However, it seems that more people focus on the use of it to enhance HG books to even higher grades. Now if people want to debate the ethics on that, my position may be different, but pressing, in itself is not evil. Neither is a topic that people don't agree on, any good community will have it's difference in opionion and knowledge, or else it'd be very boring and useless.

[stagedoorjohnny]

So would I (that's why tb's experiment sounds so interesting), but we are getting far afield of the original point that fantastic_four raised when he started the thread. The question was whether a typical dry mount press job would cause "long term damage" to a comic. My point was that it will cause at most negligible damage on a molecular level, but nothing appreciable in terms of fold strength, suppleness, tear strength, or any other test of paper freshness or strength. It doesn't seem like you're disputing that, right?

 

I am disputing it in the sense that I don't know the answer. But you have to understand my point of reference: I am a Golden Age collector. I know minimal about any funny book printed past 1945. They are my sole focus and main concern in all these discussions. When I am looking at all this information, it is from that perspective. And I think that makes a big difference in how you look at this whole topic.

 

I do have genuine concern about books from the 1940's being pressed. Not only do you have different and inconsistent manufacturing processes back then, but you also add anywhere from 60-70+ years of storage techniques into the equation. You want to talk about wild cards? And just because the results on pressing one book, with regards to maintaining preservation, were negligible that does not mean you will get similar results on the next book. Every book is so different and had such a different journey to get to today.

 

I get frustrated because I don't think people consider this enough. They extrapolate one book's results to all books. They press a book from 1968 successfully and think it will be similar for a book from 1942. And the scary part for me is that even with all these unknowns out there, it is not slowing down the amounts of Golden Age books being "processed".

[FFB]

 

What are you basing that statement on? There is quite a bit of scientific evidence that suggests that it is acidity, and not necessarily the lignin content of the paper, that determines paper strength and permanence upon aging. Springhill Offset is alum-rosin sized, which means it is inherently acidic. I will grant you that high lignin content paper tends to react more with atmospheric pollutants than lignin free paper, but that's why it's not appropriate to compare the Springhill Offset results 1:1 with high lignin content groundwood. But that does not mean you should make the logical leap that we can learn nothing from the Springhill Offset results and simply disregard them as though high lignin content paper will react the opposite way upon aging. It simply means that they will age at different rates, with the high lignin content paper aging faster.

 

 

The process and chemistry of making newsprint versus freesheet is so different. Depending on when that test was done, the brightness on that Springhill Offset was either 83 bt., 86 bt., or what it is today, 90 bt. Offset standards have changed through the years. In comparison, newsprint today is 59-60 bt. And back as recent as the 1970's, it was 56 bt. That is a huge difference in brightness and the amount and types of chemicals used in the process to "whiten" the sheet are very different. I understand the acidity, but there are lots of differences in composition besides that and I can't imagine them not having an impact. Can you get a ratio? I don't know, perhaps. But in order to get one, you have to test the newsprint and the coated groundwood. And if you do that, you have a much better answer regardless of the freesheet test.

 

Are there any tests out there on newsprint and/or coated groundwood? How about those two grades from samples manufactured in the 1940's or 50's? The grade standards were a little different then, so it could make a difference within similar grades. Either one of those I would love to see. But even those wouldn't be a "be all end all" because of all the variables involved. But I'd rather slice and disect that one.

 

So would I (that's why tb's experiment sounds so interesting), but we are getting far afield of the original point that fantastic_four raised when he started the thread. The question was whether a typical dry mount press job would cause "long term damage" to a comic. My point was that it will cause at most negligible damage on a molecular level, but nothing appreciable in terms of fold strength, suppleness, tear strength, or any other test of paper freshness or strength. It doesn't seem like you're disputing that, right?

 

Anyway, if you want some data for testing newsprint from the 1970s exposed to accelerated aging, this 1979 study from the JAIC has some data. http://aic.stanford.edu/jaic/articles/jaic18-02-001_3.html It took about 17 days for the unwashed sample (the control sample) of newsprint to turn brittle when aged in a 90C 50%RH oven.

 

If you look at the plot line for the 90C/50%RH sample in the Library of Congress tests for the Springhill Offset paper and follow it to the bottom of the graph (where it would endure zero folds), it took about 17 days for the Springhill Offset to get there. So really, the accelerated aging tests show that the Springhill Offset paper performs pretty closely to 1970s newsprint, despite all of the differences in methods of manufacture, brightness levels, etc.

 

I'll grant you that newsprint quality varied from publisher to publisher over the decades, but all of this misses the point. The point is that I do not believe that a few minutes at 60-65C in a dry mount press is going to cause appreciable damage to the paper strength, even if you have to introduce humidity to relax the fibers to remove a warp. Whatever damage is caused by a few minutes in the press is going to be dwarfed by the damage caused by whoever owns the book and doesn't store it in ideal conditions over the next 30 years.

 

So are you saying pressing does cause damage but very very minor damage?

 

Yes, I believe I've said that at least three times in this thread. It causes some damage on a molecular level, but not enough to affect paper strength in any measurable or appreciable way. It causes less damage than someone who stores their comics in an environment where humidity and temperature fluctuate, for example.

[whisp]

Well their is a lot of issues with this subject one being disclosure and how if people keep pressing books and it becomes commonplace raises the chance of there being a pressed book in my colection in which I do not want. I want no restored books in my collection. If they want to press their books for their personal collection that will never be sold then go nuts. But when they are releaseing these books undisclosed and such in which I have no control over stopping these books getting into my collection is just wrong. I should have a choice in the matter if I want a pressed book or not. If pressing becomes commonplace then they are taking that right away from me thus it is wrong

[FFB]

Well I don't know how to answer your statement because I have seen two sides of the topic where one thinks that non colour breaking creases are flaws and some that say that they are not flaws which goes back to whether it is restoration or not.

 

I will note that when CGC grades or using the overstreet grading guide that they are listed as flaws that reduce the grade.

 

My opinion is that it is a flaw being removed by pressing thus restoration since it is being restored to a previous condition. Some of these guys say that it is not restoration.

 

I think when you have a community divided such as we are on the topic that it must be a negative thing thus why I do not like pressing and would like to keep my books pressed free in their damaged natural state.

 

Guys,

 

Let's not turn this into a thread moralizing about pressing and whether it's natural or unnatural or any of the other tangents these pressing threads go off on. Let's try to stick to a discussion of what effects pressing has on comics. There are tons of other pressing threads where you guys can debate the morality of pressing or any other aspect of pressing.

[John A III]

Well their is a lot of issues with this subject one being disclosure and how if people keep pressing books and it becomes commonplace raises the chance of there being a pressed book in my colection in which I do not want. I want no restored books in my collection. If they want to press their books for their personal collection that will never be sold then go nuts. But when they are releaseing these books undisclosed and such in which I have no control over stopping these books getting into my collection is just wrong. I should have a choice in the matter if I want a pressed book or not. If pressing becomes commonplace then they are taking that right away from me thus it is wrong

 

I'll agree with the possible robbing you of that choice is wrong, but that is a thing with people not the process. And when you start labeling processes as evil it just makes you come off as an extremist and loses your point for many.