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

[John A III]

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.

 

agreed. I will stop now.

[whisp]

So what is the conclusion that pressing has on books?

 

Is it damage or not regardless of how minor?

 

 

[fantastic_four]

There are thousands of artifacts that have been pressed (including the Declaration of Independence) that have not reverted despite the passage of decades.

 

I've been specifically looking for evidence of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence being pressed and have been unable to find any. Do you recall where you heard it has been pressed?

[FFB]

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".

 

I completely agree with what you are saying here. Pressing aged newsprint is a potentially dangerous thing, and I think I touched upon that earlier in this thread. On the other hand, if the newsprint is relatively fresh (like the paper DC used during the GA, which was very high quality and holds up well), I don't believe that the forces exerted during a standard dry mount press job would cause any appreciable loss in paper strength.

 

tb had a great suggestion about testing pressing on aged newsprint on a few samples and then measuring the results. It would be really interesting to put together an experiment like that. Zeman lives near the Indiana Document Conservation Center. Maybe he'll run some experiments and have the IDCC folks help him run the strength tests on the samples? I don't know how Matt and Kenny press books (their technique is a trade secret), but from what little I've seen Kenny say on the subject, I understand is that it is different from just slapping a book into a dry mount press - it's apparently safer. But Kenny certainly has the capability to do the standard dry mount press technique on some samples if he wants to.

 

What do you say, Kenny? Any interest in doing the experiment to get some real data?

[FFB]

There are thousands of artifacts that have been pressed (including the Declaration of Independence) that have not reverted despite the passage of decades.

 

I've been specifically looking for evidence of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence being pressed and have been unable to find any. Do you recall where you heard it has been pressed?

 

The Declaration of Independence was stored rolled up for decades. It is now flat. It had to have been pressed. I am sure they didn't stick it in a dry mount press, but it was pressed nonetheless or it would still be rolled up.

[FFB]

So what is the conclusion that pressing has on books?

 

Is it damage or not regardless of how minor?

 

 

Asked and answered several times already in this thread.

[fantastic_four]

2) I have HUGE reservations about putting any book in a slab now. That being said, I'm concerned about my books in mylars as well.

 

There's a long thread in this forum about the "7-year microchamber tuneup". CGC also had the same reservations about placing the books in a semi-sealed container, which is why they put the microchamber paper in. I don't recall Heft or anyone else having lingering issues with the fact that the paper should keep the comic safe for at least 7 years, but for slabs that have been encapsulated beyond that length of time, your concerns are valid.

 

Which brings up a point--ALL of the old-label slabs have now eclipsed the time period the microchamber paper is expected to be effective for.

[namisgr]

Not only that, but the projections on the effectiveness of microchamber paper at retarding acid-induced damage are nothing more than speculation. Where did the "7 year" figure come from? Out of a hat, I suspect. Moreover, as someone mentioned already, the microchamber paper is used more to prevent further transfer staining of the front and back covers than as a substitute for calcium carbonate-infused backing board in the buffering of acids and absorption of moisture.

 

I believe the hobby has no idea whatsoever on the archival safety (or lack thereof) of encapsulating books for decades in CGC holders without significant buffering.

[whisp]

So what is the conclusion that pressing has on books?

 

Is it damage or not regardless of how minor?

 

 

Asked and answered several times already in this thread.

 

Yeah I know I just wanted a shortened version like a yes or a no.

 

[Paratrooper]

So what is the conclusion that pressing has on books?

 

Is it damage or not regardless of how minor?

 

 

Asked and answered several times already in this thread.

 

Yeah I know I just wanted a shortened version like a yes or a no.

 

 

maybe

[whisp]

So what is the conclusion that pressing has on books?

 

Is it damage or not regardless of how minor?

 

 

Asked and answered several times already in this thread.

 

Yeah I know I just wanted a shortened version like a yes or a no.

 

 

maybe

 

[Jeffro.]

There are thousands of artifacts that have been pressed (including the Declaration of Independence) that have not reverted despite the passage of decades.

 

I've been specifically looking for evidence of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence being pressed and have been unable to find any. Do you recall where you heard it has been pressed?

 

I haven't read this whole thread but both the Constitution and Declaration of Independence were written on parchment, not paper. I don't think you can compare pressing of paper to pressing of parchment or vellum.

 

http://www.archives.gov/preservation/formats/paper-vellum.html

 

What's the difference between parchment, vellum, and paper?

 

The term parchment is a general term for an animal skin which has been prepared for writing or printing. Parchment has been made for centuries, and is usually calf, goat, or sheep skin. The term vellum from the French veau refers to a parchment made from calf skin. The manufacture of parchment is quite involved. After the skin is removed from the animal and any hair or flesh is cleaned away, it is stretched on a wooden frame. While it is stretched, the parchment maker or parchminer scrapes the surface of the skin with a special curved knife. In order to create tension in the skin, scraping is alternated by wetting and drying the skin. The parchment is scraped, wetted, and dried several times to bring it to the right thickness and tautness. Sometimes a final finish is achieved using pumice as an abrasive followed by chalk in order to prepare the surface of the skin to accept ink.

 

Parchment has traditionally been used instead of paper for important documents such as religious texts, public laws, indentures, and land records as it has always been considered a strong and stable material. The five pages of the U.S. Constitution as well as the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the Articles of Confederation are written on parchment.

 

The terms parchment and vellum are also used in the paper making industry. Parchment paper is made from cellulose fibers prepared from fir trees or plants such as cotton or flax. Paper can be made which mimics the thickness and smooth surface of parchment. The terms refer to the finish of the paper and should not be relied upon as an indicator of its long term stability.

 

[Ze-man]

Not only that, but the projections on the effectiveness of microchamber paper at retarding acid-induced damage are nothing more than speculation. Where did the "7 year" figure come from? Out of a hat, I suspect. Moreover, as someone mentioned already, the microchamber paper is used more to prevent further transfer staining of the front and back covers than as a substitute for calcium carbonate-infused backing board in the buffering of acids and absorption of moisture.

 

I believe the hobby has no idea whatsoever on the archival safety (or lack thereof) of encapsulating books for decades in CGC holders without significant buffering.

 

Because MCP does not have the alkaline reserve a full back does its shelf life is obviously shorter. Also I think it depends on what book it is, a White paged BA book, or a cream/tan GA book. I think that would make a huge difference in how often the paper should be swapped out. Perhaps the 7 year number was a compromise and swapping out the paper every 7 years is overkill on many books, but pushing the limit on others. Or perhaps they just drew numbers from a hat and went with it.

 

I do think because the MCP sitting right next to the interior is as effective as a fullback, just not for as long.

 

And I do not know either in regards to long term archival safety but I honestly don't think a slabbed book is any worse off then a comic sitting in a stack of books without bags/boards that survived for decades with white pages because their exposure to the environment was so limited.

 

I guess time will tell.

 

 

[Ze-man]

There are thousands of artifacts that have been pressed (including the Declaration of Independence) that have not reverted despite the passage of decades.

 

I've been specifically looking for evidence of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence being pressed and have been unable to find any. Do you recall where you heard it has been pressed?

 

I haven't read this whole thread but both the Constitution and Declaration of Independence were written on parchment, not paper. I don't think you can compare pressing of paper to pressing of parchment or vellum.

 

 

Again, I think Scott was referring more to a pressed artifact reverting then the properties or compisition of the artifact before after pressing.

 

I think.

 

 

[Ze-man]

 

What do you say, Kenny? Any interest in doing the experiment to get some real data?

 

Hey Scott, as I mentioned earlier in this thread I preformed several heat press experiments years ago similar to what TB mentioned. What I walked away with was that unless you cooked a book incorrectly for way too long in a dry mount heat press there was no discernible damage. My results were obviously was not scientific, or by any means conclusive but as you well know right now I simply have so much on my plate it would take too much time and effort to even consider such an undertaking.

 

But that isn't stopping somebody else from doing it! Ultimately I imagine results would show too much heat for too long will be detrimental incrementally.

 

Applying that info to each and every book pressed or not is the tough nut to crack because there are simply too many unkowns.

[FFB]

Not only that, but the projections on the effectiveness of microchamber paper at retarding acid-induced damage are nothing more than speculation. Where did the "7 year" figure come from? Out of a hat, I suspect. Moreover, as someone mentioned already, the microchamber paper is used more to prevent further transfer staining of the front and back covers than as a substitute for calcium carbonate-infused backing board in the buffering of acids and absorption of moisture.

 

I believe the hobby has no idea whatsoever on the archival safety (or lack thereof) of encapsulating books for decades in CGC holders without significant buffering.

 

Bob,

 

That's what Zeman said, but that's not correct. The Microchamber paper is there to act as an alkaline reserve within the enclosure and also to absorb other pollutants and products of paper aging against which a calcium carbonate buffered backing board would provide no protection. The Microchamber paper may also provide protection against oil transfer, but that isn't why it was there.

 

As for the "7 years" thing, the Microchamber paper will last a lot longer than that. CGC just picked the 7 year figure out of a hat in order to be on the safe side.

 

As for the effects of CGC slabbing for decades without buffering, it's clear that it would be bad. But the Microchamber paper is an adequate buffer.

[John A III]

From what I remember in another thread about microchamber paper, the 7 year figure came from the fact that 7 years was the testing limit they had preformed at. So they know it's good for 7 years, but not beyond that. At least that is what a person or 2 stated.

[divad]

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).

 

Nothing truer than this. I read a BA book sitting on my lounge chair on the deck in the sun the other day - no more than 10-15 minutes exposure. Just that was enough to warp the pages - not permanently, mind you, but alarmingly so.

[divad]

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".

 

 

Another great post

 

[FFB]

Not only that, but the projections on the effectiveness of microchamber paper at retarding acid-induced damage are nothing more than speculation. Where did the "7 year" figure come from? Out of a hat, I suspect. Moreover, as someone mentioned already, the microchamber paper is used more to prevent further transfer staining of the front and back covers than as a substitute for calcium carbonate-infused backing board in the buffering of acids and absorption of moisture.

 

I believe the hobby has no idea whatsoever on the archival safety (or lack thereof) of encapsulating books for decades in CGC holders without significant buffering.

 

Because MCP does not have the alkaline reserve a full back does its shelf life is obviously shorter. Also I think it depends on what book it is, a White paged BA book, or a cream/tan GA book. I think that would make a huge difference in how often the paper should be swapped out. Perhaps the 7 year number was a compromise and swapping out the paper every 7 years is overkill on many books, but pushing the limit on others. Or perhaps they just drew numbers from a hat and went with it.

 

I do think because the MCP sitting right next to the interior is as effective as a fullback, just not for as long.

 

And I do not know either in regards to long term archival safety but I honestly don't think a slabbed book is any worse off then a comic sitting in a stack of books without bags/boards that survived for decades with white pages because their exposure to the environment was so limited.

 

I guess time will tell.

 

 

I think Microchamber paper is more effective than a Full Back because the clay-impregnated cover stock is not blocking the migration of acids to be absorbed by the Microchamber paper the way it does for a Full Back. Microchamber does have an alkaline reserve, and in addition to that, it is impregnated with the SPZ zeolite that allows it to absorb pre-acidic by-products of deterioration and atmospheric pollutants that would pass through an alkaline Full Back.

 

As for whether it lasts as long as a Full Back, that's kind of a comparison of apples to oranges. For absorbing acids, it may or may not last as long as a Full Back, but we've never gotten any evidence about how long a Full Back will retain its alkaline pH within a Mylar with an acidic comic book. I'm guessing it's a heck of a lot longer than 10 years.

 

Because a Full Back is essentially the same as alkaline paper (except much thicker and with a much greater quantity of calcium carbonate than a sheet of alkaline paper has), it is probably at least on par with alkaline paper, which has a life expectancy of 500-1,000 years depending on the grade of the paper. That would obviously have to be reduced to compensate for the fact that the Full Back isn't being kept in a museum environment, but rather, is being used as an alkaline reserve within an enclosure that contains an acidic artifact. I have little doubt that it will remain effective for at least 50 years even with severely degraded paper, given how much calcium carbonate is in a 42 mil Full Back (approximately ten times as much as is in a 4 mil thick piece of archival paper).

 

But for absorbing gasses like nitrogen dioxide that react with the paper and turn into acids, Full Backs provide no protection (until the acids have actually formed) while Microchamber paper provides years of protection. Microchamber paper is supposed to absorb 170 times as much acid as standard alkaline paper, so I suspect that the 7 year figure is way on the low side in terms of how long it will last. As the tests here showed, the Microchamber paper could absorb the amount of nitrogen dioxide that is present at the highest concentrations in New York City for over 8,000 years before it was fully saturated. That's a lot of atmospheric pollutant that will never reach the book and will never turn into acid.