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

[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?

 

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.

 

 

(thumbs u

[bronze_rules]

I don't know if FFB has intentionally dodged my question, or it is just not worthy or answering (to him). But for someone else who has extensive knowledge of restoration I'll try once more. If you had to make a ballpark estimate of two types of classification on pressing, dry/cold and steam/heat, for comics going to the 70s and back, what percentage would you allocate to each. i.e. 45% dry/cold, 55% steam/heat? And please don't respond with it depends on case by case; regardless of the particular circumstances for each book, one who has a great deal of knowledge of restoration should at least be able to come up with a rough sense of that figure from their personal experience in the field. Just think of a conveyor belt with two bins, and you are only allowed to throw the (post-pressed) book into one of the two bins to classify. You will end up with a percentage of books allocated to one of the two bins.

 

I see all the attention to detail that FFB and others take when dealing with a case by case basis, but I have to wonder, does their painstaking approach represent the far majority of pressing that has been done to comics out there? With the recent explosion of 9.8s, I would assume that less knowledgeable pressers are using a more generic approach; hence the other question about standard equipment used to press (i.e. is it steam/heat based in general; if a dealer had to buy one mechanical press, what would it be).

 

I think the numerous (defensive) comments on how dry mechanical pressing have very minimal impact is not very relevant in the case that few are actually processed across the board in this manner. I'm hoping we can add some context from a pragmatist here.

[FFB]

I don't know if FFB is intentionally dodging my question, or it is just not worthy or answering. But for someone else who has extensive knowledge of restoration I'll try once more. If you had to make a ballpark estimate of two types of classification on pressing, dry/cold and steam/heat, for comics going to the 70s and back, what percentage would you allocate to each. i.e. 45% dry/cold, 55% steam/heat?

 

I see all the attention to detail that FFB and others take when dealing with a case by case basis, but I have to wonder, does their painstaking approach represent the far majority of pressing that has been done to comics out there? With the recent explosion of 9.8s, I would assume that less knowledgeable pressers are using a more generic approach; hence the other question about standard equipment used to press (i.e. is it steam/heat based in general; if a dealer had to buy one mechanical press, what would it be).

 

I think the numerous comments on how dry mechanical pressing have very minimal impact is not very relevant in the case that few are actually processed across the board in this manner. I'm hoping we can add some context from a pragmatist here.

 

Sorry, I wasn't dodging your question. I just missed it.

 

To answer your question - I honestly have no idea. Most pressing done outside of the comic book industry will involve no heat whatsoever, and is done following a cleaning of an artifact or after humidification of a rolled artifact (such as an old map). The conservator will place the artifact on a cotton blotter, cover it with another cotton blotter (perhaps with a sheet of remay or hollytex between the artifact and the blotters), and then place a piece of weighted glass over the artifact to hold it flat while the water/moisture volatilizes out of the artifact (or in plain English, until the artifact dries). The blotters may or may not need to be swapped out during the process.

 

As for comics, most "full restoration" jobs that involve aqueous cleaning will involve a pressing job like this, where no heat is used. Using a hot dry mount press on a wet comic book is a rookie mistake. The book will almost always experience dimensional changes (like when you wash a pair of new blue jeans and then stick them in a hot dryer).

 

For NDP (or "non-disassembly pressing"), my wild guess is that most of what is being done in the comic industry is being done by amateurs with dry mount presses that are a bit too hot and using moisture by interleaving a damp piece of acid free paper into the book while it's in the dry mount press. I don't know how Matt Nelson or Zeman press books, but I am pretty sure it's not done this way -- all I know is that they know more than one way to press a book and that the dry mount press may or may not be part of their techniques. I don't know how Tracey Heft presses books either. I have heard that Susan Cicconi does not press books at all unless it is part of a full restoration treatment, which means she's probably not using a dry mount press. How do these numbers stack up as a whole to what is going on in the industry, amateur and professional alike? Now you can see why I say I have no idea.

 

I will also say, however, that you would be surprised by how frequently books are pressed using the localized, mechanical pressing (no heat or humidity). Any book with a bent overhang or hard crease in the white area of the cover would be pressed this way, and probably not with a dry mount press. That's a good percentage of the books.

[bronze_rules]

Thanks for the clarification FFB. I had assumed steam and heat went together as a class, but I see that's not the case. I guess there is a lot of secrecy in the comic pressing world (and understandably so, I guess). I suppose I was looking for clarification on non-disassembly/minimal resto methods, as I am sure most reading this thread are looking to understand pressing impact as it pertains to blue label covers.

I'm gathering from your comments, that amateurs and non-resto experts (i.e. the recent explosion of pressing) are done with heat and h20. That sort of corroborates my hunch that "most" blue label pressing is performed using h20 and heat, rather than safer methods.

 

 

I don't know if FFB is intentionally dodging my question, or it is just not worthy or answering. But for someone else who has extensive knowledge of restoration I'll try once more. If you had to make a ballpark estimate of two types of classification on pressing, dry/cold and steam/heat, for comics going to the 70s and back, what percentage would you allocate to each. i.e. 45% dry/cold, 55% steam/heat?

 

I see all the attention to detail that FFB and others take when dealing with a case by case basis, but I have to wonder, does their painstaking approach represent the far majority of pressing that has been done to comics out there? With the recent explosion of 9.8s, I would assume that less knowledgeable pressers are using a more generic approach; hence the other question about standard equipment used to press (i.e. is it steam/heat based in general; if a dealer had to buy one mechanical press, what would it be).

 

I think the numerous comments on how dry mechanical pressing have very minimal impact is not very relevant in the case that few are actually processed across the board in this manner. I'm hoping we can add some context from a pragmatist here.

 

Sorry, I wasn't dodging your question. I just missed it.

 

To answer your question - I honestly have no idea. Most pressing done outside of the comic book industry will involve no heat whatsoever, and is done following a cleaning of an artifact or after humidification of a rolled artifact (such as an old map). The conservator will place the artifact on a cotton blotter, cover it with another cotton blotter (perhaps with a sheet of remay or hollytex between the artifact and the blotters), and then place a piece of weighted glass over the artifact to hold it flat while the water/moisture volatilizes out of the artifact (or in plain English, until the artifact dries). The blotters may or may not need to be swapped out during the process.

 

As for comics, most "full restoration" jobs that involve aqueous cleaning will involve a pressing job like this, where no heat is used. Using a hot dry mount press on a wet comic book is a rookie mistake. The book will almost always experience dimensional changes (like when you wash a pair of new blue jeans and then stick them in a hot dryer).

 

For NDP (or "non-disassembly pressing"), my wild guess is that most of what is being done in the comic industry is being done by amateurs with dry mount presses that are a bit too hot and using moisture by interleaving a damp piece of acid free paper into the book while it's in the dry mount press. I don't know how Matt Nelson or Zeman press books, but I am pretty sure it's not done this way -- all I know is that they know more than one way to press a book and that the dry mount press may or may not be part of their techniques. I don't know how Tracey Heft presses books either. I have heard that Susan Cicconi does not press books at all unless it is part of a full restoration treatment, which means she's probably not using a dry mount press. How do these numbers stack up as a whole to what is going on in the industry, amateur and professional alike? Now you can see why I say I have no idea.

 

I will also say, however, that you would be surprised by how frequently books are pressed using the localized, mechanical pressing (no heat or humidity). Any book with a bent overhang or hard crease in the white area of the cover would be pressed this way, and probably not with a dry mount press. That's a good percentage of the books.

[bronze_rules]

There are some interesting references here in this patent, making the claim that the gases that get trapped in encapsulated artifact spaces tend to cause faster damage to the artifacts than non-encapsulated artifacts. It cites a study by U.S. Printing office. While it specifically references polyester film encapsulation, the same concept should apply to any type of encapsulation of paper based ephemera.

 

"While polyester film encapsulation of documents which have not been deacidified renders them resistant to destruction brought about by handling, the above-cited U.S. Printing Office publication 1980 0-299-578 indicates that encapsulated documents which have not been deacidified deteriorate at a faster rate than papers which have not been encapsulated. This is apparently due to the build up of degradative gases within the polyester envelope."

 

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=6&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=comic&s2=encapsulation&OS=comic+AND+encapsulation&RS=comic+AND+encapsulation

 

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.

[FFB]

I see you are using the term "steam," which is not exactly what I think you mean. Steam necessarily would require a temperature of 212F/100C in order to vaporize water into steam. If your dry mount press is that hot, you're not doing it right. You really don't need to get it any warmer than about 65C to relax the fibers and flatten them out in a dry mount press.

 

As for your hunch that most blue label pressing is done with moisture and heat, I don't know that you can safely make that assumption. You might be correct or you might not.

 

Thanks for the clarification FFB. I had assumed steam and heat went together as a class, but I see that's not the case. I guess there is a lot of secrecy in the comic pressing world (and understandably so, I guess). I suppose I was looking for clarification on non-disassembly/minimal resto methods, as I am sure most reading this thread are looking to understand pressing impact as it pertains to blue label covers.

I'm gathering from your comments, that amateurs and non-resto experts (i.e. the recent explosion of pressing) are done with heat and h20. That sort of corroborates my hunch that "most" blue label pressing is performed using h20 and heat, rather than safer methods.

 

[FFB]

That's what Microchamber paper is for - to neutralize the gasses and by-products of degradation before they can start that chain reaction.

 

There are some interesting references here in this patent, making the claim that the gases that get trapped in encapsulated artifact spaces tend to cause faster damage to the artifacts than non-encapsulated artifacts. It cites a study by U.S. Printing office. While it specifically references polyester film encapsulation, the same concept should apply to any type of encapsulation of paper based ephemera.

 

"While polyester film encapsulation of documents which have not been deacidified renders them resistant to destruction brought about by handling, the above-cited U.S. Printing Office publication 1980 0-299-578 indicates that encapsulated documents which have not been deacidified deteriorate at a faster rate than papers which have not been encapsulated. This is apparently due to the build up of degradative gases within the polyester envelope."

 

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=6&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=comic&s2=encapsulation&OS=comic+AND+encapsulation&RS=comic+AND+encapsulation

 

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.

[bronze_rules]

He goes on to further clarify, "Another proposal has been to encapsulate a sheet of alkaline paper along with the acid-containing paper to be preserved. While this has been reported as slowing the deterioration of acid-containing paper, the degradative reaction still continues with the acid-containing paper degenerating faster than non-acidic paper. "

 

I would think that the reaction has already begun long before the article has been encapsulated (on say 70s or older items), any buffer would only serve to slow that process in the encapsulation, no? His argument is that the added benefit would only partially cancel the deleterious accelerated deterioration effect of the trapped gasses.

 

You could infer that his conclusion is that combined effects of encapsulation along with a buffer, like microchamber are not sufficient to offset the increased rate of decay due to trapped gasses in the encapsulation method; to address namisgr's question.

 

edit: I read a bit more, that microchamber is a much longer protectant than standard alkaline buffering (100X according to one source), so I'm not certain how much they offset the gasses, to the extent that it is equivalent to degradation rate of decay under no encapsulation.

 

That's what Microchamber paper is for - to neutralize the gasses and by-products of degradation before they can start that chain reaction.

 

There are some interesting references here in this patent, making the claim that the gases that get trapped in encapsulated artifact spaces tend to cause faster damage to the artifacts than non-encapsulated artifacts. It cites a study by U.S. Printing office. While it specifically references polyester film encapsulation, the same concept should apply to any type of encapsulation of paper based ephemera.

 

"While polyester film encapsulation of documents which have not been deacidified renders them resistant to destruction brought about by handling, the above-cited U.S. Printing Office publication 1980 0-299-578 indicates that encapsulated documents which have not been deacidified deteriorate at a faster rate than papers which have not been encapsulated. This is apparently due to the build up of degradative gases within the polyester envelope."

 

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=6&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=comic&s2=encapsulation&OS=comic+AND+encapsulation&RS=comic+AND+encapsulation

 

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.

[tb]

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 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".

 

SDJ: Your last paragraph sums up my own feelings. You seem to understand paper as well as anyone here and I am glad you and FFB have taken the initiative to this thread. I simply don't understand how hundreds of boarders can post tens of thousands of messages about pressing, but when it comes to actually taking the initiative, doing the work, and paying the money required to answer the question scientifically there is dead silence. Honestly, that's why I am reluctant to put any of my own time, which is sparse enough as it is, into this.

 

I do know several professors at UC Berkeley but none associated with the Forest Lab that FFB mentions. Also, knowing what it is like to be on tenure track at a competitive university, I fear it would be difficult to get anyone to help with this project for free. I think the best bet would be to contact authors of some of the papers that FFB mentions. If they won't do the experiments, they should at least be able to comment on how we could conduct such experiments ourselves.

 

FFB: I like your suggestion of cutting the books in halves. The other types of experiments that you mention sound valuable but I am not familiar with the literature and don't know how to conduct them in practice. The one experiment that I suggested seems like something that wouldn't be too hard to do, unless, of course, everyone is too busy talking about pressing over in the General forum.

[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 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".

 

SDJ: Your last paragraph sums up my own feelings. You seem to understand paper as well as anyone here and I am glad you and FFB have taken the initiative to this thread. I simply don't understand how hundreds of boarders can post tens of thousands of messages about pressing, but when it comes to actually taking the initiative, doing the work, and paying the money required to answer the question scientifically there is dead silence. Honestly, that's why I am reluctant to put any of my own time, which is sparse enough as it is, into this.

 

I do know several professors at UC Berkeley but none associated with the Forest Lab that FFB mentions. Also, knowing what it is like to be on tenure track at a competitive university, I fear it would be difficult to get anyone to help with this project for free. I think the best bet would be to contact authors of some of the papers that FFB mentions. If they won't do the experiments, they should at least be able to comment on how we could conduct such experiments ourselves.

 

FFB: I like your suggestion of cutting the books in halves. The other types of experiments that you mention sound valuable but I am not familiar with the literature and don't know how to conduct them in practice. The one experiment that I suggested seems like something that wouldn't be too hard to do, unless, of course, everyone is too busy talking about pressing over in the General forum.

 

tb,

 

I have the equipment and know-how to do the pressing if you've got some particular cheap books you want to use as samples. The thing I don't have is the MIT folds testing equipment. If we could track down someone who does and who would be willing to run the tests, we could do it.

 

FFB (who is sick and tired of all of the endless debates re the goods or evils of pressing and would love to get some real data to talk about)

[FFB]

He goes on to further clarify, "Another proposal has been to encapsulate a sheet of alkaline paper along with the acid-containing paper to be preserved. While this has been reported as slowing the deterioration of acid-containing paper, the degradative reaction still continues with the acid-containing paper degenerating faster than non-acidic paper. "

 

I would think that the reaction has already begun long before the article has been encapsulated (on say 70s or older items), any buffer would only serve to slow that process in the encapsulation, no? His argument is that the added benefit would only partially cancel the deleterious accelerated deterioration effect of the trapped gasses.

 

You could infer that his conclusion is that combined effects of encapsulation along with a buffer, like microchamber are not sufficient to offset the increased rate of decay due to trapped gasses in the encapsulation method; to address namisgr's question.

 

edit: I read a bit more, that microchamber is a much longer protectant than standard alkaline buffering (100X according to one source), so I'm not certain how much they offset the gasses, to the extent that it is equivalent to degradation rate of decay under no encapsulation.

 

 

Keep in mind what a patent application is and what it is not. It is a document prepared by an inventor who is trying to convince a patent examiner why his invention is useful and innovative. It is not a neutral, peer reviewed journal article. You can't give the statements in the patent application the same weight as you could give similar statements in a peer-reviewed article.

 

All of the questions regarding the safety of encapsulation are secondary to the storage environment in which the artifact is kept. If temperature and humidity are properly regulated and stabilized, the rate of decay of an artifact will be slowed considerably even if encapsulated. Look at the Edgar Church books. They were stacked ceiling high on top of one another in a closed closet for 30-40 years (which would be as much of a microclimate as an open-topped mylar with a Full Back) and they were as fresh as the day they were printed because they were not exposed to a high level of atmospheric pollutants, the humidity level was relatively low, and the temperature was stable.

[tb]

FFB,

 

Unfortunately, I honestly only have very high grade books in my collection. I only have one or two pre-1945 books that could be destroyed. Finding the right parameters for the baking might require destroying quite a few books and then we'd need additional books to get a meaningful sampling.

 

In terms of the bending, I don't think the article I read required any fancy equipment, although it was over 10 years since I read it (the MIT libraries had a surprising number of journals on this kind of stuff). As I recall, they simply made a sharp crease and then manually folded the paper across that crease until it broke. I am sure we could dig up similiar references and contact the authors for details if we actually were to do this.

 

Even if it is not super scientific, such an experiment could at least give us a rough idea of whether there is more to explore. If we did the experiment and the pressed paper consistent broke twice as fast as the unpressed, it should set off a major alarm bell. On the other hand, if there was no measurable difference it would at least be one thumbs up for pressing.

[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 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".

 

SDJ: Your last paragraph sums up my own feelings. You seem to understand paper as well as anyone here and I am glad you and FFB have taken the initiative to this thread. I simply don't understand how hundreds of boarders can post tens of thousands of messages about pressing, but when it comes to actually taking the initiative, doing the work, and paying the money required to answer the question scientifically there is dead silence. Honestly, that's why I am reluctant to put any of my own time, which is sparse enough as it is, into this.

 

I do know several professors at UC Berkeley but none associated with the Forest Lab that FFB mentions. Also, knowing what it is like to be on tenure track at a competitive university, I fear it would be difficult to get anyone to help with this project for free. I think the best bet would be to contact authors of some of the papers that FFB mentions. If they won't do the experiments, they should at least be able to comment on how we could conduct such experiments ourselves.

 

FFB: I like your suggestion of cutting the books in halves. The other types of experiments that you mention sound valuable but I am not familiar with the literature and don't know how to conduct them in practice. The one experiment that I suggested seems like something that wouldn't be too hard to do, unless, of course, everyone is too busy talking about pressing over in the General forum.

 

tb,

 

I have the equipment and know-how to do the pressing if you've got some particular cheap books you want to use as samples. The thing I don't have is the MIT folds testing equipment. If we could track down someone who does and who would be willing to run the tests, we could do it.

 

FFB (who is sick and tired of all of the endless debates re the goods or evils of pressing and would love to get some real data to talk about)

 

I just called the local conservator who restored a Japanese print of mine recently. She is going to locate a place where we can do the paper strength tests and get back to me. If we want to do this, we probably can without too much expense or hassle.

[FFB]

FFB,

 

Unfortunately, I honestly only have very high grade books in my collection. I only have one or two pre-1945 books that could be destroyed. Finding the right parameters for the baking might require destroying quite a few books and then we'd need additional books to get a meaningful sampling.

 

In terms of the bending, I don't think the article I read required any fancy equipment, although it was over 10 years since I read it (the MIT libraries had a surprising number of journals on this kind of stuff). As I recall, they simply made a sharp crease and then manually folded the paper across that crease until it broke. I am sure we could dig up similiar references and contact the authors for details if we actually were to do this.

 

Even if it is not super scientific, such an experiment could at least give us a rough idea of whether there is more to explore. If we did the experiment and the pressed paper consistent broke twice as fast as the unpressed, it should set off a major alarm bell. On the other hand, if there was no measurable difference it would at least be one thumbs up for pressing.

 

I am sure that between the people on the boards, we could get some beater books donated to the cause. Wouldn't want to cut your WDC&S#1 in half!

[divad]

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.

 

These "tests" are from a vendor site . . .

[Limited66]

I'm going to be asking a friend's wife about this issue - She's a paper conservator and book restorer for the Library of Congress

[buttock]

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 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".

 

SDJ: Your last paragraph sums up my own feelings. You seem to understand paper as well as anyone here and I am glad you and FFB have taken the initiative to this thread. I simply don't understand how hundreds of boarders can post tens of thousands of messages about pressing, but when it comes to actually taking the initiative, doing the work, and paying the money required to answer the question scientifically there is dead silence. Honestly, that's why I am reluctant to put any of my own time, which is sparse enough as it is, into this.

 

I do know several professors at UC Berkeley but none associated with the Forest Lab that FFB mentions. Also, knowing what it is like to be on tenure track at a competitive university, I fear it would be difficult to get anyone to help with this project for free. I think the best bet would be to contact authors of some of the papers that FFB mentions. If they won't do the experiments, they should at least be able to comment on how we could conduct such experiments ourselves.

 

FFB: I like your suggestion of cutting the books in halves. The other types of experiments that you mention sound valuable but I am not familiar with the literature and don't know how to conduct them in practice. The one experiment that I suggested seems like something that wouldn't be too hard to do, unless, of course, everyone is too busy talking about pressing over in the General forum.

 

tb,

 

I have the equipment and know-how to do the pressing if you've got some particular cheap books you want to use as samples. The thing I don't have is the MIT folds testing equipment. If we could track down someone who does and who would be willing to run the tests, we could do it.

 

FFB (who is sick and tired of all of the endless debates re the goods or evils of pressing and would love to get some real data to talk about)

 

Count me in as willing to help.

[FFB]

I'm going to be asking a friend's wife about this issue - She's a paper conservator and book restorer for the Library of Congress

 

Better yet, get her to sign up and join in on the conversation!

[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 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".

 

SDJ: Your last paragraph sums up my own feelings. You seem to understand paper as well as anyone here and I am glad you and FFB have taken the initiative to this thread. I simply don't understand how hundreds of boarders can post tens of thousands of messages about pressing, but when it comes to actually taking the initiative, doing the work, and paying the money required to answer the question scientifically there is dead silence. Honestly, that's why I am reluctant to put any of my own time, which is sparse enough as it is, into this.

 

I do know several professors at UC Berkeley but none associated with the Forest Lab that FFB mentions. Also, knowing what it is like to be on tenure track at a competitive university, I fear it would be difficult to get anyone to help with this project for free. I think the best bet would be to contact authors of some of the papers that FFB mentions. If they won't do the experiments, they should at least be able to comment on how we could conduct such experiments ourselves.

 

FFB: I like your suggestion of cutting the books in halves. The other types of experiments that you mention sound valuable but I am not familiar with the literature and don't know how to conduct them in practice. The one experiment that I suggested seems like something that wouldn't be too hard to do, unless, of course, everyone is too busy talking about pressing over in the General forum.

 

tb,

 

I have the equipment and know-how to do the pressing if you've got some particular cheap books you want to use as samples. The thing I don't have is the MIT folds testing equipment. If we could track down someone who does and who would be willing to run the tests, we could do it.

 

FFB (who is sick and tired of all of the endless debates re the goods or evils of pressing and would love to get some real data to talk about)

 

Count me in as willing to help.

 

Got any GA books with reasonably decent page quality that you wouldn't mind being cut in half for the good of the collective?

[FFB]

Thanks for your support, buttock.

 

I found an old Nedor funny animal (have no recollection of where I got it from) that I'd feel comfortable experimenting with. I was thinking of trying to bake the individual pages for different durations and then see if the bend-test works at all. If it does, a next step could be to gather a sample of books and send them to FFB for cutting and pressing.

 

I am sure lots of people will be laughing if this doesn't work. All I am saying is this is the best _I_ can think of, and as of yet I have not seen any alternative suggestions. I will be very busy over the next few days so there is plenty of time to contribute ideas before my Nedor gets baked.

 

 

tb,

 

Don't go sticking the Nedor into the Viking oven at home just yet. The aging ovens used to conduct these tests are special pieces of equipment that are temperature and humidity controlled. If we're going to destroy books, let's do it properly, in the name of science!