paper used in the 50's.....

[shiverbones]

i have been noticing more than ever the widening spread between average 40's paper quality & average 50's paper quality and its not good! The cheaper paper they were using is deteriorating so much faster than 40's stock. Anyone else noticing this widening spread and/ or scared of this?

[Doug014-migration]

I certainly find that interesting. One would think that the paper quality would improve with time or at worst stay the same.

[garthgantu]

Are we talking cover stock, interior pages, or both? I agree that many, perhaps most, early-to-mid '50s books were printed using low-quality paper. There are some exceptions, including some of the Dell titles, which don't seem to have dropped in quality in the '50s.

 

I think the issue may be the thickness of the paper as much as the actual quality. If the paper is even 20% thicker/heavier, as I'm guessing it was prior to the '50s, it would hold up longer and look better, and perhaps retain suppleness longer. '40s pages seem considerably heavier than many '50s books' pages.

[shiverbones]

good point about the dells, they are holding up. I do mean cover & interior. Finding pre-code horror from smaller publishers without spines split due to age is getting tougher & tougher. Page quality in general. I too think its the thinner pulp. What is another 10 years going to do to these though?

[seank]

I think you can't look at paper quality overall but have to look at it company by company. Dells do hold up. The cover stock of Fiction House books tends to fade. ECs have weak spines.

 

But remember that the 1950s was not good for the industry. Publishers weren't raking in money like they had in the 1940s. Lower paper quality is a good way to save on costs without cutting pages. And for comics, which were ephemeral, lower grade paper was a great way to save money.

[shiverbones]

i understand the reasons why, its just the rate of attrition that is alarming me. I think they are aging at exponentially worse rates than earlier paper.