Susan Cicconi

[FFB]

A very interesting read. That part about Heft and historical integrity doesn't seem part of the restoration discussion any more.

Should it still be a consideration, or has aesthetics, grade, and dollars evolved any of those concerns completely out of today's view of comic book conservation?

 

I think you need to first define what you mean by compromising Historical integrity. Do you mean any book that undergoes restoration somehow loses it's integrity, or more if a book had things done to it that were done only for aesthetic, and monetary reasons?

 

One can work on a book with an eye towards conserving it.(seal tears/spine splits, even rebuilding a spine, reinforce /re attach centerfolds or staple areas etc..) But at what point does this cross over into full blown unnecessary restoration? To me it is when you add unnecessary paper and CT to make it look "prettier"

 

But this lies at the heart of comic books, and restoration in our hobby, it is all about trying to achieve the best apparent grade possible. This is not always the case, but for the most part if a key book is being restored the owner/seller wants it to look as close to original condition as possible. Why it isn't enough for most collectors to simply appreciate a book being back together again I do not know, I guess it is because we are a cosmetic, eye appeal, money driven hobby. Collectors as a whole have dictated this, not the restorers.

 

So where does the responsibility to preserve "Historical Integrity" belong? With the owner of the book, or the person restoring the book? Sure, if the work is done well it makes it more acceptable but that does not change the fact the book was restored past the point of simply being conserved.

 

Unlike historical one of a kind documents, comics were mass produced so it is hard to compare the two, but I for one would like to see people adopt a more conservative mentality when it comes to what is appealing or even preffered as a collector. Because many books could be reclaimed with leaf casting, but it would not be cost effective to CT all the added material. Time will tell if there is a market for this the more people are exposed to it.

 

But I think for the most part if it is cost effective, people will always want books fully restored. This does not mean the books are any less historical, they just might not appeal to as many collectors.

Kenny got exactly what I was refering to with the statement that was bolded by Davenport...

 

Tracey would prefer to do as little as possible to a book to keep as much of it original as possible. As an example...I bought a small batch of comics that included a 1st print Classics Illustrated #1. The cover was detached and completely seperated. There was also some paper loss around the staples. Rather than have a full blown resto job complete with color and infills Tracey suggested (yes, his suggestion) a much cheaper alternative...simply reattach the cover and leave the resto visible.

 

From an integrity standpoint that makes perfect sense. But my post was all about the economics of a decision like that. Anyone who saw that job and wasn't aware of the reasoning behind it would think Tracey was lacking in skills as a restorer. Making a book sound structurally doesn't make it any prettier, and that is what most collectors are programmed for. But Tracey preferred NOT doing aesthetically pleasing resto work. Kinda of the Don Quixote restoration business model.

 

He may have suggested the minimal treatment in that case, but it isn't like Tracey doesn't believe in aesthetic restoration of comic books. He's got plenty of examples on his website alone where you can see books that did not "need" certain kinds of (or in some cases, any) restoration, but he did it anyway. (For example, all of the books on the pressing page.) Tracey obviously will inpaint a repaired area of loss and he's got several examples on the site where he's done that. And I don't think there's anything disrespectful to the artifact's integrity in doing so.

 

Comic books are a different animal than, for example, a letter from Abraham Lincoln. If part of Lincoln's signature were missing from the letter, I have to think that most ethical conservators would advise against redrawing the signature after replacing the missing paper. But inpainting on a comic book is not viewed the same way, just like restoration of fine art (which involves overpainting with new paint) is not viewed the same way.

 

With comics, much like fine art paintings, aesthetics play such an important part in the pleasure derived from viewing the artifact that books are a lot less likely to be restored or conserved if professionals were to refuse to do inpainting on repaired areas of loss. While money certainly plays some part in the decision, I know of plenty of examples where people have paid more than the book is worth post-restoration to have a ratty book restored to a beautiful example. It's not because they want to flip it for a fast buck. It's because they want its former beauty restored. If it makes the book more valuable, then that's a nice bonus but it is really not why the work is done. The work is done because someone has a ratty looking book and they want to own a pretty one for less than the cost that it would take to buy an unrestored copy.

[rockman2008]

A very interesting read. That part about Heft and historical integrity doesn't seem part of the restoration discussion any more.

Should it still be a consideration, or has aesthetics, grade, and dollars evolved any of those concerns completely out of today's view of comic book conservation?

 

I think you need to first define what you mean by compromising Historical integrity. Do you mean any book that undergoes restoration somehow loses it's integrity, or more if a book had things done to it that were done only for aesthetic, and monetary reasons?

 

One can work on a book with an eye towards conserving it.(seal tears/spine splits, even rebuilding a spine, reinforce /re attach centerfolds or staple areas etc..) But at what point does this cross over into full blown unnecessary restoration? To me it is when you add unnecessary paper and CT to make it look "prettier"

 

But this lies at the heart of comic books, and restoration in our hobby, it is all about trying to achieve the best apparent grade possible. This is not always the case, but for the most part if a key book is being restored the owner/seller wants it to look as close to original condition as possible. Why it isn't enough for most collectors to simply appreciate a book being back together again I do not know, I guess it is because we are a cosmetic, eye appeal, money driven hobby. Collectors as a whole have dictated this, not the restorers.

 

So where does the responsibility to preserve "Historical Integrity" belong? With the owner of the book, or the person restoring the book? Sure, if the work is done well it makes it more acceptable but that does not change the fact the book was restored past the point of simply being conserved.

 

Unlike historical one of a kind documents, comics were mass produced so it is hard to compare the two, but I for one would like to see people adopt a more conservative mentality when it comes to what is appealing or even preffered as a collector. Because many books could be reclaimed with leaf casting, but it would not be cost effective to CT all the added material. Time will tell if there is a market for this the more people are exposed to it.

 

But I think for the most part if it is cost effective, people will always want books fully restored. This does not mean the books are any less historical, they just might not appeal to as many collectors.

Kenny got exactly what I was refering to with the statement that was bolded by Davenport...

 

Tracey would prefer to do as little as possible to a book to keep as much of it original as possible. As an example...I bought a small batch of comics that included a 1st print Classics Illustrated #1. The cover was detached and completely seperated. There was also some paper loss around the staples. Rather than have a full blown resto job complete with color and infills Tracey suggested (yes, his suggestion) a much cheaper alternative...simply reattach the cover and leave the resto visible.

 

From an integrity standpoint that makes perfect sense. But my post was all about the economics of a decision like that. Anyone who saw that job and wasn't aware of the reasoning behind it would think Tracey was lacking in skills as a restorer. Making a book sound structurally doesn't make it any prettier, and that is what most collectors are programmed for. But Tracey preferred NOT doing aesthetically pleasing resto work. Kinda of the Don Quixote restoration business model.

 

He may have suggested the minimal treatment in that case, but it isn't like Tracey doesn't believe in aesthetic restoration of comic books. He's got plenty of examples on his website alone where you can see books that did not "need" certain kinds of (or in some cases, any) restoration, but he did it anyway. (For example, all of the books on the pressing page.) Tracey obviously will inpaint a repaired area of loss and he's got several examples on the site where he's done that. And I don't think there's anything disrespectful to the artifact's integrity in doing so.

 

Tracey's business model is neither fish nor fowl. He appears to go with the flow wherever the money is. From his website he wants to compete with the "old school" paper conservationists, in which there are thousands in the field who can provide the same service. On the other hand, he also wants to compete in the comic book space, which right now is basically Cicconi and Classics judging from the size of their ads (which ain't cheap) in the latest Overstreet Guide.

[MrBedrock]

A very interesting read. That part about Heft and historical integrity doesn't seem part of the restoration discussion any more.

Should it still be a consideration, or has aesthetics, grade, and dollars evolved any of those concerns completely out of today's view of comic book conservation?

 

I think you need to first define what you mean by compromising Historical integrity. Do you mean any book that undergoes restoration somehow loses it's integrity, or more if a book had things done to it that were done only for aesthetic, and monetary reasons?

 

One can work on a book with an eye towards conserving it.(seal tears/spine splits, even rebuilding a spine, reinforce /re attach centerfolds or staple areas etc..) But at what point does this cross over into full blown unnecessary restoration? To me it is when you add unnecessary paper and CT to make it look "prettier"

 

But this lies at the heart of comic books, and restoration in our hobby, it is all about trying to achieve the best apparent grade possible. This is not always the case, but for the most part if a key book is being restored the owner/seller wants it to look as close to original condition as possible. Why it isn't enough for most collectors to simply appreciate a book being back together again I do not know, I guess it is because we are a cosmetic, eye appeal, money driven hobby. Collectors as a whole have dictated this, not the restorers.

 

So where does the responsibility to preserve "Historical Integrity" belong? With the owner of the book, or the person restoring the book? Sure, if the work is done well it makes it more acceptable but that does not change the fact the book was restored past the point of simply being conserved.

 

Unlike historical one of a kind documents, comics were mass produced so it is hard to compare the two, but I for one would like to see people adopt a more conservative mentality when it comes to what is appealing or even preffered as a collector. Because many books could be reclaimed with leaf casting, but it would not be cost effective to CT all the added material. Time will tell if there is a market for this the more people are exposed to it.

 

But I think for the most part if it is cost effective, people will always want books fully restored. This does not mean the books are any less historical, they just might not appeal to as many collectors.

Kenny got exactly what I was refering to with the statement that was bolded by Davenport...

 

Tracey would prefer to do as little as possible to a book to keep as much of it original as possible. As an example...I bought a small batch of comics that included a 1st print Classics Illustrated #1. The cover was detached and completely seperated. There was also some paper loss around the staples. Rather than have a full blown resto job complete with color and infills Tracey suggested (yes, his suggestion) a much cheaper alternative...simply reattach the cover and leave the resto visible.

 

From an integrity standpoint that makes perfect sense. But my post was all about the economics of a decision like that. Anyone who saw that job and wasn't aware of the reasoning behind it would think Tracey was lacking in skills as a restorer. Making a book sound structurally doesn't make it any prettier, and that is what most collectors are programmed for. But Tracey preferred NOT doing aesthetically pleasing resto work. Kinda of the Don Quixote restoration business model.

 

He may have suggested the minimal treatment in that case, but it isn't like Tracey doesn't believe in aesthetic restoration of comic books. He's got plenty of examples on his website alone where you can see books that did not "need" certain kinds of (or in some cases, any) restoration, but he did it anyway. (For example, all of the books on the pressing page.) Tracey obviously will inpaint a repaired area of loss and he's got several examples on the site where he's done that. And I don't think there's anything disrespectful to the artifact's integrity in doing so.

 

Comic books are a different animal than, for example, a letter from Abraham Lincoln. If part of Lincoln's signature were missing from the letter, I have to think that most ethical conservators would advise against redrawing the signature after replacing the missing paper. But inpainting on a comic book is not viewed the same way, just like restoration of fine art (which involves overpainting with new paint) is not viewed the same way.

 

With comics, much like fine art paintings, aesthetics play such an important part in the pleasure derived from viewing the artifact that books are a lot less likely to be restored or conserved if professionals were to refuse to do inpainting on repaired areas of loss. While money certainly plays some part in the decision, I know of plenty of examples where people have paid more than the book is worth post-restoration to have a ratty book restored to a beautiful example. It's not because they want to flip it for a fast buck. It's because they want its former beauty restored. If it makes the book more valuable, then that's a nice bonus but it is really not why the work is done. The work is done because someone has a ratty looking book and they want to own a pretty one for less than the cost that it would take to buy an unrestored copy.

I don't doubt that Tracey will do whatever someone asks of him in regards to a resto job. I just know that at the time that I had work done by him he was pushing the whole resto vs. conservation angle. My only point in mentioning that was the futility inherent in that stance in relation the desires of the majority of collectors at that time. If he has changed his tune then that is one more example of a restoration professional who missed the train and is playing catch-up as Matt rolls down the tracks.

 

As to your point of painting and infilling improving the beauty of a book...well that depends. (PERSONAL OPINION ALERT!) For my tastes until a restorer can match the dot matrix pattern used on most golden age books I can't get past it. If I can see where the original ends and the restoration color starts then I automatically am turned off. I appreciate the work but I can't consider it beautification. In almost every instance I say the less color the better. But again, that is just me.

[TheShadowKnows]

Exsqueeze me baking powder?

 

Grow some balls, nancy boy, and tell us why you started this thread.

[Hero Restoration]

While the reason for this topic was bogus, it has sparked a very interesting new topic that seems to keep evolving.

[buttock]

 

As to your point of painting and infilling improving the beauty of a book...well that depends. (PERSONAL OPINION ALERT!) For my tastes until a restorer can match the dot matrix pattern used on most golden age books I can't get past it. If I can see where the original ends and the restoration color starts then I automatically am turned off. I appreciate the work but I can't consider it beautification. In almost every instance I say the less color the better. But again, that is just me.

 

I agree. I really think it's possible to do this given current technology.

[Davenport]

While the reason for this topic was bogus, it has sparked a very interesting new topic that seems to keep evolving.

Ditto. One of the more interesting threads in a long time.

 

This may be a fallacy, but I've assumed from reading (including this thread) there's a distinct difference between classically trained paper conservators and comic book restoration professionals. The distinction seems to be around some 'because you can do a thing doesn't mean you should do a thing' mindset. In other words, a conservator might advise against a particular treatment, while a comic book restoration professional would proceed based on the visual/value gains to be had.

 

Maybe that's a completely wrong assumption. I don't know.

[FFB]

 

As to your point of painting and infilling improving the beauty of a book...well that depends. (PERSONAL OPINION ALERT!) For my tastes until a restorer can match the dot matrix pattern used on most golden age books I can't get past it. If I can see where the original ends and the restoration color starts then I automatically am turned off. I appreciate the work but I can't consider it beautification. In almost every instance I say the less color the better. But again, that is just me.

 

I agree. I really think it's possible to do this given current technology.

 

I know that Matt does it because he did it on my Amazing Fantasy #15 a few years ago, and that was before Kenny started working with him. It's not executed perfectly, but the dot pattern is there.

 

The tricky part would be doing it with colors, because the colors on comic covers are not solid colors - they're mixtures of cyan/magenta/yellow. It would be really hard to do three overlays of a dot pattern with the exact amount of each color of acrylic paint to match the original ink layers.

[FFB]

While the reason for this topic was bogus, it has sparked a very interesting new topic that seems to keep evolving.

Ditto. One of the more interesting threads in a long time.

 

This may be a fallacy, but I've assumed from reading (including this thread) there's a distinct difference between classically trained paper conservators and comic book restoration professionals. The distinction seems to be around some 'because you can do a thing doesn't mean you should do a thing' mindset. In other words, a conservator might advise against a particular treatment, while a comic book restoration professional would proceed based on the visual/value gains to be had.

 

Maybe that's a completely wrong assumption. I don't know.

 

It's not completely true or completely false. There are some people who restore books who are total hacks and there are others who take into account the ethics applicable to paper conservators in other fields. I don't think you can lump paper conservators and comic restoration professionals into neat groups as though they would all react the same way to a given situation. We've seen that in this thread, where people have taken books to one restoration professional who declines to work on it because it is, in their opinion, unfixable, only to take it to another professional who uses different techniques and can fix the book and restore it from a beaten mass of garbage to a readable comic book.

 

The moral of the story is that just because one conservator advises against a certain treatment or against repairing a certain defect does not mean that it is unethical or shady if another conservator can conduct the treatment or repair the defect safely.

[Hero Restoration]

 

As to your point of painting and infilling improving the beauty of a book...well that depends. (PERSONAL OPINION ALERT!) For my tastes until a restorer can match the dot matrix pattern used on most golden age books I can't get past it. If I can see where the original ends and the restoration color starts then I automatically am turned off. I appreciate the work but I can't consider it beautification. In almost every instance I say the less color the better. But again, that is just me.

 

I agree. I really think it's possible to do this given current technology.

 

I know that Matt does it because he did it on my Amazing Fantasy #15 a few years ago, and that was before Kenny started working with him. It's not executed perfectly, but the dot pattern is there.

 

The tricky part would be doing it with colors, because the colors on comic covers are not solid colors - they're mixtures of cyan/magenta/yellow. It would be really hard to do three overlays of a dot pattern with the exact amount of each color of acrylic paint to match the original ink layers.

 

I have been trying to come up with a techique to do dot matrix. I was thinking maybe a rubber stamp would work. The biggest problem I see is the dots are really small and if you don't line them up it would be real noticable. As far as colors go, I thought the backround color was solid with a dot pattern overlaid on top but obviously I am wrong as FFB is the man.

[MrBedrock]

While the reason for this topic was bogus, it has sparked a very interesting new topic that seems to keep evolving.

Ditto. One of the more interesting threads in a long time.

 

This may be a fallacy, but I've assumed from reading (including this thread) there's a distinct difference between classically trained paper conservators and comic book restoration professionals. The distinction seems to be around some 'because you can do a thing doesn't mean you should do a thing' mindset. In other words, a conservator might advise against a particular treatment, while a comic book restoration professional would proceed based on the visual/value gains to be had.

 

Maybe that's a completely wrong assumption. I don't know.

 

It's not completely true or completely false. There are some people who restore books who are total hacks and there are others who take into account the ethics applicable to paper conservators in other fields. I don't think you can lump paper conservators and comic restoration professionals into neat groups as though they would all react the same way to a given situation. We've seen that in this thread, where people have taken books to one restoration professional who declines to work on it because it is, in their opinion, unfixable, only to take it to another professional who uses different techniques and can fix the book and restore it from a beaten mass of garbage to a readable comic book.

 

The moral of the story is that just because one conservator advises against a certain treatment or against repairing a certain defect does not mean that it is unethical or shady if another conservator can conduct the treatment or repair the defect safely.

(thumbs u

And further...how is a "classically trained paper conservator" defined? Someone like Matt may not necessarily fit in under that definition. Yet he is arguably more versed in the varying techniques of paper conservation than many who are.

[buttock]

 

As to your point of painting and infilling improving the beauty of a book...well that depends. (PERSONAL OPINION ALERT!) For my tastes until a restorer can match the dot matrix pattern used on most golden age books I can't get past it. If I can see where the original ends and the restoration color starts then I automatically am turned off. I appreciate the work but I can't consider it beautification. In almost every instance I say the less color the better. But again, that is just me.

 

I agree. I really think it's possible to do this given current technology.

 

I know that Matt does it because he did it on my Amazing Fantasy #15 a few years ago, and that was before Kenny started working with him. It's not executed perfectly, but the dot pattern is there.

 

The tricky part would be doing it with colors, because the colors on comic covers are not solid colors - they're mixtures of cyan/magenta/yellow. It would be really hard to do three overlays of a dot pattern with the exact amount of each color of acrylic paint to match the original ink layers.

 

Cool, do you have scans by chance?

 

I was thinking that actually having it done by computer, though, rather than with acrylics. You should be able to scan the cover into a program, replicate the color & pattern exactly, and print over the infilled areas when the cover is still flat prior to reassembly. That would make for better matching.

 

 

[rockman2008]

 

I know that Matt does it because he did it on my Amazing Fantasy #15 a few years ago, and that was before Kenny started working with him. It's not executed perfectly, but the dot pattern is there.

 

The tricky part would be doing it with colors, because the colors on comic covers are not solid colors - they're mixtures of cyan/magenta/yellow. It would be really hard to do three overlays of a dot pattern with the exact amount of each color of acrylic paint to match the original ink layers.

 

Cool, do you have scans by chance?

 

I was thinking that actually having it done by computer, though, rather than with acrylics. You should be able to scan the cover into a program, replicate the color & pattern exactly, and print over the infilled areas when the cover is still flat prior to reassembly. That would make for better matching.

 

 

Newsprint color is a four color process (CMYK) that combines Cyan, Magenta, Yellow & Black. Another tricky part is the color and pattern you see replicated on a computer may not be exact. Depending on the ink and paper, the ink will spread slightly (during the printing process) as opposed to making a pinpoint dot for example, and this can influence the final look of the pattern. Computer programs can account for this but still the end result may look different and become a slight mismatch to the original.

 

>> You should be able to scan the cover into a program, replicate the color & pattern exactly,

 

It's not as easy as it sounds (at least to me as an untrained hobbyist). The human still must make an approximation for the screen layers which can get complex.

 

Similar to leaf casters, this technology exists to be used in the comic restoration arsenal. The big question is whether the studio has the money, time, and passion to make a good return on the investment.

[Davenport]

While the reason for this topic was bogus, it has sparked a very interesting new topic that seems to keep evolving.

Ditto. One of the more interesting threads in a long time.

 

This may be a fallacy, but I've assumed from reading (including this thread) there's a distinct difference between classically trained paper conservators and comic book restoration professionals. The distinction seems to be around some 'because you can do a thing doesn't mean you should do a thing' mindset. In other words, a conservator might advise against a particular treatment, while a comic book restoration professional would proceed based on the visual/value gains to be had.

 

Maybe that's a completely wrong assumption. I don't know.

 

It's not completely true or completely false. There are some people who restore books who are total hacks and there are others who take into account the ethics applicable to paper conservators in other fields. I don't think you can lump paper conservators and comic restoration professionals into neat groups as though they would all react the same way to a given situation. We've seen that in this thread, where people have taken books to one restoration professional who declines to work on it because it is, in their opinion, unfixable, only to take it to another professional who uses different techniques and can fix the book and restore it from a beaten mass of garbage to a readable comic book.

 

The moral of the story is that just because one conservator advises against a certain treatment or against repairing a certain defect does not mean that it is unethical or shady if another conservator can conduct the treatment or repair the defect safely.

(thumbs u

And further...how is a "classically trained paper conservator" defined? Someone like Matt may not necessarily fit in under that definition. Yet he is arguably more versed in the varying techniques of paper conservation than many who are.

FFB's answer is exellent and what I was looking for. (thumbs u It's ok to form assumptions, as long as I understand that's what they are.

 

My definition of "classically trained paper conservator" is simply someone with "well-rounded" multi-faceted understanding. That's assuming techniques are only a small part of a very broad discipline.

 

What it makes me think of is working in the aerospace industry. That company had to continuously re-train workers to NOT alter engineered/machined parts for appearance sake. Virtually a lost cause, since it went against human nature of symmetry and aesthetics. Skill levels had nothing to do with it, as experts were as guilty as noobs.

 

I'm sure most disciplines have that same problem, whether it's dentistry or drywall. Prioritizing realities above the human nature for aesthetics is probably an ongoing educational nightmare. A steady drum-beat of when applied skills are inappropriate is about the only thing that over-rides our wet-wired instinct to make stuff pretty.

 

 

[Hero Restoration]

While the reason for this topic was bogus, it has sparked a very interesting new topic that seems to keep evolving.

Ditto. One of the more interesting threads in a long time.

 

This may be a fallacy, but I've assumed from reading (including this thread) there's a distinct difference between classically trained paper conservators and comic book restoration professionals. The distinction seems to be around some 'because you can do a thing doesn't mean you should do a thing' mindset. In other words, a conservator might advise against a particular treatment, while a comic book restoration professional would proceed based on the visual/value gains to be had.

 

Maybe that's a completely wrong assumption. I don't know.

 

It's not completely true or completely false. There are some people who restore books who are total hacks and there are others who take into account the ethics applicable to paper conservators in other fields. I don't think you can lump paper conservators and comic restoration professionals into neat groups as though they would all react the same way to a given situation. We've seen that in this thread, where people have taken books to one restoration professional who declines to work on it because it is, in their opinion, unfixable, only to take it to another professional who uses different techniques and can fix the book and restore it from a beaten mass of garbage to a readable comic book.

 

The moral of the story is that just because one conservator advises against a certain treatment or against repairing a certain defect does not mean that it is unethical or shady if another conservator can conduct the treatment or repair the defect safely.

(thumbs u

And further...how is a "classically trained paper conservator" defined? Someone like Matt may not necessarily fit in under that definition. Yet he is arguably more versed in the varying techniques of paper conservation than many who are.

FFB's answer is exellent and what I was looking for. (thumbs u It's ok to form assumptions, as long as I understand that's what they are.

 

My definition of "classically trained paper conservator" is simply someone with "well-rounded" multi-faceted understanding. That's assuming techniques are only a small part of a very broad discipline.

 

What it makes me think of is working in the aerospace industry. That company had to continuously re-train workers to NOT alter engineered/machined parts for appearance sake. Virtually a lost cause, since it went against human nature of symmetry and aesthetics. Skill levels had nothing to do with it, as experts were as guilty as noobs.

 

I'm sure most disciplines have that same problem, whether it's dentistry or drywall. Prioritizing realities above the human nature for aesthetics is probably an ongoing educational nightmare. A steady drum-beat of when applied skills are inappropriate is about the only thing that over-rides our wet-wired instinct to make stuff pretty.

I am seriously wet-wired to make stuff pretty and have been exploring that aspect of myself since I was a child.

I am having to retrain my thinking for comics which is hard but I think I am heading in the right direction now. BTW it is a really hard thing to do but I am trying.

[FFB]

 

As to your point of painting and infilling improving the beauty of a book...well that depends. (PERSONAL OPINION ALERT!) For my tastes until a restorer can match the dot matrix pattern used on most golden age books I can't get past it. If I can see where the original ends and the restoration color starts then I automatically am turned off. I appreciate the work but I can't consider it beautification. In almost every instance I say the less color the better. But again, that is just me.

 

I agree. I really think it's possible to do this given current technology.

 

I know that Matt does it because he did it on my Amazing Fantasy #15 a few years ago, and that was before Kenny started working with him. It's not executed perfectly, but the dot pattern is there.

 

The tricky part would be doing it with colors, because the colors on comic covers are not solid colors - they're mixtures of cyan/magenta/yellow. It would be really hard to do three overlays of a dot pattern with the exact amount of each color of acrylic paint to match the original ink layers.

 

Cool, do you have scans by chance?

 

I was thinking that actually having it done by computer, though, rather than with acrylics. You should be able to scan the cover into a program, replicate the color & pattern exactly, and print over the infilled areas when the cover is still flat prior to reassembly. That would make for better matching.

 

 

Not a close-up scan. Just the one Matt sent me before sending the book back and you can't see the dot pattern - but it's there. I'm in Illinois until Wednesday but will take a big scan and post it when I get back to SF.

 

The problem with the execution on my book is that he couldn't do the dot pattern on the place where the book joins up with the repair. So there is matched acrylic where the book and the repair meet that does not have the dot pattern. It's visible close up, but matches well at arm's length.

[FFB]

 

As to your point of painting and infilling improving the beauty of a book...well that depends. (PERSONAL OPINION ALERT!) For my tastes until a restorer can match the dot matrix pattern used on most golden age books I can't get past it. If I can see where the original ends and the restoration color starts then I automatically am turned off. I appreciate the work but I can't consider it beautification. In almost every instance I say the less color the better. But again, that is just me.

 

I agree. I really think it's possible to do this given current technology.

 

I know that Matt does it because he did it on my Amazing Fantasy #15 a few years ago, and that was before Kenny started working with him. It's not executed perfectly, but the dot pattern is there.

 

The tricky part would be doing it with colors, because the colors on comic covers are not solid colors - they're mixtures of cyan/magenta/yellow. It would be really hard to do three overlays of a dot pattern with the exact amount of each color of acrylic paint to match the original ink layers.

 

I have been trying to come up with a techique to do dot matrix. I was thinking maybe a rubber stamp would work. The biggest problem I see is the dots are really small and if you don't line them up it would be real noticable.

 

It wouldn't work with a rubber stamp. The dots vary by size and shape. You'd need to make a new stamp in the exact shape of the area of loss with a new matching dot pattern, which would be too expensive and difficult.

[FFB]

 

As to your point of painting and infilling improving the beauty of a book...well that depends. (PERSONAL OPINION ALERT!) For my tastes until a restorer can match the dot matrix pattern used on most golden age books I can't get past it. If I can see where the original ends and the restoration color starts then I automatically am turned off. I appreciate the work but I can't consider it beautification. In almost every instance I say the less color the better. But again, that is just me.

 

I agree. I really think it's possible to do this given current technology.

 

I know that Matt does it because he did it on my Amazing Fantasy #15 a few years ago, and that was before Kenny started working with him. It's not executed perfectly, but the dot pattern is there.

 

The tricky part would be doing it with colors, because the colors on comic covers are not solid colors - they're mixtures of cyan/magenta/yellow. It would be really hard to do three overlays of a dot pattern with the exact amount of each color of acrylic paint to match the original ink layers.

 

Cool, do you have scans by chance?

 

I was thinking that actually having it done by computer, though, rather than with acrylics. You should be able to scan the cover into a program, replicate the color & pattern exactly, and print over the infilled areas when the cover is still flat prior to reassembly. That would make for better matching.

 

 

That's probably the best way to match the color and dot pattern, if you have an extremely high resolution, high quality scanner and a high end inkjet printer that accepts larger paper sizes. You'd get the three layers of color plus the black layer that way (because inkjets use CMYK), so as long as it would print accurately, it would work.

 

The problem you're left with then is that inkjet colors are water-soluble, which would make it difficult to resize the book afterward to smooth out the texture. There is probably a fixative available to apply over it to prevent it from running, but I haven't investigated it so I don't know for sure. It's probably worth a look though.

[FFB]

 

As to your point of painting and infilling improving the beauty of a book...well that depends. (PERSONAL OPINION ALERT!) For my tastes until a restorer can match the dot matrix pattern used on most golden age books I can't get past it. If I can see where the original ends and the restoration color starts then I automatically am turned off. I appreciate the work but I can't consider it beautification. In almost every instance I say the less color the better. But again, that is just me.

 

I agree. I really think it's possible to do this given current technology.

 

I know that Matt does it because he did it on my Amazing Fantasy #15 a few years ago, and that was before Kenny started working with him. It's not executed perfectly, but the dot pattern is there.

 

The tricky part would be doing it with colors, because the colors on comic covers are not solid colors - they're mixtures of cyan/magenta/yellow. It would be really hard to do three overlays of a dot pattern with the exact amount of each color of acrylic paint to match the original ink layers.

 

I have been trying to come up with a techique to do dot matrix. I was thinking maybe a rubber stamp would work. The biggest problem I see is the dots are really small and if you don't line them up it would be real noticable.

 

It wouldn't work with a rubber stamp. The dots vary by size and shape. You'd need to make a new stamp in the exact shape of the area of loss with a new matching dot pattern, which would be too expensive and difficult.

 

http://www.datazap.net/sites/fantasyfootballbono/ff25nm92.jpg

 

Click on this link and you'll be able to see what I'm talking about. Look at how the dot patterns vary between the Hulk's pants, the Hulk's foot, Reed's costume, and other areas of the cover. Imagine trying to make a unique stamp for each of those areas. It could be done in theory, but it would not be worth the cost or effort.

[FFB]

While the reason for this topic was bogus, it has sparked a very interesting new topic that seems to keep evolving.

Ditto. One of the more interesting threads in a long time.

 

This may be a fallacy, but I've assumed from reading (including this thread) there's a distinct difference between classically trained paper conservators and comic book restoration professionals. The distinction seems to be around some 'because you can do a thing doesn't mean you should do a thing' mindset. In other words, a conservator might advise against a particular treatment, while a comic book restoration professional would proceed based on the visual/value gains to be had.

 

Maybe that's a completely wrong assumption. I don't know.

 

It's not completely true or completely false. There are some people who restore books who are total hacks and there are others who take into account the ethics applicable to paper conservators in other fields. I don't think you can lump paper conservators and comic restoration professionals into neat groups as though they would all react the same way to a given situation. We've seen that in this thread, where people have taken books to one restoration professional who declines to work on it because it is, in their opinion, unfixable, only to take it to another professional who uses different techniques and can fix the book and restore it from a beaten mass of garbage to a readable comic book.

 

The moral of the story is that just because one conservator advises against a certain treatment or against repairing a certain defect does not mean that it is unethical or shady if another conservator can conduct the treatment or repair the defect safely.

(thumbs u

And further...how is a "classically trained paper conservator" defined? Someone like Matt may not necessarily fit in under that definition. Yet he is arguably more versed in the varying techniques of paper conservation than many who are.

FFB's answer is exellent and what I was looking for. (thumbs u It's ok to form assumptions, as long as I understand that's what they are.

 

My definition of "classically trained paper conservator" is simply someone with "well-rounded" multi-faceted understanding. That's assuming techniques are only a small part of a very broad discipline.

 

What it makes me think of is working in the aerospace industry. That company had to continuously re-train workers to NOT alter engineered/machined parts for appearance sake. Virtually a lost cause, since it went against human nature of symmetry and aesthetics. Skill levels had nothing to do with it, as experts were as guilty as noobs.

 

I'm sure most disciplines have that same problem, whether it's dentistry or drywall. Prioritizing realities above the human nature for aesthetics is probably an ongoing educational nightmare. A steady drum-beat of when applied skills are inappropriate is about the only thing that over-rides our wet-wired instinct to make stuff pretty.

I am seriously wet-wired to make stuff pretty and have been exploring that aspect of myself since I was a child.

I am having to retrain my thinking for comics which is hard but I think I am heading in the right direction now. BTW it is a really hard thing to do but I am trying.

 

Take some courses at your local community college or whatever in chemistry and organic chemistry. It'll help you a lot with your understanding of paper, solvents, and other aspects of restoration. I know it's not as much fun as running a bunch of experiments in the dark, but in the long run you'll have that base of knowledge that will make future experiments a lot more productive.