And people wonder why folks get a little bit peeved...

[Domo Arigato]

You shouldn't ever smoke, because even that one cigarette might shorten your lifespan by a completely undeterminable length of time.

 

You shouldn't ever eat a double cheeseburger, because it might shorten your lifespan by a completely undeterminable length of time.

 

You shouldn't ever press a comic, because the damage the process does will shorten its lifespan by a completely undeterminable length of time.

 

See, without specifics....it just doesn't mean anything to me.

Smoking does cause damage to your body.

fact

 

Eating a double cheeseburger is unhealthy.

fact

 

Pressing a comic does damage it.

fact

 

Even without specifics...these facts are very important to me.

 

So, you clearly don't ever eat a cheeseburger, drink alcohol, have a cigarette, eat non-organic food, etc. etc. etc. because all of those things are, even in some small way, harmful, right?

Why do so many people feel they have to go to the exteme in some vain attempt to try to make a point? I really can't figure that out.

 

Oh well...taking your extreme example to heart...I'll offer up an equally ridiculous response to it.

 

If I smoke a cigarette (which I don't) there is a label right there on the package warning me. I don't have to call the tobacco company and ask them if there's any danger to me.

 

If I drink a beer...again there is a warning label contributing to the common knowledge that we are all aware of regarding the risks.

 

With a cheeseburger, it's common knowledge that it is an unhealthy product and that there are proven risks associated with that kind of diet (this dietary information is provided in pamplets available at the restaurants as well).

 

The point is, these people aren't pisssing in my ear and telling me it's a q-tip. I'm fully aware of what I'm getting when I purchase these products. That is not always the case with a pressed comic.

 

Actually, you've completely changed the argument from one of quantifying the "harm" that Pressing does, to that of Disclosure. Nice slight of hand, but it doesn't advance your argument one bit. Please stick to the issue at hand...offer us something tangible as to the actual harm that Pressing does to a comic or give it up.

They go hand in hand, so I haven't changed anything. The U.S. Library of Congress has stated that their studies have shown that both the addition of heat and/or moisture does measurable harm. The pressers have long stated that the practice does no damage. They were wrong. Plain and simple. Refute that with your own experts that have experience equal to or exceeding those of conservators at the U.S. Library of Congress or admit you don't know what you're talking about.

The only thing I don't know is why I ever bothered to enter into a cyclical argument with someone like you....

 

You've still offered NOTHING meaningful in the way of quantifiable data, when you have that, please feel free to get back to me. Thanks. Bye. (thumbs u

I don't know why you did it either. You obviously don't know enough about the subject to do anything but argue in circles. And I've offered what the Library of Congress says in regards to a specific question presented to them about the pressing of comics...it will damage the paper. That's a hell of a lot more than you've offered.

 

Actually, what you offered was analagous to my double hamburger and cigarette scenario.

 

Pressing harms comics. Great. That's insightful. You might as well has been saying that farts stink, and smoking near an open fuel source is dangerous.

 

But when the inevitable questions arise about how meaningful that damage is, you basically do everything but admit that neither you, nor the Library of Congress, can really quantify it in any meaningful way. If you could, you'd have a great point that everyone on this Board, whether pro or anti-presser would find extremely interesting. If it were possible to quantify that a standard press job takes decades off the lifespan of a normal comic, heads would turn and people would take notice.

 

Instead, we got Pressing harms comics because the LOC says so.

 

If you want to pat yourself on the back for such insight, by all means, go right ahead...

Remember when I said you obviously don't know enough about the subject to do anything but argue in circles. That really didn't sink in very well...did it?

 

Many pressers have stated repeatedly in here that a proper pressing job does not damage a comic (often citing Matt Nelsons statement on this matter to back it up). What the response from the Library of Congress has done is cleared up this misconception. Pressing does damage a comic. Nobody...including myself...has claimed any more than that in here. Keep arguing for graphs, charts and figures until you're blue in the face if you want to. It still won't change the fact that this whole "pressing does no harm" nonsense was never true.

[TupennyConan]

idjits.

[nearmint]

I've learned today, pressing isn't evil, pressing threads are.

[greggy]

idjits.

They never learn.

[buttock]

 

Link

 

 

OK, let's address this.

 

"Using heat to reduce creases, wrinkles, or other planar distortions is not recommended by professional paper conservators. Many studies have shown that increased heat accelerates paper aging, especially papers made from groundwood pulp."

 

It's a recommendation. Not fact. Studies have shown that heat accelerates aging, but none in a fashion anywhere similar to that used in pressing. Most often in much higher temperatures and for much longer. You simply can't extrapolate that to pressing.

 

In controlled environments, conservators sometimes use humidification to flatten works. However, the method by which it occurs and on what kinds of paper are both very broad factors that are considered. Once any moisture is introduced into the paper sheet, any number of chemical reactions can begin. Many conservators elect to accept minor wrinkling and creasing as part of the artifact's history of use, rather then subject the work to what may begin or cause premature aging and discoloration."

 

Again, no facts given, simply stating what preferences "many conservators" elect to do. There is humidity in the air. You need some humidity in the air to preserve paper. Humidity can be bad or good for paper. This is such a vague statement: "Once any moisture is introduced into the paper sheet, any number of chemical reactions can begin" There's nothing objective or experimental there.

 

You really need to read what is written and stated before drawing such a conclusive view. This entire statement is nothing more than educated opinion at best. I believe you said I had mis-represented this. I'd like for you to show how I did that. If not, you need to retract that.

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Not that my opinion counts for fried donkey mess around here, but I like and respect most of the posters in this thread, especially domo and nearmint (and I, of course, adore Sean...does that make me his accolyte..? )

 

What causes me to lose respect for someone is NOT when they name call or otherwise demonstrate their obvious frustration at an impasse (and I think the "you've lost the argument when you stoop to insults, because that means you have nothing left to say" is a load of Clydesdale manure. That may mean that for SOME people, but it's certainly not true of everyone, and more often then not, it's simply venting frustration. It does not, by FAR, mean some sort of concession that the other person has "won" the debate.)

 

No, I lose respect for people when they cannot present their points...however rancorously...in a logical, rational manner, or worse, dismiss MY points as illogical simply because they do not agree with or cannot understand them.

 

So, in that regard, I can see both sides of today's debate, and agree with some points, and don't agree with others, but recognize that both sides did a pretty good job of making their cases. And if that means you respect ME less, hey, feel free. I've got nothing to lose around here anyways. (thumbs u

 

To paraphrase Gordon Gecko: DEBATE is GOOD. It is only through hashing things out that people can come to some sort of consensus on anything, and make it work as well as they can for all involved.

 

 

[seanfingh]

idjits.

 

Open the door, baby turn on the light

We're gonna have a party tonight

For a rocker

For a rocker

 

I know it's late and you're already down

You ain't ready for people around

I'm gonna tell you something I found out

Whatever you think your life is about

Whatever life may hold in store

Things will happen that you won't be ready for

 

I've got a shirt so unbelievably bright

I'm gonna dig it out and wear it tonight

For a rocker

For a rocker

For a rocker

For a rocker

 

[Domo Arigato]

Joey...I do know that you actively disclose and I'm glad for that. I just think that pressing needs to be called what it is and actively disclosed by everyone. Whether we will both be in the ground before our books or not doesn't really matter.

 

There is a very good chance that the owner of a book that has been slightly micro-trimmed without disclosure will never know it. The book was trimmed during manufacture and was ever so slightly micro-trimmed by someone after that. The book is not going to disintegrate any quicker because of it. But that doesn't mean that the non-disclosure of the work is ok as long as the guy didn't ask. Not really a great analogy...and it doesn't aply to you since you do disclose...but hopefully you'll get the point I'm trying to make.

 

If I spent every moment of this hobby worrying about what was done to every book I own I would no longer enjoy what I do.

 

I am not saying ignorance is bliss but the more I learned about certain practices the more tolerant I am of them. I do not want a trimmed book, but I may own one anyway. Shame on the seller who does this. But then again, had I asked he may have said yes, it was trimmed.

 

You use your LOC info to substantiate your side of the argument, and I am not arguing the point that damage can/is done. A book that sits their is slowly decaying so I see the logic. What I do not see offered is the quantifiable data. A pressed book will only have a shelf life of XXX years compared to the same non-pressed book that has YYYYY shelf life.

 

To substantiate my side of the argument, as of this moment, CGC does not consider pressing restoration. Until that changes I will use that as my benchmark.

Yes...the seller might have admitted the book was trimmed if you asked him...but you should never have to ask. I would hate to have to ask every time I bought a book if it had (fill in the blank here with every type of restoration/desctruction that could be done to a book).

 

A point I'm trying to make is that many pressers (not all) have been saying for a LONG time that pressing does no damage in an effort to justify their lack of disclosure. Regardless of the lack of quantifiable data from the LOC...we now know that this is simply not true. Pressing a book (utilizing heat and/or moisture) does cause damage. Is it small? Probably. But it's damage done to a book by an individual in order to improve the outward look of the book and should be proactively disclosed by those who do it.

 

And I agree that CGC does not consider pressing restoration. But if I recall correctly, that's only because they can't accurately identify it and/or prove it. In light of the recent response from the Library of Congress, I just don't think their stance on it is satisfactory.

I am not asking this in an argumentative way or just to be a tool, but what world do you live in where you feel it is solely the sellers responsibilty to disclose anything to a buyer? I ask questions about everything. Anyone who has ever sold to me here on the boards knows I can be a royal PITA, but I do not like surprises after the fact. If I know before I close the deal I am OK with that. I can then decide to buy or not.

WTF? Are you just trying to be a tool?

 

I live in a world where I feel a seller should disclose work they've had done to a book prior to selling it. Especially if that work has caused damage to the book.

 

By the same token...what kind of world do you live in where you feel it's ok if someone knowingly and willingly does damage to a book and then doesn't disclose that to their buyer?

If the pressing caused damage to the book, CGC would reveal it and grade the book accordingly. If it hasn't, you are speculating as to whether it ever will.

 

By the way, what color is the sky in your world?

Not if the damage isn't immediately evident, they wouldn't. As the LOC stated...the processes involved with pressing the type of paper that a comic consists of does the type of damage that would spead up the aging/deterioration of a comic book. And I'm not speculating anything. This is what the LOC said based on their extended tests with regards to adding heat and/or moisture in an attempt to flatten paper products of this type.

 

And the color of the sky in my world is blue. What is it on your world (be sure to take off those rose-colored glasses before answering).

[JiveTurkeyMoFo]

Remember when I said you obviously don't know enough about the subject to do anything but argue in circles. That really didn't sink in very well...did it?

 

What's funny is some newb is telling me I don't know much about the subject of Pressing.....now that's funny. Your self-righteousness is matched only by your blatant ignorance.

[Domo Arigato]

 

Link

 

 

OK, let's address this.

 

"Using heat to reduce creases, wrinkles, or other planar distortions is not recommended by professional paper conservators. Many studies have shown that increased heat accelerates paper aging, especially papers made from groundwood pulp."

 

It's a recommendation. Not fact. Studies have shown that heat accelerates aging, but none in a fashion anywhere similar to that used in pressing. Most often in much higher temperatures and for much longer. You simply can't extrapolate that to pressing.

 

In controlled environments, conservators sometimes use humidification to flatten works. However, the method by which it occurs and on what kinds of paper are both very broad factors that are considered. Once any moisture is introduced into the paper sheet, any number of chemical reactions can begin. Many conservators elect to accept minor wrinkling and creasing as part of the artifact's history of use, rather then subject the work to what may begin or cause premature aging and discoloration."

 

Again, no facts given, simply stating what preferences "many conservators" elect to do. There is humidity in the air. You need some humidity in the air to preserve paper. Humidity can be bad or good for paper. This is such a vague statement: "Once any moisture is introduced into the paper sheet, any number of chemical reactions can begin" There's nothing objective or experimental there.

 

You really need to read what is written and stated before drawing such a conclusive view. This entire statement is nothing more than educated opinion at best. I believe you said I had mis-represented this. I'd like for you to show how I did that. If not, you need to retract that.

The LOC statement was in direct response to a very well thought out and specific question that Fantastic_Four presented to them about pressing a comic. And yes...they don't recommend using heat to reduce wrinkles because of the fact that increased heat accelerates paper aging, especially papers made from groundwood pulp. Seems extemely clear to me.

 

And I'll concede the moisture part, since it's not entirely clear if most people are using moisture when doing the pressing. However, it does look like the LOC carefully considers a broad number of factors before deciding to introduce moisture into a paper product to help flatten it and that "many conservators elect to accept minor wrinkling and creasing as part of the artifact's history of use, rather then subject the work to what may begin or cause premature aging and discoloration."

 

And I believe you did mis-represent this...because it was clear from one of your follow-up posts afterwards that you were just commenting on what you had read on the LOC website and hadn't actually read this response from them that I had posted earlier in the thread. If you want to chastise someone for not reading what is written and stated before drawing a conclusive view...then I think that door swings both directions in this case.

[conditionfreak]

Well. Stayed out until now. Mostly because I was weighing both sides of the stance and just thinking inwardly how I feel about pressing. I have never pressed but would be inclined to do so if the right book came along. Increasing the CGC grading of a book, is to me worth taking the chance that I might have said book deteriate sooner than it would if not pressed.

 

But I am talking here about a difference in ten years for something I would hope and expect to last 100 to 200 or more years.

 

Yes. It MIGHT be damaging to a limited extent, but not a lot for sure.

 

Yes, it MIGHT be a harm to the hobby as a whole, but not much of one.

 

Would I get an Action #1 3.0 pressed, chasing for a grade of 4.0? You're darn straight I would.

 

Would I press a modern to get a 9.9 from a 9.8? Heck no. Silly.

 

There is no more respected conservation entity than the conservators at the Library of Congress, IMO. But we are taking about comic books here folks. Not the Declaration of Independence or Michaelangelo's personal notebook of inventions.

 

Comic books. So what if your book only lasts two hundered years instead of 225 years, because you had it pressed. Big deal. For the time it was in your possession, it was of a higher grade and became higher valued to most.

 

A couple of observations. Water exists in wood pulp (paper) from the start and at all times. Also, heat exists in wood pulp (paper) at all times. Until it is destroyed. So, from what I understand, there is no foreign substance used to press a book. Just additional of what is there already.

 

I really don't care if a book I obtain is pressed or not. Just let me know before hand so that I don't get it with the thoughts of having it pressed and upgraded. That's all I ask. Disclosure.

 

[buttock]

 

Link

 

 

OK, let's address this.

 

"Using heat to reduce creases, wrinkles, or other planar distortions is not recommended by professional paper conservators. Many studies have shown that increased heat accelerates paper aging, especially papers made from groundwood pulp."

 

It's a recommendation. Not fact. Studies have shown that heat accelerates aging, but none in a fashion anywhere similar to that used in pressing. Most often in much higher temperatures and for much longer. You simply can't extrapolate that to pressing.

 

In controlled environments, conservators sometimes use humidification to flatten works. However, the method by which it occurs and on what kinds of paper are both very broad factors that are considered. Once any moisture is introduced into the paper sheet, any number of chemical reactions can begin. Many conservators elect to accept minor wrinkling and creasing as part of the artifact's history of use, rather then subject the work to what may begin or cause premature aging and discoloration."

 

Again, no facts given, simply stating what preferences "many conservators" elect to do. There is humidity in the air. You need some humidity in the air to preserve paper. Humidity can be bad or good for paper. This is such a vague statement: "Once any moisture is introduced into the paper sheet, any number of chemical reactions can begin" There's nothing objective or experimental there.

 

You really need to read what is written and stated before drawing such a conclusive view. This entire statement is nothing more than educated opinion at best. I believe you said I had mis-represented this. I'd like for you to show how I did that. If not, you need to retract that.

The LOC statement was in direct response to a very well thought out and specific question that Fantastic_Four presented to them about pressing a comic. And yes...they don't recommend using heat to reduce wrinkles because of the fact that increased heat accelerates paper aging, especially papers made from groundwood pulp. Seems extemely clear to me.

 

And I'll concede the moisture part, since it's not entirely clear if most people are using moisture when doing the pressing. However, it does look like the LOC carefully considers a broad number of factors before deciding to introduce moisture into a paper product to help flatten it and that "many conservators elect to accept minor wrinkling and creasing as part of the artifact's history of use, rather then subject the work to what may begin or cause premature aging and discoloration."

 

And I believe you did mis-represent this...because it was clear from one of your follow-up posts afterwards that you were just commenting on what you had read on the LOC website and hadn't actually read this response from them that I had posted earlier in the thread. If you want to chastise someone for not reading what is written and stated before drawing a conclusive view...then I think that door swings both directions in this case.

 

OK. I'll make this simple for you.

 

Is that statement from the LOC:

a) Fact

b) Opinion

 

 

[Dale Roberts]

Joey...I do know that you actively disclose and I'm glad for that. I just think that pressing needs to be called what it is and actively disclosed by everyone. Whether we will both be in the ground before our books or not doesn't really matter.

 

There is a very good chance that the owner of a book that has been slightly micro-trimmed without disclosure will never know it. The book was trimmed during manufacture and was ever so slightly micro-trimmed by someone after that. The book is not going to disintegrate any quicker because of it. But that doesn't mean that the non-disclosure of the work is ok as long as the guy didn't ask. Not really a great analogy...and it doesn't aply to you since you do disclose...but hopefully you'll get the point I'm trying to make.

 

If I spent every moment of this hobby worrying about what was done to every book I own I would no longer enjoy what I do.

 

I am not saying ignorance is bliss but the more I learned about certain practices the more tolerant I am of them. I do not want a trimmed book, but I may own one anyway. Shame on the seller who does this. But then again, had I asked he may have said yes, it was trimmed.

 

You use your LOC info to substantiate your side of the argument, and I am not arguing the point that damage can/is done. A book that sits their is slowly decaying so I see the logic. What I do not see offered is the quantifiable data. A pressed book will only have a shelf life of XXX years compared to the same non-pressed book that has YYYYY shelf life.

 

To substantiate my side of the argument, as of this moment, CGC does not consider pressing restoration. Until that changes I will use that as my benchmark.

Yes...the seller might have admitted the book was trimmed if you asked him...but you should never have to ask. I would hate to have to ask every time I bought a book if it had (fill in the blank here with every type of restoration/desctruction that could be done to a book).

 

A point I'm trying to make is that many pressers (not all) have been saying for a LONG time that pressing does no damage in an effort to justify their lack of disclosure. Regardless of the lack of quantifiable data from the LOC...we now know that this is simply not true. Pressing a book (utilizing heat and/or moisture) does cause damage. Is it small? Probably. But it's damage done to a book by an individual in order to improve the outward look of the book and should be proactively disclosed by those who do it.

 

And I agree that CGC does not consider pressing restoration. But if I recall correctly, that's only because they can't accurately identify it and/or prove it. In light of the recent response from the Library of Congress, I just don't think their stance on it is satisfactory.

I am not asking this in an argumentative way or just to be a tool, but what world do you live in where you feel it is solely the sellers responsibilty to disclose anything to a buyer? I ask questions about everything. Anyone who has ever sold to me here on the boards knows I can be a royal PITA, but I do not like surprises after the fact. If I know before I close the deal I am OK with that. I can then decide to buy or not.

WTF? Are you just trying to be a tool?

 

I live in a world where I feel a seller should disclose work they've had done to a book prior to selling it. Especially if that work has caused damage to the book.

 

By the same token...what kind of world do you live in where you feel it's ok if someone knowingly and willingly does damage to a book and then doesn't disclose that to their buyer?

If the pressing caused damage to the book, CGC would reveal it and grade the book accordingly. If it hasn't, you are speculating as to whether it ever will.

 

By the way, what color is the sky in your world?

Not if the damage isn't immediately evident, they wouldn't. As the LOC stated...the processes involved with pressing the type of paper that a comic consists of does the type of damage that would spead up the aging/deterioration of a comic book. And I'm not speculating anything. This is what the LOC said based on their extended tests with regards to adding heat and/or moisture in an attempt to flatten paper products of this type.

 

And the color of the sky in my world is blue. What is it on your world (be sure to take off those rose-colored glasses before answering).

 

I am not the Library of Congress, but I did have quite a bit of chemistry in college, and I know that when you introduce different levels of heat, different levels and rates of reaction occur. When you remove that heat, those rates of reaction slow down and revert to normal in most cases. I would venture a guess that this is such a case. Maybe there is a chemist out there somewhere.....

 

You are arguing that any heat and moisture is bad. Well, there are levels of heat present at all times at most points on earth.. I would also imagine there is heat in the encapsulation process. Is that also bad for comics?

 

The fact is this, paper is not inert. It is constantly breaking down. However, with proper climate storage and archival material storage, you can slow that deterioration way down. The short time that books are pressed(if done properly) is not going to destroy your books. If you don't want to believe it, that is up to you.

[Dale Roberts]

 

Link

 

 

OK, let's address this.

 

"Using heat to reduce creases, wrinkles, or other planar distortions is not recommended by professional paper conservators. Many studies have shown that increased heat accelerates paper aging, especially papers made from groundwood pulp."

 

It's a recommendation. Not fact. Studies have shown that heat accelerates aging, but none in a fashion anywhere similar to that used in pressing. Most often in much higher temperatures and for much longer. You simply can't extrapolate that to pressing.

 

In controlled environments, conservators sometimes use humidification to flatten works. However, the method by which it occurs and on what kinds of paper are both very broad factors that are considered. Once any moisture is introduced into the paper sheet, any number of chemical reactions can begin. Many conservators elect to accept minor wrinkling and creasing as part of the artifact's history of use, rather then subject the work to what may begin or cause premature aging and discoloration."

 

Again, no facts given, simply stating what preferences "many conservators" elect to do. There is humidity in the air. You need some humidity in the air to preserve paper. Humidity can be bad or good for paper. This is such a vague statement: "Once any moisture is introduced into the paper sheet, any number of chemical reactions can begin" There's nothing objective or experimental there.

 

You really need to read what is written and stated before drawing such a conclusive view. This entire statement is nothing more than educated opinion at best. I believe you said I had mis-represented this. I'd like for you to show how I did that. If not, you need to retract that.

The LOC statement was in direct response to a very well thought out and specific question that Fantastic_Four presented to them about pressing a comic. And yes...they don't recommend using heat to reduce wrinkles because of the fact that increased heat accelerates paper aging, especially papers made from groundwood pulp. Seems extemely clear to me.

 

And I'll concede the moisture part, since it's not entirely clear if most people are using moisture when doing the pressing. However, it does look like the LOC carefully considers a broad number of factors before deciding to introduce moisture into a paper product to help flatten it and that "many conservators elect to accept minor wrinkling and creasing as part of the artifact's history of use, rather then subject the work to what may begin or cause premature aging and discoloration."

 

And I believe you did mis-represent this...because it was clear from one of your follow-up posts afterwards that you were just commenting on what you had read on the LOC website and hadn't actually read this response from them that I had posted earlier in the thread. If you want to chastise someone for not reading what is written and stated before drawing a conclusive view...then I think that door swings both directions in this case.

 

OK. I'll make this simple for you.

 

Is that statement from the LOC:

a) Fact

b) Opinion

 

 

some of the statements are facts, some are opinions based on select data.

[MrBedrock]

OK. I'll make this simple for you.

 

Good luck, Dan. I don't think it can be done. But good luck (thumbs u

[Domo Arigato]

Remember when I said you obviously don't know enough about the subject to do anything but argue in circles. That really didn't sink in very well...did it?

 

What's funny is some newb is telling me I don't know much about the subject of Pressing.....now that's funny. Your self-righteousness is matched only by your blatant ignorance.

It's just obvious that if you new more about it you wouldn't feel the need to argue in circles. And just because someone hasn't made 8,000 posts on this particular forum over the last 6 years certainly doesn't mean they're some "newb" to the hobby...you know...since we're already talking about people being self-righteous and ignorant.

[TupennyConan]

some of the statements are facts, some are opinions based on select data.

 

It's a fact that all of Dale Roberts' posts in the past few pressing threads have been

 

Dale has even begun using graemlins. Will an avatar & date with greggy be next??

[greggy]

some of the statements are facts, some are opinions based on select data.

 

It's a fact that all of Dale Roberts' posts in the past few pressing threads have been

 

Dale has even begun using graemlins. Will an avatar & date with greggy be next??

SD 2010 - Be there!!!

[THE_BEYONDER]

Can't we all just get along?

[Domo Arigato]

 

Link

 

 

OK, let's address this.

 

"Using heat to reduce creases, wrinkles, or other planar distortions is not recommended by professional paper conservators. Many studies have shown that increased heat accelerates paper aging, especially papers made from groundwood pulp."

 

It's a recommendation. Not fact. Studies have shown that heat accelerates aging, but none in a fashion anywhere similar to that used in pressing. Most often in much higher temperatures and for much longer. You simply can't extrapolate that to pressing.

 

In controlled environments, conservators sometimes use humidification to flatten works. However, the method by which it occurs and on what kinds of paper are both very broad factors that are considered. Once any moisture is introduced into the paper sheet, any number of chemical reactions can begin. Many conservators elect to accept minor wrinkling and creasing as part of the artifact's history of use, rather then subject the work to what may begin or cause premature aging and discoloration."

 

Again, no facts given, simply stating what preferences "many conservators" elect to do. There is humidity in the air. You need some humidity in the air to preserve paper. Humidity can be bad or good for paper. This is such a vague statement: "Once any moisture is introduced into the paper sheet, any number of chemical reactions can begin" There's nothing objective or experimental there.

 

You really need to read what is written and stated before drawing such a conclusive view. This entire statement is nothing more than educated opinion at best. I believe you said I had mis-represented this. I'd like for you to show how I did that. If not, you need to retract that.

The LOC statement was in direct response to a very well thought out and specific question that Fantastic_Four presented to them about pressing a comic. And yes...they don't recommend using heat to reduce wrinkles because of the fact that increased heat accelerates paper aging, especially papers made from groundwood pulp. Seems extemely clear to me.

 

And I'll concede the moisture part, since it's not entirely clear if most people are using moisture when doing the pressing. However, it does look like the LOC carefully considers a broad number of factors before deciding to introduce moisture into a paper product to help flatten it and that "many conservators elect to accept minor wrinkling and creasing as part of the artifact's history of use, rather then subject the work to what may begin or cause premature aging and discoloration."

 

And I believe you did mis-represent this...because it was clear from one of your follow-up posts afterwards that you were just commenting on what you had read on the LOC website and hadn't actually read this response from them that I had posted earlier in the thread. If you want to chastise someone for not reading what is written and stated before drawing a conclusive view...then I think that door swings both directions in this case.

 

OK. I'll make this simple for you.

 

Is that statement from the LOC:

a) Fact

b) Opinion

The part about heat is clearly presented as a fact.