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

[slym2none]

Yes, I test-drove it and bought it. So, I put all the miles on it...

 

(thumbs u

 

 

 

-slym

[seanfingh]

If you buy a used car, would you get upset if the dealership washed the car for you?

 

Last I saw, cars weren't harmed by moisture and a little heat.

 

Paper, however...

 

I would get upset if I bought a new car and they replaced the engine with an older one. I would also get upset if I bought a new car and the insufficiently_thoughtful_persons at the car-lot took it out for a joy-ride before it was delivered to me.

 

 

 

 

-slym

 

Almost no new cars sitting on lots have 0 miles on them. Every manufacturer has its own standards, but they are considered new until they have a certain amount of miles on them, 500 is pretty typical.

 

Let's see if we convert this to a car thread! I've bought maybe 10 new cars and shopped pretty extensively for each of them. I can't recall seeing a new car with more than 200 miles on it. Only one of the cars I've bought had more than 100. I can't imagine you could sell a "new" car with 500 miles on it except at a pretty steep discount unless you were in a hurry to get one with certain equipment and the dealer had it driven in from another dealer hundreds of miles away.

 

Actually, I was a little too cavalier and didn't explain well enough. The 500 miles (or wahatever the actual munfacturer # is) is for cars to be considered "new cars" for leasing purposes. That way they can do the test driving and what not without pushing a bunch of cars over that 100-200 mile limit that someone purchasing a car may chafe over.

[comicwiz]

 

The height of irrationality though has to be this myth that all books can be improved through pressing.

 

My point as attempted above.

 

Good show, Joseph.

 

This is not what I've stated. Book B in my example above is known, ex ante, not to have been pressed. Furthermore, Book B may or may not be able to be improved through pressing. That is why I said Book B has "option value" - it may be able to be improved, it may not. What we do know is that Book A has no option value as it has already been potentialized.

 

Also, that is not even the crux of my argument - it is a supplemental, objective economic/financial argument for those who do not accept the compelling, but subjective, argument that a book which has achieved its grade naturally is superior to one that has spent time as a lower grade and was manipulated to a higher grade through artificial means, or the contention that pressing can cause long-term damage to books that may not be immediately apparent.

 

With all due respect Gene, the developed logic your presenting as an argument against pressing is IMHO a manifestation of deep-rooted neurosis, and when it develops to the degree that you find yourself calling out complete strangers as indecent people, then its time to seek help or switch hobbies.

[Sqeggs]

Yes, I test-drove it and bought it. So, I put all the miles on it...

 

(thumbs u

 

 

 

-slym

 

Ahh, so the .2 was before you test drove it. Is this seven non-pressing posts in a row?

[slym2none]

Yes, I test-drove it and bought it. So, I put all the miles on it...

 

(thumbs u

 

 

 

-slym

 

Ahh, so the .2 was before you test drove it. Is this seven non-pressing posts in a row?

 

Nope, the string was broken.

 

Dang on-topic posts...

 

 

 

 

-slym

[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.

 

No it's not. Read it again. The words "recommended" and "many" are both qualifiers that exclude it from being presented as fact. It remains opinion.

 

And you should really read up on the studies they're talking about and see how relevant they are to pressing.

Yes it is. You're trying to distort it, but that's not going to change what they said. They were specifically asked about the process of using heat to press a comic book. They clearly stated that using heat is not recommended by professional paper conservators because many studies have shown that increased heat accelerates paper aging, especially papers made from groundwood pulp (like comic book paper). That is why it is not recommended. This is not opinion. It is a fact based on those studies.

[Domo Arigato]

OK. I'll make this simple for you.

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

 

You have to admire his tenaciousness, he apparently likes this sort of intellectual gang-rape by so many Boardies. Maybe he'll come back for more when he heals up and can walk straight again....

Haven't felt anything along the lines of an intellectual gang-rape so far. Perhaps that intellectual viagra your doctor put you on is some kind of placebo and your old noodle is as limp as ever.

 

C'mon, I'd thought you'd do better than that...perhaps I gave you too much credit.

I haven't given you any credit. Sadly...I still think that's too much.

[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.

 

 

Sure, but you do realize there are different levels of heat right? Lots of heat is worse than a little heat. right? So where is the line? Is it 90 degrees, 120, 200 degrees? Where is the line. Paper ignites at 451 degrees, so it must be cooler than that. Unless you add moisture, which boils and evaporates at 212. Lots of variable in this equation.

A conservator at the Library of Congress would understand the process of a professional presser applying heat and pressure to get the wrinkles out of paper. It's not like they're going to assume when FF asked his question of them that he was talking about someone sticking a book in a 400 degree oven and then putting a board and a couple of rocks on top of it. His question was clear and so was their response.

[namisgr]

 

The height of irrationality though has to be this myth that all books can be improved through pressing.

 

My point as attempted above.

 

Good show, Joseph.

 

This is not what I've stated. Book B in my example above is known, ex ante, not to have been pressed. Furthermore, Book B may or may not be able to be improved through pressing. That is why I said Book B has "option value" - it may be able to be improved, it may not. What we do know is that Book A has no option value as it has already been potentialized.

 

Also, that is not even the crux of my argument - it is a supplemental, objective economic/financial argument for those who do not accept the compelling, but subjective, argument that a book which has achieved its grade naturally is superior to one that has spent time as a lower grade and was manipulated to a higher grade through artificial means, or the contention that pressing can cause long-term damage to books that may not be immediately apparent.

 

With all due respect Gene, the developed logic your presenting as an argument against pressing is IMHO a manifestation of deep-rooted neurosis, and when it develops to the degree that you find yourself calling out complete strangers as indecent people, then its time to seek help or switch hobbies.

 

1. Gene already DID switch hobbies, selling all his HG comics and instead buying OA.

 

2. There is no myth that all books can be improved through pressing. Collectors aware of what pressing is and does know that it can be used to improve the CGC grade of only a fraction of books.

 

3. It is a fact, whether you like it or not and whether you agree with it or not, that a subset of collectors do not want to purchase books that have been pressed. It is also a fact that the ever increasing number of comics that have been pressed has caused and will continue to cause some collectors to leave HG comic collecting.

 

 

[DiceX]

It's only because of you dirtbag high-grade collectors that pressing even exists.

If you loved all comics equally, you'd be just as happy with your Goods as you are with your Mints.

 

The practice was created by you, and your lust for perfect books.

So take a big old dose of STFU and stop crying about how you get it, and just be happy you get it.

 

 

[Domo Arigato]

 

 

There's a bit of weird wisdom buried within those words.

[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

 

The part about heat is clearly presented as a fact.

 

No it's not. Read it again. The words "recommended" and "many" are both qualifiers that exclude it from being presented as fact. It remains opinion.

 

And you should really read up on the studies they're talking about and see how relevant they are to pressing.

Yes it is. You're trying to distort it, but that's not going to change what they said. They were specifically asked about the process of using heat to press a comic book. They clearly stated that using heat is not recommended by professional paper conservators because many studies have shown that increased heat accelerates paper aging, especially papers made from groundwood pulp (like comic book paper). That is why it is not recommended. This is not opinion. It is a fact based on those studies.

 

Last time. If you don't get it, then I'm moving on.

 

The guy is responding to a question with his opinion. There is NOTHING in there to qualify it as fact. NOTHING. Even if he came out and said, "I'm absolutely certain this is bad" - without the background you're taking him at his word. There's nothing in his phrasing to suggest that is fact. It's opinion. Fact implies certainty. There is no certainty there. The reason there is no certainty is because the studies haven't been done. The reason the studies haven't been done is because the effect is so miniscule there's no way to quantify it. You can study what happens if you bake paper at 100 C for 24 hours, but at ~70 C for 5 minutes the effect is negligible.

 

You're so hung up on this one statement by one person (which is still nothing but opinion). Move beyond that and look at the information that is out there. For all you know this is a GED diplomate with a handbook whose job is to answer emails.

 

 

 

 

[THE_BEYONDER]

It's only because of you dirtbag high-grade collectors that pressing even exists.

If you loved all comics equally, you'd be just as happy with your Goods as you are with your Mints.

 

The practice was created by you, and your lust for perfect books.

So take a big old dose of STFU and stop crying about how you get it, and just be happy you get it.

 

 

Go fist yourself

[tth2]

Can whether you personally have had a book pressed be proactively disclosed?

 

Always, and it's been requested time and again by many people.

 

See the difference? \(shrug\)

 

But they only seem to make that request in pressing threads. They never seem to ask the dealers themselves about particular books in their inventory, which would be the most productive avenue, wouldn't it?

How could you possibly know that, Jeff? Have you been snooping in on my emails and phone calls again? I decided not to buy a 9.4 FC 596 from Brian Peets recently after he told me, after I asked, that it was pressed. In terms of boardies, George/JTMF can tell you that when he offered me some very nice books recently, I asked him whether any were pressed.

[RockMyAmadeus]

It's only because of you dirtbag high-grade collectors that pressing even exists.

If you loved all comics equally, you'd be just as happy with your Goods as you are with your Mints.

 

The practice was created by you, and your lust for perfect books.

So take a big old dose of STFU and stop crying about how you get it, and just be happy you get it.

 

 

(thumbs u

[DiceX]

It's only because of you dirtbag high-grade collectors that pressing even exists.

If you loved all comics equally, you'd be just as happy with your Goods as you are with your Mints.

 

The practice was created by you, and your lust for perfect books.

So take a big old dose of STFU and stop crying about how you get it, and just be happy you get it.

 

 

Go fist yourself

 

Truth and reality are tough doses to take, sometimes.

I love you too.

 

 

[tth2]

Again, that's why I think the anti-pressing crowd live in the theoretical. Your complaint is that dealers aren't proactively disclosing

 

I'm anti-pressing and have never believed that disclosure was sufficient, not when thousands and thousands of books have been and are being pressed (again, remember when the pro-pressing crowd kept insisting that it would always remain a costly and limited phenomenon? What a joke that was) and actively exchanged between numerous parties. Fast forward 5-10 years and these books will have changed hands so many times, through so many venues, that the line of disclosure will inevitably have been broken on a huge number of books.

 

I was once a big slab collector (I still own probably 200-300 of them) and thought I might one day get back into it, but the hobby is dead to me now. Those of us who admire books that have earned their CGC grades by withstanding the ravages of time and ownership can already hardly distinguish those books from those that have been manipulated with any degree of certainty, and it will only become more and more difficult going forward.

 

Unless one is willing to accept manipulated books as being the equivalent of books in their natural state (i.e., ignorance is bliss, if it looks like a 9.8, it is a 9.8 no matter how it got there), there is no more place in the HG slabbed hobby for people like us. It's like Leonard Cohen sang when I saw him at MSG the other week - everybody knows the war is over, everybody knows the good guys lost...

(thumbs u

 

I just wish I could move over to OA like you and many other collectors have over the last few years.

[DiceX]

 

 

[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.

 

No it's not. Read it again. The words "recommended" and "many" are both qualifiers that exclude it from being presented as fact. It remains opinion.

 

And you should really read up on the studies they're talking about and see how relevant they are to pressing.

Yes it is. You're trying to distort it, but that's not going to change what they said. They were specifically asked about the process of using heat to press a comic book. They clearly stated that using heat is not recommended by professional paper conservators because many studies have shown that increased heat accelerates paper aging, especially papers made from groundwood pulp (like comic book paper). That is why it is not recommended. This is not opinion. It is a fact based on those studies.

Last time. If you don't get it, then I'm moving on.

 

The guy is responding to a question with his opinion. There is NOTHING in there to qualify it as fact. NOTHING. Even if he came out and said, "I'm absolutely certain this is bad" - without the background you're taking him at his word. There's nothing in his phrasing to suggest that is fact. It's opinion. Fact implies certainty. There is no certainty there. The reason there is no certainty is because the studies haven't been done. The reason the studies haven't been done is because the effect is so miniscule there's no way to quantify it. You can study what happens if you bake paper at 100 C for 24 hours, but at ~70 C for 5 minutes the effect is negligible.

 

You're so hung up on this one statement by one person (which is still nothing but opinion). Move beyond that and look at the information that is out there. For all you know this is a GED diplomate with a handbook whose job is to answer emails.

Do what you feel you have to do. It's still not going to make you any less wrong. He bases his answer on FACTS he knows...from STUDIES that have shown them. He is absolutely certain that increased heat accelerates paper aging, especially papers made from groundwood pulp (like comic book paper). Studies have been done to prove this. They didn't conduct these studies so that the study would give them an opinion. Increased heat accelerates the paper aging process, plain and simple. I don't think the LOC or I would argue with you that the more heat that is applied, the greater the aging affect. But that still doesn't dismiss the fact that some damage is occuring with the amount of heat applied during a press job. Regardless of how much you'd like to dismiss it as "neglegible" with nothing to back your own opinion up. And you can try to dismiss this persons credentials all you want. But I'll trust the credibility of a response from the Conservation Division of the U.S. Library of Congress on this matter over your opinion any day.

[Foolkiller]

 

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.

 

No it's not. Read it again. The words "recommended" and "many" are both qualifiers that exclude it from being presented as fact. It remains opinion.

 

And you should really read up on the studies they're talking about and see how relevant they are to pressing.

Yes it is. You're trying to distort it, but that's not going to change what they said. They were specifically asked about the process of using heat to press a comic book. They clearly stated that using heat is not recommended by professional paper conservators because many studies have shown that increased heat accelerates paper aging, especially papers made from groundwood pulp (like comic book paper). That is why it is not recommended. This is not opinion. It is a fact based on those studies.

Last time. If you don't get it, then I'm moving on.

 

The guy is responding to a question with his opinion. There is NOTHING in there to qualify it as fact. NOTHING. Even if he came out and said, "I'm absolutely certain this is bad" - without the background you're taking him at his word. There's nothing in his phrasing to suggest that is fact. It's opinion. Fact implies certainty. There is no certainty there. The reason there is no certainty is because the studies haven't been done. The reason the studies haven't been done is because the effect is so miniscule there's no way to quantify it. You can study what happens if you bake paper at 100 C for 24 hours, but at ~70 C for 5 minutes the effect is negligible.

 

You're so hung up on this one statement by one person (which is still nothing but opinion). Move beyond that and look at the information that is out there. For all you know this is a GED diplomate with a handbook whose job is to answer emails.

Do what you feel you have to do. It's still not going to make you any less wrong. He bases his answer on FACTS he knows...from STUDIES that have shown them. He is absolutely certain that increased heat accelerates paper aging, especially papers made from groundwood pulp (like comic book paper). Studies have been done to prove this. They didn't conduct these studies so that the study would give them an opinion. Increased heat accelerates the paper aging, plain and simple fact. I don't think the LOC or I would argue with you that the more heat that is applied, the greater the aging affect. But that still doesn't dismiss the fact that some damage is occuring with the amount of heat applied during a press job. Regardless of how much you'd like to dismiss it as "neglegible" with nothing to back your own opinion up. And you can try to dismiss this persons credentials all you want. But I'll trust the credibility of a response from the Conservation Division of the U.S. Library of Congress on this matter over your opinion any day.

 

Just FYI, just because one study shows something from one researcher doesn't exactly make it fact, even if I take everything you say as true. The evidence I'll offer is that many Mass books were pressed, and they show absolutely no evidence of any damage, adverse aging etc. Now of course, these are only 20 year examples, but we're not talking a study or anything else, but rather a very real example.

 

Regardless, I don't think there is a conclusive answer either way, and again, as I've mentioned in the past, the anti pressing crowd bears the burden of proving that pressing is somehow harmful for a majority of people to begin to reject the practice. Until such time as that is shown, pressing will continue. I'm not sure what evidence you're going to offer, as we know pressing has been going on professionally on some scale for 20+ years.