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

[nearmint]

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.

 

I know because I've asked the dealers. Of course some people ask. I'm sure you do, and Chris, and Flaming Telepath(if he buys books that fall into the "might be pressed" category). But ask Richard, or Dale, or Rick, and they'll tell you that the question is asked so infrequently that one can only come to the conclusion that in the real world(meaning off the boards), it's a non-issue. There are probably more people put off by dust shadows than by pressing.

[DiceX]

 

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.

 

And it is 100% fact that comics are being destroyed in the everyday, normal environment. Even if you have them in archival storage, they are falling apart.

 

The fact that all the non-pressers have not entombed their comics in suspensions of liquid Lucite makes you all just as bad as a presser.

See you all in hell.

 

 

[tth2]

Furthermore, from my minor dabblings in the rare book market, restoration in that hobby is viewed without the massive stigma it carries in the comic book world as well. So, any attempts to de-stigmatize restoration (including pressing) by comparisons to OA or rare books, where it is much more readily accepted, is very misleading.

I don't think that's completely true. There are often big differences in price between a restored book, particularly restored dust jacket, and the same book and/or dust jacket that is unrestored and in the same condition.

 

However, I think not as many book collectors are quite as picky and will therefore buy a restored book or dust jacket at the right price, whereas many comic collectors will simply refuse to buy a restored comics, regardless of price.

[Domo Arigato]

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.

The LOC didn't say anything about one researcher doing one study. He mentioned that many studies have shown that increased heat accelerates paper aging, especially papers made from groundwood pulp.

 

And I'm not sure how you mentioning the Mass books is evidence...or how you know that the ones that have been pressed show absolutely no evidence of adverse aging. I've always respected your posts in here, Foolkiller...but seriously?

 

[tth2]

But shouldn't a piece of art that is completely untouched and original be worth more than a similar piece (with similar composition and similar content...say two nearly identical dailies from the same artist) that is cleaned and has stats replaced?

 

Remember, if you say yes or no then it blows your whole reason for leaving the slabbed comic market.

 

I don't know if the second statement is a joke or has been mistyped. In any case, it has no bearing whatsoever on anything I said above and is a total non-sequitur. It's quite simple: restoration in comics <> restoration in OA. I don't think there is any need to get further into it because I think it's pretty self-evident to everyone and only distracts from the real issue.

 

I met up with our mutual friend Marc today and he was telling me how he is in the market for a certain high grade Silver Age DC key. But, he told me that he wants to make sure that the copy he buys has not been pressed. He is not a Board member and he is not a rabid anti-presser. But, like most people who are aware of what pressing is and how the "game" is played these days, he recognizes that a comic book that achieved its grade naturally is simply not equivalent to one that achieved its full potential unnaturally (as I'll logically prove below). Even if nothing detectable was "added", it was artificially manipulated.

 

It may not bother some people, given the prevailing standards of the hobby, but it does bother others. And, it's not enough to say "let and let live", because what the pressing camp does affects the anti-pressing camp by (a) turning books they would want to collect into books they would not want to collect and (b) distorting the relative scarcity of books in grade as well as market prices up and down the grading spectrum based on their "potential".

 

For those who approve of pressing - do you think that Book A, which achieved its grade through artificial manipulation (pressing) is every bit the equivalent of Book B, a book that naturally achieved that status? I think it is pretty evident that the answer is "no". If you disagree with that, you're flat-out wrong, because Book A has "reached its maximum potential" whereas Book B might yet be able to be "potentialized". So, even if you don't care about how a book got its looks, Book B still has what financiers would call "option value" while Book A does not. We all know this, this is why people pay more for books that can be potentialized as opposed to those that already have been.

 

Recognizing that pressed and unpressed books of the same grade are not equivalent and that the actions of the pressers negatively affect the enjoyment of the anti-pressers, why is it so hard to understand why pressing, quite justifiably, really, really, really upsets a lot of people?

What is is with you and all the great posts in this thread? I'll have to stop giving you such a hard time in the financial threads.

[Foolkiller]

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.

The LOC didn't say anything about one researcher doing one study. He mentioned that many studies have shown that increased heat accelerates paper aging, especially papers made from groundwood pulp.

 

And I'm not sure how you mentioning the Mass books is evidence...or how you know that the ones that have been pressed show absolutely no evidence of adverse aging? I've always respected your posts in here, Foolkiller...but seriously?

 

1) Do you have the actual studies? If not, your citation is worthless. I've read hundreds of scientific studies and one thing I know is that unless you have the actual studies, you can make them say whatever you want, unless you are going to refer us to the actual text for us to read, this is worth zip.

 

2) The vast majority were pressed. How many Mass books have you seen? I've seen dozens. Not one of them showed any signs of anything adverse, they look pristine and beautiful as most Mass books do. For any of you who own Mass books (especially high grade ones) take them out and look at them and see if you think Susan's press work was detrimental in any way to the book.

 

 

By the way, I mean the ones that came from Marnin, so the earlier pre 1970 books.

[tth2]

Of course some people ask. I'm sure you do, and Chris, and Flaming Telepath(if he buys books that fall into the "might be pressed" category). But ask Richard, or Dale, or Rick, and they'll tell you that the question is asked so infrequently that one can only come to the conclusion that in the real world(meaning off the boards), it's a non-issue. There are probably more people put off by dust shadows than by pressing.

But of the people who don't ask, how many are aware of pressing and therefore even know to ask, and of those who do know, how many care about pressing? Without that information, it's a bit misleading to say that just because lots of people don't ask therefore means that people who know and care about pressing never ask.

[Flaming_Telepath]

I know because I've asked the dealers. Of course some people ask. I'm sure you do, and Chris, and Flaming Telepath(if he buys books that fall into the "might be pressed" category). But ask Richard, or Dale, or Rick, and they'll tell you that the question is asked so infrequently that one can only come to the conclusion that in the real world(meaning off the boards), it's a non-issue. There are probably more people put off by dust shadows than by pressing.

 

Because there is nothing like the level of awareness there is here on the boards in the general population.

 

Because there are huge swathes of the collecting population who only know pressing from Overstreet, where it was classified as restoration for decades, and assume that like any other form of restoration, it would be proactively disclosed at point of sale.

[nearmint]

But shouldn't a piece of art that is completely untouched and original be worth more than a similar piece (with similar composition and similar content...say two nearly identical dailies from the same artist) that is cleaned and has stats replaced?

 

Remember, if you say yes or no then it blows your whole reason for leaving the slabbed comic market.

 

I don't know if the second statement is a joke or has been mistyped. In any case, it has no bearing whatsoever on anything I said above and is a total non-sequitur. It's quite simple: restoration in comics <> restoration in OA. I don't think there is any need to get further into it because I think it's pretty self-evident to everyone and only distracts from the real issue.

 

I met up with our mutual friend Marc today and he was telling me how he is in the market for a certain high grade Silver Age DC key. But, he told me that he wants to make sure that the copy he buys has not been pressed. He is not a Board member and he is not a rabid anti-presser. But, like most people who are aware of what pressing is and how the "game" is played these days, he recognizes that a comic book that achieved its grade naturally is simply not equivalent to one that achieved its full potential unnaturally (as I'll logically prove below). Even if nothing detectable was "added", it was artificially manipulated.

 

It may not bother some people, given the prevailing standards of the hobby, but it does bother others. And, it's not enough to say "let and let live", because what the pressing camp does affects the anti-pressing camp by (a) turning books they would want to collect into books they would not want to collect and (b) distorting the relative scarcity of books in grade as well as market prices up and down the grading spectrum based on their "potential".

 

For those who approve of pressing - do you think that Book A, which achieved its grade through artificial manipulation (pressing) is every bit the equivalent of Book B, a book that naturally achieved that status? I think it is pretty evident that the answer is "no". If you disagree with that, you're flat-out wrong, because Book A has "reached its maximum potential" whereas Book B might yet be able to be "potentialized". So, even if you don't care about how a book got its looks, Book B still has what financiers would call "option value" while Book A does not. We all know this, this is why people pay more for books that can be potentialized as opposed to those that already have been.

 

Recognizing that pressed and unpressed books of the same grade are not equivalent and that the actions of the pressers negatively affect the enjoyment of the anti-pressers, why is it so hard to understand why pressing, quite justifiably, really, really, really upsets a lot of people?

What is is with you and all the great posts in this thread? I'll have to stop giving you such a hard time in the financial threads.

 

I don't know. Is Gene saying that an anti-presser prefers an unpressed book because it still has potential to be upgraded through manipulation?

[Foolkiller]

I know because I've asked the dealers. Of course some people ask. I'm sure you do, and Chris, and Flaming Telepath(if he buys books that fall into the "might be pressed" category). But ask Richard, or Dale, or Rick, and they'll tell you that the question is asked so infrequently that one can only come to the conclusion that in the real world(meaning off the boards), it's a non-issue. There are probably more people put off by dust shadows than by pressing.

 

Because there is nothing like the level of awareness there is here on the boards in the general population.

 

Because there are huge swathes of the collecting population who only know pressing from Overstreet, where it was classified as restoration for decades, and assume that like any other form of restoration, it would be proactively disclosed at point of sale.

 

Nick, I agree with the first part of your statement, that it was classified as resto, but I completely disagree with you that it was proactively disclosed at point of sale.

[Flaming_Telepath]

I know because I've asked the dealers. Of course some people ask. I'm sure you do, and Chris, and Flaming Telepath(if he buys books that fall into the "might be pressed" category). But ask Richard, or Dale, or Rick, and they'll tell you that the question is asked so infrequently that one can only come to the conclusion that in the real world(meaning off the boards), it's a non-issue. There are probably more people put off by dust shadows than by pressing.

 

Because there is nothing like the level of awareness there is here on the boards in the general population.

 

Because there are huge swathes of the collecting population who only know pressing from Overstreet, where it was classified as restoration for decades, and assume that like any other form of restoration, it would be proactively disclosed at point of sale.

 

Nick, I agree with the first part of your statement, that it was classified as resto, but I completely disagree with you that it was proactively disclosed at point of sale.

 

What I'm saying, Jeff, is that an assumption may be made (actually, I'll guarantee that it will be made by a proportion of collectors) that as pressing is restoration, they can reasonably expect a decent dealer to disclose it, as they would/should colour-touch/tear seals/trimming.

[Domo Arigato]

1) Do you have the actual studies? If not, your citation is worthless. I've read hundreds of scientific studies and one thing I know is that unless you have the actual studies, you can make them say whatever you want, unless you are going to refer us to the actual text for us to read, this is worth zip.

Then what the pressers have been spouting about the process doing absolutely no harm is worth less than zip. The Conservator at the LOC knew the context of the question that was being posed and gave his answer. That carries more weight than all the hot air I've seen in here so far.

 

2) The vast majority were pressed. How many Mass books have you seen? I've seen dozens. Not one of them showed any signs of anything adverse, they look pristine and beautiful as most Mass books do. For any of you who own Mass books (especially high grade ones) take them out and look at them and see if you think Susan's press work was detrimental in any way to the book.

 

By the way, I mean the ones that came from Marnin, so the earlier pre 1970 books.

And this is the part I'm really not getting. What does this prove? Yes, I've seen Mass books...but probably not as many as you. We're not talking about a press job leaving an obvious black spot in the middle of every page. We're talking about something that would speed up the aging process of the paper. Not cause it to disintegrate in 5 years. Simply speed up the process from what would normally occur without the pressing. I don't care how good you think your vision and memory might be. There's no way I'm going to believe you can tell me you saw these books 20 years ago and then saw them again recently and could tell from that that no additional aging was caused by the pressing process. Seriously? You want this to be your argument while dismissing what someone from the LOC stated based on tests performed?

[Foolkiller]

I know because I've asked the dealers. Of course some people ask. I'm sure you do, and Chris, and Flaming Telepath(if he buys books that fall into the "might be pressed" category). But ask Richard, or Dale, or Rick, and they'll tell you that the question is asked so infrequently that one can only come to the conclusion that in the real world(meaning off the boards), it's a non-issue. There are probably more people put off by dust shadows than by pressing.

 

Because there is nothing like the level of awareness there is here on the boards in the general population.

 

Because there are huge swathes of the collecting population who only know pressing from Overstreet, where it was classified as restoration for decades, and assume that like any other form of restoration, it would be proactively disclosed at point of sale.

 

Nick, I agree with the first part of your statement, that it was classified as resto, but I completely disagree with you that it was proactively disclosed at point of sale.

 

What I'm saying, Jeff, is that an assumption may be made (actually, I'll guarantee that it will be made by a proportion of collectors) that as pressing is restoration, they can reasonably expect a decent dealer to disclose it, as they would/should colour-touch/tear seals/trimming.

 

I don't know who this Jeff fellow is, but my experience Nick was that most dealers never mentioned pressing to me from 1995-2004 -- and I'm not sure if it was intentional or not, but some of the guys I was dealing with must have been decent.

 

 

[Flaming_Telepath]

I know because I've asked the dealers. Of course some people ask. I'm sure you do, and Chris, and Flaming Telepath(if he buys books that fall into the "might be pressed" category). But ask Richard, or Dale, or Rick, and they'll tell you that the question is asked so infrequently that one can only come to the conclusion that in the real world(meaning off the boards), it's a non-issue. There are probably more people put off by dust shadows than by pressing.

 

Because there is nothing like the level of awareness there is here on the boards in the general population.

 

Because there are huge swathes of the collecting population who only know pressing from Overstreet, where it was classified as restoration for decades, and assume that like any other form of restoration, it would be proactively disclosed at point of sale.

 

Nick, I agree with the first part of your statement, that it was classified as resto, but I completely disagree with you that it was proactively disclosed at point of sale.

 

What I'm saying, Jeff, is that an assumption may be made (actually, I'll guarantee that it will be made by a proportion of collectors) that as pressing is restoration, they can reasonably expect a decent dealer to disclose it, as they would/should colour-touch/tear seals/trimming.

 

I don't know who this Jeff fellow is, but my experience Nick was that most dealers never mentioned pressing to me from 1995-2004 -- and I'm not sure if it was intentional or not, but some of the guys I was dealing with must have been decent.

 

 

 

Jeff/Brian/Domo...you've all melted!

 

[Domo Arigato]

 

 

 

[Foolkiller]

1) Do you have the actual studies? If not, your citation is worthless. I've read hundreds of scientific studies and one thing I know is that unless you have the actual studies, you can make them say whatever you want, unless you are going to refer us to the actual text for us to read, this is worth zip.

Then what the pressers have been spouting about the process doing absolutely no harm is worth less than zip. The Conservator at the LOC knew the context of the question that was being posed and gave his answer. That carries more weight than all the hot air I've seen in here so far.

 

2) The vast majority were pressed. How many Mass books have you seen? I've seen dozens. Not one of them showed any signs of anything adverse, they look pristine and beautiful as most Mass books do. For any of you who own Mass books (especially high grade ones) take them out and look at them and see if you think Susan's press work was detrimental in any way to the book.

 

By the way, I mean the ones that came from Marnin, so the earlier pre 1970 books.

And this is the part I'm really not getting. What does this prove? I've seen Mass books. Maybe not as many as you...but enough. We're not talking about a press job leaving an obvious black spot in the middle of every page. We're talking about something that would speed up the aging process of the paper. Not cause it to disintegrate in 5 years. Simply spead up the process from what would normally occur without the pressing. I don't care how good you think you vision and memory might be. There's no way I'm going to believe you can tell me you saw these books 20 years ago and then saw them again recently and could tell from that that no additional aging was caused by the pressing process. Seriously? You want this to be your argument while dismissing what someone from the LOC stated based on tests performed?

 

I'm actually not dismissing completely your LOC argument. What I'm saying is that it's really not worth much more than this anecdotal evidence I'm offering because we're not seeing the studies you're citing. You've actually done what I wanted you to do, which is point out how evidence which is offered which has no way of being verified (my Mass example) is not really that persuasive. Your LOC example is similar. You can't verify any of the information in it. You haven't read the foundational information. This answer given by the conservator was not on comics and the pressing process.

 

My argument also isn't that pressing doesn't harm the book -- simply that there is no real evidence that it does. Your evidence is citing to one conservator from the LOC on the subject of paper and heat. While this is some evidence, without actual substantiation of the studies he is referring to or a full context of the expert's opinion or someone being able to actually question the expert, I really don't find it persuasive on the subject of comic books. Especially when the expert can't actually evaluate the process actually used by current pressing technology to answer the question. You are simply extrapolating that answer to comics.

 

The answer carries very little weight in my mind because I've dealt with many so called experts and one thing you learn is that there's usually a vast amount of disagreement on a controversial topic. I don't know the context in which he was being asked, whether his opinion would be the same given my point above, what the size and scope of the studies he relied upon was, whether similar experts in his field would agree, how he defines the terms etc.

 

You seem to think you've given us some great piece of knowledge with this citation to the LOC, and my simple point is, it's not a great piece of evidence and gives us very little to answer the question that is debated here.

 

I'm not conclusively saying you are wrong, and I'm open to the question, but I've seen no persuasive evidence that leads me to believe that the process is harmful and I believe you've given us no evidence that truly supports your point with the same weight you seem to have convinced yourself that you have.

 

 

[nearmint]

Of course some people ask. I'm sure you do, and Chris, and Flaming Telepath(if he buys books that fall into the "might be pressed" category). But ask Richard, or Dale, or Rick, and they'll tell you that the question is asked so infrequently that one can only come to the conclusion that in the real world(meaning off the boards), it's a non-issue. There are probably more people put off by dust shadows than by pressing.

But of the people who don't ask, how many are aware of pressing and therefore even know to ask, and of those who do know, how many care about pressing? Without that information, it's a bit misleading to say that just because lots of people don't ask therefore means that people who know and care about pressing never ask.

 

Tim, to think logically about it, I think you have to turn your argument around. Forget about the people who don't know about pressing. Of course, they can't ask. But even if you just consider the number of anti-pressers here on the boards, dealers just aren't getting the question.

[nearmint]

I know because I've asked the dealers. Of course some people ask. I'm sure you do, and Chris, and Flaming Telepath(if he buys books that fall into the "might be pressed" category). But ask Richard, or Dale, or Rick, and they'll tell you that the question is asked so infrequently that one can only come to the conclusion that in the real world(meaning off the boards), it's a non-issue. There are probably more people put off by dust shadows than by pressing.

 

Because there is nothing like the level of awareness there is here on the boards in the general population.

 

Because there are huge swathes of the collecting population who only know pressing from Overstreet, where it was classified as restoration for decades, and assume that like any other form of restoration, it would be proactively disclosed at point of sale.

 

Nick, you speak as if board members who are aware of pressing aren't also part of the general population and buying books from dealers through websites and at conventions. The vast majority of even those knowledgeable people are not asking the question.

[Domo Arigato]

1) Do you have the actual studies? If not, your citation is worthless. I've read hundreds of scientific studies and one thing I know is that unless you have the actual studies, you can make them say whatever you want, unless you are going to refer us to the actual text for us to read, this is worth zip.

Then what the pressers have been spouting about the process doing absolutely no harm is worth less than zip. The Conservator at the LOC knew the context of the question that was being posed and gave his answer. That carries more weight than all the hot air I've seen in here so far.

 

2) The vast majority were pressed. How many Mass books have you seen? I've seen dozens. Not one of them showed any signs of anything adverse, they look pristine and beautiful as most Mass books do. For any of you who own Mass books (especially high grade ones) take them out and look at them and see if you think Susan's press work was detrimental in any way to the book.

 

By the way, I mean the ones that came from Marnin, so the earlier pre 1970 books.

And this is the part I'm really not getting. What does this prove? I've seen Mass books. Maybe not as many as you...but enough. We're not talking about a press job leaving an obvious black spot in the middle of every page. We're talking about something that would speed up the aging process of the paper. Not cause it to disintegrate in 5 years. Simply spead up the process from what would normally occur without the pressing. I don't care how good you think you vision and memory might be. There's no way I'm going to believe you can tell me you saw these books 20 years ago and then saw them again recently and could tell from that that no additional aging was caused by the pressing process. Seriously? You want this to be your argument while dismissing what someone from the LOC stated based on tests performed?

 

I'm actually not dismissing completely your LOC argument. What I'm saying is that it's really not worth much more than this anecdotal evidence I'm offering because we're not seeing the studies you're citing. You've actually done what I wanted you to do, which is point out how evidence which is offered which has no way of being verified (my Mass example) is not really that persuasive. Your LOC example is similar. You can't verify any of the information in it. You haven't read the foundational information. This answer given by the conservator was not on comics and the pressing process.

 

My argument also isn't that pressing doesn't harm the book -- simply that there is no real evidence that it does. Your evidence is citing to one conservator from the LOC on the subject of paper and heat. While this is some evidence, without actual substantiation of the studies he is referring to or a full context of the expert's opinion or someone being able to actually question the expert, I really don't find it persuasive on the subject of comic books. Especially when the expert can't actually evaluate the process actually used by current pressing technology to answer the question. You are simply extrapolating that answer to comics.

 

The answer carries very little weight in my mind because I've dealt with many so called experts and one thing you learn is that there's usually a vast amount of disagreement on a controversial topic. I don't know the context in which he was being asked, whether his opinion would be the same given my point above, what the size and scope of the studies he relied upon was, whether similar experts in his field would agree, how he defines the terms etc.

 

You seem to think you've given us some great piece of knowledge with this citation to the LOC, and my simple point is, it's not a great piece of evidence and gives us very little to answer the question that is debated here.

 

I'm not conclusively saying you are wrong, and I'm open to the question, but I've seen no persuasive evidence that leads me to believe that the process is harmful and I believe you've given us no evidence that truly supports your point with the same weight you seem to have convinced yourself that you have.

That's where we're going to have to agree to disagree then. Because I feel it's extemely obvious that the information provided by the U.S. Library of Congress is worth far more than your "seat of the pants" example that you trotted out. No information is going to be universally accepted in here, no matter how factual it might be. But a question was posed to a professional conservator at the LOC and they responded very clearly to it.

 

And yes...there is real evidence that pressing does harm to a book. Pressing involves the application of heat. And the LOC stated clearly that studies have shown that increased heat accelerates paper aging. There really isn't any need to extrapolate anything to get it to comics. Increased heat accelerates the paper aging process. Pressers use increased heat to press comics. Not really much of an extrapolation going on there.

 

I've watched several of the of the pro-pressing crowd in here claim that pressing does absolutely no harm to a comic book. The response we got back from the LOC disagrees with that statement. And since I've yet to come accross anyone in here that knows more about paper preservation and conservation than a conservator at the U.S. Library of Congress would...please forgive me for putting a little bit more weight on what they have to say on the subject.

[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.

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.

 

I have read the studies. We've discussed them at length in the resto forum. I've pointed that out. If you'd listen to a damn word I said you'd realize the studies that have been done - as they apply to pressing - are essentially irrelevant. I'm telling you the guy doesn't have these "facts" you think he does. The studies that would tell us that haven't been done, and they likely won't be done because there's no way to tell a difference. That's what I'm trying to tell you. LISTEN. It's not my opinion, that - more than any nonsense you've spouted - is fact. The studies you think you're referring to have proven nothing as it relates to pressing. Why don't you read them your damn self. I'm done with you. It's like talking to a brick. I regret having spent any time trying to convince you of anything.