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

[towards2112]

 

That's not what I said at all. In order for the drug manufacturer to claim a benefit or get an approved indication, it must get FDA approval which require studies. Therefore, it can't claim to cure breast cancer etc.

 

However, drugs are not like comic books. There's no field of regulation in comic books. Therefore, from a legal perspective, if someone wants to claim that there's no harm in pressing, they're free to do so. Your analogy, I take it, is that by virtue of saying pressing causes no harm, it's the same as saying, this drug really does (x).

 

That's not really analogous to me. It'd be more like saying, our drug doesn't cause cancer... and then it is proven that it does. But drug companies don't say that on their label or make those affirmations. They say what their drug does do, not what it doesn't. Now they may defend or say there's no research that a drug causes a disease.

 

In the case with pressing, there's no affirmative duty to disclose it. At least not one recognized by the community or dealers at large. There's no consensus either way. Also, there's no recognized methodology for detecting pressing. While there is some evidence of the possible harmful effects of pressing, I don't know if there's persuasive evidence of that -- I don't think that conclusion can be reached in an internet debate alone, but rather whether enough people begin to reject the practice.

 

If people claim that pressing has no harmful effects conclusively, I think that statement lacks any real evidence other than anecdotal evidence at the moment. However, I likewise don't believe there's any persuasive evidence that would lead you to believe pressing is harmful.

 

 

I thought you were taking a break ?

[Ze-man]

Can someone offer some details that actually apply to comic books from various ages and the methods, (temperatures, amount of moisture, time, etc.) from these test performed by or for the LOC? Some factual details that can be unquestionably applied to what pressers are doing to actual comis books?

 

I'd like to see them.

 

Here ya go, Mike.

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3235271&fpart=6

 

Now Domo can continue to claim that all this isn't nebulous, but it is. Not that that should surprise anyone.

 

I just PM'ed Scott to get his butt in here, might as well make it a party.

 

Now I have something like 300 unread posts to read in this thread, see you guys in about 12 hours.

 

 

[towards2112]

Can someone offer some details that actually apply to comic books from various ages and the methods, (temperatures, amount of moisture, time, etc.) from these test performed by or for the LOC? Some factual details that can be unquestionably applied to what pressers are doing to actual comis books?

 

I'd like to see them.

 

Here ya go, Mike.

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3235271&fpart=6

 

Now Domo can continue to claim that all this isn't nebulous, but it is. Not that that should surprise anyone.

 

I just PM'ed Scott to get his butt in here, might as well make it a party.

 

Now I have something like 300 unread posts to read in this thread, see you guys in about 12 hours.

 

 

NO Kenny, don't , seriously, don't.

[buttock]

About the Project Search Trails Ann Gorman Condon Resources

Winslow Papers >> About the Project >> Conserving the Winslow Papers

 

About the Project

What's New

Biography of Edward Winslow Junior

The Winslow Papers at UNB

Conserving the Winslow Papers

Technical Considerations

Acknowledgements

Contact Us

Conserving the Winslow Papers

The Winslow Papers consists of approximately 2500 individual letters dating primarily within the years 1776 to 1826.1 Organized into 17 volumes, this collection is presently owned and housed by the University of New Brunswick Archives. The Winslow Papers are considered one of the most important compilations of Loyalist documents, and are recognized internationally for their historical value.

 

The collection has been actively researched in the years it has been available for public use. The UNB Archives has added their collection mark to each sheet, and organized the holdings by hinging them into book format using various tabs and adhesives. Evidence of handling over time includes pencil and ink notations, ingrained grime, stains, tears and losses. In addition, the paper has been damaged by insects, mould, acid degradation, and other natural or man-made agents of deterioration. As a result, most of the documents became fragile and difficult to use safely, despite the good intentions of custodians who attempted to mend many sheets with tape. In most instances earlier corrective measures were more injurious and irreversible than was suspected at the time! The Winslow Papers required stabilization against further deterioration, and protection against improper physical handling to ensure their preservation and continued usefulness.

 

 

Document 1 pre-conservation Through a generous bequest from Kenelm Molson Winslow, treatment of this important collection became possible. Conservator, Harold Holland, surveyed the volumes and developed a program for their care in the Paper Conservation Laboratory at the Provincial Archives of New Brunswick. The first step in the process was written and photographic documentation of the physical condition of the collection as received by his department. A range of samples representative of the collection was then brought to the Canadian Conservation Institute for in-depth scientific examination of the various inks, stains, paper fibers, sizings, additives and adhesives present.2 Based on their findings and recommendations, procedures were developed which would effectively and safely preserve both their original integrity and the information held therein. With a budget and a keen sense of productivity, equipment was purchased and staffing organized in order to realize efficient treatment of this relatively large, and completely unique, collection of historical documents. To date, two conservators and perhaps a dozen full or part time technicians have been working to fulfill the conditions of the bequest.

 

Treatment began with collation and removal of the individual letters from the binding format. Very small graphite numbers written on the lower edge of some sheets will facilitate reassembly into their proper order at the completion of the project. Graphite, or pencil, is permanent media (meaning it does not fade or decompose with time), yet is easily removable if required. It is interesting to consider how all notations made on these documents are, or become, an integral part of their history, so no effort is made to remove or obscure evidence of use. However, some past researchers chose to use water-soluble media for their inscriptions. These inks (mostly red!) were reduced using alcohol and water over a small suction device to pull out the component which would otherwise bleed into the paper during washing procedures.

 

 

Document 1 post-conservation The removal of pressure sensitive tape and tabs, and the reduction of adhesive residues, are perhaps the most painstaking steps in the conservation of any paper document. Testing is required to determine the most effective solvents and tactics, and the procedure demands the skilled hands and eyes of a trained conservation scientist. Pressure sensitive adhesives are the trial of every conservator, as they are often very difficult to remove satisfactorily. If these materials are not removed, they will continue to sink into the paper fibers, oxidizing to a point where staining, brittleness, and residues will cause irreversible chemical and physical degradation. Removal of the carriers (as opposed to the adhesive mass) also guarantees dimensional predictivity during wetting out and drying, and allows for proper alignment and planar correction during repair.

 

Once all of the water-sensitive media is stabilized, and tape and tabs removed, each document which is otherwise stable in water is washed with deionized water. Many hours of research were necessary to determine the optimum time and conditions for washing, based on removal of acidity from the paper substrate.3 Washing is accomplished by fully immersing the documents, supported by a spun-bonded polyester web, in a tray of pure water. Those letters with sensitive wax seals, or which are severely brittle or fragile, are washed on a cold suction table or suspended on a piece of acid-free blotter using a "float" technique so as not to effect the sensitive materials or media. Washing removes water-soluble acidic impurities, reduces yellow discolouration and soiling, and generally improves the colour and crispness of a paper sheet. Much damage can occur if washing is carelessly tended. Many inks can subtly change colour, fragments can be lost, and seals or inscriptions and main media altered during treatment. Careful testing before wetting out and diligence during operations is the only way to ensure the safety of individual papers during this stage of the processing.

 

 

Document 2 pre-conservation After washing and air drying, the documents are then neutralized to reduce or remove any remaining acidic impurities. Neutralization is carried out in the same way as the washing, using a 20 ppm solution of calcium carbonate in deionized water. Optimum concentrations and conditions were determined again based on the CCI recommendations and on testing done by conservators at the Provincial Archives. The documents are then inspected for changes in condition, media, or support, and sorted for finishing treatment.

 

The last phase of conservation treatment is mending or leaf casting, followed by slight pressing to return the documents to plane. Mending with wheat starch paste and long-fibered Japanese tissues is performed on those documents with wax seals, or whose media is especially sensitive. Many papers remain very fragile after washing and must be repaired this way to minimize the chances of further damage or loss. The bulk of the collection, however, will enjoy the benefits of state of the art methodology, made possible by Mr. Winslow's donation to this project. Leaf casting is essentially the precise matching of paper pulps in colour, thickness, and makeup, to the original, to fill losses and repair splits and tears. The amount of pulp required for a single casting is determined using an electronic digitizer and computer system. The pulp is added to a vacuum tank with the document to be treated, and the pulp is drawn only to those areas of loss or thinning. The result is an almost perfect match in record time, a real bonus when dealing with mass treatments! Whatever the method of repair, each document is reinforced, providing both strength and a degree of aesthetic improvement overall.

 

 

Document 2 post-conservation The completed documents will be placed within Mylar sleeves. "Mylar" is a clear plastic used in conservation for encapsulation because of its proven stability in use with archival materials. It will provide a secondary support for the pages and allow them to be read and studied without handling or damaging the paper itself. The documents will be put back in their original order and placed within post-bindings before being returned to the UNB Archives.

 

The process is sometimes very slow, and is often tedious, yet the commitment to high standards and quality control is paramount for the protection of these works during conservation treatment. Every effort is made to maintain these standards for the continued and safe accessibility of The Winslow Papers to historical researchers in the years to come.

 

Harold Holland

Provincial Archives of New Brunswick

 

References

1. Raymond, William Odber, ed. Winslow Papers. New Brunswick: Sun Printing Company, Ltd., for the N.B. Historical Society in 1901. Boston: Gregg Press, 1972. Back

 

2. Moffatt, E. and Corbeil, M. "The Winslow Papers." Ottawa: CCI Analytical Report ARS 2831, 1990. Back

 

3. Brown, Karen E.K. "Edward Winslow Papers: Washing and Neutralization Duration Testing." Unpublished report, September 1990. Back

 

 

 

 

http://lib.unb.ca/winslow/conservation.html

 

Would these papers dating hundreds of years old be slightly pressed if it was damaging? Beats me

 

discuss

 

They must not have got the email from the LOC. I mean, how can you not take that email as gospel? 'Trooper, do you believe that the email from the LOC is infallible and can save your soul? If not, I've got some pamphlets I'd like to share with you.

[seanfingh]

 

Canadians support pressing. I knew it. Shifty toque-wearing bastiches.

[Domo Arigato]

You have claimed over & over again that "numerous" pro-pressers have repeatedly stated in this thread that pressing does absolutely no harm to comic books, so why is it so hard for you to come up with just one example of anyone saying this?

Don't like the first on. Ok. As conditionfreak already mentioned in one of his posts above...here's another quote Dale made regarding pressing earlier in this thread.

 

"Well, you can tell by the look of the book that no damage is being done on a current level. In fact, damage is being removed. My evidence is that I can turn a 9.2 book into a 9.8 book. That is damage removed, not created."

 

Sure seems like he's saying do damage is occuring during the pressing process.

 

And in the very same post he says this...

 

Personally, if the only change is that the book will last 400 years as opposed to 420 years, I could care less.

 

...which obviously allows for the possibility that minute damage might occur.

 

No...he states plainly that no damage is occuring...and even if there was, it would be so small that he wouldn't care about it. There's a difference.

 

 

Why don't you post the full quote, so people can see that you're making things up again?

 

Well, you can tell by the look of the book that no damage is being done on a current level. In fact, damage is being removed. My evidence is that I can turn a 9.2 book into a 9.8 book. That is damage removed, not created. And we are not the one who has an issue with the books. You are. We don't need proof. You do. You are apparently trying to get people to stop pressing books. If you could give me proof about what damage and what time period we are talking about, I would consider stopping pressing. I personally don't believe that you can relate information about pressing historical documents on who knows what type of paper and pressing comic books and assume that they are equivalent. Plus, who knows when that study was done, and what specifically was tested.

 

I will state again, if you are trying to change the minds of people, you need to provide evidence, specific evidence of why change needs to happen. We are all pretty happy with the current state of things, but I guarantee that many people would change their tune if you could provide specific details. Unfortunately, you can't.

 

Personally, if the only change is that the book will last 400 years as opposed to 420 years, I could care less.

 

The only thing that proves is that I was right and you're the one making things up.

 

 

[Domo Arigato]

But I'll tell you what...I'll give you the first name (Dale) of one individual who is "pro-pressing" and has stated that it does no damage. There are others...but that's all you get for free. Maybe now you can put the TV remote down, crawl off the couch, and actually do something for yourself.

 

Dale has not stated in this thread that pressing does absolutely no harm to comic books.

Nor has anyone else.

 

Why do you feel the need to lie about something that's so easy to check?

Yes he has. Why do you feel the need to lie about me in an attempt to discredit me?

 

Then give us the quote where Dale says that pressing does absolutely no harm to comic books, please - because I read through the entire thread, and there isn't one. Which means that, yes, you are in fact lying here.

 

I don't really think you need my help to discredit yourself, though - you seem to be doing a bang-up job of that yourself (thumbs u

 

How would you interpret this statement?

 

"Well, you can tell by the look of the book that no damage is being done on a current level. In fact, damage is being removed. My evidence is that I can turn a 9.2 book into a 9.8 book. That is damage removed, not created."

 

This is a quote from Dale (whom I like and have sooo much in common with, be it politics, religion, etc.)

 

Domo is not lying. He may have a different interpretation than you or others, but no, he is not lying. His points have been spot on as far as I can tell. They are contrary to how many here see this subject, but he is not a liar.

 

I don't know him nor you, and don't care much about pressing. But I do care about the truth.

 

You're not being fair. What was the last sentence of that post from Dale?

 

"Personally, if the only change is that the book will last 400 years as opposed to 420 years, I could care less."

 

I believe the important word in this sentence is "if", when taken in context of the previous statement/s.

 

By the way. This last quote from Dale has been my stance from the beginning.

 

I don't know how you can read the last sentence of his post and still claim that Dale doesn't allow for the possibility that damage at a minute level could occur.

It's not hard when you consider he preceeds it with this:

 

"Well, you can tell by the look of the book that no damage is being done on a current level. In fact, damage is being removed. My evidence is that I can turn a 9.2 book into a 9.8 book. That is damage removed, not created."

[Domo Arigato]

I can't. So I'll correct myself. Either they've done them or they have access to multiple studies that have been done on this type of paper. Now let's move onto your next big groundbreaking point.

 

No need. The LOC made a recommendation based on studies that someone performed. If you want to hang your hat on something that nebulous, have at it, but no one is going to take you seriously.

Yes...they made a recommendation based on the facts of what they know will happen to the paper. You just don't want to accpet it.

 

On the contrary. I've admitted that it's possible that damage might occur at an extremely benign level, and Dale has as well. And since the LOC didn't quantify the degree of damage, there's no reason to think their recommendation and my opinion are mutually exclusive.

Dale finally admitted it. And they made a recommendation based on facts. There's nothing nebulous about it.

 

They made a recommendation based on unknown facts from unknown studies conducted by unknown entities. That's about as nebulous as you can get.

No. They made a recommendation based on known facts from known studies conducted by known entities. The fact that you don't know everything they know doesn't make it nebulous.

[KingOfRulers]

Incidentally, most drug litigation cases are failure to warn (and a subset of failure to test, in some jurisdictions, that's a separate cause of action) -- thus a manufacturer has put a drug on the market, promoted it for benefits, but not tested or warned of a potential significant harm (for HRT, breast cancer, Paxil, heart malformations and death in infants, so on and so forth).

 

In the pressing analogy, it'd be, someone knew or should have known that pressing was harmful to the books but failed to warn of the harm. Here, the key would be finding who owed a duty to the customer buying a book and should they have known that pressing was harmful.

But in this case, many pressers are making a specific claim. Not failing to warn. They are actually claiming that pressing does no harm to a book with no evidence to back this claim up.

 

If the notion of a pressed book causes you so much grief, don't buy any more books. Then, I can guarantee you that you will not have to deal with pressed books. Sounds like paradise, doesn't it? You can instead collect...ceramic shoes...or barbed wire. Your blood pressure gets so high that from my central Florida residence, I can hear the steam whistling from your ears.

Thanks for providing more of your nonsense recommendations. A better idea would just be for all of those pressing books to be honest and forthcoming with the information about it and it's effects on the books.

 

Those that are pressing books don't care what you think.

 

This is the reaction that much of the community has to your complaints: "Hahaha, look at that blowhard ranting on and on about something. Let me go put another book in the press before the football game starts". And the more complaints and steam that comes from your ears, the more ironic and funny the thread becomes. For every additional comment that you post, with the intention of changing the "pressing status quo", is an additional post that exponentially increases the "funny level" or "Benny Hill quotient" of the thread.

[Domo Arigato]

Domo comes to the table with **something**

Obviously more than a few feel that is debatable.

What's not debatable is that the other side is coming to the table with nothing.

[DiceX]

Domo comes to the table with **something**

Obviously more than a few feel that is debatable.

What's not debatable it that the other side is coming to the table with nothing.

 

Do you have me on ignore?

 

 

[Domo Arigato]

You have claimed over & over again that "numerous" pro-pressers have repeatedly stated in this thread that pressing does absolutely no harm to comic books, so why is it so hard for you to come up with just one example of anyone saying this?

Don't like the first on. Ok. As conditionfreak already mentioned in one of his posts above...here's another quote Dale made regarding pressing earlier in this thread.

 

"Well, you can tell by the look of the book that no damage is being done on a current level. In fact, damage is being removed. My evidence is that I can turn a 9.2 book into a 9.8 book. That is damage removed, not created."

 

Sure seems like he's saying do damage is occuring during the pressing process.

 

I think what Dale is saying is that there is no visible damage. Obviously, a poor press job will leave visible damage as has been seen here just as poor storage will leave visible damage.

He states very clearly that they are removing damage...not creating any.

[Karma23]

[Domo Arigato]

Was this thousand post dorkfest worth reading or was it just the SoS?

Can someone give me the cliffnotes using only graemlins?

 

pro-presser <--> anti-presser

Is that a fly buzzing around a pile of poop?

[buttock]

Domo comes to the table with **something**

Obviously more than a few feel that is debatable.

What's not debatable it that the other side is coming to the table with nothing.

 

2 posts in a row with the old, "nuh-uh, you are". You been eating genius sandwiches?

[Domo Arigato]

 

Here's what Dale said:

 

Personally, if the only change is that the book will last 400 years as opposed to 420 years, I could care less.

 

Clearly, Dale falls into the "there may be damage, but if there is it's so ridiculously benign that there's no use worrying about it" crowd. He does not claim that absolutely no damage is done.

 

Now Jeff, don't go throwing facts about.

It appears he likes to throw selective facts and half truths around. Unfortunately, neither of them does anybody any good.

You would certainly know.

True. I've seen enough of you do it in just thread alone that's it's become very easy for me to recognize.

[DrWatson]

Was this thousand post dorkfest worth reading or was it just the SoS?

Can someone give me the cliffnotes using only graemlins?

 

pro-presser <--> anti-presser

Is that a fly buzzing around a pile of poop?

Nope, that's boredom with the subject matter.

[greggy]

Arex is a poopie head.

[buttock]

 

Here's what Dale said:

 

Personally, if the only change is that the book will last 400 years as opposed to 420 years, I could care less.

 

Clearly, Dale falls into the "there may be damage, but if there is it's so ridiculously benign that there's no use worrying about it" crowd. He does not claim that absolutely no damage is done.

 

Now Jeff, don't go throwing facts about.

It appears he likes to throw selective facts and half truths around. Unfortunately, neither of them does anybody any good.

You would certainly know.

True. I've seen enough of you do it in just thread alone that's it's become very easy for me to recognize.

 

3 in a row! Awesome.

[Domo Arigato]

Incidentally, most drug litigation cases are failure to warn (and a subset of failure to test, in some jurisdictions, that's a separate cause of action) -- thus a manufacturer has put a drug on the market, promoted it for benefits, but not tested or warned of a potential significant harm (for HRT, breast cancer, Paxil, heart malformations and death in infants, so on and so forth).

 

In the pressing analogy, it'd be, someone knew or should have known that pressing was harmful to the books but failed to warn of the harm. Here, the key would be finding who owed a duty to the customer buying a book and should they have known that pressing was harmful.

But in this case, many pressers are making a specific claim. Not failing to warn. They are actually claiming that pressing does no harm to a book with no evidence to back this claim up.

 

Well, strictly following this claim, I'm not sure the drug analogy is best then. But following through with the analogy would be this -- it would be like a drug company saying, our drug does (x) -- promote it for say a benefit, but then it later comes out through studies, no it actually doesn't do what it says AND oh by the way it's actually harmful.

 

So pressing does no harm --

 

Of course here the problem is, it is not generally accepted, nor is there adequate evidence to say that the pro pressers are saying, hey, there's nothing wrong with pressing, but you can prove they actually knew it.

 

In the drug context, usually we have documents and internal corporate documents which show they were on notice of the harm.

Are you saying a drug manufacturer can make a claim about a drug..like saying it is not known to cause birth defects in women who are pregnant...or that it does cure breast cancer...without actually doing any tests prior to making this claim to back it up?

 

If you are, then I'd say you're drinking on the job. If you aren't, then my analogy is more than applicable in this situation and any attempt to nitpick the semantics of it are childish in the extreme.

 

That's not what I said at all. In order for the drug manufacturer to claim a benefit or get an approved indication, it must get FDA approval which require studies. Therefore, it can't claim to cure breast cancer etc.

So then...when we discard your nitpicking at semantics...my analogy was completely valid. If you want to make a claim, you need to be able to back it up with proof. Thanks for your help.