PVC vs. Barex. Are CGG holders really unsafe?

[MW1]

While Comics are made of paper are we actually comparing Sportscards compared to comics there is a big diffrence in my opinion.

I don't know...they seem pretty similar to me. Remember that I'm talking about vintage sports cards, not modern issues. Cards such as 1914 and 1915 Cracker Jacks or the 1954 Sports Illustrated baseball card supplements are paper thin (in fact, the SI issue actually is a page out of a magazine). And cardboard is nothing more than pressed paper. It is not at all unusual for some types of sports cards to have a very thin paper layer glued to a thicker cardboard layer. Also, I neglected to mention that I also maintain a sizable inventory of yearbooks and programs stored in PVC and Mylar bags. Those are probably only a decade old, but I have yet to see any damage.

 

One last remark -- although Dr. William E. Souder's research was confined to stamps I would think that some of the results would also be applicable to other paper articles.

[Timely]

"Why is this important? Because PET, a relatively recent polymeric innovation, is backed by absolutely zero scientific experiments that show storage results over period of several decades or longer. Therefore, claims by companies such as Ultra Pro that their Mylar comic bags are 100% archival safe are complete and utter scientific hogwash. Well, at least according to one of the foremost experts in the world on this subject. "

 

It is true that mylar has not been around long enought to do long-term testing, however any lab could do half-life testing to determine the rate of decompostion to determine the long-term effects of mylar and paper.

 

Timely

[Mister_Comics]

Where I work, from our studies, UV rays, light, has been the most distructive to either of these plastics. I've seen light disingrate plastics. Keeping the plastics out of the light, I believe will perserve most anything for a very long time.

[Timely]

It is good to hear that after 20 years your baseball cards are doing well, however comics are far more volatile. I do not know what the typical baseball card is made of, but it seems to resemble cardboard more than paper.

 

I would not expect a baseball card to decompose at the same rate as a comic book would, it should be much, much slower.

 

Timely

[MW1]

....any lab could do half-life testing to determine the rate of decompostion to determine the long-term effects of mylar and paper.

So you're saying that half-life testing is the standard for determining 100% archival efficacy for polymers? If that's the common standard then it should probably be published somewhere.

[MW1]

I would not expect a baseball card to decompose at the same rate as a comic book would, it should be much, much slower.

Timely,

 

As I mentioned above, some types of vintage baseball card issues are nothing more than paper...even magazine stock. Some may be different but some are also quite similar. I don't think that's of extreme importance, however; the reliable scientific studies have shown that uPVC's are free from chemical reactivity problems.

 

Think of it like this. Is it more important to disprove a myth or to prove that a problem exists in the first place? If the former is true, then certainly, Mylar storage should be just as important an "issue" as PVC storage.

[MW1]

Mister_comics,

 

Seems reasonable.

[uclapeterg]

I'm really glad we're having this debate. I have learned so much. I'm getting 2 CGG comics soon. I will do the "smell" test altho I'm not sure if that will prove or disprove anybody's ideas. It has been nice to read the "other side" of the story so we could make up our own minds.

 

Peter

[shadroch]

Let me start by saying this is an excellant, well researched post about an article very dear to most of us.There is all sorts of information and disinformation abounding.This debate seems to have been raging for at least fifteen years now.More times then not,it bols down to -my product is better than yours. In the last few years, I've rebagged books that were in all sorts of older style bags-glad bags,polyvinyl,polyprop,ect,ect. Some books were newstand fresh after 20 years,others had significant decompostion after less time. Sometimes two copies of the same book,stored side by side in identical manner had differences in their appearence.If there is one single factor that determines preservation above all others,I have not found it yet.Other than using mylars and time-loks,anything else appears to be a crapshoot.Im hoping to get to the point where all my books valued above $10 or so are in at least mylite2s by the end of this year,but we are talking several thousand books.

Almost all my books are now in climate-controlled warehouse situations.But it is getting to the point where I need to sell several thousand dollars of books a year just to maintain my collection and the accompanying hoards.Sometimes I think of selling 99% of them and using the money for an Action #1 or something.

[Rip]

I'm not sure if the smell means much. But when you crack one open, its clear they have a smell different from CGC holders interior holders.

[BassGMan]

Do you realize the implications of the accusations being made by Mr. Mev and his "buddy". If Mev's information was accurately portrayed then that would be enough information to put CGG out of business. That is serious. Should CGG be put out of business due to some kind of misleading or false information being broadcast to the comic's community?

 

Actually, you can call me Mr. Boyd.

 

How was it inaccurately portrayed?

 

What is false about the information presented?

 

A test was done on a CGG inner well, and that test indicates that the plastic is a PVC Polymer, which is - based on fact or not - STILL not a recommended plastic polymer for long-term storage.

 

Kev

 

I'm not saying the information presented is false. It is most likely accurate, on it's own. But the manner in which you are representing this to the conclusion that CGG's inner well is harmful to comics is what is in question. You are very aggresively campaining against anyone using CGG to store their comic books without having ALL the information necessary in order to make an educated opinion of this matter. While the report may be true, we cannot come to a conclusion in any way that would lead us to believe that CGG's inner well is harmful to comics. I am not trying to defend CGG. I am just trying to not jump to any premature conclusions without ALL the facts needed to justify what you are suggesting Mr. Boyd.

 

I don't know how long it will take to straighten out this mess. But I believe that once we do, Mr. Boyd and his "buddy" will be proven wrong and that CGG's inner well will be proven safe for long-term comic book storage. When and if this time happens, please Mr. Boyd put as much effort into clearing CGG's name as you have put into smearing it, whether justified or not. If I am wrong about this, I'll come on here and post all about how my trust in CGG's product was flawed and how I'll never use them again. ------Sid

[MW1]

I'm not sure if the smell means much. But when you crack one open, its clear they have a smell different from CGC holders interior holders.

Rip,

 

Good question. Dr. Souder's research finds that the thermal stabilizers in uPVC films may give off a slightly sulfurous, but harmless, odor. It is not a result of degradation. My experience with long-term storage of baseball cards coincides with this result -- I've encountered that smell but have seen no signs of degradation.

 

On a somewhat related subject, I've opened old PSA holders (a competitor of SGC for those who do not know) and I've smelled something that approximates superglue. I wonder what compound or polymer this can be attributed to. Any ideas from the research chemists or chemical engineers out there?

[MW1]

BassGMan,

 

I'd have to agree with you. Kevthemev's statement that PVC is "STILL not a recommended plastic polymer for long-term storage" is too vague to be meaningful. While pPVC's have encountered some problems, several reliable scientific studies conclude that uPVC films are chemically inert.

[Kevin Boyd]

I'm not saying the information presented is false. It is most likely accurate, on it's own. But the manner in which you are representing this to the conclusion that CGG's inner well is harmful to comics is what is in question. You are very aggresively campaining against anyone using CGG to store their comic books without having ALL the information necessary in order to make an educated opinion of this matter. While the report may be true, we cannot come to a conclusion in any way that would lead us to believe that CGG's inner well is harmful to comics. I am not trying to defend CGG. I am just trying to not jump to any premature conclusions without ALL the facts needed to justify what you are suggesting Mr. Boyd.

 

All I was doing was reporting that it analyzed as PVC, and PVC is not recognized as being archivally safe... and is considered harmful to comics.

 

How is that inaccurate? Of course I jumped to a conclusion if (a) is established as harmful and said sample (b) is proven to be made of (a) then (b) is harmful to comics. Not a great leap.

 

Now if it can be proved that (a) is not harmful to paper memorabilia, as MW1 and William Souter attest, then bully for CGG. They can open the champagne now.

 

I don't know how long it will take to straighten out this mess. But I believe that once we do, Mr. Boyd and his "buddy" will be proven wrong and that CGG's inner well will be proven safe for long-term comic book storage. When and if this time happens, please Mr. Boyd put as much effort into clearing CGG's name as you have put into smearing it, whether justified or not. If I am wrong about this, I'll come on here and post all about how my trust in CGG's product was flawed and how I'll never use them again. ------Sid

 

My original opinion of CGG is unchanged, and this report has only shown that they are using a product that has been widely avoided by all collectibles.

 

Now if someone can prove that the CGG inner well is not PVC, then it will interesting to see what it is made of.

 

If it is in fact PVC as this report has shown - the question that must be asked is - is it plasticized PVC (pPVC) or unplasticized PVC (uPVC)?

 

- If it is plasticized PVC you might as well give up now on this continued tack of defense of CGG's product... it will be proven as being utter [!@#%^&^].

 

- If it is unplasticized PVC then they have to then step up and let the word out and let buyers decide whether or not they want to purchase their product.

 

Which ultimately leads to the biggest issue here - if they did decide to use PVC wells, then why not tell people?

 

Is it because they know (or worse did not know - which is my assertation) that it is frowned on (rightly so or not) by archivists and were worried about a negative reaction?

 

Let's say they have received reports that uPVC is archivally safe, and made the decision to support said product, then why not say what the holder was made of and deal with it as the "champions" of safe uPVC holders? .

 

I think, as always, you are looking for answers to justify CGG, when once again they have been shown to be in the wrong.

 

Kevin

 

 

 

 

 

Kev

[Timely]

I would not expect a baseball card to decompose at the same rate as a comic book would, it should be much, much slower.

Timely,

 

As I mentioned above, some types of vintage baseball card issues are nothing more than paper...even magazine stock. Some may be different but some are also quite similar. I don't think that's of extreme importance, however; the reliable scientific studies have shown that uPVC's are free from chemical reactivity problems.

 

Think of it like this. Is it more important to disprove a myth or to prove that a problem exists in the first place? If the former is true, then certainly, Mylar storage should be just as important an "issue" as PVC storage.

 

Maybe I'm stupid (probably so) but you are saying mylar products are too new to decide if they are as safe as everyone claims they are, yet in the same speach you are saying CGG's PVC product may be safe and more testing needs to be done.

 

In your mind, how can the 20 year old mylar product be in question but the 18 month old CGG product be given leniency? You seem to be giving CGG the benifit of the doubt even though this report does show significant doubt.

 

Who knows what the books will look like in 100 years? I can tell you that comics I have had in mylars since 1990 are just as MINT and acid free as the day I put them in there. What can be said for the CGG product?

 

Timely

[Kevin Boyd]

Kevthemev's statement that PVC is "STILL not a recommended plastic polymer for long-term storage" is too vague to be meaningful. While pPVC's have encountered some problems, several reliable scientific studies conclude that uPVC films are chemically inert.

 

Actually, it's very clear. PVC is not a recommended plastic polymer for long-term storage.

 

Hey I'm not saying uPVC is not ok.... I'm saying it has not been accepted as OK by collectors and archivists - maybe because they aren't familiar with it, or maybe because they don't want to risk using something which is no better than the accepted standard.

 

And it has NOT been established that the CGG holder is pPVC or uPVC.

 

Kev

[MW1]

How is that inaccurate? Of course I jumped to a conclusion if (a) is established as harmful and said sample (b) is proven to be made of (a) then (b) is harmful to comics. Not a great leap.

Kevthemev,

 

Your statement is more than a simple transitive relationship. You are attempting a leap of logic from the non-specific to the specific as one of your functional steps.

 

A good analogy/comparison would be as follows:

 

a) Rottweilers can maim young children and can be very dangerous. One type (breed) of dog is a rottweiler. Therefore, all dogs are dangerous.

 

b) Highly plasticized PVC's (pPVC's) can be unsuitable for archival storage. Nonplasticized PVC's (uPVC's) are a type of polyvinyl chloride. Therefore, uPVC's are unsuitable for archival storage.

 

See the problem?

[MW1]

In your mind, how can the 20 year old mylar product be in question but the 18 month old CGG product be given leniency?

Timely,

 

I'm not sure how the 18-month figure would be significant. If the CGG holders contain PVC's then the standard for comparison would be the archival properties of PVC's (which have been with us for quite some time), not the tenure of CGG.

[Kevin Boyd]

Kevthemev,

 

Your statement is more than a simple transitive relationship. You are attempting a leap of logic from the non-specific to the specific as one of your functional steps.

 

Baloney.

 

A good analogy/comparison would be as follows:

 

a) Rottweilers can maim young children and can be very dangerous. One type (breed) of dog is a rottweiler. Therefore, all dogs are dangerous.

 

More like:

 

Rottweilers, in general, can maim young children and can be very dangerous.

 

Someone has developed a new type of Rottweiler and claims that they are harmless. Studies have shown that they are docile but people who are used to the original breed are skeptical and generally avoid the new breed.

 

b) Highly plasticized PVC's (pPVC's) can be unsuitable for archival storage. Nonplasticized PVC's (uPVC's) are a type of polyvinyl chloride. Therefore, uPVC's are unsuitable for archival storage.

 

Again, all that is stated in the report is that the polymer is PVC and PVC's can be unsuitable for archival storage. No great leap.

 

You have thrown in a new wrench to that argument by pointing out that nonplasticized PVC's are ok... well, I agree... you may be right.

 

Please establish where, all of a sudden, the CGG well was established as NOT being a highly plasticized PVC or WAS proven to be a nonplasticized PVC (or vice-versa)?

 

Until that is established, I stand by my original assertion. PVC's, in general, are to be avoided.

 

See the problem?

 

Kev

[Timely]

I think you need to reread my post.

 

Timely