Results of CBCA Pressing Experiment

[joeypost]

I don't get all the hilarity. CBCA made it very plain in their original announcement and in the report that this was preliminary at best. They go as far as saying, in the report, that any conclusions drawn should be "limited to these individual books". But after reading the report I agree the results show that more extensive tests would be of value.

 

The Stretch test was particularly interesting. I think the possibility that pressing may have creasted new hydrogen bonds between the fibers is significant. Again being very preliminary, it DOES make some sense that the more supple BA book would not show the same effect as the much older GA book.

 

 

+1

 

This is why the proper, and I stress proper hydration of the book before pressing is vital.

[Theagenes]

I don't get all the hilarity. CBCA made it very plain in their original announcement and in the report that this was preliminary at best. They go as far as saying, in the report, that any conclusions drawn should be "limited to these individual books". But after reading the report I agree the results show that more extensive tests would be of value.

 

The Stretch test was particularly interesting. I think the possibility that pressing may have creasted new hydrogen bonds between the fibers is significant. Again being very preliminary, it DOES make some sense that the more supple BA book would not show the same effect as the much older GA book.

 

 

Pov, you've essentially distilled what should be the take-away message from these results.

 

Personally, my expectation going into this test was that there would likely be no measurable difference between the pressed and non-pressed halves. But for one of the books to show an improvement in suppleness after being pressed, that's a interesting development. If further testing shows that it's not a fluke and the addition of moisture and pressure can recreate the hydrogen bonds between the fibers of older paper, then the potential significance for conservation is considerable.

[RockMyAmadeus]

How is the line about reading the WD #1 at your expense? That's what made me laugh.

 

Wait, are you trying to reason with him? Here. On a chat forum?

 

 

I'll sit back and wait for the 34 page conclusion.

 

 

Your comments mystify me, considering circumstances.

 

Did I somehow offend you in some way....?

 

There's nothing to reason; I was being tongue-in-cheek about the whole thing, and it didn't translate.

[DiceX]

How is the line about reading the WD #1 at your expense? That's what made me laugh.

 

Wait, are you trying to reason with him? Here. On a chat forum?

 

 

I'll sit back and wait for the 34 page conclusion.

 

 

Your comments mystify me, considering circumstances.

 

Did I somehow offend you in some way....?

 

There's nothing to reason; I was being tongue-in-cheek about the whole thing, and it didn't translate.

 

You forgot your nails, Mr Christ.

Do you need any help with that last one?

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

How is the line about reading the WD #1 at your expense? That's what made me laugh.

 

Wait, are you trying to reason with him? Here. On a chat forum?

 

 

I'll sit back and wait for the 34 page conclusion.

 

 

Your comments mystify me, considering circumstances.

 

Did I somehow offend you in some way....?

 

There's nothing to reason; I was being tongue-in-cheek about the whole thing, and it didn't translate.

 

You forgot your nails, Mr Christ.

Do you need any help with that last one?

 

 

[towards2112]

I don't get all the hilarity. CBCA made it very plain in their original announcement and in the report that this was preliminary at best. They go as far as saying, in the report, that any conclusions drawn should be "limited to these individual books". But after reading the report I agree the results show that more extensive tests would be of value.

 

The Stretch test was particularly interesting. I think the possibility that pressing may have creasted new hydrogen bonds between the fibers is significant. Again being very preliminary, it DOES make some sense that the more supple BA book would not show the same effect as the much older GA book.

 

 

Pov, you've essentially distilled what should be the take-away message from these results.

 

Personally, my expectation going into this test was that there would likely be no measurable difference between the pressed and non-pressed halves. But for one of the books to show an improvement in suppleness after being pressed, that's a interesting development. If further testing shows that it's not a fluke and the addition of moisture and pressure can recreate the hydrogen bonds between the fibers of older paper, then the potential significance for conservation is considerable.

 

I think that in the future with an oxidation test being proposed, you will actually find

that the oxidation / deterioration process in some of the old newsprint comics may

be delayed or abated to some extent by the pressing process. Physically pressing

with heat may remove some of the space between the cellulose fibres and reduce

the actual amount of oxygen in the rag.

[bronze_rules]

I don't get all the hilarity. CBCA made it very plain in their original announcement and in the report that this was preliminary at best. They go as far as saying, in the report, that any conclusions drawn should be "limited to these individual books". But after reading the report I agree the results show that more extensive tests would be of value.

 

The Stretch test was particularly interesting. I think the possibility that pressing may have creasted new hydrogen bonds between the fibers is significant. Again being very preliminary, it DOES make some sense that the more supple BA book would not show the same effect as the much older GA book.

 

 

Pov, you've essentially distilled what should be the take-away message from these results.

 

Personally, my expectation going into this test was that there would likely be no measurable difference between the pressed and non-pressed halves. But for one of the books to show an improvement in suppleness after being pressed, that's a interesting development. If further testing shows that it's not a fluke and the addition of moisture and pressure can recreate the hydrogen bonds between the fibers of older paper, then the potential significance for conservation is considerable.

 

And thus, it should merit the classification of restored, seeing as the actual atomic bonding structure has now been quantified as altered (hypothesis not yet verified, but logical conclusion is there).

 

Very interesting report; thank you for sharing. Maybe it will convince pressing opponents that restoration can be beneficial. Null Hypothesis: Original Comic has no difference in atomic bonding strength over unpressed and unheated/unmoisturized specimen. Test of Hypothesis: tensile energy absorption significantly different on both pre and post pressed (with heat/moisture addition) samples.

[Old Fashion PB and J]

You guys are doing some great things with the CBCA. Keep up the good work and thanks for sharing.

[Theagenes]

I don't get all the hilarity. CBCA made it very plain in their original announcement and in the report that this was preliminary at best. They go as far as saying, in the report, that any conclusions drawn should be "limited to these individual books". But after reading the report I agree the results show that more extensive tests would be of value.

 

The Stretch test was particularly interesting. I think the possibility that pressing may have creasted new hydrogen bonds between the fibers is significant. Again being very preliminary, it DOES make some sense that the more supple BA book would not show the same effect as the much older GA book.

 

 

Pov, you've essentially distilled what should be the take-away message from these results.

 

Personally, my expectation going into this test was that there would likely be no measurable difference between the pressed and non-pressed halves. But for one of the books to show an improvement in suppleness after being pressed, that's a interesting development. If further testing shows that it's not a fluke and the addition of moisture and pressure can recreate the hydrogen bonds between the fibers of older paper, then the potential significance for conservation is considerable.

 

I think that in the future with an oxidation test being proposed, you will actually find

that the oxidation / deterioration process in some of the old newsprint comics may

be delayed or abated to some extent by the pressing process. Physically pressing

with heat may remove some of the space between the cellulose fibres and reduce

the actual amount of oxygen in the rag.

 

That's an interesting idea. It would likely require artificial aging to test.

[VintageComics]

How is the line about reading the WD #1 at your expense? That's what made me laugh.

 

Wait, are you trying to reason with him? Here. On a chat forum?

 

 

I'll sit back and wait for the 34 page conclusion.

 

 

Your comments mystify me, considering circumstances.

 

Did I somehow offend you in some way....?

 

There's nothing to reason; I was being tongue-in-cheek about the whole thing, and it didn't translate.

 

It was just a sarcastic joke, sugar plum.

 

[chrisco37]

The addition/introduction of new hydrogen bonds settles the debate. No longer can ayone say that pressing does not add or take away from a book.

 

[Theagenes]

The addition/introduction of new hydrogen bonds settles the debate. No longer can ayone say that pressing does not add or take away from a book.

 

To be fair, though, it hasn't been proven that the increased elasticity in the GA book was due to new hydrogen bonds being formed---that's just educated speculation on the part of the paper scientist that performed the testing. It does seem to make sense though, from my limited non-chemist layman's perspective.

 

On the other hand though, the BA book seems to have been uneffected, at least in any measurable way, so it wouldn't be fair to say that something has been added or taken away there. Should pressing only be considered restoration with older books? And how do you test whether or not a pressed book has new molecular bonds with out destroying the book in the process?

 

I think that maybe these results, among other things, should cause people to starting thinking about the semantic arguments that we make about what is and what isn't restoration. Maybe the idea that "restoration" is an all or nothing process is not really a useful way of thinking about the issue. Maybe the line isn't so clear cut and there are gray areas. For example, does storing a book with microchamber paper over a long period of time change the molecular structure? How about books stacked in huge piles like the Church books---how does that effect the amount of oxygen in the paper? Where do you draw the line; or should we even be drawing a line?

 

Maybe it's time to get away from the purple vs. blue, "it is" or "It isn't" dichotomy and think of restoration and conservation as a gradient or sliding scale. Just brainstorming a bit and thinking out loud.

[chrisco37]

I was just trying to stir something up with my comment.

 

But, you do bring up alot of valid points. I especially agree with you on this:

 

Maybe it's time to get away from the purple vs. blue, "it is" or "It isn't" dichotomy and think of restoration and conservation as a gradient or sliding scale.

 

I was really excited about the (now old) "new" CGC labels with the resto/conservation notations and grades. I thought it was a great idea. Unfortunately, the majority shot it down and CGC scrapped the idea.

[Theagenes]

I was just trying to stir something up with my comment.

 

But, you do bring up alot of valid points. I especially agree with you on this:

 

Maybe it's time to get away from the purple vs. blue, "it is" or "It isn't" dichotomy and think of restoration and conservation as a gradient or sliding scale.

 

I was really excited about the (now old) "new" CGC labels with the resto/conservation notations and grades. I thought it was a great idea. Unfortunately, the majority shot it down and CGC scrapped the idea.

 

Me too.

 

I really wish they would revisit that idea. Get rid of the PLOD scarlet letter and come up a 10-pt resto scale. that wouldn't be perfect either, but it would be better than the current system.

 

 

[seanfingh]

 

for the thread starter

[tb]

I was just trying to stir something up with my comment.

 

But, you do bring up alot of valid points. I especially agree with you on this:

 

Maybe it's time to get away from the purple vs. blue, "it is" or "It isn't" dichotomy and think of restoration and conservation as a gradient or sliding scale.

 

I was really excited about the (now old) "new" CGC labels with the resto/conservation notations and grades. I thought it was a great idea. Unfortunately, the majority shot it down and CGC scrapped the idea.

 

Me too.

 

I really wish they would revisit that idea. Get rid of the PLOD scarlet letter and come up a 10-pt resto scale. that wouldn't be perfect either, but it would be better than the current system.

 

 

As I recall it, the problem was not that the proposal was shot down but rather that there was not a whole lot of interest. In fact, the feedback was about as mature as the first page of replies to this thread - no wonder that CGC abandoned the idea after putting a lot of time and thought into the proposal. I actually don't think many of the board members who made the effort to read the CBCA report were signed up for the CGC board back then and suspect that the outcome would be very different if CGC were to ask the same question today.

 

 

[nearmint]

I actually don't think many of the board members who made the effort to read the CBCA report were signed up for the CGC board back then and suspect that the outcome would be very different if CGC were to ask the same question today.

 

(thumbs u

[Calamerica]

Without "Captain America" or "Cal" in the title this thread dosen't stand a chance.

 

I think it turned out pretty well...

 

CAL who still has a chance...

[VintageComics]

I was just trying to stir something up with my comment.

 

But, you do bring up alot of valid points. I especially agree with you on this:

 

Maybe it's time to get away from the purple vs. blue, "it is" or "It isn't" dichotomy and think of restoration and conservation as a gradient or sliding scale.

 

I was really excited about the (now old) "new" CGC labels with the resto/conservation notations and grades. I thought it was a great idea. Unfortunately, the majority shot it down and CGC scrapped the idea.

 

Me too.

 

I really wish they would revisit that idea. Get rid of the PLOD scarlet letter and come up a 10-pt resto scale. that wouldn't be perfect either, but it would be better than the current system.

 

 

As I recall it, the problem was not that the proposal was shot down but rather that there was not a whole lot of interest. In fact, the feedback was about as mature as the first page of replies to this thread - no wonder that CGC abandoned the idea after putting a lot of time and thought into the proposal. I actually don't think many of the board members who made the effort to read the CBCA report were signed up for the CGC board back then and suspect that the outcome would be very different if CGC were to ask the same question today.

 

 

I was here for that discussion and it was shot down hard by a wing on the boards. There was a lot of interest but people were polarized by it.

 

Many people looked down on the idea because they felt it would be deceptive to put both restored and unrestored in the same coloured holder. I suppose consumers need stuff written in crayon for them to understand it.

 

 

Others accused dealers of having an agenda in trying to make their restored books more valuable. Nobody can have an idea unless they stand to profit from it in some greedy bastiche way and so it must be stopped.

 

You're right, it was a childish discussion.

[chrisco37]

Here's the discussion if anyone is interested...

 

Mostly JC whining about it....