Q: Are CGC graders "addicted" to pressing?

[namisgr]

I don't know, i've only seen one example (the link you posted)

 

Posted two examples. Here's a third:

 

http://www.wwcomics.com/comicdetail.asp?product_id=FANTASTICFOUR_67_24162

[chrisco37]

Very interesting.

[VintageComics]

This is all I've got in the way of 'before and after': staple impaction.

 

Before

 

After

 

You keep recycling the same points without any real "proof" (you've brought up the impacted staple thing in the past and from my recollection it was never quite resolved). Your disdain for pressed books is showing with every post you make and you keep pushing the same points without actually showing or explaining how it happens.

 

I fail to see or understand how pressing a book can cause an impacted staple.

 

 

For one, I think that "impacted staples" is probably an incorrect terminology. I think it's more accurate to say that the interior gets pulled away from the spine of the book causing the staple to pull in. It probably happens from poor storage (books being stored upright in a way that allows the interior to pull in), poor handling (dropping a book on it's open end causing inner pages to shift away from the cover or spine causing a pull) or some other way (the paper around the staple weakens over time and gets pulled in since the majority of stress is focused in this area).

 

How in the world can stationary pressure (with a book lying on it's back or front) cause staples to pull in?

 

I just don't see how it's mechanically possible.

 

----------------------

 

Secondly, unless there are some before and after pics of books showing ink running (and I mean "immediately" before and after a press job where humidity has been used) it's just a guess as to how it happened.

 

I can probably look through my inventory and find plenty of books that have not been humidified or pressed that have "running" (or better stated, wicking) ink on them.

 

That's why I'm even bothering to have this discussion. It's not that it can't happen, it's that it doesn't jive with what I've seen.

 

There are plenty of pedigree books out there with ink on them (think of how many pedigrees have writing on them...Church, Cosmic Airplane, Winnipeg, White Mountain, Recil Macon, Cooksville, etc, etc). With so many pedigrees out there with writing on them (and the Winnipegs and WM's are both huge collections with many books that have been pressed) we should be turning up 100's or even 1000's of examples of these books with ink running on them.

 

I'm not saying it can't happen, but I think to immediately assume it's from humidifying a book on purpose is a stretch without some more proof.

[Ze-man]

I hear ya Roy, the staple impaction(for lack of a better term) could be the result of several things.

 

Among them being pressed improperly, with too much pressure. Causing the cover to pull away from the interior as the spine becomes more creased while the staples remain against the interior.

 

Same thing can happen when you scan a book several times. One time the owner might snug the book up before scanning,carefully laying it flat before closing the scanner top. While another might pull the cover away slightly as they lay it down on the scanner, causing the cover to look like it is pulling away from the staples if the cover is at all loose.

 

While not a smoking gun that points to a book being pressed, staple impaction can happen if the presser does not take steps to prevent this. And even then, the book might be prone to this before it was even pressed.

 

As far as inks running after being exposed to humidity? That's a new one on me.

 

Depending of course on what type of pen was used, and how long ago it was applied will affect if they might run, or not.

 

They are typically stubborn things that you need to attack with specific solvents that would also remove the actual inks the comic was printed with. Hence why you typically see ballpoint pen/ink left alone.

 

I have washed hundreds of covers in water, and solvents to remove tape and dirt. And rarely have I seen hand written cover inks run as a result, and I am talking about full submersion, scrubbing a book to death type washing.

 

So I honestly have no idea why the WM inks are running on those books, unless it was a type of ball point pen that was susceptible to moisture, and whoever pressed them used direct moisture on the book. Which seems unlikely.

 

Then again, with so many different people pressing comics, with different methods, it is impossible to say without knowing how it was pressed.

 

If that is in fact what made the inks initially run.

 

 

 

[VintageComics]

Appreciate the informative post.

 

(thumbs u

[seanfingh]

 

What is an up post?

 

So what I am hearing is that a book from the early to mid 60's that has a clear crisp ball point pen mark on it exists at time A. There is no wicking/running of the inks, at time A. At time A, the book sits in a 9.4 CGC slab.

 

At time B, there is wicking/running of the inks. At time B, the book sits in a 9.6 slab.

 

What possible "improper storage" could have caused the issue?

 

BTW, I press the fcuk out of comic books, I like pressed comic books, and I have zero agenda, so you can't use that to try and minimize my questions/opinions.

 

(thumbs u

[VintageComics]

"up" was a typo.

 

Time a) was in 1964 - unless I'm mistaken I haven't seen a pic of the book sitting in a 9.4 slab with crisp inks to compare to (also known as a before pic)

Time b) happens to be nearly 50 years later

 

Anybody got pics of the books from a time period in between? A lot can happen in 50 years.

 

My point remains:

 

a) I've seen unpressed books with running inks

b) I've seen plenty of pressed books with NO running inks

c) Kenny can't make inks run if he tries

 

Goodness, I'm not even close to a lawyer but I might try becoming one.

 

 

 

[seanfingh]

 

You would need food stamps to feed yourself.

 

Here is what you keep dodging:

 

 

But would you agree that if there are before pics of the WM books where the ink is sharp, and then subsequently we have these pics of runny ink, that there is virtually no other explanation than a humid press for the change.

 

Unless people were paying big bucks for the WM books to store them in a humidor or the Everglades.

 

Just answer the question. It is a simple if-then question.

[joeypost]

You would need food stamps to feed yourself.

 

Here is what you keep dodging:

 

 

But would you agree that if there are before pics of the WM books where the ink is sharp, and then subsequently we have these pics of runny ink, that there is virtually no other explanation than a humid press for the change.

 

Unless people were paying big bucks for the WM books to store them in a humidor or the Everglades.

 

Just answer the question. It is a simple if-then question.

 

Could it be Sean, that certain inks are re-activated under high enough heat? This is another possible explanation.

[VintageComics]

You would need food stamps to feed yourself.

 

Here is what you keep dodging:

 

 

But would you agree that if there are before pics of the WM books where the ink is sharp, and then subsequently we have these pics of runny ink, that there is virtually no other explanation than a humid press for the change.

 

Unless people were paying big bucks for the WM books to store them in a humidor or the Everglades.

 

Just answer the question. It is a simple if-then question.

 

I thought the answer was obvious: yes, if you have before and after pics then it would be difficult to blame it on something else. Not impossible, but it sure brings a lot more evidence to the discussion. At least then you can call it a smoking gun rather than a plastic replica.

 

What I don't understand is why it doesn't happen to all WM books, or Winnipegs for that matter...all of them have tons of writing on them and many of them have probably been pressed - some more than once possibly.

 

Also, Kenny's experience is intriguing. I hadn't even expected a response like that but if a full on immersion bath using solvents and water doesn't make the inks run then it really makes you wonder what does?

 

 

[VintageComics]

You would need food stamps to feed yourself.

 

Here is what you keep dodging:

 

 

But would you agree that if there are before pics of the WM books where the ink is sharp, and then subsequently we have these pics of runny ink, that there is virtually no other explanation than a humid press for the change.

 

Unless people were paying big bucks for the WM books to store them in a humidor or the Everglades.

 

Just answer the question. It is a simple if-then question.

 

Could it be Sean, that certain inks are re-activated under high enough heat? This is another possible explanation.

 

That's what I originally hypothesized when I said that they might be oil based - heat will cause oil to run, but that could happen then in any environment including the trunk of a car.

 

Or it could be a combination of moisture and temperature - moisture causing fibres to loosen up and heat causing inks to run.

 

Again, we're all speculating at this point with only 1 data point on the graph.

 

 

[seanfingh]

You would need food stamps to feed yourself.

 

Here is what you keep dodging:

 

 

But would you agree that if there are before pics of the WM books where the ink is sharp, and then subsequently we have these pics of runny ink, that there is virtually no other explanation than a humid press for the change.

 

Unless people were paying big bucks for the WM books to store them in a humidor or the Everglades.

 

Just answer the question. It is a simple if-then question.

 

Could it be Sean, that certain inks are re-activated under high enough heat? This is another possible explanation.

 

Absolutely. It could be any number of chemical/physical reactions. I just think the dancing around the fact that a press is by far the most likely culprit is silly. And anyone who presses books should look at it seriously to determine whether that may be an issue going forward, especially if one is having autographed books pressed from time to time.

[VintageComics]

I just think the dancing around the fact that a press is by far the most likely culprit is silly.

 

I don't think anybody is dancing around "the fact" - at this point it's not a fact yet. It's just one of a possible number of facts. I'd just like a little more meat in the discussion before it gets called a smoking gun.

 

 

[joeypost]

You would need food stamps to feed yourself.

 

Here is what you keep dodging:

 

 

But would you agree that if there are before pics of the WM books where the ink is sharp, and then subsequently we have these pics of runny ink, that there is virtually no other explanation than a humid press for the change.

 

Unless people were paying big bucks for the WM books to store them in a humidor or the Everglades.

 

Just answer the question. It is a simple if-then question.

 

Could it be Sean, that certain inks are re-activated under high enough heat? This is another possible explanation.

 

Absolutely. It could be any number of chemical/physical reactions. I just think the dancing around the fact that a press is by far the most likely culprit is silly. And anyone who presses books should look at it seriously to determine whether that may be an issue going forward, especially if one is having autographed books pressed from time to time.

 

Out of everyone involved in this discussion I think I can safely say I have worked on more SS books than anyone else. I have encountered books signed with pencil to white out. Each one is a challenge and has to be treated individually. This is regards to moisture levels, heat, pressure, ect. I can say that on some types of ink pens the ink does re-activate and can come off the book (this is very rare and only happens with certain colors). It usually winds up on the release paper. But, and this is where I stress the "but" I have never had inks spread out like these examples show.

 

Could they have been poor attempts to clean off the ink with solvents? Possible. Could heat (and yes, heat from any source) couse this? I am not a chemist and cannot say no, but I am not ruling it out of the realm of possibility.

 

 

[Ze-man]

 

Could they have been poor attempts to clean off the ink with solvents? Possible.

 

 

This was the first thing that came to mind when I saw the posted links due to the inks placement on white only areas. They look not just like they bled a bit, but were actually minimized somewhat.

 

Especially the X-men, and Strange Tales.

 

And while this topic is interesting, the original reason for this thread was silly.

 

I'm outta here.

[Bomber-Bob]

 

Could they have been poor attempts to clean off the ink with solvents? Possible.

 

 

This was the first thing that came to mind when I saw the posted links due to the inks placement on white only areas. They look not just like they bled a bit, but were actually minimized somewhat.

 

Especially the X-men, and Strange Tales.

 

And while this topic is interesting, the original reason for this thread was silly.

 

I'm outta here.

 

I doubt anyone wanted to clean off the ink on the White Mountains ?

I had the bleeding ink phenomena on a book after a press but maybe it bled in the heat of the mail truck. Look, just because pressing may be bad for some books does not make it a bad process. I don't understand why we can't point out some possible damage as the result of pressing without feeling aghast. There may be something to be learned here resulting in a better process .

[Ze-man]

 

Could they have been poor attempts to clean off the ink with solvents? Possible.

 

 

This was the first thing that came to mind when I saw the posted links due to the inks placement on white only areas. They look not just like they bled a bit, but were actually minimized somewhat.

 

Especially the X-men, and Strange Tales.

 

And while this topic is interesting, the original reason for this thread was silly.

 

I'm outta here.

 

I doubt anyone wanted to clean off the ink on the White Mountains ?

I had the bleeding ink phenomena on a book after a press but maybe it bled in the heat of the mail truck. Look, just because pressing may be bad for some books does not make it a bad process. I don't understand why we can't point out some possible damage as the result of pressing without feeling aghast. There may be something to be learned here resulting in a better process .

 

 

Since you quoted me, I wanted to say that I have no problem with people discussing any aspect of inks running as a result from being pressed. Properly, or improperly.

 

Certain pen inks may very well melt(and seep into the cover, or be pulled up on release paper) under even a slight increase in temp, or humidity. I was just making comments based on what was provided(which is very little I might add)

 

I would defer to what Joey says because he deals with this everyday. I do next to no pressing anymore, all my comments were more geared to how inks react when restoring a book.

 

If this type of discussion helps minimize people pressing books at too high a temp, or pressure then I am all for it.

 

I just felt Divads reason for making this thread was beyond silly.

 

 

 

 

[namisgr]

I thought the answer was obvious: yes, if you have before and after pics then it would be difficult to blame it on something else.

 

Gave you before and after pics of an example of pressing causing a staple to become slightly impacted. My book originally purchased raw, my before and after scans, results clear to everyone. When I pointed out the large proportion of Curator FFs with slightly impacted staples, you and some other folks denied that pressing could cause such a thing. I sent a couple of books to be pressed by one of the very best guys in the biz, and posted one of the results here to settle the matter.

 

How it happens is simple: when unpressed, the book had some air contained inside it, and the top cover was not completely horizontally flat, but rather slightly higher in the middle than at the spine and outer edges. This is how comics rolled onto the market after printing. Pressing squeezes out the air and flattens the cover - the paper moves a tiny bit in relation to a staple, and slides past it, creating a slightly impacted staple. A second contributing factor is the swelling of the paper as it is humidifed and heated during the pressing process.

 

As for my bias, you're grasping at straws. I've had books from my collection pressed and purchased books known to have been pressed, so its plain I'm not categorically opposed to it. You, on the other hand, have pressing as an essential component of the business model you use to make a living, so between the two of us it's you who have a much more vested stake in any discussion of the potential downsides to pressing.

[VintageComics]

I thought the answer was obvious: yes, if you have before and after pics then it would be difficult to blame it on something else.

 

Gave you before and after pics of an example of pressing causing a staple to become slightly impacted. My book originally purchased raw, my before and after scans, results clear to everyone. When I pointed out the large proportion of Curator FFs with slightly impacted staples, you and some other folks doubted that pressing could cause such a thing. I sent a couple of books to be pressed by one of the very best guys in the biz, and posted the results here to settle the matter.

 

How it happens is simple: when unpressed, the book had some air contained inside it, and the top cover was not completely horizontally flat, but rather slightly higher in the middle than at the spine and outer edges. This is how comics rolled onto the market after printing. Pressing squeezes out the air and flattens the cover - the paper moves a tiny bit in relation to a staple, and slides past it, creating a slightly impacted staple. A second contributing factor is the swelling of the paper as it is humidifed and heated during the pressing process.

 

You're moving the goal posts in the discussion.

 

We were specifically talking about inks wicking during the pressing process, not staples moving when I asked for before and after pics.

 

You decided to go off on a tangent and start posting pics of staples.

 

As for my bias, you're grasping. I've had books from my collection pressed and purchased books known to have been pressed, so its plain I'm not categorically opposed to it. You, on the other hand, have pressing as an essential component of the business model you use to make a living, so between the two of us it's you who have a much more vested stake in any discussion of the potential downsides to pressing.

 

What I have a vested stake in (and this is true for every discussion whether it's pressing, health, religion or just hot girls) is alarming people about the negative effects of something with very little substance behind the alarm.

 

Since I've probably seen, handled or had pressed enough books to have an idea of what is involved I'm going to say that your 1 example is not enough to convince me.

 

And after all that, Divad still hasn't chimed in to clarify exactly why he started this thread in the first place. I'm still in the dark about what he meant by "addicted to pressing".

 

 

[namisgr]

The discussion of staple impaction is precisely on topic. I think even slightly impacted staples detract from the appeal and the grade of an otherwise ultra high grade comic, and should be considered minor defects by CGC. The example I showed was graded by CGC as a 9.6 before the pressing and staple impaction, and 9.6 after, so the 'damage' produced by the pressing does not appear to have been factored into the CGC grade. I felt that several of the Curator FFs grades were gifts in that the 9.6 grade level should not suffer from staple impaction.

 

Who knows what Divad intended by starting the thread, but despite that it can still be a place for a new and potentially interesting dialog.