Q: Are CGC graders "addicted" to pressing?

[Bronty]

 

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.

 

Roy, I am not an expert on pressing, but it seems to me that its not the staple that would move but rather the orientation of the cover relative to it.

 

Ie. Start with a nice round spine. Squeeze that down by pressing, or even manually. What happens? The center of the spine creases or at least "peaks" a little from the pressure and moves "outward" because the spine is no longer round. The same amount of paper, if the spine is no longer round, has to go somewhere, so it goes out away from the staples.

 

As I say I'm no expert but I think its eminently possible if not probably that this would occur to at least some degree because you are changing the "roll" of the spine with the pressure.

[Bronty]

oops I see Ze-man already provided that POV, sorry

[VintageComics]

oops I see Ze-man already provided that POV, sorry

 

(thumbs u

 

I've never seen it happen myself (before and after) but I can say that it's possible in that scenario...never crossed my mind.

[Silver Surfer]

Just curious but do a lot of the Church GA books suffer from staple impacting [at least the one's that have been slabbed and in and out of the market for years]?

[Rip]

Wasn't there a thread a few years back about certain safes causing moisture problems? SBorock started a thread about it. Could this be the reason?

 

I guess its possible that someone really screwed up trying to press or remove the writing.

 

But if I had to take a stab I would say it was more the original type of ink used on the book that quickly blead or the result of improper storage.

[seanfingh]

Wasn't there a thread a few years back about certain safes causing moisture problems? SBorock started a thread about it. Could this be the reason?

 

I guess its possible that someone really screwed up trying to press or remove the writing.

 

But if I had to take a stab I would say it was more the original type of ink used on the book that quickly blead or the result of improper storage.

 

The moisture problem with the safes was demonstrated by horrifically rusted staples. That is an interesting association, though.

[VintageComics]

Wasn't there a thread a few years back about certain safes causing moisture problems? SBorock started a thread about it. Could this be the reason?

 

I guess its possible that someone really screwed up trying to press or remove the writing.

 

But if I had to take a stab I would say it was more the original type of ink used on the book that quickly blead or the result of improper storage.

 

The moisture problem with the safes was demonstrated by horrifically rusted staples. That is an interesting association, though.

 

I don't think it was ever actually narrowed down to moisture though. It was more likely corrosive activity of fire proofing materials used, wasn't it?

 

 

[seanfingh]

Wasn't there a thread a few years back about certain safes causing moisture problems? SBorock started a thread about it. Could this be the reason?

 

I guess its possible that someone really screwed up trying to press or remove the writing.

 

But if I had to take a stab I would say it was more the original type of ink used on the book that quickly blead or the result of improper storage.

 

The moisture problem with the safes was demonstrated by horrifically rusted staples. That is an interesting association, though.

 

I don't think it was ever actually narrowed down to moisture though. It was more likely corrosive activity of fire proofing materials used, wasn't it?

 

 

I didn't remember that, but I am no chemist. There was a lot of talk about using dessicants (sp?) to remove ambient moisture so . . .

[VintageComics]

Wasn't there a thread a few years back about certain safes causing moisture problems? SBorock started a thread about it. Could this be the reason?

 

I guess its possible that someone really screwed up trying to press or remove the writing.

 

But if I had to take a stab I would say it was more the original type of ink used on the book that quickly blead or the result of improper storage.

 

The moisture problem with the safes was demonstrated by horrifically rusted staples. That is an interesting association, though.

 

I don't think it was ever actually narrowed down to moisture though. It was more likely corrosive activity of fire proofing materials used, wasn't it?

 

 

I didn't remember that, but I am no chemist. There was a lot of talk about using dessicants (sp?) to remove ambient moisture so . . .

 

Yeah, the dessicant discussion was in there but I think someone posted about the corrosive qualities of some fireproof materials.

 

Like you I'm just going from memory I could be wrong.

 

 

[Boozad]

Wasn't there a thread a few years back about certain safes causing moisture problems? SBorock started a thread about it. Could this be the reason?

 

I guess its possible that someone really screwed up trying to press or remove the writing.

 

But if I had to take a stab I would say it was more the original type of ink used on the book that quickly blead or the result of improper storage.

 

The moisture problem with the safes was demonstrated by horrifically rusted staples. That is an interesting association, though.

 

I don't think it was ever actually narrowed down to moisture though. It was more likely corrosive activity of fire proofing materials used, wasn't it?

 

 

I didn't remember that, but I am no chemist. There was a lot of talk about using dessicants (sp?) to remove ambient moisture so . . .

 

I could be wrong, but wouldn't it stand to reason that a fireproof safe would also be airtight? So any moisture in the atmosphere that found its way in whilst it was open would just linger in there and condensate as the interior cooled down when it was shut?

 

Or should I stick to British comedy movies?

[seanfingh]

 

I think that is a big part of the problem.

[Rip]

It was kind of a "hail mary" possibility but I've heard of stranger things.

 

Doing a google search, and you can see all kinds of problems with safes and dampness/humidity/moisture problems.

 

[Bomber-Bob]

Wasn't there a thread a few years back about certain safes causing moisture problems? SBorock started a thread about it. Could this be the reason?

 

I guess its possible that someone really screwed up trying to press or remove the writing.

 

But if I had to take a stab I would say it was more the original type of ink used on the book that quickly blead or the result of improper storage.

 

The moisture problem with the safes was demonstrated by horrifically rusted staples. That is an interesting association, though.

 

The example that was submitted to Steve Borock as a potential issue with the slab(it wasn't)

was indeed horrific. The staples were literally turning to dust. I think it turned out to be a problem with a specific make and model of gun safe. However, the discussion scared many of to purchase humidity control items.

[Dick Pontoon]

I think that is a big part of the problem.

 

British comedy?

[r100comics]

I think that is a big part of the problem.

 

British comedy?

 

[Boozad]

I think that is a big part of the problem.

 

British comedy?

 

 

 

[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 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.

 

 

Here is why I have a hard time believing that pressing causes impacted staples: This is an original owner book that has sat untouched for nearly 40 years. The book has never been pressed.

 

[r100comics]

I think that is a big part of the problem.

 

British comedy?

 

 

 

 

 

“Think power, think positive, think Bigger"

 

 

 

[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.

 

 

Here is why I have a hard time believing that pressing causes impacted staples: This is an original owner book that has sat untouched for nearly 40 years. The book has never been pressed.

 

 

Roy, I would expect a better capacity to reason from you.

 

The fact that staples can become impacted during the manufacturing and assembly process in no way influences how post-manufacturing handling (including pressing) can also cause staple impaction.

 

The 'before' and 'after' experiences are unequivocal.

[VintageComics]

Roy, I would expect a better capacity to reason from you.

 

The fact that staples can become impacted during the manufacturing and assembly process in no way influences how post-manufacturing handling (including pressing) can also cause staple impaction.

 

The 'before' and 'after' experiences are unequivocal.

 

My reasoning capacity is based on being a diagnostic technician for over 20 years. My main interest has always been figuring out why things have gone wrong.

 

The fact that the book was pressed can be one reason that this happened, but definitely not the only reason.

 

For example, why doesn't it happen to all pressed books then?

 

Consider that all the before/after scans prove is the time period in which the damage was caused, not the actual cause of the damage. To prove when within that time period the book was damaged you'd need multiple scans at snap shops in time during the entire time the book was away from you because a lot more than just a press happened during that time period.

 

The pressed book was shipped to and from the presser, handled by a presser (at least one person, maybe more) and 3 graders, administration and encapsulation and then shipped back again after grading. So it was shipped at least 3 times and handled raw by 6 separate people minimum. Plenty of time for something to happen.

 

We've already heard of many stories where covers separate from interiors during handling and or shipping of books. What if this is one of those times when it doesn't completely separate?

 

The previous explanation for pressing the cover down, removing air and pulling the cover from the spine/staples makes some sense but then that is the case for every pressed book. It still doesn't explain why it happens to books that are not pressed or that it does not happen to all pressed books.

 

I personally think the answer is that there is either an inherent weakness in the paper in that area on only certain books, the books are mishandled in some way (or jarred during shipping) or a combination of the two.

 

Pressing may sometimes increase that effect but in the case of the Original Owner book that I have shown, the book was not pressed, came from a stack of hundreds of books that have been sitting dormant for decades and is one of the only books to experience the phenomena out of the collection...and all the books were bought and handled exactly the same: purchased, barely read and then put away.

 

So you see, my capacity for reasoning just doesn't agree with a simple "smoking gun", Occam's razor decision because life is a lot more complicated than just two data points.

 

I believe that Occam's razor is only directly applicable within the context of 2 data points, and we have many more than 2 in this case.

 

Fingh, how are my reasoning skills?