Revised restoration grading system??

[fantastic_four]

Thanks for this. So we've determined the necessity for a wet bath to remove it. What is done to the paper to ensure water borne growth such as mold won't attack the paper? Is there anything done to treat the paper to avoid shrinkage or brittleness from being exposed to water?

 

I've seen descriptions of conservators dunking paper documents in water in the past while researching conservation techniques. I'm sure there's some technique to doing it well. Mold only grows in dampness over a long period of time, otherwise nobody could air-dry their dishes or clothes as people often do. It grows in your shower when you don't scrub it clean because you tend to get it wet every day. Can't really comment on brittleness, never even thought about that--what makes you concerned about water causing brittleness?

[nearmint]

They mostly already designate reversibility--that's their main distinction between "amateur" and "professional" restoration.

 

Are you sure about that? I've always been under the impression that it was simply the quality of the work that determined pro vs. amateur. I've never heard that CGC considered reversability as a factor in that determination.

[fantastic_four]

They mostly already designate reversibility--that's their main distinction between "amateur" and "professional" restoration.

 

Are you sure about that? I've always been under the impression that it was simply the quality of the work that determined pro vs. amateur. I've never heard that CGC considered reversability as a factor in that determination.

 

Quality work IS reversible, so CGC picked up the same doctrine the conservation community has. And I've asked them and gotten an answer similar to that--it was a while back, somewhere around 2002 or 2003, so I don't remember specifics of whether I called or Borock said it in these forums, but I do know I've mentioned it before in the forums, so I could do a search to refresh my memory as to when and how they told me that. Conservationists typically don't even do things like color touch or piece replacement because they don't protect paper from harm, but when they do, it's always supposed to be reversible. If you Google "paper conservation" and "doctrine of reversibility" you should find info about the topic.

[fantastic_four]

They mostly already designate reversibility--that's their main distinction between "amateur" and "professional" restoration.

 

Are you sure about that? I've always been under the impression that it was simply the quality of the work that determined pro vs. amateur. I've never heard that CGC considered reversability as a factor in that determination.

 

Quality work IS reversible, so CGC picked up the same doctrine the conservation community has. And I've asked them and gotten an answer similar to that--it was a while back, somewhere around 2002 or 2003, so I don't remember specifics of whether I called or Borock said it in these forums, but I do know I've mentioned it before in the forums, so I could do a search to refresh my memory as to when and how they told me that. Conservationists typically don't even do things like color touch or piece replacement because they don't protect paper from harm, but when they do, it's always supposed to be reversible. If you Google "paper conservation" and "doctrine of reversibility" you should find info about the topic.

 

Mark Haspel told me about professional restoration being reversible on the phone when I called at some point in 2002 or 2003. Here's a link to a post I made in 2010 that jogged my memory of it--it's worth a read because there's a bit of discussion about it with Mr. Zipper of the CBCA as well as Kenny (Ze-Man):

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Board=4&Number=4219960#Post4219960

 

And in that thread I link to Susan Ciconni's article where she talks about reversibility as being an ethical priority for conservators:

 

http://www.therestorationlab.com/article.php?article_id=1

 

While researching conservation I've also seen mention of the importance of reversibility in various places around the web, including the Library of Congress's web site. It makes complete sense even from a layman's perspective--if you do something to vintage material that can't be un-done, you're doing some potential future damage to that original piece if further work has to be done.

[comicwiz]

Mold only grows in dampness over a long period of time

 

Under ideal growth conditions, mold can appear in just a few days. This can be greatly accelerated by the age of the paper, and it's environmental "exposure" prior to being soaked in a bath.

 

My main reason for bringing this up is that regardless of whether this is a lab recognized conservation technique, my concerns are with exposing paper ephemera to a water bath - something it was never meant to do.

 

I know Ze partially addressed this already in his response, but on the topic of the work being reversible, the book may well be in a pre-casting state as far as it's form, but I still regard exposure to water as undue damage that the pre-restored book would not otherwise have been exposed to if we are speaking strictly about "returned to original" state.

 

The brittleness effect is simply a residual effect from drying paper exposed to water. Again, depending on the way the sample had been stored previous to the work performed on it, this may mean the paper possibly being more susceptible to water borne growth and brittleness.

[fantastic_four]

Mold only grows in dampness over a long period of time

 

Under ideal growth conditions, mold can appear in just a few days. This can be greatly accelerated by the age of the paper, and it's environmental "exposure" prior to being soaked in a bath. My main reason for bringing this up is that regardless of whether this is a conservation technique, my concerns are with exposing paper ephemera to a water bath - something it was never meant to do. I know Ze addressed this already in his response, but on the topic of the work being reversible, the book may well be in a pre-casting state as far as it's form, but I still regard exposure to water as undue damage that the pre-restored book might not have been exposed to in its "returned to original" state. The brittleness effect is simply a residual effect from drying paper exposed to water.

 

In what way is paper "never meant to be exposed to water"? It starts out as a soupy goo that dries over time. Limited, uneven exposure to undistilled water causes problems, but uniform dunking in uncontaminated water is different than just spilling a drink in one area of a comic.

 

I'd recommend second-guessing your view of water being "undue damage" given that conservators do it regularly. I trust professionals more than amateurs like us. I'm certainly curious as to what effects water does have on paper but not as willing to discount the work of conservationists without having experience, research, or education of my own to back that idea up.

[comicwiz]

Mold only grows in dampness over a long period of time

 

Under ideal growth conditions, mold can appear in just a few days. This can be greatly accelerated by the age of the paper, and it's environmental "exposure" prior to being soaked in a bath. My main reason for bringing this up is that regardless of whether this is a conservation technique, my concerns are with exposing paper ephemera to a water bath - something it was never meant to do. I know Ze addressed this already in his response, but on the topic of the work being reversible, the book may well be in a pre-casting state as far as it's form, but I still regard exposure to water as undue damage that the pre-restored book might not have been exposed to in its "returned to original" state. The brittleness effect is simply a residual effect from drying paper exposed to water.

 

In what way is paper "never meant to be exposed to water"? It starts out as a soupy goo that dries over time. Limited, uneven exposure to undistilled water causes problems, but uniform dunking in uncontaminated water is different than just spilling a drink in one area of a comic.

 

I'd recommend second-guessing your view of water being "undue damage" given that conservators do it regularly. I trust professionals more than amateurs like us. I'm certainly curious as to what effects water does have on paper but not as willing to discount the work of conservationists without having experience, research, or education of my own to back that idea up.

 

If you really believe this, take your best book, take it to your bathtub and drop it in there. Throw in a rubber ducky for company.

[The-Collector]

Mold only grows in dampness over a long period of time

 

Under ideal growth conditions, mold can appear in just a few days. This can be greatly accelerated by the age of the paper, and it's environmental "exposure" prior to being soaked in a bath. My main reason for bringing this up is that regardless of whether this is a conservation technique, my concerns are with exposing paper ephemera to a water bath - something it was never meant to do. I know Ze addressed this already in his response, but on the topic of the work being reversible, the book may well be in a pre-casting state as far as it's form, but I still regard exposure to water as undue damage that the pre-restored book might not have been exposed to in its "returned to original" state. The brittleness effect is simply a residual effect from drying paper exposed to water.

 

In what way is paper "never meant to be exposed to water"? It starts out as a soupy goo that dries over time. Limited, uneven exposure to undistilled water causes problems, but uniform dunking in uncontaminated water is different than just spilling a drink in one area of a comic.

 

I'd recommend second-guessing your view of water being "undue damage" given that conservators do it regularly. I trust professionals more than amateurs like us. I'm certainly curious as to what effects water does have on paper but not as willing to discount the work of conservationists without having experience, research, or education of my own to back that idea up.

 

If you really believe this, take your best book, take it to your bathtub and drop it in there. Throw in a rubber ducky for company.

 

Uh oh! Two contrarians in a conversation!

[fantastic_four]

Mold only grows in dampness over a long period of time

 

Under ideal growth conditions, mold can appear in just a few days. This can be greatly accelerated by the age of the paper, and it's environmental "exposure" prior to being soaked in a bath. My main reason for bringing this up is that regardless of whether this is a conservation technique, my concerns are with exposing paper ephemera to a water bath - something it was never meant to do. I know Ze addressed this already in his response, but on the topic of the work being reversible, the book may well be in a pre-casting state as far as it's form, but I still regard exposure to water as undue damage that the pre-restored book might not have been exposed to in its "returned to original" state. The brittleness effect is simply a residual effect from drying paper exposed to water.

 

In what way is paper "never meant to be exposed to water"? It starts out as a soupy goo that dries over time. Limited, uneven exposure to undistilled water causes problems, but uniform dunking in uncontaminated water is different than just spilling a drink in one area of a comic.

 

I'd recommend second-guessing your view of water being "undue damage" given that conservators do it regularly. I trust professionals more than amateurs like us. I'm certainly curious as to what effects water does have on paper but not as willing to discount the work of conservationists without having experience, research, or education of my own to back that idea up.

 

If you really believe this, take your best book, take it to your bathtub and drop it in there. Throw in a rubber ducky for company.

 

I was just searching for some examples to link of Library of Congress pro conservators using wet cleaning on paper documents, but you just convinced me that I'm wasting my time.

[fantastic_four]

Uh oh! Two contrarians in a conversation!

 

Your count is off by one.

[The-Collector]

Uh oh! Two contrarians in a conversation!

 

Your count is off by one.

 

[comicwiz]

Also, I think you are misconstruing one particular aspect about water borne growth. Fungus can be very aggressive, and doesn't necessarily need to be exposed to water for a very long period of time to grow and colonize. Most water borne growth on paper and woods require only water and air, but this should not be taken to mean that it requires exposure to water and air for any prolonged period of time. Rather, a single drop and very little exposure to air is all it needs, and enclosing it or keeping it in a dark area (i.e. in a bag with backing) after drying could actually accelerate the growth regardless of how well the paper is cured/dried.

[FFB]

They mostly already designate reversibility--that's their main distinction between "amateur" and "professional" restoration.

 

Are you sure about that? I've always been under the impression that it was simply the quality of the work that determined pro vs. amateur. I've never heard that CGC considered reversability as a factor in that determination.

 

Quality work IS reversible, so CGC picked up the same doctrine the conservation community has. And I've asked them and gotten an answer similar to that--it was a while back, somewhere around 2002 or 2003, so I don't remember specifics of whether I called or Borock said it in these forums, but I do know I've mentioned it before in the forums, so I could do a search to refresh my memory as to when and how they told me that. Conservationists typically don't even do things like color touch or piece replacement because they don't protect paper from harm, but when they do, it's always supposed to be reversible. If you Google "paper conservation" and "doctrine of reversibility" you should find info about the topic.

 

How do you reverse an aqueous wash or a solvent cleaning?