When did pressing a comic before every sub become the norm?

[comicwiz]

But a comic book collector cannot tell if the book will operate as a 9.4. Maybe it will, maybe it wont, depending on the weakened and broken areas that were re-flattened. Right? Like a broken or weakened baseball bat, tent pole, conductor's wand, whatever. When broken or weakened, but laid out straight and sealed in a thick packaging, objects may appear 'factory fresh'. But what happens when their intended use comes into play?

 

Experiment with pressing yourself is my suggestion--it isn't that difficult. I haven't found pressed-out paper fibers to be weak or more likely to bend again in the same spot when I've pressed out non-color breaking bends. This is easiest to test on bends that are on corners since you can easily try to re-bend the same crease you just pressed out. The first time I heat-pressed a corner, I expected that putting pressure on that same corner along the same bend would be easier than normal--but I couldn't find evidence that the same crease wanted to re-bend to its former bent shape. So I can't tell that the weakness you're thinking affects the comic's function makes any noticeable difference.

 

There is too much variance in sample, defect, exposure to heat and the amount of time the book is exposed to heat to be able to repeat what you suggest. The variable of heat exposure alone, with a slight variance in length of time on multiple copies of the same book and defect, could produce completely different results.

[Davenport]

But a comic book collector cannot tell if the book will operate as a 9.4. Maybe it will, maybe it wont, depending on the weakened and broken areas that were re-flattened. Right? Like a broken or weakened baseball bat, tent pole, conductor's wand, whatever. When broken or weakened, but laid out straight and sealed in a thick packaging, objects may appear 'factory fresh'. But what happens when their intended use comes into play?

 

Experiment with pressing yourself is my suggestion--it isn't that difficult. I haven't found pressed-out paper fibers to be weak or more likely to bend again in the same spot when I've pressed out non-color breaking bends. This is easiest to test on bends that are on corners since you can easily try to re-bend the same crease you just pressed out. The first time I heat-pressed a corner, I expected that putting pressure on that same corner along the same bend would be easier than normal--but I couldn't find evidence that the same crease wanted to re-bend to its former bent shape. So I can't tell that the weakness you're thinking affects the comic's function makes any noticeable difference.

Fair enough.

 

But you agree weakening will be in degrees and fiber-breakage is breakage? Pressing only re-flattens the existing state of preservation.

 

My main point is Pressing is governed by and limited to the properties of paper. One of those properties, with re-flattened paper, is 'looks can be deceiving.'

 

[fantastic_four]

But a comic book collector cannot tell if the book will operate as a 9.4. Maybe it will, maybe it wont, depending on the weakened and broken areas that were re-flattened. Right? Like a broken or weakened baseball bat, tent pole, conductor's wand, whatever. When broken or weakened, but laid out straight and sealed in a thick packaging, objects may appear 'factory fresh'. But what happens when their intended use comes into play?

 

Experiment with pressing yourself is my suggestion--it isn't that difficult. I haven't found pressed-out paper fibers to be weak or more likely to bend again in the same spot when I've pressed out non-color breaking bends. This is easiest to test on bends that are on corners since you can easily try to re-bend the same crease you just pressed out. The first time I heat-pressed a corner, I expected that putting pressure on that same corner along the same bend would be easier than normal--but I couldn't find evidence that the same crease wanted to re-bend to its former bent shape. So I can't tell that the weakness you're thinking affects the comic's function makes any noticeable difference.

 

There is too much variance in sample, defect, exposure to heat and the amount of time the book is exposed to heat to be able to repeat what you suggest. The variable of heat exposure alone, with a slight variance in length of time on multiple copies of the same book and defect, could produce completely different results.

 

Then run as many tests altering those variables by as little or as much as you like for each test. My hypothesis is you won't see a difference by varying exposure time or heat--although certainly you've got to limit heat within specific bounds since too little heat means the fibers don't relax and too much scalds the paper. Shouldn't take more than a dozen or two tests altering those variables you listed.

[fantastic_four]

But you agree weakening will be in degrees and fiber-breakage is breakage? Pressing only re-flattens whatever is there.

 

So I've been told. I haven't done microscopic analysis to see the breaks myself, but I presume they're still there. It makes sense just from the same kinds of experiments with paper any of us may have done--if you bend a piece of paper back and forth, back and forth, back and forth along the same line, eventually it breaks off, which suggests bending does damage each time it's done. I used to do this with looseleaf paper as a kid sometimes while sitting around bored in class.

[Davenport]

But you agree weakening will be in degrees and fiber-breakage is breakage? Pressing only re-flattens whatever is there.

 

So I've been told. I haven't done microscopic analysis to see the breaks myself, but I presume they're still there. It makes sense just from the same kinds of experiments with paper any of us may have done--if you bend a piece of paper back and forth, back and forth, back and forth along the same line, eventually it breaks off, which suggests bending does damage each time it's done. I used to do this with looseleaf paper as a kid sometimes while sitting around bored in class.

Moving from facts to opinion... I think the whole debate would vanish if Pressers and Professional Graders were on the same page, used the same assessment criteria. But that would destroy The Game. As it stands Pressers include the properties of paper in their assessments while Pro Graders seems to assume paper never moved and will never move again, coin-like. That's the loophole that fuels the CPR phenomenon.

 

 

[fantastic_four]

But you agree weakening will be in degrees and fiber-breakage is breakage? Pressing only re-flattens whatever is there.

 

So I've been told. I haven't done microscopic analysis to see the breaks myself, but I presume they're still there. It makes sense just from the same kinds of experiments with paper any of us may have done--if you bend a piece of paper back and forth, back and forth, back and forth along the same line, eventually it breaks off, which suggests bending does damage each time it's done. I used to do this with looseleaf paper as a kid sometimes while sitting around bored in class.

 

Actually those types of hard breaks that damage the fibers aren't always the case with the minor types of creases that pressing irons out. If it's a fold that's hard enough to break the fibers, then it almost certainly broke color in the ink, too, so pressing doesn't improve grade. And if it's a hard enough crease in white areas of the book that have no ink--such as on the back cover in the margins--pressing only flattens it with the crease still being visible. The whole idea of pressing benefiting grade is that the crease is a fairly minor one, so I don't know that fibers are broken enough to affect function or be more likely to revert with pressure applied to the same area on average.

[comicwiz]

But a comic book collector cannot tell if the book will operate as a 9.4. Maybe it will, maybe it wont, depending on the weakened and broken areas that were re-flattened. Right? Like a broken or weakened baseball bat, tent pole, conductor's wand, whatever. When broken or weakened, but laid out straight and sealed in a thick packaging, objects may appear 'factory fresh'. But what happens when their intended use comes into play?

 

Experiment with pressing yourself is my suggestion--it isn't that difficult. I haven't found pressed-out paper fibers to be weak or more likely to bend again in the same spot when I've pressed out non-color breaking bends. This is easiest to test on bends that are on corners since you can easily try to re-bend the same crease you just pressed out. The first time I heat-pressed a corner, I expected that putting pressure on that same corner along the same bend would be easier than normal--but I couldn't find evidence that the same crease wanted to re-bend to its former bent shape. So I can't tell that the weakness you're thinking affects the comic's function makes any noticeable difference.

 

There is too much variance in sample, defect, exposure to heat and the amount of time the book is exposed to heat to be able to repeat what you suggest. The variable of heat exposure alone, with a slight variance in length of time on multiple copies of the same book and defect, could produce completely different results.

 

Then run as many tests altering those variables by as little or as much as you like for each test. My hypothesis is you won't see a difference by varying exposure time or heat--although certainly you've got to limit heat within specific bounds since too little heat means the fibers don't relax and too much scalds the paper. Shouldn't take more than a dozen or two tests altering those variables you listed.

 

I have. That's why I'm saying what you are suggesting isn't repeatable because the variables are almost always different, unless you have multiple copies of the same book with identical defects. Unless you're a pro doing it every day, and have benchmarked thresholds for every era, type of book, type of defect, paper stock and how to treat each "type" under heat, you likely will encounter variance on the effects heated pressing has on paper.

[fantastic_four]

Pro Graders seems to assume paper never moved and will never move again, coin-like.

 

You can't see broken fibers without microscopic evaluation, and poring over every square inch of the front and back cover looking for broken fibers would be quite tedious. And even if you found them, as mentioned earlier, you have no idea what caused them to be there or to be flattened back out. I'm not sure you can see them at all with most minor folds that pressing flattens out.

 

I've occasionally wished I had a boom microscope on and off for over a decade. I've always been interested in looking at fibers and the patterns in them before and after pressing to see if there's a typical pattern that dry-mount presses leave in pressed-out fibers.

 

Having said all that, I don't think anyone uses microscopic defects in grading, and I have no reason to believe that should be a part of grading. Microscopic analysis can and should be used to look for restoration--and indeed CGC occasionally uses it for that--but until someone develops a repeatable method to detect intentional pressing, there's not much point in fiber analysis.

[fantastic_four]

I have. That's why I'm saying what you are suggesting isn't repeatable because the variables are almost always different, unless you have multiple copies of the same book with identical defects. Unless you're a pro doing it every day, and have benchmarked thresholds for every era, type of book, type of defect, paper stock and how to treat each "type" under heat, you likely will encounter variance on the effects heated pressing has on paper.

 

In what ways were you able to see evidence of the pressed-out damage following the press?

[Davenport]

Pro Graders seems to assume paper never moved and will never move again, coin-like.

 

You can't see broken fibers without microscopic evaluation, and poring over every square inch of the front and back cover looking for broken fibers would be quite tedious. And even if you found them, as mentioned earlier, you have no idea what caused them to be there or to be flattened back out. I'm not sure you can see them at all with most minor folds that pressing flattens out.

 

I've occasionally wished I had a boom microscope on and off for over a decade. I've always been interested in looking at fibers and the patterns in them before and after pressing to see if there's a typical pattern that dry-mount presses leave in pressed-out fibers.

 

Having said all that, I don't think anyone uses microscopic defects in grading, and I have no reason to believe that should be a part of grading. Microscopic analysis can and should be used to look for restoration--and indeed CGC occasionally uses it for that--but until someone develops a repeatable method to detect intentional pressing, there's not much point in fiber analysis.

I'm not really suggesting anything 'microscopic'. Going back to Chris S.'s point... A pressed 9.0 to 9.4. Maybe it was a 9.4 all along. Or maybe it's a very flat 9.0.

 

Pressers understand the properties of paper when evaluating a book. To do otherwise, like Pro Graders, creates this humongous loophole that's endlessly argued.

 

A professional "certification" assessment of a paper artifact ought to incorporate the properties of paper, don't you think?

[fantastic_four]

I'm not really suggesting anything 'microscopic'. Going back to Chris S.'s point... A pressed 9.0 to 9.4. Maybe it was a 9.4 all along. Or maybe it's a very flat 9.0.

 

Pressers understand the properties of paper when evaluating a book. To do otherwise, like Pro Graders, creates this humongous loophole that's endlessly argued.

 

A professional "certification" assessment of a paper artifact ought to incorporate the properties of paper, don't you think?

 

Chris was comparing a state before and after a press, but a grader doesn't know the before state, only the state of the book in hand. I don't know what properties of paper you're talking about that a grader with a book in their hand that they don't know the history of is supposed to be able to find.

[comicwiz]

I have. That's why I'm saying what you are suggesting isn't repeatable because the variables are almost always different, unless you have multiple copies of the same book with identical defects. Unless you're a pro doing it every day, and have benchmarked thresholds for every era, type of book, type of defect, paper stock and how to treat each "type" under heat, you likely will encounter variance on the effects heated pressing has on paper.

 

In what ways were you able to see evidence of the pressed-out damage following the press?

 

Mostly experimenting with overexposing comics to heat (average of 180-190 degrees with exposure anywhere from 30 seconds to about 2 minutes). Defects included and were not limited to scalding the paper, ink lifting and/or transferring onto the release paper. In some cases, the ink loss would leave a tiny flek of colour loss on the cover. This was most noticeable on areas which were dark, and black inks were especially problematic, not only on the front cover, but the inside cover as well with black inks from the ads transferring on the release paper. Also, what I was able to notice is that some of the colour breaking defects became more pronounced (more white area). In cases where the paper was scalded, it just felt like the paper lost its suppleness - the best way to describe this is it felt dry to the touch.

[fantastic_four]

I have. That's why I'm saying what you are suggesting isn't repeatable because the variables are almost always different, unless you have multiple copies of the same book with identical defects. Unless you're a pro doing it every day, and have benchmarked thresholds for every era, type of book, type of defect, paper stock and how to treat each "type" under heat, you likely will encounter variance on the effects heated pressing has on paper.

 

In what ways were you able to see evidence of the pressed-out damage following the press?

 

Mostly experimenting with overexposing comics to heat (average of 180-190 degrees with exposure anywhere from 30 seconds to about 2 minutes). Defects included and were not limited to scalding the paper, ink lifting and/or transferring onto the release paper. In some cases, the ink loss would leave a tiny flek of colour loss on the cover. This was most noticeable on areas which were dark, and black inks were especially problematic, not only on the front cover, but the inside cover as well with black inks from the ads transferring on the release paper. Also, what I was able to notice is that some of the colour breaking defects became more pronounced (more white area). In cases where the paper was scalded, it just felt like the paper lost its suppleness - the best way to describe this is it felt dry to the touch.

 

It sounds like we're off on a whole new tangent--your descriptions appear to be of brand new damage created by a bad press. Davenport was raising the question of pressed-out folds still affecting the paper after being pressed out by a well-done press. I'm getting confused.

[batman_fan]

I can see the difference. To me that difference is very very small. And when the XM 45 BC looked like this before:

 

 

And now looks like this:

 

 

 

The minuscule change in the spine is worth it. And I know the positive change in dirt is from the cleaning but the same argument could be said of big ripples which you can remove at the expense of a slightly squished spine.

 

p.s. My understanding was the slight bump on the spine was from being stored with other books. So is not something natural that you would try and preserve for the sake of authenticity.

 

 

The back cover definitely looks cleaner but the pressed version looks like it has some waviness to it unless that is just the picture. I have seen this same waviness on other poorly pressed books. Is that real or just the photo

[comicwiz]

I have. That's why I'm saying what you are suggesting isn't repeatable because the variables are almost always different, unless you have multiple copies of the same book with identical defects. Unless you're a pro doing it every day, and have benchmarked thresholds for every era, type of book, type of defect, paper stock and how to treat each "type" under heat, you likely will encounter variance on the effects heated pressing has on paper.

 

In what ways were you able to see evidence of the pressed-out damage following the press?

 

Mostly experimenting with overexposing comics to heat (average of 180-190 degrees with exposure anywhere from 30 seconds to about 2 minutes). Defects included and were not limited to scalding the paper, ink lifting and/or transferring onto the release paper. In some cases, the ink loss would leave a tiny flek of colour loss on the cover. This was most noticeable on areas which were dark, and black inks were especially problematic, not only on the front cover, but the inside cover as well with black inks from the ads transferring on the release paper. Also, what I was able to notice is that some of the colour breaking defects became more pronounced (more white area). In cases where the paper was scalded, it just felt like the paper lost its suppleness - the best way to describe this is it felt dry to the touch.

 

It sounds like we're off on a whole new tangent--your descriptions appear to be of brand new damage created by a bad press. Davenport was raising the question of pressed-out folds still affecting the paper after being pressed out by a well-done press. I'm getting confused.

 

You asked. Those were the defects I saw. I'm not going to invent a problem I didn't see. Keeping it relevant to paper damage, I feel the scalded paper was concerning enough, and it really isn't inconceivable that this could be a practice mimicked without the intention of overexposing, but to achieve a desired result, when repeating a press more than once on the same comic, whether at the same time by the presser trying to achieve a desired result, or throughout the life of the comic during the chain of ownership changes.

[Davenport]

I'm not really suggesting anything 'microscopic'. Going back to Chris S.'s point... A pressed 9.0 to 9.4. Maybe it was a 9.4 all along. Or maybe it's a very flat 9.0.

 

Pressers understand the properties of paper when evaluating a book. To do otherwise, like Pro Graders, creates this humongous loophole that's endlessly argued.

 

A professional "certification" assessment of a paper artifact ought to incorporate the properties of paper, don't you think?

 

Chris was comparing a state before and after a press, but a grader doesn't know the before state, only the state of the book in hand. I don't know what properties of paper you're talking about that a grader with a book in their hand that they don't know the history of is supposed to be able to find.

For a moment think about a book's actual/factual "State of Preservation". Only that. Forget about labels and holders and The Game. Just "state of preservation" for a moment.

 

Now link "Grade" directly to "state of preservation". That's all you want to discern. Actual/factual "state of preservation" and assign a "grade" to communicate that reality.

 

Pro Grader's don't do that, but Pressers do.

 

Pro Graders could too.

 

Right? If a Presser can come in right behind a Pro Grader and re-assess their given grade, then that grade isn't as accurate as it could be. If somebody dismisses the properties of paper, then somebody else can and will apply those properties for a quick payday.

 

[VintageComics]

The shifting, indeed is made more apparent and stark when you have before/after scans. But what visual benefit could you make the argument for that was required for them to pick up the defects on the rear cover that weren't accounted for in the grade?

 

They grade spine ticks less harshly on the back than the front. Whether or not they've always done that, only sometimes done that, or that they should have ever graded that way at all is controversial and up for discussion. I always assumed they graded back-cover defects less harshly based upon grades I've seen them give to books with back-cover defects severe enough to not merit that grade had they been on the front.

 

I've only ever known CGC to give both front and rear cover equal weight. If this isn't the case, then maybe they need the community to do more unpaid detective work, and find visual examples so they can grade comics properly?

 

People can joke around about it all they want but I still say that partially hiding defects on the apex of the spine (not the back cover) is what caused the grade increases.

 

 

[fantastic_four]

For a moment think about a book's actual/factual "State of Preservation". Only that. Forget about labels and holders and The Game. Just "state of preservation" for a moment.

 

Now link "Grade" directly to "state of preservation". That's all you want to discern. Actual/factual "state of preservation" and assign a "grade" to communicate that reality.

 

Pro Grader's don't do that, but Pressers do.

 

Pro Graders could too.

 

Right? If a Presser can come in right behind a Pro Grader and re-assess their given grade, then that grade isn't as accurate as it could be. If somebody dismisses the properties of paper, then somebody else can and will apply those properties for a quick payday.

 

Are you suggesting that when grading we and CGC should ignore defects that can be pressed out?

[Silver Surfer]

I'll see your paranoid and raise you hook line and sinker, because it appears you clearly took the "bad pressing" bait CGC used on the spine shifted garbage it extolled under it's warranty of certification, and later retracted as being something that could be spotted. What happened the first time those passed through - did their ability to spot spine wear shifted to the rear cover magically enhance when Matt came on board?

 

No, they learned about that one from us when we spotted it in before and after scans. Their mistake aside from that is that I believe based upon empirical analysis of slabs that they've always counted spine ticks on the back cover significantly less than the front, and this technique exploited that fact. Forumites also brought their attention first to Ewert's micro-trimming and a trimming followed up by artificial aging method being used about a decade ago the same way, by analyzing before and after scans.

 

Great point. Just on that spine shifting procedure, did it require the staples to be removed in order to do it properly so that there would be noticable indenting of the paper around the staples?

[Bomber-Bob]

I suspect there are a lot of individuals that simply buy a press and turn up the heat. It's actually refreshing to know that many of you try to put some science and practice into the art. Personally I don't care if my comic was pressed or not, as long as it isn't pronounced and obvious. I don't like to look at a book and be reminded of Joan Rivers. I'm not anti pressing, I'm anti fugly.