Are These Restoration

[Ze-man]

I looked up an old article from Cooks Illustrated Magazine

 

 

Rated 13 brands of Balsamic Vineager

 

#1 Compagnia del Montale Aceto Balssamico di Modena $30/250 ml.

Best rated by far..

 

#2 Cavalli Condimento Balsamico $15 /250 ml.

Only one made in Reggio, Italy

 

#3 Cibo di Lidia Aceto Balsamico di Modena $20/250ml.

Not any top votes.. but in top 5 in ALL tasters

 

The top 2 can be bought from Dean and Deluca 800 221 7714

 

The 3rd one from Cibo de Lidia 212 758 1479

 

 

Ze-

[FFB]

Kewl!

 

Does this mean you're not even going to try out the technique? All that arguing and you won't even try it.

 

I will definitely try it out. I have some old junkers that would be ideal - or I can even make them ideal! No arguing. Just exchanging of ideas and opinions.

 

Have you tried the saliva technique yet?

[PovertyRow]

Kewl!

 

Does this mean you're not even going to try out the technique? All that arguing and you won't even try it.

 

I will definitely try it out. I have some old junkers that would be ideal - or I can even make them ideal! No arguing. Just exchanging of ideas and opinions.

 

Have you tried the saliva technique yet?

 

I have done the preliminary which I already wrote about. Noticed a bit of dulling in deep reds (tried out on some sales 4-color circulars). But my manager has basically been out of town for some time and I am playing dual-role. If you check my posts you will see far fewer posts than normal.

 

But what do I plan to do? First pick up some PH paper and gauge saliva PH based on what I have eaten, drunk, etc and how long after it stablizes. Then do some application on several books. I will use the same book wityh spit and with distilled water and with nothing.

 

Then? Keep areas exposed to light without benefot of UV protection. Put similar arrangements to heat/humidity (have a real old-fashioned radiator that will be handy). Put some samples in plain old [#@$%!!!] bags/[#@$%!!!] boards and also mylar/fullback in good storage conditions.

 

Then just wait and see.

 

When can i begin this? Based on work? A couple opf weeks ANYWAY if not longer. But it IS something I want to see.

 

If I want to go nuts I would try exact same thing with acid and alkaline PH results.

 

[FFB]

Kewl!

 

Does this mean you're not even going to try out the technique? All that arguing and you won't even try it.

 

I will definitely try it out. I have some old junkers that would be ideal - or I can even make them ideal! No arguing. Just exchanging of ideas and opinions.

 

Have you tried the saliva technique yet?

 

I have done the preliminary which I already wrote about. Noticed a bit of dulling in deep reds (tried out on some sales 4-color circulars). But my manager has basically been out of town for some time and I am playing dual-role. If you check my posts you will see far fewer posts than normal.

 

But what do I plan to do? First pick up some PH paper and gauge saliva PH based on what I have eaten, drunk, etc and how long after it stablizes. Then do some application on several books. I will use the same book wityh spit and with distilled water and with nothing.

 

Then? Keep areas exposed to light without benefot of UV protection. Put similar arrangements to heat/humidity (have a real old-fashioned radiator that will be handy). Put some samples in plain old [#@$%!!!] bags/[#@$%!!!] boards and also mylar/fullback in good storage conditions.

 

Then just wait and see.

 

When can i begin this? Based on work? A couple opf weeks ANYWAY if not longer. But it IS something I want to see.

 

If I want to go nuts I would try exact same thing with acid and alkaline PH results.

 

 

Further to our discussion of spit as a conservation treatment, READ THIS!!!!

 

Here's a selected quote of the relevant portion:

 

Surface Cleaning Strategies

Surface grime is very polar in nature. It has an enormous surface area which is exposed to oxygen and therefore tends to be oxidized. Surface dirt also tends to be weakly acidic (oxidation to carboxylic acid groups) which is why it responds so well to ammonia and triethanolamine solutions. (Important layers beneath the surface grime may not respond so favorably to such alkaline attacks; solutions with a pH exceeding 8-8.5, advises Richard, should be avoided.)

 

We all know the virtues of spit cleaning. Spit is warm, when fresh, and highly polar. It is also pH and ionic strength balanced and contains amylase, the starch-"eating" enzyme. No conservator could live without spit, no matter how embarrassing it is in a report.

 

[PovertyRow]

We all know the virtues of spit cleaning. Spit is warm, when fresh, and highly polar. It is also pH and ionic strength balanced and contains amylase, the starch-"eating" enzyme. No conservator could live without spit, no matter how embarrassing it is in a report.

 

So have you measured your spit for PH at various times and after consuming various consumables? I thought I would have time to actually get into this but not really. More pressing matters are occupying me, as my relative low post count indicates.

[deathlok]

[FFB]

We all know the virtues of spit cleaning. Spit is warm, when fresh, and highly polar. It is also pH and ionic strength balanced and contains amylase, the starch-"eating" enzyme. No conservator could live without spit, no matter how embarrassing it is in a report.

 

So have you measured your spit for PH at various times and after consuming various consumables? I thought I would have time to actually get into this but not really. More pressing matters are occupying me, as my relative low post count indicates.

 

Nope. You?

 

Anyway, I've been thinking about this -- most 1950s-60s cover stock is heavy on the alum-rosin sizing and is supposedly what, around pH 5.5 or lower when the book is printed? And even if stored correctly, it's still probably 5.0 or lower by now, right? How much effect would your spit have on that if your spit were mildly acidic at around pH 6.0 (7.0 being pH neutral for those others following the discussion). If anything, unless you just finished sucking on a lemon, your spit is probably less acidic than cover stock from the 1950s/60s.

[PovertyRow]

We all know the virtues of spit cleaning. Spit is warm, when fresh, and highly polar. It is also pH and ionic strength balanced and contains amylase, the starch-"eating" enzyme. No conservator could live without spit, no matter how embarrassing it is in a report.

 

So have you measured your spit for PH at various times and after consuming various consumables? I thought I would have time to actually get into this but not really. More pressing matters are occupying me, as my relative low post count indicates.

 

Nope. You?

 

Anyway, I've been thinking about this -- most 1950s-60s cover stock is heavy on the alum-rosin sizing and is supposedly what, around pH 5.5 or lower when the book is printed? And even if stored correctly, it's still probably 5.0 or lower by now, right? How much effect would your spit have on that if your spit were mildly acidic at around pH 6.0 (7.0 being pH neutral for those others following the discussion). If anything, unless you just finished sucking on a lemon, your spit is probably less acidic than cover stock from the 1950s/60s.

 

Basically, Scott, I really don't care about the alum rosin sizing etc. We all know that acid and comic books go hand in hand. We also know that the acids can be managed by proper strorage. What I care about is simply the things I have been taught and have learned through self-study and conversations. No truly professional restorer is going to use acidic materials. Nor are they going to use untested materials. They are going to use proven archival materials. I remember you saying, as a counter to me about the wheat and rice pastes, that "these are not rocket science". Well, they are NOT rocket science. Most processes in restoration ARE simple processes. (But knowing how to mix wheat paste and knowing how to apply it and when to apply it are very different.) Being simple does not make them unimportant. Unfortunatley, being simple can make them SEEM unimportant. But I digress. Actually, I don't. I have been wanting to say these things for some time.

 

For me, Scott, there are already proven processes that will do exactly what you say the application of saliva will do. They are more benign processes because they do not depend on the direct application of a liquid to the book and have that liquid air dry. The permanence of the application of saliva has yet to be determined to my knowledge. Nor has anything else about it.

 

The proven process require a tacking iron (pretty cheap), perhaps some distilled water and acid-free paper for humidification (not wetting, just slight humidification) and some practice.

 

Bottom line? I'll buy a tacking iron, should I ever decide to make any changes to my books.

 

So maybe, Scott, you have stumbled on a process that will eventually end up in the arsenal of restorers. Maybe not. My main impetus in my responses to you was simple. You seemed to be advocating the process as a valid thing. When I discussed it you didn't have any real facts about it. I know spit about spit and expressed some concerns about acidity, enyzmes etc. You seemed to know more about the composition and corrected me. Fine and good. But at this point it seems you still haven't done any testing on the process you proposed and are just going on theory and specualation. Again all fine and good. But it would be nice to see a disclaimer somewhere saying the application of saliva remains untested as far as impact and as far as the longevity of the treatment.

 

I thank you.

 

::edited to add...:: Hey DL! I hope you had a large popcorn for that!

[FFB]

We all know the virtues of spit cleaning. Spit is warm, when fresh, and highly polar. It is also pH and ionic strength balanced and contains amylase, the starch-"eating" enzyme. No conservator could live without spit, no matter how embarrassing it is in a report.

 

So have you measured your spit for PH at various times and after consuming various consumables? I thought I would have time to actually get into this but not really. More pressing matters are occupying me, as my relative low post count indicates.

 

Nope. You?

 

Anyway, I've been thinking about this -- most 1950s-60s cover stock is heavy on the alum-rosin sizing and is supposedly what, around pH 5.5 or lower when the book is printed? And even if stored correctly, it's still probably 5.0 or lower by now, right? How much effect would your spit have on that if your spit were mildly acidic at around pH 6.0 (7.0 being pH neutral for those others following the discussion). If anything, unless you just finished sucking on a lemon, your spit is probably less acidic than cover stock from the 1950s/60s.

 

Basically, Scott, I really don't care about the alum rosin sizing etc. We all know that acid and comic books go hand in hand. We also know that the acids can be managed by proper strorage. What I care about is simply the things I have been taught and have learned through self-study and conversations. No truly professional restorer is going to use acidic materials. Nor are they going to use untested materials. They are going to use proven archival materials. I remember you saying, as a counter to me about the wheat and rice pastes, that "these are not rocket science". Well, they are NOT rocket science. Most processes in restoration ARE simple processes. (But knowing how to mix wheat paste and knowing how to apply it and when to apply it are very different.) Being simple does not make them unimportant. Unfortunatley, being simple can make them SEEM unimportant. But I digress. Actually, I don't. I have been wanting to say these things for some time.

 

For me, Scott, there are already proven processes that will do exactly what you say the application of saliva will do. They are more benign processes because they do not depend on the direct application of a liquid to the book and have that liquid air dry. The permanence of the application of saliva has yet to be determined to my knowledge. Nor has anything else about it.

 

The proven process require a tacking iron (pretty cheap), perhaps some distilled water and acid-free paper for humidification (not wetting, just slight humidification) and some practice.

 

Bottom line? I'll buy a tacking iron, should I ever decide to make any changes to my books.

 

So maybe, Scott, you have stumbled on a process that will eventually end up in the arsenal of restorers. Maybe not. My main impetus in my responses to you was simple. You seemed to be advocating the process as a valid thing. When I discussed it you didn't have any real facts about it. I know spit about spit and expressed some concerns about acidity, enyzmes etc. You seemed to know more about the composition and corrected me. Fine and good. But at this point it seems you still haven't done any testing on the process you proposed and are just going on theory and specualation. Again all fine and good. But it would be nice to see a disclaimer somewhere saying the application of saliva remains untested as far as impact and as far as the longevity of the treatment.

 

I thank you.

 

::edited to add...:: Hey DL! I hope you had a large popcorn for that!

 

Actually, the point of the article I quoted to you was that spit is already in the arsenal of conservationists and has been tested by them. I also found a different article online ( HERE ) that says that human saliva in a healthy person is around pH 6.5 to 7.5 (just about perfectly neutral pH, and roughly the same pH as archival glues -- wheat paste has a pH of 6.0-6.5). That same source also says that in unhealthy people (especially cancer patients) it can fall as low as 4.5 to 5.7 pH. Next to the alum rosin sized papers that start out at pH of 5.5 or so and get lower as time goes by, the saliva will be less acidic and will not raise the acidity of the paper to which it is applied unless the spitter is a cancer patient.

 

As for the "important/unimportant/simple/complex" points you're raising, I don't remember arguing with you about the importance or unimportance of any of that stuff. Where are you going with this?

 

As you may recall, we were talking about whether certain things are "restoration" or not. I pointed out that with something as simple as a wetted fingertip, you could straighten out a blunted corner. That's it.

[PovertyRow]

Actually, the point of the article I quoted to you was that spit is already in the arsenal of conservationists and has been tested by them. I also found a different article online ( HERE ) that says that human saliva in a healthy person is around pH 6.5 to 7.5 (just about perfectly neutral pH, and roughly the same pH as archival glues -- wheat paste has a pH of 6.0-6.5).

 

OK I am really confused now, younger brother. I missed the article about saliva being in the conservationists arsenal. Where IS that? You did say

 

I'm not saying saliva is an archivally sound restoration medium and I made no representations about whether it will or won't harm your comic book over the long haul.

 

So which is it? I am growing con-fuse-ed.

[FFB]

Actually, the point of the article I quoted to you was that spit is already in the arsenal of conservationists and has been tested by them. I also found a different article online ( HERE ) that says that human saliva in a healthy person is around pH 6.5 to 7.5 (just about perfectly neutral pH, and roughly the same pH as archival glues -- wheat paste has a pH of 6.0-6.5).

 

OK I am really confused now, younger brother. I missed the article about saliva being in the conservationists arsenal. Where IS that?

 

I linked to it in my post above. It is the link that says "READ THIS!!!!" I also quoted the section of the article for you in the text, and I know you read it because you quoted it.

 

 

You did say

 

 

I'm not saying saliva is an archivally sound restoration medium and I made no representations about whether it will or won't harm your comic book over the long haul.

 

So which is it? I am growing con-fuse-ed.

 

I said this part you just quoted weeks ago, before I found the article I posted today about conservationists using saliva as a conservation tool. So to be clear, after further research, it appears that I am ready to make the claim that saliva is an archivally sound restoration medium, whereas before (when I posted the comment you italicized above) I was not ready to make that claim.

 

Are you de-confused now?

[PovertyRow]

Actually, the point of the article I quoted to you was that spit is already in the arsenal of conservationists and has been tested by them. I also found a different article online ( HERE ) that says that human saliva in a healthy person is around pH 6.5 to 7.5 (just about perfectly neutral pH, and roughly the same pH as archival glues -- wheat paste has a pH of 6.0-6.5).

 

OK I am really confused now, younger brother. I missed the article about saliva being in the conservationists arsenal. Where IS that?

 

I linked to it in my post above. It is the link that says "READ THIS!!!!" I also quoted the section of the article for you in the text, and I know you read it because you quoted it.

 

 

You did say

 

 

I'm not saying saliva is an archivally sound restoration medium and I made no representations about whether it will or won't harm your comic book over the long haul.

 

So which is it? I am growing con-fuse-ed.

 

I said this part you just quoted weeks ago, before I found the article I posted today about conservationists using saliva as a conservation tool. So to be clear, after further research, it appears that I am ready to make the claim that saliva is an archivally sound restoration medium, whereas before (when I posted the comment you italicized above) I was not ready to make that claim.

 

Are you de-confused now?

 

OK - now I have the link and have read it. The article seems to be addressing (perhaps) paintings or "works of art": The recent re-evaluation of what it is we are doing when we "clean" a work of art with solvents is revolutionary.

 

The only reference I found to paper in the mian link was this: Cellulosic materials and many other materials of biological origin, such as wood, paper, and leather, are very sensitive to water, which swells and disrupts their structure. In some cases this swelling is inappropriate. To avoid damage to an already degraded object, the conservator will wish to avoid aqueous solutions. As might be expected, the very polar solvents, such as alcohols, may also prove deleterious. In formulating a conservation treatment, the conservator will deliberately use the least polar system that works. (In other cases, as in the washing of degraded paper objects, the swelling and probable structural changes are used to advantage.)

 

That was it for paper (except for some refs to a written paper on a subject and for the use of PH paper.)

 

So while this article does imply that saliva in in the conservator's arsenal, it begs the question "what kind of conservator?" I mean, I can see saliva as being useful for automobile restoration. And a pro auto restorer may well apply some "spoit and polish" to a car.

 

But no where in those links did I see anything that supports the use of saliva in the conservation or restoration of 4-color printed paper.

[FFB]

Actually, the point of the article I quoted to you was that spit is already in the arsenal of conservationists and has been tested by them. I also found a different article online ( HERE ) that says that human saliva in a healthy person is around pH 6.5 to 7.5 (just about perfectly neutral pH, and roughly the same pH as archival glues -- wheat paste has a pH of 6.0-6.5).

 

OK I am really confused now, younger brother. I missed the article about saliva being in the conservationists arsenal. Where IS that?

 

I linked to it in my post above. It is the link that says "READ THIS!!!!" I also quoted the section of the article for you in the text, and I know you read it because you quoted it.

 

 

You did say

 

 

I'm not saying saliva is an archivally sound restoration medium and I made no representations about whether it will or won't harm your comic book over the long haul.

 

So which is it? I am growing con-fuse-ed.

 

I said this part you just quoted weeks ago, before I found the article I posted today about conservationists using saliva as a conservation tool. So to be clear, after further research, it appears that I am ready to make the claim that saliva is an archivally sound restoration medium, whereas before (when I posted the comment you italicized above) I was not ready to make that claim.

 

Are you de-confused now?

 

OK - now I have the link and have read it. The article seems to be addressing (perhaps) paintings or "works of art": The recent re-evaluation of what it is we are doing when we "clean" a work of art with solvents is revolutionary.

 

The only reference I found to paper in the mian link was this: Cellulosic materials and many other materials of biological origin, such as wood, paper, and leather, are very sensitive to water, which swells and disrupts their structure. In some cases this swelling is inappropriate. To avoid damage to an already degraded object, the conservator will wish to avoid aqueous solutions. As might be expected, the very polar solvents, such as alcohols, may also prove deleterious. In formulating a conservation treatment, the conservator will deliberately use the least polar system that works. (In other cases, as in the washing of degraded paper objects, the swelling and probable structural changes are used to advantage.)

 

That was it for paper (except for some refs to a written paper on a subject and for the use of PH paper.)

 

So while this article does imply that saliva in in the conservator's arsenal, it begs the question "what kind of conservator?" I mean, I can see saliva as being useful for automobile restoration. And a pro auto restorer may well apply some "spoit and polish" to a car.

 

But no where in those links did I see anything that supports the use of saliva in the conservation or restoration of 4-color printed paper.

 

Well, now you're guilty of oversimplification. The article I linked to was an article about solvents in general and their use in various conservation treatments. The language you quoted cautions against the use of aqueous solutions in general when treating paper, but to interpret that as saying that a conservationist wouldn't use any aqueous solution around paper is just plain wrong and you know that.

 

Since human saliva from a healthy person is generally neutral in pH (and more alkaline than wheat paste), as long as the saliva doesn't dissolve the inks or digest the cellulose (which human saliva won't do), there shouldn't be any problem with using it when you wet your fingertips to straighten out a blunted edge.

[PovertyRow]

Well, now you're guilty of oversimplification. The article I linked to was an article about solvents in general and their use in various conservation treatments.

 

Don;t know where you got that from, Scott. The articles are about paintings and almost exclusively about impacting painting varnishes. The following are direct bfrom both the first and secoond link. This is an article dealing with oil paintings...and now the cites:

 

"You have a painting with a layer of aged dammar varnish on the surface."

 

"As mentioned in Part I, oxidized varnish, too polar to be soluble in xylene alone, can be dissolved in a gel..."

 

"If there is a varnish film below the oil layer that is susceptible to the deoxycholate soap solution, the Lipase can be prepared in a Tris buffer solution"

 

Further it states

 

"A solvent is strong or weak relative to the material being dissolved (and relative to the material we do not want to dissolve). This concept is crucial to the safe exploitation of solvents in conservation. It pertains to formulating solvent carriers for adhesives and varnishes, to the safe removal of old varnish layers from the surface of paintings, to the removal of aged masking tape adhesive residues from anywhere they shouldn't be." Here they are talking about paintings.

 

"Now for the Richard Wolbers revolution. You have a painting with a layer of aged dammar varnish on the surface"

 

"Whether this new approach to solvency is used to unpack (Richard's term) the layers on the surface of a painting, or to remove masking tape residue from wherever it oughtn't be, it is a revolution that all practicing conservators will want to join."

 

The large link in the first article states "I have compiled some formulations for varnishes and other handy things. If there is continued interest, I think this might be a valuable on-going Newsletter topic." (note varnishes). The next paragraph says "The following varnish formulations are attributed to Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Where they first originated is not clear, but very similar recipes are found in painting conservation studios everywhere." (Note "painting conservation studios").

 

In fact, almost of of the flormulae in the large link from the first article are for various varnish work. It finishes with this, probably the most revealing as to the nature of this piece: This list need not be limited to painting conservators' formulae. Please send your every-day workhorse formulations to: (address follows)"

 

::edited to add "Please send your every-day workhorse formulations to: (address follows)"" to the final patragraph. Missed it on the copy/paste.

[deathlok]

Do you think you two could over simplify your responses to each other.

 

 

You know, something along the lines of, "Look dillweed, you don't know what you're talking about."

 

Too much reading going here for a comic message board. If this was an actual comic, you guys would have been cancelled after the first issue.

[greggy]

Do you think you two could over simplify your responses to each other.

 

 

You know, something along the lines of, "Look dillweed, you don't know what you're talking about."

 

Too much reading going here for a comic message board. If this was an actual comic, you guys would have been cancelled after the first issue.

[deathlok]

Do you think you two could over simplify your responses to each other.

 

 

You know, something along the lines of, "Look dillweed, you don't know what you're talking about."

 

Too much reading going here for a comic message board. If this was an actual comic, you guys would have been cancelled after the first issue.

 

Exactly Greggy. The visual medium. Just use graemlins. Quick, succinct, and easy to read.

[greggy]

Do you think you two could over simplify your responses to each other.

 

 

You know, something along the lines of, "Look dillweed, you don't know what you're talking about."

 

Too much reading going here for a comic message board. If this was an actual comic, you guys would have been cancelled after the first issue.

 

Exactly Greggy. The visual medium. Just use graemlins. Quick, succinct, and easy to read.

Word

[deathlok]

Do you think you two could over simplify your responses to each other.

 

 

You know, something along the lines of, "Look dillweed, you don't know what you're talking about."

 

Too much reading going here for a comic message board. If this was an actual comic, you guys would have been cancelled after the first issue.

 

Exactly Greggy. The visual medium. Just use graemlins. Quick, succinct, and easy to read.

Word

[greggy]

Do you think you two could over simplify your responses to each other.

 

 

You know, something along the lines of, "Look dillweed, you don't know what you're talking about."

 

Too much reading going here for a comic message board. If this was an actual comic, you guys would have been cancelled after the first issue.

 

Exactly Greggy. The visual medium. Just use graemlins. Quick, succinct, and easy to read.

Word

My work is done here. Meet you in another thread!