Cole Schave collection: face jobs?

[DeliBebek]

Didn't CGC state that the "Costanza" effect could be remedied by a light pressing?

 

I vaguely recall that, but I don't recall anyone offering a good explanation as for how another pressing would un-shrink a cover.

 

It won't.

joeypost, did you think at some point that it would possible to correct the condition of the comics exhibited in this thread?

 

Also, were you ever able to duplicate the condition of said comics by experimenting on a sample copy?

[joeypost]

Didn't CGC state that the "Costanza" effect could be remedied by a light pressing?

 

I vaguely recall that, but I don't recall anyone offering a good explanation as for how another pressing would un-shrink a cover.

 

It won't.

joeypost, did you think at some point that it would possible to correct the condition of the comics exhibited in this thread?

 

Also, were you ever able to duplicate the condition of said comics by experimenting on a sample copy?

 

Yes, it can be "corrected".

 

I have tried but I may have been using the wrong books. I got the humidity levels of the books I was working on heavy enough that the books almost looked like they were "sweating". That and temperatures 30-40 degrees higher than I usually use did not shrink any covers on the two books I repeatedly worked on.

 

My next step would be to almost saturate the book, blot it and then press it while it is still damp. I have not been at a show and have no raw books from the time period most of these book are from. If anyone wants to donate a book to the cause I would be happy to provide the time.

[faster friends]

I would think any correction to fix the top right edge overhang would involve an adjustment if the spine again and may put more stress on the staples.

[jimbo_707]

I think it's safe to say that cover shrinkage has been going on as long pressing with moisture has been going on.

 

No it isn't, at least not with any identifiable consistency.

 

It's the nature of the material used for the covers. You can't expect to add heat and moisture and not have shrinkage.

 

Yes you can. As Joeypost pointed out and as many have pointed out about Matt's pressing until this year, they've both been doing it for years without seeing shrinkage. It's almost certainly excessive humidity that Matt has been trying recently. I've seen no evidence of this prior to this year or even the summer of this year.

fantastic_four,

 

With all due respect, you seem to be inexorably self-confident in your assumptions.

 

What, specifically, in the above quote is an "assumption"? You asserted that shrinkage has always happened, and I asserted nobody has demonstrated that. And that's true, nobody has. I didn't say you weren't right that shrinkage hasn't always happened, just that we don't know one way or the other. You also asserted that you can't add heat and moisture and not have shrinkage, and since all pressing doesn't lead to shrinkage, it's obvious THAT'S an exaggeration.

 

 

Here is a picture of a book that I recently purchased raw from Worldwide. It had been in their inventory for quite a while - since long before Nelson left, in fact:

 

 

Here is an older picture of the same book, slabbed, shown to me by another board member:

 

 

You can see more white along the right edge of the book now than when it was in the slab - not a lot, but there is a hairbreadth's more newsprint showing. If you follow the white line of newsprint visible along the right edge, you can clearly follow farther down in the newer, "raw" picture.

 

I can't entirely tell what's going on with that book. What happened to the interior of the book poking up past the top edge in the slabbed "before" picture? More shifting of the interior happened there than on the right edge--it's visible in the "before," but gone in the "after."

Haven't we already seen that covers are shrinking horizontally but expanding vertically?

 

One of yours assumptions is believing Matt Nelson is telling the truth when he says he has pressed books without shrinkage. I'm sure he's never measured any books precisely enough to be able to make that statement.

 

You also keep stating that not all pressing leads to shrinkage. That's also an assumption, and one that I disagree with strongly. There may not be enough to catch with the naked eye in all cases, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening.

 

There's no practical way to show that all books that have been pressed have shrunken covers. That would require precise before and after measurements of all books ever pressed.

 

I would be willing to bet that if you measured the cover on any comic book - precisely, say with a CMM or a very precise laser tape measure - then sent it to CCS to be pressed, and then took measurements again afterward, you would see a difference. If you disagree, I challenge you to do exactly that with a book and then show me the data. (Getting precise measurements would probably mean disassembling the book and measuring the cover in a flat state.) When I say all books shrink, I'm talking a very small amount in some cases, not always an amount that could be measured with a tape measure with only 1/64" gradations.

 

Now, if a book were pressed without humidity, then it might be a different story.

[THE_BEYONDER]

Would be nice to have some form of response from Zaid, Nelson and/or Litch at this point.

 

This issue is NOT going away...I ensure you.

[fantastic_four]

One of yours assumptions is believing Matt Nelson is telling the truth when he says he has pressed books without shrinkage.

 

I never said that. I was referring to people who posted in the thread that they have used Matt's pressing services for years and not seen shrinkage. I've never heard Matt comment upon his own track record with shrinkage other than to say he has only seen it with some, but not all, Silver Age Marvels.

 

 

You also keep stating that not all pressing leads to shrinkage. That's also an assumption, and one that I disagree with strongly. There may not be enough to catch with the naked eye in all cases, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening.

 

There's no practical way to show that all books that have been pressed have shrunken covers. That would require precise before and after measurements of all books ever pressed.

 

I would be willing to bet that if you measured the cover on any comic book - precisely, say with a CMM or a very precise laser tape measure - then sent it to CCS to be pressed, and then took measurements again afterward, you would see a difference. If you disagree, I challenge you to do exactly that with a book and then show me the data. (Getting precise measurements would probably mean disassembling the book and measuring the cover in a flat state.) When I say all books shrink, I'm talking a very small amount in some cases, not always an amount that could be measured with a tape measure with only 1/64" gradations.

 

Now, if a book were pressed without humidity, then it might be a different story.

 

Interesting hypothesis that is well-worth testing--I certainly was limiting my own assertion to shrinkage that is fairly easily observable to the naked eye. One issue that would have to be worked out is that comics are exposed to humidity almost all the time whether they're being pressed or not, so we'd need to specify more precisely what humidity levels we suspect lead to measurable shrinkage.

[jimbo_707]

Jimbo, if you really want to prove it to yourself or not, and I'm sure we all would learn from the results, why not take a few books to make specific examples of and have Joey (or Matt, or ccs, or etc.) press them to your instructions -- but first, scan in hires on a particular piece of equipment "raw" (not in a slab) and then, replicate that scan as closely as possible to the same conditions once you get the book(s) back.

 

I'm not sure whether anybody presses to specific instructions; I think they have set processes in place.

 

Submitting some test books is something to think about. I wouldn't want to do it with any high-grade books, but I might consider picking up some mid-grade books for that purpose.

[originalisbest]

Would be nice to have some form of response from Zaid, Nelson and/or Litch at this point.

 

This issue is NOT going away...I ensure you.

 

It's nice of you to ensure me, but I already have coverage.

[fantastic_four]

Jimbo, if you really want to prove it to yourself or not, and I'm sure we all would learn from the results, why not take a few books to make specific examples of and have Joey (or Matt, or ccs, or etc.) press them to your instructions -- but first, scan in hires on a particular piece of equipment "raw" (not in a slab) and then, replicate that scan as closely as possible to the same conditions once you get the book(s) back.

 

I'm not sure whether anybody presses to specific instructions; I think they have set processes in place.

 

Submitting some test books is something to think about. I wouldn't want to do it with any high-grade books, but I might consider picking up some mid-grade books for that purpose.

 

Nobody has to send books to Joey or anyone else, they just need to construct a humidity chamber. You can create a fairly simple one for pretty cheap with materials from Target--it's just a closed container that you put a tray of water in that has safeguards to prevent the items you're humidifying from falling into the water source. I'm sure Joey and Matt have gone through multiple versions of a chamber over the years and have developed something more complex at this point that allows them to humidify as many books as they can.

 

Here's a link to an overview for how to humidify paper and build simple chambers for doing it I posted earlier in the thread:

 

http://cool.conservation-us.org/coolaic/sg/bpg/annual/v21/bp21-15.pdf

[originalisbest]

Jimbo, if you really want to prove it to yourself or not, and I'm sure we all would learn from the results, why not take a few books to make specific examples of and have Joey (or Matt, or ccs, or etc.) press them to your instructions -- but first, scan in hires on a particular piece of equipment "raw" (not in a slab) and then, replicate that scan as closely as possible to the same conditions once you get the book(s) back.

 

I'm not sure whether anybody presses to specific instructions; I think they have set processes in place.

 

Submitting some test books is something to think about. I wouldn't want to do it with any high-grade books, but I might consider picking up some mid-grade books for that purpose.

 

Thanks for considering, Jimbo! Though for some reason grinin got the attribution, it's my post you were quoting above. Hope you had a terrific Christmas! And by specific instructions, I just mean for the submitter's request to say: "do what you do -- but the goal here is to fix the ugly and obvious fubar'd upper right corner, or excessive interior page pokethrough, etc. if at all possible.)

[originalisbest]

Jimbo, if you really want to prove it to yourself or not, and I'm sure we all would learn from the results, why not take a few books to make specific examples of and have Joey (or Matt, or ccs, or etc.) press them to your instructions -- but first, scan in hires on a particular piece of equipment "raw" (not in a slab) and then, replicate that scan as closely as possible to the same conditions once you get the book(s) back.

 

I'm not sure whether anybody presses to specific instructions; I think they have set processes in place.

 

Submitting some test books is something to think about. I wouldn't want to do it with any high-grade books, but I might consider picking up some mid-grade books for that purpose.

 

Nobody has to send books to Joey or anyone else, they just need to construct a humidity chamber. You can create a fairly simple one for pretty cheap with materials from Target--it's just a closed container that you put a tray of water in that has safeguards to prevent the items you're humidifying from falling into the water source. I'm sure Joey and Matt have gone through multiple versions of a chamber over the years and have developed something more complex at this point that allows them to humidify as many books as they can.

 

Here's a link to an overview for how to humidify paper and build simple chambers for doing it I posted earlier in the thread:

 

http://cool.conservation-us.org/coolaic/sg/bpg/annual/v21/bp21-15.pdf

 

Apart from fiddling around with the books themselves, my main argument is if we're to discern subtle, truly minute appearance differences via scans, then the before and after scans and setup have to be on identical equipment and done in exactly the same manner, as much as is reasonably possible.

[InvstmntComcSuply]

Didn't CGC state that the "Costanza" effect could be remedied by a light pressing?

 

I vaguely recall that, but I don't recall anyone offering a good explanation as for how another pressing would un-shrink a cover.

 

Are my posts invisible?

 

 

Odd, though, one would think after the flag was raised so long ago, that all the books just now coming to market, would have already been returned for the "light pressing" to fix the shrunken covers, prior to putting them on the auction block.

 

Huh? Not sure what you mean.

 

If you determined that a service you contracted damaged your product and it was later stated that the damage could be fixed, would you not return it to be fixed prior to auctioning it? Especially now that there is a heightened awareness about the issue among many of the folks who are regular bidders for such items?

[originalisbest]

Didn't CGC state that the "Costanza" effect could be remedied by a light pressing?

 

I vaguely recall that, but I don't recall anyone offering a good explanation as for how another pressing would un-shrink a cover.

 

Are my posts invisible?

 

 

Odd, though, one would think after the flag was raised so long ago, that all the books just now coming to market, would have already been returned for the "light pressing" to fix the shrunken covers, prior to putting them on the auction block.

 

Huh? Not sure what you mean.

 

If you determined that a service you contracted damaged your product and it was later stated that the damage could be fixed, would you not return it to be fixed prior to auctioning it? Especially now that there is a heightened awareness about the issue among many of the folks who are regular bidders for such items?

 

Per my reply to this notion earlier, I don't think there's been enough time to try and resubmit for a "fix", or perhaps the new owners don't care to try, can't afford to try, or don't think it makes a difference, etc., etc.

[THE_BEYONDER]

Would be nice to have some form of response from Zaid, Nelson and/or Litch at this point.

 

This issue is NOT going away...I ensure you.

 

It's nice of you to ensure me, but I already have coverage.

 

[originalisbest]

Would be nice to have some form of response from Zaid, Nelson and/or Litch at this point.

 

This issue is NOT going away...I ensure you.

 

It's nice of you to ensure me, but I already have coverage.

 

 

BTW, I agree with you, and was just having some fun with the word mixup.

[jimbo_707]

Jimbo, if you really want to prove it to yourself or not, and I'm sure we all would learn from the results, why not take a few books to make specific examples of and have Joey (or Matt, or ccs, or etc.) press them to your instructions -- but first, scan in hires on a particular piece of equipment "raw" (not in a slab) and then, replicate that scan as closely as possible to the same conditions once you get the book(s) back.

 

I'm not sure whether anybody presses to specific instructions; I think they have set processes in place.

 

Submitting some test books is something to think about. I wouldn't want to do it with any high-grade books, but I might consider picking up some mid-grade books for that purpose.

 

Nobody has to send books to Joey or anyone else, they just need to construct a humidity chamber. You can create a fairly simple one for pretty cheap with materials from Target--it's just a closed container that you put a tray of water in that has safeguards to prevent the items you're humidifying from falling into the water source. I'm sure Joey and Matt have gone through multiple versions of a chamber over the years and have developed something more complex at this point that allows them to humidify as many books as they can.

 

Here's a link to an overview for how to humidify paper and build simple chambers for doing it I posted earlier in the thread:

 

http://cool.conservation-us.org/coolaic/sg/bpg/annual/v21/bp21-15.pdf

That would be an interesting experiment, but it would be a different one. I'm not sure whether humidity alone is causing the shrinkage or whether it's a combination of the humidity combined with the (presumably) rapid drying that takes places when the book is placed in a press, which I believe is quite hot. I suspect it's mainly the humidity, but I don't like to jump to conclusions.

 

If I do the humidity-only experiment, I'll sort of be flying blind; I wouldn't be comfortable doing that with anything but real beaters.

[the blob]

I won't be reading 492 pages of this, but how does a book with a big "R" written on the cover get a 9.6?

[THE_BEYONDER]

Would be nice to have some form of response from Zaid, Nelson and/or Litch at this point.

 

This issue is NOT going away...I ensure you.

 

It's nice of you to ensure me, but I already have coverage.

 

 

BTW, I agree with you, and was just having some fun with the word mixup.

 

Mixup?

 

You may want to google the word 'ensure'.

[InvstmntComcSuply]

Didn't CGC state that the "Costanza" effect could be remedied by a light pressing?

 

I vaguely recall that, but I don't recall anyone offering a good explanation as for how another pressing would un-shrink a cover.

 

Are my posts invisible?

 

 

Odd, though, one would think after the flag was raised so long ago, that all the books just now coming to market, would have already been returned for the "light pressing" to fix the shrunken covers, prior to putting them on the auction block.

 

Huh? Not sure what you mean.

 

If you determined that a service you contracted damaged your product and it was later stated that the damage could be fixed, would you not return it to be fixed prior to auctioning it? Especially now that there is a heightened awareness about the issue among many of the folks who are regular bidders for such items?

 

Per my reply to this notion earlier, I don't think there's been enough time to try and resubmit for a "fix", or perhaps the new owners don't care to try, can't afford to try, or don't think it makes a difference, etc., etc.

I'm not talking about the new owners. I am talking about the person who initially had the work done, in many/most cases for no other reason than to make the books more marketable. It simply defies logic, that the original submitter would not have returned the book to be "repaired".

[fantastic_four]

Apart from fiddling around with the books themselves, my main argument is if we're to discern subtle, truly minute appearance differences via scans, then the before and after scans and setup have to be on identical equipment and done in exactly the same manner, as much as is reasonably possible.

 

If Joey and Matt humidify with something other than water, I'd be surprised. We all have the same equipment--water--it's just a matter of different techniques for getting the water into the book. Here's how to jump to the extreme end of the humidification spectrum and guarantee shrinkage, if indeed all covers from all ages can shrink--dunk it underwater. Humidification can't get more extreme than that, and if a cover's going to shrink, it will shrink when submerged in water.