Mylar + microchamber paper

[cousin itt]

So, if it's not considered bad to use these mists, what's a good brand?

 

Also, are we certain that using these mists won't even result in a conserved label, or a green label, or is it too soon to tell (since they introduced the conserved label)?

 

Does a single application of this mist protect the paper forever, or do you need to reapply it just like you need to swap out microchamber paper after 7 years?

[Illustrious]

People have already submitted books that were treated with Archival Mist and they've come back blue label. Just don't spray it on covers:

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2785593

[VintageComics]

I was curious about this as well since "the other company" won't be using MCP.

 

Something I did learn from a bit of research is that the material "the other company" uses apparently breathes and they are not as worried about off gassing.

 

Using the paper as an alkaline buffer is an entirely different issue though as that is done through having physical contact of the MCP to the comic pages.

[mschmidt]

I was curious about this as well since "the other company" won't be using MCP.

 

Something I did learn from a bit of research is that the material "the other company" uses apparently breathes and they are not as worried about off gassing.

 

Barex (used by CGC) and PETG (used by the Voldemort company) are both inert - neither will off-gas. It's silly how they're pretending that the MCP is in there for the benefit of the holder and not the book

[plitch]

Let me just ask two simple questions.

 

Is it better to have MCP then not to have it?

 

In 15 years CGC pricing has evolved and our costs for parts have risen steadily, but never have we discussed removing MCP from our holder. It is an obvious cost-cutting measure, yet we have never removed MCP and have no plans to do so. Why would we leave MCP in our holders if it wasn't beneficial to the book?

 

[plitch]

They are both rhetorical, Roy.

[VintageComics]

Let me just ask two simple questions.

 

Is it better to have MCP then not to have it?

 

In 15 years CGC pricing has evolved and our costs for parts have risen steadily, but never have we discussed removing MCP from our holder. It is an obvious cost-cutting measure, yet we have never removed MCP and have no plans to do so. Why would we leave MCP in our holders if it wasn't beneficial to the book?

 

I've already answered it several times in this thread. Mike just cut it out of my quoted reply.

 

Using the paper as an alkaline buffer is an entirely different issue though as that is done through having physical contact of the MCP to the comic pages.

 

I personally believe it's better for the book and said so from the beginning. (thumbs u

[telerites]

Let me just ask two simple questions.

 

Is it better to have MCP then not to have it?

 

In 15 years CGC pricing has evolved and our costs for parts have risen steadily, but never have we discussed removing MCP from our holder. It is an obvious cost-cutting measure, yet we have never removed MCP and have no plans to do so. Why would we leave MCP in our holders if it wasn't beneficial to the book?

 

This raises some interesting points for me anyway. I had always assumed it was best but is there conclusive evidence? I see the various posts and opinions here and realize they are made by more knowledgeable than me on the subject.

 

But if it does save money to eliminate the use of MCP which is passed onto the consumer in the way of price reductions and there is no verifiable analytical proof that it helps , consumers would benefit.

 

What was CGC's basis for using MCP in the first place? Assumptions it was best and/or experts/research that it should be used?