SD Comic-Con Panel Discussion On Community Issues - Input Solicited

[PedigreeMan]

It really doesn't surprise me that some of the anti-pressing crowd feel that dry cleaning isn't disclosure worthy. It is, after all, something that can be done a lot easier and safer than even professional pressing, and as such falls into a restoration category even further down the scale.

 

One point with which I'd like to quibble is in this last bit I've quoted. You can actually do quite a bit of damage to a book by dry cleaning if you don't know what you are doing.

 

Yeah, I thought about caveating that part with something like "with sufficient practice," but ultimately decided against it because the same could be said for professional pressing. If I really labored over the response, I would have probably removed the "and safer" portion and just gone along with the "a lot easier" one.

 

In the end, I agree that we're dealing with the worst case of splitting hairs here, but we're all suffering from some degree of OCD so I figure we can handle it!

 

Bottom line: Say you're negotiating for a nice, flat, white-covered book and the dealer reveals the following in response to the question, "Any pressing and/or cleaning on the thing?"

 

On pressing: "Yeah, the book looks kinda flat, doesn't it? I had it in a long box that was a bit overstuffed...." vs "Yeah, I sent that book off to Friesen who threw it on a press and bumped it from a 7.5 to a 9.0!"

 

On cleaning: "I had left the book laying around unbagged for a few days and some dust got on it, which I brushed off with my hand." vs. "Yeah, that cover had some grime on it that came right off with some Wonder Bread, of all things!"

 

Which scenarios do you think would legitimately get you a few bucks knocked off the price?

 

Alan

[FFB]

Not that I really want to get involved here, but surely scraping a bit of fuzz off your book with your fingernail does not alter the structure (molecular or otherwise) of the comic in question, whereas a good old press which applies intense pressure and moisture does. And not to its' original state, I might add.

 

Strawman argument.

 

Ah yes, the "casually and contemptuously dismissive" approach.

 

Are you telling me that isn't a strawman argument? Dry cleaning really consists of nothing more than scraping a bit of fuzz off your book with your fingernail?

 

Some dry cleaning. But if what you say is true about putty rubbers leaving residue that mingles with paper fibres, then I have to admit that you have a good case.

 

I wasn't aware that CGC could spot such practices with their microscope and can PLOD books as a result.

 

I guess rubbing off dirt with your artists' eraser (not something I recommend anyway) is therefore technically worse than NDP, a process that doesn't harm the book in any way shape or form!!!!

 

Well, nothing visible anyway.

 

 

CGC does not give the PLOD to dry cleaning because they don't consider it restoration. Not even if they can detect it. I don't know what happened with Skybolt's book, but it's possible that the book was actually reglossed before he bought it, or that CGC just made a mistake. It happens.

 

It's a bit dry, but here's a link to an article on the effects of eraser treatment on paper. Interestingly, the use of some kinds of erasers will raise the surface pH of paper and make it less acidic. If you get bored, skip to the end and just read the Conclusions section.

[skybolt]

I don't know what happened with Skybolt's book, but it's possible that the book was actually reglossed before he bought it.............

 

I guess that's a possibility. Oh well, I'll just chalk up the whole thing to experience.

[FFB]

It really doesn't surprise me that some of the anti-pressing crowd feel that dry cleaning isn't disclosure worthy. It is, after all, something that can be done a lot easier and safer than even professional pressing, and as such falls into a restoration category even further down the scale.

 

One point with which I'd like to quibble is in this last bit I've quoted. You can actually do quite a bit of damage to a book by dry cleaning if you don't know what you are doing.

 

Yeah, I thought about caveating that part with something like "with sufficient practice," but ultimately decided against it because the same could be said for professional pressing. If I really labored over the response, I would have probably removed the "and safer" portion and just gone along with the "a lot easier" one.

 

In the end, I agree that we're dealing with the worst case of splitting hairs here, but we're all suffering from some degree of OCD so I figure we can handle it!

 

Bottom line: Say you're negotiating for a nice, flat, white-covered book and the dealer reveals the following in response to the question, "Any pressing and/or cleaning on the thing?"

 

On pressing: "Yeah, the book looks kinda flat, doesn't it? I had it in a long box that was a bit overstuffed...." vs "Yeah, I sent that book off to Friesen who threw it on a press and bumped it from a 7.5 to a 9.0!"

 

On cleaning: "I had left the book laying around unbagged for a few days and some dust got on it, which I brushed off with my hand." vs. "Yeah, that cover had some grime on it that came right off with some Wonder Bread, of all things!"

 

Which scenarios do you think would legitimately get you a few bucks knocked off the price?

 

Alan

 

Neither one in either case. I don't use misconceptions about restoration to try to dicker on a dealer's asking price. And as I've said before, I couldn't care less whether a book is pressed or dry cleaned as long as both are done properly. It just isn't something I care about.

[PedigreeMan]

It really doesn't surprise me that some of the anti-pressing crowd feel that dry cleaning isn't disclosure worthy. It is, after all, something that can be done a lot easier and safer than even professional pressing, and as such falls into a restoration category even further down the scale.

 

One point with which I'd like to quibble is in this last bit I've quoted. You can actually do quite a bit of damage to a book by dry cleaning if you don't know what you are doing.

 

Yeah, I thought about caveating that part with something like "with sufficient practice," but ultimately decided against it because the same could be said for professional pressing. If I really labored over the response, I would have probably removed the "and safer" portion and just gone along with the "a lot easier" one.

 

In the end, I agree that we're dealing with the worst case of splitting hairs here, but we're all suffering from some degree of OCD so I figure we can handle it!

 

Bottom line: Say you're negotiating for a nice, flat, white-covered book and the dealer reveals the following in response to the question, "Any pressing and/or cleaning on the thing?"

 

On pressing: "Yeah, the book looks kinda flat, doesn't it? I had it in a long box that was a bit overstuffed...." vs "Yeah, I sent that book off to Friesen who threw it on a press and bumped it from a 7.5 to a 9.0!"

 

On cleaning: "I had left the book laying around unbagged for a few days and some dust got on it, which I brushed off with my hand." vs. "Yeah, that cover had some grime on it that came right off with some Wonder Bread, of all things!"

 

Which scenarios do you think would legitimately get you a few bucks knocked off the price?

 

Alan

 

Neither one in either case. I don't use misconceptions about restoration to try to dicker on a dealer's asking price. And as I've said before, I couldn't care less whether a book is pressed or dry cleaned as long as both are done properly. It just isn't something I care about.

 

Sorry. The "you" in question above was the "universal you," and not addressed to you, FFB, in particular.

[Aman619]

It really doesn't surprise me that some of the anti-pressing crowd feel that dry cleaning isn't disclosure worthy. It is, after all, something that can be done a lot easier and safer than even professional pressing, and as such falls into a restoration category even further down the scale.

 

Alan

 

Thanks for actually addressing the issue, Alan. Whether I agree with everything you said or not, at least you didn't duck the question or give me an excuse that doesn't make inherent, logical sense.

 

One point with which I'd like to quibble is in this last bit I've quoted. You can actually do quite a bit of damage to a book by dry cleaning if you don't know what you are doing. You can remove ink (remember the Cap #1 in the 6.5 section of the grading guide?), abrade the paper surface (which is inevitable to some extent every time you dry clean the book) resulting in loss of or damage to paper fibers and gloss, and you can unintentionally crease or tear the edges when working around the perimeter of the book. And since any Tom, , and Harry can go to the art supply store and buy a white art eraser, it's a lot more likely to be a widespread, amateur practice than pressing is.

 

And here's the best part from your perspective -- it is always detectable if you've got a microscope (like CGC does) because the eraser particles bind with the paper fibers and cannot be removed simply by trying to brush them off.

 

So please, let's give the pressers a break and harp on the dry cleaners for a while!

 

... good points, and for me begs the question why we would use "dry cleaning" to include flicking dirt off a cover, using an eraser, and chemival 'dry cleaning' which I assume means using non-water based solvents. I dont consider 1 and 2 to be dry clenaing as in the 3rd instance at all.... but I'm thinking for you, thats the lever of hypocricy here. Flicking and erasing are done "dry" with no liquids. Do I understand you now?

 

I too feel of the three, flicking food out of interior pages or off covers is a home grown innocent act of "clenaing" that pretties a book with no harm nor stigma of restoration (in terms of scale versus "real" resto techniques...like unfolding a bent corner by hand, or unfolding a fold cause by inserting into a mylar or bag. Using an eraser as you illustrate is an unfortunate and damaging home-remedy that more often than not damages teh book, and embeds as many dirt particles in the paper as removes. So here too I hesitate to call it restoration since it remove one problem and adds others, and being usually noticeable, ends up being "self-disclosable" not hidden.

 

In all cases one must really be a stickler for the rules to see hypocracy in holding these views.

[FFB]

It really doesn't surprise me that some of the anti-pressing crowd feel that dry cleaning isn't disclosure worthy. It is, after all, something that can be done a lot easier and safer than even professional pressing, and as such falls into a restoration category even further down the scale.

 

Alan

 

Thanks for actually addressing the issue, Alan. Whether I agree with everything you said or not, at least you didn't duck the question or give me an excuse that doesn't make inherent, logical sense.

 

One point with which I'd like to quibble is in this last bit I've quoted. You can actually do quite a bit of damage to a book by dry cleaning if you don't know what you are doing. You can remove ink (remember the Cap #1 in the 6.5 section of the grading guide?), abrade the paper surface (which is inevitable to some extent every time you dry clean the book) resulting in loss of or damage to paper fibers and gloss, and you can unintentionally crease or tear the edges when working around the perimeter of the book. And since any Tom, , and Harry can go to the art supply store and buy a white art eraser, it's a lot more likely to be a widespread, amateur practice than pressing is.

 

And here's the best part from your perspective -- it is always detectable if you've got a microscope (like CGC does) because the eraser particles bind with the paper fibers and cannot be removed simply by trying to brush them off.

 

So please, let's give the pressers a break and harp on the dry cleaners for a while!

 

... good points, and for me begs the question why we would use "dry cleaning" to include flicking dirt off a cover, using an eraser, and chemival 'dry cleaning' which I assume means using non-water based solvents. I dont consider 1 and 2 to be dry clenaing as in the 3rd instance at all.... but I'm thinking for you, thats the lever of hypocricy here. Flicking and erasing are done "dry" with no liquids. Do I understand you now?

 

No, let me clarify, Aman. "Dry cleaning" when referring to a paper artifact means mechanical cleaning without the use of aqueous solutions or organic solvents. It could be surface scraping with a fingernail or tool (such as a microspatula), or it could be the use of an eraser. It is not the same thing as dry cleaning clothing, which involves the use of a harsh chemical that is not safe for use on paper.

 

I too feel of the three, flicking food out of interior pages or off covers is a home grown innocent act of "clenaing" that pretties a book with no harm nor stigma of restoration (in terms of scale versus "real" resto techniques...like unfolding a bent corner by hand, or unfolding a fold cause by inserting into a mylar or bag. Using an eraser as you illustrate is an unfortunate and damaging home-remedy that more often than not damages teh book, and embeds as many dirt particles in the paper as removes. So here too I hesitate to call it restoration since it remove one problem and adds others, and being usually noticeable, ends up being "self-disclosable" not hidden.

 

In all cases one must really be a stickler for the rules to see hypocracy in holding these views.

 

"Mechanical" or "dry" cleaning is actually a universal practice among paper conservators that is usually the first step in cleaning any artifact. Like pressing or any other restorative treatment, it can cause harm if not done correctly. But that is not to say that the practice of dry cleaning is always harmful in all instances.

 

When done correctly, dry cleaning is an accepted technique that removes far more surface grime than it causes to be ingrained in the paper fibers. Forget about flicking loose bits off the surface for a moment because that's not really what we are talking about here, although it would certainly constitute "dry cleaning." Surface grime that has adhered "permanently" to the paper can often be removed safely by dry cleaning. To do this is "restoration" in every sense of the word, and Sue Cicconi herself recognizes this as evidenced by her inclusion of dry cleaning as a form of restoration in her article in the Overstreet grading guide.

 

The question isn't whether a particular technique is harmful or not. When done correctly, virtually all types of professional, archival repair are not "harmful." The question is whether the book is being restored or not, and depending on the kind of treatment performed, whether or not it makes a difference in the value of the book. I think it is inconsistent (I'll avoid the use of the word "hypocritical" here to avoid being pejorative) to say on the one hand that it is wrong to engage in undisclosed pressing, and then to say on the other hand that it is ok to dry clean a book and not disclose it.

[Aman619]

okay. thanx for the full explanation of dry cleaning. I had assumed it WAS more like a "dry cleaners" definition and used chemicals. But now Im left with comparing flicking crapp off a book, and/or wiping dust off a cover with sending a book to Susan, etc. to do a more thorough professional job, and here I am assuming she will do FAR more than flick, or wipe a little dust off.... and that it will be preformed as prep work for more invasive methods of restoration.....otherwise why bother to pay for the service?

 

When I see crumbs fom a dinner I had back in the 60s while I read my books at the table (as we all did) I really have a hard time calling it "dry cleaning" or restoration, though technically I suppose I have "cleaned" the book of food particles in a "dry" manner, etc etc... SImilarly with wiping some dust off the cover with my sleeve just as I wouldnt think twice about pulling out or off a stray hair that became a part of the comic at some point..

 

Certainly even in this discussion there are limits to scale involved.... I still do not think for a moment that such home flicking and wiping is anywhere near NDP both in severity and its reception in the market. I see your viewpoint as too black and white. either /or, on this minor point... as if the world were really that way instead of the shifting greys we actually deal with everyday.

[esquirecomics]

Those of us "in the Mark Zaid crew" (is that any relation to MMMarvelous' "Comic Mafia"? ) just haven't gotten around to carping about dry cleaning yet. We're still attacking the more egregious method of pressing.

 

Even those of us "in the Mark Zaid crew" (God, I love this term!) dismiss this aspect of "pressing" as disclosure-worthy, not only because it lacks the removal of defects through the addition of something (heat and moisture, mostly), but also because of intent.

 

I really need to start keeping track of all the terms and adjectives I am somehow becoming!!! Let me see, I've been on a "crusade", had a flock of "sheep", called a "comic sl*t" and now I have a "crew"!

 

Which do you guys prefer to be, "sheep", "crew" or "crusaders"?

 

Of course, lets not forget I am also the "Managing Copy Partner Boy Boss"!

 

Did I miss any?

 

I am really enjoying this!

[skybolt]

Those of us "in the Mark Zaid crew" (is that any relation to MMMarvelous' "Comic Mafia"? ) just haven't gotten around to carping about dry cleaning yet. We're still attacking the more egregious method of pressing.

 

Even those of us "in the Mark Zaid crew" (God, I love this term!) dismiss this aspect of "pressing" as disclosure-worthy, not only because it lacks the removal of defects through the addition of something (heat and moisture, mostly), but also because of intent.

 

I really need to start keeping track of all the terms and adjectives I am somehow becoming!!! Let me see, I've been on a "crusade", had a flock of "sheep", called a "comic sl*t" and now I have a "crew"!

 

Which do you guys prefer to be, "sheep", "crew" or "crusaders"?

 

Of course, lets not forget I am also the "Managing Copy Partner Boy Boss"!

 

Did I miss any?

 

I am really enjoying this!

 

Our forum "Press Secretary"?

[awe4one]

Did I miss any?

 

Mark "The Mod" Zaid and his Pressing Posse?

 

Jim

[FFB]

okay. thanx for the full explanation of dry cleaning. I had assumed it WAS more like a "dry cleaners" definition and used chemicals. But now Im left with comparing flicking crapp off a book, and/or wiping dust off a cover with sending a book to Susan, etc. to do a more thorough professional job, and here I am assuming she will do FAR more than flick, or wipe a little dust off.... and that it will be preformed as prep work for more invasive methods of restoration.....otherwise why bother to pay for the service?

 

When I see crumbs fom a dinner I had back in the 60s while I read my books at the table (as we all did) I really have a hard time calling it "dry cleaning" or restoration, though technically I suppose I have "cleaned" the book of food particles in a "dry" manner, etc etc... SImilarly with wiping some dust off the cover with my sleeve just as I wouldnt think twice about pulling out or off a stray hair that became a part of the comic at some point..

 

Certainly even in this discussion there are limits to scale involved.... I still do not think for a moment that such home flicking and wiping is anywhere near NDP both in severity and its reception in the market. I see your viewpoint as too black and white. either /or, on this minor point... as if the world were really that way instead of the shifting greys we actually deal with everyday.

 

Why is my viewpoint "too black and white"? I already said I am not talking about flicking non-adhering particles off the book when I'm talking about disclosure of dry cleaning. I am talking about erasing embedded surface grime from a book. You don't need to do other restorative work after dry cleaning a book.

 

If no other work is being done, then "why pay for the service?" you ask. I don't know, ask Matt Nelson's customers who pay him to dry clean their books. There are plenty of flat books that don't need a press job and would not benefit materially from a press job, but that could and do benefit significantly from dry cleaning. Although I haven't commissioned any kind of a study, I can say from my own experience that I have seen probably ten books that would benefit from dry cleaning for every one book I've seen that would benefit from pressing. Almost every book printed in the 1960s and many (most?) books printed in the 1970s would benefit from dry cleaning because they have surface grime on the back cover and often on the front cover too.

 

Whether the dry cleaning results in an actual change in the grade is irrelevant, just like it's irrelevant whether color touch on one spine stress out of ten will affect the apparent grade of the book. The point is that the appearance of the book has been improved, whether greatly or marginally. If the appearance has been improved through application of some restorative treatment, why not require disclosure of dry cleaning?

[The Brain]

Did I miss any?

 

Mark "The Mod" Zaid and his Pressing Posse?

 

Jim

 

Z-BOYS & THE PRESSING CREW.

[esquirecomics]

Did I miss any?

 

Mark "The Mod" Zaid and his Pressing Posse?

 

Not bad, not bad. Kinda reminds me of the Mod Squad tv show. I like it!!

[esquirecomics]

Our forum "Press Secretary"?

 

[FlyingDonut]

Our forum "Press Secretary"?

 

 

Mark has never, in his entire life, had a "Crew". Maybe a "posse". But NEVER a "Crew"

[BassGMan]

Did I miss any?

 

Mark "The Mod" Zaid and his Pressing Posse?

 

Not bad, not bad. Kinda reminds me of the Mod Squad tv show. I like it!!

 

I'm not so sure about a posse or anything like that, but with Esquire, FFB, tth2, Foolkiller, (soon to be attorney) October Fire and others, we certainly have enough of a legal crew here to establish the first ever Supreme Court Of The Comic Book Collectors Society, or some such name. Just think of the possibilities.....

[Darthdiesel]

the Collector Gestapo

Darth, I thought the term was "jackbooted thugs"?

 

Great, now we're moving on to Nazi and Fascist allusions. Witty stuff there.

 

"Mylared minions" better? I was just emulating FFB's classic "gay bashing" analogy (which was right on point IMO BTW )

 

I'm thinking that Wonder-bread comment didn't go over well with some folks huh?

[tth2]

the Collector Gestapo

Darth, I thought the term was "jackbooted thugs"?

 

Great, now we're moving on to Nazi and Fascist allusions. Witty stuff there.

 

"Mylared minions" better? I was just emulating FFB's classic "gay bashing" analogy (which was right on point IMO BTW )

 

I'm thinking that Wonder-bread comment didn't go over well with some folks huh?

Nah, it was fine with me. I just thought "jackbooted thugs" was better because it's a more infamous phrase.

[tth2]

Sorry it's so tough for you to figure out, Mr. Malaprop. Since you believe dry cleaning is restoration, I would expect you to understand this without my having to explain it to you. Maybe if you reread some of Tim's diatribes wherein he explains why he doesn't like pressing (which happens to be the same reason why he doesn't like books that have had restoration removed, even if the removal is nothing more than the mechanical removal of a piece of archival tape that was sealing a tear and that leaves no trace behind), it'll be clear to you and anyone else who is interested. Here's a hint -- it sounds a little something like this:

 

"Basically, I just don't like people tampering with books."

 

Of course, I think it's already perfectly clear to Tim and you and everyone else and you're just being obtuse because you got caught with your collective dingalings in your hands.

Scott, what`s up with the personal attacks? "Obtuse", "dingalings in our hands", "diatribes"? If you want to turn this into some scorched earth debate where you must prevail at all costs, let me know because I have no desire to play that game and would prefer just to get out of this thread. If you want to engage in civil discourse, I`ll be happy to respond to your various points.

 

I think you're taking the digs a little too seriously. I am sorry if the dingaling comment hurt your feelings. Ignore the comments if they bother you. Now tell me how removing embedded surface grime and soiling from a book isn't "tampering" with the book.

Thanks Scott. Okay, let me give this a shot.

 

First, to address the points raised above about my previous posts on removal of restoration, I think the point of those posts was more in the vein of wanting disclosure that a book has been de-restored rather than being opposed to de-restoration per se. My statement "Basically, I just don't like people tampering with books" was probably said more in frustration than anything else that you couldn't seem to understand why I wanted disclosure. But in fact, that position, however unnuanced, still stands. Given 2 copies in 9.4 grade that are more or less identical, I would prefer the "natural/pure" 9.4 copy to the de-restored 9.4 copy, even if the de-restoration involved the removal of archival tape that left no other trace. The only way I would be in position to know that a book in a slab was a previously restored 9.6 would be because CGC told me, which is why I want the disclosure.

 

So in rational terms, think of the de-restoration as a tie-breaker factor, although perhaps my irrational personality would still cause me to pass on the de-restored 9.4 even if no other 9.4 copy were available. Getting disclosure at least permits me to make an informed, yet irrational, decision, which is my right (to make an irrational decision, I mean). Getting no disclosure means I'd simply be making a decision, but based upon false data.

 

Second, on dry cleaning, and why I think it's not restoration and why I think this position is consistent with my hatred-of-tampering pressing-is-restoration position. After reading the dry cleaning thread, I think my apparent inconsistency might stem from the two of us being on two different wavelengths. You're taking it down to the molecular level and talking about eraser fibers being embedded in the paper fibers or some such. And of course if you take it to that level, or even simply the microscopic level, then you're right, because all sorts of residue and intermingling of fibers take place at that level, as anyone who has watched CSI will know.

 

My less sophisticated view was simply that if the cleaning, via erasing, scraping or rubbing, doesn't change the paper from a tactile (finger tips) or visual (naked eye) point of view, then I simply don't feel that restoration has taken place. I genuinely don't feel that the intrinsic nature of the paper has been tampered with at this point. If the texture or appearance seems sufficiently off such that the inspector has "probable cause" to check closer with a magnifying glass or microscope, then perhaps sufficient tampering will be detected to be considered restoration. Contrast this with paper that has a non-color breaking crease or is permanently curled or rippled, which is visually obvious, which is then straightened out permanently through a fundamental alteration of the paper fibers.

 

I don't think I can explain it any better than that. It's just like Potter Stewart and pornography, you just know when something is, even if you can't explain why it is.