CBM article about the CGC holder

[fantastic_four]

Does anybody have back issues of Comic Book Marketplace from the last three or four years? Bruce heard that there was an article published a few years ago in CBM which contained research or test results which supported the idea that CGC's plastic case is of sound archival quality. This same article was also sent to Collecter's Society members in some kind of newsletter a few years ago.

 

Does anyone have a copy of this article? I'm pretty sure CGC won't mind if we copy and paste or scan and post images of it here.

[read_em-migration]

Can you narrow it down at all? I have the last 5 years of CBM here. Well, all but the last 6 months or so, when I cancelled my subscription in disgust

[fantastic_four]

Hmm lessee.

 

Steve told me about it in around May 2002 and said it had been a bit since it was printed...I remember him saying that Michael Naiman had been attacking CGC's plastic case for a while before the article was published...that would likely put it between June 2000 and December 2001. I'd think late 2000/early 2001 would be most likely.

[greggy]

I would look for it except I have no idea where my issues are filed! The last few years' issues have been a blur and basically sucked I threw them all over the place!

[read_em-migration]

Ok, I'll take a look, but it might not be until the weekend.

[fantastic_four]

Don't worry about it--Tracey Heft told me yesterday that he's the one who wrote the article, and he sent it to me in a Word document format. I'll probably post it if I think anyone's interested in seeing it.

[Bugaboo-migration]

Sure......post that puppy.

[BachelorOfComix]

CBM 92 I think.

 

Cheers,

 

Bachelor of Comics

[fantastic_four]

Tracey Heft sent me the research results that he wrote into an article that he tells me was published in the Comics Buyer's Guide, Comic Book Marketplace, and the Collector's Society newsletter. The text of his article is included below. I still haven't formed an opinion about it, but if anyone does, please share it with the group.

 

---

Introduction

While attempts to protect paper collectibles from the ravages of improper handling have existed almost as long as the objects themselves, only in the last three decades have collectible-specific plastic products been produced. Made from a wide variety of plastic materials chosen for a number of reasons, all were designed to afford protection to the paper item as it was stored, handled and/or transported. Concern for long-term storage was minimal, as were concerns over purity of the plastic material itself. In the hobby of comic-collecting, several evolution’s have occurred both in design and material composition. These evolution’s have primarily centered around extending the life of the comic book, however, questions still remain about the suitability of the plastics being used to protect and preserve collections. Thus, the American Association of Comicbook Collectors contracted with J. Mason Associates in January 2001, to undertake the analysis of a representative sample of storage and display containers commonly used within the comic-collecting hobby.

Methodology

For the purposes of this investigation, the Association submitted nine (9) material samples for testing using Fourier-Transform Infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy. This method of testing produces a unique spectrum which identifies the constituent materials within the product. In addition, a visual test was performed in order to determine the presence of an ultraviolet inhibitor. According to J. Mason Associates, when placed against a white background and observed under brilliant sunlight, clear plastic with an ultraviolet inhibitor present will produce a green or blue-green glow.

Results

The following tables reveal the 9 samples submitted for testing:

Sample #	Commercial Name	Primary Compound	Common Name of Compound
1	Mylite	Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET)	Mylar
2	Mylar Envelope	Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET)	Mylar

3

Ultra-Pro Envelope

Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET)¹

PET

4

Polypropylene Envelope

Polypropylene

Polypropylene

5

CGC Interior Holder

Acrylonitrile Butadiene Methyl Acrylate Copolymer

Barex

6

CGC Exterior Holder

Styrene Acrylonitrile Copolymer

SAN

7

Showcase Sealer

Polymethyl Methacrylate

Plexiglass

8

Fortress Exterior Case

Polystyrene

Polystyrene

9

Fortress Interior Film

Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET)²

PETG

^1. Sample 3 is PET but contains different additives.

^2. Sample 9 is a modified form of PET

Results Continued

Sample #	Ultraviolet Inhibitor Observed?
1	Yes
2	Yes
3	Yes
4	Yes
5	Yes
6	Yes
7	Yes
8	Yes
9	Yes

Discussion

Depending on the requirements of the end user, a certain plastic may be chosen over another. Which plastic film to use in the manufacturing process is determined by a number of reasons and can include overall strength/stiffness of the final product, stability over time, formability, permeability to gases, and permeability to moisture. Every plastic film has it’s strengths and it’s weaknesses in each of these areas and no two are alike. Some are excellent moisture barriers but poor gas barriers. Others are excellent gas barriers but poor moisture barriers. Generally, the better the gas barrier, the poorer the moisture barrier.

Within the Library of Congress and The National Archives and Records Administration, polyethylene, polypropylene and PET are used almost exclusively in the housing of archival records. The choice to use one material over another is made with regard to the item to be housed and the amount of handling expected. As well, the conditions of the storage environment are given due consideration.

According to Specification Number 400-301-3/2/93, the Library of Congress requires that it’s polyethylene terephthalate films used in the preservation of paper and paper-based materials must be:

“...a clear, colorless, (biaxially oriented/stressed/drawn) poly(ethylene-terephthalate) film such as DuPont Mylar D, ICI Melinex 516 or equivalent.”

and

“...clear and colorless polyester film must not contain any plasticizer, surface coatings, UV inhibitors, or absorbents and be guaranteed to be non-yellowing with natural aging. As received the film must not contain any coloring agents.”

From the results of the FTIR tests, only samples 1, 2, 3 and 9 are composed of PET. Of these 4 samples, only 1 and 2 are pure PET without additives or modification of the molecular form. Additives or plasticizers alter the molecular form and a looser molecular structure occurs. This changes the effectiveness of the plastic film, as the ability of gases to permeate the material is increased. As well, in the case of plasticizers, further chemical reactions can occur within the plastic. As a result, the compounds may eventually leech from the plastic film and come into contact with the item being protected.

Furthermore, in the samples that were submitted for testing, every sample seems to contain an ultraviolet inhibitor which would render each and every sample unsuitable for use by the Library of Congress. A visual test may not be accurate and further testing of the samples is recommended in order to determine the presence of any harmful constituents such as plasticizers, residual solvents or

additives.

Summary

All of the tested samples provide a degree of protection from improper handling and/or storage. This is in accordance with their design. However, since each plastic has differing degrees of gaseous and vapor protection, it quickly becomes apparent that certain plastics are more suited to specific situations than others. It is beyond the scope of this article to examine each and every variation of plastic and their characteristics, but when choosing a storage product, the collector must strive for a film that is pure in composition. For example, while polyethylene and polypropylene in their pure sheet form are quite stable, both polypropylene and polyethylene comic bags contain plasticizers in order to facilitate sealing of the bag at the edges. As mentioned, additives or plasticizers can alter the effectiveness of the plastic film as a barrier to gas and vapor permeation. As well, the materials introduced into the storage environment should not contain harmful additives as the additives themselves can accelerate the degradation of the materials they were designed to protect.

Ultimately,the plastic materials used in the storage of archival items are only effective when the conditions for storage are within controlled and monitored accepted norms. If the environmental factors of heat, light and humidity are not controlled, it will not matter what system of storage is used - degradation of the material will continue to occur. In fact, prior testing of all polymeric materials reveals that as temperature increases, so does the rate of diffusion. The same is true for humidity content and even the quality of light can affect the plastics ability to block harmful gases and water vapor from coming into contact with the protected item. Since every storage area is unique and can vary from one geographical region to another, which holder to use should depend more on the situational conditions instead of the perceived effectiveness of individual products.

[PovertyRow]

Thanks for that post. Fascinating reading!

[blowout]

It was fascinating, but did it really clarify anything.

[PovertyRow]

It was fascinating, but did it really clarify anything.

 

I think it depends on what was muddy to begin with!

[fantastic_four]

Actually I believe it raised some new questions. As soon as I'm done forming those questions, I'll ask them here.

[esquirecomics]

 

Apparently this thread went nowhere 2 years ago, but perhaps 2005 is different.

 

Is there anything to be concerned about with respect to preservation of our books? Did CGC ever respond to the conclusions? Make any changes?

 

Since Tracey does post on the boards, perhaps he can give us an update on his study.

[Harvey Dude]

 

Apparently this thread went nowhere 2 years ago, but perhaps 2005 is different.

 

Is there anything to be concerned about with respect to preservation of our books? Did CGC ever respond to the conclusions? Make any changes?

 

Since Tracey does post on the boards, perhaps he can give us an update on his study.

 

There are several discussions on Barex. Here is one for starters. Note that PGX (formally CGG) now uses Barex as well.

 

Barex 210

[Camouflage-migration]

Since CGC has a new type of holder now, i wonder how those will do in a similar test...

[FFB]

Since CGC has a new type of holder now, i wonder how those will do in a similar test...

 

They changed the design, not the material. The inner well is still made of Barex.

[Ze-man]

Off hand Scott.. do you remember if Barex is better known for the releasing off gassing?.. or blocking out moisture?

 

Because from what I could glean from the article.. one cannot do both very well.

 

 

Ze-

[FFB]

Off hand Scott.. do you know if Barex is better known for the releasing off gassing?.. or blocking out moisture?

 

Because from what I could glean from the article.. one cannot do both very well.

 

 

Ze-

 

It's a better oxygen barrier than it is a moisture barrier. I don't think this really matters for comic storage though.

[Ze-man]

Well if I had my druthers.. I would prefer a plastic that was more prone to release fumes.. then trap them inside a heat welded/sealed container.

And on that subject.. Is the CGC innerwell totally 100% waterproof/airtight, if you submerged it underwater?

If not then I guess it does not matter what the Mylar/Barex's properties are, if the welds let water/air in in some fashion.

Plenty of room for a few nefarious, gaseous fumes to seep in or out

 

Ze-