B2D327 Posted June 17, 2021 Share Posted June 17, 2021 This one was pretty bad but I decided to take a crack at it and I have to say I’m pretty happy with the results. I figured I’d chance it and take one for the team but was very careful about not causing further damage to an already hideous book. Just thought I’d share. All input is appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattTheDuck Posted June 17, 2021 Share Posted June 17, 2021 So what method did you use? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B2D327 Posted June 17, 2021 Author Share Posted June 17, 2021 20 minutes ago, MattTheDuck said: So what method did you use? Wet cleaning; no solvents Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theCapraAegagrus Posted June 17, 2021 Share Posted June 17, 2021 Same lighting? The after looks worse IMO. Randall Dowling 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motor City Rob Posted June 17, 2021 Share Posted June 17, 2021 I think it looks slightly better, but trying to figure out if you used worse lighting for the after or if the entire back cover got yellow because of the cleaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William-James88 Posted June 17, 2021 Share Posted June 17, 2021 12 hours ago, B2D327 said: This one was pretty bad but I decided to take a crack at it and I have to say I’m pretty happy with the results. I figured I’d chance it and take one for the team but was very careful about not causing further damage to an already hideous book. Just thought I’d share. All input is appreciated. Feels more like a trade up than an improvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qalyar Posted June 17, 2021 Share Posted June 17, 2021 3 hours ago, theCapraAegagrus said: Same lighting? The after looks worse IMO. I don't think it's a lightning artifact. Compare the UL corners, which match pretty well in terms of background whiteness. I'm not sure this is better. It's certainly a lower contrast stain now that the pigmentation from the tide lines has been distributed over most of the back of the book. Arguably, I guess that means it presents better? But from a technical grading standpoint, there's now a larger area of the cover directly affected by the stain. So... I suppose it depends on what you want out of your stains? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theCapraAegagrus Posted June 17, 2021 Share Posted June 17, 2021 3 minutes ago, Qalyar said: I don't think it's a lightning artifact. Compare the UL corners, which match pretty well in terms of background whiteness. I'm not sure this is better. It's certainly a lower contrast stain now that the pigmentation from the tide lines has been distributed over most of the back of the book. Arguably, I guess that means it presents better? But from a technical grading standpoint, there's now a larger area of the cover directly affected by the stain. So... I suppose it depends on what you want out of your stains? If I carp my pants, do I want it all in my underwear, or do I want it running down both of my legs? vheflin 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B2D327 Posted June 17, 2021 Author Share Posted June 17, 2021 I’d guess down both your legs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeypost Posted June 17, 2021 Share Posted June 17, 2021 Before it would have been universal. Now it will be conserved because it was wet washed. The Lions Den, jcjames and William-James88 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B2D327 Posted June 18, 2021 Author Share Posted June 18, 2021 22 hours ago, joeypost said: Before it would have been universal. Now it will be conserved because it was wet washed. Interesting. Considering it was only water used, how would that be detected? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeypost Posted June 18, 2021 Share Posted June 18, 2021 7 minutes ago, B2D327 said: Interesting. Considering it was only water used, how would that be detected? CGC has their methods, which I am sure will never be published. All I can say is most books I work in I can tell the ones that have been washed (both chemically and with just water). I have no formal training and can determine that a book has been washed, CGC restoration experts will have no trouble. greggy, B2D327, KCOComics and 1 other 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BabyAteMyDingo Posted June 20, 2021 Share Posted June 20, 2021 Is water used in the pressing process? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BabyAteMyDingo Posted June 20, 2021 Share Posted June 20, 2021 2 minutes ago, Sgt. D said: Makes a bloke wonder if it's "proprietary" because it would run up against water/liquid solvents used as restoration. I can't imagine what other "moisture" could be used along with heat. Seems it would be a steam press like ironing under great pressure. Steam is water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
comicdonna Posted June 20, 2021 Share Posted June 20, 2021 No successful pressing companies are going to reveal their techniques. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PovertyRow Posted June 25, 2021 Share Posted June 25, 2021 A couple of notes here: that kind of stain is usually referred to as a "tide line" as opposed to a "shoreline". As far as detecting water wash, it impacts sizing and leaves the surface of the cover feeling slightly rough (like a slight "tooth"). This is not unlike wetting a piece of wood prior to a final fine sanding to "raise the grain". Also the water reduces the appearance of the cover gloss. greggy, Phill the Governor and djzombi 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
