How About This As A Definition For Restoration Pertaining To Comic Books?

[FFB]

Interesting. So dry cleaning is not restoration then, under this definition?

 

But I guess bending back a bent edge with your finger would be, since you're altering the structure of the book when you do that.

 

Sorry, not buying it. I'll stick with the AIC's definitions.

 

I was waiting for you, Scott! Actually, dry cleaning DOES impact the book. It impacts the gloss, it potentially impacts the ink. Perhpas very very slightly but it is impacting.

 

I am SO not going down the "bend the corner with your finger for the 100th time. OK - one quick trip. If the bend is so slight that the paper fibers are not damaged and the bend is simply reflecting the inherent flexibility range of the paper, then bending it back is not altering any of the structure or component. One could argue this further than every book is resotred as the pages bend when we read it but we unbend it when we close it. So come on, huh?

 

If the bend is a permanent bend, the paper fibers are impacted. The fact that they can be bent back does not mean they werent' impacted in the first place.

 

As for the dry cleaning, the "impact" on the ink and gloss is not "restorative" impact. It is a form of damage, to the extent that it impacts it at all. With certain kinds of erasers (especially Wonderbread) there is no observable impact at all on gloss. As for the ink, well, doesn't everyone (including you) say that you're not supposed to dry clean over colored areas?

 

As for the "opening and closing of the book" argument, read the rest of this thread and the other. We talked about that already.

[FFB]

How about this as a proposed definition for restoration as it relates to comic books:

 

Any attempt, amateur or professional, to enhance the appearance of a comic book.

 

 

 

 

I don't like it. (Sorry - there are 103 posts here and no time to read them all so just Pov's POV. The simplest way I would define restoration is:

 

"Any attempt, amateur or professional, that alters the physical structure or physical components of the book to achieve an enhanced appearance, increased strucural integrity or both."

 

I like it.

I like it too. The part about altering the physical structure or physical components gets rid of all these silly strawman arguments about bending a corner back with a finger or wiping some dust off.

 

You know what else wouldn't count as restoration under this definition? Certain kinds of cleaning with volatile solvents that don't change the physical structure or components of the book because the volatile solvent evaporates completely. I'm not talking about the kind of solvent cleaning where you take the book apart and put it into a solvent bath. I'm talking about localized solvent cleaning where you rinse the inside of a glass with solvent and pour it out, then turn the glass upside down onto whatever you're trying to remove from the book (like a price sticker) until the solvent fumes have weakened the adhesive enough to remove it. Since you're not affecting the physical structure of the book or the physical components of the book (because the solvent evaporates completely once you take the glass away), you're not restoring it under this definition.

 

Then perhaps I should have made "structure" and "components" clearer. These would include things like ink transfer (aka oil transfer) stains, accumulated dirt, etc. In other words, ALL opf the physical components that currently make up the book in its present condition.

 

So allow me to make a clearer definition:

 

"Any attempt, amateur or professional, that alters the physical structure or inhernet and accumulated physical components of the book to achieve an enhanced appearance, increased strucural integrity or both."

 

or, for the nitty

 

"Any attempt, amateur or professional, that alters the physical structure or physical components of the book or accumulated foreign material to achieve an enhanced appearance, increased strucural integrity or both."

 

Once again, what is wrong with the AIC's definitions?

[PovertyRow]

If the bend is a permanent bend, the paper fibers are impacted. The fact that they can be bent back does not mean they werent' impacted in the first place.

 

Dammitall Scott are you being intentionally obtuse? I can't make it any freaking clearer than I have.

[PovertyRow]

Once again, what is wrong with the AIC's definitions?

 

Shucked if *I* know. I was just enjoying a brief visit to an old stomping ground. Jeeze no WONDER I ended up quitting collecting.

[FFB]

If the bend is a permanent bend, the paper fibers are impacted. The fact that they can be bent back does not mean they werent' impacted in the first place.

 

Dammitall Scott are you being intentionally obtuse? I can't make it any freaking clearer than I have.

 

Your point is perfectly clear. I just don't agree with you. If the thing you're removing with your finger is a defect, by removing it, you're removing a defect and restoring the book.

[tth2]

Your point is perfectly clear. I just don't agree with you. If the thing you're removing with your finger is a defect, by removing it, you're removing a defect and restoring the book.

If the defect is so impermanent that it can be removed with a finger, then no physical alteration of the comic ever took place in the first place, and therefore the removal by the finger also didn't involve any physical alteration.

[tth2]

Interesting. So dry cleaning is not restoration then, under this definition?

I have never had that much of a problem with dry cleaning. If some dirt or foreign substance is so impermanent that it can be removed by brushing with the hand, or rubbing some wonderbread or even an eraser, without physically altering the surface of the paper, then it's not restoration in my book.

[tth2]

You know what else wouldn't count as restoration under this definition? Certain kinds of cleaning with volatile solvents that don't change the physical structure or components of the book because the volatile solvent evaporates completely. I'm not talking about the kind of solvent cleaning where you take the book apart and put it into a solvent bath. I'm talking about localized solvent cleaning where you rinse the inside of a glass with solvent and pour it out, then turn the glass upside down onto whatever you're trying to remove from the book (like a price sticker) until the solvent fumes have weakened the adhesive enough to remove it. Since you're not affecting the physical structure of the book or the physical components of the book (because the solvent evaporates completely once you take the glass away), you're not restoring it under this definition.

If only fumes are involved, and no immersion of the paper fibers into any sort of liquid, then I guess I would not consider this to be restoration. Although I would still advocate that such cleaning be disclosed, in the same way that I advocate de-restoration be disclosed, even if not detectable.

 

I'm starting to get this impression that some people think it's possible to draft a perfect definition, so perhaps it's time to set some realistic expectations. The fact is that no definition, even one crafted by the most highly paid technical experts, lawyers and lobbyists, is ever going to be perfect and encompass all matters intended to be encompassed and exclude all matters intended to be excluded. If it was possible to draft such perfect definitions, then we wouldn't need courts to constantly interpret laws.

 

At some point, people need to understand that some degree of common sense needs to be applied to these definitions. This is why Justice Potter Stewart's famous statement about not being able to define pornography, but knowing it when he saw it, resonates with so many people.

[FFB]

Your point is perfectly clear. I just don't agree with you. If the thing you're removing with your finger is a defect, by removing it, you're removing a defect and restoring the book.

If the defect is so impermanent that it can be removed with a finger, then no physical alteration of the comic ever took place in the first place, and therefore the removal by the finger also didn't involve any physical alteration.

 

OK, so if you are removing the same kind of defect with a dry mount press or a tacking iron (or weighted glass, which is another tool of choice for professional conservators who press paper) then you're not restoring the book?

 

And, by the way, I'd expect a "9.4 and nothing less" collector such as yourself to hold such minor defects in greater regard -- since that's sometimes all that is keeping a 9.2 out of your strike zone.

[FFB]

You know what else wouldn't count as restoration under this definition? Certain kinds of cleaning with volatile solvents that don't change the physical structure or components of the book because the volatile solvent evaporates completely. I'm not talking about the kind of solvent cleaning where you take the book apart and put it into a solvent bath. I'm talking about localized solvent cleaning where you rinse the inside of a glass with solvent and pour it out, then turn the glass upside down onto whatever you're trying to remove from the book (like a price sticker) until the solvent fumes have weakened the adhesive enough to remove it. Since you're not affecting the physical structure of the book or the physical components of the book (because the solvent evaporates completely once you take the glass away), you're not restoring it under this definition.

If only fumes are involved, and no immersion of the paper fibers into any sort of liquid, then I guess I would not consider this to be restoration. Although I would still advocate that such cleaning be disclosed, in the same way that I advocate de-restoration be disclosed, even if not detectable.

 

I'm starting to get this impression that some people think it's possible to draft a perfect definition, so perhaps it's time to set some realistic expectations. The fact is that no definition, even one crafted by the most highly paid technical experts, lawyers and lobbyists, is ever going to be perfect and encompass all matters intended to be encompassed and exclude all matters intended to be excluded. If it was possible to draft such perfect definitions, then we wouldn't need courts to constantly interpret laws.

 

At some point, people need to understand that some degree of common sense needs to be applied to these definitions. This is why Justice Potter Stewart's famous statement about not being able to define pornography, but knowing it when he saw it, resonates with so many people.

 

So you say, but I'm still waiting for someone to give me one reason why we should not simply accept the definitional sets given to us by the AIC. I can't see anything wrong with them.

[tth2]

Your point is perfectly clear. I just don't agree with you. If the thing you're removing with your finger is a defect, by removing it, you're removing a defect and restoring the book.

If the defect is so impermanent that it can be removed with a finger, then no physical alteration of the comic ever took place in the first place, and therefore the removal by the finger also didn't involve any physical alteration.

 

OK, so if you are removing the same kind of defect with a dry mount press or a tacking iron (or weighted glass, which is another tool of choice for professional conservators who press paper) then you're not restoring the book?

 

And, by the way, I'd expect a "9.4 and nothing less" collector such as yourself to hold such minor defects in greater regard -- since that's sometimes all that is keeping a 9.2 out of your strike zone.

If a defect is so impermanent that you can remove it with your finger, then why would you need to use any of the tools or processes that you've just described?

[tth2]

but I'm still waiting for someone to give me one reason why we should not simply accept the definitional sets given to us by the AIC. I can't see anything wrong with them.

What are you, on retainer for the AIC?

 

I have no idea what the AIC definitions are. Maybe they're fine.

[FFB]

Your point is perfectly clear. I just don't agree with you. If the thing you're removing with your finger is a defect, by removing it, you're removing a defect and restoring the book.

If the defect is so impermanent that it can be removed with a finger, then no physical alteration of the comic ever took place in the first place, and therefore the removal by the finger also didn't involve any physical alteration.

 

OK, so if you are removing the same kind of defect with a dry mount press or a tacking iron (or weighted glass, which is another tool of choice for professional conservators who press paper) then you're not restoring the book?

 

And, by the way, I'd expect a "9.4 and nothing less" collector such as yourself to hold such minor defects in greater regard -- since that's sometimes all that is keeping a 9.2 out of your strike zone.

If a defect is so impermanent that you can remove it with your finger, then why would you need to use any of the tools or processes that you've just described?

 

Don't skirt the issue!

[FFB]

but I'm still waiting for someone to give me one reason why we should not simply accept the definitional sets given to us by the AIC. I can't see anything wrong with them.

What are you, on retainer for the AIC?

 

I have no idea what the AIC definitions are. Maybe they're fine.

 

I posted them on page 5 of this thread.

[tth2]

Your point is perfectly clear. I just don't agree with you. If the thing you're removing with your finger is a defect, by removing it, you're removing a defect and restoring the book.

If the defect is so impermanent that it can be removed with a finger, then no physical alteration of the comic ever took place in the first place, and therefore the removal by the finger also didn't involve any physical alteration.

 

OK, so if you are removing the same kind of defect with a dry mount press or a tacking iron (or weighted glass, which is another tool of choice for professional conservators who press paper) then you're not restoring the book?

 

And, by the way, I'd expect a "9.4 and nothing less" collector such as yourself to hold such minor defects in greater regard -- since that's sometimes all that is keeping a 9.2 out of your strike zone.

If a defect is so impermanent that you can remove it with your finger, then why would you need to use any of the tools or processes that you've just described?

 

Don't skirt the issue!

You seem determined to try to take everything to its logical extreme and test every facet of the definition, which misses the whole point of my common sense doctrine. But okay, I'll play.

 

I don't know about weighted glass, since it's the first time I ever heard of this. But I would have to say anything done with a dry mount press or tacking iron would have to be considered restoration, because they are devices capable of removing permanent defects that have physically altered the paper, whereas a finger is incapable of removing such defects. Otherwise, you're left with the ridiculous result that using a dry mount press on a perfect book with no defects (permanent or otherwise) would not constitute restoration, which defies common sense. As a matter of policy, the definition should serve to dissuade people from undertaking procedures normally used in restoration on completely healthy books.

[tth2]

but I'm still waiting for someone to give me one reason why we should not simply accept the definitional sets given to us by the AIC. I can't see anything wrong with them.

What are you, on retainer for the AIC?

 

I have no idea what the AIC definitions are. Maybe they're fine.

 

I posted them on page 5 of this thread.

You mean these?

 

Restoration: Treatment procedures intended to return cultural property to a known or assumed state, often through the addition of nonoriginal material.

 

Treatment: The deliberate alteration of the chemical and/or physical aspects of cultural property, aimed primarily at prolonging its existence. Treatment may consist of stabilization and/or restoration.

 

Cultural Property: Objects, collections, specimens, structures, or sites identified as having artistic, historic, scientific, religious, or social significance.

 

I have lots of problems with this package of definitions.

 

First, the definition of "restoration" is too broad. Using your finger to smooth out a slight, non-permanent and non-physically altered bend in the paper to its "known or assumed state" could constitute restoration under this definition.

 

Now, if "treatment" contained in the definition of "restoration" was defined properly, then perhaps the definition of "restoration" would work. But the definition of "treatment" starts off okay, getting at the chemical and/or physical aspects which is analogous to the physical alteration part of POV's definition, but then goes down the wrong path with "aimed primarily at prolonging its existence". Pressing has nothing to do with prolonging anything's existence, and therefore doesn't fall within the definition of treatment, and therefore doesn't fall within the definition of "restoration".

 

Finally, I don't understand why there needs to be a qualification relating to "cultural property". I could easily argue that some mass produced illustrated pamphlet produced for entertainment of kids has no "artistic, historic, scientific, religious, or social significance". Why even have that additional definitional element? It adds nothing and just provides another element to dispute. If I've prevailed on the other more fundamental elements of the definition of "restoration", I should get my case thrown out of court because I couldn't prove it was "cultural property"?

[Timely]

whereas a finger is incapable of removing such defects.

 

Actually this is not true.

 

West

[Aman619]

yeah, but we arent including 'magic' fingers in this discussion.

[tth2]

whereas a finger is incapable of removing such defects.

 

Actually this is not true.

 

West

The earth is flat. The moon is made of cheese.

 

Come on West, anyone can make an unsubstantiated statement. Please provide examples, proof, etc.

[FFB]

whereas a finger is incapable of removing such defects.

 

Actually this is not true.

 

West