The email to Scoop that wasn't published - glue, tape, etc.

[Newerthannew]

Hi all

 

After 2 weeks, Scoop still hasn't published my response to their attempt at defining glue and glued, tape, etc. I know they received the emails I sent (especially the second one which was sent at their request) and I can only guess at why they haven't published the emails. Maybe it was the length of the response? Maybe what I wrote was summarized by others? Perhaps they are too close to deadline to publish anything further through Scoop? I think the information I provide in my response is something that people might want to read and I hope that Scoop does publish the emails, so that a wider croud can read and understand some of this very important information.

 

So, here is the original email to Scoop, for the public record:

 

___________________

 

You have asked readers of Scoop to include their thoughts on Restoration and sub-topics such as glue, tape and tape residue. I would like to offer my viewpoints on these subjects.

 

Glue

 

You are currently proposing that the definition of glue be:

 

"GLUE or GLUED - Restoration and/or conservation method in which some form of glue is used to repair or reinforce a comic book defect.

 

The designation of Conservation would only be given if the glue is archivally safe and done only to preserve the life of the comic book.

 

While I applaud the attempt at separating conservation from restoration, the only way that a person or person(s) can determine if the glue is "archivally safe" (and therefore qualifies for a conserved designation) is to directly test the glue using a variety of solvents. Solvent testing is a destructive test that can easily damage the original book and I think it is safe to say that no-one is conducting these solvent tests on a regular basis. Thus determination is being done by visual and perhaps mechanical methods.

 

The problem is that most glues, initially, look the same. Most glues used are clear, flexible and odorless when they are first applied and for a period after they dry. Acidic and harmful adhesives look like, react like and seem like, the same "archival" glues used by professional conservators and comic-book restorers. It is only after they age, that problems and differences in glues becomes evident.

 

It has long been known in conservation science that the majority of adhesives turn brittle and/or acidic with age. A test of adhesives for pH changes due to aging was conducted by the Canadian Conservation Institute in 1988 and of the 52 different adhesives tested (including products readily available to the average consumer) only 3 passed the stringent requirements set forth in the study. The rest were deemed unacceptable for conservation purposes. Of the 3 that passed the test, none are commercially available outside of the museum field. Of the 3 that passed, none are currently used by comic book restorers to repair books - as they fail certain flexibility requirements necessary for the repair of paper fibers at the spine of the book.

 

So, a visual examination and even a mechanical testing of the suspect adhesives might indicate that the glue used is "archivally safe". However, the odds would seem to be very high that the glue deemed as "archivally safe" is in fact, anything but, and after some time will age and eventually degrade the material it was applied to.

 

Since actual solvent testing is not being done on the books, the only other method for determining what type of glue was used would be to consult the treatment reports most comic book restorers include with a restored book. Since those treatment reports are usually discarded, then determination of the type of glue used would be difficult (if not impossible). Thus, labeling one glue as "archival" and another as harmful is difficult (if not impossible) and prone to error.

 

Thus your intended definition cannot be based upon an assumption that the glue used is "archival" or not as it cannot be determined without extensive testing. Perhaps your definition should read:

 

"Glue - a synonym for adhesive. Applied in order to improve the appearance or structural stability of an item. Common areas of application are along the edges of a tear, a pulled staple, a split spine."

 

leaving the designation of conservation or restoration out of the definition since a determination of either "archivally safe" or harmful is, at the moment, almost impossible.

 

I would also break your definition into two, creating one for glued, such as:

 

"Glued - a restoration or conservation method of applying glue or adhesive. In example, the tears have been glued, the staple split has been glued, the spine has been glued. "

 

If there persists a need to define a treatment as conservation and not restoration (and I believe there is a great need) then determination of restoration or conservation would be dependent upon intent of the restorer. Is the defect that was glued structural or esthetic? If structural, then perhaps it was a conservation procedure. If esthetic, then it was restoration. If both structural and esthetic, then restoration.

 

Scoop also mentions:

 

"it has been commonly accepted that on comic books prior to approximately 1950, a very minor amount of glue and/or a very minor amount of color touch is acceptable as "unrestored""

 

I was unaware of a common acceptance of this policy prior to CGC's arrival in November 1999. In fact, I am still unaware of it being a common acceptance outside of 3d party grading. However, I wish to speak to the issue at hand and that is glue and color-touch are two separate procedures and should be addressed separately.

 

Dealing with the issue of glue (and ignoring the use of arbitrary and undefined terms such as "minor" since they raise the question of who determines what is minor and what amount is minor opposed to moderate or major) and taking into consideration that the chances of the glue being or becoming acidic over time are extremely high, how could a small amount of glue be considered as unrestored - in other words a very minor amount of glue is the same as no glue at all?

 

That small amount of glue could react with time to destroy the area of the book it is in contact with (along with the interior paper in proximity).

 

It seems that the statement "is acceptable as "unrestored"" is designed to ultimately delineate between restoration treatments and conservation treatments. For what purpose, I can only guess but I believe it relates to salability - with conservation being more desirable than restoration. However, determining whether an item has been restored or conserved comes down, once again, to an attempt to differentiate the intent between restoring the item and conserving it.

 

I am sympathetic to people trying to put forward that the intent of the repair was to preserve the book in its current condition. If that intent can be determined (and it would be pretty obvious when looking at the book since the necessity of the repair was either structural (conservation) or esthetic (restoration) then the book might be seen as being "unrestored" or conserved.

 

However, if the material used is harmful for the long-term preservation of the item should it still be considered conserved? To once again reference the IIC definitions, conservation is defined as "treatments used to prevent existing damage from proceeding further, thereby maintaining an items current condition for the future." It hardly seems appropriate to assign a conservation label to a procedure whereby the addition of a harmful material (and often non-reversible (which is another criteria for conservation standards, but I digress) leads to the damage or destruction of the item being conserved. Even though, at one time, the material was accepted as a standard conservation material.

 

As for color-touch, if one accepts the international standards for the definitions of conservation and restoration, it is unarguably restoration by definition.

 

If by saying "a very minor amount of glue and/or a very minor amount of color touch is acceptable as "unrestored"" you actually mean to say that "small amounts of restoration should not affect the value or collectibility of an item as much as larger or more intrusive forms of restoration" then that should be the message being put forward (and one I heartily support). By labeling restoration as conservation and vice/versa it only continues to blur the lines between conservation and restoration, clouding the issues and confusing everyone.

 

Moving onto the subject of tape, Scoop wrote:

 

As such, tape cannot be considered restoration but should in fact be considered damage to a comic and should be accounted for accordingly.

 

I disagree, sort of. While damaging, tape is a material originally intended to help conserve an item. To paraphrase my article on adhesive tape from January 1998,

 

"...(3M) company literature in 1961 stated that:

 

No. 810 is very stable, in that both adhesive and backing are, for all practical purposes, inert...

 

The backing, being acetate film, is not affected by changes in temperature and/or humidity.

 

The adhesive...will not ‘set up’ and become hard, it will not discolor into the paper to which it is applied.

 

As a result of this glowing publicity, magic mending tapes were quickly adopted as a viable and perfectly acceptable conservation treatment by many collectors and amateur conservators around the world. Examples of books where tape has been used to seal tears, reinforce the cover and stabilize the spine are all attempts to preserve the current condition and prevent any further damage from occurring. These repairs were done in good faith, as people read and eagerly believed the manufacturers’ claims. "

 

Therefore, the application of tape is not a restoration treatment but a conservation treatment that has proven to be misguided with time and should be accounted for accordingly. True, it causes damage with time but I am not convinced on the need for a separate category such as "destruction" or "desecration" (although trimming would be an obvious fit for a destruction category, if it should be created).

 

Lastly, tape residue where Scoop wrote:

 

Like other areas in which a guessing game of intent is started, lacking conclusive evidence to the contrary, it is impossible for one to assess why and in many cases how a piece of tape is removed. The presence of Tape Residue should be treated as a defect,

 

Agreed. The book was obviously previously altered through an attempt at conservation. As I wrote above, it might now be seen as a restoration attempt now that time has shown tape to be harmful and outside of the definition of "treatments used to prevent existing damage from proceeding further, thereby maintaining an items current condition for the future."

 

but barring documentation or first hand knowledge it should not be taken as evidence of tape removal.

 

By the time the adhesive has lost its tack, the adhesive will have aged considerably and changed color not to mention permeate the fibers of the book to such an extent that the paper might be transparent if not brittle or encrusted. So, by the time the carrier is no longer present, the tape has done considerable damage to the paper fibers and structural integrity of the book.

 

The question is, if there is no carrier has the carrier be removed through restoration or through the aging process?

 

If the adhesive still retains any of its tack, then the only way that the carrier (the clear part of the tape) can be removed is through intentional means. Evidence of intentional removal would include solvent stains, skimming of the paper, eraser particles trapped in the adhesive, etc. Such obvious evidence should result in a restoration designation. If, though, the carrier is absent and the adhesive staining still remains - the book has a very notable defect and should be designated as such.

 

Thank you for the opportunity to respond.

 

Sincerely,

 

Tracey Heft

Eclipse Paper Conservation

www.eclipsepaper.com

[esquirecomics]

Tracey, welcome back to the boards! You changed your username, didn't you?

 

I recall seeing a reference somewhere from Scoop that they stated they never received your e-mails and wanted you to re-send them. Perhaps you never saw that and none of us had the foresight to think to notify you. Sorry.

 

Given some of the lengths of submissions to Scoop, especially from me, and some of the garbage they printed (not from me ), I am sure it was just a simple oversight or e-mail problem that led to your exclusion.

 

Keep posting as we value and welcome your expertise on these boards!

[Newerthannew]

Tracey, welcome back to the boards! You changed your username, didn't you?

 

Nope, same username as always!

 

I recall seeing a reference somewhere from Scoop that they stated they never received your e-mails and wanted you to re-send them. Perhaps you never saw that and none of us had the foresight to think to notify you. Sorry.

 

I read their request and emailed them immediately. Since I never received a mailer-daemon saying that the message was undeliverable (either time) they should have recieved either email.

 

Given some of the lengths of submissions to Scoop, especially from me, and some of the garbage they printed (not from me ), I am sure it was just a simple oversight or e-mail problem that led to your exclusion.

 

No conspiracy implied, just thought it would be of benefit for everyone to see what the technical side of the issues are.

 

Keep posting as we value and welcome your expertise on these boards!

 

I am under strict house rules not to post too often on the boards, but when I think I can add something of value to a discussion, I usually do.

 

Thanks

Tracey Heft

www.eclipsepaper.com

[TomG]

Hi Tracey,

I just saw your post here on the boards. We published everything we received. J.C. Vaughn emailed you directly and we also mentioned in Scoop about not receiving your email. Please forward your email to me at work and as always we appreciate your input.

 

Best,

Tom Gordon

[Newerthannew]

Hi Tracey,

I just saw your post here on the boards. We published everything we received with the exception of one email due to content which had nothing to do with the topics. J.C. Vaughn emailed you directly and we also mentioned in Scoop about not receiving your email. Please forward your email to me at work and as always we appreciate your input.

 

Best,

Tom Gordon

 

Hi Tom

 

Well, I never received an email from J.C directly, but I did read about the non-receipt in Scoop. I sent a total of 3 emails feedback@gemstonepub.com - the first on the 21st of June, the 2nd on the 29th of June (which is the one posted here) and resent the email of June 29th on the 2nd of July (in response to the prompting in that weeks issue of Scoop). Could the email I posted here be the one that "had nothing to do with the topics"? In any case, I don't believe I have your direct email but here is mine:

 

trace@eclipsepaper.com

 

if you could directly send me the dates of the emails you have received to my email address, I would like to see what I wrote distributed to the readers of Scoop. It will also allow me an opportunity to see what might have happened with my email server to the emails I did send to feedback@gemstonepub.com.

 

Thanks

Tracey Heft

www.eclipsepaper.com

[FFB]

 

Hi all

 

After 2 weeks, Scoop still hasn't published my response to their attempt at defining glue and glued, tape, etc. I know they received the emails I sent (especially the second one which was sent at their request) and I can only guess at why they haven't published the emails. Maybe it was the length of the response? Maybe what I wrote was summarized by others? Perhaps they are too close to deadline to publish anything further through Scoop? I think the information I provide in my response is something that people might want to read and I hope that Scoop does publish the emails, so that a wider croud can read and understand some of this very important information.

 

So, here is the original email to Scoop, for the public record:

 

___________________

 

You have asked readers of Scoop to include their thoughts on Restoration and sub-topics such as glue, tape and tape residue. I would like to offer my viewpoints on these subjects.

 

Glue

 

You are currently proposing that the definition of glue be:

 

"GLUE or GLUED - Restoration and/or conservation method in which some form of glue is used to repair or reinforce a comic book defect.

 

The designation of Conservation would only be given if the glue is archivally safe and done only to preserve the life of the comic book.

 

While I applaud the attempt at separating conservation from restoration, the only way that a person or person(s) can determine if the glue is "archivally safe" (and therefore qualifies for a conserved designation) is to directly test the glue using a variety of solvents. Solvent testing is a destructive test that can easily damage the original book and I think it is safe to say that no-one is conducting these solvent tests on a regular basis. Thus determination is being done by visual and perhaps mechanical methods.

 

The problem is that most glues, initially, look the same. Most glues used are clear, flexible and odorless when they are first applied and for a period after they dry. Acidic and harmful adhesives look like, react like and seem like, the same "archival" glues used by professional conservators and comic-book restorers. It is only after they age, that problems and differences in glues becomes evident.

 

It has long been known in conservation science that the majority of adhesives turn brittle and/or acidic with age. A test of adhesives for pH changes due to aging was conducted by the Canadian Conservation Institute in 1988 and of the 52 different adhesives tested (including products readily available to the average consumer) only 3 passed the stringent requirements set forth in the study. The rest were deemed unacceptable for conservation purposes. Of the 3 that passed the test, none are commercially available outside of the museum field. Of the 3 that passed, none are currently used by comic book restorers to repair books - as they fail certain flexibility requirements necessary for the repair of paper fibers at the spine of the book.

 

So, a visual examination and even a mechanical testing of the suspect adhesives might indicate that the glue used is "archivally safe". However, the odds would seem to be very high that the glue deemed as "archivally safe" is in fact, anything but, and after some time will age and eventually degrade the material it was applied to.

 

Since actual solvent testing is not being done on the books, the only other method for determining what type of glue was used would be to consult the treatment reports most comic book restorers include with a restored book. Since those treatment reports are usually discarded, then determination of the type of glue used would be difficult (if not impossible). Thus, labeling one glue as "archival" and another as harmful is difficult (if not impossible) and prone to error.

 

Thus your intended definition cannot be based upon an assumption that the glue used is "archival" or not as it cannot be determined without extensive testing. Perhaps your definition should read:

 

"Glue - a synonym for adhesive. Applied in order to improve the appearance or structural stability of an item. Common areas of application are along the edges of a tear, a pulled staple, a split spine."

 

leaving the designation of conservation or restoration out of the definition since a determination of either "archivally safe" or harmful is, at the moment, almost impossible.

 

I would also break your definition into two, creating one for glued, such as:

 

"Glued - a restoration or conservation method of applying glue or adhesive. In example, the tears have been glued, the staple split has been glued, the spine has been glued. "

 

If there persists a need to define a treatment as conservation and not restoration (and I believe there is a great need) then determination of restoration or conservation would be dependent upon intent of the restorer. Is the defect that was glued structural or esthetic? If structural, then perhaps it was a conservation procedure. If esthetic, then it was restoration. If both structural and esthetic, then restoration.

 

Scoop also mentions:

 

"it has been commonly accepted that on comic books prior to approximately 1950, a very minor amount of glue and/or a very minor amount of color touch is acceptable as "unrestored""

 

I was unaware of a common acceptance of this policy prior to CGC's arrival in November 1999. In fact, I am still unaware of it being a common acceptance outside of 3d party grading. However, I wish to speak to the issue at hand and that is glue and color-touch are two separate procedures and should be addressed separately.

 

Dealing with the issue of glue (and ignoring the use of arbitrary and undefined terms such as "minor" since they raise the question of who determines what is minor and what amount is minor opposed to moderate or major) and taking into consideration that the chances of the glue being or becoming acidic over time are extremely high, how could a small amount of glue be considered as unrestored - in other words a very minor amount of glue is the same as no glue at all?

 

That small amount of glue could react with time to destroy the area of the book it is in contact with (along with the interior paper in proximity).

 

It seems that the statement "is acceptable as "unrestored"" is designed to ultimately delineate between restoration treatments and conservation treatments. For what purpose, I can only guess but I believe it relates to salability - with conservation being more desirable than restoration. However, determining whether an item has been restored or conserved comes down, once again, to an attempt to differentiate the intent between restoring the item and conserving it.

 

I am sympathetic to people trying to put forward that the intent of the repair was to preserve the book in its current condition. If that intent can be determined (and it would be pretty obvious when looking at the book since the necessity of the repair was either structural (conservation) or esthetic (restoration) then the book might be seen as being "unrestored" or conserved.

 

However, if the material used is harmful for the long-term preservation of the item should it still be considered conserved? To once again reference the IIC definitions, conservation is defined as "treatments used to prevent existing damage from proceeding further, thereby maintaining an items current condition for the future." It hardly seems appropriate to assign a conservation label to a procedure whereby the addition of a harmful material (and often non-reversible (which is another criteria for conservation standards, but I digress) leads to the damage or destruction of the item being conserved. Even though, at one time, the material was accepted as a standard conservation material.

 

As for color-touch, if one accepts the international standards for the definitions of conservation and restoration, it is unarguably restoration by definition.

 

If by saying "a very minor amount of glue and/or a very minor amount of color touch is acceptable as "unrestored"" you actually mean to say that "small amounts of restoration should not affect the value or collectibility of an item as much as larger or more intrusive forms of restoration" then that should be the message being put forward (and one I heartily support). By labeling restoration as conservation and vice/versa it only continues to blur the lines between conservation and restoration, clouding the issues and confusing everyone.

 

Moving onto the subject of tape, Scoop wrote:

 

As such, tape cannot be considered restoration but should in fact be considered damage to a comic and should be accounted for accordingly.

 

I disagree, sort of. While damaging, tape is a material originally intended to help conserve an item. To paraphrase my article on adhesive tape from January 1998,

 

"...(3M) company literature in 1961 stated that:

 

No. 810 is very stable, in that both adhesive and backing are, for all practical purposes, inert...

 

The backing, being acetate film, is not affected by changes in temperature and/or humidity.

 

The adhesive...will not ‘set up’ and become hard, it will not discolor into the paper to which it is applied.

 

As a result of this glowing publicity, magic mending tapes were quickly adopted as a viable and perfectly acceptable conservation treatment by many collectors and amateur conservators around the world. Examples of books where tape has been used to seal tears, reinforce the cover and stabilize the spine are all attempts to preserve the current condition and prevent any further damage from occurring. These repairs were done in good faith, as people read and eagerly believed the manufacturers’ claims. "

 

Therefore, the application of tape is not a restoration treatment but a conservation treatment that has proven to be misguided with time and should be accounted for accordingly. True, it causes damage with time but I am not convinced on the need for a separate category such as "destruction" or "desecration" (although trimming would be an obvious fit for a destruction category, if it should be created).

 

Lastly, tape residue where Scoop wrote:

 

Like other areas in which a guessing game of intent is started, lacking conclusive evidence to the contrary, it is impossible for one to assess why and in many cases how a piece of tape is removed. The presence of Tape Residue should be treated as a defect,

 

Agreed. The book was obviously previously altered through an attempt at conservation. As I wrote above, it might now be seen as a restoration attempt now that time has shown tape to be harmful and outside of the definition of "treatments used to prevent existing damage from proceeding further, thereby maintaining an items current condition for the future."

 

but barring documentation or first hand knowledge it should not be taken as evidence of tape removal.

 

By the time the adhesive has lost its tack, the adhesive will have aged considerably and changed color not to mention permeate the fibers of the book to such an extent that the paper might be transparent if not brittle or encrusted. So, by the time the carrier is no longer present, the tape has done considerable damage to the paper fibers and structural integrity of the book.

 

The question is, if there is no carrier has the carrier be removed through restoration or through the aging process?

 

If the adhesive still retains any of its tack, then the only way that the carrier (the clear part of the tape) can be removed is through intentional means. Evidence of intentional removal would include solvent stains, skimming of the paper, eraser particles trapped in the adhesive, etc. Such obvious evidence should result in a restoration designation. If, though, the carrier is absent and the adhesive staining still remains - the book has a very notable defect and should be designated as such.

 

Thank you for the opportunity to respond.

 

Sincerely,

 

Tracey Heft

Eclipse Paper Conservation

www.eclipsepaper.com

[FFB]

Hi Tracey,

I just saw your post here on the boards. We published everything we received with the exception of one email due to content which had nothing to do with the topics. J.C. Vaughn emailed you directly and we also mentioned in Scoop about not receiving your email. Please forward your email to me at work and as always we appreciate your input.

 

Best,

Tom Gordon

 

Hi Tom

 

Well, I never received an email from J.C directly, but I did read about the non-receipt in Scoop. I sent a total of 3 emails feedback@gemstonepub.com - the first on the 21st of June, the 2nd on the 29th of June (which is the one posted here) and resent the email of June 29th on the 2nd of July (in response to the prompting in that weeks issue of Scoop). Could the email I posted here be the one that "had nothing to do with the topics"? In any case, I don't believe I have your direct email but here is mine:

 

trace@eclipsepaper.com

 

if you could directly send me the dates of the emails you have received to my email address, I would like to see what I wrote distributed to the readers of Scoop. It will also allow me an opportunity to see what might have happened with my email server to the emails I did send to feedback@gemstonepub.com.

 

Thanks

Tracey Heft

www.eclipsepaper.com

 

Gemstone should check its junk mail filters. I have to check mine constantly because it grabs lots of email that isn't junk. I'll bet that's your problem.

[TomG]

Hi Tracey,

The email which I mentioned was not yours. We look froward to publishing your comments in Scoop.

 

Best,

Tom