Transfer stains and grade

[divad]

We've discussed this a few times: oil transfer stains from ink and translucency.

[Mr. Zipper]

I assumed those stains were the migration of interior acids and ink color "bleeding" through the cover.

 

A sign of "deterioration" caused by improper storage conditions, what microchamber paper is used to prevent.

 

I think there is some confusion regarding what these stains are...

 

Ink transfer stains are when acids from the interior pages migrate through the coverstock giving it that greasy, yellowish translucent look. An ink bleeding effect often accompanies this phenomena... red inks seem especially susceptible. What we are seeing on the 9.8 ASM 151 are the red inks bleeding from whatever is on the interior of the back cover. This is not a production defect.

 

I know what Sal is referring to and I think the proper term for that is ink rub. This is when ink from another copy transfers because it did not dry thoroughly. This obviously happens during the production process.

 

My guess is that this book got the "benefit of the doubt" in the grading process because it is so hard in high grade. I'd love to even have a 9.4 copy.

[FFB]

yeah, CGC's grading can be a little hard to figure out sometimes.. the best I can figure is that they grade the books on a structural level... tears, creases, staple rust, etc.. but give a pass to ink transfers and dust shadows and things of that nature.

 

On the top NM grade levels it seems "odd" to me for two reasons:

 

First, it doesn't fit the spirit of nearly mint, or "like new", or "just purchased from the newstand".

 

Second, things that could be corrected for a fee (and not considered restoration), like surface stains, dirt, grime, curls, bends, and dents really get hammered.

But then actual oily ink bleeding that causes discoloration, and/or ink fading, gets a complete pass??

 

That seems weird, unless generating income through reconditioning services is a heavy influence on grading criteria. Or at least it makes some sense when that's factored as a possible "why?".

 

If anything, it's because the oil transfer stain is considered to be "original comic book material" and thus, less of a defect. I'm not saying I agree with it, nor am I saying this is exactly why it gets downgraded less. But it's a possible reason that makes at least some logical sense.

[FFB]

I assumed those stains were the migration of interior acids and ink color "bleeding" through the cover.

 

A sign of "deterioration" caused by improper storage conditions, what microchamber paper is used to prevent.

 

I think there is some confusion regarding what these stains are...

 

Ink transfer stains are when acids from the interior pages migrate through the coverstock giving it that greasy, yellowish translucent look. An ink bleeding effect often accompanies this phenomena... red inks seem especially susceptible. What we are seeing on the 9.8 ASM 151 are the red inks bleeding from whatever is on the interior of the back cover. This is not a production defect.

 

I know what Sal is referring to and I think the proper term for that is ink rub. This is when ink from another copy transfers because it did not dry thoroughly. This obviously happens during the production process.

 

My guess is that this book got the "benefit of the doubt" in the grading process because it is so hard in high grade. I'd love to even have a 9.4 copy.

 

It's not acid migration. It is oil migration. The inks used on the interior are oil based.

[FFB]

what i'm suggesting is that when the books are taken off the press and still somewhat "wet" then stacked, some of the ones on the bottom of the stack might transfer a wee bit of ink.

 

this is different than "overspray" which normally refers to distributor spray markings done on the edges while the books are stacked for shipment.

 

i don't see how pressing would cause it because you would need to have two books on the press at once to pass the colour from one to another, and that doesn't seem logical to me

 

This is right. The ink transference from wet-stacking is different from the oil transference that occurs over time when the oils from the interior pages migrate to the cover stock, which has a coating of kaolinite (clay) that much more readily absorbs and retains the oil than the interior pages. Ink transference is something you most often see when you have black cover books with white back covers. When the books are stacked before the ink is completely dried, some of the ink from the front cover of the underneath book will come off on the back cover of the above book in the stack. Overspray is also as you describe it. The distributor would spray the tops of a box or stack of books to identify them all from the top view. Three different concepts from three different causes.

[divad]

what i'm suggesting is that when the books are taken off the press and still somewhat "wet" then stacked, some of the ones on the bottom of the stack might transfer a wee bit of ink.

 

this is different than "overspray" which normally refers to distributor spray markings done on the edges while the books are stacked for shipment.

 

i don't see how pressing would cause it because you would need to have two books on the press at once to pass the colour from one to another, and that doesn't seem logical to me

 

This is right. The ink transference from wet-stacking is different from the oil transference that occurs over time when the oils from the interior pages migrate to the cover stock, which has a coating of kaolinite (clay) that much more readily absorbs and retains the oil than the interior pages. Ink transference is something you most often see when you have black cover books with white back covers. When the books are stacked before the ink is completely dried, some of the ink from the front cover of the underneath book will come off on the back cover of the above book in the stack. Overspray is also as you describe it. The distributor would spray the tops of a box or stack of books to identify them all from the top view. Three different concepts from three different causes.

 

Except that "wet stacking" doesn't exist, or at least, not as much as you yahoo's conjecture . . .

 

More often, the ink transference I have seen has been from a different issue of the title or a differnet book entirely, not from a production stack of the same book. For example, I had a Ghost Rider #7 that had a near perfect transfer on it's back cover of the logo from Ghost Rider #8. This has nothing to with production or "wet stacking". What is does have to do with is that this copy of GR#7 sat on top of a copy of GR#8 in a stack without bags for some 30 years in mixed environments, resulting in the subsequent "ink transfer" from the front cover of #8 to the back cover of #7.

[thedude]

what i'm suggesting is that when the books are taken off the press and still somewhat "wet" then stacked, some of the ones on the bottom of the stack might transfer a wee bit of ink.

 

this is different than "overspray" which normally refers to distributor spray markings done on the edges while the books are stacked for shipment.

 

i don't see how pressing would cause it because you would need to have two books on the press at once to pass the colour from one to another, and that doesn't seem logical to me

 

This is right. The ink transference from wet-stacking is different from the oil transference that occurs over time when the oils from the interior pages migrate to the cover stock, which has a coating of kaolinite (clay) that much more readily absorbs and retains the oil than the interior pages. Ink transference is something you most often see when you have black cover books with white back covers. When the books are stacked before the ink is completely dried, some of the ink from the front cover of the underneath book will come off on the back cover of the above book in the stack. Overspray is also as you describe it. The distributor would spray the tops of a box or stack of books to identify them all from the top view. Three different concepts from three different causes.

 

Except that "wet stacking" doesn't exist, or at least, not as much as you yahoo's conjecture . . .

 

More often, the ink transference I have seen has been from a different issue of the title or a differnet book entirely, not from a production stack of the same book. For example, I had a Ghost Rider #7 that had a near perfect transfer on it's back cover of the logo from Ghost Rider #8. This has nothing to with production or "wet stacking". What is does have to do with is that this copy of GR#7 sat on top of a copy of GR#8 in a stack without bags for some 30 years in mixed environments, resulting in the subsequent "ink transfer" from the front cover of #8 to the back cover of #7.

 

BINGO !! this is the kind of ink transfer (or rub) that I was talking about,,.. btw, why we gotta be yahoos ??

[FFB]

what i'm suggesting is that when the books are taken off the press and still somewhat "wet" then stacked, some of the ones on the bottom of the stack might transfer a wee bit of ink.

 

this is different than "overspray" which normally refers to distributor spray markings done on the edges while the books are stacked for shipment.

 

i don't see how pressing would cause it because you would need to have two books on the press at once to pass the colour from one to another, and that doesn't seem logical to me

 

This is right. The ink transference from wet-stacking is different from the oil transference that occurs over time when the oils from the interior pages migrate to the cover stock, which has a coating of kaolinite (clay) that much more readily absorbs and retains the oil than the interior pages. Ink transference is something you most often see when you have black cover books with white back covers. When the books are stacked before the ink is completely dried, some of the ink from the front cover of the underneath book will come off on the back cover of the above book in the stack. Overspray is also as you describe it. The distributor would spray the tops of a box or stack of books to identify them all from the top view. Three different concepts from three different causes.

 

Except that "wet stacking" doesn't exist, or at least, not as much as you yahoo's conjecture . . .

 

More often, the ink transference I have seen has been from a different issue of the title or a differnet book entirely, not from a production stack of the same book. For example, I had a Ghost Rider #7 that had a near perfect transfer on it's back cover of the logo from Ghost Rider #8. This has nothing to with production or "wet stacking". What is does have to do with is that this copy of GR#7 sat on top of a copy of GR#8 in a stack without bags for some 30 years in mixed environments, resulting in the subsequent "ink transfer" from the front cover of #8 to the back cover of #7.

 

Ink transference from wet stacking on the back covers of silver age books is common. After the silver age, not as much but it still does happen. It is far more common than you're giving it credit for. That's not conjecture. It's a fact. Look at the back cover of ASM#63. It frequently has black ink transference on the back cover. I've owned a half dozen copies in the last three years and they all had it and I've seen dozens of others that also had it. It's usually visible as a smudgy line running up and down the back cover about a quarter inch inward from the spine.

 

Your Ghost Rider #7 does not sound like it has a wet stacking transference stain. But to say that this means that wet stacking transference does not exist is a non-sequitur.

[Sal]

what i'm suggesting is that when the books are taken off the press and still somewhat "wet" then stacked, some of the ones on the bottom of the stack might transfer a wee bit of ink.

 

this is different than "overspray" which normally refers to distributor spray markings done on the edges while the books are stacked for shipment.

 

i don't see how pressing would cause it because you would need to have two books on the press at once to pass the colour from one to another, and that doesn't seem logical to me

 

This is right. The ink transference from wet-stacking is different from the oil transference that occurs over time when the oils from the interior pages migrate to the cover stock, which has a coating of kaolinite (clay) that much more readily absorbs and retains the oil than the interior pages. Ink transference is something you most often see when you have black cover books with white back covers. When the books are stacked before the ink is completely dried, some of the ink from the front cover of the underneath book will come off on the back cover of the above book in the stack. Overspray is also as you describe it. The distributor would spray the tops of a box or stack of books to identify them all from the top view. Three different concepts from three different causes.

 

Except that "wet stacking" doesn't exist, or at least, not as much as you yahoo's conjecture . . .

 

More often, the ink transference I have seen has been from a different issue of the title or a differnet book entirely, not from a production stack of the same book. For example, I had a Ghost Rider #7 that had a near perfect transfer on it's back cover of the logo from Ghost Rider #8. This has nothing to with production or "wet stacking". What is does have to do with is that this copy of GR#7 sat on top of a copy of GR#8 in a stack without bags for some 30 years in mixed environments, resulting in the subsequent "ink transfer" from the front cover of #8 to the back cover of #7.

 

BINGO !! this is the kind of ink transfer (or rub) that I was talking about,,.. btw, why we gotta be yahoos ??

 

that's because he's spicing up his posts with some grade-A, divad-brand Snarky© - now with extra biting flavour!

[joe_collector]

Or it occurs if the book has been subjected to an undue amount of external stress . . .

 

It's like he squeezing the very life-blood out of these comics.

[divad]

Ink transference from wet stacking on the back covers of silver age books is common. After the silver age, not as much but it still does happen. It is far more common than you're giving it credit for. That's not conjecture. It's a fact. Look at the back cover of ASM#63. It frequently has black ink transference on the back cover. I've owned a half dozen copies in the last three years and they all had it and I've seen dozens of others that also had it. It's usually visible as a smudgy line running up and down the back cover about a quarter inch inward from the spine.

 

Your Ghost Rider #7 does not sound like it has a wet stacking transference stain. But to say that this means that wet stacking transference does not exist is a non-sequitur.

 

I suspect that the ink issue on the ASM #63 is a bonafide "printing issue" much like the black flecks of ink on the spine of Hulk #181, the horizontal roller drag at the price block on MTU #1, and such other common issue-specific printing defects. I am not familiar with it, but the idea of these guys in the print shop stacking the books before they are dry, just cracks me up . . . it's not like they've never done it before. And don't "non-sequitur" me!

[divad]

BINGO !! this is the kind of ink transfer (or rub) that I was talking about,,.. btw, why we gotta be yahoos ??

 

Dude . . . yahoos are a GOOD thing As in "my fellow yahoos"

[divad]

that's because he's spicing up his posts with some grade-A, divad-brand Snarky© - now with extra biting flavour!

 

[divad]

Or it occurs if the book has been subjected to an undue amount of external stress . . .

 

It's like he squeezing the very life-blood out of these comics.

 

methinks . . . isn't this one of the Spidey's that arseman bought from bedrock?

[joe_collector]

Here's an example of a printing/stacking related ink transfer, which is not what that ASM back cover has.

 

Here's a CGC 9.4 copy of Monsters on the Prowl #14:

 

 

And here's my copy, the stains on the cover of which I never realized was due to a very common printing flaw on this issue:

 

[Davenport]

 

If anything, it's because the oil transfer stain is considered to be "original comic book material" and thus, less of a defect. I'm not saying I agree with it, nor am I saying this is exactly why it gets downgraded less. But it's a possible reason that makes at least some logical sense.

It's an interesting and educational discussion.

 

I can understand the "original comic book material" caveat, except...with "thumb dents" and the like it's still original comic book material (dent, no thumbprint) and gets hammered because it's visible to the eye. They can be pressed back out, no damage at all.

 

And... if anything an oil transfer stain is visible. Ugly, if it's severe enough. Yet, no impact on the grade. You have to admit, that's weird.

[FFB]

Ink transference from wet stacking on the back covers of silver age books is common. After the silver age, not as much but it still does happen. It is far more common than you're giving it credit for. That's not conjecture. It's a fact. Look at the back cover of ASM#63. It frequently has black ink transference on the back cover. I've owned a half dozen copies in the last three years and they all had it and I've seen dozens of others that also had it. It's usually visible as a smudgy line running up and down the back cover about a quarter inch inward from the spine.

 

Your Ghost Rider #7 does not sound like it has a wet stacking transference stain. But to say that this means that wet stacking transference does not exist is a non-sequitur.

 

I suspect that the ink issue on the ASM #63 is a bonafide "printing issue" much like the black flecks of ink on the spine of Hulk #181, the horizontal roller drag at the price block on MTU #1, and such other common issue-specific printing defects. I am not familiar with it, but the idea of these guys in the print shop stacking the books before they are dry, just cracks me up . . . it's not like they've never done it before. And don't "non-sequitur" me!

 

The ASM#63 is not a printing issue in the way you're describing, because the amount of transference varied widely from book to book. Some books don't have any, some books have a little, and some books have a ton of it, and the transference can be anywhere on the back cover, but with a tendency for most of it to be along the spine. ASM#63 is one where it is most noticeable because it's a black front cover/white back cover, but a lot of other 1960s books with different color covers have the same thing going on. It's just harder to see in a scan if you're not dealing with transference of black ink.

 

Also, it's not a function of stacking books that are still dripping wet. It's a function of stacking books that are not completely 100% dried yet and a little bit of the surface layer of ink comes off. Kind of like what happens if you hit the cover with an eraser, except that it comes off much more readily when the books are hot off the presses.

[FFB]

 

If anything, it's because the oil transfer stain is considered to be "original comic book material" and thus, less of a defect. I'm not saying I agree with it, nor am I saying this is exactly why it gets downgraded less. But it's a possible reason that makes at least some logical sense.

It's an interesting and educational discussion.

 

I can understand the "original comic book material" caveat, except...with "thumb dents" and the like it's still original comic book material (dent, no thumbprint) and gets hammered because it's visible to the eye. They can be pressed back out, no damage at all.

 

And... if anything an oil transfer stain is visible. Ugly, if it's severe enough. Yet, no impact on the grade. You have to admit, that's weird.

 

Hey, I don't grade them that way!

[divad]

Vince,

That's a good example. So it appears to be a ghost-like printing image in a discernable pattern, similar to what FFB is saying is a wet-stacking issue . . .

-D

[divad]

Ink transference from wet stacking on the back covers of silver age books is common. After the silver age, not as much but it still does happen. It is far more common than you're giving it credit for. That's not conjecture. It's a fact. Look at the back cover of ASM#63. It frequently has black ink transference on the back cover. I've owned a half dozen copies in the last three years and they all had it and I've seen dozens of others that also had it. It's usually visible as a smudgy line running up and down the back cover about a quarter inch inward from the spine.

 

Your Ghost Rider #7 does not sound like it has a wet stacking transference stain. But to say that this means that wet stacking transference does not exist is a non-sequitur.

 

I suspect that the ink issue on the ASM #63 is a bonafide "printing issue" much like the black flecks of ink on the spine of Hulk #181, the horizontal roller drag at the price block on MTU #1, and such other common issue-specific printing defects. I am not familiar with it, but the idea of these guys in the print shop stacking the books before they are dry, just cracks me up . . . it's not like they've never done it before. And don't "non-sequitur" me!

 

The ASM#63 is not a printing issue in the way you're describing, because the amount of transference varied widely from book to book. Some books don't have any, some books have a little, and some books have a ton of it, and the transference can be anywhere on the back cover, but with a tendency for most of it to be along the spine. ASM#63 is one where it is most noticeable because it's a black front cover/white back cover, but a lot of other 1960s books with different color covers have the same thing going on. It's just harder to see in a scan if you're not dealing with transference of black ink.

 

Also, it's not a function of stacking books that are still dripping wet. It's a function of stacking books that are not completely 100% dried yet and a little bit of the surface layer of ink comes off. Kind of like what happens if you hit the cover with an eraser, except that it comes off much more readily when the books are hot off the presses.

 

I'm still skeptical, because the description you use above fits both of the examples I cited as well: the amount of (the particular defect) varied widely from book to book. Some books don't have any, some books have a little, and some books have a ton of it, I suspect that the book was printed with dirty plates or something along those lines . . . Where's DiceX when you need him

 

*Edit: See JC's example above.