Transfer stains and grade

[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.

 

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.

 

"Dirty plates"? That's a good one. You can believe or suspect whatever you want, I guess. For everyone else, here's an example of what I'm talking about. There is ink transference along the spine, plus two spots along the top and bottom caused probably when the books were bundled with twine.

 

[greggy]

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.

 

"Dirty plates"? That's a good one. You can believe or suspect whatever you want, I guess. For everyone else, here's an example of what I'm talking about. There is ink transference along the spine, plus two spots along the top and bottom caused probably when the books were bundled with twine.

 

Here's another book that is infamous for this defect!

 

[divad]

here's an example of what I'm talking about. There is ink transference along the spine, plus two spots along the top and bottom caused probably when the books were bundled with twine.

 

What defect is that?

 

You imagination is unlimited. "Wet books"

[divad]

Greg,

I don't see any similarity between Scott's example and your's. I do, however, see the similarity between your example and JC's. Please articulate the defect and what you think the cause is. Thanks

 

-D

[greggy]

Greg,

I don't see any similarity between Scott's example and your's. I do see thsimilarity between your example and JC's. Please articulate the defect and what you think the cause is. Thanks

 

-D

 

[greggy]

Greg,

I don't see any similarity between Scott's example and your's. I do see thsimilarity between your example and JC's. Please articulate the defect and what you think the cause is. Thanks

 

-D

 

Note the whitish areas on the cover. Probably happened when the covers were stacked upon each other when they weren't dry.

[Sal]

back cover scan would be helpful for you to be able to better you know

[greggy]

back cover scan would be helpful for you to be able to better you know

You can see it on the FC, jackwad

[Sal]

back cover scan would be helpful for you to be able to better you know

You can see it on the FC, jackwad

 

duh.

 

would be nice to know what the BC looked like in order to visualise what specifically transfered, even though i know you don't care. dork.

[divad]

Note the whitish areas on the cover. Probably happened when the covers were stacked upon each other when they weren't dry.

 

Yep, I can see the same patterns of white (or color loss) on both covers . . . as to cause, I just don't know. The "stacked while not completely dry" theory seems both rudimentary and convenient though. I bet there is another explanation related to the printing of the covers. As we know from DiceX, the covers are printed separately, and I suspect that "drying time" is not an issue.

[Sal]

Note the whitish areas on the cover. Probably happened when the covers were stacked upon each other when they weren't dry.

 

Yep, I can see the same patterns of white (or color loss) on both covers . . . as to cause, I just don't know. The "stacked while not completely dry" theory seems both rudimentary and convenient though. I bet there is another explanation related to the printing of the covers. As we know from DiceX, the covers are printed separately, and I suspect that "drying time" is not an issue.

 

humidity and high temps in the intial shipping environment?

 

the transfer could have even happened during the stacking of the covers prior to cutting and binding

 

[divad]

Note the whitish areas on the cover. Probably happened when the covers were stacked upon each other when they weren't dry.

 

Yep, I can see the same patterns of white (or color loss) on both covers . . . as to cause, I just don't know. The "stacked while not completely dry" theory seems both rudimentary and convenient though. I bet there is another explanation related to the printing of the covers. As we know from DiceX, the covers are printed separately, and I suspect that "drying time" is not an issue.

 

humidity and high temps in the intial shipping environment?

 

the transfer could have even happened during the stacking of the covers prior to cutting and binding

 

 

All possibilities . . . "more is different"

[greggy]

back cover scan would be helpful for you to be able to better you know

You can see it on the FC, jackwad

 

duh.

 

would be nice to know what the BC looked like in order to visualise what specifically transfered, even though i know you don't care. dork.

Corrrect, fool

[greggy]

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.

 

"Dirty plates"? That's a good one. You can believe or suspect whatever you want, I guess. For everyone else, here's an example of what I'm talking about. There is ink transference along the spine, plus two spots along the top and bottom caused probably when the books were bundled with twine.

 

Here's another book that is infamous for this defect!

 

For Sal

 

[divad]

Pretty clear match . . .

[FFB]

Note the whitish areas on the cover. Probably happened when the covers were stacked upon each other when they weren't dry.

 

Yep, I can see the same patterns of white (or color loss) on both covers . . . as to cause, I just don't know. The "stacked while not completely dry" theory seems both rudimentary and convenient though. I bet there is another explanation related to the printing of the covers. As we know from DiceX, the covers are printed separately, and I suspect that "drying time" is not an issue.

 

Do you have any actual knowledge of how this kind of printng works, or are you just being contrary for the sake of argument? Just curious. I mean, it's kind of strange for you to say "I don't believe it" when you don't have any idea how the printing and bindng process actually works. Weren't you saying "dirty plates" a little while ago?

[FFB]

Note the whitish areas on the cover. Probably happened when the covers were stacked upon each other when they weren't dry.

 

Yep, I can see the same patterns of white (or color loss) on both covers . . . as to cause, I just don't know. The "stacked while not completely dry" theory seems both rudimentary and convenient though. I bet there is another explanation related to the printing of the covers. As we know from DiceX, the covers are printed separately, and I suspect that "drying time" is not an issue.

 

humidity and high temps in the intial shipping environment?

 

the transfer could have even happened during the stacking of the covers prior to cutting and binding

 

 

Look, it's not like tons and tons and thick layers of ink are being transferred. It's a relatively minor amount, although it definitely shows up. The term "wet stacking" doesn't mean that the books are still literally dripping "wet."

[Sal]

Note the whitish areas on the cover. Probably happened when the covers were stacked upon each other when they weren't dry.

 

Yep, I can see the same patterns of white (or color loss) on both covers . . . as to cause, I just don't know. The "stacked while not completely dry" theory seems both rudimentary and convenient though. I bet there is another explanation related to the printing of the covers. As we know from DiceX, the covers are printed separately, and I suspect that "drying time" is not an issue.

 

humidity and high temps in the intial shipping environment?

 

the transfer could have even happened during the stacking of the covers prior to cutting and binding

 

 

Look, it's not like tons and tons and thick layers of ink are being transferred. It's a relatively minor amount, although it definitely shows up. The term "wet stacking" doesn't mean that the books are still literally dripping "wet."

 

you're talking to me like you think i don't realise that. stop it.

 

 

 

divad -

 

 

greggy -

[thedude]

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"

 

cool, I must say, this has been one of the most interesting and educational threads I've read on printing and production of comic books, you guys are very knowledgeable on this topic..thedude has learned something today..

[divad]

Note the whitish areas on the cover. Probably happened when the covers were stacked upon each other when they weren't dry.

 

Yep, I can see the same patterns of white (or color loss) on both covers . . . as to cause, I just don't know. The "stacked while not completely dry" theory seems both rudimentary and convenient though. I bet there is another explanation related to the printing of the covers. As we know from DiceX, the covers are printed separately, and I suspect that "drying time" is not an issue.

 

Do you have any actual knowledge of how this kind of printng works, or are you just being contrary for the sake of argument? Just curious. I mean, it's kind of strange for you to say "I don't believe it" when you don't have any idea how the printing and bindng process actually works. Weren't you saying "dirty plates" a little while ago?

 

Are you picking on me? Asking a question and doubting sillly answers like "wet stacking" is how one gets to the facts. My "dirty plates" suggestion was to point out how silly you sounded, mr-lawyer-i'm-smarter-than-anyone-else . . . it never ceases to amaze me how lawyers have difficulty suppressing their "alpha-dog" tendencies

 

btw, your "example" doesn't even fit in this discussion . . .