what's wrong with pressing/cover cleaning?

[trevorlsmith]

why is everyone so against pressing,but i am sure everyone at one time or another has had a book that was at some previous point stacked with a few hundred books on top of it straightening out a few NCB creases,or a slight wave in the book or other minor defects

 

That's like comparing being hit with a balloon....and being hammered with a steel bar.

 

Apples and oranges.

 

What he's describing isn't completely different from a conservator who presses a paper item with a sheet of weighted glass or a vice press, nor is it different in terms of the forces being applied when spot pressing a bent edge or corner. Not everyone uses a dry mount press, and those who do don't always use a dry mount press on every book for every kind of defect. In fact, many defects that would take a book from 9.6 to 9.8 are not removable with a dry mount press, but are easily removed by more "mundane" methods (such as localized pressure applied by hand). I know that you guys don't equate this kind of pressing with dry mount pressing, but given the fact that this kind of pressing can actually result in a great dollar amount being "added" to the value of the book, I don't understand your reluctance to acknowledge that "some" professional pressing is in fact akin to exactly that the original poster was talking about.

 

As tired as some people are about having people compare Church stacks with "professional pressing," the fact is that the processes are not that different in many cases when a dry mount press is not being used.

 

Weird. I just wrote the previous post before reading yours.

 

Anyway, the difference is that I don't think pushing back a slightly bent corner with your thumb or leaving a book under your set of Britannicas is the type of pressing that needs to be disclosed because it doesn't hide the fact that part of the comic has seriously weakened paper fibers that are no longer visible.

 

You have to exert some serious pressure on a comic to remove or reduce the presence of, for instance, a bad spine roll.

[FFB]

why is everyone so against pressing,but i am sure everyone at one time or another has had a book that was at some previous point stacked with a few hundred books on top of it straightening out a few NCB creases,or a slight wave in the book or other minor defects

 

That's like comparing being hit with a balloon....and being hammered with a steel bar.

 

Apples and oranges.

 

What he's describing isn't completely different from a conservator who presses a paper item with a sheet of weighted glass or a vice press, nor is it different in terms of the forces being applied when spot pressing a bent edge or corner. Not everyone uses a dry mount press, and those who do don't always use a dry mount press on every book for every kind of defect. In fact, many defects that would take a book from 9.6 to 9.8 are not removable with a dry mount press, but are easily removed by more "mundane" methods (such as localized pressure applied by hand). I know that you guys don't equate this kind of pressing with dry mount pressing, but given the fact that this kind of pressing can actually result in a great dollar amount being "added" to the value of the book, I don't understand your reluctance to acknowledge that "some" professional pressing is in fact akin to exactly that the original poster was talking about.

 

As tired as some people are about having people compare Church stacks with "professional pressing," the fact is that the processes are not that different in many cases when a dry mount press is not being used.

 

Weird. I just wrote the previous post before reading yours.

 

Anyway, the difference is that I don't think pushing back a slightly bent corner with your thumb or leaving a book under your set of Britannicas is the type of pressing that needs to be disclosed because it doesn't hide the fact that part of the comic has seriously weakened paper fibers that are no longer visible.

 

You have to exert some serious pressure on a comic to remove or reduce the presence of, for instance, a bad spine roll.

 

It's not the amount of pressure that you exert that removes the spine roll. Relaxing the paper fibers and allowing them to return to equillibrium under moderate pressure is what takes out spine roll. High pressure on a comic book cover runs a serious risk of popping staples.

 

But, even if what you said were true, where do you draw the line? Why should a seller have to disclose the fact that he pressed out spine roll on a VG 4.0, resulting in a FN- 5.5, but a seller who hand-presses out edge dings and takes a NM- 9.2 to a NM+ 9.6 does not have to disclose that (despite the fact that the jump from 9.2 to 9.6 will usually result in a much greater dollar increase than the jump from 4.0 to 5.5)?

[Hawkman]

mm....i guess this is one of those issues that depends on your opinion, because if i bought a book that was pressed and paid more than what was paid for it when it wasn't pressed, i wouldn't care. as long as the pressing didn't cause any unknown problems.

 

i do however believe that it should be brought to the attention of the buyer.

 

 

somone mentioned that cover cleaning could affect the colors on the book. if that's true, then i can see that being considered resto.

[joker-fish]

why is everyone so against pressing,but i am sure everyone at one time or another has had a book that was at some previous point stacked with a few hundred books on top of it straightening out a few NCB creases,or a slight wave in the book or other minor defects

 

That's like comparing being hit with a balloon....and being hammered with a steel bar.

 

Apples and oranges.

 

What he's describing isn't completely different from a conservator who presses a paper item with a sheet of weighted glass or a vice press, nor is it different in terms of the forces being applied when spot pressing a bent edge or corner. Not everyone uses a dry mount press, and those who do don't always use a dry mount press on every book for every kind of defect. In fact, many defects that would take a book from 9.6 to 9.8 are not removable with a dry mount press, but are easily removed by more "mundane" methods (such as localized pressure applied by hand). I know that you guys don't equate this kind of pressing with dry mount pressing, but given the fact that this kind of pressing can actually result in a great dollar amount being "added" to the value of the book, I don't understand your reluctance to acknowledge that "some" professional pressing is in fact akin to exactly that the original poster was talking about.

 

As tired as some people are about having people compare Church stacks with "professional pressing," the fact is that the processes are not that different in many cases when a dry mount press is not being used.

 

Weird. I just wrote the previous post before reading yours.

 

Anyway, the difference is that I don't think pushing back a slightly bent corner with your thumb or leaving a book under your set of Britannicas is the type of pressing that needs to be disclosed because it doesn't hide the fact that part of the comic has seriously weakened paper fibers that are no longer visible.

 

You have to exert some serious pressure on a comic to remove or reduce the presence of, for instance, a bad spine roll.

 

It's not the amount of pressure that you exert that removes the spine roll. Relaxing the paper fibers and allowing them to return to equillibrium under moderate pressure is what takes out spine roll. High pressure on a comic book cover runs a serious risk of popping staples.

 

But, even if what you said were true, where do you draw the line? Why should a seller have to disclose the fact that he pressed out spine roll on a VG 4.0, resulting in a FN- 5.5, but a seller who hand-presses out edge dings and takes a NM- 9.2 to a NM+ 9.6 does not have to disclose that (despite the fact that the jump from 9.2 to 9.6 will usually result in a much greater dollar increase than the jump from 4.0 to 5.5)?

 

i guess i just dont know anything about pressing,i just assumed it was putting books on a comic to flatten it

 

note to self...be weary of possible pressing from FFB,hehehe,j/k

[trevorlsmith]

why is everyone so against pressing,but i am sure everyone at one time or another has had a book that was at some previous point stacked with a few hundred books on top of it straightening out a few NCB creases,or a slight wave in the book or other minor defects

 

That's like comparing being hit with a balloon....and being hammered with a steel bar.

 

Apples and oranges.

 

What he's describing isn't completely different from a conservator who presses a paper item with a sheet of weighted glass or a vice press, nor is it different in terms of the forces being applied when spot pressing a bent edge or corner. Not everyone uses a dry mount press, and those who do don't always use a dry mount press on every book for every kind of defect. In fact, many defects that would take a book from 9.6 to 9.8 are not removable with a dry mount press, but are easily removed by more "mundane" methods (such as localized pressure applied by hand). I know that you guys don't equate this kind of pressing with dry mount pressing, but given the fact that this kind of pressing can actually result in a great dollar amount being "added" to the value of the book, I don't understand your reluctance to acknowledge that "some" professional pressing is in fact akin to exactly that the original poster was talking about.

 

As tired as some people are about having people compare Church stacks with "professional pressing," the fact is that the processes are not that different in many cases when a dry mount press is not being used.

 

Weird. I just wrote the previous post before reading yours.

 

Anyway, the difference is that I don't think pushing back a slightly bent corner with your thumb or leaving a book under your set of Britannicas is the type of pressing that needs to be disclosed because it doesn't hide the fact that part of the comic has seriously weakened paper fibers that are no longer visible.

 

You have to exert some serious pressure on a comic to remove or reduce the presence of, for instance, a bad spine roll.

 

It's not the amount of pressure that you exert that removes the spine roll. Relaxing the paper fibers and allowing them to return to equillibrium under moderate pressure is what takes out spine roll. High pressure on a comic book cover runs a serious risk of popping staples.

 

But, even if what you said were true, where do you draw the line? Why should a seller have to disclose the fact that he pressed out spine roll on a VG 4.0, resulting in a FN- 5.5, but a seller who hand-presses out edge dings and takes a NM- 9.2 to a NM+ 9.6 does not have to disclose that (despite the fact that the jump from 9.2 to 9.6 will usually result in a much greater dollar increase than the jump from 4.0 to 5.5)?

 

So relaxing the paper fibers and returning them to "equilibrium" does not weaken the paper fibers, perhaps substantially?

[FFB]

why is everyone so against pressing,but i am sure everyone at one time or another has had a book that was at some previous point stacked with a few hundred books on top of it straightening out a few NCB creases,or a slight wave in the book or other minor defects

 

That's like comparing being hit with a balloon....and being hammered with a steel bar.

 

Apples and oranges.

 

What he's describing isn't completely different from a conservator who presses a paper item with a sheet of weighted glass or a vice press, nor is it different in terms of the forces being applied when spot pressing a bent edge or corner. Not everyone uses a dry mount press, and those who do don't always use a dry mount press on every book for every kind of defect. In fact, many defects that would take a book from 9.6 to 9.8 are not removable with a dry mount press, but are easily removed by more "mundane" methods (such as localized pressure applied by hand). I know that you guys don't equate this kind of pressing with dry mount pressing, but given the fact that this kind of pressing can actually result in a great dollar amount being "added" to the value of the book, I don't understand your reluctance to acknowledge that "some" professional pressing is in fact akin to exactly that the original poster was talking about.

 

As tired as some people are about having people compare Church stacks with "professional pressing," the fact is that the processes are not that different in many cases when a dry mount press is not being used.

 

Weird. I just wrote the previous post before reading yours.

 

Anyway, the difference is that I don't think pushing back a slightly bent corner with your thumb or leaving a book under your set of Britannicas is the type of pressing that needs to be disclosed because it doesn't hide the fact that part of the comic has seriously weakened paper fibers that are no longer visible.

 

You have to exert some serious pressure on a comic to remove or reduce the presence of, for instance, a bad spine roll.

 

It's not the amount of pressure that you exert that removes the spine roll. Relaxing the paper fibers and allowing them to return to equillibrium under moderate pressure is what takes out spine roll. High pressure on a comic book cover runs a serious risk of popping staples.

 

But, even if what you said were true, where do you draw the line? Why should a seller have to disclose the fact that he pressed out spine roll on a VG 4.0, resulting in a FN- 5.5, but a seller who hand-presses out edge dings and takes a NM- 9.2 to a NM+ 9.6 does not have to disclose that (despite the fact that the jump from 9.2 to 9.6 will usually result in a much greater dollar increase than the jump from 4.0 to 5.5)?

 

So relaxing the paper fibers and returning them to "equilibrium" does not weaken the paper fibers, perhaps substantially?

 

Mark Wilson said that he conducted lab tests on paper strength pre- and post-pressing, and there was no appreciable difference.

[Ze-man]

Pressing a book correctly takes far less pressure then I first thought, more pressure does not mean better, that is when things go bad. I do not personally know how others may go about it but from what I have learned and seen first hand about pressing comics correctly isn't more harmful to a book then the process it underwent when it was created.

 

Getting down to the level of how a papers fibers react or change would probably depend on the type, and era newsprint used. GA books obviously have much more meat on their bones, while SA papers were wafer thin..i.e.. less fibers, weaker paper, easier to be damaged when handled.

 

A minor cover indent will obviously not have substantially weekend fiber's. So when that is exposed to mild pressure to remove it I cannot see how that causes any real harm. While a severe corner crease that does,or does not break color obviously has already incurred some serious damage I cannot see how pressing that type of flaw flat creates MORE damage, if anything it resets the pulps fibers closer to their pre bent state... if you bent the fold the opposite way back and forth, that to me would cause damage.

 

Newsprint and comic books are created using combinations of heat and pressure. Pressing a book improperly today can be bad , causing spine splits, shifting spines and wraps, staples being smashed, warping of the book..etc...etc..

 

So I kept my eyes open and went looking for faults in the pressing process. While I am not at liberty to disclose how it is done (from a legal standpoint) I walked away with a different perspective about what pressing actually does to a book, or rather what it doesn't do.

 

People can argue about lack of disclosure, that was not why I made this post.

 

Just offering my take about what pressing is, and what it might do to a book. After seeing it correctly preformed and doing it firsthand as part of the conservation/restoration process I felt I owed the forum another viewpoint after all my original ramblings about pressing over the past few years. I am not trying to be purposefully vague nor sound authoritative, just offering what I have seen to this point.

 

In the end is pressing "necessary" for a comic book? Probably not. But is pressing actually "Bad" for a comic book if done properly? Again, probably not.

 

I would never condone it if I felt it were truly harmful to a book.

 

 

Ze-

 

 

[FFB]

[Red Hook]

 

I would never condone it if I felt it were truly harmful to a book.

 

 

Ze-

 

 

I can't help but observe that the folks assuring us that pressing is not harmful are those profiting from the practice, either directly or indirectly.

 

But again, the bigger issue right now is disclosure. I file opinions that pressing is either harmful or not, under "anecdotal" until more scientific data comes along.

[Ze-man]

 

I would never condone it if I felt it were truly harmful to a book.

 

 

Ze-

 

 

I can't help but observe that the folks assuring us that pressing is not harmful are those profiting from the practice, either directly or indirectly.

 

But again, the bigger issue right now is disclosure. I file opinions that pressing is either harmful or not, under "anecdotal" until more scientific data comes along.

 

Brad, If I found out that there were things that caused me concern I would have voiced them, and told Matt to stuff a sock in it. You can call my viewpoint biased due to the fact that I may work for Matt someday. But after doing my own research(while not scientific) and talking with people in the paper and printing business and learning from one of the best in the business how to press a book correctly I came away with a greater understanding of the entire process of how newsprint was created, how comic books were manufactured and how that relates to them being pressed today.

 

Thusly forming as educated an opinion as I could.

 

I have not been sucked of my soul and implanted with a compliance chip that dictates how I think, and what I must say. The disclosure stuff I cannot control, Matt knows I disagree with certain aspects of his business but that does not change how I feel about pressing itself.

 

Which is why I made the post I did earlier. Take it for what it is, or not. Right or wrong I offered up what I felt to be true. In an effort to provide more then idle speculation about what is actually involved in pressing a comic book.

 

Kenny

[FFB]

 

I would never condone it if I felt it were truly harmful to a book.

 

 

Ze-

 

 

I can't help but observe that the folks assuring us that pressing is not harmful are those profiting from the practice, either directly or indirectly.

 

But again, the bigger issue right now is disclosure. I file opinions that pressing is either harmful or not, under "anecdotal" until more scientific data comes along.

 

I can't help but observe that those who keep speculating that it is harmful are those who don't even know what it involves or how it works.

 

And I believe that Mark Wilson's tests on post-pressing paper strength were conducted by an independent lab, not by him personally (he talked about this at the 2005 San Diego ComiCon panel and also at the forum dinner afterward -- I think he said that he took unpressed books, cut them it in half, pressed half of each, and sent the pressed and unpressed samples in for testing and no difference in paper strength was found). So if I heard and understood him correctly, there is some "unbiased" scientific evidence right there.

[Red Hook]

 

I would never condone it if I felt it were truly harmful to a book.

 

 

Ze-

 

 

I can't help but observe that the folks assuring us that pressing is not harmful are those profiting from the practice, either directly or indirectly.

 

But again, the bigger issue right now is disclosure. I file opinions that pressing is either harmful or not, under "anecdotal" until more scientific data comes along.

 

Brad, If I found out that there were things that caused me concern I would have voiced them, and told Matt to stuff a sock in it. You can call my viewpoint biased due to the fact that I may work for Matt someday. But after doing my own research(while not scientific) and talking with people in the paper and printing business and learning from one of the best in the business how to press a book correctly I came away with a greater understanding of the entire process of how newsprint was created, how comic books were manufactured and how that relates to them being pressed today.

 

Thusly forming as educated an opinion as I could.

 

I have not been sucked of my soul and implanted with a compliance chip that dictates how I think, and what I must say. The disclosure stuff I cannot control, Matt knows I disagree with certain aspects of his business but that does not change how I feel about pressing itself.

 

Which is why I made the post I did earlier. Take it for what it is, or not. Right or wrong I offered up what I felt to be true. In an effort to provide more then idle speculation about what is actually involved in pressing a comic book.

 

Kenny

 

And I also offered what I believe to be true. Excuse my skepticism, but my message has remained constant for three years. I'm not about to change it because you are doing what you're doing. You haven't actually offered any new information as to what is involved in pressing a book. Legal restrictions, as you said yourself.

[Ze-man]

And I also offered what I believe to be true. Excuse my skepticism, but my message has remained constant for three years. I'm not about to change it because you are doing what you're doing. You haven't actually offered any new information as to what is involved in pressing a book. Legal restrictions, as you said yourself.

 

Fair enough.

 

I offered what I had hoped was an honest as could be expected opinion about pressing as a trusted forumite. You shot me down and labeled me as " folks" without a second thought. That is cool, we are all allowed a voice here.

 

The specifics involved are not mine to give, but the results and my opinion of them are, I would hope that might carry a smidgen of weight with you. I could be completely wrong about the issue, as could you. I based my opinion on what I learned firsthand through practical application versus waiting for somebody to prove my point valid for me.

 

And when supplied with an opinion that did not support what you wanted you chalked it up to greed.

 

Next time I probably will just keep quiet.

 

Kenny

[Red Hook]

You put a lot of words in my mouth. Most of which are your own over-reaction.

 

Why would you expect your declarations on the subject of pressing to be taken any differently than those of any of the other practitioners? Because you're a good guy? I'm a good guy too. We're ALL good guys.

 

Just be honest. Of course you're going to make money off this. I never said it was greed. You never mentioned what professionals you spoke to. You're just reporting their opinion second hand, along with the observations you've gathered over a whole six weeks of playing around with the stuff. You really offered nothing of substance. If you want to change anyone's mind, take the time to build a real case.

 

What kind of reaction were you expecting?

[sckao]

I probably wouldn't go on record as belittling someone for their "6 weeks" of experience. You really have no idea what Ze-man's experience is.. or how his lifetime's experience with glass/lead work contributes to his understanding of this field.

 

After all, I believe it was you who used to only work mainly with Adobe Illustrator and professed to not know Photoshop. Don't you now teach Photoshop?

 

People are surprising with what they know or what they can do.

[FFB]

If you want to learn whether or not pressing harms books, why not recreate Mark Wilson's experiment? Find a warped or wrinkled book that would benefit from pressing. Cut the book in half. Send half of it to Matt Nelson to press it. Confirm that this half was pressed by checking to see if the wrinkles are lessened or completely diminished. Then send both halves to a paper conservator of your choosing and have him or her run paper strength tests on it. (I included a list of paper conservators in the US Northeast below for your ease of reference.) For less than $200 you'd have some real answers. And they'd be your answers, supplied by a conservator of your own choosing. There would be no question of bias, at least in your own mind. And then you could bring some real information to the table.

 

1. Patricia Reyes

New York, NY

Tel: (212) 590-0395

Type: Fellow

 

2. Karen Yager

New York, NY

Tel: (212) 864-3687

Type: Fellow

 

3. Roberta Pilette

Hamden, CT

Tel: (203) 432-1714

Type: Professional Associate

 

4. Jamie Kamph

Lambertville, NJ

Tel: (609) 737-2130

Type: Professional Associate

 

5. Mary Jo Davis

West Burke, VT

Tel: (802) 467-8602

Type: Professional Associate

 

6. Elizabeth Morse

Cohasset, MA

Tel: (781) 383-2011

Type: Professional Associate

 

7. Marildi Kielmansegg Hitchings

Rye, NY

Tel: (914) 953-0620

Type: Fellow

 

8. Susan B. Martin

New York, NY

Tel: (212) 877-1043

Type: Professional Associate

 

9. Patricia Dacus Hamm

Clarence Center, NY

Tel: (716) 741-2801

Type: Fellow

 

10. Nina Rayer

Portland, ME

Tel: (207) 774-4874

Type: Fellow

 

11. Anne Hillam

New York, NY

Tel: (212) 822-7365

Type: Professional Associate

 

12. Babette Gehnrich

Worcester, MA

Tel: (508) 471-2169

Type: Professional Associate

[PovertyRow]

And I believe that Mark Wilson's tests on post-pressing paper strength were conducted by an independent lab, not by him personally (he talked about this at the 2005 San Diego ComiCon panel and also at the forum dinner afterward -- I think he said that he took unpressed books, cut them it in half, pressed half of each, and sent the pressed and unpressed samples in for testing and no difference in paper strength was found). So if I heard and understood him correctly, there is some "unbiased" scientific evidence right there.

 

That is not surprising. Pressing, as I believe The Z himself mentioned, is not dissimilar to what a comic goes through when being printed.

 

However, it would be interesting to see a similar study on a different level. No need to cut the book in half. If it is possible, perform tests on non-color-breaking creases or other arfeas that are being pressed out..

 

Before pressing test the press-areas for strength. Weaker than the surrounding, areas? I would assume

 

Press and reresubmit for testing:

 

Is the pressed area structurally less sound than uncreased areas? Is it as sound as it was before pressing?

 

If the the strength of the pressed area is the same or even less than it was originally, then what we have is an area of the book that, while appearing the same as the rest of the book because the defects have been pressed out, has compromised structural integrity.

 

It is not dissimilar to sub-standard building materials that may look very nice but do not meet spec.

[FFB]

And I believe that Mark Wilson's tests on post-pressing paper strength were conducted by an independent lab, not by him personally (he talked about this at the 2005 San Diego ComiCon panel and also at the forum dinner afterward -- I think he said that he took unpressed books, cut them it in half, pressed half of each, and sent the pressed and unpressed samples in for testing and no difference in paper strength was found). So if I heard and understood him correctly, there is some "unbiased" scientific evidence right there.

 

That is not surprising. Pressing, as I believe The Z himself mentioned, is not dissimilar to what a comic goes through when being printed.

 

However, it would be interesting to see a similar study on a different level. No need to cut the book in half. If it is possible, perform tests on non-color-breaking creases or other arfeas that are being pressed out..

 

Before pressing test the press-areas for strength. Weaker than the surrounding, areas? I would assume

 

Press and reresubmit for testing:

 

Is the pressed area structurally less sound than uncreased areas? Is it as sound as it was before pressing?

 

If the the strength of the pressed area is the same or even less than it was originally, then what we have is an area of the book that, while appearing the same as the rest of the book because the defects have been pressed out, has compromised structural integrity.

 

It is not dissimilar to sub-standard building materials that may look very nice but do not meet spec.

 

There are practical issues with doing that kind of test, considering that the paper conservator would probably use the fold method of determining paper strength. You'd need to have the same exact crease being tested on both samples (pressed and unpressed). I guess you could do it on a book with a subscription crease, though. Cut the book in half, press half of it, and have them test paper strength at the sub crease at the area on each sample adjacent to where the book was cut in half the first time. (Maybe cut a 1" strip from each half for testing purposes.) They could also test in areas where there is no sub crease.

[PovertyRow]

And I believe that Mark Wilson's tests on post-pressing paper strength were conducted by an independent lab, not by him personally (he talked about this at the 2005 San Diego ComiCon panel and also at the forum dinner afterward -- I think he said that he took unpressed books, cut them it in half, pressed half of each, and sent the pressed and unpressed samples in for testing and no difference in paper strength was found). So if I heard and understood him correctly, there is some "unbiased" scientific evidence right there.

 

That is not surprising. Pressing, as I believe The Z himself mentioned, is not dissimilar to what a comic goes through when being printed.

 

However, it would be interesting to see a similar study on a different level. No need to cut the book in half. If it is possible, perform tests on non-color-breaking creases or other arfeas that are being pressed out..

 

Before pressing test the press-areas for strength. Weaker than the surrounding, areas? I would assume

 

Press and reresubmit for testing:

 

Is the pressed area structurally less sound than uncreased areas? Is it as sound as it was before pressing?

 

If the the strength of the pressed area is the same or even less than it was originally, then what we have is an area of the book that, while appearing the same as the rest of the book because the defects have been pressed out, has compromised structural integrity.

 

It is not dissimilar to sub-standard building materials that may look very nice but do not meet spec.

 

There are practical issues with doing that kind of test, considering that the paper conservator would probably use the fold method of determining paper strength. You'd need to have the same exact crease being tested on both samples (pressed and unpressed). I guess you could do it on a book with a subscription crease, though. Cut the book in half, press half of it, and have them test paper strength at the sub crease at the area on each sample adjacent to where the book was cut in half the first time. (Maybe cut a 1" strip from each half for testing purposes.) They could also test in areas where there is no sub crease.

 

I agree fully, Scott, that there are pracitcal issues. My issue with the cited test is that just pressing half a book is not really a valid test, as the subject of the controversy, things that need ot be pressed out, are not included. The 4-color process uses heat and pressure in its production. So heat and pressure itself is not, to me, an issue. Over the years I have always maintained the real issue is the appearance of structural solidity is lent to a potentially weakened area. I still maintain that. I know that the pressure levels and heat levels used in pressing are pretty safe. It is the "now invisible stressed area" that causes me concern.

 

PS - When is lunch again? And Liz would like to join us!

[Red Hook]

I probably wouldn't go on record as belittling someone for their "6 weeks" of experience. You really have no idea what Ze-man's experience is.. or how his lifetime's experience with glass/lead work contributes to his understanding of this field.

 

After all, I believe it was you who used to only work mainly with Adobe Illustrator and professed to not know Photoshop. Don't you now teach Photoshop?

 

People are surprising with what they know or what they can do.

 

I am an expert user of Adobe Illustrator (13 years) . I have taught Photoshop to beginners (5 years).

 

I don't make pronouncements about either, but I do try to educate my students by giving them specific details and strategies. I don't expect them to believe me when I say they're great programs...I have to prove it to them.

 

Kenny stated that he wasn't trying to be vague or authoritative, but in fact, I felt his post was both, despite his disclaimer . That was my point.