Clear Backing Boards. Opinions please. Very Sharp!!!
0

68 posts in this topic

93,034 posts

893applaud-thumb.gif Smashing idea...only concern i would have is if the boards are sharp, there is possibility of damage to the comic when moving the board/book in and out of the bag...similar to the sharp edges of a mylar...I try not to handle hi end books with my bear hands so at shows and comic shops, i use multiple backing boards to flip the books and keep them flat...just a thought. confused-smiley-013.gif

I cannot believe this was not done sooner...I remember reading that the US patent office was ready to close up over 100 years ago because they said there was nothing new left to invent!! BAH!! screwy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,907 posts

I personally like the 1/8th inch. It makes my book feel bulletproof.

 

The biggest thing I hate is over the years when the board gives way to gravity and starts to curl. I have seen so many high grade books with spine ticks that only if a stronger board was there, it never would of happened. Gravity on Earth (Mars it can) can not pull down 8900 psi so these boards are never going to bend. Meaning the book will never be pulled down, or curled.

 

The 1/16th will work, that one can bend a little bit. I like the 1/16th for economical reasons. Seeing as you might be able to spend the $1.50 on some silver age books, but want $.99c ones for your moderns or bronzes.

 

Paired up with the mylars, it truly makes you books look and feel like a million bucks.

 

On another note, if you handle the boards carefully and the book, you will never accidentally pierce the book. The nice thing is, if you drop the board, all you have to do is wipe it off and use it again. The one I used today slide off the cloth I took the picture on, and you can never tell it fell 5 feet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33,042 posts

They look like a great idea. Only questions for me would be:

 

-What are they made of? (You said you could discuss in the future). I hope you guys developed something 100% safe or else why would anyone pay the additional costs if they only offer the same protection as a regular backboard.

($.99 each vs. $.09 each is quite a difference)?

 

-Assuming they're archivally safe for books, will you be offering something similar to CGC's micro-chamber paper to help absorb the off gassing from books? Obviously, the backboard is not buffered like a fullback or half-back.

 

Thanks and good luck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,746 posts

If these are the same clear backing boards that Dave Kapelka had the last time I saw him I found them to be very heavy. Not that I am out of shape by any means but the weight and thickness of these would only increase the number of boxes I would have to use in addition.

 

In addition Mylites offer very little protection and I never use them, in fact I find mylites to be only useful when they are in Golden Age mylars

 

.99 or $1.49 per unit is much high than the backing boards I purchased from Jef Hinds who carries quality stuff.

 

Not trying to bust innovation but even if I used them on big ticket items I am still going to have people taking the book out of the bag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,907 posts

Well, we already sell the same microchamber paper they use. We get it from the same company.

 

The product itself is very stable and safe. The benefits against a regular board are

 

1. Protects every corner of the book.

2. The strength of one of these boards vs a regular board is a huge difference. You will not be able to easily move or bend these boards.

3. You can stack these books and no compression or spine depressions will result.

4. You can use the 1/16th inch for a backboard and a front board. Protecting both sides of the book against any mishandling or improper storage.

5. Provides an economical selling feature for dealers. The back of the book is able to be seen. Any defects in the back cover are also viewable. Making the chance of taking the book out to show a prospective buyer far less. This cuts down on the chance of any damage due to holding or viewing.

 

Thanks for the wish of good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20,663 posts

If the boards have a UV inhibitor, they do not meet the Library of Congress' standards for archival quality storage materials.

 

Other than that, I really like the idea and think they look cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,907 posts

I can't say for sure if they are the same or not.

 

The 1/16th book weighs 3 ounces, and the 1/8 weighs 6.2 ounces.

 

I disagree when you say mylites offer little protection. The only thing that the mylites do not protect against is mishandling of the comic. Which is why they offer the 2 mil and 4 mils. I do believe that the mylar itself whether 1-2-4 mil, the composition is the same, only the thickness is different.

 

I am confused when you say that "in fact I find mylites to be only useful when they are in Golden Age mylars"

 

Mylites are mylars.

 

I think that these boards are a look see type of product. One won't really know what the benefits are, and how nice and well it protects a book until it is seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,907 posts

The board itself does block out UV rays. Roughly the same 98-99% of them that mylars do. I am not sure if that was what you were commenting on though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,411 posts

Question: Can clear backing boards be made from thick Mylar?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20,663 posts
The board itself does block out UV rays. Roughly the same 98-99% of them that mylars do. I am not sure if that was what you were commenting on though.

 

I was referring to this line from your initial post:

 

They are made out of the same type of product that museums and art dealers use to protect their art from UV rays and from fingerprints.

 

What are the boards made of? If they are archival quality, I'll switch over to them on all of my books worth over $100. yay.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19,029 posts

4. You can use the 1/16th inch for a backboard and a front board. Protecting both sides of the book against any mishandling or improper storage.

 

I like this idea for books in my personal collection... 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,907 posts

So then, your saying the materials that museums and art dealers use then are not archival safe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,292 posts
If these are the same clear backing boards that Dave Kapelka had the last time I saw him I found them to be very heavy. Not that I am out of shape by any means but the weight and thickness of these would only increase the number of boxes I would have to use in addition.

 

In addition Mylites offer very little protection and I never use them, in fact I find mylites to be only useful when they are in Golden Age mylars

 

.99 or $1.49 per unit is much high than the backing boards I purchased from Jef Hinds who carries quality stuff.

 

Not trying to bust innovation but even if I used them on big ticket items I am still going to have people taking the book out of the bag.

 

Exactly what I was thinking. I've seen Dave's boards and liked them initially until I thought about the problems that you mention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,907 posts

I think that these are a good idea for some books, I wouldn't necessarily go as far to use them on every single book I had for sale.

 

Take for instance 300 comics with regular backing boards. Those boards would weigh

 

300 books with regular boards= 15 Pounds of backing boards.

300 books with 1/16th inch clear = 56-60 pounds of backing boards

300 books with 1/8th inch clear= 112-120 pounds of backing boards.

 

They certainly are heavier, but I personally don't view that as a bad thing. The things I hate the most is that the cardboard can bend easily and allow mishandling to hurt your books.

 

I would think that most dealers would have these for some of their higher priced books and possibly some others.

 

The weight here of using one of these is very similar to selling a slabbed book. I believe that either sheet still weighs less than a book in a slab.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20,663 posts
So then, your saying the materials that museums and art dealers use then are not archival safe?

 

I don't know what the materials are that you're talking about. The Library of Congress is very specific when they state that inert plastics such as Mylar, Melinex, PE, PP, etc., no longer meet their archival standards if they are treated with a UV inhibitor.

 

Why the big secret about what the boards are made of? If a competitor wants to find out what they're made of, they can have a board tested by a lab for about $100. The number of potential collectors/customers you'll turn off by concealing what the boards are made of substantially outweighs the danger that you'll save a competitor $100 by disclosing what the materials are. I know that I won't buy any of them unless I know what they are made of. confused-smiley-013.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,420 posts

Good news on the fact you're developing your own fullback/mylite type books. The overlap sorta ticks me off, I'd love the board to fit perfectly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,907 posts

Well, its not a big secret. It's just that these aren't completed yet and that manufacturing and purchasing can be affected by disclosure.

 

If mylar is no longer considered archival safe, then no these aren't. I was unaware of mylar being considered not archival safe.

 

I don't understand why they would say if a product blocks out UV rays then its not archival safe. Where is the rationale behind that? Do you have any documentation to provide insite into why or what their reasonings are behind those statements?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,907 posts

Thank you, it ticks me off as well. I can't stand that overlap, or the lack of a board on the top, left and right sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20,663 posts
Well, its not a big secret. It's just that these aren't completed yet and that manufacturing and purchasing can be affected by disclosure.

 

If mylar is no longer considered archival safe, then no these aren't. I was unaware of mylar being considered not archival safe.

 

I don't understand why they would say if a product blocks out UV rays then its not archival safe. Where is the rationale behind that? Do you have any documentation to provide insite into why or what their reasonings are behind those statements?

 

I didn't say that any material that blocks out any UV is unsafe. What I said is that any plastic that has a UV inhibitor added to it does not meet the Library of Congress' standards for archival quality storage materials.

 

[Question]:

Question History:

Patron: Is it safe to store a comic book in a bag or container made of polyvinyl chloride (PVC)?

Librarian 1: April 16, 2004

 

Dear Scott,

 

We do not recommend the use of PVC plastics for the storage of comic books or any other historic paper based material. Plastic enclosures are preferred for frequently used collections because they protect them from fingerprints and provide physical support. Plastic enclosures should be made from plastics such as polyester, polyethylene, polypropylene, spun-bonded polyolefins, or polystyrene. These plastics are recommended by ISO standards because they are typically inert, unplasticized, and have good chemical stability. Since many paper materials can adhere to smooth surfaces at high humidities, use of plastic of any type should be avoided if prolonged storage at relative humidities above 80% is likely. Avoid all plastics that have fillers, coatings, or UV absorbers. Avoid the use of polyester, polyethylene, and polypropylene that has a hazy film on the surface, which indicates that the plastic film is coated or is heavily plasticized. Avoid using adhesives or fasteners that may cause chemical or physical damage, such as rubber cement, pressure-sensitive tape, paper clips, or rubber bands.

 

 

Carrie Beyer

Preservation Directorate

library of congress

Washington, D.C. 20540-4560

cbey@loc.gov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
588 posts
Well, its not a big secret. It's just that these aren't completed yet and that manufacturing and purchasing can be affected by disclosure.

 

If mylar is no longer considered archival safe, then no these aren't. I was unaware of mylar being considered not archival safe.

 

I don't understand why they would say if a product blocks out UV rays then its not archival safe. Where is the rationale behind that? Do you have any documentation to provide insite into why or what their reasonings are behind those statements?

 

I think you're missing the "no longer meet their archival standards if they are treated with a UV inhibitor".

 

Mylar itself is archival safe but when you put a chemical on it that acts as a UV blocker, it's no longer safe. If it hasn't been treated, then the material is fine.

 

Also, Wikipedia article on UV implies that plastic and glass block out some percentage of UV rays just because its plastic or glass. Inert plastics might filter out even more than that but my google-fu sucks and I can't find it (one page says mylar blocks 100% of UV-B radiation but I'm not sure how much I trust it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0