Lifespan of a GA Comic in a new CGC Holder 0

[jimbo_7071]

34 minutes ago, Wayne-Tec said:

That makes more sense.

But I think storage conditions and degree of handling are extremely important too. If a book has been handled freely for nearly 20 years, stored standing up, in an area with rising and falling temperatures, and/or was slightly warped to begin with (are you sure it wasn’t?), couldn’t all of the above explain why it looks as it does now?

We need a greater sample-size here. If we look at even 10-20 slabs from the 2001-2002 era, how many are warped?

I've never stored my books standing up; I've always kept them in stacks, so that wouldn't be a factor with my books.

I've tried to keep my books away from temperature extremes; there have been short-term lapses, but nothing prolonged.

I can look at my old-label slabs to see how many have visible warpage.

[Wayne-Tec]

21 minutes ago, jimbo_7071 said:

I've never stored my books standing up; I've always kept them in stacks, so that wouldn't be a factor with my books.

I've tried to keep my books away from temperature extremes; there have been short-term lapses, but nothing prolonged.

I can look at my old-label slabs to see how many have visible warpage.

Okay, cool. Sounds good.

[jimbo_7071]

OK, here's the scoop.

I have ten old-label slabs, and all ten have some bowing.

Seven of the slabs are very thin, and the other three are very thick. The thick slabs exhibit significantly less bowing than the thin ones.

Of the seven thin slabs, the one with the least amount of bowing is also the newest (dated 6/30/2002). The one with the second least amount of bowing is the second newest (dated 8/6/2001). (Those two also haven't been in my collection all that long--maybe five years.) The one with the third least amount of bowing is--dig this--the third newest (dated 2/26/2001), but that one is only slightly less bowed than the remaining four, which are all similar (dated 7/18/2000, 9/23/2000, 1/22/2001, and 1/25/2001).

Incidentally, the thicker slabs are dated 9/14/2000, 2/3/2001, and 6/26/2002, and the two older ones have been in my collection since 2001.

I did find a couple of newer slabs that have some slight bowing; those particular  slabs are of the very thin variety as well.

The bowing may very well have been present since the slabs were made; it's possible that I simply didn't notice it. At any rate, the condition does seem to be worse in the older slabs, but only in the thin ones.

[Wayne-Tec]

7 hours ago, jimbo_7071 said:

OK, here's the scoop.

I have ten old-label slabs, and all ten have some bowing.

Seven of the slabs are very thin, and the other three are very thick. The thick slabs exhibit significantly less bowing than the thin ones.

Of the seven thin slabs, the one with the least amount of bowing is also the newest (dated 6/30/2002). The one with the second least amount of bowing is the second newest (dated 8/6/2001). (Those two also haven't been in my collection all that long--maybe five years.) The one with the third least amount of bowing is--dig this--the third newest (dated 2/26/2001), but that one is only slightly less bowed than the remaining four, which are all similar (dated 7/18/2000, 9/23/2000, 1/22/2001, and 1/25/2001).

Incidentally, the thicker slabs are dated 9/14/2000, 2/3/2001, and 6/26/2002, and the two older ones have been in my collection since 2001.

I did find a couple of newer slabs that have some slight bowing; those particular  slabs are of the very thin variety as well.

The bowing may very well have been present since the slabs were made; it's possible that I simply didn't notice it. At any rate, the condition does seem to be worse in the older slabs, but only in the thin ones.

How big are the GA slabs that exhibit less bowing? Are they 64-page books?

I would love to know if this bowling has been present since 2000-2002 or if it has occurred over time. No way to really know that unless you had a reason to check 16-18 years ago.

Are the new CGC slabs made of different materials? They’re definitely sealed more securely. I don’t know if that would prevent bowing.

How is the condition of the books and inner wells of these older slabs?

[Wayne-Tec]

Has anyone seen bowing or other issues in the 2004-2015 era slabs?

[jimbo_7071]

On 4/3/2018 at 9:02 AM, Wayne-Tec said:

How big are the GA slabs that exhibit less bowing? Are they 64-page books?

I would love to know if this bowling has been present since 2000-2002 or if it has occurred over time. No way to really know that unless you had a reason to check 16-18 years ago.

Are the new CGC slabs made of different materials? They’re definitely sealed more securely. I don’t know if that would prevent bowing.

How is the condition of the books and inner wells of these older slabs?

Sorry for the slow reply. Of the old-label slabs that show less bowing, two of the books in them are 64-page books. The third is not, but for some reason CGC used one of the thicker slabs normally used for 64-page books (maybe because the book exhibits a slight amount of spine roll).

Edited April 14, 2018 by jimbo_7071

[Wayne-Tec]

19 hours ago, jimbo_7071 said:

Sorry for the slow reply. Of the old-label slabs that show less bowing, two of the books in them are 64-page books. The third is not, but for some reason CGC used one of the thicker slabs normally used for 64-page books (maybe because the book exhibits a slight amount of spine roll).

Interesting. Have you seen any bowing or other issues in 2004-2015 era slabs?

[Bomber-Bob]

I'm not in the mood to go digging but this has been discussed many times, here on the Boards, over the years including recently. I think the conclusion was, as long as the slabs are stored in the proper environment, it's all good. The Bedrock report is something I never heard of before and very interesting. I have personally opened up many,probably 100 or more, some original old labels and have never noticed any problems except for the quality of grading. I focus especially on the page quality, which seems fine. Also, the mc paper always seems good with maybe the slightest of yellowing. I believe Joey recommended storing the books on their sides, spine down due to the long term effects of gravity on the spine, not a problem with the slab, per se. Personally, if I don't like the look of the book in a slab stored vertically, I will either lay them flat or store them sideways, spine down. CGC uses wedges a lot more now and I think this helps keep the book firmly in place.

[jimbo_7071]

By the way, this book used to be a 9.2. It is now a 7.5 because, in the original holder, there was room for the pages to tear away from the cover. (Note the tearing at the upper staple.)

[Wayne-Tec]

On 4/15/2018 at 1:54 PM, Bomber-Bob said:

I'm not in the mood to go digging but this has been discussed many times, here on the Boards, over the years including recently. I think the conclusion was, as long as the slabs are stored in the proper environment, it's all good. The Bedrock report is something I never heard of before and very interesting. I have personally opened up many,probably 100 or more, some original old labels and have never noticed any problems except for the quality of grading. I focus especially on the page quality, which seems fine. Also, the mc paper always seems good with maybe the slightest of yellowing. I believe Joey recommended storing the books on their sides, spine down due to the long term effects of gravity on the spine, not a problem with the slab, per se. Personally, if I don't like the look of the book in a slab stored vertically, I will either lay them flat or store them sideways, spine down. CGC uses wedges a lot more now and I think this helps keep the book firmly in place.

Do you have any links to previous discussions about the long-term durability of slabs and the effects of slabbed books over time?

[Bomber-Bob]

14 hours ago, Wayne-Tec said:

Do you have any links to previous discussions about the long-term durability of slabs and the effects of slabbed books over time?

Sorry, no. I'm not good at researching, too lazy. I think the new Boards are more difficult to find old threads. Maybe someone else here has a link ? Nobody had any hard science, just opinions. Nobody argued with the fact that environment plays a role whether in a slab or raw. 

[telerites]

1 hour ago, Bomber-Bob said:

15 hours ago, Wayne-Tec said:

Do you have any links to previous discussions about the long-term durability of slabs and the effects of slabbed books over time?

Sorry, no. I'm not good at researching, too lazy. I think the new Boards are more difficult to find old threads. Maybe someone else here has a link ? Nobody had any hard science, just opinions. Nobody argued with the fact that environment plays a role whether in a slab or raw. 

Maybe one of the ones below?

 

 

 

 

 

[Bomber-Bob]

I think this is a very pertinent reply from one of the links above....

• Is it necessary to get my CGC book reholdered every 10 (or 7, or 12, etc.) years?
• No. The CGC holder is designed for long-term preservation and provides superior protection for your books. A properly handled and stored CGC-certified book can last for generations.
  
  The CGC holder is made from high-quality materials and is entirely archival-safe. The inner well that holds books, for example, is comprised of PETG, a plastic that is well known to be archival-safe and extremely clear. This PETG well is placed inside of a durable outer case that is sonically welded to ensure a secure, tamper-evident seal.
  
  Many comic books, particularly vintage ones, naturally release ("off gas") acidic molecules over time. The CGC holder is therefore designed to not have an air-tight seal, which would otherwise trap these acidic molecules. 
  
  For added long-term preservation, CGC inserts MicroChamber® paper into vintage books prior to encapsulation. This MicroChamber paper helps to neutralize the natural acidity of some books by using a specialized, proprietary “zeolite” that was designed to absorb and hold the molecules known to damage archival collections. That is why MicroChamber paper is used by many of the world’s most respected museums and institutions, including the Smithsonian Institution, the Getty Conservation Institute, the Louvre, the British Museum and the Northeast Document Conservation Center. 
  
  When CGC was first established in 2000, we thoroughly researched and implemented the best practices in archival preservation. We took a conservative approach and suggested that customers may wish to consider reholdering their books after approximately seven to ten years so that the MicroChamber paper could be replaced. 
  
  Today, however, we have the benefit of having graded 4.1 million books over a 17-year period. This is an incredibly large sample size that represents books of all eras, paper types, paper qualities, storage conditions and grades. CGC and its customers now have ample evidence that demonstrates it is not necessary to have your CGC books reholdered simply to replace the MicroChamber paper. CGC’s archival-safe holder, with its combination of features that includes air permeability, MicroChamber paper and a secure, sonic seal, has been shown to provide superior long-term protection for the millions of books that have been encapsulated by CGC. 
  
  We have never seen a properly stored CGC-certified comic book that needed to be reholdered for archival reasons. Nonetheless, there are still a number of benefits to utilizing CGC’s reholder service, including the crystal-clear display, enhanced aesthetic and durable construction of CGC’s new holder. 
  
  It is important to remember that proper storage is essential to preserving your books, and collectors should take steps to minimize exposure to heat, humidity, vibration and light. CGC recommends that CGC-certified books be stored in a dark, dry, cool, temperature-controlled location.
  
  CGC's holders have withstood the test of time and over the last 17 years have been shown to provide outstanding long-term protection and preservation. No other comic book grading services can make that claim.

[Bomber-Bob]

On 4/15/2018 at 2:19 PM, jimbo_7071 said:

By the way, this book used to be a 9.2. It is now a 7.5 because, in the original holder, there was room for the pages to tear away from the cover. (Note the tearing at the upper staple.)

The mistake here is that the book should never have been removed from the original 9.2 slab. When something like this happens, it behooves you to send it to CGC in the original slab and let them address it. This happens when the cover 'sticks' to the inner well while the insides are free to move. 

[N e r V]

On 4/15/2018 at 10:54 AM, Bomber-Bob said:

I'm not in the mood to go digging but this has been discussed many times, here on the Boards, over the years including recently. I think the conclusion was, as long as the slabs are stored in the proper environment, it's all good. The Bedrock report is something I never heard of before and very interesting. I have personally opened up many,probably 100 or more, some original old labels and have never noticed any problems except for the quality of grading. I focus especially on the page quality, which seems fine. Also, the mc paper always seems good with maybe the slightest of yellowing. I believe Joey recommended storing the books on their sides, spine down due to the long term effects of gravity on the spine, not a problem with the slab, per se. Personally, if I don't like the look of the book in a slab stored vertically, I will either lay them flat or store them sideways, spine down. CGC uses wedges a lot more now and I think this helps keep the book firmly in place.

So if I’m understanding this correctly the best way to store CGC books is in this position?

 

Spines on the ground?

[Bomber-Bob]

7 hours ago, N e r V said:

So if I’m understanding this correctly the best way to store CGC books is in this position?

 

Spines on the ground?

I believe this is correct, less stress on the spine. The thought is storing vertically may lead to spine tics. I store a few of my books this way but most are stored in the traditional upright position.

  

[telerites]

51 minutes ago, Bomber-Bob said:

8 hours ago, N e r V said:

So if I’m understanding this correctly the best way to store CGC books is in this position?

 

Spines on the ground?

I believe this is correct, less stress on the spine. The thought is storing vertically may lead to spine tics. I store a few of my books this way but most are stored in the traditional upright position.

I store some of my slabs like this in their box and they seem to be fine.  I have nearly 3,000 slabs with limited space, I have slabs upright in their box, laying flat, one slab on top of the other, and like the above.  @N e r V that is a purty book  

[jimbo_7071]

13 hours ago, Bomber-Bob said:

The mistake here is that the book should never have been removed from the original 9.2 slab. When something like this happens, it behooves you to send it to CGC in the original slab and let them address it. This happens when the cover 'sticks' to the inner well while the insides are free to move. 

I wasn't the owner of the book when the damage occurred; John Verzyl was. I believe he sent it back to CGC in the holder. Matt Nelson handled the removal of the book with an eye towards minimizing the damage.

[Sqeggs]

On 4/15/2018 at 3:19 PM, jimbo_7071 said:

By the way, this book used to be a 9.2. It is now a 7.5 because, in the original holder, there was room for the pages to tear away from the cover. (Note the tearing at the upper staple.)

Yikes!

[Sqeggs]

47 minutes ago, telerites said:

I store some of my slabs like this in their box and they seem to be fine.  I have nearly 3,000 slabs with limited space, I have slabs upright in their box, laying flat, one slab on top of the other, and like the above.  @N e r V that is a purty book  

One reason I've been reluctant to store slabs other than in the traditional vertical position is that you can't see the label at the top to tell which book it is.