• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Re-glossing / Cleaning detection?
1 1

13 posts in this topic

So I have seen books with nothing but re-glossing noted on the label, or cleaning.   I know CGC has also called restored books with nothing more than color touch and pieces replaced as also "re-glossed" when nothing of the sort was done to it, probably their better safe than sorry motto to make sure they don't miss anything.  (had some books restored by Hero restoration and this happened to me a few times).   So, any ideas how an average collector can tell if a book has been "re-glossed" or cleaned?  Seems like those are probably the two most difficult things to detect for the average joe (except maybe professionally done micro trimming?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a very good question.  I have had two books i mechanically cleaned for a customer come back “cover cleaned”, one labelled restored and one conserved.

I was alarmed as it was a simple art eraser clean and of course the customers were surprised also.  Matt Nelson was super helpful in his explanation and help in spotting it.  It seems naptha cleaning had been done at some time in both books past, and apparently both books had tape removal in their past.

Naptha is very helpful in tape removal but many people also use it as a book “cleaner”.  It doesnt appear to damage the book until you look closely, here is an experiment i did afterward by washing a piece of a cover in naptha.  Notice the ink spread:

378A2B71-AC2D-48E1-8269-D66B6BB23E39.thumb.jpeg.d6490baf2636ba30bde3d4f3223ab3b8.jpeg

naptha removes the “fixative” which holds the ink in place and also gives the paper some strength.  So detection would be looking for poor ink set and paper that feels “limp”

Reglossing can be tough to detect but telltale signs are excess gloss on paper edges (easy to see with a loupe) or overflow onto the interior of the cover.  Another way is looking at the cover on an angle into the light, there should be different levels of reflectivity on the different inks, if they all look the same it may indicate reglossing.  Hard to get a pic of reflectivity but in this one the white and red are clearly different refleAD1E2880-BBC4-4D3F-B842-944E962346D1.thumb.jpeg.8d179a4caa5738811a22b2f732d3f078.jpegctivity 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When a collector has been active for many years, it becomes easier to come to conclusions regarding whether a book has been trimmed or subjected to aqueous (water) cleaning.  Solvent cleaning IMO can be difficult to detect, maybe impossible if somehow the inks have remained intact.

I'm one of those in the "trimming is not restoration" camp, and you won't find me saying much else in that regard -- i.e., books should not be trimmed for any reason.  So I can understand why a trimmed book doesn't receive a PLOD, but as a very serious matter the grade should be affected harshly.

With regard to naptha:  I've used naptha since the '70s for adhesive residue removal of glossy book covers and jackets.  As a solvent that I believe is a close cousin to paint thinner (mineral spirits), it WILL react with most any inks and they will begin to lift.  Inexperienced collectors should never use naptha for any comic, with the exception of CAREFUL use for adhesive residue removal on a glossy cardstock cover.  I would NEVER advocate giving a comic a bath in naptha, as I have seen promoted in print (surprise, the same book's author in one case also advocated trimming!!).

If you do use naptha in cases of adhesive residue on glossy stock, it's important not to go at it recklessly -- some residue can be very stubborn, and repeated attempts with most any solvent can result in loss of gloss.  I do believe it's a better alternative for book collectors than lighter fluid.  I haven't tried Goo Gone, but if you are a hardcore book buyer (of glossy-cover trades and glossy/jacketed HCs), remember that naptha is much less expensive (I have nearly a half-gallon out in my garage). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EC Star&Bar said:

When a collector has been active for many years, it becomes easier to come to conclusions regarding whether a book has been trimmed or subjected to aqueous (water) cleaning.  Solvent cleaning IMO can be difficult to detect, maybe impossible if somehow the inks have remained intact.

I'm one of those in the "trimming is not restoration" camp, and you won't find me saying much else in that regard -- i.e., books should not be trimmed for any reason.  So I can understand why a trimmed book doesn't receive a PLOD, but as a very serious matter the grade should be affected harshly.

With regard to naptha:  I've used naptha since the '70s for adhesive residue removal of glossy book covers and jackets.  As a solvent that I believe is a close cousin to paint thinner (mineral spirits), it WILL react with most any inks and they will begin to lift.  Inexperienced collectors should never use naptha for any comic, with the exception of CAREFUL use for adhesive residue removal on a glossy cardstock cover.  I would NEVER advocate giving a comic a bath in naptha, as I have seen promoted in print (surprise, the same book's author in one case also advocated trimming!!).

If you do use naptha in cases of adhesive residue on glossy stock, it's important not to go at it recklessly -- some residue can be very stubborn, and repeated attempts with most any solvent can result in loss of gloss.  I do believe it's a better alternative for book collectors than lighter fluid.  I haven't tried Goo Gone, but if you are a hardcore book buyer (of glossy-cover trades and glossy/jacketed HCs), remember that naptha is much less expensive (I have nearly a half-gallon out in my garage). 

Is there a reason why people don't use Bestine for tape removal?

I've use it to remove tape, stickers, spray mount, anything that's applied with adhesive for years. It's what's used in art schools. I haven't used it on comics though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, MatterEaterLad said:

Is there a reason why people don't use Bestine for tape removal?

I've use it to remove tape, stickers, spray mount, anything that's applied with adhesive for years. It's what's used in art schools. I haven't used it on comics though. 

Bestine can remove ink.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tape removal can be very tricky and requires lots of experience to be done successfully.  It also can be done without saturating the paper but is very tedious.  Also here is another sign that a book has been washed (speckled ink loss)

E6291DE8-5D3D-4D8D-B2E2-600904712F90.thumb.jpeg.3e187c1b80660ad3d5dc95652a9713c1.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the late 80s and early 90s I experimented heavily with restoration techniques.  I did not do resto commercially and always worked on junk books I got in the so-called "quarter bins". I also never sold or gave away any books I worked on but discarded them after I was done. Luckily GA and SA books were in those bins and I focused primarily on those ages. I even spent many hours with a leading restorer learning techniques and for several years had converted the bedroom of my one-bedroom apartment back in Boston to a resto studio, complete with all the tools and a Seal Jumbo 160. (That Seal also did a heck of a job pressing neckties and putting a nice crease in dress pants!)

Anyways, I would fully immerse a  cover I had removed from the book into VM&P (Varnish Maker's and Paint) Naphtha. Note it is actually "Naphtha" with an "h" after the "p" as opposed to "Naptha". I did this to remove that green ink transfer stain (also known as "oil transfer stain") from the inside of covers. It worked beautifully. I would also use it in conjunction with a cotton swab to gradually roll over solvent soluble adhesives like Scotch Tape residue (an often long process best down outdoors). I experimented leaving the covers from different publishers and ages immersed in the VM&P Naphtha for periods ranging incrementally from 1 hour to 8 hours just to see what the stuff would do. In every case, be it GA or SA, there was zero impact on the inks. 

I also noted no structural impact on the paper itself. The naphtha dried surprisingly fast, left no residue I could detect and no odor. So I am genuinely curious about the smeared white text shown in a previous post. Was it VM&P Naphtha and for how long was the paper immersed?

I'm not trying to naysay or start an argument -  just sharing my own experiences with resto experimentation. But I never saw a reaction like that from using VM&P Naphtha.

Edited by PovertyRow
spelling ::sigh::
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was 8 minutes in vm&p.  Same old cover cut into two pieces.  If i hadn’t tried with a control piece i probably would not have noticed the difference without a comparison:  Naptha will pull out the fixing (also called the “clay”) and that is detected at cgc as per Matt Nelson.  The paper was also a couple thousands of an inch thinner, which is not a big deal on a DC GA book but an early SA Marvel may be noticeable.  
 

I know people who still use Naptha to clean books, usually for spot cleaning.  I use it for most magic tape adhesive usually as a poltice.  I guess the big issue is if used heavily could result in a PLOD.

Give that test a try on a beater and see if you get the same results.  Almost imperceptible on cover compared to the text.

Hey no offence taken, i have read your posts with interest for years and appreciate your understanding of the resto/conservation technology

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, 427Impaler said:

Give that test a try on a beater and see if you get the same results.  Almost imperceptible on cover compared to the text.

Hey no offence taken, i have read your posts with interest for years and appreciate your understanding of the resto/conservation technology

Unfortunately VM&P NapHtha is no longer available in California. But when I ran these tests back then my target was, in fact, the inside of the cover (white with black ad text) since that is where the green ink/oil transfer stain occurs. I literally went up to 8 hours immersion and saw zero impact on the black ink on the inside cover. I have to wonder if there was any formulation change from 30+ years ago to the VM&P NapHtha?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding gloss and "re-glossing". 

With most comics gloss is not something that was ever applied. It is an inherent part of the paper making process. A hard clay called kaolin is mixed with the paper slurry. As the paper sheets are formed they are passed through highly polished rollers which serves to "polish" the kaolin clay, This process is called "calendaring" the paper. The hard surface allow inks to sit on top of the paper with minimal bleed, even on cheap comic book cover stock, producing a better quality image. The term "re-gloss"  is a misconception and should just be called "gloss" as in "Cover Glossed". But that is a just a nit I like to pick. 

Re-glossing can also be detected ,in addition to the good advice that 427impaler outlined, by gloss being present on top of creases. In 2005 San Diego con I saw a Phantom Lady #22 that was horrifically pressed and glossed. Color breaking creases were flattened out and the gloss was so thick it almost felt like lamination.

BTW - 427's description of varying gloss from different inks is so spot on and takes me back to some very high grade Atlas pre-code horror and DC House of Mystery (Dial H for Hero run) books I had where the solid colors (as opposed to those toned down by dot patterns) were almost supernaturally glossy and thick looking. To get inks to lay like that you need a calendared paper whose gloss, unlike newsprint, prevents absorption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the correction - I do use VM&P, but I keep a glass unmarked bottle in the house, so I only refill once a year or so from the original steel can marked "VM&P Naphtha," and it shows I wasn't observant with the name.  

There were 2 books I had slight mishaps with, a mid-70s DC and a 1983 Pacific.   In each case, I was spot cleaning the white areas of the back covers, and the naphtha slightly smeared inks it contacted (accidentally) as I swiped with a small bit of tissue.  This is why I cautioned inexperienced collectors (I had about 10 years experience at that time, ca. 1984).  In my case I was overconfident in my use of the naphtha.

If you've ever tried naphtha on an old Sports Illustrated cover, you could see its powerful effects.  There are some variables in play.  Consider that comics publishers used a wide variety of cover paper stock.  For example, in 1968 DC changed temporarily from what they'd used in 1965-67, but soon returned to a similar stock.  I admit it can be baffling as to which combinations of paper and inks will respond well or adversely to cleaning techniques.

With regard to tape and decals, here again you're dealing with variables.  Most of my experience comes with various retailer stickers on book jackets.  Some can take a lot of tedious work to remove.  I have bought a lot of $1 graphic novels from Dollar Tree for example and their decals are VERY time-consuming to get rid of.  Let me mention too that I have seen youtube videos where the collector starts lifting a decal with his fingernail,  NO -no -no.  Always lift with a slip of paper.

My practice for cleaning of glossy book jackets, and glossy "cloth" bindings, is to try first with a small amount of water.  Then, debris that doesn't "wash" off usually will respond to naphtha.  I once used household spray cleaner with a soft brush on a buckram cover and it cleaned exremely well.  Confidence follows experience, but I remain cautious.

Finally, I'm familiar with comic immersion baths to treat transfer stains, etc, but I maintain for professionals only -- especially when you consider disassembly of the comic.

 

Edited by EC Star&Bar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, EC Star&Bar said:

Thanks for the correction - I do use VM&P, but I keep a glass unmarked bottle in the house, so I only refill once a year or so from the original steel can marked "VM&P Naphtha," and it shows I wasn't observant with the name.  

There were 2 books I had slight mishaps with, a mid-70s DC and a 1983 Pacific.   In each case, I was spot cleaning the white areas of the back covers, and the naphtha slightly smeared inks it contacted (accidentally) as I swiped with a small bit of tissue.  This is why I cautioned inexperienced collectors (I had about 10 years experience at that time, ca. 1984).  In my case I was overconfident in my use of the naphtha.

If you've ever tried naphtha on an old Sports Illustrated cover, you could see its powerful effects.  There are some variables in play.  Consider that comics publishers used a wide variety of cover paper stock.  For example, in 1968 DC changed temporarily from what they'd used in 1965-67, but soon returned to a similar stock.  I admit it can be baffling as to which combinations of paper and inks will respond well or adversely to cleaning techniques.

With regard to tape and decals, here again you're dealing with variables.  Most of my experience comes with various retailer stickers on book jackets.  Some can take a lot of tedious work to remove.  I have bought a lot of $1 graphic novels from Dollar Tree for example and their decals are VERY time-consuming to get rid of.  Let me mention too that I have seen youtube videos where the collector starts lifting a decal with his fingernail,  NO -no -no.  Always lift with a slip of paper.

My practice for cleaning of glossy book jackets, and glossy "cloth" bindings, is to try first with a small amount of water.  Then, debris that doesn't "wash" off usually will respond to naphtha.  I once used household spray cleaner with a soft brush on a buckram cover and it cleaned exremely well.  Confidence follows experience, but I remain cautious.

Finally, I'm familiar with comic immersion baths to treat transfer stains, etc, but I maintain for professionals only -- especially when you consider disassembly of the comic.

 

Hey EC. I think most people (including myself until I carefully read that gallon tin) say "Naptha.  You are quite right. There is a conundrum regarding various publishers and years concerning how the books will respond to various treatments.

Actually one of my favorite things to do was the disassembly. It was a real challenge to insure the staple holes were not impacted and when assemblying, everything was perfectly aligned including the lie of the staples themselves. 

Speaking of household spray cleaner, I discovered something facinating. I took either 409 or Fantastic and put it in a photo tray. I then "float rinsed" a cover face down in the liquid. A few hours later I removed the cover and the paper came back dead white. There, floating on the surface, were the cover inks looking all wavy/distorted from the liquid's motion but quite vivid against the white photo tray. It was a helluva sight!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The book bound in buckram, for which I tried a 409/Fantastik cleaning with a soft brush, was an ex-library copy of "Bowling Talk for Beginners"  illus. by Frank Robbins.  Responded very well; if there was any lifting of the yellow fabric dye, I did not detect it.  Gets a little "sudsy" though and I made sure to "rinse," despite any claims of the manufacturer saying no need.

For most any glossy cover, I've rarely found need of anything other than water or naptha on a tissue -- but as I mentioned in another thread, isopropyl alcohol works well to remove permanent marker from a highly glossy surface.  I recall another time I tried a little 409/Fantastic on a late-printing Tony Raiola Feature Book replica - high gloss cover.  It was a success in taking off a little soiling that didn't respond to water.

Regarding paper baths, I might mention that criminals in the past have developed ways of washing ballpoint ink off of checks.  It's an interesting discussion for collectors of paper ephemera -- I recently watched a youtube video where ballpoint ink was treated for removal of an interior '60s JLA page.  Takes some "balls" to go at ink like that on newsprint.. ! (Pun intended)

Link to comment
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
1 1