Pressing Comics Sept 13, 2017 14:35:37 GMT -8
Post by Organic Squishee on Sept 13, 2017 14:35:37 GMT -8
I'll have to disagree with you there, though we may be talking about different things. The saddle stitching process was high speed and could be over (or under) calibrated so that staples were driven further into the paper, especially if they were offset, than was strictly necessary. I've seen this many times, on books that were never pressed. As well, again, storage of books over time could impact staples without the books being pressed; a stack of books squashed under something heavy over many years might have the same effect.
Sure it does. You're applying pressure to the book; if the staples are offset in any way, there's going to be some measure of impact into the cover going on that's unavoidable, without an elaborate setup to protect the staples which, while possible, greatly adds to the effort and time necessary to press the book. The problem is, of course, the balancing act: too little pressure, and the pressable defects don't come out. Too much pressure, and offset staples get pushed into the cover, among other things.
Of course, but the difference in pressure needed to protect the spine "bloom", and that required to prevent the staples from being impacted at all, is different. The pressure required to crush a spine is far beyond what is necessary to properly press a book. That kind of pressure will, of course, do serious damage to the staple area by necessity.
You get no argument from me on that score. As I have said, over and over again, pressing is an art as much as a science. The commercial pressers, for the most part, don't get that. If pressing damage is being ignored...and I agree that it probably is, to an extent (because, after all, it's damage, whether it's caused by pressing or not)...that's going to have to be addressed by the market at some point.
With regard to your double-packed, silicone-coated backing board sandwich example , I'm not going to address your straw man argument because that's just a sophomoric debate tactic rather than a valid discussion point. Finding 'conceivable ways, however unlikely' does not rule out detection, as I'm sure you are actually aware. Stu asked for a method and, if pursued, I think this one might bear fruit. I think you might be falling prey to emotional reasoning since you appear hostile to the mere possibility of pressing detection technology.
I "appear hostile to the mere possibility of pressing detection technology"...?
Where on EARTH do you get such an idea?
I think you're projecting your own emotional response and seeing things that aren't there. I have zero problem with pressing detection technology; I'm merely pointing out the quite correct point that the presence of silicone in comics is not PROOF (that's the key word, there) of pressing, and therefore cannot be used as a reliable method of detecting it. It's called "falsifiablity", and if something can be shown to be falsifiable, even once, the hypothesis doesn't stand...far from being a "straw man" argument or a "sophomoric debate tactic." If I can show that silicone remnants can appear on a book that has not been pressed, the hypothesis is falsified, and CANNOT be used to "prove" that book has been pressed.
You're better than this.
Trimming is trimming. It is detectable, even if not detected. Tear sealing, no matter how expertly done, is detectable. A tear seal is either there or it is not, and cannot be explained as anything else. Color touch is color touch. It is either there or it is not; regardless of whether or not it is actually detectable.
Pressing, on the other hand, is NOT detectable, the vast majority of the time, when done by quality pressers. Anyone can point to BAD pressing. But I can...and have, many thousands of times...pressed books, and the "finest pressing detectives in the land" couldn't tell it was pressed. Not because I'm the greatest presser in the world...I'm not...but because pressing is NOT intrusive the majority of the time, does NOT add or detract from the basic structure of a book, and does NOT introduce elements that could not REASONABLY be described as something else.
And if it can reasonably be called something else, guess what...? It's not proof of pressing.
With regard to improper pressing causing staple imprints, you DO realize that there is a difference between the initial saddle stitch and the imprint created afterwards right? An addition, I've analyzed and recreated the pressure required to cause these imprints, and it's far in excess of any storage conditions. But then, if you're using 'double-packed, silicone-coated backing board sandwiches' to store your valuable books, I guess anything is possible.
Ok, silly sarcasm isn't necessary, and doesn't advance the discussion. You'll have to show examples and explain how and what you think is the difference between the initial saddle-stiched indentation present on some books, and the "imprint" you're discussing.
Analysis is fine, but without disclosure of how you conducted these analyses, how can they possibly be reviewed? You certainly don't expect everyone to simply take your word for it, do you...?
I'm surprised at the rest of your responses in this post. Protecting the spine and staple area while accomplishing a proper press is not a well-kept industry secret, and it's done every day by experienced pressers.
That really depends on how one is doing such protection, does it not...? Again...without discussion of actual methods, there's no way to review what you're saying, and accepting what you say at face value is as spurious as you claim my comments to be. Of course the spine and staple areas have to be protected...but that can be accomplished in a number of ways, can't it? There are "pressers" who attempt to create tiny "buffers" under the staples, to support the staples from being indented...this method is time consuming, and not very effective, while introducing other problems of their own.
The single most effective way to protect the spine and staples is very, very simple: don't smash the shit out of the books. The key to successful pressing is GENTLENESS, not fancy "spine and staple protection" methods.
Might want to dial back the invective a bit, eh?