Great posts on this perennial topic... spring must be just around the
corner! What becomes clear after you discuss this a few times is that there
are precious few "hard answers" that everyone agrees upon. To a large degree
it is personal preference. So with that in mind, here's my take:
1) Old paper should be "de-acidified" to prevent it from turning yellow, tan
or even brown from the acid in the paper. Also to keep it from becoming
brittle as the acid breaks down the paper fibers. One of the first places
acid damage shows up is along the fold lines, where the paper fibers have
already been stressed and broken by repeated folding and unfolding and are
therefore more susceptible to its effect. You ever wonder why posters split
so easily along the fold lines? Besides the obvious causes of excessive or
poor handling, it is also becaue of deterioration of the paper fibers at the
foldlines from the acid in the paper.
SIDEBAR: I also believe the acid effect tends to be more concentrated when
posters are stored folded because in the folded format the foldlines are
pressed into contact with each other more tightly than the rest of the paper
is and the acid deterioration migrates from one fiber to another more
readily. For some time now I have been crusading -- without much
success --for everyone to unfold their posters and store them flat and never
ever to fold them again, but ship them carefully rolled if they need to go
somewhere. I cringe every time I purchase a great old poster and it comes to
me folded. How much damage am I going to do unfolding the thing? How much
has already been done being folded and unfolded before it got to me (where,
thankfully, it will never be folded again)? How much better shape would it
be in today if someone had unfolded it 20 or 30 years ago and stored it
flat? Be kind to your posters: unwind.
And when not on the wall, store them flat in polyester sleeves from
someplace like Bags Unlimited. The sleeves are cheap and provide protection
and stability.
Look, I know there is some really old paper out there that shows no signs of
acid aging. That's just luck, because there is also whole lot more really
old paper where this has clearly happened. I guess it just depends on the
batch of paper used and what conditions of light and moisture and handling
each individual poster was exposed to over the decades. But the simple fact
is that the wood pulp from which the old paper was made definitely contains
acid and so even if your old poster is fine now, you have a potential
time-bomb ticking inside it until it is de-acidified.
Besides, how do you know that your really old poster that is aging without
any signs of acid deterioration wasn't de-acidified by a previous owner
decades ago and that's the very reason it is still in such good shape today?
So, de-acidification is a good thing, but to do it properly can be a little
rough on old paper. The poster has to be immersed in the chemical bath then
dried. A poster in relatively fragile condition may well come out of the
bath worse for wear and so may then require linen backing. A good, careful
professional restoration operation should be able to de-acidify most old
paper without damage however. At least that's the impression I get. Someone
correct me if I'm wrong because I'm about to have a batch of old paper
de-acidified.
Newer posters from 1985 on probably should not be de-acidified. First,
there's hardly any paper in them -- they are mostly plastic coating -- and
the de-acidification chemical probably won't penetrate to the thin layer of
paper sandwiched between those double-sided plastic coatings anyway.
2) Linen backing is necessary if a poster is in danger of falling apart or
needs significant repair and restoration. But like so many others I feel
that linen backing a poster that does not need it is sheer folly. Put it in
an archival quality frame with UV Plexiglass and you're good to go. Why put
it through the stress and expense of linen backing? Makes no sense to me,
but some folk seem to have an excess of money and a burning desire to back
their stuff -- whatever floats your boat, I guess. It's been pointed out
that backing a poster that didn't need it used to actually lower the resale
value, but that doesn't seem to be the case anymore.
It's a little early to tell, but I would guess that in the future linen
backing a double-side poster will be considered detrimental to the poster
and to its resale value. It's a technical point -- the idea behind printing
double-sided is so that the poster can be backlit in the frame for enhanced
display. Even though prolonged back-lighting will damage a poster, I believe
that serious collectors of double-sided posters in the future will still
want the option of putting them in a lightbox at least for a little while to
see them "in their full glory". I think the attitude to a linen backed
double-sided poster will be: "What was so wrong with it that you had to do
this to it?" and "Do I really want it when there are plenty of non-backed
copies of this poster around?" (after all, modern posters are never going to
be as rare as older paper).
As for paper backing, my personal opinion is that it is a mistake except for
lobby cards. If it were significantly cheaper than linen backing, it might
make some sense. But since it costs nearly the same as linen these days,
why not go with what the vast majority of collectors feel is the "right
choice" for a backing material? I have been told one should never even risk
rolling a paper backed poster because the potential for cracking and other
damage is very high -- and I have observed that paper backed posters clearly
DO suffer a loss in resale value. Except for lobby cards, where paper
backing still seems to be the preferred and accepted method. I suppose this
is because lobby cards are already thick paper and are never rolled or
folded anyway.
3) Paper loss. This is the most personal area of all. Some people can't
stand it, other's aren't bothered by a small amount of paper loss. I
personally don't mind a little paper loss in the borders. The image area is
different -- that can be very distracting from the overall effect of viewing
the poster. But if the damage is in the borders and the poster is displayed
against a white backing board, either in a frame or a plastic sleeve --
well, I hardly notice the loss. If it is framed, often the frame itself will
hide most areas of small paper loss in the borders.
4) Restoration: As far as doing touch ups of color loss and paper loss in
the foldlines... I think almost everyone agrees that if done well that this
is a good thing. Larger chunks of restoration in the image areas get back
into personal preferences very quickly. If the damaged spot is right in the
center of the nose of the main character portrait of the poster, well, yeah,
that can be so distracting that it simply must be corrected. If it's just a
couple of scuffs in the background near the corner somewhere, it probably
won't bother me personally enough to mess with it.
-- JR
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
