House of Secrets 92 - printing defect? | CBCS Comics

It looks like the ink adhered to something laying on top of it, and was taken off.

Here's how to tell a printing defect from actual damage: check the gloss.

All covers are coated with sizing; it makes the cover glossy and allows the ink to "sit" on top of the paper, without the capillary effect of the ink bleeding into the paper.

Therefore, if it's a printing defect, the gloss will be unbroken. When you tilt it to the light, the surface will have a uniform "shine" to it...yes, even with the type of paper DC used in this era. This is true for *almost* all comics, except for the books that were printed with "newsprint" covers (and these are uncommon.)

If it's damage...you'll see it as "broken", where the "dots" are totally flat, surrounded by "glossy" areas where the ink is undisturbed.

Granted, HOS #92 and its contemporaries were "less glossy" than, say, a 1974 book, but the above still works. And, of course, if the entire book is water damaged, it can make this assessment much more difficult...but that doesn't look to be the case here.

This is where a 10x loupe would be handy, too.

Collector 90	90 jeranimal private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	Quote: Originally Posted by DocBrown It looks like the ink adhered to something laying on top of it, and was taken off. Here's how to tell a printing defect from actual damage: check the gloss. All covers are coated with sizing; it makes the cover glossy and allows the ink to "sit" on top of the paper, without the capillary effect of the ink bleeding into the paper. Therefore, if it's a printing defect, the gloss will be unbroken. When you tilt it to the light, the surface will have a uniform "shine" to it...yes, even with the type of paper DC used in this era. This is true for almost all comics, except for the books that were printed with "newsprint" covers (and these are uncommon.) If it's damage...you'll see it as "broken", where the "dots" are totally flat, surrounded by "glossy" areas where the ink is undisturbed. Granted, HOS #92 and its contemporaries were "less glossy" than, say, a 1974 book, but the above still works. And, of course, if the entire book is water damaged, it can make this assessment much more difficult...but that doesn't look to be the case here. This is where a 10x loupe would be handy, too. Great input!! Doesn’t look like there is any break in the gloss but take a look
	7 years ago	Post 7 • IP flag post

Collector 490	490 vabchgent private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	What does the back cover look like and whats the page color, the defect right under the moon and above swamp things head is normal. Looks like something was dragged across the front of the book.
	7 years ago	Post 2 • IP flag post

Collector 490	490 vabchgent private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	I would see if you can have it pressed/cleaned for starters, without causing more damage to the cover. Are the white spots like bubbles or are they wore off. Without those bubbles or white spots , probably 7.0 .With them 5.0 to 6.0 and this is just a gestimate .This cover is kind of tricky as well those white spots may look less worse then what they are in the picture with the book in hand.
	7 years ago	Post 4 • IP flag post

Collector 16.89K	16.89K DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 1
	It looks like the ink adhered to something laying on top of it, and was taken off. Here's how to tell a printing defect from actual damage: check the gloss. All covers are coated with sizing; it makes the cover glossy and allows the ink to "sit" on top of the paper, without the capillary effect of the ink bleeding into the paper. Therefore, if it's a printing defect, the gloss will be unbroken. When you tilt it to the light, the surface will have a uniform "shine" to it...yes, even with the type of paper DC used in this era. This is true for almost all comics, except for the books that were printed with "newsprint" covers (and these are uncommon.) If it's damage...you'll see it as "broken", where the "dots" are totally flat, surrounded by "glossy" areas where the ink is undisturbed. Granted, HOS #92 and its contemporaries were "less glossy" than, say, a 1974 book, but the above still works. And, of course, if the entire book is water damaged, it can make this assessment much more difficult...but that doesn't look to be the case here. This is where a 10x loupe would be handy, too.
	7 years ago	Post 5 • IP flag post

Collector 16.89K	16.89K DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 1
	By the way..."gloss breaks" are how graders determine whether a particular small "flaw" is actually wear, or just a deceptive part of the artwork. For example: The "stars" on the cover, especially at the spine, can hide a lot of damage. But if there are gloss breaks, that damage shows up quite clearly, if you tilt the book towards the light.
	7 years ago	Post 6 • IP flag post

Collector 6.46K	6.46K 50AE_DE private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	Hard to determine if it's a printing defect or not. The book appears to be about VG (4.0) and if not for the speckles on the cover I'd think it would be VG/FN (5.0).
	7 years ago	Post 8 • IP flag post

I bought a meat grinder on amazon for $60 and it's changed my life. 27.08K	27.08K kaptainmyke private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	to me it looks like the book took some moisture at some point and those could be the "lifting" of ink spots being stuck to another comic. I see gloss loss in this most recent zoom, too?
	7 years ago	Post 9 • IP flag post

House of Secrets 92 - printing defect?4602