1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. WELCOME Grumblers
    Backup is now done at 3PM EDT. You may find the server down for up to two minutes at that time.

Art Glass?

Discussion in 'The Grumble' started by jim_p, Sep 9, 2010.

  1. realhotglass

    realhotglass MGF, Master Grumble Framer

    Yes, 92% is a high figure, Robo . . . and I believe if looked at objectively (with clarity and other handling benefits from the Groglass, Schott, old Denglas coating process), 92% is right up there to be considered as a glazing for conservation / preservation grade framing.

    No one has spoken of pricing benefits as yet (if any) and distribution.
    In the long run the market will decide if this is a viable alternative.

    Certainly has people talking about it !

    Regards,
    Les
     
  2. Jim Miller

    Jim Miller SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    We've been all around that question in previous threads, Robo. In a nutshell, the answer depends on the artwork and all factors of the environment.

    Your question is something like asking how long a particular suit of clothes would last, compared to another suit. Or how long a particular chair would last, compared to another type of chair. Experts in each field probably could say confidently which of the two choices would last longer in identical conditions of use. But how much longer? Who could say?

    Whether we're talking about picture glass, or suits, or chairs, or any other durable goods, the implication of such questions is that the better quality might not be worth the extra price. In some cases that must be true, but it probably is not true generally, and it certainly is not true when longevity is an issue. All questions aside, how is it wise for any seller to recommend buying a lesser product?

    Well, 92% UV blocking is higher than 91%, but 93% is still higher. When blocking UV radiation matters in preservation framing, has anyone suggested that 92% is 'good enough'? As far as I can tell, preservation authorities these days consistently recommend 97% or better blocking in the range of 300 to 380 nanometers. For that, compare products such as Schott MiroGard Protect and Museum Glass.

    Has anyone in the industry, other than ArtGlass and Claryl, suggested that blocking as much UV radiation as possible is not important in preservation framing? If they offered a 97% to 99%UV filtering product, they would probably recommend it.

    When preservation is not a goal of the framing, then blocking as much UV radiation as possible is not an issue. In that case, ignore the UV recommendations and buy non-UV blocking glass. Compare prices for ArtGlass, MiroGard, Claryl, and AR Glass. Leave Schott MiroGard Protect and Museum Glass out of that comparison, because none of those products is comparable to any 97%+ UV blocking glazing.
     
  3. mbboston

    mbboston CGF II, Certified Grumble Framer Level 2

    This is a great question, and I would like to find an answer as well.
     
  4. RoboFramer

    RoboFramer PFG, Picture Framing God

    FWIW, this Art Glass, which I will be taking on when my stock of the water white 'Flabeg' (90% UV) glass is depleted, fits in with me vv TruVue as follows.....

    Any full preservation job - TruVue - I think it has at least as much colour shift as standard glass, plus a ripple and a fragile coating on one side - no big deal, a small price to pay, you can't have everything.

    Anything else where reflection is an issue and/or jaw-droppingly uncanny clarity will make the job something really special - (e.g. a set of fossils mounted on black in a deep shadowbox) then these UV AR waterwhite products are in a league of their own.

    I wouldn't buy the non UV versions, as (I believe) being waterwhite, they let more light in and the customer is paying a premium to actually speed up the demise of their artwork. I'd only get the offcuts mixed up anyway!

    So they pay a bigger premium and get - included with the clarity and AR - "a high level of UV protection" and those are the words I use, which are neither misleading or incorrect.

    92% is high, if I suffered 92% burns I'd be dead; if my kids all got 92% in all their exams they'd have done extremely well, if we all worked at 92% capacity for 92% of the year, we'd be very happy!
     
  5. BalticFrames

    BalticFrames Grumbler

    Dear Jim - thank you for the thoughtful reply. Although the Claryl manufacturers may have said something to that effect, it is wrong to suggest that the Artglass manufacturer has somehow dismissed the importance of "blocking as much as possible". If you look carefully at the Artglass value proposition, they actually recommend blocking "as much of UV as possible, without affecting the visible light transmission," since they have put the aim of displaying the art first, and protecting it a close second. If you look at it in damage-weighted terms (such as the KDF), the real difference between a 99% UV blocking coating and a 92% UV blocking coating is that between a glazing that blocks 44% of all possible damage (including the visible light!) and 41% (with 0% being no glass at all).

    The main marketing gimmick that Artglass makers disagree with, which has been so well entrenched in the US picture framing industry after 20 years and millions of $$, is that "every last % counts, even at the expense of the visual performance." Here, the Artglass makers side very strongly with not compromising the clarity of the image, using a water-white substrate, non-absorbing coatings, and making the UV cut slightly away from the visible light boundary.

    What do you think is the real reason for TV not to use the Water-White substrate when it would only add $0.15/ft2 to their cost equation and they could purchase it from the same factory where they do now? Because the UV coating that they apply would cancel out any effect of the water-white, by absorbing a whopping 3% of the visible light. Now, these are the 3% that you can actually see – try putting a piece of MG on a white linen matt, and compare it with a piece of Artglass UV and see the difference.

    Dear Robo – not every AR is the same. Some single-layer coatings actually let in more of the total light energy into the frame than regular, uncoated glass. But multi-layer coatings in general provide some additional UV cut, which typically compensates or reverses the effect of adding more energy in the visible spectrum. The total light spectrum has to be looked at holistically, especially since every wavelength has different potential to damage the artwork.
    BF
     
  6. Jeff Rodier

    Jeff Rodier SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    Thanks for giving us these numbers. We all hear the 99% of 300-380 nanometer figure and many framers just quote the 99% without the disclosure of 300-380 nanometers.

    So if a framer where to be truly accurate they would state that actual UV protection is 41%-44% depending on which product is used. Now I would be curious to know the UV blocking percentages of traditional clear framing grade glass and the uncoated water white.
     
  7. Jim Miller

    Jim Miller SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    You're saying the UV coating makes a 3% reduction in light transmission?

    According to the published data here, AR Glass (without the UV coating) and Museum Glass (with the coating) both provide the same amount of light transmission; >97%, which is quite close to the >98% transmission published for ArtGlass UV. And the transmission difference between Premium Clear (without the coating) and Conservation Clear (with the coating) is only 1%.

    Where is that 3% difference? What am I missing in the data?
     
  8. Jim Miller

    Jim Miller SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    The more I read your last post, the more confusing it seems. I hope you will be able to clarify a few things.

    First, what are "damage-weighted terms", and what is "the KDF"?

    The real difference between 99% and 92% is 7 percentage points, which is a real difference of 7.6%. That is, if you multiply .92 x 1.076, the result is .9899.

    Ordinary glass blocks about 45% of UV according to Tru-Vue's data, but if you want to call it 44%, that's OK. But it does not include visible light. Ordinary glass transmits about 90% of visible light, blocking about 10% of it.

    Please explain the significance of the 41% you mentioned. At first I thought you were comparing the UV blocking glass products with ordinary glass at 44% UV blocking, but the numbers aren't working out. I am confused. 92% blocking would be 48 percentage points more. That is 209% better blocking; a bit more than 2 times better protection.

    And likewise, the difference between ordinary glass at 44% and UV glass at 99% would be 55 percentage points. That is 225% better blocking; 2.25 times better protection.

    I don't think the precision of the numbers is all that important, but I'm trying to understand your point here. Help please.
     
  9. BalticFrames

    BalticFrames Grumbler

    Dear Jim,

    UV-Absorbing coating: The total visible light absorption of a float substrate is around 2%, while the water-white substrate absorbs around 0.5%. The absorption of MG is 3%. Those are facts. The rest of this paragraph is an assumption: Despite the success of Denglass on water-white, TV has never marketed its UV-absorbing coating on a water-white substrate, despite only $0.15/ft2 (approximately) difference in price between a clear and a water white substrate. It makes sense only if we assume that the coating itself distorts the colors so much that even a water-white substrate would not improve the visible light absorption of the UV-filtering coating. The total visible light absorption of MG is around 3%, while it is around 0.5% for Artglass. But don’t take the measurements results as the proof – place it on a white linen matt to see the difference.

    “KDF”: it is known as the Krochmann Damage Function, named after Juergen Krochmann who came up with it. An overview of the function can be found here (http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/en/consumer/buildings/basics/windows/fading.htm). It considers a wider spectrum than 300-380 for the fading damage potential. According to the calculations that I have seen conducted based on the damage-weighting function provided under the Quantifying the Effects of Fading in the link above, applying the Krochmann Damage Function to Air, MG and Artglass UV, and normalizing for Air to equal100% of damage, MG would result in 56% and Artglass UV would result in 59%. (in other words, the 44% of block and 41% of block, respectively, compared to no glass, as mentioned in the previous post).

    BF
     
  10. Jim Miller

    Jim Miller SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    Thanks for that further information, BalticFrames.

    For the Grumblers who don't care to lookup and familarize themselves with the KDF concept, here are a few snippets from the published information:
    "Fading of interior furnishings is often attributed to ultraviolet radiation (UV) from the sun passing through windows onto interior surfaces. However, UV is not the only portion of the solar spectrum which can damage artwork or furnishings inside buildings. Virtually the whole spectrum is of concern, which is why long term exposure to solar radiation should be limited."

    We have often discussed the harm of visible light, usually expressed in terms such as, "All light is damaging". And fading is not the only harm, as Rob Markoff has explained several times.

    "...Ultraviolet radiation (UV) is the single largest contributing factor in fading of fabrics, carpets and other furnishings...UV radiation is attributed to 40% of the damage. Protecting against UV is not just important in hot, sunny climates. Even in cold, cloudy climates, UV radiation can damage furnishings."

    This further confirms the recommendations of preservation authorities, and that the makers of ArtGlass agree.

    It is extremely difficult to isolate the influence of radiation on the fading process. The best currently available indication of a glazing’s effect on fading is the damage-weighted transmittance, T-dw, of the glazing system. T-dw is the weighted transmittance at normal incidence for the center-of-glass region.
    ...there is a difficulty in communicating the fact that T-dw is a relative measure (ranking) for glazing systems, not something that can be used to predict the actual amount of fading in any given situation.

    Again, your referenced publication agrees with the common knowledge around here -- that fading is almost impossible to predict. The KDF methodology may be a very good way for scientists to quantify the factors of light damage, but for our purposes in real-world picture framing, that methodology is pretty much an academic exercise, is it not?

    This one still confuses me. "Visible light absorption" equals the inverse of light transmission, right? Tru-Vue claims >97% light transmission, and the 3% you mentioned would be the inverse of that measure. However, in this publication, ArtGlass claims >98% transmission, so visible light absorption would be 2%, would it not? How does that relate to the .5% you mentioned?
     
  11. BalticFrames

    BalticFrames Grumbler

    Dear Jim,

    It is unfair to discount KDF as a pure academic exercise, since it reflects much more accurately the damage from a wider spectrum, weighted for the potential damage of each wavelength, than the simple average 300-380nm used in the framing industry. Further, as you quoted, KDF provides a good "relative ranking" measure - it is not absolute, so that is why the numbers provided in my previous post all compared the MG and ArtUV to "no glass". Marketing has a tendency to gravitate to simple and absolute formulations such as "99% Block" (giving people the wrong impression that they are “99% safe”). If we are, again, intellectually honest, we will tell people that they are 44% safe with a 99% Blocking glass (according to KDF). KDF has been used by the architectural industry to measure the glazing’s block from fading damaging factors – isn’t what we put behind the glass in a frame often much more precious than upholstery? Then why do we continue to kid ourselves that we are 99% safe?

    Absorption. 100%=Transmission+Reflection+Absorption. So you mustn’t forget the Reflection’s effect. The measured Transmission for MG is much closer to 96% than 97%, with <1% Reflection and around 3% Absorption. The measured T for Artglass UV is around 98.6% (advertised as “>98%” to be on the safe side), with “R>1%”, and Absorption around 0.5%. This is very precise business and there is surely some acceptable deviation of the outcomes - we are speaking about mean values. But again, measurement will only get you that far – the result is easily observed with a naked eye when MG is placed on a white mattboard next to Artglass UV.

    Thanks for digging into this, Jim – I think we are at crossroads when the framing glass industry is beginning to become competitive again, the monopoly giving way to a healthy competition, and it is important for all of us to open our minds and ask hard questions. And we have to be ready that these questions may change or slightly alter what the industry has been saying to its customers for many years.
    Best,
    BF
     
  12. dectrola

    dectrola CGF, Certified Grumble Framer

    Good info BalticFrames... Thanks for bringing "clarity" and common sense to this topic. As difficult as the info can be for some(maybe all those numbers and nm's confuse people), it's a simple concept. Let's say 100% of the UV spectrum (all of it, 100-400nm, not just a small 300-380 section as TV uses) exists in natural light. Chances are your window will knock about 90-95% off of that. Leaving 5-10% to find it's way to your framed art. It's not hanging in DIRECT sunlight? Knock off more percentage. It's hanging in the hallway, around the corner? Knock off even more. So really, with a properly hung and lit work, a variance of 92 - 97% is miniscule. Especially when 60% of light damage comes from the other parts of the spectrum that the glass does not protect against. Thats like saying I'm going to protect your burning house from 97% of 10% of the fire, but only around this front door... Obviously people are willing to forgo the best preservation recommendation (keep it unframed in a closed dark environment), so I would think superior clarity for the customer's needs trumps a few extra % of miniscule protection.
     
  13. Jim Miller

    Jim Miller SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    Who would suggest that "we are 99% safe" with UV filtering glazing? Has anyone said so? That would be as mistaken as saying that UV filtering is unimportant in preservation framing, which actually has been said in the past.

    In consumer picture framing, which is the realm in which most of us here work, the frame designer is usually the one responsible for explaining to uninformed consumers the differences among the glazing alternatives, and recommending a choice based on what is known about the art and the owner's purpose for it.

    Just as damage from light can be infinitely variable, so is the value of minimizing it. In some framing projects, protection from light damage does not matter much. Perhaps the item framed has no value, or a very short life expectancy; or it may be impervious to light, such as artwork made of rock or glass, for example (but in that case, the framing materials could still benefit from protection).

    In preservation framing, where protection is a primary function of the assembly, glazing that provides the best possible protection against light damage is the appropriate choice.

    In some cases, saving a few dollars on less-protective glazing would be OK. A 20% difference in the cost of the glass for a 20x24 framing project might amount to $5 or $6, if the cost of acquisition (buying, shipping, handling, paying) is equal.

    Is it worth the difference? That is a choice for the framer and/or the customer -- hopefully, an informed choice.
     
  14. BalticFrames

    BalticFrames Grumbler

    Dear Jim,

    I am optimistic now that you have judged Artglass good enough for glazing rocks! Because if we attempt to glaze anything else with Artglass UV-92, it shall perish in a puff of UV-obliterated fury! :)

    Just kidding, of course. I appreciate your dedication to the 99% UV Protection. I will keep my alliance to the 100% Art.

    BF
     
  15. imaluma

    imaluma SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    Just dragging up this thread because our rep just showed us the glass samples, and after reading all the information here I do think it would be a good addition to our glass selection. My biggest problem is at this point is pricing it in lifesaver. It seems to be set up for just tru vue products only and so I will need to manually program in this glass. What a pain. And I would like a sample to build a new display, but I don't want to have to shell out for a whole box.
     
  16. RoboFramer

    RoboFramer PFG, Picture Framing God

    Thought I'd bump this as I've taken some on at last, the UV version.

    The reason I could not get the size I preferred (1200x1000 mm, or about 47.25x39.25") is because it does not come that size any more!

    These are the metric sizes available in UK with inches in brackets.

    1600x950, (63x37.5) 1200x1600, (47.25x63) 1200x800, (47.25x31.5)

    I can get single sheets or even cut-to-size, but I want it un-handled by the supplier, so that means in the manufacturer's box, 4 sheets per box. Was hoping the larger sheets came 2 sheets per box as some other types of coated glass do.

    Obviously the last size would be the least outlay and the easiest to handle, but my first job with this stuff (attached) was 45x33, so I went for a box of the 63"x37.5". It was a bit scary turning a sheet that size on its side by myself (i.e. from portrait to landscape) but apart from that, no problems.

    I would have got away without cleaning it, but I managed to get a small strip of ATG tape on it! Must have got on my glove somehow:shrug:

    I tried to roll it off but ended up with a horrible sticky gray smear and thought that was the end of it. But some vigorous rubbing with a wet microfibre cloth got it off without a mark.

    I did a comparison test - i.e. I stuck a piece of ATG on the edge of a scrap of the Flabeg stuff I mentioned above, and on a scrap of TruVue Museum (both sides) and removal with the same method left marks/scratches. I realise that a more careful method may not have, and also that it's a freak situation, but my point is that this stuff cleans pretty much as easily as regular glass.
     

    Attached Files:

    • 003.jpg
      003.jpg
      File size:
      193.8 KB
      Views:
      19
  17. Julie Walsh

    Julie Walsh MGF, Master Grumble Framer

    I've been using both the 70% and 92% UV and love it! Agree, it does clean up very easily.
     
  18. GUMBY GCF

    GUMBY GCF SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    It would be my recommended glass for at least 90% of our frame jobs coming in over museum..each job being evaluated..
     
  19. mbboston

    mbboston CGF II, Certified Grumble Framer Level 2

    "99% Block" (giving people the wrong impression that they are “99% safe”). If we are, again, intellectually honest, we will tell people that they are 44% safe with a 99% Blocking glass

    Yes this was my point in some earlier posts, it is deceiving . If we have 92% UV block, we would have 41% overall protection vs. 44% with 99%UV. Not an enormous difference, other factors would still attribute to the majority of damage. I do like MG and I use it all the time (70% of all glass used), but I am looking into trying other competitive products. Competition is a good thing.
     
  20. Jeff Rodier

    Jeff Rodier SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    Can those who have pricing on this give me some help with cost. May have been covered but what is the pricing compared to Museum. Just as a percentage in list price. Is it for example 50%, 60%, 75% etc. I know there is more than one level of product so if you have the prices I would be interested in knowing the options.
     
  21. wendy lang

    wendy lang CGF II, Certified Grumble Framer Level 2

    We have decided that Museum Glass is too fragile and too much waste is generated by that. As in: the Scratch Factor. And the use of cotton gloves to handle it, and the "huffing" breath on it to clean the spots. When our current supply of MG is gone, we are not re-ordering. We just will not offer it any more.
    Artglass UV, however, is AWESOME! The difference between MG and AGUV is 7%. If the Peabody Essex Museum wanted me to frame something for them, (not that they do, though I'm just down the street from them...) I would order and use the MG, but for the average person's framing? I'm all about Artglass UV!

    Wendy
    The Art Corner
    Salem, MA
     
  22. framah

    framah PFG, Picture Framing God

    So, Wendy, who are you getting this glass from?
     
  23. Framing Goddess

    Framing Goddess SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    Bumpity bump bump

    Just saw the sampler of this glass from the Omega rep and the difference is stunning.

    Artglass is much, much clearer and the faint reflections even fainter than TV's MG.

    It is a difference worth reconsidering your AR (and MG) glass options.

    It seems to be only carried by Omega, which in my case means trucking it in from Chicago. Trucking glass cases in from 400 miles away is not my idea of cost efficient.

    It is also considerably less expensive than MG, so please excuse me now while I sharpen my pencil and do some *actual* math. (ouch, my head)

    edie the claritymatterssometimes goddess
     
  24. johnny

    johnny SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer


    Hey, call that Omega rep and tell them to stop by me :) If we like it too then maybe we can combine a purchase and share shipping expenses.
     
  25. Bob Doyle

    Bob Doyle SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    Do you remember Armel in Mass? They were bought out by Omega, so you can get the glass from MA. Surely closer than Chicago.

    I think you need to look at the UV ratings of that glass. I think it is 92 % (or is it proof or dB?) And it's a logarithmic scale so a slight drop in value is exponential in scale.

    But the clarity :) And I may be wrong about the UV Protection, that number just sticks in my head as being close to right...
     
  26. Framing Goddess

    Framing Goddess SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    He was just here today. He may still be around; Shawn Rock, call him.
    You betcha I'd place an order with you. Let's see what we can do.
    edie
     
  27. Cliff Wilson

    Cliff Wilson SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    I've posted this on other threads ...
    I created this display ...

    sample glass.jpg

    There is no glass between the Artglass and the Museum.

    I offer the Artglass and the Museum at the same price.

    I try to be objective and explain the difference.
    Artglass - better color; Museum - better protection.

    Some customers see it and think it's dramatic color difference.
    Some can't see the color difference at all.

    For things like diplomas I recommend better protection.
    Customers have been selecting Artglass 3 out of 4 times.

    Artglass is easier to work with and I haven't had the flaw problem. (At least not yet.)
     
  28. johnny

    johnny SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    Left a voicemail, haven't heard back yet. Don't let me slow you down! If I hear anything I'll let you know.
     
  29. RoboFramer

    RoboFramer PFG, Picture Framing God

    92% UV is correct.

    However much it costs in the US it'll be cheaper than here, which is a bit mad because it's from Europe. But they (Groglass) are no doubt setting their prices to slightly undercut Tru Vue's and Tru Vue here is about x2 of what it is in the US.
     
  30. Jerry Ervin

    Jerry Ervin PFG, Picture Framing God

    That speaks volumes!
     
  31. Jeff Rodier

    Jeff Rodier SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    Jerry, are you going to the Omega open house Sunday. I would love to put my hands on some to see what I think.
     
  32. Cliff Wilson

    Cliff Wilson SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    3 out of 4 have selected Artglass.
    We have to be careful. My sample set is relatively small. About 2 dozen frames in the last month have premium glass.

    Not truly statistically significant.
     
  33. Jim Miller

    Jim Miller SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    What about Ultra-Vue? That is a 2 mm water-white substrate with optical coatings and no UV filter. Ultra-Vue would be the product most comparable to ArtGlass and Claryl and, also like both of those products, it is suitable when preservation is not an issue.
     
  34. Cliff Wilson

    Cliff Wilson SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    It's comparable to Artglass not Artglass UV.

    As you argue that the maximum protection available 99% is better than 92%, (which it obviously is, no arguement), I would argue that if you or your customer are paying for "premium glazing," and they want maximum visibility, you want to provide them the maximum protection that doesn't interfere with that visibility.

    This is one reason I don't offer the Artglass non-UV filtering at all. I frankly think it's a silly product.
     
  35. Jerry Ervin

    Jerry Ervin PFG, Picture Framing God

    I didn't know that they were having one or where it would be.

    I stopped buying from them years ago so there is no longer communication.
     
  36. johnny

    johnny SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    He's stopping by on Friday.
     
  37. j Paul

    j Paul PFG, Picture Framing God

    Johnny / Edie, I'd be interested in looking at the glass at possibly a group buy if logistics could be worked out me being on the west side of Ohio and you on the East. Turnpike goes that way.
     
  38. johnny

    johnny SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    Cool lets all talk. I'm also thinking about ordering a vanload of Kool Tack, just started talking to them today.

    There's a glass manufacturer in Toledo that we've been wanting to talk to as well. And we're wanting Tony Packos.
     
  39. Puppiesonacid

    Puppiesonacid SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    Ill beat it to death. Ive used the glass, its great. Its less reflective then Tru vue museum, and doesn't scratch.

    Tru vue has its tests in certain light ranges that say theirs is 99% protection, what about the rest of the spectrum as others have said.

    Don't know why this other company doesn't test their glass till they find a range that makes theirs 99% :p

    just sayin
     
  40. Jeff Rodier

    Jeff Rodier SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    Hitting the 99% UV protection causes the glass to not show the true colors of the artwork.
     
  41. j Paul

    j Paul PFG, Picture Framing God


    I'm closed on Monday's so that's a good day to go to Packo's
     
  42. Less

    Less SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    Shifty

    Less just placed white paper against AR & Artglass. He can see no difference. Almost no color shift in both. Why TV is compelled to come out with a ARWW is beyond Less (pointLess?) Comparing Artglasses UV with Museum has merit in Less' book, because Less hates the CC color shift. Maybe hate is a strong word - dislikes.

    Actually, placing it on top of a high-key (a lot of white) piece of art with a bright white liner (glass on liner), the AR looks a little crisper.

    They definitely feel different. Artglass is a lot slipperier. Not sure which one cleans easier.

    So what ever is Less expensive wins?
     
  43. Puppiesonacid

    Puppiesonacid SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    You know... and you can say whatever you need to say, but after thinking about this for the last couple hours on and off...

    Basically what i get out of all of this is, if the glass isn't 99% UV protection... It might as well read 0% UV protection if only above 97% or above 99%,
    Can't remember which number it was, is the only kind that truly protects from UV rays???

    Just wondering if all my thinking has gotten this correct?
     
  44. Puppiesonacid

    Puppiesonacid SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    ART glass cleans better by far... if there is any reason to clean it that is... out the box on the picture done...
     
  45. Framing Goddess

    Framing Goddess SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    Just a thought

    We sell a surprising amount of AR glass. We use it on some pieces of (nominal) value, but also on strictly decorative pieces.

    Therefore, it seems to me that AR or MG is chosen by the customer for aesthetic reasons foremost. In other words, the UV protection is secondary, that IT MAKES THE ART LOOK BETTER is what really matters.

    Maybe UV "protection" in whatever percentage you need to define it, is simply not as important as we want/need it to be.:nuts:

    edie makingtrouble goddess
     
  46. Less

    Less SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    GLOVELESS

    LESS NO LIKE GLOVES - cleans every piece of glass - especially AR.

    agree with GoddLess
     
  47. Puppiesonacid

    Puppiesonacid SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    I agree. I sell a lot of AR glass as well. Its for the look more than the protection. is what makes it an easier sell.
     
  48. Puppiesonacid

    Puppiesonacid SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    Imagine how much time you could save by wearing gloves. I save tons.
     
  49. Less

    Less SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    Less sweats too much

    Ok Less can sees Artglass is Less green. Not by much. Seems a little pink. Depends a lot on the color it sits on.

    Better put down the UnSeal.
     
  50. Cliff Wilson

    Cliff Wilson SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    Um, no, not correct. It's a filter. So what ever you block is not "getting there" to do damage. The less you block, the more damage. So, blocking more does mean more protection. How much and what the effective improvement will be is HIGHLY depended on ambiant conditions and the art itself. But, more filtering is more. m It's not an all or nothing thing.
     
Sponsor Wanted

Share This Page

Wizard Ad