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.

Artglass Sales Update

Discussion in 'Picture Framing Business Issues' started by Jeff Rodier, Jan 24, 2012.

  1. RoboFramer

    RoboFramer PFG, Picture Framing God

    So if a picture is to be hung in a room with a window in, it would be better to hang it smack opposite the window than at right angles to it, and if the side walls went away from the window at more than 90 degrees, that would be even worse?
  2. Jim Miller

    Jim Miller SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    No. I'm no lighting engineer, but my understanding is that light is reflected from nearly all surfaces in the room. That is, with the window's light coming perpendicular to the glass, the sides of the frame would be illuminated and visible; not invisible in the dark. Likewise, all corners of the room would receive some of the light. Since there would be no way to restrict the angles of incidence, it hits the glass from all directions.

    Maybe environmental factors could affect the intensity of light (and invisible UV radiation) at certain angles of incidence, but that would be completely unpredictable.

    If you want to block UV radiation, absorptive technology works much more effectively, and that is why it is used by all makers of UV filtering glass. In laminated glass, the absorptive filter is in the adhesive between the layers.
  3. RoboFramer

    RoboFramer PFG, Picture Framing God

    Let's concentrate on direct light, which has to be the most potent - it's energy.

    If you T-boned a brick wall in your car wouldn't the result be far (FAR) worse than hitting it at, say, 175 degrees?

    Where I'm sitting right now I have a window at 90 degrees to my left; if I look 90 degrees to my right I can see a frame on the wall up a corridor, I can't see the glass in it, if I lean back a bit I can see the right hand edge of the glass, and of course, I can't see what's behind it because of the reflection and if that glass was a UV glass with reflective properties as opposed to absorbtive properties, wouldn't the fact that I see more reflection mean that, apart from the 'energy' being weaker, well, more light is reflected, so it actually works better at an angle than head-on? The total reverse of your theory.

    Imagine a window on a wall that is hinged to it, you've got a picture on that wall, so to start with there is no angle to it - it's 180 degrees. Surely, as soon as you start to move the wall, or the window, through 90 degrees, the exposure to direct light, and therefore the chances of fading, gets greater, not lesser?
  4. tedh

    tedh PFG, Picture Framing God

    I remember long ago on HitchHikers, Marc Lizer saying "UV does not reflect".
  5. Artrageous

    Artrageous PFG, Picture Framing God

    The only exception is snow. Snow reflects UV. Canada has lots of snow...
  6. tedh

    tedh PFG, Picture Framing God

    That's why we're so white - totally UV bleached. All our houses are white, cars faded to white, clothes, you name it.

    This is the land of the Man From Glad.

  7. Artrageous

    Artrageous PFG, Picture Framing God

  8. Puppiesonacid

    Puppiesonacid SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    Interesting thought! :)
  9. Jim Miller

    Jim Miller SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    My understanding is that UV-B radiation (290-320 nm) does not reflect, but UV-A radiation (320-400 nm) does reflect. Here is a web site that explains more about UV radiation, which includes this snippet:
  10. Jim Miller

    Jim Miller SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    Of course it would. But if your car's bumper, like the UV blocking of a reflective coating, diminished to near zero, then the damage to your car could still be substantial. And reflected wall could do even more damage, if such a thing existed. Maybe this analogy isn't very good, Robo. :faintthud:
  11. Jim Miller

    Jim Miller SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    First, it isn't my theory, but the realities of the optical coating technologies are well-tested. Your pretzel-logic is impressive, John, and not entirely without merit, I'm sure. You are referring to light (including UV-A radiation) intensity, which does indeed affect the amount of damage potential. Less intensity, less damage. And reflected light (including UV-A radiation) is less intense than direct light. However, a few realities come to mind...

    1. How could you persuade customers to never allow direct light exposure?

    2. How could you persuade customers to limit the intensity of light?

    3. Ordinary glass reflects the most light. So, if more reflected light meant less damage, wouldn't ordinary glass provide the best protection? Alas, it does not.
  12. RoboFramer

    RoboFramer PFG, Picture Framing God

    So the manufacturers of products like artglass are either making false claims, have something hidden in the smallprint or are ignorant of all this?
  13. Rob Markoff

    Rob Markoff PFG, Picture Framing God

    Not at all. Just as some would take other manufacturers to task for saying 99% UV filtration - when the 99% is of specific portion of the spectrum - the 97% filtration is correct at a 90 degree angle of incidence. That "fact" is not included but I would not say they are making a "false" claim - nor would I say that the vendors who say 99% are either.

    The president of Artglass was in my UV class at the PPFA Convention and he stayed after the class for a very well reasoned and spirited conversation on the topic.

    Artglass makes NO CLAIMS as being "conservation grade." They do have a conservation product that has a HIGHER UV filtering factor than anything Tru-Vue makes and they promote it as such. And, while they ask a "reasonable" question as to "Why 97% and who made that determination for what reason?" - and do raise the question IF one would ever see the effects of the difference between 92% (which is really more like 87% if you consider reflection vs absorption) in one's lifetime- they do not represent Artglass as meeting the conservation standard.

    American framers (and distributors) see the "UV filtering" factor and are using it for their marketing efforts. There are many who feel that Artglass "looks" better. And it may very well look better, be easier to clean and handle, not have the scratching problems associated with other products, etc., it does not meet the current standard for UV filtration to be considered conservation grade. And if you are framing to conservation standards, you must use glazing that filters 97%.
  14. Puppiesonacid

    Puppiesonacid SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    going by that, it makes you wonder why ART glass came out with a UV version of the stuff...

    I wonder if TV will make a non scratchable version of Museum.
  15. Jim Miller

    Jim Miller SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    Certainly not. GroGlass specifications are clearly published for all of their products and they have made no claim that ArtGlass would protect artwork from UV damage. Their ArtGlass Protect serves that purpose. They couldn't possibly manufacture their range of quality glass products without a thorough knowledge of the technologies.

    Others (and not GroGlass) have suggested that when UV filtering is required, 92% is almost as good as 97% and that perhaps they will find a way to increase the performance of ArtGlass to 97%, apparently unaware that reflective and absorptive coating technologies perform differently. Even if a 97% reflective coating were developed, it would not equal the protection of a 97% absorptive coating.
  16. RoboFramer

    RoboFramer PFG, Picture Framing God

    Where does this information come from anyway and why has it not been mentioned before, unless I missed it.

    As for being mislead, this glass (OK Artglass UV as opposed to just artglass) is sold to me as having a 92% UV filter - that means UV period, not UV depending on the angle - so my suppliers are lying to me then, not the manufacturer - the end result anyway, assuming all this reflection stuff is true, is THAT I AM LYING TO MY CUSTOMERS!!!

    Could someone actually put that in B&W for me - that artglass UV does not actually block/filter/whatever 92% UV as it claims to. <<<< period!

    That would be a big help to me when I tackle my supplier. Thank you.
  17. Mike Labbe

    Mike Labbe Member, Former moderator team volunteer

    Tru Vue was showing such a product a year or two ago, at regional trade shows. They had framers soiling/fingerprinting and cleaning two pieces of MG, and rating the differences between them. One of them was an experimental product which was in development, I believe. I'm not clear what became of that, or if it went live into the distribution system already(?)

    We dont have a problem with scratching or finger prints of the current MG, but improvements are always welcome.
  18. Puppiesonacid

    Puppiesonacid SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    Then you are better than I :)
  19. David N Waldmann

    David N Waldmann SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    Not by my definition; I believe motive is involved. A lie is an untruth. Meaning, to say something you believe is not true. Therefore if you believe you are telling the truth it is not a lie, whether it's true or not.

    So my suggestion to you, unless you want to start lying to your customers, is to block this thread, forget everything you ever heard about the subject of UV protection and put your head back in the sand. Of course, then you will be guilty of another sin but this is probably not the place for that...
  20. Jim Miller

    Jim Miller SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    Nobody is lying to you, John. Many reasonable people, including picture framers and consumers, would consider all of this to be minutia. Only technophobes like us get excited about such details.

    Actually, the specification chart in the 2011 ArtGlass brochure (the only one I have) does not say "92%". It says "~92%", which indicates an approximation, not a precise figure.

    You know the anti-reflection quality is best at a perpendicular viewing angle, and diminishes as the viewing angle increases, right? It should be no surprise that the UV blocking attribute of the same coating performs similarly and, as far as I know, the optical coatings from all manufacturers have that same limitation.
  21. RoboFramer

    RoboFramer PFG, Picture Framing God

    It just dosen't make sense to me - the glass is surely tested against light coming from head-on where it is most potent, therefore it seems logical that from any other angle it would be less potent and even if the blocking attributes diminished as the angle increases, which I'm not convinced about, then it would have less potency to deal with anyway.

    I don't see why the average framer should need to look over their suppliers' heads to get information from manufacturers, here's two of my suppliers saying the level of protection of artglass UV is 92%, not thereabouts, only from head-on or anything else.



    There should be a simple yes-or-no answer to the question "Is this correct"?
  22. Puppiesonacid

    Puppiesonacid SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    They should drop the UV and get the laminated here, then it would be 99% :)
  23. Jim Miller

    Jim Miller SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    By "potency", you mean intensity, right? While I agree that what you say makes sense, potency of radiation at any angle of incidence, as an ambient condition, would be completely unpredictable. That is, the most intense light (and UV radiation) might come to the glass at a steep angle. Wavelengths can be measured precisely, but potency can not be predicted.

    Don't be too hard on the suppliers, John. Their job is to take the products to market, and they might not need to know much about the technical details. A few months ago, I asked if framer should rely on supplier sales people for technical information/education. From those who responded, the resounding answer was no.

    It would be wrong to say that ~92% or 92% is incorrect. But when comparing dissimilar technologies, it is important to know the differences.
  24. Jim Miller

    Jim Miller SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    It might already be available here for the museum market, and if so, it probably is competitive with other laminated glass products filtering 99% or 100% of UV. However, the price would probably keep it out of typical frame shops. And another thing... have you ever tried to cut laminated glass?
    Remember the Sandel laminated glass? :cry:
  25. RoboFramer

    RoboFramer PFG, Picture Framing God

    I rest my case!

    light refraction.jpg
  26. Jim Miller

    Jim Miller SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    John, thank you for that clear and concise doodle. It explains everything. :thumbsup:
  27. FramerCat

    FramerCat SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    I just spoke to my only local distributor of artglass. They sell it for exactly the same price as museum so in my case there is no savings to buy it.
  28. Grey Owl

    Grey Owl SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    I have not done a price comparison with Artglass, but I was doing a price comparison with some other glass and I realized that I was doing it wrong.

    The cases of one were approximately 35 sq ft, and the cases of others were 50 sq ft. I was comparing case price vs. sq ft price (eg, 4 sheets 32 x 40 in the first, vs 6 sheets 32 x 40 in the second), so my comparison was off.

    I'm sure you didn't make this same mistake, but you might want to verify the number of sheets in the comparison.
  29. tedh

    tedh PFG, Picture Framing God

    The savings come in reduced scratching and easier handling and cleaning.

  30. FramerCat

    FramerCat SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    That's what they told me. In my experience it is thinner so it breaks easier (not in a good way), and it is usually very dirty so it needs a more thorough cleaning. It's kind of a toss up but with the slight difference in stated UV protection I tend to lean toward Museum. I absolutely understand the argument for either.
  31. Puppiesonacid

    Puppiesonacid SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    there is a bit of static cling to ART glass. probably because of the plastic it is wrapped in, and then removing it. I consider it like regular glass... its as easy to clean, so doesn't bother me much...
  32. FrameGeek

    FrameGeek Grumbler

    Thank you for this thread. My current frame shop is considering carrying ArtGlass and I couldn't seem to get any literature on it from them.

    I am a huge Museum Glass fan and sometimes struggle with change. But, I am in a different demographic area than I was before and it's much harder to sell it at this location.
  33. framestudio

    framestudio CGF II, Certified Grumble Framer Level 2

    I love the new Preservation Clear from ArtGlass. It gives a nice price point for those who want ArtGlass Water White AR UV(museum) glass but don't want to spend the money.

    Preservation Clear offers 95% UV protection and 8% reflection. Side by side Water White UV wins. For the price Preservation Clear is good enough for most customers.
  34. DSR7

    DSR7 True Grumbler

    Good to know. We just received our first case. Excited to use it.
  35. Rob Markoff

    Rob Markoff PFG, Picture Framing God

    Here is a link to a PDF from GroGlass - the manufacturer of Preservation Clear.


    They claim >90% UV protection. Where did you get the 95% figure you posted?

    8% reflection is the same as clear glass. I am confused. What is the advantage of using Preservation Clear?
  36. RoboFramer

    RoboFramer PFG, Picture Framing God

    Preservation clear would be artglass UV without the AR coating to give a few extra % UV protection whilst costing much less as well.

    It gets very confusing - Groglass make artglass but not everyone (over here at least) calls it artglass - they also make another AR glass that no supplier calls the same thing and this stuff is even easier to clean than artglass (unless of course this is new-and-improved artglass!)

    Arqadia call it 'Clarity' and you can see that the basic version which is waterwhite has 70% UV - which isn't really worth a mention but anyway, without the AR coating (and possibly non-waterwhite) it jumps to 90%.
  37. DSR7

    DSR7 True Grumbler

    Okay. Just tried out a piece of the new AG Preservation Clear today. I have to say I'm feeling highly disappointed and mislead.

    Immediately looking at the glass, it appeared to have a highly "shiny" green reflective tint to it. It seems especially distracting--even compared to regular glass. Now, here comes the kicker. When I placed a piece of the Preservation Clear down upon a white mat side by side with a piece of Tru Vue Conservation Clear, the color tint and transmission was shocking. The Artglass Clear had nearly double the infamous "rose hue" that Con. Clear has been known for. I was shocked.

    My shop had purchased a case of the Preservation Clear going by the Artglass claim that it offered "true color transmission". I find that to be a greatly exaggerated claim...

    For all others who have used the Preservation Clear from Artglass, do you notice the same thing? What are your opinions? Hoping that perhaps we just received a bad batch, but I somehow doubt that is the case.
  38. i-FRAMER

    i-FRAMER MGF, Master Grumble Framer

    i don't see much differnce between regular 2mm clear float and Artglass Preservation
    the tru Vue conservation however is remarkably different.

    Sorry should have left some white mat without glass

  39. DSR7

    DSR7 True Grumbler

    Okay. It looks great on your mat. I will have to upload a picture next week to show what I'm experiencing. Maybe we did receive a bad box.
  40. DSR7

    DSR7 True Grumbler


    Here is a picture of the ArtGlass Preservation Clear we received compared to TruVue Conservation Clear, Regular Glass, and no glass at all. For reference, the white mat I laid them upon was B8740.

    Anyone using Preservation Clear seen anything like this? It just can't be right.
  41. Mike Labbe

    Mike Labbe Member, Former moderator team volunteer

    That looks like a very old piece of CC, before they switched to the low iron formula. (pre 1998)

    The higher iron stuff has a green tint.

    Then again, the "no glass" image in your example has a green tint, too. A bad photo?
  42. DSR7

    DSR7 True Grumbler

    It is actually a piece of CC right out of a new box. I hear what you are saying, however. The camera's representation may not be ideal, but the "pink" look of the Artglass Preservation Clear is even more obvious in real life, as is the slightly brown hue of the CC. The photo seemed to soften everything, a bit.
American Picture Frame Academy 1-888-840-9605

The American Picture Framing Academy Learn Picture Framing Now

Share This Page

Sponsor Wanted