• WELCOME Grumblers
    Backup is now done at 3PM EDT. You may find the server down for up to two minutes at that time.

Fading After Using Museum Optium Acrylic

MerpsMom

<span style="color: red"><b><i>Charter Member</i><
While visiting a local supplier today, he asked me my opinion on a piece for which they'd sold the customer Museum Optium.

It was a mixed media rooster cut-out applied to a mat. There were spacers and then the Optium. The workup was from 2012, and the customer returned the piece to them to show them that all exposed surfaces had faded. (They had removed the rooster and indeed the exposed mat surfaces were faded while the area under the plant-on was not.)

The piece hung in an interior hallway, a ceiling incandescent canlight on only occasionally, no direct sunlight. We assumed no more than usual heat or chill in the hall.

The mat was not conservation: it was just a plain old paper mat. Could that have that much to do with the egregious fading? Outgassing yes, but that seems quite severe.

The supplier is wondering if they sold the wrong type of acrylic, but they don't have the original piece. (I'd sure want to check that first were I going to complain to TV.)

Will one of you gurus please weigh in on this and help with some reasons for this?

Cathie
 
Sponsor Wanted

Jeff Rodier

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
I'm guessing the wrong grade was slipped in since decorative mats I have under Artglass 70 in the shop with florescent light and sunlight still has a bright core on the bevel after a couple of years. The mats were not white core decorative stuff but just plain old street grade stuff.
 

Rob Markoff

PFG, Picture Framing God
I am not sure of your question. Are you asking why the piece faded despite the fact that Optium Museum Acrylic was used?

Is there some expectation that using the product would prevent fading?

Regarding the matting; one of the criteria for a mat to be considered as "preservation or "conservation" grade is the fade and bleed resistance of the surface papers.

Conservation grade mats have pigmented based papers are are significantly more lightfast. Paper mats use dye based surface papers. Dye based papers are not lightfast and fade.

If you are suggesting that the use of Optium Museum Acrylic would have prevented the fading - not hardy. Wood pulp mats (and their surface papers) have inherent vice that no glazing can counter act. Certain colors will fade more quickly than others.

ALL light causes fading, not just UV. Light damages is cumulative. Ambient light (not just direct) causes fading, it just takes longer.

Certain dyes are more susceptible to photochemical changes (often perceived as fading) that may be triggered by wavelengths in the visible range and have nothing to do with UV at all.

There is Optium and Optium Museum acrylic. Only the Museum acrylic has UV protection. Optium without the "Museum" is just anti reflective like AR Glass.

Has anyone tested the acrylic to confirm it is UV filtering?

Jeff- I would be very curious as to what the mat you describe looks like under the rabbet.
 

Jeff Rodier

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
Jeff- I would be very curious as to what the mat you describe looks like under the rabbet.
If my shoulder was not in such bad shape I would pull it off the wall and take it apart to see. I have my store down to only being open 3 days per week due to the pain.

The upside is my numbers have not dropped and I barely purchased any materials this month so I don't have to do much heavy lifting. Its amazing how many cases of mat board, foam core & glass I have found tucked away in the shop.
 

Bob Doyle

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
Cathy sorry to hear about the fading. With the expense of the optium you would expect better, but, and there is the dreaded but it only stops the UV light. And not all of that. It's akin to sunblock in my opinion in that it can limit the damage but you can still get burned.

The damage may have been much worse without the optium, you can't ever know unless you had a control item framed at the same time using regular plexi. You and the customer have a right to be upset but truvue probably has a disclaimer somewhere that says something like 'fading will occur..'
 

Dave

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
Test it to make sure the right glazing was used first.

As Rob put so well, all light is fading. The band width, frequency and intensity are contributing factors as are heat, materials used in the frame package and other environmental factors... and of course, the materials used in the making of the art itself.

It does sound extreme from your description so I would first test the glazing with a blacklight to make sure it is a UV blocking acrylic.
 

Ylva

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
So many variables, hard to point it down. What was the rooster made out of and did that fade at all? First quick reaction from me: it was the mat, it not being conservation grade. I'd probably explain that fading is caused by more than UV and the mat not being conservation grade might have caused the extensive fading.
 

Rob Markoff

PFG, Picture Framing God
You and the customer have a right to be upset but truvue probably has a disclaimer somewhere that says something like 'fading will occur..'
Hold on there. Who ever said that ANY UV filtering product would PREVENT fading? If a framer or distributor represents any UV filtering product as "prevention" they are raising false expectations of what UV blocking can do. Surely the "upset" is improperly directed at any UV glazing manufacturer as all of the products do what they are supposed to do.

Saying that a product can slow the harmful effects of UV is a truthful statement. There are MANY things UV energy does that are invisible to the eye. By the time "fading" has become visible, many other things have happened that using a UV blocking product will inhibit or slow down.

ALL THINGS WILL FADE AND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PREVENT IT. Even if kept in a dark drawer, things will fade. Yes, there is a phenomenon called, Dark Fading.

It is important to understand the mechanics of fading. It is WAY more than UV light as a cause. ALL light is energy. Specific wavelengths can trigger reactions in certain organic compounds - and some of those wavelengths are not within the UV spectrum. All the UV blocking in the world would not stop that specific reaction.

To get back to the OP - WAS the expectation that by using Optium Museum Acrylic it would PREVENT fading? Who made that representation?
 

GUMBY GCF

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
I have not read anything from tru vue that states any of their products will stop fading. Everything I have read only claims it will block 99% of UV.
I Know a few novice framers interpert tru vue uv blocking glass/plexi will stop fading. Soooo not right...
 

Rick Granick

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
I suspect the paper pulp matboards will fade on their own with time, just because of the instability of the dyes. Still, if the apparent color change is so dramatic in a dimly lit area, I would be very tempted to unfit the piece and do the black light test on the glazing to make sure it's really Museum Optium and not just plain Optium.
:cool: Rick
 

Michael A Slavin

CGF, Certified Grumble Framer
Rob I read your replies and thank you for making me aware of things I never knew about UV filtering and TV products. You seem well informed. I have several questions though. Why did everything not fade. Behind the piece where the light could not penetrate fading did not occur as statedin the original post? If fading did and will occur why are we offering such an expensive product. We have been selling UV filitering products for years and know I am wondering why. If we can't tell a customer we are preserving their art why are we charging so much for something so marginal in its performance. It seems that the inevitable is the inevitable and we should save the customer their money??
 

Jim Miller

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
If Museum Optium Acrylic (or any other 99% UV filtering) glazing was actually installed, then the most protective type of glazing was used. In that case, it would be safe to say that the damage has nothing to do with the glazing.
 

tedh

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
If I were the customer and heard that, I would be ticked that I was sold an unnecessary product. If the subject were to fade for another reason, then promoting a uv-filtering product would be bordering on ..............
 

Rob Markoff

PFG, Picture Framing God
Hence my question. What is it that you all think UV protective glazing will do and what is it that you are "selling" your customers that they would be so disappointed?

If you are promising that UV glazing will PREVENT fading, you are doing yourselves and your customers a disservice. UV filtering glazing will block a percentage of UV light, which are the most damaging wavelengths. It will not PREVENT fading. There is nothing that will prevent or stop fading. Everything will fade.

Here is a link to an article I wrote on fading: https://www.dropbox.com/s/3vz6fgabg4ukz9r/What Causes Fading article.pdf?dl=0

It would appear that some of you equate "preserving art" with "preventing fading".

All light is energy. UV light has the most energy within a short duration and is the most damaging. UV energy causes many kinds of photochemical reactions, often that are unseen. One of those reactions is perceived as fading - however by the time visible damage has occurred, significant unseen photochemical damage has taken place. That is why we need to protect art (and other organic matter) from UV radiation - because it can cause the most damage in a shorter duration.

Light damage is cumulative and irreversible. Remember that ALL light has energy and organic compounds (think ink, paint, dyes, etc.) all react to the energy level of specific wavelengths. Therefore, it is possible that even if we blocked 100% of the UV (which is possible but since some of the UV range is also within the visible range, blocking it would change colors) things will fade.

Re: the question as to why the part that was blocked (was under the rooster) did not fade- how do you know it didn't? There is no "control" so it is indeed possible that changes did occur, though not as apparent as the adjacent surface.

When you offer your customer framing that uses preservation materials (alphacellulose matting, appropriate backing, lining a rabbet where indicated with metal, appropriate hinging, proper filler boards and the use of UV filtering glazing (and the higher percentage blocked, the more protection offered) you are doing all that is possible from a framer's perspective to preserve the art.

As Jim Miller has pointed out many times, often the "best" preservation is to make a quality digital reproduction and not to frame the original - or to understand that certain materials like silk do not respond well to continued exposure to light.

There is also the aspect of "curatorial care." This means that there is an implied obligation for the owner do do what is necessary to prolong the life of the art through proper display protocols (controlled light, temperature, relative humidity). I have one collector that "sleeves" his very expensive framed art - meaning they are draped with covers while he is not home or if they are in a seldom used room. He is doing his part to inhibit their prolonged exposure to all light.
 
Last edited:

Bob Doyle

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
Look, we have been told that light causes fading. That's a given to anyone that has owned furniture and has a home with windows. When the sales reps come around they show us the TruVue sales box. The framed display showing off items that have been protected alongside some that haven't. Isn't the intent of that handy box to show how the item under the UV protection has not faded, and here is the important part, not faded AS MUCH as the unprotected items.

I have never told a customer that the items will not fade, I have likened the glass to sunblock, blocking most but not all. But what you tell a customer and what they hear are two different things. And when I said that Cathy "and the customer had a right to be upset, but that there was a disclaimer" I was not saying that the glass was at fault, just that they had a right to be upset, but that their expectations were not, sorry Cathy, were not realistic or what TruVue said in their literature. It may have been interpreted as saying that the glass stopped fading, but it really said the glass blocked 99% of UVa (or maybe it's UVb) light. I know my customers think that means it stops all fading, but I know that is not the case, that visible light also fades items.

I do not think it is fair to blame the paper or the pulp in the mats. I have opened frames that were framed before the 1970's and some/many have not been faded. Some have been faded so bad that the only color left is blue :) but some have fared better than others.

I spent the day outside today. I put on sunblock, but not I found out on the inside of one ankle. I am glad I did put on sunblock as it helped. I still have color in my cheeks now but not as much as where I forgot to apply it :) I do not think that UV glass is a rip off.

When we get educated by the salespeople that are selling us a product it is contingent on us to be sure we get the information, and understand the information we get. Something faded the artwork in Cathy's project. It is obvious from what she said that the uncut parts of the rooster blocked more light than the cut out parts, but to blame it on the glass, the mats or the die is not going to change the fact that the mat faded.
 

Rob Markoff

PFG, Picture Framing God
I do not think it is fair to blame the paper or the pulp in the mats.
Why not?

Why do the criteria for conservation/preservation mats require pigment based colors that are fade and bleed resistant? Why do they require alphacellulose and not wood pulp - and that they be lignin free? Wouldn't you agree that if the objective is for long term color stability, the selection of a conservation grade mat would increase the like likelihood that the colors would last longer?

Bob, how can you say that the dye based papers and inherent vice contained in the paper mat would not be contributory factors?

So you would "blame" the glass? Even if the glass was not UV filtering, it isn't the glass that caused the fading nor the blockage (or lack thereof) of UV light.

I cannot recall seeing a "sales box" from a glass manufacturer like the one you describe, Bob. I have seen ads for alpha mats that discussed fading and shows side by side comparisons but never a sales box from Tru Vue or any other glass company. Those that I have seen were made by the people using them in their stores (like me :) )

What I have seen from Tru Vue deals more with the optical properties of the products; clarity and reflection control. They are not just carried by sales people, but are available for framers as counter aids from Tru Vue.

Does anyone have a sales aid made by a glazing company showing fading protection?
 

Rick Granick

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
When someone buys an expensive skin cream, he or she hopes and expects that it will help keep their skin looking as smooth and attractive as possible for as long as possible. No matter how much they spend on this cream, no one expects it to prevent aging and the eventual appearance of wrinkles and other signs of aging. It's the same with art and UV-filtering glazing. The goal is to keep the art looking as good as it can for as long as possible. Forever is not possible, and one would be foolish to claim or expect otherwise.
:cool: Rick
 

Jim Miller

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
If I were the customer and heard that, I would be ticked that I was sold an unnecessary product. If the subject were to fade for another reason, then promoting a uv-filtering product would be bordering on ..............
Unnecessary? You lost me there, Ted. How could a framer know in advance whether UV filtering will or will not be "necessary" for a particular project? UV exposure is a common hazard of framed display, and eliminating that potential hazard is fairly cheap to do.

If 99% of the UV radiation was blocked, then UV could not have caused the damage, but that doesn't necessarily mean the UV blocking was a wasted expense. Maybe the damage would have been much worse without that provision. Maybe the damage was caused by extreme exposure to visible light, which has nothing to do with invisible UV, or maybe it was caused by reactive chemistry sealed inside the frame, or some combination of factors.
 

DVieau2

PFG, Picture Framing God
........I cannot recall seeing a "sales box" from a glass manufacturer like the one you describe, Bob. I have seen ads for alpha mats that discussed fading and shows side by side comparisons but never a sales box from Tru Vue or any other glass company. Those that I have seen were made by the people using them in their stores (like me :) )............Does anyone have a sales aid made by a glazing company showing fading protection?........
No dispute with the technical points from Rob and Jim .....

When I first started framing I recall a Tru Vue display that showed a faded print. In the photo lab we were amused by the display because it obviously was reproduced and we questioned how they might have faded part of the photo. This was at a time when digital imaging was just beginning.

That display is long gone and I tried to find it with a google search. No luck on that particular display but this one came up.

.tru vue fading.jpg

Doug
 
Last edited:

Rob Markoff

PFG, Picture Framing God
No dispute with the technical points from Rob and Jim but.....When I first started framing I recall a Tru Vue display that showed a faded print. In the photo lab we were amused by the display because it obviously was reproduced and we questioned how they might have faded part of the photo.

That display is long gone and I tried to find it with a google search. No luck on that particular display but this one came up.

.View attachment 21808

Doug
I believe you are showing a print ad not a framed "BOX" as Bob suggested........and note the words "help" and "protect" not "prevent." :)
 

Rob Markoff

PFG, Picture Framing God
UV exposure is a common hazard of framed display, and eliminating that potential hazard is fairly cheap to do.
Exactly my point- as framers, we KNOW that UV light is damaging and we have a way to eliminate a significant portion of it for a very "reasonable" price.

What is "unreasonable" is to expect that by eliminating a significant portion of UV light, we will stop fading.
 

DVieau2

PFG, Picture Framing God
...........note the words "help" and "protect" not "prevent." :)
Yeah, I think your splitting hairs here.

I'm trying to remember, Mine may have been a laminated counter card or it may have come in a cheap frame or I may have put it in a cheap frame. Darn, I'm getting old.

Doug
 

neilframer

PFG, Picture Framing God
The difference in price between regular glass and Conservation Clear is really negligible and is not an issue.

When I sell a large piece of Optium Museum Acrylic for $2000 on a project, the customer may expect things that may not be the case, regardless of how I tap dance around the semantics and verbiage.

This has not been an issue so far and maybe it will only be an issue long after I am gone....:cool:
 

FramerCat

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
I believe you are showing a print ad not a framed "BOX" as Bob suggested........and note the words "help" and "protect" not "prevent." :)
I had the display from Tru Vue that Doug is refering to. It was a picture of a bunch of little kids and it was in a blue frame. I got it 18 years ago and got rid of it about 9 years ago. It existed but they probably haven't used it in a while.

Ed
 

Jim Miller

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
....and note the words "help" and "protect" not "prevent." :)
Yeah, I think your splitting hairs here.
That's a common reaction, but the distinction is essential. UV filtering is now among the most popular and practical protections available in modern framing, and it is unfortunate that many customers (and still some framers) mistakenly believe that UV filtering stops fading. Maybe that comes from wishful thinking.

The sellers of glazing products do not misrepresent the benefits of UV blocking, but should they be expected to advertise the limitations of their products? I guess that will become a fair expectation when we see car makers advertising the fact that their beautiful bumpers are useless in head-on collisions and do nothing to protect the sides of the car.

UV filtering makes perfect sense to those who understand that UV radiation is much more powerfully destructive than visible light, so removing that invisible portion of the radiation spectrum can greatly extend the useful life of an image. Prevent fading? Certainly not, but blocking UV significantly slows the destruction of moderate light exposure in normal display environments.
 

Rick Granick

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
It seems crazy to me that we are still having these arguments all these years down the road from the introduction of this product that has helped improve the overall effectiveness of what we produce.
I certainly don't feel compelled to sell every new product that is offered in our industry, but this is a "no-brainer", and I believe it is a very good value for the potential benefit and extended longevity of the art.
If anyone thinks UV filtration is some kind of hoax or rip-off, hey, don't sell it. But I personally think that if you make that choice you are short-changing both yourself and your customers.
o_O Rick
 

MerpsMom

<span style="color: red"><b><i>Charter Member</i><
Really interesting replies. I don't know what the seller of the Museum Optium told the customer. I don't even know if the supplier who asked my opinion was the seller or the supplier to the customer who might have been a framer or just the end user. However, I do not represent that art will not fade under UV protection: that would be misleading as we've all discussed. And I don't believe those who frequent this board would represent that false statement either.

That said, I can understand the surprise that there was the amount of fade in that short a period under the circumstances I described. However, using paper mat and not knowing the composition of the rooster sure plays into it. One could even ask "why acrylic"? But those are questions to which I don't have answers. Guess I'll go back and ask the supplier more questions. :)

Cathie
 

tedh

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
Somebody should tell Tru Vue. They think their glass "protects" against fading. Last time I looked, "protect" means "keep safe from harm or injury". This is a consumer display. What do you think the consumer believes?
protect.jpg
 

Rob Markoff

PFG, Picture Framing God
So what's your point, Ted?
 

tedh

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
I made my point. What does the consumer take away from that point-of-sale prop?
 

Jim Miller

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
...This is a consumer display. What do you think the consumer believes?
View attachment 21810
I think the consumer believes what a credible framer tells him, so the framer ought to make sure the consumer understands that UV radiation is invisible and powerfully destructive, and it is not like visible light.

Light exposure would be damaging, but UV exposure would be more damaging. Light is visible and blocking some part of it would visually affect some colors of the image. UV radiation is invisible and can be blocked without visual consequence.

UV radiation should not be confused with visible light, but maybe that confusion leads to the mistaken belief that UV blocking stops light damage. UV blocking has nothing to do with visible light. Visible light is also destructive, although less powerfully destructive than invisible UV radiation, which could cause damage much more quickly than visible light. In any case, UV blocking does not affect the potential harm of visible light at all. The only way to stop the harm from visible light would be to keep the art in the dark.

If the art were to fade under 99% UV-blocking glazing, that damage would be caused by some influence (probably visible light or reactive chemistry) other than UV radiation, because 99% of UV has been blocked and does not exist under the glazing. If the UV radiation never gets to the art, it can't harm the art.

To put it another way, light is visible. UV radiation is not visible, so it is not light.
 
Last edited:

Rick Granick

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
...Visible light is also destructive, although less powerfully destructive than invisible UV radiation, which could cause damage much more quickly than visible light.... If the art were to fade under 99% UV-blocking glazing, that damage would be caused by some influence (probably visible light or reactive chemistry) other than UV radiation, because 99% of UV has been blocked and does not exist under the glazing. If the UV radiation never gets to the art, it can't harm the art...
I think that is why this may seem confusing, even though it really isn't. Science tells us that UV exposure can harm art more quickly than visible light. Even if we eventually see fading or other damage caused by visible light, we have no way of seeing what that same art might look like if it had also been exposed to UV at the same time. As they say, "You can't prove a negative". I prefer to prevent the negative to the degree that I can, rather than gambling over what might have been.
:cool: Rick
 

tedh

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
One more time:

"Somebody should tell Tru Vue. They think their glass "protects" against fading. Last time I looked, "protect" means "keep safe from harm or injury". This is a consumer display. What do you think the consumer believes?"

This is a simple issue. Tru Vu's statement is wrong. Right?

And my customers get the facts.
 

Jeff Rodier

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
My disclaimer to customers has always been "Even though it says 99% it only protects 99% of 20% of the harmful light spectrum but it helps".
 

Bob Doyle

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
Ted
Thank you for posting that photo of the 'box'.

Rob.
Read the words on the box Ted posted. I felt insulted and thought you were bordering on calling me a liar for saying that such a point of sales box existed. The box says right there on it 'protects art from fading' , 'amazing clarity' is secondary to the fade protection.

Now I tell my customers that the glass doesn't prevent fading and have done so ever since I learned that the claim was a sales pitch not a scientific fact. But I also do not make people feel stupid and insult them when they admit to having fallen for the sales pitch of a respected supplier in our industry.i thank the grumble for educating me early in my framing career that the glass was good but not a fade preventer.
 

FramerCat

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
What makes a framer credible to a customer? As was already mentioned, people will choose to hear what they want to hear. I've been doing this for well over 20 years and have all the sales pitches down. Some customers still think they know more than I do because they can apply their false logic and Sherlock Holmes like powers of obervation, to "prove" me wrong. Telling people there is some unseen force that is causing or protecting from unseen damage works best in church. I did away with non-conservation products for a long time, but now I'm back to offering whatever the customer wants.

If it's this hard to get your point across to a bunch of experienced and educated framers, imagine what the common cusomer might really be thinking.

Ed
 

Jim Miller

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
Tru Vu's statement is wrong. Right?
If a car maker put a sign on a showroom car's bumper saying "Protects your car from damage", would that be wrong? No, but you could say it is incomplete. "Protects your car from damage caused by minor impact at the front and rear of the car" would be a complete statement. Would you say the maker is obligated to inform customers that bumpers do nothing to protect against damage from the sides?

Likewise, Tru Vue's statement is not wrong, but you could say it is incomplete. "Protects your art from fading caused by invisible ultraviolet, the radiation most harmful to art" would be a complete statement. Would you say the maker is obligated to inform customers that UV blocking does nothing to protect against fading from other causes?
 
Last edited:

prospero

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
Interesting thread.

The OP mentions the words "Mixed Media". When I hear this phrase I do tend to cringe a bit. Lots of artists like to experiment with things. Part of the creative process and all well and good. The problem is that while the result may be very innovative and generally arty, they probably never gave a moments thought to the long-term stability of the piece. Artists who work with the same time-honored materials and methods over the years can be reasonably sure their work isn't going to self-destruct after a while. But start working 'outside the box' and you are stepping into unknown land. If a work carries the seeds of it's own destruction no amount of UV glass and acid free wotsits is going to save it. It's not just light that attacks art. Sometimes it is attacked from within.

Many famous artists have fallen victim. Joshua Reynolds for one. He thought using bitumen as a pigment was a great idea until his paintings started to look like something that came off a shed roof. I think David Hockney had a few comebacks with first-generation acrylic paints.
 
Last edited:

MerpsMom

<span style="color: red"><b><i>Charter Member</i><
Love the Grumble for its comprehensive and hydra - headed explanations. Always learning.

Turns out my supplier sleuthed his way back through records and found it was just regular acrylic, But now he knows so much more. And the artist redid the piece, probably used paper mat.
 

Ylva

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
If a customer ever comes back because something has faded, while using a UV product you can always answer: "Wow, imagine how much worse it would have been with regular glass" :)

I do understand most of all the explanations, however, we are dealing with customers with an attention span of nothing. I do agree that those TV displays are misleading, that is what the customer reads, remembers, no matter how much explaining the framer does verbally.

I will ALWAYS point out to the customer that everything fades, that many different things contribute to fading and UV exposure is only one of them. "This is the best glass that's out there and helps slow down the process. However, I have no control over the paper/ink/paint that has been used"
 

Rob Markoff

PFG, Picture Framing God
Gee Bob, a little sensitive aren't we?

You said:
The framed display showing off items that have been protected alongside some that haven't.
And I said:
I cannot recall seeing a "sales box" from a glass manufacturer like the one you describe, Bob.
How one can construe this as "bordering on calling me a liar" is beyond me but I apologize if that was your interpretation as it never was my intent.

All I am saying is that I don't remember seeing what you were describing- to which one framer posted as support, what I believe to have been ad (not the same thing) and another posted a picture of a framed "box" that had a continuous item and not as you described as "items that have been protected alongside some that haven't". Again, not the same thing.

You also said, "When we get educated by the salespeople that are selling us a product it is contingent on us to be sure we get the information, and understand the information we get."

Yet you also make a statement like, "I do not think it is fair to blame the paper or the pulp in the mats," but are unwilling to substantiate your reasoning and when challenged say I make you feel stupid? You posted the comment, which I believe to be untrue and without merit. If you feel otherwise, please explain.

You feel that Tru-Vue has done something sneaky or dishonest?

I was using generic terms that are applicable to ALL glazing products, regardless of manufacturer. I find it ironic that Tru-Vue is getting beaten up here for making "truthful" statements.

UV blocking (from ANY manufacturer) does help protect art from fading. It also helps protect art from a LOT more than visible damage. No one is forcing any framer to use a particular product. But when GAPs are established and the benefits of UV filtration are documented and known, the impetus is upon the framer to offer said benefits when the desire is for long term protection.

This is especially beneficial when it comes to litigation- if UV protection was NOT included in the framing package and the item faded, unless the framer could prove that the protection option was offered (and declined) - then the "fault" could be directed at the framer. Less so if UV protection was used (and even more so if a higher degree of protection was also used.)

There are what I perceive as way more egregious offenses by other manufacturers but I have yet to hear anyone take them to task. Why is failure to disclose that the UV blocking method (reflective) used by one manufacturer is not stable along all angles of incidence and therefore the stated blocking percentage is less than untruthful (when it should be based on an aggregate) not being called into question? The percentage of UV blocking is true at a 90 degree angle of incidence, but that "detail" is not disclosed. How is this not "wrong?"
And going back to Bob's comment, isn't it "contingent on us to be sure we get the information, and understand the information we get."

I would also suggest that a company like Tru Vue learns from the market. I believe the "box" Ted showed is an old box that was developed prior to Tru Vue seeking input from framing educators and is not longer being produced. The same would apply to their more closely working with the Museum community and fine tuning their published technical information to satisfy a more educated (and reasoned) client base.
 

Rob Markoff

PFG, Picture Framing God
I do agree that those TV displays are misleading....................
Tru Vue has all new displays and makes them available free of charge. Why not replace them with ones that are more current?

There was a time that a particular mat manufacturer labeled all their paper mats as "acid free" - which was a truthful statement (since a bunch of buffering agent had been dumped into the mats to neutralize the pH) - but they are no longer doing so.................(and ACID FREE was onle one part of the equation to determine conservation/preservation grade).

If a framer used them to frame a piece of fine art, because they were "acid free" should they not be held accountable?
 

Bob Doyle

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
Rob, I know you know your stuff. I do as well, so when I see people splitting hairs, well...

The "box" makes a sales statement. It is a helpful box, shows the customers their options, I have used the boxes and like that TV gives them out. I just have to be cognizant that the customer is aware of what the glass can and can't do to the best of my knowledge at the time. For the record here is what I originally said. I do not see anything saying that the mats were not at fault....
You however then said that I said, then I said that you said I said what I didn't say until you said it first.. he's touching me, I'm telling mom...
Cathy sorry to hear about the fading. With the expense of the optium you would expect better, but, and there is the dreaded but it only stops the UV light. And not all of that. It's akin to sunblock in my opinion in that it can limit the damage but you can still get burned.

The damage may have been much worse without the optium, you can't ever know unless you had a control item framed at the same time using regular plexi. You and the customer have a right to be upset but truvue probably has a disclaimer somewhere that says something like 'fading will occur..'
OK, my comment much later about not blaming the mats (made after you said I said it earlier when I didn't MOM!!! He's doing it still....) Was innocent enough and should have been clearer but was meant to imply that there are many variables and that matts may not have been the culprit, that just using different mats would have "prevented" the fading. Too many variables and combinations of variables and that the use of only one thing will not have prevented fading (as that is ineviatable we are only able to slow, delay or block as was said 99% of 20% of the light spectrum.

This hullabaloo reminds me of the old fights we had regarding 92% vs 99%UV blocking! Or even 99% vs, was it 97% or 95%? And the discussion of logarithmic scales!
 

Ylva

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
Tru Vue has all new displays and makes them available free of charge. Why not replace them with ones that are more current?
Like those you mean? I do know they have new displays all the time and I do change them regularly and I even know they are free of charge.

Still misleading in my book and that is what the customer reads. Sure, we can say it's clear 'helps protect from fading'. Customer only sees' protects from fading'. We are covered, but would still make for a very disappointed customer.
As I said, customer=short attention span. Written word mightier than the spoken word. 99% UV protection would be more than enough to mention.

new tv display.jpg
 

Bob Doyle

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
And isn't the mat not of conservation quality? ;) But they are handy to use and do "get the conversation started".
 

Rob Markoff

PFG, Picture Framing God
Ylva- points well taken. Even the "box" I have (pinwheel) has the same verbiage and I wondered why no "UV protection" was included in the description.
I'll relay your comment to Tru Vue- let's see if it doesn't result in a change. Nonetheless, even your box (and mine) do not have a side by side of "faded" vs "unfaded". :)

Bob- kumbaya - and stop breathing my air :)

Ironic isn't it that after all this, there never was UV filtering glass in the frame to begin with? :(

And, to add insult to injury,"regular" acrylic was used, which would be easy to identify just by looking at it and to determine that neither Optium product was used as they BOTH are anti-reflective.
 

Bob Doyle

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
Rob! YOUR air! It's on my side! Don't make me pull this car over! MOM!!! He's looking at me!

So my mistaken remembrance of what the box said is probably consistent with what a customer understood it to say. Which is to say, wrong :)
 

tedh

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
Whenever I see the word "helps" in an advertising claim, I tend to disregard the claim totally, as nothing but weasel words.

Never thought TV would use that word.
 
Sponsor Wanted
Top