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.

Managing the transition from Museum to ArtGlass

Discussion in 'Picture Framing Business Issues' started by JWB9999999, Jun 19, 2014.

  1. JWB9999999

    JWB9999999 SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    I have done well selling Museum glass during the last 5 years, but after seeing the ArtGlass product in Vegas 1.5 years ago, I have been thinking about switching to it ever since. I stock glass in several types, mostly Truvue, and about 10 sizes of each type. So I always have boxes of Museum glass around.

    Have any of you transitioned from selling Museum glass to ArtGlass?
    If so, how have you managed that, both with your customers and with changing your stock?

    If we make the switch, we'll still have older boxes of Museum glass in stock for months that we will need to move. Imagining that I have various sizes of ArtGlass and Museum glass in stock at the same time... Even during the design phase, customers can be varying their mat size enough that 2 different sizes of glass could be useful, one Museum, and one ArtGlass, depending on how wide the mat is. I just have not come up with a good way to handle this during the sale while discussing options with customers.

    I am also aware that TruVue launched a new water white glass last year, but I've never seen it and don't know how it compares to Museum glass or ArtGlass. I do know that it's UV blocking is considerably less than either of the other products.
    Sponsor Wanted
  2. FramerCat

    FramerCat SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    Here are my experiences with both products. Artglass is thinner than Museum and in my experience breaks easier (especially when you don’t want it to). Artglass UV has a slightly lesser UV protection factor. Museum glass scratches easier. They both alter the color of the underlying art differently (in my opinion Museum is a more noticeable difference) so you may have to decide which look you prefer. My only local distributor sells both for the same price and because of the way I prefer to store scraps I tend to use Museum glass. My storage strategy is more susceptible to breakage than to scratching so that is the thing that tips it toward Museum. Your situation may be entirely different so Artglass may be better for you. If one company went out of business it would be no big deal for me to use the other.

    At one of my shops I have both displays up and if asked I tell the customer the differences. I have never had a customer that was willing to make a choice between the two. They always leave the decision to me. In general I think these differences are too overwhelming for the average customer who is coming to a trained professional to make those decisions for them.

  3. Julie Walsh

    Julie Walsh MGF, Master Grumble Framer

    love Art Glass. We have about 80% of our customers using it. Very few request Museum and we will recommend Museum where warranted.
  4. Rob Markoff

    Rob Markoff PFG, Picture Framing God

    Aesthetics and cost aside, only Tru Vue meets the standard for glazing at the conservation level. So one cannot truthfully say they are offering/selling conservation framing with coated Art Glass. You wouldn't "line" a wood pulp mat with 2 ply rag and say it is "conservation grade" or hinge something into a conservation grade mat with masking tape would you?

    An important consideration is the way the UV filtration is achieved and measured:

    Art Glass uses reflective technology. This means that maximum filtration is only achieved at a 90 degree incidence - and we all know that light strikes objects from many angles. Therefore, the aggregate percentage of UV blocking for coated Art Glass is substantially lower that the percentage quoted - not "slightly lesser".

    Tru Vue uses absorptive technology to block UV. Therefore, the blocking is uniform from all angles of incidence and the filtration factor percentage remains constant from any angle. This is true for ALL Tru Vue UV filtering products.

    There is no denying that many think that Art Glass looks better. There is a place and use for it in framing but one cannot say they are "transitioning" to Art Glass from Museum Glass and still be offering Conservation Grade framing.
  5. FramerCat

    FramerCat SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    What exactly is your quantification of “slightly lesser”? You’ve decided to call me out as being wrong for using an ambiguous term that has no specific meaning. I never mentioned conservation in my post. If the makers of Artglass are lying about the percentage of UV protection then why doesn’t Tru Vue sue them and prove in court the exact percentages and why it is a lie. If you read my whole post you know that I came down on the side of Tru Vue for myself, so I don’t know why you would call me out specifically when we are on the same side. I am hoping that I read intent in your post that was not really there, but it’s not the first time that I have read an arrogant, pompous, demeaning attitude in something you’ve written. If your intent was not to be a nit-picking know-it-all I apologize and will endeavor to read your future posts with a softer happier voice in my head.

    Can we get some real numbers here? It seems like it is all wordplay. If you don’t believe the numbers that the company who is making Artglass is giving, or the industry leading companies that are distributing the product displaying such erroneous percentages, give us a more accurate number. Maybe that can define the difference between “substantially” and “slightly.” Has anybody aged the products side by side to give us a visual representation of the difference? I think that would be a far better exercise than just spouting percentages and theories about angles of light and an arbitrary line that implies the difference between the almost meaningless (at this point) term “conservation” and non-conservation. I know and can parrot back what all of the classes, books and industry leaders have been pushing on us as “fact”, but it is all starting to sound like a game of who paid whom the most to get the statistics that they need.

    Ultimately we are selling a product and we need to use the one that we and our customers can get behind. Maybe we should ask Michael’s what the industry standards should be since they are now the leading sellers of picture framing in the country. How did they get there? They sell an inferior True Vue product that only they have access to, and all the while our industry leaders are arguing over minor percentages of UV or lignin or acid protection and how that is what is most important to our customers. I’m starting to think Emperor Nero is nakedly fiddling while Rome burns.

  6. Rob Markoff

    Rob Markoff PFG, Picture Framing God

    Wow, Ed calm down. You certainly read something into my post that was "not there" and I apologize if you thought I was "calling you out." I guess we don't know each other. Otherwise, I don't think you would have said those things about me.

    I've been an industry educator for almost 30 years and I am passionate about this industry. I have no issue with being called, a nit-picking know-it-all. That is one of the reasons I continue to post while many of my fellow educators no longer do. My objective is that framers have a true scientific understanding of the products they select and that the industry maintains its "standards" as without them would have no basis of comparison of suitability.

    I am also wary of "UV Filtration" becoming a buzz phrase like "Acid Free," which in reality to framers means, NOTHING. Are wood pulp mats suitable for conservation grade framing because they say "Acid Free" on the sample? Unfortunately there are less educated framers who do see that phrase and feel they are doing the "right thing." The scrapbooking industry perpetuated this "Myth of Acid Free." Haven't you had a customer come into your store asking for "acid free" matting?

    To have a basis of comparison of suitability we need to benchmark specific attributes of the products we select. How would one know if a particular type of mat board was suitable for a specific task without understanding the standards? Or know that unless a piece of art is separated from wood by a specific distance, it does not meet a specific level of framing?

    The same applies to glass. The difficulty is that because the UV blocking is achieved by two different methodologies, there is not anything untruthful about Art Glass's specification of their product. They are not compelled to elaborate any more about how that blocking is achieved or even the method of filtration. From the literature I have read, the manufacturer does not claim the product meets Conservation Standards so this isn't about "falsehoods" or attempts to mislead. There are some framers who feel that 94% is "good enough." For many applications it is. For others, it is not. There is no need to get angry or defensive.

    For the record, I think Art Glass looks great so this isn't about a product preference.

    I think some framers see the "UV Blocking Percentage" and think 94% is pretty high, or "good enough. The reality is the aggregate percentage is substantially lower, perhaps as much as 10 points. It is a "variable" number because all light hitting a specific object will vary between each situation. And there is nothing wrong with that because no one from the manufacturing side is representing the product as being appropriate for Conservation use.

    I believe it is very possible that many framers do not understand the specifications for glazing at the "Conservation" level. Unless all the components and framing practices used in the frame meet the standards, it IS NOT Conservation grade framing. Your don't get to pick the parts of the criteria you want. All products must meet the standard. For glazing it is 97 percent UV Filtration.

    I feel compelled to educate framers wherever/however and I was concerned that the OP understands that if he/she felt that is was a "direct" transition (meaning the two products were "equal") then they were incorrect. One glass meets Conservation Standards and the other doesn't. Either you subscribe to the standards or you don't.

    Art Glass is a great product that, from an "aesthetic" point of view looks fantastic. However, the UV Filtration factor is not high enough at it's highest measurement" (remember that as the angle of incidence changes, so does the UV blocking capacity) to meet Conservation Standards. I think framers need to understand that in order to make an informed choice. You can't say that 94% vs 99% is "slightly lesser" when it comes to Conservation Standards. 94% does not meet conservation standards. 97% does. That is significant.

    So as good as it looks, if you use a coated Art Glass product in your framing package, even if all the other components and methods meet the standard, it is not Conservation Grade Framing. And I'm fine with that. But it should not be represented as Conservation Grade Framing.

    Frankly, not everything needs to Conservation Framed. Using Art Glass in a framing package where everything else meets a higher standard is perfectly acceptable and it will offer "better" protection for the art than a piece of "clear" glass and look fantastic.

    Just don't represent it as meeting Conservation Standards. :)
  7. stcstc

    stcstc SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer


    the nit picking of a few percent, not questioning it i understand the DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD.


    you have on more than this occasion said that the actual figure is SUBSTANTIALLY less. so can you point us at actual scientific research and figures please, so we can do what you suggest above?

    I assume that someone in the truview marketing department has something?
  8. David N Waldmann

    David N Waldmann SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    I'm guessing you're referring to a PPFA prepared guideline (although I can't find anything in a search). Regardless, as far as I can tell, "Conservation standards" is not a Service Mark, Trademark or Copyright, so anyone can use it to mean almost anything. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

    Now, if one claims something is framed to "PPFA recommended minimum conservation standards", or "this glazing meets ISO 18902 and passes ISO 18916" that is specific, and if in fact it were not true would be actionable.

    However, unless or until picture framing becomes a regulated industry no frame shop is required to follow or even recognize any guidelines regarding conservation. In fact, while they might be due a stern talking to, a PPFA member is legally allowed to sell something as meeting "XYZ Frame Shop conservation standards" using ArtGlass and acid free mats if that is what their internally prepared protocol specifies.

    While I understand that there is value to have a standard (or multiple ones), just coming up with one and expecting everyone to bow to it is not going to happen.
  9. Pat Kotnour

    Pat Kotnour SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    ED, since I don't do a lot of framing anymore I have never used ArtGlass and only know what I have read. If I have read this correctly TV's museum glass and ArtGlass are the same price. ArtGlass is thinner, seems to be a bit more clear than TV's museum glass, but breaks easier and has a less UV protection. With that said my question would be; if there is less UV protection, and it breaks easier, why would you change to a product that hasn't been proven? Since you have both kinds of glass maybe your should do your own test. Take a cheap poster and put half with TV and half with AG and leave it in a sunny spot for a week or two. You might leave a couple of inches in the middle that you will keep covered so it won't fade at all. Since posters fade very fast it would be a very good experiment and then you would know and maybe share your findings. If I had AG I would do it myself but I'd rather not buy it just to prove a point.

    TV has been around for a long time and they work very hard to give the industry quality products and I wouldn't switch unless there was evidence that another product was better, or at least as good. And if it was proven to be as good, it would have to be less expensive for me to switch. The breaking easier would be something that would be a big red flag though. If it's the same price as TV's museum glass it's to expensive to take the chance on higher breakage. Also, if the UV really is less it sounds like there are other issues that may make it less desirable as well.

    If you do the experiment you might answer your own questions and then you will know for yourself.
  10. Pat Kotnour

    Pat Kotnour SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    Very well said. Thank you.
  11. stcstc

    stcstc SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer


    TV museum costs more than AG (well in ireland) to purchase


    i find AG considerably easier to work with, cleans easier, doesnt scratch as easy etc. therefore it costs less, as i dont have to spend as much time using the product
  12. RoboFramer

    RoboFramer PFG, Picture Framing God

    Pointless experiment - three the same, one with no glass, one with regular glass and one with 100% UV filtering would all fade within a short time of each other if not at the same rate - it is invisible UV light that UV glass protects from - not visible light.
  13. Pat Kotnour

    Pat Kotnour SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    Robo, I think you are mistaken about the direct light fading at the same rate. If my memory serves me correctly, that experiment was done using regular glass and UV glass when it first came out. A display similar to the one I described was put into a shop window where the sun could hit it directly. The results were astonishing and because of that experiment, it made a believer out of me years ago. And if I recall correctly the person who proved that UV glass did protect the art from fading was a framer right here on the G.
  14. Rob Markoff

    Rob Markoff PFG, Picture Framing God

    My argument has nothing to do with PPFA or their "guidelines". The international standards (ISO 18902 an ISO 18916) are set by an independent agency.

    I find it fascinating that there is so much hostility when it comes to framers either meeting or not meeting this standard with their glazing selection. I am not say one has to meet this standard in their framing - only that they understand that the standard exists.

    Peterboro makes great mat boards. They have a "range" of products with differing specifications. Two of their products LOOK exactly the same. The facing papers and backing papers are identical. The adhesive used to laminate the papers together is the same. The difference is that one has a core made from virgin alpha-cellulose and the other has a core made from recycled alpha-cellulose that has OBAs in it to make it appear whiter. One meets the standard for conservation framing and the other does not. Both are excellent products that have their place in framing. It is up to the framer to understand what the standards are and select the board whose performance criteria meets their objectives. But I would make the same argument that one cannot represent their framing as meeting Conservation Standards if the mat used (or backing or hinging) does not meet the standard.

    Pat's comment demonstrates a "naiveté" that is still prevalent in this industry. This is not a dig at Pat, but she did make the post and Robo is correct in saying it is a pointless experiment. Lots of framers have subjected "posters" to a "test" with UV filtering glazing products by exposing them to SUNLIGHT and when the art faded, said the glazing did not work.

    There is a lot more to protecting art from "fading" than just using UV protective glazing. Here's a link to an article that some may find useful: https://www.dropbox.com/s/yq9kf8o2qa9fc0y/What Causes Fading article.pdf
  15. Pat Kotnour

    Pat Kotnour SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    Careful Rob, you might make me believe that what Ed had to say about you was true.

    And I repeat: Robo, I think you are mistaken about the direct light fading at the same rate. If my memory serves me correctly, that experiment was done using regular glass and UV glass when it first came out. A display similar to the one I described was put into a shop window where the sun could hit it directly. The results were astonishing and because of that experiment, it made a believer out of me years ago. And if I recall correctly the person who proved that UV glass did protect the art from fading was a framer right here on the G.
  16. Rob Markoff

    Rob Markoff PFG, Picture Framing God

    So what is your point, David? I never said anyone has to follow any guidelines. But I do feel there is value to understanding the generally accepted practices of our industry and that there are procedures and practices and materials that are better suited for specific applications than others.

    Framers need to match the appropriate materials and methods to "properly" frame something. How many times have you read a thread about "I can't believe what this proper framer did when he/she........" posted by a framer who has taken apart something they didn't frame?

    Who says that framers can't use self adhesive tapes or ATG to attach original artwork to a mat? Or that corrugated cardboard is not an acceptable backing?

    Why does a framer choose one product over another? Why aren't we all using white core mats instead of alpha mats? After all, they LOOK the same cost less and who will ever see the difference?

    Some will say that there is only a few percentage points difference in UV filtering between the products being discussed and that one offers "enough" protection. Enough for what? By who's standard?

    My argument remains that there is a difference between the two products. As long as a framer knows and understands that difference then they can make a more informed and intelligent choice as which product is more appropriate for a specific task.
  17. stcstc

    stcstc SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    The problem with this argument rob

    we cant find out the difference, as you repeatedly use vague terms like substantially and dont back it up with science and figures like you suggest we all understand.

    the 2 iso standards you mentioned are both to do with printed and photographic works on paper, my understanding is neither mention the word conservation framing. thats something thats come directly from our industry no?

    when it really comes down to it, a framers methodology will generally do waaaaaay more harm than any materials like glass etc yea?
  18. Cliff Wilson

    Cliff Wilson SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    I've had these UV filtering vs. conservation standard discussion before.
    I am in agreement with David and I think we "over use" the ISO standard which is a PROCUREMENT standard not an industry technically target.

    That said, I sell BOTH Museum Glass and ArtGlass UV. I made a display that shows CC, RC, Museum, NO glass, and Artglass UV. I put the labels with manufacturer's UV rating and I tell the customer one has more color fidelity and one has more protection. Many people see the difference right away and those people usually opt for the ArtGlass UV. If we are talking about something like a diploma, where color fidelity isn't critical, I recommend the Museum and try to talk them into that.

    People see color differently. Many people (particularly younger people) can see color differences into what we call the UV range. Some people, particularly old men, don't even see color differences out on the "fringe" of color space that we call "visible." Some will say there is no appreciable difference and that the lighting is a bigger issue than the glass. IMO, the lighting IS a big issue, but there IS an appreciable difference.

    Given the difference between reflective UV blocking and Absorbing UV blocking, I believe there IS a difference in protection for the art and that is why I offer both. I think they BOTH have their place. I don't believe one is a replacement for the other.

    The TV water white product (UltraVue) is more closely related to the ArtGlass (non-UV designation) and I believe the ArtGlass UV although not as good protection as the Museum IS better than the other two and the difference is worth the difference in price.

    P.S. I Like how easily the ArtGlass UV handles, but still sell my share of Museum when it's appropriate and/or it's what the "educated" (by me) customer wants.
  19. David N Waldmann

    David N Waldmann SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    Rob, my point was that, while ISO has established some standards for the UV protective value of glazing, to summarily translate that to being "conservation standards" is a big leap.

    Not in so many words. But when you say "94% does not meet conservation standards. 97% does.", what you are saying is "In order to claim you follow conservation standards you must follow X guideline".

    The kicker of all this is that, in 5-10 years we will discover that, as long as 83% of the infrared is filtered out in the 810-850nm wavelength, you only need to protect from 91% of UV in the 300-380nm wavelength, providing that, when you hang the picture your tongue is sticking out the left side of your mouth. In case you were wondering, the point of this last paragraph is that (as has been implied already in this thread) fading caused by "light" is very complex and likely never to be completely understood.
  20. Rob Markoff

    Rob Markoff PFG, Picture Framing God

    Which is exactly the point I have been trying to make. Thank you, Cliff.
  21. RoboFramer

    RoboFramer PFG, Picture Framing God

    Repeat all you like Pat but the fact remains that there is no point in subjecting UV glass to something that it provides no protection from - you already know what's going to happen - you may as well do the total opposite and put the same items in a climate controlled windowless vacuum for 100 years - neither will fade at all.

    The test we need to know the results of is the one between two identical pieces identically framed bar the glass and subjected to identical ideal hanging conditions and I'd say the reason we don't have those results is that they would be detrimental to speciality glass sales!
  22. Pat Kotnour

    Pat Kotnour SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    I'm pretty sure that there is an example right here on the G that proves you wrong but I don't know how to find it or who did the experiment. I can't be the only one who remembers it. It was the main reason I started using UV glass. Up until then I was skeptical about whether the glass really did what they said it did.
  23. RoboFramer

    RoboFramer PFG, Picture Framing God

    You quoted my whole post so I'm not sure which bit you think is wrong but I'm sure it can't be the bit about UV glass not protecting against sunlight because that's just a simple fact - not my opinion.
  24. Pat Kotnour

    Pat Kotnour SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    All I know is that this experiment made a believer out of me and I have been promoting the use of UV glass ever since. I also remember that the poster was put into a shops display window that got direct sun light on it for a couple of weeks. It's been so long ago that I don't remember all the details, but I do very much remember the end results and was very impressed. The side of the poster that had the UV glass was way less faded than the side with regular glass and it was in direct sun light for long enough to fade the poster drastically. Now, was the poster faded at all on the UV side? Probably. But it was way less than the side without it. If using it, will a poster still eventually fade when in direct sun and high UV light? Sure. But from what I remember, not nearly as fast.
  25. Dermot Cox-Kearns

    Dermot Cox-Kearns Guest

  26. FramerCat

    FramerCat SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    Rob, as I said, it may be that your wording appeared more aggressive than you intended, I hope that you really are a nice guy. I do read your posts all the time and appreciate that you are willing to offer your thoughts and experience to the framing community. I hope I don’t offend you by offering the suggestion that you take a more careful look at how you refer to other posts so as not to unintentionally disparage other opinions. I have a lot of friends who have this same kind of issue and I know that they aren’t how they come across in writing.

    Pat, I think you directed part of what you were saying to me when you meant to address JWB. I do choose Museum over Artglass for my own customers.

    To defend Pat a bit here; I think we all know that visible light and other wave lengths besides UV are what causes the majority of the fading from sunlight and that is why Robo and Rob are claiming that Pat’s experiment is futile, but I think there is a misunderstanding as to what the experiment is trying to prove. We are not trying to prove that UV glass prevents fading we are trying to prove that one type “significantly” slows the process over the other. The hypothesis of the experiment is that Infrared, visible light, Cosmic rays, x-rays, etc will all pass through both brands of glass and cause the exact same amount of fading. The UV rays will be “significantly” reduced on the Museum glass side compared to the Artglass side and therefore a dramatic difference should be visible in the amount of fading.

    If you think that the other forms of light interfere with the experiment maybe the two should be put in a laboratory condition with exposure only to UV light. Unfortunately I think this is where our industry leaders and educators are losing touch with our regular customer base. Our customers are not hanging their art in a laboratory. They are hanging it in their living room. All they are really interested in is preventing fading. Which type of light caused the fading is not their concern, so if it turns out that the Artglass is not stopping as much UV but the fading is exactly the same because of other forms of light then that is something that they need to know as well.

    Bickering over whether the difference between 94% and 97% is slightly lesser or significantly lesser is losing us fans. We had agreed that it was lesser, but the unnecessary argument has caused me to question that, and now I want to know for myself. I propose that those of us with access to scraps of both brands of glass try Pat’s experiment and post our results here. Maybe we should use Dermot's suggested cards. Then we can show a variety of results from all over the world and allow the public to decide what they want rather than telling them what they want. Most of us are impartial and only want to offer what our customers need not what we are paid to sell.

    Thoughts? Any participants?

  27. Pat Murphey

    Pat Murphey SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    "...Bickering over whether the difference between 94% and 97% is slightly lesser or significantly lesser is losing us fans..."

    It is also the difference between absorptive and reflective blocking and meeting a standard for conservation framing. "Bickering" doesn't change any of that. I don't think anyone is arguing about selling Artglass, but whether its use should be represented as conservation framing to a customer.
  28. Rob Markoff

    Rob Markoff PFG, Picture Framing God

    Ed- somehow the "quote" function is not working for me so I will try to address your points:

    We are not trying to prove that UV glass prevents fading we are trying to prove that one type “significantly” slows the process over the other.

    I'm not trying to prove anything. Nor am I saying that one will significantly do anything that one could see in a short period of time. We know that UV light is the most damaging form of light. We also know that eliminating as much UV light from striking an object as possible provides better protection. In addition, there are curators and archivists who recommend that for maximum protection an object should not only be protected from as much as UV light as possible, but from ALL light.

    All they are really interested in is preventing fading.....

    There is NO WAY to prevent fading. Everything WILL fade, even if kept in complete dark, it is impossible to prevent fading. Eliminating the word "prevent" from one's description of the benefits of UV filtering glazing is important as it does not raise unrealistic expectations.

    Which type of light caused the fading is not their concern......

    It should be and a framer should educate them that ALL light causes fading. Damage from light is cumulative and irreversible. Curatorial care of the art passes to the customer after it leaves a shop, but the FRAMER is usually the first to be blamed for any "changes" to the art. Sunlight is only one type of light that art may be exposed to. Remember, ALL LIGHT CAUSES FADING.

    I propose that those of us with access to scraps of both brands of glass try Pat’s experiment and post our results here......

    It would be an unrealistic test. What happens in your shop will be different than another because the light angles and intensity are different. Is the light source (angle of incidence) more direct in one test than another? Is the intensity of the light uniform? Is there window glass in front of both samples?

    More importantly, are the samples being tested identical? If one person tests one type of printed art and another framer tests using a completely different piece of art, the results will not be the same as light energy at differing spectrums will affect colors differently and also different inks will react differently. In addition, the temperature of the art/framing can also cause accelerated fading so one result may be different than another.

    Exposing art to unrealistic conditions (one would never display a piece of art in prolonged direct sunlight) is no basis for conclusion that the same effect would be realized in cumulative exposure to light levels in a home or office.

    I do want to raise this point one more time. It is not a 94% vs 99% comparison. The 94% figure is the maximum level of UV filtration possible with reflective UV blocking but that factor changes with the angle of incidence. There cannot be an empirical benchmark for what the aggregate level is because there are too many variables. But one should know and understand that the 94% IS NOT A STATIC NUMBER and it will vary. I have heard that it can be as much as 10 basis points, so it is possible that the actual UV filtering factor could be 84% vs 99%. And, in order to "look better" there are frequencies of light that art NOT blocked by Art Glass that may cause fading for a specific object.

    None of this is to say that one MUST use a specific product. For "everyday" framing, 94% might be "enough." However, to offer the maximum level of protection, one needs to use the highest level of UV filtering as possible. For some of our customers, that is what they need. For others, it may be less important.

    My point is that a framer should know and understand that there is a difference - which gets back to the motivation for my initial post........the OP was transitioning from Museum to ArtGlass. I interpreted this to mean he/she was changing over from one product to another and would be using ArtGlass instead of Museum Glass and perhaps considered that the two products "did the same thing." I maintain that they are two different products and cannot be considered as "interchangeable."
  29. RoboFramer

    RoboFramer PFG, Picture Framing God

    What we lack is expert impartial advice, it's a no-brainer that glass with the highest UV protection is the best but do we have to use the best there is throughout the frame package to class a job as conservation/preservation? Do we have to use mounting methods with no adhesive in contact or no adhesive, period? No! Do we have to use mount board that actively protects with zeolites that protect against some things that contribute to fading that no glass does or can? No! If we did have to use boards with active protection we would have to use a branded product, artcare; we do, to meet certain standards though, with single-layer glass, have to use a branded product and that manufacturer has its fingers in pies, including this forum.

    I had a lengthy discussion with a man who is probably the most knowledgeable glass expert in the UK framing trade but he lost me when he started enthusiastically drawing graphs and stuff, I begged him to register here and/or on the UK forum and post it all. Anyway his gist was yes, absorptive is better than reflective but the difference is really laboratory stuff, not framing workshop stuff and anything above 90%, reflective or absorptive, offers good protection .... but does it really, really have to be the best you can buy?

    Here's the closest to that discussion I've seen on line and some elaboration would be nice.

  30. JWB9999999

    JWB9999999 SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    Great discussion so far. Glad things calmed down a little, as there's no reason to get upset about anything being discussed. :)

    Rob, not that it matters, but I'm a "he", I bought some acrylic mat racks from you a few years ago, and I think that I took 3 of your WCAF classes in 2012.

    In my original post, I was not assuming that ArtGlass and Museum glass are the same. I understand there are some differences. The difference in conservation or UV blocking percentages seems quite minor to me.

    What is more significant is that you can't hardly even scratch ArtGlass if you try to with a key (for example), and it's almost impossible to leave a fingerprint on it, whereas you can't touch museum glass without leaving a mark of some kind, and it's nearly impossible for most customers to clean it without leaving purplish streaks on it; they just aren't careful enough or knowledgeable enough, despite instruction. So I am thinking about ease of care after the sale and how it will look during future years. Of course it is very clear, with (imho) better visibility to the art even than museum glass (which is still great). I have had a couple of customers bring back a piece framed with museum glass because of the blue reflections they could see with their lighting and placement of the art. I don't believe ArtGlass has this.

    However, despite all of this wonderful discussion on glass properties and PPFA standards, no one has actually answered my question, which was the point of the post: Has anyone transitioned from selling Museum glass to selling ArtGlass instead? If so, how did you handle this?

    Cliff is the only one who made some kind of reference to it, in that he sells both and has displays for both explaining the differences. I hadn't thought about doing that, and that's actually an idea that I will consider. That'd solve my current issue at least. Cliff, could you post a photo of your display that you made for the different glasses? I'd love to see it.

  31. tedh

    tedh SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    I gave up on Museum glass entirely, and move customers to Artglass easily.

    Two reasons: scratching, and cost. It was taking me way too long to get the finger marks off MG, and when doing this, I sometimes scatched the MG. Artglass is way easier to handle, is clearer, and easier to buff, but there is that breakage issue.

    I explain the difference to customers, and they buy into it. If they insist on MG, though, I'll go with them.
  32. i-FRAMER

    i-FRAMER MGF, Master Grumble Framer

    we have.

    Due to the fact that the artglass does not scratch and is cheaper, we reduced the markup on it. Leaving in place the markups we had for museum glass.
    This way if a customer wants the best possible protection they pay for it, and our risk in handling and storing the glass.

    95% of our customers will take one look at artglass side by side with museum and without even know the price difference or rating of uv blocking, go for the artglass. Mainly due to the colour transition, where the museum is noticeably red compared side by side to artglass water white uv.

    So in the end it was not hard, and our specialty glass sales have increased by 10 fold, which also meant increased profits.

    We do state that fading is casued by a number of factors and these are glass are what available in the industry to help minimise fading as much as possible.
    But fading will depend on other factors, such as meduims used
  33. Dave

    Dave SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    Not an issue for me since I don't believe I have any distributor that delivers AG.

    How are you getting fingerprints on MG? Or for that matter scratches? Not an issue here.

    I sold a lot of UltraVue when it was half price. I always explain glazing options and am now selling MG at about an equal rate by quantity to CC.
  34. tedh

    tedh SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    Dave : it doesn't happen often but when it does, it sucks. The UV surface is particularly prone to scratching. We use gloves, and are very careful, but the handling time difference, and the waste factor, are noticeable between the two.
  35. FramerCat

    FramerCat SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    Rob, if you don’t mind I thought I would just clarify some things that were obviously misunderstood or poorly worded.

    By “We” I certainly didn’t mean you. I meant me and whoever else wants to participate in a little experiment. I understand that you have an established opinion that is not the same as Robo’s expert and you have no reason to prove anything to yourself or anyone else.

    You are correct. I should have used the word mitigate rather than prevent. I have also been in the business for a very long time and am not as beneath you as you seem to think.

    “Which type of light caused the fading is not their concern......” You clearly misunderstood what I was saying. I was not saying that they do not care that light fades art. I said in my post that all light fades art. “I think we all know that visible light and other wave lengths besides UV are what causes the majority of the fading from sunlight and that is why Robo and Rob are claiming that Pat’s experiment is futile” Again, I know this and expressed this and you seem to be intentionally ignoring what I said in order to try to make yourself look better by portraying me as ignorant.

    In regards to the rest of what you said about the experiment; it shouldn’t matter what the different conditions are from shop to shop as long as both glass samples at each shop are exposed to the exact same conditions. In all cases the Museum glass should block more UV light than the Artglass. Each shop’s results might vary but the majority should show that the Museum glass is superior.

    If we are talking about unrealistic conditions, customers are far more likely to hang art in direct sunlight than in a sealed chamber in a lab that only exposes it to UV light. And before you jump on me for this statement, I always discourage customers from hanging art in direct sunlight so please don’t imply again that I am a bad framer.

    You seem to be certain that there is no way for us to show the visible difference between the protection that Artglass offers and Museum glass offers. That is what my customers want to see for themselves.

    Let me once again remind you that the additional UV protection was one of the pros that I listed for Museum glass. I am not badmouthing Museum glass. It is what I prefer to use. I am also not questioning your expertise all I am questioning is your constant need to put down others in an attempt to make yourself look better. This kind of attitude is the reason that a lot of people are unwilling to post on the Grumble and the same attitude is (possibly unjustly) attributed to the PPFA causing some of us to stay clear of such people.

    I understand that you are an educator so you have to make sure that everyone knows that you are smarter than them so you can fill your classes, but Jim Miller and Kirstie and Ellen and lots of others are still filling their classes without putting anyone down. I haven’t heard any of them call other well respected framers naïve, or willfully misinterpret what someone else is saying just to make it look like they don’t know what they’re talking about. I think I’ve wasted enough of my time with this and have certainly wasted enough of your far more valuable time.

    Good luck JWB9999999, I hope my opinion was helpful, if you understood what my opinion was. Apparently not everybody did. I’m done.

  36. jim_p

    jim_p SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    I, too, have made the transition from Museum Glass to Art Glass. We got in a case of Art Glass to give it a try, and decided it works better for us in our business. The price is okay but not a huge amount less than MG, though we lowered the markup and sell it for 20% less than we sold MG for. The real selling point was the scratch resistance. MG scratches if you look at it wrong, whereas so far the only thing I've found that scratches AG is another piece of glass (not even an X-acto point would scratch it! That used to be the test I'd use to find the "inside" of a piece of CC or MG). Offcuts of MG would often get scratched in storage, thus lessening the overall yield from a given lite.

    In short, in addition to the slightly higher price, MG was costing us more in terms of labor costs (giving it the appropriate kid-glove treatment took more time) as well as higher wastage. We're much happier with AG.

    When we finally decided to make the switch to AG, we stopped selling MG. I sold my back stock at a deep discount to another framer. If a customer does come in and specifically request MG, that's what the single-lite package is for.

    Now, to join the incredibly verbose fray over conservation standards: Folks, it's ALL a compromise! Various organizations may draw their lines in the sand and say this is "conservation framing" and anything less than that isn't, but in truth there's a continuum of practice. Heck, I was at a hinging demo by Hugh Phibbs, and even he said that any time we attach a hinge to a piece of artwork even when done to the highest conservation standards, we've changed it. To hear people pounding the drum about how AG is "not conservation grade", one would think that if you're not going to do it their way you may as well masking-tape the art to corrugated cardboard. Sorry, but everything is a compromise. I have to keep a LOT of balls in the air to keep my business running.

    To me, conservation framing in the real world entails knowing what the standards of perfection are, but then knowing how much of each to apply in a given situation (and yes, customer budget IS a factor in that equation).

    Will I have to turn in my CPF for saying this?
  37. Rob Markoff

    Rob Markoff PFG, Picture Framing God

    I don't know why I continue to post - but here goes:

    Ed I don't understand your perception that I have tried to belittle you or in any way said you are a bad framer or ignorant or have tried to "put you down". You are clearly projecting something into my post that just isn't there. Nonetheless I apologize if you feel that way as it has never been my intent.

    Nor have I called "other well respected framers naïve." Re-read my post. I said that a comment made "demonstrates a "naiveté" that is still prevalent in this industry." And I attempted to qualify that statement by saying it was not a dig. I firmly believe that there are many framers (and I am not saying you are one of them) who do not have a working understanding of the effects of UV energy.

    All this talk has been about FADING. Protection from UV energy is more than inhibiting fading. By the time one can see a visible change of the appearance of a piece of art, substantial other damage caused by UV energy has occurred. A physical change in appearance (fading) is only one symptom. Therefore, putting something in a window to see how long it takes to visibly change is a false barometer of the protective qualities of the glazing. There may be other changes that have occurred that are not immediately apparent to even be visible (to the naked eye).

    I am also bewildered by (my perception) of the lack of acceptance expressed for "standards" whether set by a professional Trade Association like PPFA or the FATG. Surely there must be a place for a set of criteria used to establish appropriate practice of a profession; i.e. the "right" way to do something.

    If one has been framing for a long time, surely you have seen changes in procedures and practices over time and a whole plethora of new framing materials to choose from. Some framers (again, Ed not directed at you) may be confused by all of the choices now available. That is why organizations like the PPFA and FATG have started creating guidelines to help framers navigate those choices and to help them make informed decisions as to which products to use. These organizations are comprised of FRAMERS like you and me. There isn't some benevolent overload sitting in some office creating these procedures and practices and standards. These are your peers who work together to better the industry and create some "benchmark" to quantify and qualify the materials and procedures we use to make a living. Surely our industry is better off by having these guidelines, standards and criteria.

    Jim summed it up very nicely; ............"knowing what the standards of perfection are, but then knowing how much of each to apply in a given situation (and yes, customer budget IS a factor in that equation)." Amen. Not everything needs to be conserved, nor does everything need to be framed to the "highest level."

    I never said anyone had to frame to a certain level. One can "approach" the standard but not conform to all of the criteria. That is a choice each framer has to make, hopefully after understanding the fundamentals and criteria used to make an intelligent choice.
  38. neilframer

    neilframer PFG, Picture Framing God

    Interesting discussion.
    It reminds me of another thread about "should I mat over a signature in the reveal area around a signed print or mat to the image?".
    My response was "those of you who want to show the signature, do it, those of you who don't want to show it, don't".

    Rob, and others, I always appreciate the input and info.
    "You can lead a horse to water......etc. etc...".

    After 45 years I have seen many changes in the standards and in the industry and I know what I would do, why argue over it with others?
    Do what you want to do and good luck with your projects.

    Just my opinion.
  39. David N Waldmann

    David N Waldmann SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    I, personally, don't have any problem with standards. But to take a generic term and say it means only "X" is going beyond the bounds of acceptability. The Patent office won't let you patent a strip of wood with a rabbet as picture frame; the Trademark office won't let you trademark "The Frame Shop", etc.

    If the PPFA or FATG want to put a unique label on a set of standards, i.e. "PPFA Level 1" or "FATG Code C", I don't think there would be any arguments whether glass A or B meet PPFA Level 1 or not.
  40. Pat Kotnour

    Pat Kotnour SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    Posted by Rob Markoff
    Rob, you are totally missing the point. What are you afraid of? That this experiment might prove you and a few others wrong? It shouldn't matter if each one is using the same conditions and art or not. If what you say is true, then this test should show that there is a difference in the two types of glass, and that one is better no matter how each person chooses to do the experiment. That is why I suggested to leave a section covered so we can see the how much fading there is with the UV glass. If I had some of the AG I would go one step farther and put the origanal UV glass in the experiment as well. The basis of the test that changed my mind about UV glass was based on direct sunlight. The poster was left in a shop front window and in the direct sun for a portion of the days and for enough time to show fading. There was a significant difference in the amount of fading (much less) on the side with UV glass.

    And, so what if the experiment was done with direct sunlight? If that isn't UV light then why is our skin protected from burning with UVA and UVB sunscreen and why do we wear UV protected sunglasses? And for the record, I am not naive about this subject. I am a show me and prove me wrong person. So....................if you really are the expert and educator that you want everyone to believe you are, show me and prove me wrong or get off the pot.
  41. RoboFramer

    RoboFramer PFG, Picture Framing God

    Of course their is UV light in sunlight, both A and B and no doubt C D E F and G - but UVB is what causes tanning/burning and this is filtered by glass, any glass. UVA is the one that fades your pictures, so the UV glasses address this range only.

    Here's a thread for you http://www.thegrumble.com/showthread.php?47913-2-UV-or-NOT-2-UV Please change the record.
  42. pwalters

    pwalters SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    so let me see if I can sum up.

    1. A question was asked.
    2. Someone gave their opinion
    3. Someone who is a consultant for a company that has a stake in the game popped up with valuable information to educate all
    4. someone took offense
    5. someone took offense
    6. someone claimed they didn't mean any insult
    7. someone used veiled insults on a regular target of theirs
    8. someone wants to try an experiment that will actually prove neither items to be noticeably different, thereby impacting the thrust of the stance of others
    9. someone pulled up their frequent stance of taking their toys and going home when folks disagree, even though 99% of the board appreciates the message if not the tone.
    10. and ultimately very few folks answered the question.

    Yep, that's the G I guess.

    To the OP - I would offer both for a period of time. I would create my own model. I would explain the benefits and drawbacks of each. Ultimately, I bet you'd find that you aren't removing a glass but rather you are offering a different glass.

    By the way, I only use MG for the reasons stated in this thread. But if I were to bring in the alternate product here I would probably have a demonstration setup to show how to clean both products. Unfortunately for the sponsored product, I'm afraid that alone might drive folks to the other.

    Have fun folks. I'm taking my toys and going home now!

    Oh, and being of little mind and patience, I do not consult with any company represented in this conversation.

  43. stcstc

    stcstc SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    i think every appreciates the education. although in this instance it doesn't come across like that. as claims about competing products are made again and again without impartial scientific explanation or research to back it up

    and this isnt the first time the same thing has happened

    these people are waaaay more knowledgeable than me, but it really comes across as marketing rather than education

    sorry if thats NOT the intent but thats how it comes across
  44. tedh

    tedh SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    Wow! Call me naive. I appreciated Rob's posts, and don't mind if he's the one being paid by Tru-Vue. I learned from his article, and dislike those attacks on him. He's done more to help me than anyone in the biz.

    Count me in as one of the 99%ers. I'm taking sides.
  45. stcstc

    stcstc SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    sorry its not an attack. i am just saying how it came across

    oh and i really really do appreciate the work and knowledge rob put in here
  46. Ylva

    Ylva SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    I only have a grasp of all the UV and protection and all the technical data flying around here. I do tell my customers that this is the best that's out there but will not prevent anything from fading as 'everything fades'. I tell them that there are things beyond my control. Customers do understand that.

    I have heard quite a lot of framers starting to use ArtGlass. I haven't seen ArtGlass yet and would treat it as an addition to things I already offer.
    I have yet to be convinced about why I would switch to ArtGlass though. One argument for me would be better price, so I can offer that to customers who like the look of MG, don't need the high UV protection and don't want to pay for MG.

    However, I get from this discussion that the price difference can be ignored as it is about the same.

    I see that the reason people like it better is for handling. MG does not cause me any problems, I wrap leftover pieces (sure, that takes another 30 seconds to do it) and store it like that. I have no problem cleaning it either.
  47. auntiesarahjayne

    auntiesarahjayne MGF, Master Grumble Framer

    I highly recommend Rob Markoff's class :

    It’s More Than Just Fading: The Effect of UV Light on Artwork
    By the time you see that artwork has faded, serious, irreversible damage had already occurred. Rob will discuss visible and invisible effects of UV light and other factors that can cause fading. Learn how to prolong the life of art in all media and how to guide a customer towards realistic expectations. In addition, gain a better understanding of glazing materials that combat the effects of UV light.

    This class has scientific information to explain how fading affects artwork and how you can use this information in making educated decisions on how to glaze artwork that comes into your shop.

    Yes, usually Tru Vue sponsors this class; but Rob does an excellent job keeping supplier neutral.

    I find the piling on of insults, and the misunderstanding of posting highly unprofessional on all accounts.
  48. JWB9999999

    JWB9999999 SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    I am coming to this conclusion myself based on this thread. I believe that I may have room in my stock bins to store both at the same time too.

    In this case, like Museum glass itself, it is difficult to explain the difference in how it is: you need to see it to believe it. If you have a rep, or go to a trade show, take a look at it, and play with it. There is virtually no price difference for me between the two, as AG is only a few dollars more expensive than MG, unless it's on sale, which makes it a few dollars less than MG.
  49. pwalters

    pwalters SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    I can see that. But you know what they say about reading tone in email? Well apply it double to forums. There is genuine knowledge in these posts that we are all benefitting from. The tone might just be stylistic more than anything else. either way, hopefully everyone on this thread sees that most of the folks here were trying to provide clarification and insight. However it was taken.
  50. i-FRAMER

    i-FRAMER MGF, Master Grumble Framer

    my take on this, is that before artglass, there was only really tru vue.
    regardless of the UV factor, if you wanted anything other then clear float, this was your only choice.

    Now with artglass there is choice.

    Ask yourself and what your customers are wanting.

    Are they wanting the highest possible UV protection (although fading can still occur)?

    Are they wanting anti-reflection with the highest clarity?

    i know from my customers the choice is easy. they would rather see the colours of the artwork as true to possible.
    When you put Artglass water white UV down next to truvue museum, they will choose artglass, they would rather risk the fading, and to have a clearer glass showing the artworks colours.
    They know the UV is not as high, and to those that it is more important will choose the museum glass. But 90% of my customers prefer the artglass.

    I went from selling a couple of jobs in museum glass or tru vue A/R a month, to selling 10 jobs a week in artglass.
    My customers are happy with the glass choice and i am happy as my profits have increased.

    Do i care about the UV rating, not really, i care about what my customers want.
Sponsor Wanted

Share This Page

Sponsor Wanted