• 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

Rob Markoff

PFG, Picture Framing God
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
I am still in a quandary regarding all the hostility in this thread.

For the record, I am a working, active picture framer who makes his living by selling art and framing and installing pictures. I use glazing products every day in my business. There is no secret that I (along with some of the most talented and experienced framers/educators in the business) have been retained by Tru-Vue as "consultants" however, our role has nothing to do with sales. None of us are required to use any particular product from any manufacturer and I use many other glazing products that are not made by Tru Vue.

I have stated in prior posts, and I will say it again; I like ArtGlass. When presented with ArtGlass adjacent to other products, customers also like the way it looks. I don't seem to have the handling problems with Museum Glass that others have expressed so that isn't an issue for me.

That being said, nothing changes regarding the following FACTS. There is no marketing hype. I didn't make this stuff up. It is all in the literature or on the manufacturers' websites.

1. ArtGlass has never been marketed by GroGlass as being appropriate for Conservation Framing. Their own literature says that the maximum UV filtration factor is "approximately" 94%.

2. Tru Vue and others (including GroGlass) make UV filtering glazing products that filter 99%.

3. Tru Vue (and others who achieve 99% UV Filtration) use absorptive technology to achieve their UV filtration. Absorptive filtration is uniform across all angles of incidence.

4. ArtGlass uses reflective technology to achieve their UV filtration. Reflective filtration decreases with changes to the angle of incidence. Therefore, the aggregate level of filtration is potentially less than 94%.

5. In order to have a standard of reference, Trade Associations (the PPFA) and the Fine Art Trade Guild (the FATG) have created guidelines for Conservation level framing that requires glazing to filter at least 97%. This is non brand specific. Both organizations have also created guidelines for mat boards (again, not brand specific). I believe in and support both organizations and I am a member of both.

6. A framer can either choose to embrace the established guidelines or not. However, if one does not use the materials and techniques specified in the guidelines, one should not say they have framed to the stated level. The same would all apply to any aspect of the frame contents not just the glazing (from the proximity of the edge of the artwork to the interior of the frame, to the choice of matting and backing and hinging, or the general accepted practices used in the final assembly.)

7. Not everything needs to be Conservation framed. Using a glazing product that has a filtration factor of less than 97% can be perfectly appropriate for many framing applications.

John (the OP) originally said he was "transitioning" from Museum Glass to ArtGlass. I made the mistake of assuming that he was making a unilateral switch and that he felt that Museum Glass and ArtGlass were equal interchangeable products which they are not.

In my defense, I will say that I have heard this statement before from distributors and also other picture framers and I wanted to be sure that the decision to switch had taken this fact into consideration. John has since replied that he is/was aware of this fact but I believe there are others who may not have understood this and might have benefitted from my posts and article link.

This isn't about me saying one product is "better" than the other. Both Museum Glass and ArtGlass are excellent products, however one has a higher UV filtration rating than the other and meets the established guidelines for CONSERVATION LEVEL FRAMING while the other does not.

I am curious though. Is it the aesthetics (appearance) of the ArtGlass that is appealing or the cost? If UV filtration is not as important as the way the product looks and cost is a factor, where does Tru-Vue AR glass and Tru-Vue Ultra Vue (which is also a 2.0 mm water white product) fit into your evaluation process? Both seem to be less expensive than ArtGlass and have a similar aesthetic.

If, as some have stated, it is "what the customers want" have you also considered these products and if so, why did you eliminate them from your consideration?
 

i-FRAMER

MGF, Master Grumble Framer
In Australia, up until a couple of years ago we were subject to paying $400 a sheet for museum glass.
as soon as another supplier started bringing it in, it dropped by half.

I know this is nothing to do with Tru Vue but the suppliers here.

But because of the price, i was always looking for an alternative.

I like Artglass for 3 reasons-

1. It is cheaper here then Tru Vue.
2. No risk of scratching
3. And the clarity of water white (I have not seen the Tru Vue Ultra Vue and not even sure if it is available here).

I guess because of the monopoly Tru Vue has had, left me looking for another product.

i still offer it as the highest conservation glass available, and price it appropriately.

I am selling a lot of the Art glass, which is increasing my profits - just another reason for me to like it.
I guess it also shows that my customers prefer the look of it more then the conservation quality.
Also, mould is more likely to affect artwork here before fading does.
 

stcstc

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
I am still in a quandary regarding all the hostility in this thread.

For the record, I am a working, active picture framer who makes his living by selling art and framing and installing pictures. I use glazing products every day in my business. There is no secret that I (along with some of the most talented and experienced framers/educators in the business) have been retained by Tru-Vue as "consultants" however, our role has nothing to do with sales. None of us are required to use any particular product from any manufacturer and I use many other glazing products that are not made by Tru Vue.

For the record my posts were NOT ment to be hostile. and i apologize if thats how they came across

Rob you have on more than one occasion used the same wording about artglass, IE substantially less average UV figure, but have never been able to clarify it. that is where my issue comes from.

for me art glass is massively cheaper than museum, mainly though due to handling ease, cleaning etc is much better and therefore cheaper because i can deal with it in a significantly shorter period of time (would say it takes me twice as long to work with museum).

and although it doesnt meet the FATG standard( which i belive was chosen in a meeting where someone said "oh well thats what everyone else uses", no scientific research or anything was used) i always explain to my customers that none of the options STOP fading, i say if you dont want it to fade DONT put it in a frame.
 

David McCormack

Grumbler in Training
Hi everyone, could I ask a question please. I'm getting confused about the term conservation framing in relation to the use of UV glazing. The Fine Art Trade Guild have their 5 levels of framing, level 4 being conservation and level 5 being museum. For glazing at conservation level they say:

"Float glass or better, free from obvious blemishes. Glass with high UV protection should be considered."

And for museum level they say:

"An appropriate conservation-quality glazing should be used, ie glazing with a high degree of UV filtration, unless the picture is to hang where there are already controlled UV levels (e.g. some museums)."

Also on the Guild website under 'Artfacts Standards - Preservation glazing materials' it states that:

"6.02 The requirement for any glazing to be recognized as having significant UV Blocking Qualities shall be no less than 70 percent of all light in the 300 to 400 nanometer range."

So my question is; when talking about conservation framing are you in fact talking about museum level framing (as per FATG terminology) and where does it say that UV glazing should block/absorb 97% of UV light?

I find it all very confusing :confused: According to the FATG so long as I have considered using UV blocking glass but in the end decide to use float glass then I can label my work as framed to conservation standard (providing other standards have been followed regards materials/mounting etc.)! I never have labeled my work as conservation standard without UV glass but according to the FATG I could... just want to understand?

Am I missing something :shrug:

Thanks, Dave.
 

RoboFramer

PFG, Picture Framing God
They have not updated the standards on their website or published a new GCF study guide - as for F.A.C.T.S. they took that over some time ago and as far as I can see, have altered nothing - it's years old.
I was at the framers committee (now re-named as the Framing Standards and Qualifications Committee, or FSQC) meeting in Nov 2012 where new standards for glass were voted in; from the minutes .....

"It was decided that the three levels suggested should be adopted; these were Standard to include normal float glass with 40% UV filtering; UV Blocking 70% - 97% UV filtering and UV Protection greater than 97% UV protection"

I'm assuming regular glass for the first three levels, 70-97% for conservation level and 97%+ for museum level - but I don't know if the 70-97 for conservation level is a requirement or a recommendation, either way artglass or artglass UV would be OK,

So you CAN say you are framing to conservation level with artglass - but you can't say you are framing to PPFA preservation standard or using glass that conforms to ISO.. whatever.

Two things have been repeated over and over on this thread and on most other threads discussing artglass and most, if not all of the time, it's from a Tru Vue affiliate - not a dig, an observation.

1. "You can't call it conservation". Well so you can - and right up at the top end too!

2. "It is reflective not absorptive, the effectiveness reduces as the angle increases". Well so it is and so it does but that's only been backed up with "I have heard" ..... that it is significantly/substantially less/could be as low as X percent, etc. Well I have heard and I've stated who I heard it from (not by name) that it is insignificant.












 

stcstc

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
so

PPFA standard is called preservation framing?
FATG conservation level allows 70% uv?


so which standard called conservation framing as mentioned a lot of times above requires 97% + UV blocking
 

Joe B

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
:popc:
 

Pat Kotnour

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
The one thing this thread has taught me is that I need to try the ArtGlass. It really sounds great. The question I have for those who already use it though; is AG static free like museum glass? I have always recommended MG for shadowbox's to framers and have also mentioned it on my DVD when showing a new method of mounting jerseys without sewing, fastening or piercing the fabric. Because the shirt is not attached the glass must be static free. But this method also requires a deeper shadowbox moulding, so clarity is important as well. It is the main reason I have endorsed TruVue's Optium Acrylic, Static Guard Acrylic and Museum Glass on my most recent DVD. It sounds like AG might just be another option.

FTR: TV has never sponsored me or given me any monetary support for my endorsement. It is quite the opposite. They have gotten quite a bit of free advertising from the couple of thousand framers who have added the DVD to their collections.
 

Joe B

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
The one thing this thread has taught me is that I need to try the ArtGlass. It really sounds great.
I saw it in Vegas - it does look nice. Let me know where you will get it from, I don't believe LJ, Superior, or TC doesn't carry it. You can get it from Omega but the cost of shipping is high. Maybe there is a distributor locally but I can't find them.
 

Cliff Wilson

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
Someone asked me to share the display sample I use in showing my glass options, so here it is.

sample glass.jpg

Of course the photo and monitor makes it harder to distinguish the differences, but when some of my customers look at it, they see a marked difference between the two products.

I beleive it's important to use White mats, because the black ones that TruVue uses masks the color shift.

I believe the 99% absorbative filtering on the Museum makes it a necessary product in my offering.
To answer Rob's question, I choose to offer Artglass UV instead of UltraVue because it offers better protection.
True, it doesn't offer as good as Museum, but I prefer "the best protection I can give my customer with the look the want."

I'll repeat, I believe Artglass UV is is a valuable and positive product in my offering. It is NOT a replacement for Museum though.
 

Kirstie

PFG, Picture Framing God
Someone asked me to share the display sample I use in showing my glass options, so here it is.

View attachment 20172

Of course the photo and monitor makes it harder to distinguish the differences, but when some of my customers look at it, they see a marked difference between the two products.

I beleive it's important to use White mats, because the black ones that TruVue uses masks the color shift.

I believe the 99% absorbative filtering on the Museum makes it a necessary product in my offering.
To answer Rob's question, I choose to offer Artglass UV instead of UltraVue because it offers better protection.
True, it doesn't offer as good as Museum, but I prefer "the best protection I can give my customer with the look the want."

I'll repeat, I believe Artglass UV is is a valuable and positive product in my offering. It is NOT a replacement for Museum though.
Cliff, your explanation makes sense and I like your straightforward approach. However, isn't the 92% filtering text under the ArtGlass sample somewhat misleading given the drop off with the angle of incidence? Do you explain this verbally instead?
 

Ylva

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
Rob, if I read your explanation correctly, MG is 99% UV protective, no matter what angle the rays hit it and this is where the artglass becomes iffy. It might be 92" UV protective it the rays hit it straight on, but from an angle it is lower UV protection?
 

RoboFramer

PFG, Picture Framing God
That's absolutely correct Ylva - but Rob claims, with no back up bar that he "has heard" that the reduction is significant - whereas I 'have heard' from an expert in the field that it's lab stuff and very insignificant. But does it really matter - no-one can match that 99% reflective or otherwise, not in single-layer glass.

Someone's worried!
 

Cliff Wilson

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
Cliff, your explanation makes sense and I like your straightforward approach. However, isn't the 92% filtering text under the ArtGlass sample somewhat misleading given the drop off with the angle of incidence? Do you explain this verbally instead?
I do explain it. And, I try to explain that the negative impact of the difference will vary with the chemical makeup of the art and the conditions it's hung under. Amanda (works with me) is very good at explaining as well.

Not sure how effective we are, but customers seem to react well to the explanations.
 

Pat Kotnour

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
Someone asked me to share the display sample I use in showing my glass options, so here it is.

View attachment 20172

Of course the photo and monitor makes it harder to distinguish the differences, but when some of my customers look at it, they see a marked difference between the two products.

I beleive it's important to use White mats, because the black ones that TruVue uses masks the color shift.

I believe the 99% absorbative filtering on the Museum makes it a necessary product in my offering.
To answer Rob's question, I choose to offer Artglass UV instead of UltraVue because it offers better protection.
True, it doesn't offer as good as Museum, but I prefer "the best protection I can give my customer with the look the want."

I'll repeat, I believe Artglass UV is is a valuable and positive product in my offering. It is NOT a replacement for Museum though.
Am I mistaken, it looks like the Artglass has quite a bit more shine than the MG? Does it? Who carries AG? I want to try it but haven't been able to find out who is distributing it.
 

Cliff Wilson

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
Am I mistaken, it looks like the Artglass has quite a bit more shine than the MG? Does it? Who carries AG? I want to try it but haven't been able to find out who is distributing it.
That's an unfortunate by-product of the way I took the picture.
Both products show reflection at the right (wrong?) angles.
I don't see a significant (there's that word again ;) ) differences in the reflective properties.

I buy my Artglass UV from Omega.
 

Rob Markoff

PFG, Picture Framing God
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.
Wow, Pat. I would have thought that last comment was beneath you, but have proven me wrong. I have been (and still am) a staunch supporter of you and your company and have come to your defense many times when you have been attacked by others who have criticized or belittled your innovation. I use your products in my shop. I even nominated you for the award you received from the PPFA. Let's not make this personal. Out of respect to you, I will attempt to answer your post.

I have never claimed to be an expert on anything. I make my living selling and installing art and framing but I have been told that I am a good teacher. I do not solicit the writing and teaching opportunities that have been offered to me but for over 30 years I have been asked to teach across the US and Canada, in Australia, Russia, and twice this year in England. My class evaluations seem to have been high enough that I have been asked back yearly to teach at the National Conference and for the PPFA and this year twice for the FATG. I wrote for many years for DECOR and now write regularly for PFM. For many years I was a consultant to Crescent Cardboard (in particular when they were developing a competing line of glazing products). I am now part of an educator consultancy for Tru Vue. PFM has just asked me to write two new articles for them. Surely they would not have done so if they did not feel there was value to what I might have to say. I have heard from many framers that they have benefitted from some of what I had to say.

I share your passion for "proof." I deal with a clientele who value "ultimate protection" over aesthetics as what I am framing for them has high monetary value. This is not intended as braggadocio but to explain my desire to find and use those products and framing techniques that will offer the ultimate protection for my client's art regardless of cost. This also includes extensive reading and research into the "why" for the materials and practices we use in our industry.

Those who have been framing for many years have seen new innovations and product introductions - and also framing techniques and protocols. When "coated" glass products were introduced to our industry, (and well before I was involved with Crescent or Tru Vue) I did not accept the manufacturer's claims on "face value" because I could not take a chance experimenting with my customer's art. I paid an independent, impartial laboratory to test multiple samples of many glazing products (cut from different portions of a lite of glass or acrylic and from lites from different batches.) I also met with the Chair of the Physics Department at the University of California San Diego to help me interpret the results and confirm that the glazings products did what they claimed to do.

When it came to the introduction of "zeolites" in matboard, I consulted with conservators at several prestigious institutions and met personally with the head of the conservation laboratory at the Getty in Los Angeles to "validate" their effectiveness. As new products/techniques come on the market, I seek ratification from others far more qualified than me to render opinions before I use them or teach about them. For example, until recently, Tru Vue's Optium Museum Acrylic was considered as the "ultimate" in protection. Now laminated UV filtering glass is the benchmark (cost aside for all products) because acrylic is porous and glass is impermeable.

Here are a few of the graphs from the testing lab, there are dozens of pages:




I also did a "test" as you suggested, meaning I took two identical images that had been printed using offset printing and displayed both in one of my store windows. One image was framed with UV filtering glazing (both clear and non-glare) and the other "regular" glass (both clear and non-glare). As you can see, the "results" are dramatic.



Close Up of "Unfaded" image


Close Up of "Faded" image


What does this "prove?" That visible "changes" to THIS SPECIFIC IMAGE, when subjected to the CUMULATIVE intensity of light for the "selected" duration occurred. Nothing more, nor can one say that because visible changes happened to this sample, the exact same thing would happen to another, especially if it is a different piece of art printed with a different process.

To be honest, we "cooked" the image for the length of time it took for the "fading" to be obvious. There was no "control" other than we pulled it from the window when our "objective" had been achieved. I believe that had we left the test in the window for longer, that both images might have faded completely because light damage is CUMULATIVE.

We have had clients bring in framed pieces that had COMPLETELY faded despite having been framed with UV protective glazing. Does this mean the UV glazing failed? Most likely not at all. Remember, that ALL light causes fading and there are many other causes. It is very possible that something used in the creation of the piece of art was susceptible to photochemical changes that occurred because of light energy outside of the boundaries (wavelengths) that the glazing filtered.

What is this sample "good for?" It is an excellent sales aid (or as my friends on the other side of the pond would call a "sales crutch") because it demonstrates the potential for fading and the possibility that UV protective glazing might inhibit visible changes to a piece of art. We used this framed model in our stores very effectively to explain why we use UV Filtering glazing as our "default" glazing and we get very little resistance for the cost.

But is it a "fair" and "accurate" or even a "scientifically acceptable" test? Absolutely not because it cannot be repeated under the same conditions/criteria.

continued to next post due to length criteria of the G
 

Rob Markoff

PFG, Picture Framing God
If I understand you correctly, you want to take a piece of Museum Glass (or other glazing product that uses absorptive filtration and has a 99% UV filtering specification) and put it adjacent to ArtGlass (or other glazing product that uses reflective filtration and has a lesser - in the case of ArtGlass 94% UV filtering specification) over the top of a piece of art and expose the package to direct sunlight for a period of time. Your expectation is that because the two glazing products are "different" that one should be able to readily see a difference in their ability to prevent visible changes to the piece of art within the same period of time. Please correct me if I misunderstand.

I maintain that this would not be a scientifically accurate test because,

a) there are too many variables (what kind of image? offset printed? solvent or soy based ink? Dyes or pigments? UV coated? (meaning a printing technique where a top coat is "cured" under UV light which offers no significant protection from UV light, displayed at what latitude/longitude, for what duration? what are the color ranges in the art - some are more susceptible to changes than others) What is the ambient temperature of the display environment?

You said that "It shouldn't matter if each one is using the same conditions and art or not." I do not know how to respond other than to say you are completely wrong.

Here is a link you may find useful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Here is a snippet: "Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter."

How are the results verifiable if they cannot be repeated?

b) the assumption that the manifestation of visible changes to the art (or lack thereof) is an accurate indicator of "protection" from UV damage. By the time visible changes have appeared, other potentially harmful photochemical (and "invisible" to the naked eye") changes have occurred. It might take year for these changes to manifest themselves visibly. So even if the two samples "look the same" - one could have suffered from additional damage that is not readily apparent.

I could elaborate on the "mechanics" of photochemistry but it would take many pages. Should you take my Fading Class, I cover it pretty extensively (yet try to make it palatable).

Here is a slide from the class:


c)who is to determine the "difference" in the visible changes? Are you doing it by "eye"? Whose eyes?

ArtGlass "looks" like it does because of the choice of substrate and the portion of the UV spectrum it chooses to block. I believe the manufacturer even suggests that it does so because they believe it is more important for the art "look good" than to filter the portion of the UV spectrum that approaches the visible light range. Remember that a portion of the UV range overlaps the visible spectrum so one cannot block 100% of UV light without some change to the way that colors are perceived.

So who can determine that the piece of art one is framing is more susceptible to the UV energy in the unblocked portion of the spectrum? For me it is a chance I am unwilling to take.

I have no dog in this fight and I have nothing to "prove" nor am I "worried."

I am not claiming one glass is "better" than the other. This whole discussion started when I mistakenly thought the OP considered the two products as "equal" (which they are not.) The decision to use one over the other is completely subjective. I was only attempting to level the playing field by trying to explain that both products are different - not just by the stated filtration percentages, but also because of the filtration methodologies.

The FACT is that the UV filtration processes are different. Absorptive filtration does not change with the angle of incidence.

Reflective filtration does change, so the aggregate is less than the maximum specification. To me that fact is significant. MY words not from any manufacturer.

My intent is to provide the maximum level of protection for the artwork I frame. Therefore, I choose (based on science and not marketing) to use glazing products (not brand specific) that use absorptive filtration with the highest level of filtration as possible combined with materials and practices whose specifications meet the criteria established by a jury of my peers. It is the best I can do.
 

Rob Markoff

PFG, Picture Framing God
I think we "over use" the ISO standard which is a PROCUREMENT standard not an industry technically target.
Would you please elaborate, Cliff? How would "procurement" preclude anything? Isn't that the same as saying that in order to acquire goods, services or works from an outside external source, those good must meet the following specifications? In this case for "Conservation Level."

Here is some specific language from the standard:

ISO 18902:2013

4.6 Glazing

All framed prints shall be displayed behind glass or plastic glazing of optical density of at least 1.5 in the 300 nanometer to 380 nanometer range. Prints should not be framed in direct contact with the glazing.

To ensure that the glazing and all coatings are inactive, they shall meet the requirements of the photographic activity test described in ISO 18916.

" An Optical Density of 1.5 " can be translated to 97% percent filtration.

Rob you have on more than one occasion used the same wording about artglass, IE substantially less average UV figure, but have never been able to clarify it.
I put in a inquiry to Tru Vue before the weekend and finally have a response.

From the lab test that Tru Vue conducted to research this phenomenon we have the following data:

· At a 90° angle (straight on) 8% of the UV rays will transmit through the glazing
· At other angles the light hit the glazing (whenever the sun moves) as much as 17% of UV rays will transmit through the glazing

Therefore, for a product that does not use an actual UV absorption layer (Like Tru Vue® Conservation Grade Glazing products) and claims that the UV protection is at 92% the actual UV protection at various angles is really only 75% - 84% UV protection.

I acknowledge that this figure is from someone who has a vested interest in the discussion but it is the best I can do.

Since I am willing to believe the figure, my personal opinion is that the difference between a uniform 99% UV Filtration factor and a potential 75% variable factor is substantial.
 

stcstc

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
rob

Thankyou. that was exactly what i as asking. i am very sorry if it came across as an attack it really wasnt

those figures are very interesting. is there a sensible way to interpret them in terms of what that means practically to art?

does the wavelength also change the characteristics of the reflective filtering?
 

Pat Kotnour

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
Oh for crying out loud Rob, why don't you just write a book? All you have proven is that you believe that you have all the answeres and no one else can have an opinion or idea that differs from yours. There has never been a dispute about UV glass and that the highest filtering should always be used for conservation framing. But that wasn't what the experiment that I suggested was about. It was about comparing the 2 types of glass. As usual you missed the point. The one thing you have managed to do though is to convince me that I need to buy some Artglass and try it for myself.
 

Rob Markoff

PFG, Picture Framing God
I am sorry, Pat. I must be really stupid because I keep missing the point and I really am trying to understand. I don't have all the answers and I am continually looking for better ways, so please help me. I think it is unfair for you to say I am not open to opinions that differ from mine. Why else would I continually seek advise from those who have a better understanding?

You say the experiment is about "comparing the two types of glass." What is being compared? The thickness? The reflection? The color transmission? The manufacturing process? The handling? The ability to block UV light?

Did I misunderstand the methodology of the comparison? (Meaning how to conduct the experiment?)

Did I misunderstand what the intended result (hypothesis) is or would be? Or how one would/should interpret the results?

What did I "miss?" What is it that you think this "experiment" will "prove" that I did not cover in my explanation?
 

John Ranes II CPF GCF

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
Ylva said:
Rob, if I read your explanation correctly, MG is 99% UV protective, no matter what angle the rays hit it and this is where the artglass becomes iffy. It might be 92" UV protective it the rays hit it straight on, but from an angle it is lower UV protection?
Indeed, this is one key ingredient to the strength of offering TV Conservation Clear and TV Musuem Glass. Click on the link below on our own shop website and scroll down to the 6th video. It is great for framers with questions and consumers alike...

Education Videos at The Frame Workshop

Here it is on YouTube

[video=youtube;BLYS8F91QuI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLYS8F91QuI
[/video]

Regards,

John
 

Grey Owl

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
A couple of thoughts:

1. As professional framers we need to make sure we offer the appropriate materials for the customer based on their needs and requirements.

2. I have taken some classes from Rob, and he has always said something to the effect "Look people, every item you frame DOES NOT NEED to be framed to preservation / high conservation standards." My take is that Rob is not saying you should use Museum, just use what is appropriate, but make sure you understand there are differences and what they are.

3. As professionals we have to be careful and not misrepresent the products we recommend and use. Many / most suppliers represent their product in the best light (no pun intended), and this can make it difficult for framers to really understand. When the PPFA announced their guidelines for matboards, (Level 1, 2 3 or 4) I had a higher volume frame shop owner ask me why acid free was not conservation. They did not understand the difference although they had been in the business for 20+ years (They did not participate on the Grumble, so they did not have access to our wonderful knowledge base).

4. I advise all of my customers that all artwork will fade overtime, but that CC and Museum do exceed the ISO standards for UV filtration for glazing, but works also fade because of visible and other UV light too. (Yes, as Cliff points out, it is a procurement standard, but it is a recognized standard).

5. Another concern is that if we represent something as high preservation / high conservation framing, and the art ends up fading, the owner could decide to sue and if their attorneys realized we used glazing that did not meet ISO (International Standards Organization) minimum standards, we could be in a difficult situation, because we claimed high framing standards but did not frame to minimum glazing standards. I have been involved in several depositions in my prior work, and during depositions, it is just the attorneys, and the primary purpose is for the opposing attorney to find anything to show you are incompetent.
 

Joe B

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
IMO this should have been brought to the Warped about 74 post ago. Why must the bickering be carried to where the public can see it. Everyone of us has an opinion - Rob knows his product but truthfully has not answered the question about comparing AG with Museum - if both were set in a window with all framing components exactly the same what would the outcome be. Rob can't answer that because he hasn't conducted the test. Instead of beating each other up why doesn't someone just go ahead and do the test and report back in a few weeks about the outcome.

Truthfully we are going overboard on the conservation mats, glass, and all the other products that keep art looking good long into the future. There is only about 1 piece of art out of every 5,000 that warrants total conservation framing. I personally specialize in antique prints, pin-up, etchings, and such and I have seen art that has been on display for 100 years that is still beautiful today. All of it has had CARPY glass on it. Personally I believe we are on conservation overload and we have to start looking at a simpler time and product. For instance - the un Godly amount of specifications for mat boards - WHY? 99% of the PPFA specifications for mat boars is ridiculous and in no way can be tested in the average frame shop. Our old standards worked just dandy and were easy to explain to customers. Glass is the same thing - it's not conservation quality unless it blocks 97% of the ultraviolet (UV) - why? How about infrared - that is the opposite side of the color spectrum - infrared destroys art and is at least as damaging or may even be more damaging than ultraviolet. There is no way the glass companies can do anything about heat (infrared) in the framing package with a glass product so they make a super big deal about UV which is something they can do something about. Art is going to fade and no amount of UV block is going to stop that. What we need is a product that blocks UV & IF. Welcome Acrylic - most museums are now using it. If we are all so conservation minded we would be using UV Block Acrylic and this is my reasoning. Infrared is heat - glass doesn't release the heat - acrylic does or it doesn't build up at such a high temperature. Heat absolutely destroys paper & fabric, UV fades color. Fading versus destroying - OKAAAY - once art is destroyed it is destroyed repair costly at best. Color can be added back to a print if necessary. I'm like the rest of you, my customers want glass so I sell them glass. My more learned customers want UV Block Acrylic - Optimum in many cases. So if we are going to bicker about this, lets do it in the Warped and not beat each other up doing it - this really isn't a good example to our customers who can and are reading this. There is a lot for all of us to learn by what Rob, Pat, John and the others are saying and I consider this a very interest thread... Just a thought. Joe B.
 

Rob Markoff

PFG, Picture Framing God
Another concern is that if we represent something as high preservation / high conservation framing, and the art ends up fading, the owner could decide to sue and if their attorneys realized we used glazing that did not meet ISO (International Standards Organization) minimum standards, we could be in a difficult situation, because we claimed high framing standards but did not frame to minimum glazing standards. I have been involved in several depositions in my prior work, and during depositions, it is just the attorneys, and the primary purpose is for the opposing attorney to find anything to show you are incompetent.
Thanks for the post, Russ. I didn't want to even go down the "lawsuit" path as I was having a hard enough time with the "current" argument. You are spot on with your concern.

The largest lawsuit filed against me was because of fading. It involved the fading of an autograph by Magic Johnson on a basketball jersey that we framed in an acrylic box fabricated with OP-3 (an absorptive UV filtering acrylic that also filters 99% UV). Since the burden of proof is upon the defendant, he lost the case because he was unable to prove that the fading was my fault.

I used the best available product and never represented that the frame would prevent fading. I had expert witness testimony including a Conservator for the LA County Museum of Art. It was her opinion that the signature could have faded in the dark as it was possibly a chemical reaction between dye from the jersey and the composition of the Sharpie marker that was used to sign. She also said that the choice of using the Sharpie was a poor one as it is not represented as being archival and that the responsibility for the fading partially rests on on the person who selected a Sharpie marker. In addition she raised the question that the owner of the jersey had a curatorial responsibility for the display conditions the jersey was subjected to (in this case, the office of an orthopedist) who had it displayed under fluorescent light for more than 8 hours per day.

I know firsthand about the Deposition Process you mentioned and it is no fun. There is a reason that those who serve as expert witnesses for a living charge what they do. Being deposed is almost like posting in this thread, pretty brutal. :)
 

Rob Markoff

PFG, Picture Framing God
If we are all so conservation minded we would be using UV Block Acrylic..........
Actually, Joe this is not true. You must have missed the thread where Hugh Phibbs posted that it is more important to protect art from oxidizing gasses than UV. Acrylic is porous and allows gasses to pass through. The only impermeable vapor barriers are metal and glass. Glass offers better protection for art than acrylic because it is a better vapor barrier.

Laminated UV filtering glass is now considered as "state of the art" because it is shatter resistant (and if it does shatter, the pieces remain intact), 99% UV filtering, it is a vapor barrier, has less deflection than acrylic of a similar thickness and can also be coated for anti reflection. I believe you will begin to see more institutional (i.e. museum) use in the near future.

99% of the PPFA specifications for mat boars (sic) is ridiculous and in no way can be tested in the average frame shop.
I don't think you understand the purpose of the specifications. No one is suggesting that anyone other than the manufacturer does any testing and that they make those results available. The specifications list the properties that a mat board must have to be appropriate for each level of framing. The specifications are downward compatible (meaning a higher level board may be used for a lower specification task, but not vice versa.) It is contingent upon the framer to access the manufacturer's specifications so that they may determine the suitability of a product for the specific task.

Personally I believe we are on conservation overload and we have to start looking at a simpler time and product.
I hear you! How many times do I have to say it? Not everything needs to be conservation framed.

However, if one is concerned with maximum preservation there is more urgency now to protect those things we want to hold onto, especially ephemera. With the advent of digital photography and electronic communication, there is a very real possibility that many of our memories will not be preserved. When thinking about all the ways my family documented life events, we have gone from film based photography to 8mm home movies to VHS video tapes and now to digital photos that are most likely stored in some form of electronic memory that could be wiped out with a mouse click or hard drive failure. How many of these memories will be able to be viewed in the future?

A great singer once said, "For the times they are a'changing." Whether one believes that there is global warming or not, the reality is that the ozone layer is becoming thinner which lets more UV energy penetrate the Earth's atmosphere. Those 100 year old pieces you referred to were made when lesser quality, intended for short duration use papers and cheap inks were not as pervasive. Some of why they look so good today must be attributed to what they are printed on and with what materials.

I don't know how much simpler products can get. We have excellent materials at our disposal to prolong the life of what we are framing. We have mat board with molecular traps that require no additional handling to achieve the added protection. We have glazing products that inhibit a host of deleterious enemies that are relatively easy to use. We even have pre-impregnated hinging media. Best of all, we have ready access to information that would otherwise had been unavailable.
 

Kirstie

PFG, Picture Framing God
Russ has summed this up nicely for us. Thank you Russ, and thank you Rob for your clear explanations. I recommend and use Conservation Clear and Museum Glass in our shop because I want to offer the best available UV protection to my customers. It is as simple as that. We do carry Ultra Vue, but we rarely sell it because the vast majority of our customers care more about UV protection than the appearance of a water white-antireflective product. If they want the appearance of Museum Glass, they buy it. We sell a lot of Museum Glass because we like it. We don't have trouble cleaning it. In fact, these days we even let our DIY customers clean it because we sell so much of it. How do we sell it? Staff training, staff preference, and we simply put the sampler in the customer's hands as we finish pricing the job. It sells itself. I'm sure Artglass would sell itself too. Personally, I just don't want to muddy the issue, so we don't carry it and we don't push UltraVue. As for price, we take advantage of local vendor's periodic sales and then we stock up.

Like a few others who have posted on this forum, I am also a consultant for Tru-Vue. I am not paid to sell the product, and I have never been asked by TruVue if I carry the product exclusively in my stores. Aside from premium glass products, we buy a lot of 2mm washed glass for our ready made shop and for certain volume projects. We also sell both TruVue Conservation Clear acrylic and competing acrylic products depending upon local availability and price. We buy what works for us and our customers and are not influenced by any manufacturer.

On a personal note, I must strongly disagree with comments regarding what is and what is not worthy of preservation framing. I have lost irreplaceable photographs of my own due to light damage, and I see the result of UV light damage on a daily basis in the shop. Some of this can be heartbreaking. Just today a man brought in two photos for restoration. We are going to try to restore them, but they are borderline because the faces have faded almost beyond recognition. They were in a ready made frame with no UV protection. He is lucky they did not stick to the glass. We could see a border of original color under the lip of the frame, and the customer was distraught that he had ignored this small framed item for so long. One of the photos is his last remaining image of his late brother as a Green Beret in the Vietnam War. None of us should categorically judge for others what does and what does not warrant protective framing. It is our job to explain the options and then use what the customer wants.

Of course I know that other factors besides UV light may have played a part in the fading and discoloration of these photos, but if I had been the original framer, I would have certainly felt better recommending UV protection as one part of a protective package.

I would like to see this discussion stay on the main forum as it is interesting and educational, and I hope that the tone of this discussion will continue to remain professional.
 

stcstc

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
My main business is with photographers

I think (in my experience) most of the talk of conservation, happens between framers and that the majority of customers dont know, dont care etc.

Not that i am suggesting this is appropriate but think its fact. the majority of customers who end up with conservation (i dont like this word, should be preservation) framing are talked into (or sold) it by the shop.



Just a very small point, there is lots of mentions of the BEST product

BUT CC and museum are NOT the best, there are laminated products with better figures. but they cost the earth and are heavy etc. the the statement should be the bet single layer glass product.
 

Joe B

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
"Actually, Joe this is not true. You must have missed the thread where Hugh Phibbs posted that it is more important to protect art from oxidizing gasses than UV. Acrylic is porous and allows gasses to pass through. The only impermeable vapor barriers are metal and glass. Glass offers better protection for art than acrylic because it is a better vapor barrier. " Quote by Rob

Actually Rob it is true. No I didn't read the thread by Hugh Phibbs. The reason what I said is true is because I was talking about infrared - heat inside the framing package so don't try to glaze over my comments. Acrylic allows the heat to leave the package, glass retains the heat. Acrylic also allows humidity to leave the package glass does not. I'm wasn't talking about gasses entering the package, you were the one that brought that up. I would be much more concerned about art being destroyed by heat than I would be from possible gasses entering the frame package. If I am wrong why are many of the museums using acrylic now instead of glass?

"I don't think you understand the purpose of the specifications. No one is suggesting that anyone other than the manufacturer does any testing and that they make those results available. The specifications list the properties that a mat board must have to be appropriate for each level of framing. The specifications are downward compatible (meaning a higher level board may be used for a lower specification task, but not vice versa.) It is contingent upon the framer to access the manufacturer's specifications so that they may determine the suitability of a product for the specific task." Quote by Rob

I have seen no information from the manufactures about the standards and how their mats meet those standards, have you? IMO all is the same and all the standards have done is make things more complicated and confusing. Who is overseeing the testing that is being done at the manufacturer? The new PPFA Standards don't mean a thing because nothing has changed that I can see. Most customers don't know or care about those standard, they want conservation, acid free, archival. I appreciate simple, my customers appreciate simple, those standards aren't simple. Enough said about the standards because I'm not trying to change anybody's mind.

"Those 100 year old pieces you referred to were made when lesser quality, intended for short duration use papers and cheap inks were not as pervasive. Some of why they look so good today must be attributed to what they are printed on and with what materials. Quote by Rob"

I have worked on 100s if not 1000s of pieces of vintage/antique art. Some are in terrible condition because of acids, uv, & I'm sure infrared, some are in fantastic condition for the age. The materials from back then are not of the quality of the products we have today so it has to do with the environment. I agree with you about the contaminates in the air today but back in those days they had contaminates to, not the same as us but their materials were not as good as ours either. They didn't have the climate control systems we have now i.e. air conditioning, humidity control, heat control, etc. Anyway, I am totally in agreement with you about all things not needing the ultimate of conservation framing. No mater how you frame something it will fade over time - you have even written about that. All we can do is slow the process down.


"I would like to see this discussion stay on the main forum as it is interesting and educational, and I hope that the tone of this discussion will continue to remain professional." Quote by Kristie

You have been reading a different Post than me.
 

Pat Kotnour

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
"Originally posted by Joe B"
I have seen no information from the manufactures about the standards and how their mats meet those standards, have you? IMO all is the same and all the standards have done is make things more complicated and confusing. Who is overseeing the testing that is being done at the manufacturer? The new PPFA Standards don't mean a thing because nothing has changed that I can see. Most customers don't know or care about those standard, they want conservation, acid free, archival. I appreciate simple, my customers appreciate simple, those standards aren't simple. Enough said about the standards because I'm not trying to change anybody's mind.
Joe B is exactly right. Why must everything be made so complicated? It's not rocket science like a few of you are trying to make it. And people won't follow what they don't understand, no matter how much data you throw at them. You educators would be wise to remember that a teacher is only good if the students can comprehend and retain the information they are given. The word KISS comes to mind.....Keep It Simple Stupid......because TMI is sometimes just that.......Too Much Information!
" Originally posted by Rob Markoff"
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.
I certainly have seen a lot of changes in the industry and a few of them have been introduced by me. What I have also seen is how some of those peers you are referring to have attempted to set guidelines that they expect the rest of the industry to follow based on their own biased, uninformed opinions.

Guidelines and standards are only good if they are being set by an unbiased group of skilled framers who attain information based on facts, and are not just the self serving, prejudicial opinions of those who have something to gain by making their recomendations. What the organizations involved in setting the standards fail to realize is that 75% of the framers that are still in business don't know who the trend setters are and don't care about the standards that they are trying to force onto the framing industry. And even though a few of you don't give them credit for having the knowledge or skill to figure it out on their own, many don't want or need your help. There are also a lot of shop owners around the country who have been in business for years who never go to trade shows....never have and never will. And the truth is that a good portion of the framers who actually do the work and are using the products everyday don't get to go either. I know this because I do business with many of them. Those shop owners. managers, and framers go by the facts and information they receive from their suppliers and sales people and then form their own opinions about whether a product is good or a method will help them make money. They also listen to their customers. Which is something that some of the trend setters and educators don't seem to comprehend. That it's all about the bottom line, and is the main reason most of us are in business............to earn a living.


IMO: No product manufacturer, paid educator, industry authors,
consultants working on behalf of, or being sponsored by a company or trade show, should be setting the standards for the industry. Their opinions will always be biased. And I include myself in the group that should have no say.
 

stcstc

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
IMO: No product manufacturer, paid educator, industry authors, [/FONT][/COLOR]consultants working on behalf of, or being sponsored by a company or trade show, should be setting the standards for the industry. Their opinions will always be biased. And I include myself in the group that should have no say.



i am not sure this is actually practical

this industry is actually very small compared to a lot of other industries. so there isnt really that big of a pool of talent to draw upon

i do get your general point though, the problem with a lot of this stuff, it isnt paid experts that develop a lot of these "standards" its volunteers, and the general issue with that is the ones who have the most knowledge are to busy running very successful businesses, the ones with plenty of time......... well you get my point


obviously there are exceptions to every rule but i belive in general things like the FATG court and the framers committee end up full of people either with an agenda or nothing better to do. its generally who shouts loudest rather than who is the best qualified
 

Rob Markoff

PFG, Picture Framing God
"Actually, Joe this is not true. You must have missed the thread where Hugh Phibbs posted that it is more important to protect art from oxidizing gasses than UV. Acrylic is porous and allows gasses to pass through. The only impermeable vapor barriers are metal and glass. Glass offers better protection for art than acrylic because it is a better vapor barrier. " Quote by Rob

Actually Rob it is true. No I didn't read the thread by Hugh Phibbs. The reason what I said is true is because I was talking about infrared - heat inside the framing package so don't try to glaze over my comments. Acrylic allows the heat to leave the package, glass retains the heat. Acrylic also allows humidity to leave the package glass does not. I'm wasn't talking about gasses entering the package, you were the one that brought that up. I would be much more concerned about art being destroyed by heat than I would be from possible gasses entering the frame package. If I am wrong why are many of the museums using acrylic now instead of glass?
Well, Joe- now you've got me in a quandary.

On one side we have Hugh Phibbs:

Hugh worked in the Conservation Division of the National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, for more than three decades, in the Paper Lab and the Department of Loans and Exhibitions. This allowed him to work with some of the leading conservators, to advance hinging, hinge-free support, deep matting, and enclosure of works on paper and panel paintings. He has taught preservation classes for the PPFA, the AIC, the conservation programs at Winterthur and at Buffalo State, The Smithsonian, The INP in Paris, The CCL in Arles, The Hermitage in St. Petersburg, The Getty in LA, and The Met and MoMA in New York. He has written for the JAIC and the Book and Paper Group Annual, and has published preservation supplements and the Practical Preservation column, in Picture Framing Magazine. He was awarded The University Products Lifetime Achievement Award and is a Professional Associate of the AIC.

He recently posted:

"It is important that most of the fading that concerns us is photo-oxiodation. That means that the reaction is caused by both light and by oxidants and the more energetic the light the more damage it can do, but rather than stress over a few percentage points of the least energetic part of the UV specturm, it may be better to focus on keeping oxidizing gases away from the displayed item. PMMA, acrylic sheet, transmits oxygen and water, both of which can enable oxidation, while glass transmits neither. Oxygen-free, anoxic, conditions are very difficult to achieve, but hypoxia, lowered oxidant loading, is a state that should be researched much more fully, to encourage safe display of works on paper."

On the other side we have you (who has never told us who you are or what your background is) saying Hugh is wrong- not only regarding the transmission of gasses but also that he is unaware that infrared "may even be more damaging than ultraviolet."

I just don't know who to believe?

I spent hundreds of hours researching my article and preparing for my class and I never learned this.

I understood that UV energy has a higher frequency than infrared and as one increases the frequency (from UV to X-rays to Cosmic rays) the potential for damage to organic matter also increases. Radio waves are part of the infrared spectrum and are all around us. Infrared has a very long wavelength and has less energy than UV. There is infrared in sunlight but we don't need protective lotions and clothing to screen us from infrared. UV is part of all light and is much harder to control than infrared. Please explain it to me scientifically because I must have skipped that chapter.

Where is this damaging infrared in a framing package coming from? How does it get there? What is causing the glass to heat up? What are the methods to control it?

You also said, "There is no way the glass companies can do anything about heat (infrared) in the framing package with a glass product so they make a super big deal about UV which is something they can do something about."

OMG - I didn't know there was a conspiracy by the glass companies to hide the fact that they can't protect art from heat. Now I am really scared. First you tell me a highly respected conservator has been misleading me and now that the glass companies are in collusion to keep me from the truth about the most potentially damaging effect on art?

Here's another factoid for your arsenal. Do you know how absorptive filtration "works"? UV energy is absorbed by the filter and dissipated as heat. So I guess you are telling me that not only are the glazing companies who use this technology duping us about protecting art but are actually harming art because they are causing the glazing to heat up.......

And now Pat says, "Guidelines and standards are only good if they are being set by an unbiased group of skilled framers who attain information based on facts, and are not just the self serving, prejudicial opinions of those who have something to gain by making their recommendations."

If you Google "joe walsh live album" you will read what it is like trying to have an intelligent conversation with the two of you.

I think you need a bigger tin foil hat so both you and Pat can fit under it.
 

Kirstie

PFG, Picture Framing God
i am not sure this is actually practical

this industry is actually very small compared to a lot of other industries. so there isnt really that big of a pool of talent to draw upon

i do get your general point though, the problem with a lot of this stuff, it isnt paid experts that develop a lot of these "standards" its volunteers, and the general issue with that is the ones who have the most knowledge are to busy running very successful businesses, the ones with plenty of time......... well you get my point


obviously there are exceptions to every rule but i belive in general things like the FATG court and the framers committee end up full of people either with an agenda or nothing better to do. its generally who shouts loudest rather than who is the best qualified
I do not get your point. There is no point here. Yes, many talented, educated framers who run successful businesses do not choose or have time to participate in industry research and discussion. I am one who has little time for any of this. We should count our lucky stars that there are people like Jim Miller, Rob Markoff, Hugh Phibbs, David Lantrip, and several more, who take the time out of thier busy days to participate in writing, research, and teaching for the benefit of our industry.

It is a shame that certain people on this thread need to belittle the work of others. This started as a simple question about glass management and continued on with a lot of educational discussion about the merits of various kinds of glass. I strongly suggest that we keep it professional in tone.
 

Mike Labbe

Member, Former moderator team volunteer
It's great that we're all so passionate about the trade, but let's not forget that we're on the same team. It doesn't have to get personal or vicious.

What makes this forum unique is the open/free exchange of information, with very little moderation. Everyone is welcome.

This thread is now getting moderator alerts, emails are flying, and folks asking for moderator action or for it to be shut down. That is the last thing I would like to see, personally.

Civility is greatly appreciated, as we are all guests here in "Bill's Home".

Thanks in advance
Mike, Moderator team
 

Pat Kotnour

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
It's great that we're all so passionate about the trade, but let's not forget that we're on the same team. It doesn't have to get personal or vicious.

What makes this forum unique is the open/free exchange of information, with very little moderation. Everyone is welcome.

This thread is now getting moderator alerts, emails are flying, and folks asking for moderator action or for it to be shut down. That is the last thing I would like to see, personally.

Civility is greatly appreciated, as we are all guests here in "Bill's Home".

Thanks in advance
Mike, Moderator team
You know Mike, it's pretty hard to have an opinion on this forum without fear of being attacked and insulted. It seems to be a trend in the industry lately. If someone doesn't like what you have to say they attack instead of debate. It's the same everytime and it's getting really old. Guess it's time for this crazy person to put on her tin foil hat and fly away from here.
 

stcstc

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
I do not get your point. There is no point here. Yes, many talented, educated framers who run successful businesses do not choose or have time to participate in industry research and discussion. I am one who has little time for any of this. We should count our lucky stars that there are people like Jim Miller, Rob Markoff, Hugh Phibbs, David Lantrip, and several more, who take the time out of thier busy days to participate in writing, research, and teaching for the benefit of our industry.

It is a shame that certain people on this thread need to belittle the work of others. This started as a simple question about glass management and continued on with a lot of educational discussion about the merits of various kinds of glass. I strongly suggest that we keep it professional in tone.

My point was and is a response to pats point, thats why i quoted here, saying that its not very practical in such a small industry to get a group of un biased experts


i didnt once point the finger at anyone, so please dont read into it something that isnt there

i also did say there are exceptions to the rule
 

Joe B

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
Rob not once did I say anything negative about Hugh Phibbs. I know his credentials and I appreciate his knowledge. I'm also not arguing about the gas infiltration point - that wasn't a point I was making. Now that you are getting personal I have nothing more to say to you - I didn't attack you even though I should have. You have yet to answer the 1 question that you were asked. As far as I'm concerned I no longer care what you have to say and I was interested in what you were saying before, you comments no longer interest me.
 

Joe B

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
It is a shame that certain people on this thread need to belittle the work of others. This started as a simple question about glass management and continued on with a lot of educational discussion about the merits of various kinds of glass. I strongly suggest that we keep it professional in tone.

OK Kirstie - tell that to Rob - he is the one slinging the CARP. We don't agree with him and he makes untrue accusations and rude and uncalled for comments. The example is about Hugh Phibbs - I said nothing negative about Mr. Phibbs and I never said he was wrong about anything, I only said I didn't read his post. How does Rob get that I said Mr Phibbs is wrong? He told Pat and me to put on a Tin Foil hat - that was just pure rude and only a rude person will make a comment like that.
 

Rob Markoff

PFG, Picture Framing God
Joe- I understand that you might not read the following, but I am posting it because unless someone repudiates the fact-less nonsense you have been posting, others might think it is true.

I will try to go point by point.

Joe B: The reason what I said is true is because I was talking about infrared - heat inside the framing package... Acrylic allows the heat to leave the package, glass retains the heat...I would be much more concerned about art being destroyed by heat than I would be from possible gasses entering the frame package.

This is simply not true. Acrylic has much better thermal insulating characteristics than glass, which is why glass condenses moisture so readily. So, acrylic would do a better job than glass in terms of slowing the transfer of heat out of (and into) the frame.

Joe B: If I am wrong why are many of the museums using acrylic now instead of glass?

Because it doesn't shatter, creating shards that shred artworks. And it's a better thermal insulator. And it is lighter-weight. And since museums are generally climate-controlled display environments, they wouldn't be concerned about getting heat out of frames, anyway. As technology advances and laminated glass becomes more accessible, I think you will find many museums will begin to use it. One of the biggest drawbacks is weight. Acrylic would allow retrofitting into many existing frames where using laminated glass might require additional engineering.

Joe B: If we are all so conservation minded we would be using UV Block Acrylic..........I'm also not arguing about the gas infiltration point - that wasn't a point I was making.

Maybe I don't understand you but I interpret this statement to mean that if conservation is a consideration, one should default to using UV Blocking Acrylic. An industry acknowledged conservator has stated that we should be concerned by oxidizing gasses. You didn't bring it up so I had to. Acrylic does not block gas. Glass does.

Let me re-post what Hugh said; It is important that most of the fading that concerns us is photo-oxiodation. That means that the reaction is caused by both light and by oxidants and the more energetic the light the more damage it can do......... My interpretation is that we need to attempt to prevent oxidants (gases such as sulphur dioxide) from entering the framing package and attempt to prevent the reaction caused by LIGHT (especially UV light because it is more energetic.) Therefore, glass gets the nod over acrylic because it is impermeable. The higher UV filtration factor, the more protection the glazing provides.

Joe B: I would be much more concerned about art being destroyed by heat than I would be from possible gasses entering the frame package.

Hugh says, "it may be better to focus on keeping oxidizing gases away from the displayed item." How is one to interpret your statement other than it is completely contrary to what Hugh said?

Joe B: Infrared may even be more damaging than ultraviolet.

Hugh said, "the more energetic the light the more damage it can do." UV light has a higher frequency (more energy) than infrared and is more damaging. Again, isn't what you are saying completely contrary to what Hugh is saying?

Joe B: There is no way the glass companies can do anything about heat (infrared) in the framing package with a glass product so they make a super big deal about UV which is something they can do something about.

Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously?

I don't agree with much of what you have posted and I do not mean to denigrate those who do. And for those who do agree, denigrate means, 'put down'.
 

Paul Cascio

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
People are passionate about their views and sometime these discussions get heated. Big deal, everyone get over it, this isn't kindergarten where where you're not even allowed to say #### without it being replace by Carp. Oh wait! And those mystery people that supposedly go crying to a moderator, if they really exist, should take their ball and go home. If you don't have the guts to express your opinion openly, then you are contributing nothing to this forum, IMO. You take, but you contribute nothing.

That's my opinion, now back to you. :)
 

Pat Kotnour

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
I don't agree with much of what you have posted and I do not mean to denigrate those who do. And for those who do agree, denigrate means, 'put down'.
If you didn't mean to denigrate then why post such an insulting comment? No one has called you names or openly insulted you like you have to JoeB and me. In no way did I ever mean to belittle anyones work (as Kristie suggests) and when I used the phrase KISS is in order here, it was only meant to make you and a few others understand that sometimes too much information can be confusing and doesn't get the point across at all. "Keep it simple stupid" is a phrase that has been used for a very long time to point out when someone is trying to make something more complicated than it needs to be. The many pages of technical information you have posted here proves that point. If your intent was to educate, you may want to review your posts because there is way to much information to keep anyones attention. If there is one thing I have learned over the past 13 years it is that framers like things simple and easy to understand.
 

RoboFramer

PFG, Picture Framing God
Green text Pat .. It means sarcasm/having a bit of fun.

Like this . .... Don't read green text through museum glass - the tint in the glass makes it invisble
 

Pat Kotnour

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
Green text Pat .. It means sarcasm/having a bit of fun.

Like this . .... Don't read green text through museum glass - the tint in the glass makes it invisble
Oh really? I guess I'm just not bright enough to figure out when Rob is insulting me or having a bit of fun. Guess my Fun-O-Meter is out of order.
 

Joe B

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
Joe- I understand that you might not read the following, but I am posting it because unless someone repudiates the fact-less nonsense you have been posting, others might think it is true.
Rob, Ok, I'm man enough to say that I was NOT correct about what I said about acrylic. I have done some reading in the last 12 hours and will admit I was way off base. My comments were based on my misinterpreting of what I read in the past. You are correct abut acrylic being a thermal insulator and glass being a thermal conductor.

What I will not apologize for is you stating I said Hugh Phibbs was not correct. I still contend that all I said about Hugh Phibbs was that I didn't read his post - nothing else, if you wanted to read more in that it is your problem not mine. I respect what Hugh Phibbs has to say and I have never had a reason to say he is wrong or disagree with him about anything.

What I didn't do was put myself down to your level by making derogatory remarks about you. You could have made constructive comments and criticisms without insulting anybody but you chose not to.

Joe B
 

Dave

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
If you wade through all the rubbish contained in this thread there is some really good information contained here. I disagree that there is too much scientific explanation. I read all of it with great interest and was able to ignore most of the bickering.

I think Kirstie said something very important some posts back... that it is our job to know and understand the various materials and techniques used in framing and educate our customers to the degree necessary for them to make an informed decision. If they desire to have us make that decision for them they are placing their trust in us and it is our duty to impartially weigh materials and methods and make choices that are the best for our clients but inform them of what the expectations will be as far as degree of preservation.

I especially want to thank Rob for his generosity in spending the time to inform us and, for the most part, refrain from hurling back the attacks. I would've thrown up my hands a long time ago.
 

Joe B

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
If you wade through all the rubbish contained in this thread there is some really good information contained here. I disagree that there is too much scientific explanation. I read all of it with great interest and was able to ignore most of the bickering.

I think Kirstie said something very important some posts back... that it is our job to know and understand the various materials and techniques used in framing and educate our customers to the degree necessary for them to make an informed decision. If they desire to have us make that decision for them they are placing their trust in us and it is our duty to impartially weigh materials and methods and make choices that are the best for our clients but inform them of what the expectations will be as far as degree of preservation.

I especially want to thank Rob for his generosity in spending the time to inform us and, for the most part, refrain from hurling back the attacks. I would've thrown up my hands a long time ago.
So Dave, are you saying it is ok for Rob to make derogatory remarks and we can not reply to those remarks? Why is there a double standard? I never told Rob to get under his tin foil hat! In fact I didn't say anything derogatory about Rob at all, I just disagreed with him. After I did more research I went back and told him he was correct and I was wrong. He was the person to say I stated Hugh Phibbs was not correct - I never said any such thing - as I said before all I said was that I did not read Hugh Phibbs post. I guess I just don't understand...
 

Rob Markoff

PFG, Picture Framing God
Thank you for posting, Joe. It is difficult to publicly admit making a mistake and I appreciate you doing so.

I have never had a reason to say he is wrong or disagree with him about anything.
I apologize for saying that you said Hugh was wrong. You did not specifically say that. But I stand by the examples I posted re: statements you made that, in my opinion, contradict what Hugh has said.

Joe B: I would be much more concerned about art being destroyed by heat than I would be from possible gasses entering the frame package.

Hugh says, "it may be better to focus on keeping oxidizing gases away from the displayed item."

How is one to interpret your statement other than it is completely contrary to what Hugh said?

Joe B: Infrared may even be more damaging than ultraviolet.

Hugh said, "the more energetic the light the more damage it can do." UV light has a higher frequency (more energy) than infrared and is more damaging.

Again, isn't what you are saying completely contrary to what Hugh is saying?

RE: The "tin foil hat." I should have made the font green. Some found the comment to be funny (as it was intended). The comment was made out of my exasperation after interpreting your comment:

"There is no way the glass companies can do anything about heat (infrared) in the framing package with a glass product so they make a super big deal about UV which is something they can do something about."

The comment, (tin foil hat) alludes to individuals who foster baseless theories, often conspiratorial in nature. You made what I thought was a baseless, almost ridiculous statement and rather than debate the statement, thought the comment would better express how I felt. I suggested that Pat joins you under the hat because of her continuing diatribe about how the "powers that be" have conspired against her because of the way her "products" have been labeled in the standards and that there is a concerted effort to thwart her opportunities to teach.
 
Sponsor Wanted
Top