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