• 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

Pat Kotnour

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
Of course he could, he knows the tech-spec, handling/using it won't change that.
Tell that to the framers who acually do use both types of glass, because I'm sure that they would disagree with you. The framers in the trenches who are using a product will always be a better source of reliable recomendations when it comes to buying a new product then someone who only knows specs and has never had any practical shop experience with a product. Anyone who says anything different is either not a working framer or they are a manufacturer that is so involved in marketing that they don't care what the framers think.
 
D

Dermot Cox-Kearns

Guest
Hi David,

I did some Google searches on behalf of your question, and I believe I found the answer. (or at least the one TV references with exceeding the 97% claim) The AIC also references this, and had a recent class about it.

TV referenced the 2007 revision, but it was recently updated again in 2013. I dont know what was changed, but this document is about much more than just glazing.

ISO 18902:2013 section 4.6

As far as I can tell, the sites that offer this PDF all want money to download it. I wasn't able to find the text of section 4.6, for free.

There ya go, for whatever it is worth. Apparently over $200!

Mike
Thanks Mike...

$8 here if I am correct. ..

https://www.e-standard.org/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=201062#.U6ybsUY1iBZ


I will buy it tomorrow if possible when I am in the office. ..I cannot do it tonight... a small investment in myself and the sector I work in...
 

RoboFramer

PFG, Picture Framing God
Tell that to the framers who acually do use both types of glass, because I'm sure that they would disagree with you. The framers in the trenches who are using a product will always be a better source of reliable recomendations when it comes to buying a new product then someone who only knows specs and has never had any practical shop experience with a product. Anyone who says anything different is either not a working framer or they are a manufacturer that is so involved in marketing that they don't care what the framers think.
Let's keep it simple, two cars that look the exact same, one's got a straight 4 cylinder 2 litre 180 hp engine and weighs half a ton, the other's got a V8 5 litre 500hp engine and weighs a quarter of a ton, which will get to 60 mph quickest? No need to drive them both to know the answer.
 

Kirstie

PFG, Picture Framing God
I find the tone of this "discussion" disheartening. Moderators--Can you please try to leave up at least the parts of this thread that contain a wealth of useful information for all of us to study? I fear this thread is going to be pulled in the blink of an eye. It may be time to copy the useful parts into a Word doc before it is too late.

Grow up everyone.
 

Pat Kotnour

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
There's plenty of experts here but I've never seen anyone make a claim like that!
I wouldn't have said it if it was true and I have a few thousand framers who use my methods everyday to back me up.
 

Emibub

PFG, Picture Framing God
Would it be wrong of me to say I've always recognized Jim Miller as the leading expert on mounting and shadow boxes? He has a couple of kick-### books he's written on the very subject. I'm just sayin......
 
D

Dermot Cox-Kearns

Guest
I find the tone of this "discussion" disheartening. Moderators--Can you please try to leave up at least the parts of this thread that contain a wealth of useful information for all of us to study? I fear this thread is going to be pulled in the blink of an eye. It may be time to copy the useful parts into a Word doc before it is too late.

Grow up everyone.
No no Kirstie...

This is an excellent thread...

One of the things it clearly highlights is how far more the framing industry has to go before it has the hope of having an accredited method of describing that framing has been done to a standard. ..

Thankfully the likes of Rob...has taken a keen interest in applying a certified way of conservation framing.

Unfortunately this thread has display quite a bit of "I can do it" so it must be ok method of framing. .
 

RoboFramer

PFG, Picture Framing God
I wouldn't have said it if it wasn't true
My red!

Earlier you asked if artglass had the same anti-static properties as museum glass - that question alone tells me you don't know what you are talking about regards glass in general.


Would it be wrong of me to say I've always recognized Jim Miller as the leading expert on mounting and shadow boxes? He has a couple of kick-### books he's written on the very subject. I'm just sayin......
No contest.
 

Kirstie

PFG, Picture Framing God
I find the tone of this "discussion" disheartening. Moderators--Can you please try to leave up at least the parts of this thread that contain a wealth of useful information for all of us to study? I fear this thread is going to be pulled in the blink of an eye. It may be time to copy the useful parts into a Word doc before it is too late.

Grow up everyone.
I have just copied and pasted 9600 useful words from this discussion so that I can make sure I understand all the nuances of UV filtration and the like without the distraction of various personalities who seem to enjoy bickering so much.

There is so much that I could answer on this thread, especially with respect to demeaning comments by self proclaimed experts, but I will refrain and get back to work where I belong. Note to self: Take vendor industry proclivities and personalities into account when making purchasing decisions.
 

stcstc

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
I much prefer the term preservation than conservation

the problem with this business is its quite simple while the details make it quite complex

so there are sooooooo many definitions for say techniques for example, and quite a few of them are the same thing, just named differently by different people

glass for example is one of the simpler things, i mean although we dont really know what is good enough protection, its quite simple as to which offers the most.

i really dont think a comprehensive standard actually could be written to cover all eventualities, and so what has happened is the existing standards end up not being able to describe in enough detail what should and should not be done
 

Rob Markoff

PFG, Picture Framing God
Rob, I'm quoting myself so that you can see my original post and see that in no way did I give anyone an opinion.
Oh Pat, how can I make you understand?

You said, "it would be a very good experiment." Saying something is "good" or "bad" is an opinion unless it is substantiated by facts.

You also suggested that the experimenter share their results, which I understood you to mean that the results would be meaningful and we could learn something from them - otherwise why would it be a good experiment and that the results would be important?

I am asking you why is this a good experiment? What is the potential outcome? What would the results from that outcome prove or mean?

I do not understand what you think this "very good experiment" will mean and I am asking you to explain it to me.

As an aside, where did I EVER say that I have not used ArtGlass? All I can find is my saying repeatedly that I LIKE ArtGlass. I read and re-read every post and I don't see it. Do you really think I would comment on something I have not used?
 

Pat Kotnour

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
Would it be wrong of me to say I've always recognized Jim Miller as the leading expert on mounting and shadow boxes? He has a couple of kick-### books he's written on the very subject. I'm just sayin......
I understand that Jim has some great books and is a respected educator in the indusrty.

I started Attach-EZ 13 years years ago and my educational program is the product.
There are 4 educational DVD's with 6 hours of demonstrations on them teaching framers easy, archival ways to mount just about any 3D art that could ever come through their doors that gives me the right to call myself an expert. There are thousands of framers all over the world using my methods and watching those DVD's. If that doesn't make me an expert then I don't know what doesl. I have built an entire company around my expertise in finding ways to help framers make money on labor intensive projects without doing harm. Anyone who has ever stopped by my booth at the WCAF show will tell you that I am always one of the busiest booths there, and it's not because I don't have something they need and can help them. Its because I do.
 

Rob Markoff

PFG, Picture Framing God
Pat- I serve with Jim Miller. I know Jim Miller. Jim Miller is a friend of mine. You, Pat are no Jim Miller.
 

David N Waldmann

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
TV referenced the 2007 revision, but it was recently updated again in 2013. I dont know what was changed, but this document is about much more than just glazing.

ISO 18902:2013 section 4.6
I am vaguely familiar with ISO 18902. However, the ISO is a(n) "generic" International Standards Organization, not a trade (i.e. picture framing) organization. Further, that standard is specifically aimed at "printed" media, not original art.

From the ISO website:
Abstract


ISO 18902:2013 specifies the principal physical and chemical requirements for album, storage and framing materials to prevent damage to processed or printed imaging materials over time. It covers requirements for:

paper and paperboard;
plastics;
metals;

writing instruments;
adhesives;
tapes;
self-adhesive labelling materials;
stamping inks and pads;
framing and glazing materials used as, or in the construction of, storage and display materials for black-and-white or colour reflection prints or negatives made with traditional silver-halide and silver dye bleach photographic materials; dye- and pigment-based inkjet, dye diffusion thermal transfer ("dye sublimation"), and liquid- and dry-toner electrophotographic digital prints.

That's not to say that it isn't a useable or potentially valuable standard. But it's only a standard, not a recommendation. There is an ISO standard for the determination of torque strength of anaerobic adhesives on threaded fasteners - that doesn't mean you need to use it to attach the D-rings to a picture frame simply because there's an ISO standard for it. Unless or until the PPFA or FATG say "Our standard for Conservation Framing is that a frame package must meet ISO 18902" it's not a trade association standard.

Certainly, any framer can say "Our Conservation level framing meets ISO 18902", and that means something. However it does not preclude anyone else from saying 'Our Conservation level framing has rag mats, no wood within 2" of the art, reversible mounts and protection from UV of greater than 70%'.
 

Pat Kotnour

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
Pat- I serve with Jim Miller. I know Jim Miller. Jim Miller is a friend of mine. You, Pat are no Jim Miller.
This is the one statement that you have made that I totally agree with. And I'm sure that anyone who has my DVD's and kits would agree with you as well. The truth is that I don't want to be a Jim Miller because my whole system is designed to be easy, economical, and with no harm. If it isn't fast, easy, archival, and inexpensive to do, it doesn't make it to my educational program.

I won't knock Jim. He used to be one of my best friends and promoters in the industry. I don't have his books and have only heard that they are very well written. It is true that we ARE totally different in our approach to mounting 3 D art. There's no question about that. What I find interesting though is that yourself, many of the PPFA leaders, most of the other educators, and Grumblers who always have a lot to say about standards, and what should and should not be approved, have not seen a demonstration in probably 7-10 years, if ever.

There is a reason why I'm always one of the busiest booths at the WCAF show. What you fail to realize is that I do have a lot of friends in the industry who really appreciate the innovation and methods I have created. And it's because of the other 95% of the frame shops and framers around the world who recognize it that I have managed to stay in business for 13 years with a company that was born out of nothing but my creative ideas. So you are right Rob, I am no Jim Miller. I'm Patricia Kotnour, the creator of Attach-EZ Object Mounting Systems, with EZ being the operative word, and proud of it.
 

Pat Kotnour

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
I am posting this here so as not to hijack Terry's new thread anymore than it already has been. Both Robo and Rob have made statements about the subject of static and glass that seem to be conflicting.

And glass (MG or otherwise) is not static-free, like optium; optium is static-free, like glass.
Robo you have given two different statements on the same subject. You can't have it both ways.

Re: Managing the transition from Museum to ArtGlass


Originally Posted by Pat Kotnour
is AG static free like museum glass?

Yes, and like any other glass!



Originally Posted by Rob Markoff

God help me because I can't help myself.......


You have already shown us your limited understanding of the properties of glazing products when you inquired if ArtGlass has anti-static properties "like Museum Glass." (as if Museum Glass has some magical anti-static properties that other glass products do not)


Originally posted by Pat KotnourRob, I should have addressed this back on the other thread when Robo brought it up and since you are bringing it up again I am going to tell you why I made the statement about glass and static.

When I was getting ready to do my 4th DVD TV helped me with me out with a problem. I had developed a new method of sew-less and fasten-less mounting jersey's that regular acrylic would never work on because of the static problem. The fact that the shirt is not attached in any way made it a huge problem. Since I had found out the hard way years before the start of my company that regular glass can have static issues when mounting certain types of fabrics, it was a problem that I needed to solve. Nylon can have a huge amount of static (just ask any woman who has ever worn a nylon slip) and can stick to the glass, especially in the dryer climates. Our winters are very dry and static can drive a framer crazy at times. When I was discussing this with TV we talked about regular glass and why because of my past experience that I couldn't recommend using it for this new method, they told me that museum glass has the same static free factor as Optium. They didn't dispute my past experience with regular glass, nor did they say that all glass has no static. They didn't seem to be surprised and told me that MG should not have the problem with this new mounting method because it was also static free like Optium.
Orininally I went to the source with a problem and TV gave me answers that Robo and Rob seem to have confilicting opinions about. So who should I believe? What I do know is that MG is way more static resistant than regular glass and that is exactly what TV said would be the case. Is it as static free as Optium or Static Gauard? Maybe not. But it does work much better when it comes to my new method, and becuase of the static factor I will still recommend MG over reg glass every time.

And you can be sure that when my AG arrives I will be putting it to my own tests as unscientific as they might be.
 

Jeff Rodier

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
Robo was being a clever Brit

It is like saying not all fingers are thumbs but all thumbs are fingers.

TV simply told you Museum does not have static so its properties are just the same as Optium.
 

Pat Kotnour

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
Robo was being a clever Brit

It is like saying not all fingers are thumbs but all thumbs are fingers.

TV simply told you Museum does not have static so its properties are just the same as Optium.
Clever eyh? Guess that Rob didn't get it either.
MY ancestry is mostly English but I often don't get their dry humor. It must be the wee portion of Scot and Manx that messes me up.

As far as what TV told me, I found it to be true pretaining to the suject that I called them about. My own observation and use has proven to show a much higher level of static in regular glass than in MG. Is it as good as Optium? Probably not. But it is much less expensive if money is an issue with the customer. It works for me.
 

RoboFramer

PFG, Picture Framing God
I am posting this here so as not to hijack Terry's new thread anymore than it already has been.
Why not start a new thread "Glazing (glass or acrylic) and Static"? You can still link the quotes to the other two wrecked threads and if the new thread goes the same way as those two you can no doubt manage to remind us all how fabulous you and your products are.
 

Pat Kotnour

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
Why not start a new thread "Glazing (glass or acrylic) and Static"? You can still link the quotes to the other two wrecked threads and if the new thread goes the same way as those two you can no doubt manage to remind us all how fabulous you and your products are.
I didn't see any reason to start a new thread when your first statement saying that all glass was static free was in this thread. In two different threads you made totally opposite statements regarding static and glass and all I said was that you can't have it both ways.

You know Robo, I don't believe that we have ever met, nor that you even know what I do or what my company is all about. I generally wait until someone gives me a reason to dislike them before assuming that I do. If you are attending the WCAF show, please come to my booth to meet me face to face. I will be happy to give you a full demonstration and will even bring you in early so that you don't have to fight the crowds. The only thing I ask is that you come in with an open mind and not make the assumption that you are going to hate me before you have a chance to get to know me.
 

RoboFramer

PFG, Picture Framing God
In two different threads you made totally opposite statements regarding static and glas.
No I didn't, you just read it like that - I said

... glass (MG or otherwise) is not static-free, like optium; optium is static-free, like glass.
IOW it is unusual for acrylic to be static-free and there is no point in comparing something made to be static-free with something that naturally is.

This was in answer to "is AG static free like MG"

Yes, and like any other glass!
So, in both cases I am saying that static is not a problem with any glass. I'm not saying it cannot be created though - rubbing anything up the wrong way can cause friction!

We have met BTW at WCAF 2009 - I bought a tag gun set with DVD.

.
 
Sponsor Wanted
Top