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

Museum Glass

walknonsunshine

CGF II, Certified Grumble Framer Level 2
I'm trying to find a post from the last couple of weeks or so on museum glass. It was about cleaning the glass. I thought I subscribed to the thread but it looks like the subscription disappeared on my profile. I did a search and came up with nothing.

I have 4 small pieces that I'm using museum glass on. Because of the typed writing on the glass I know which way the glass should go but to be honest I can't tell a difference either way. I called Tru Vue with some questions awhile back but no one ever returned my call.

Is there a film that should be cleaned from this glass?
I have a microfiber cloth that I use with just water and dry it with a dry microfiber cloth.
I'm not seeing the reflection control. To me it has just as much reflections as CC glass. I'm not impressed with this glass, so I must not
be doing something right.
 
888

Ylva

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
Use a special glass cleaner, water is not good enough.

Frame two pieces side by side, one with cc, one with MG and hang them in your store. Then tell me you don't see the difference. There are displays available from True Vue, which has three glass choices in one display. You WILL see the difference.

As with any glazing, there will be reflection. It is glass after all. I have used it on all my pieces in my own house, but because of certain lighting issues, I have re-done some with reflection control glass ( yeah yeah you all...bite me, I happen to think that refl control isn't so bad, but that's a whole other issue )

Always tell your customer that no matter what, it is glass, it will have reflection but this is the best we have.
 

Puppiesonacid

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
another reason I like ART glass... both sides can go up... there isn't a wrong side. Museum is hard to tell what side to put up unless you have the printed thing on it that tells you.

both scratch if you try so its not like CC where one side scratches a little and the other doesn't

so yea, no help, sorry, but Ylvas idea of putting the 3 next to each other in an example sells its self almost.

Sold another box and a half today of ART... everything that has come in has gotten it so far.

all glass glares somewhat... and if lights are right above it, it will look reflective...

the main difference is if you put it on a wall next to regular glass, you will still see the image through the glare with museum, but not really with regular or NG
 

Dave

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
4 main qualities to consider when you sell glazing for picture framing:

1.) Amount of UV protection - both CC and MG have about 97-99% protection against the most damaging spectrum of UV rays. Regular glass and uncoated water white glass have 65% or lower.

2.) Amount of reflection

3.) Amount of visible light transmission - water white glass has the highest transmission of visible light (98-99%) followed by MG and then CC

4.) Acrylic or glass? If the framed piece is going into a high traffic area such as a public building or a recreation room at home with a pool table, then I suggest one of the several types of acrylics available to framers. Which one to use depends on the 1st three factors listed above and the client's budget.

Museum glass can be cleaned with any non-ammonia cleaner but the best thing is to handle it with gloves and never have to clean it in the first place. The side with the coating goes toward the art and contrary to the last post, it does scratch easily on the coated side with the tip of a razor blade whereas the uncoated side is smooth.

Go to TruVue's website and you can order glass handling gloves and various POP display materials at no charge... or call them.
 

j Paul

PFG, Picture Framing God
When taking Jim Millers class last week on making musuem glass shadowboxes he gave a good tip trying to tell which side of the glass is which, once you have cut/cleaned off the writing. Cut the same side as you did the first time. (Not a smartalic comment either) If you look at the cut side of the glass, the side that you scored will have micro chips along its edge. Score that same side again and the reverse side goes against the art.
 

tedh

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
After my first box of Artglass, and after repeated scratching of museum glass, I will never use museum again. Life's too short.
 

walknonsunshine

CGF II, Certified Grumble Framer Level 2
After my first box of Artglass, and after repeated scratching of museum glass, I will never use museum again. Life's too short.
Please tell me more about this Artglass. Who carries it? My current supplier is LJ. I haven't seen it in their catalog. How is different/better from MG or Conservation Clear?

Thank you for the tips on how to tell which side of the glass goes toward the artwork. However, when I put the piece on the wall both looked the same. One side didn't seem to have any less reflection then the other. I'm just not impressed with MG.
 

j Paul

PFG, Picture Framing God

walknonsunshine

CGF II, Certified Grumble Framer Level 2
Use a special glass cleaner, water is not good enough.

What do you use that is effective?

I'm currently using Sprayway Glass Cleaner that is ammonia free. It streaks like crazy on the MG but great for everything else.
 

Dave

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
I prefer UltraLite glass cleaner from Frame Specialties, Inc. 800-777-3165 If you use UltaLite glass cleaner know that it comes in a concentrate. Make sure you mix with distilled water. Tap, or even bottled water, will leave streaks.


Sunshine... I can't believe you can't see a huge difference between CC and MG. Did you put the glass in backwards? Not sure if that would cause it to be more reflective...

The easiest way to sell MG is to show them side by side in the TruVue display. There is a world of difference in both clarity and reflective qualities.

By the way. If you ever need to clean the writing off either nail polish remover or acetone will wipe it right off.
 

tedh

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
Artglass is made by Groglass, I think. I just buy it from a local distributor here in Canada. I think it's a big hit in Europe. Omega is a distributor.

Neither side scratches, and either side faces the art. It is called a water-white glass, because most of the iron has been removed. There's a phenomenon with it: place it on a Bainbridge corner sample, and the color jumps. You will not get this with anything else. It is 92% uv-blocking, less than museum, but still very acceptable. It lets in more light than museum, and this is slightly noticeable.

Your waste will drop significantly. The scratching of museum glass is not good.

Jeff Rodier is a user, and he'll tell you more about it.
 

stcstc

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
nielson and LJ have recently brought out new glass in Europe

nielson is called trucolour - big sheets 1600*1100mm and its waaaaaaay cheaper than TV or artglass in europe

the LJ one is cheaper too


the trucolour handles like normal glass, cuts and cleans like it too, only thing is i hate the huge sheets!!!, but they recently introduced smaller ones 1100*800mm
 

mlmintz

CGF II, Certified Grumble Framer Level 2
As an earlier post mentioned, Tru Vue will be happy to send you a POP display. It sells MG with very little assistance. The difference is pretty clear.
As for cleaning, assuming you're wearing cotton gloves, new MG out of the box is pretty much always clean.
 

Baer Charlton

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
go get some CHEAP - - NO PERFUME hand-wash dish soap.

Wash your hands singing the A_B_C song.... twice. concentrate
on the finger tips.

When you dry your hands, you hands will be not slip as if they
are made from rubber.

With all of the oil out of your pores.... you won't leave any fingerprints.
You also won't need those stupid gloves.

A 16oz bottle of Shaklee's Basic H costs half as much as a gallon of
the purple glass cleaner.

BUT 16 drops into a gallon of filtered or sterile water.... and you have
the best glass cleaner ever.
The 16oz bottle makes 1,000 gallons of glass cleaner. You can also
drink the stuff.... or spritz your dog and watch the fleas die or jump off....
spritz you horses and the flies won't lite.

Oh, and fastest way to tell which side is which..... scrape it with a razor blade....
if it scrapes easy... that side goes out. If you scraped the side that had the
film.... go get another piece of glass.
 

neilframer

PFG, Picture Framing God
Oh, and fastest way to tell which side is which..... scrape it with a razor blade....
if it scrapes easy... that side goes out. If you scraped the side that had the
film.... go get another piece of glass.
Great tips!
If you need to scrape (scratch) the glass to see which side has the film,and we often have to do this, just scratch the very corner and you won't need to get another piece of glass. :icon11:
Baer was kidding about the "go get another piece of glass" (unless you scrape or scratch in the section of glass that will be seen and won't be hidden by the frame rabbet), but the tips are excellent.
 

johnny

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
I'm still spooked about the 92 vs. 99% UV thing so I'm still sticking with museum glass.

Hated cleaning it until I started using Frame Specialties UltraLite glass cleaner on a microfiber cloth about 18 months ago. It works on acrylic too.
 

DarthFramer

CGF II, Certified Grumble Framer Level 2
Check it out...

If you like glazing you'll be interested in this one. Check out What about Arqadia glass thread.
Darth
 

cwphoto

CGF, Certified Grumble Framer
I'm still spooked about the 92 vs. 99% UV thing so I'm still sticking with museum glass.

Hated cleaning it until I started using Frame Specialties UltraLite glass cleaner on a microfiber cloth about 18 months ago. It works on acrylic too.
When I was last talking to Greg Fremstad, inventor of frame space, and some other goodies, we were talking about glazing. Greg is rather outspoken, and has strong opinions, but is also an engineer. So, I listened when he talked about some testing he did. Back in the days of photography school for me at Brooks Institute, we were taught to test, and not just listen to hearsay. We tested everything under the sun related to photography at that school.

Greg ran off a test between conservation clear, standard glass and use then museum glass, and also covered part with a piece of aluminum if I recall correctly to use as the reference. He then put them all out in the sun to cook for 2 to 3 weeks. The artwork was then evaluated for fading. Greg said he saw virtually no difference between any of the glass! So, this is definitely a test I'm going to try myself as the weather warms up here, and we get some nice southern, intense sun. Remember that UV is just one component that fades images. I encourage others to try this test to as I'd like to see/hear the results.

So, I'm not saying anything for or against any glass. I carry standard, conservation clear and then a product called Ultra-vue
(similar to museum glass, but about 70% UV protection). There are plenty of time that artwork is really not exposed to strong UV as well, and the sun has to pass through another piece of glass to get to the artwork anyway (windows in our house). That glass has some UV protection, as virtually all glass does. Are we considering this?

So, my point is I wouldn't get overly concerned between 92 and 99% UV protection. I think we also need to consider what's being framed too, as not everything is a masterpiece that's going in the Metropolitan Museum. I do use Crescent select mats (conservation grade), which is something that's right up against the artwork, and then I also use an acid-free backing board. The wood frame that surrounds the artwork is acidic, and so is the backing paper. I guess we need to get some conservation experts here to say which is more harmful to artwork, acid or UV. Seems to me that acidic environments and products are far more harmful then UV.

By the way, a glass cleaner not mentioned is a 50% isopropyl alcohol and distilled water. It's what I use on Museum glass and works like a champ. I use the ultralite on everything else. I hate the perfume smell of the sprayway, yuck!


Troy
 

Grey Owl

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
I'm sure there are several good glasses out there but I use CC and Museum for 2 reasons.

1. Both are made in the US. They don't come from Vietnam, China, or Europe. They are not contributing to our trade deficit.

2. The standard for UV is 97%. Museum and CC exceeds the standard. Yes, I realize there is little difference between 92% and 97%, and some fading is due to the visible spectrum, which none of the glasses filter for. And some of us may have problems with the standard.....

However, if I sell something and the artwork fades, even if it is because of exposure to the visible spectrum, I'm going to have more trouble defending myself. If it gets to depositions and I did not use CC or Museum (and yes, I have been in depositions) and the attorney asks "did you even frame to Minimum standards in place at the time?" and I say "no", and he then asks "Did you know what the MINIMUM standards were at that time?" Followed by "Why didn't you tell your customer you were NOT framing to even the MINIMUM standards?" No matter what you say, you have just lost. "You can always say, "well the Customer wanted something cheaper, or wanted to view the artwork better", but we are the experts and that carries weight.


Yes, I tell my customers that all artwork will fade over time, and some will even change colors in the dark, but this (CC or Museum) exceeds the minimum UV standards for UV glazing that are in place at this time. Yes, I have clear for corporate decorative work, but I have releases in place if anyone wants to use it.
 

Hatter

True Grumbler
I'm having a hard time understanding why everyone seems to have such difficulties with TV museum glass...I never use gloves, find one side seems to consistently scratch more easily than the other (the inside), and use Premium Clean from TV to clean it, the purple stuff. Works just as fabulously as windex on normal glass. The amount of flaws in it seem to be comparable to the amount in all the other glass types. And call me crazy, but museum glass even smells better than the other types to me :D
Seriously. Open a box and take a whiff. It's glorious!
 

Hatter

True Grumbler
Oh, and Kimwipes are the way to go IMO..microfibers leave more specks than paper towels. I hate them. They get dirty, are about as absorbent as marble, come in ugly colors, and make my hands feel weird. Can I package up all the samples I've collected and send them to you guys? Haha
 

cwphoto

CGF, Certified Grumble Framer
I'm sure there are several good glasses out there but I use CC and Museum for 2 reasons.

1. Both are made in the US. They don't come from Vietnam, China, or Europe. They are not contributing to our trade deficit.

2. The standard for UV is 97%. Museum and CC exceeds the standard. Yes, I realize there is little difference between 92% and 97%, and some fading is due to the visible spectrum, which none of the glasses filter for. And some of us may have problems with the standard.....

However, if I sell something and the artwork fades, even if it is because of exposure to the visible spectrum, I'm going to have more trouble defending myself. If it gets to depositions and I did not use CC or Museum (and yes, I have been in depositions) and the attorney asks "did you even frame to Minimum standards in place at the time?" and I say "no", and he then asks "Did you know what the MINIMUM standards were at that time?" Followed by "Why didn't you tell your customer you were NOT framing to even the MINIMUM standards?" No matter what you say, you have just lost. "You can always say, "well the Customer wanted something cheaper, or wanted to view the artwork better", but we are the experts and that carries weight.


Yes, I tell my customers that all artwork will fade over time, and some will even change colors in the dark, but this (CC or Museum) exceeds the minimum UV standards for UV glazing that are in place at this time. Yes, I have clear for corporate decorative work, but I have releases in place if anyone wants to use it.
Wow! I guess I'm glad I live in Alaska. I've never had anyone in the last 21 years even remotely come close to suggesting they would sue me due to fading of their artwork. I think it's my job as a framer, and printer for that matter, to advise people what products I'm using, and to point out the various UV protection of any glass I'm selling. I can also say that any competition that I have is probably using decorative matboards. Michael's, JoAnn fabrics, and most of the local framers just use decorative matboards. The bright white core of select matboards is a dead giveaway vs the cream color of decorative, and I just don't see conservation board being used. So, yeah those are acid-free, but hardly archival. Better glass may or may not help. For true conservation I am going to go to a rag mat anyway, and if someone's going to pay for that, then it goes without saying they're going to buy and use museum glass or CC.

I can say I feel much better about the Giclee's I produce using 100% pigmented ink on 100% cotton rag paper or canvas that is varnished with the proper coating, and that has been tested. Yes, even an authority like Henry Wilhelm many people have questioned, and he does a lot of the testing. Yes, certain ink and paper combinations will last 100 years, and that paper will probably fall apart long before it fades. Unfortunately a lot of the accelerated aging does not, and cannot, factor in everything that's going to contribute to the degradation of artwork.

So, I will go by current standards and advise people as to what is published out there, but I also doubt a UV glass that filters 92% vs 97% is going to amount to a visible difference given all the variables that cause artwork to degrade.

When you throw something out in the sunlight for three weeks behind glass of all different types, and they still fade to about the same degree, hmmm what does that tell you? Do you believe your eyes or the published data? Most testing is done in a very precisely controlled environment. It does not account for things like ozone for example. I have one paper I use in the shop here that is highly susceptible to ozone. It turns the paper yellow within weeks, yet is rated over "72 years before noticeable fading can occur" by Wilhelm research. We have millions of prints that were produced by one hour photo labs. Do you really think those shop owners paid super close attention to whether their stabilizers were fresh? I worked at several, and can tell you quality control was kind of lax. I worked in quality control in a large Los Angeles photolab for a number of years, so I could tell you some stories.

The custom labs of the time were fairly conscientious, but the largest part of the market was an amateur one, and I see photos that are less than 10 years old that are already starting to fade. I see artist coat masonite boards, that are loaded with glues/formaldehyde etc. Yeah, they claim the gesso coating isolates the art from the backing--okay maybe, maybe not. How about all those fumes from cleaning products you use for your bathroom and kitchen, or the leftover fumes from that T-bone you ate or cigarette you smoked, etc. etc.

These are but a few example. There are all kinds of variables out there, yet were going to be adamant about differences between 92 and 97% UV. I wonder how consistent the coating is on glass, yet another variable. I just got a batch of studio molding in last week that smells horrible. I have no idea what's in the finishes, but my sinuses are not happy, so I can only imagine what that stuff does to artwork as it outgases 2" away. I'm sure that extra 5% UV protection will take care of it though.

Troy
 

Puppiesonacid

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
However, if I sell something and the artwork fades, even if it is because of exposure to the visible spectrum, I'm going to have more trouble defending myself. If it gets to depositions and I did not use CC or Museum (and yes, I have been in depositions) and the attorney asks "did you even frame to Minimum standards in place at the time?" and I say "no", and he then asks "Did you know what the MINIMUM standards were at that time?" Followed by "Why didn't you tell your customer you were NOT framing to even the MINIMUM standards?" No matter what you say, you have just lost. "You can always say, "well the Customer wanted something cheaper, or wanted to view the artwork better", but we are the experts and that carries weight.
I guess you couldn't prove where they had it hung or how much sunlight was on it. Unless they did... and had it under a veil for 99% of every day.

Its almost like someone suing you over them buying ice cream from you, and it melted when they left it in their hot car for an hour before eating it. But Judge, the ice cream man never told me it would melt...

I think its funny what we all just assume, and what we don't. Not sure why people don't assume light fades things... to me it was obvious before framing, by how paint fades, or signs fade in the light over time.
 

FramerDave

PFG, Picture Framing God
When I was last talking to Greg Fremstad, inventor of frame space, and some other goodies, we were talking about glazing. Greg is rather outspoken, and has strong opinions, but is also an engineer. So, I listened when he talked about some testing he did…

Greg ran off a test between conservation clear, standard glass and use then museum glass, and also covered part with a piece of aluminum if I recall correctly to use as the reference. He then put them all out in the sun to cook for 2 to 3 weeks. The artwork was then evaluated for fading. Greg said he saw virtually no difference between any of the glass! So, this is definitely a test I'm going to try myself as the weather warms up here, and we get some nice southern, intense sun. Remember that UV is just one component that fades images. I encourage others to try this test to as I'd like to see/hear the results.
I don’t think this is a test that any glass has a chance of passing because picture framing glazing was simply never meant to work that way.

First, framed artwork was never meant to be put in direct sunlight, much less being put out to cook for weeks at a time. Direct outdoor sunlight is much more intense than anything that should ever be encountered in real-world display conditions.

Second, all light fades, not just UV. When you get light that is intense enough (like you would have with direct sunlight) all the other wavelengths of light will be intense enough to cause fading.

This test is like crash testing cars at 225MPH into a masonry wall and concluding that seat belts don’t work.
 

Jim Miller

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
...Museum is hard to tell what side to put up unless you have the printed thing on it that tells you.
If you need to scrape (scratch) the glass to see which side has the film,and we often have to do this, just scratch the very corner and you won't need to get another piece of glass.
There is no need for the writing on the edge, or to scratch the glass at all. Just look at one of its edges.
 

Attachments

Jeff Rodier

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
I've been reading all of the different threads without time to respond so I will mention some things here in this one since it seems most are reading or participating in all of them.

Water White glass such as Artglass and Ultra Vue is low iron glass. Look at the edge of glass and you see the green edge on standard/CC or on low iron it is lacking any color and referred to as water white. Due to the low iron content it has less reflective particles in it and that is why it becomes low reflection and much better clarity which is why colors are more vibrant. Water white glass is most often made in the 2mm which is no more difficult to handle than single strength 2.5mm.

As far as getting sued you would need to make claims such as 99% protection without qualifying that statement. The comment about standards that was made is a non-issue unless you made a claim that you were using something other than the product delivered. Just like if you get in an auto accident and are harmed because you drove a Chevy that does not offer the same level of protection as a Mercedes. If selling a less expensive product to a consumer could get you sued there would only be a small number of consumer products in the entire country or world.

The largest risk of a lawsuit in this industry would be the use of the word "Client" for your customers. In most cases the word "Client" refers to someone you have a specific legal relationship with. In most cases the word "Client" is found in an industry which requires licensing and gov't regulation. Using the word "Client" can create an implied relationship which can be used against you in a future dispute. Show the different products and use the one the customer chose to pay for and there is no liability as long as there were no false claims made. A 99% protection sticker has more liability attached to it than using generic clear glass which makes no protection claims. The sticker does not explain that the full UV spectrum was not used in the testing. The sticker also does not explain that UV light is only a small range of harmful light. It is also very possible that the difference between 92% and 97% is that the 92% manufacturers are testing the full UV spectrum when the other only tests a portion of that spectrum.
 

framah

PFG, Picture Framing God
Great tips!
If you need to scrape (scratch) the glass to see which side has the film,and we often have to do this, just scratch the very corner and you won't need to get another piece of glass. :icon11:
Baer was kidding about the "go get another piece of glass" (unless you scrape or scratch in the section of glass that will be seen and won't be hidden by the frame rabbet), but the tips are excellent.

Whenever I cut a piece of Museum glass and the left over piece doesn't have the lettering on it, I take a dry erase marker and make an X on the side that goes towards the art. That way, the next time I need a piece, I know which side is which.

I always seam the edges and then just use Glass Plus to clean it. You need to flood the glass to get it clean without any streaks. If you keep getting streaks, this is the reason why.

The only time I get finger prints on glass is if I just ate french fries and didn't wash my hands. My hands are so dry that I don't leave finger prints on glass.
 

Jeff Rodier

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
I clean Museum with a terry cloth shop towel and it cleans as easily as any piece of glass (a few seconds per side). I use Sprayway just the same as all my glass.
 

MnSue

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
a great tip (from a long time ago on TG)
is to take a sheet of BLACK FC

-grid dot it with felt pads (not plastic/vinyl pads - as they will leave "dots" on the MG)

-place the MG glass (or any other) on the felt pads

the "issues" will become obvious, and you can rotate the FC to check the glass from other angles
-flip glass and as needed....


love it!
 

kuluchicken

MGF, Master Grumble Framer
I'm trying to find a post from the last couple of weeks or so on museum glass. It was about cleaning the glass. I thought I subscribed to the thread but it looks like the subscription disappeared on my profile. I did a search and came up with nothing.

I have 4 small pieces that I'm using museum glass on. Because of the typed writing on the glass I know which way the glass should go but to be honest I can't tell a difference either way. I called Tru Vue with some questions awhile back but no one ever returned my call.

Is there a film that should be cleaned from this glass?
I have a microfiber cloth that I use with just water and dry it with a dry microfiber cloth.
I'm not seeing the reflection control. To me it has just as much reflections as CC glass. I'm not impressed with this glass, so I must not
be doing something right.
Please could someone explain to me how one subscribes to a thread? I'm not sure how to do it.

Thanks
 

Pat Murphey

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
Just mail me a check and I'll take care of it for you...

...Kidding - subscribe means that you posted to the thread... ...I think.
 

Grey Owl

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
As far as getting sued you would need to make claims such as 99% protection without qualifying that statement. The comment about standards that was made is a non-issue unless you made a claim that you were using something other than the product delivered. Just like if you get in an auto accident and are harmed because you drove a Chevy that does not offer the same level of protection as a Mercedes. If selling a less expensive product to a consumer could get you sued there would only be a small number of consumer products in the entire country or world.
.
Jeff, the Chevy vs the Mercedes example is not appropriate because both meet the minimum standards, eg seat belts, side impact, etc.

I have been involved in two separate depositions, in another industry, and have testified in a court case. In my opinion, there was no basis for these suits (and the plaintiffs did not win) but I did find out a lot about our legal system (it is not a justice system). First one sues, and then one takes depositions to try to identify a basis for such a suit. Then if you don't get a settlement even if there is no basis you go to court. If after a few days of testimony, and you take an informal survey of the jurors, you basically withdraw the suit by getting agreement from the defendant to not counter sue if you stop the court proceedings.

With glass we now have minimum UV standards. Therefore, because of my past experience with our legal system, (again, not a justice system) I will only carry glazing that meets these standards. If someone wants other glass,(which I have for commercial accounts) i have them sign off that the glass does not meet minimum uv. glass standards for framing but is considered as acceptable for decorative purposes.

You can do what you want. I don't want the face possibility, even if it is very - very remote.
 

Jeff Rodier

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
99.999999999999999% of all glass used in framing does not meet that so called minimum standard.

In 34 years of framing and all of the theoretical potential lawsuits I have never seen or heard of one that had actually occurred. We are retailers that sell various levels and price points of materials. Call your customer a client and you set yourself up for a lawsuit. Create your own disclaimers and you set yourself up for a lawsuit and open the potential for practicing law without a license.

Since there is no gov't regulation of picture framing standards there is no minimum standard for UV filtering in glass. If there was a true minimum for UV filtering properties it would be lower than what is used by trade associations because the manufacturers would not be able to create a fictitious range for which they conduct tests.
 

tedh

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
With glass we now have minimum UV standards.
Russ: I don't think this is correct. We don't have a professional body authorized by statute to set standards that all accredited (?) framers must adhere to. One company doesn't have any authority to set a standard.

But I think you are correct that some day a framer will be successfully sued by some legal smart alec whose print faded.
 

Jeff Rodier

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
But I think you are correct that some day a framer will be successfully sued by some legal smart alec whose print faded.
....and an attorney who is one minute into practicing law will ask this question and win the counter claim - "Did you choose the less expensive option or tell your framer that money is no object when it comes to protecting your artwork".
 

Grey Owl

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
Russ: I don't think this is correct. We don't have a professional body authorized by statute to set standards that all accredited (?) framers must adhere to. One company doesn't have any authority to set a standard.

But I think you are correct that some day a framer will be successfully sued by some legal smart alec whose print faded.
ISO standard 18902 applies to the storage of products such as paper, and as such, includes a UV minimum for glass. I know the Tru-Vue website gives the exact ISO standard reference. Yes it is an international Standards Organization, and they have all kinds of standards for other things too. {I have not read all of this specific standard}.

It does not say that anyone have to adhere to these standards, it just says these are the minimum standards.

So, based on my experience being in depositions, testifying in court, being on boards, etc., I believe that all of a sudden, because it is a minimum standard, if someone believes you have harmed them and you did not follow the international standard, they no longer have to prove that you harmed them, you have to prove that you did not have to follow the standard because of unusual circumstances. This burden of proof is on you. I'm not saying this is right, I'm just saying this is what I believe, based on our Legal system. It may not be just, but it is legal.

The nice things about standards is that as long as you meet / exceed standards you have a legal basis for protection. If you don't exceed, then you have potential problems.

For all other framers, they can use the glass they want, but for me I will only use those that meet the ISO standards, or have documentation saying they were not used because of the specified circumstances.

Sitting for 4 hours in a deposition, where two opposing attorneys are yelling and asking you all kinds of questions, and you cannot refuse to answer, because if something cannot legally be asked, that is determined after the deposition, can be exhausting. And I have done this a few times. I'm getting too old for this now.
 

shayla

WOW Framer
sunshine, I used Sprayaway the first couple years I worked at this shop, and I know a lot
of people are happy with it. But having to breathe it really started to bother me. It got to
the point where someone else could be using it and just having to walk past, my sinuses
and lungs would be bothered. Fast forward about ten years to a couple years ago when
Baer wrote about using BasicH. I went to my Shaklee lady, bought a bottle and it's worked
great. I like knowing that my glass cleaner is so safe I could wash vegetables in it, and
it works fine on the glass. I'm careful to only use a few drops, like he said.

Also, as we all know that sometimes there are scraps of glass left with no lettering, it
does come in very handy knowing the razor blade scratch test. It's easy to do this on
either an edge that will be cut off or inside where the frame lip will cover. Too, when
looked at from the side, the coated side will have a bit of a ripple to it, while the other
side will just be smooth. You can also breathe on the glass. The side with no coating
will show even steam, whereas the side with the coating gets blotchy. I used to tell
our helpers that the coating always goes on the inside, but then TruVue did that
insane thing with Conservation Reflection Control (which I rarely use), where they
both made the coating less even and put it on the outside of the glass. Go figure.
Thankfully, they only did it with that type.
 

Puppiesonacid

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
Ill see it later, but a plexi company has come out with many pages explaining why the Tru Vue results are false and that their glass is not really 99%.

of course... yea... we know what the motivation is... but of course UV plexi is better for UV protection then glass over all anyways.
 

Jeff Rodier

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
I have the brief PDF from Evonik which shows why the standard numbers used only go to 380nm and I would be happy to e-mail it if you send me a PM. They encourage you to send them samples to get results of the current products being used by framers. I wonder how many framers explain the fine print attached to the 99% sticker on the back. We know there are better products available and yet feel legally protected using the glass that has a sticker with a random number on it.

Now the only question is which of the better products to use. Does the glass now cost the customer $1,000 to be sure we are covered. Maybe a $5,000 lite of glass is the best protection so we should be using that. The customer should have no say in what they buy if they walk through the door of the independent frame shop. We can just pre-authorize their credit card for $20 Grand and let them know the final tally once we are done.
 

walknonsunshine

CGF II, Certified Grumble Framer Level 2
Please could someone explain to me how one subscribes to a thread? I'm not sure how to do it.

Thanks
Just above the post on any page is a menu "Thread Tools". When you click on this it will give you a drop down menu one being "subscribe to thread".
I thought this was for archiving in my profile threads I wanted to save. However it doesn't look like that is the case. So I'm not sure how it works.
 

Artrageous

PFG, Picture Framing God
Please could someone explain to me how one subscribes to a thread? I'm not sure how to do it.

Thanks
Once you post on a thread you are automatically subscribed to it.

To see what threads you have subscribed to, click on 'quick links' and then click on subscribed threads. You can delete your subscription there as well.
 

cwphoto

CGF, Certified Grumble Framer
Not sure why when I click "reply with quote" it's not working. Hope this message makes sense as a standalone message.

Sorry Dave, I respectfully disagree. Putting prints out in sunlight is the equivalent of doing accelerated aging. Henry Wilhelm, the conservation expert, puts prints through a series of accelerated aging test by intensifying the effects of light-- It's the same difference. While not quite as scientific, the effects are relative. That is to say all the samples would undergo the same accelerated aging. If there is a difference to be seen in the type of glass, it would most certainly be evident. A person could check these every couple of days or whatever time interval seemed appropriate. The idea would be to see which glass fails first. I actually ran off a series of test when pigmented inks first came out for giclee' this way. The difference was night and day between dye-based inks and pigment. Most of these tests are based on some type of interpolation, using known materials as a standard.

I am still going to instruct my customers as to minimum standards, but if anyone here is going to tell me that a 5% difference in UV protection is really going to make a measurable difference, well.. Let's just say I have my doubts. Considering all the variables involved in print degradation, I just don't think it's a good argument.



Troy
 

shayla

WOW Framer
But since heat alone can cause fading, it seems to me that trying to identify fading
as resulting from UV (or some other light in the spectrum) alone, rather than also
from thermally induced results would be a slippery fish to grab.
 

Jim Miller

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
Putting prints out in sunlight is the equivalent of doing accelerated aging....If there is a difference to be seen in the type of glass, it would most certainly be evident. A person could check these every couple of days or whatever time interval seemed appropriate. The idea would be to see which glass fails first.
Even if the UV radiation could be completely eliminated from the sunlight, all of the glazing test samples would fail quickly and the differences among them would be minimal, perhaps not even measurable. Sunlight provides the most intense radiation in all visible and invisible wavelengths, and its destruction can not be duplicated by any artficial light source. UV radiation is only one of the destructive components in sunlight.

Typical office lighting is designed to provide about 80-100 lumens for reading-task areas. Typical lighting in a residential display area is usually about 30 to 60 lumens. The controlled lighting in museums is usually limited to about 5 to 15 lumens at the artwork surface, and could be nearly dark in other areas of the room.

On a sunny day, you can often measure 10,000 lumens outside, at least 100 times more intense than normal display lighting. So full-sun exposure would not be reasonable for testing of glazings, inks, art media, or anything else related to framed art intended for indoor display. Yes, full-sun testing of UV filtering glazing would be something like testing car bumpers by crashing them into a stone wall at 100 MPH.
 

Jim Miller

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
...The customer should have no say in what they buy if they walk through the door of the independent frame shop. We can just pre-authorize their credit card for $20 Grand and let them know the final tally once we are done.
Whatever you're smoking, you should have brought enough for the rest of us. :faintthud:
 

Rob Markoff

PFG, Picture Framing God
As long as you are tossing out specs- be sure you consider the methodology of UV blocking.

Absorbsion blocking is not incident restrictive. It blocks UV light from all angles of incidence. So when Tru- Vue states 99% UV blocking it is across all angles that light may hit an object. It is uniform blocking.

Reflective technology only blocks UV @ 92 percent when the angle of incidence is at 90 degrees. However, light strikes an object from many angles. When struck from angles less or greater than 90 degrees, the UV blocking capabilities drop to as low as 87 percent.

By the time you see damages caused by UV light, substantial changes have occurred that are not visible and can contribute to the degradation of what the light has struck. Light damage is cumulative and irreversible. It isn't just art that is effected. As I just had yet another "procedure" on my arm - and the doctor has told me that I could spend the rest of my life in a cave and the UV damage will continue to manifest itself.......

Regardless of one's personal beliefs, "x" percentage is "good enough," current standards state that to be considered "conservation/preservation" grade framing, the UV blocking must be at least 97%.
 

realhotglass

MGF, Master Grumble Framer
When I was last talking to Greg Fremstad, inventor of frame space, and some other goodies, we were talking about glazing. Greg is rather outspoken, and has strong opinions, but is also an engineer. So, I listened when he talked about some testing he did. Back in the days of photography school for me at Brooks Institute, we were taught to test, and not just listen to hearsay. We tested everything under the sun related to photography at that school.

Greg ran off a test between conservation clear, standard glass and use then museum glass, and also covered part with a piece of aluminum if I recall correctly to use as the reference. He then put them all out in the sun to cook for 2 to 3 weeks. The artwork was then evaluated for fading. Greg said he saw virtually no difference between any of the glass! So, this is definitely a test I'm going to try myself as the weather warms up here, and we get some nice southern, intense sun. Remember that UV is just one component that fades images. I encourage others to try this test to as I'd like to see/hear the results.

So, I'm not saying anything for or against any glass. I carry standard, conservation clear and then a product called Ultra-vue
(similar to museum glass, but about 70% UV protection). There are plenty of time that artwork is really not exposed to strong UV as well, and the sun has to pass through another piece of glass to get to the artwork anyway (windows in our house). That glass has some UV protection, as virtually all glass does. Are we considering this?

So, my point is I wouldn't get overly concerned between 92 and 99% UV protection. I think we also need to consider what's being framed too, as not everything is a masterpiece that's going in the Metropolitan Museum. I do use Crescent select mats (conservation grade), which is something that's right up against the artwork, and then I also use an acid-free backing board. The wood frame that surrounds the artwork is acidic, and so is the backing paper. I guess we need to get some conservation experts here to say which is more harmful to artwork, acid or UV. Seems to me that acidic environments and products are far more harmful then UV.

By the way, a glass cleaner not mentioned is a 50% isopropyl alcohol and distilled water. It's what I use on Museum glass and works like a champ. I use the ultralite on everything else. I hate the perfume smell of the sprayway, yuck!


Troy
Hi Troy, that is a BAD test for comparing fading . . . all art will fade (in general) at the same rate due to the intensity of IR and visible light present in direct sunlight.

I did LOTS of such testing / fading of samples for my clients (framers who bought the then Guardian Inspiration clear etc), and apart from newspaper fading (only 10 - 1 5 mins outside) we did all ours just inside the workshop doors, in strong light, but not direct sunlight.
It took a while, about 2 weeks, we often used printed pics from biz bubble jet printer as the inks faded faster with UV.

FWIW, I agree with you though about negligible difference between 92% and 99%, and no, I'm not associated with Groglass / Artglass at all.
 
Sponsor Wanted
Top