1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. WELCOME Grumblers
    Backup is now done at 3PM EDT. You may find the server down for up to two minutes at that time.

Museum Glass

Discussion in 'The Grumble' started by walknonsunshine, Mar 16, 2013.

  1. Rob Markoff

    Rob Markoff PFG, Picture Framing God

    Look at ISO 18902 and 18916. And also, the PPFA guidelines.

    With all due respect to the CCI, the publications you referenced are sadly out of date and do not even reference the most recent developments, especially in static resistant acrylic.
     
  2. FramerDave

    FramerDave PFG, Picture Framing God

    And the Image Permanence Institute.
     
  3. stcstc

    stcstc SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    rob are the iso documents easy to access anywhere? just interested to read
     
  4. Jeff Rodier

    Jeff Rodier SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    The rest of the UV spectrum

    OP3 Protection cropt-3.jpg
     
  5. RoboFramer

    RoboFramer PFG, Picture Framing God

  6. FramerDave

    FramerDave PFG, Picture Framing God

    This again? Tell you what, to save myself a bit of time let me just copy and paste my response to stcstc from the UK Framer’s Forum when he made this same tired claim:

    You make reference to the Image Permanence Institute an independent organization. Let me clarify: somewhere around 2001 the IPI established a standard for UV filtering glazing as filtering 97% or more of the UV radiation in the 300 to 380 nanometer range. Other organizations such as ISO have set the same standards. Somewhere around 2009 or 2010 TruVue gave the IPI a grant to fund publishing and distribution of A Consumer Guide for Preservation Framing and the Display of Photographic images (https://www.imagepermanenceinstitute.org/webfm_send/312).

    Just to make it clear: the Image Permanence Institute developed their standards a full ten years before TruVue provided the grant. To suggest that TruVue "bought" the standard is ridiculous.
     
  7. FramerDave

    FramerDave PFG, Picture Framing God

    Yes, interesting. A typical human eye sees visible light between 390 and 700nm range. According to this diagram the acrylic blocks a large percentage of light in the 390nm range and still a considerable percentage into the 400+ range. Isn't the supposed cast and loss of light the same reason some framers don't like Museum Glass?
     
  8. Jeff Rodier

    Jeff Rodier SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    Being acrylic it does not lose clarity like coated glass.
     
  9. Rob Markoff

    Rob Markoff PFG, Picture Framing God

    I don't understand your point, Jeff. "Clarity" has nothing to do with one's ability to see changes in color caused by altering (filtering/blocking) portions of the UV spectrum.

    Changing tracks here- I use a lot of OP 3. Many of my "collector" clients prefer acrylic because they ship their art (museum loans and auctions).

    One of the biggest lawsuits I had to defend was a customer who sued me because the signature on a basketball jersey faded despite the jersey being framed in an acrylic box fabricated from OP 3.

    Let's just say that even if you"win" (in my case I didn't "win" -because the customer brought the suit the burden of proof was upon him to prove I caused the fading by my negligence and he failed to do so) - one still has to go through the legal process which is emotionally, physically, mentally and financially draining.

    This thread is full of misconceptions regarding the effects of UV light. Fading is only one of them.

    To those who say that using a lesser UV blocking glass is "good enough" and that your client will never see the difference (in their lifetime) - what kind of mats are you using? Why bother to use virgin alpha cellulose mats? (Conservation grade)

    Seriously, they cost more than other mats that have the same facing and backing papers. The only difference is the less expensive mats have a core made from recycled alpha cellulose and have optical brighteners in them. They LOOK the same as the other boards. Your customers will probably NEVER see the effects. So why spend the money on conservation grade boards?
     
  10. Jeff Rodier

    Jeff Rodier SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    So why don't you use the even better products such as laminated glass or possibly glass that can be darkened when not actively displaying the work. Are you using cost as a factor in your decision to use a product that is good enough but not best. Do you also offer printouts that explain the clipping of the spectrum to achieve a fictitious 99% number or do you just figure a sticker puts the liability on TV even though you have full knowledge that the claims are grossly misleading.
     
  11. mlmintz

    mlmintz CGF II, Certified Grumble Framer Level 2

    I have been following this thread with great interest. I've read the posts and the attachments. I respect everyone's opinion and their rights to those opinions. What I ultimately have to believe, is that as framers, we can only rely on the data as presented to us. I am not (nor do I think anyone else on this post is likely to be) a scientist in the field of optics or physics. In fact, I don't even rise to the level of lab tech or assistant. Consequently, I will rely on the information I've been provided, counsel my clients as best I can and move forward. Until such time as I am capable of clinically assessing these products myself (ie: never) I'm going to have to go on faith and experience.
     
  12. Jeff Rodier

    Jeff Rodier SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    You can do that now. Evonik encourages framers to send them blind samples for testing. Send me a PM if you want the info.
     
  13. mlmintz

    mlmintz CGF II, Certified Grumble Framer Level 2

    I understand that. My,position though, is that we're all reliant on the results of someone else's research. This does not in any way imply that said research is faulty or not.
     
  14. Jeff Rodier

    Jeff Rodier SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    The difference is that every item gets the exact same testing conditions and includes the rest of the UV spectrum which goes to 400nm but the glass company only goes to 380. Now if you explain that the glass blocks 99% of UV without a very long disclosure you are being deceptive. Sure it blocks 99% up to 380nm but falls off the cliff past that. Every sticker I have with 99% printed on it from the manufacturer does not state that the "UV Spectrum Used Does Not Represent the Full UV Spectrum".
     
  15. Jeff Rodier

    Jeff Rodier SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    Maybe the sticker should read "Blocks 99% of 12.85% of harmful light"
     
  16. tedh

    tedh PFG, Picture Framing God

    Hey Jeff: after years of reading, contemplating, and assessing, I think the above statement nails it, but what exact percentage is correct? Is it not closer to 80% of harmful light?

    If we can get it right, I'd like to use that when I upsell.
     
  17. Jeff Rodier

    Jeff Rodier SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    Evonik can give you a full light spectrum report for the accurate percentage if you send them samples.
     
  18. mlmintz

    mlmintz CGF II, Certified Grumble Framer Level 2

    I think the two of us are going in circles,as I was not commenting on the veracity of anyone's data, but rather the fact that we are reliant on someone else's work. In this case Evonik.
     
  19. Puppiesonacid

    Puppiesonacid SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    That is the best reason to give up on UV glass all together... Its going to fade some day anyways.... ugh..

    Edited...

    Imagine selling Museum glass with all the disclaimers as to not get sued over something fading... NO one would buy it again....
     
  20. Rob Markoff

    Rob Markoff PFG, Picture Framing God

    I think many of you are missing the point. There is no such thing as "harmful" and "unharmful" light.

    ALL light is harmful.

    Jeff, I still don't understand your position. I agree that there is "confusion" regarding the blocking percentages. 99% percent of what? 92% of what?

    So what? The fact is that there are some glass products that block 97% of the UV rays within the standard spectrum range, and others that do not. There are some UV filtering acrylic products that also meet the standard and there are some (like the new product Cali is distributing) that do not.

    All this talk about misleading claims does not mitigate the fact that Tru Vue's glass has the highest filtration factor of "coated" glazing products readily available to the North American market.

    The fact that Evonik's acrylic products block more of the UV spectrum is apples and oranges in a thread that started about Museum Glass. :)

    I find it amusing that you are doing all this Evonik chest thumping when in the beginning of this thread you were referenced as the "go to" person on ArtGlass, yet you have been conspicuously quiet about that product.
     
  21. Rob Markoff

    Rob Markoff PFG, Picture Framing God

    I frame a significant amount of "collectible" art.

    Which is why, when UV filtering glazing products came out, I paid an independent testing lab to test my own "blind labeled" samples of Tru Vue's, Crescent's (yet unmarkted product - which was put to bed when Tru Vue bought the Crescent glass product in exchange for the Miller mat board line), Rohm Haas (at the time the maker of UF 3 Plexiglass), and Cyro Acrylite (before Evonik).

    The test show that ALL of the products blocked the range of UV they were supposed to do and I felt confident in recommending UF filtering glass products in addition to the proven and accepted UV filtering acrylic products.
     
  22. Rob Markoff

    Rob Markoff PFG, Picture Framing God

    Fading is only one aspect of UV damage. By the time one sees fading, significant other irreversible changes have occurred.

    "Giving up" on UV glass (or acrylic) because all light causes fading is shortsighted and foolish.....
     
  23. 05

    05 MGF, Master Grumble Framer

    The mentioning of lawsuits and 'up to standard' and whatnot reminds me, the Library of Congress' 'standard' for time on exhibition is one year on display, ten years in storage (just recently upped from 6 months/ten years).

    The conservation of glazed and framed objects is not entirely the framer's job; the owner bears lots of the responsibility as well.
     
  24. Jeff Rodier

    Jeff Rodier SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    There are several threads going on right now about similar subjects so I'm not sure what is said in which.

    You can note that I stated that Artglass and Ultra View are basically the same product and when TV ran a promo I started using the Ultra because it crushed the price of Artglass. I also mentioned that in the Water White products I have not used the UV version since I haven't had any customers willing to pay for it. I sell Museum and CC as UV filtering glass but was told by one poster that he only uses the best protection available for everything and that is when I said there are better glazing choices available and I sell what the consumer will buy.

    Why aren't companies like Schott mentioned by anybody. Why does nobody discuss the fact that there is glass that can go dark and then clear again on demand. Could it be price because if that is the case you now understand why people are using competing products to the TV line.
     
  25. Jim Miller

    Jim Miller SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    Jeff, we understand your opinion that UV filtering does not matter. We get that. But you're trying to make an unreasonable argument. There is nothing deceptive about UV filtering specifications. Every manufacturer in the framing glazing industry agrees that the range for UV filtering is 280 to 380 nanometers. Every framer should know that. Anybody who wants to know the details of any manufacturer's specifications can find the data easily online or from any supplier of UV filtering glazing.
     
  26. Jim Miller

    Jim Miller SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    The range of blocked UV radiation, 280 to 380 nanometers, is not visible. "Light" above 400 nanometer is visible, and yes, it is harmful. But blocking any of the visible light would affect visibility of whatever is behind the glazing, which is why no manufacturer wants to do that.
     
  27. Jeff Rodier

    Jeff Rodier SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    Jim I sell CC & Museum to only those customers willing to pay the extra cost. Their choice not mine.
     
  28. Jeff Rodier

    Jeff Rodier SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    Most framers have no idea that we do not include the full UV spectrum when the 99% sticker goes on the back. To go back to the liability issue since it says 99% the consumer believes 99%. In small claims court the rule is "What would a reasonable person believe". A reasonable consumer believes 99% of the full UV spectrum and not an industry preferred subset of that spectrum.
     
  29. Pat Murphey

    Pat Murphey SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    Isn't this getting a bit ridiculous. We only have so many products available in the wholesale stream. There is absolutly nothing wrong with offering the best product available within the customer's budget, relying on the reputable manufacturers claims. Upselling products that work better, both for aesthetics and conservation, is a reasonable and profitable way to run a retail business.

    Go ahead and agonize over standards and make less money, I don't care.

    :popc:
     
  30. mlmintz

    mlmintz CGF II, Certified Grumble Framer Level 2

    Here, here!!
     
  31. Jim Miller

    Jim Miller SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    Can you tell us the results of some lawsuits related to this topic of damage from UV radiation? How about just one?

    Legal liability must not be much of an issue, since there are very few lawsuits related to light and UV radiation damage at the consumer/retail framing level. But where a liability exists, I guess it goes both ways. If you tell a customer that the UV filtering standard does not matter, and the customer learns that UV filtering according to the standard actually does lessen damage to things framed, would you not be liable for failing to provide the correct information? In that case, your personal opinion could amount to misinformation.

    Your argument suggests that consumers have to make uninformed framing decisions, which is generally not true. In the absence of pre-existing knowledge, a "reasonable consumer" believes what her framer says about the benefits and limitations of UV filtering. Responsible framers inform their customers properly, and all of the information is widely available to everyone.

    You're still pushing an unreasonable argument, Jeff. There is nothing misleading about UV filtering specifications or the industry standard recommendation to filter at least 97% of UV radiation when a customer is concerned about preserving the contents of a frame.

    Of course you are welcome to tell your customers whatever you want, but if you believe the risk of lawsuits is considerable, then denegrating the industry standard seems more legally-risky than endorsing it.
     
  32. mlmintz

    mlmintz CGF II, Certified Grumble Framer Level 2

    As a follow up to Jim's post...the cross litigation between consumer, framer and manufacturer whose claims we rely on would be endless. Theoretically, we get sued, TruVue (just an example) also gets sued by the customer, we in turn sue TruVue.
     
  33. Jim Miller

    Jim Miller SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    Yes, that's probably true, but a lawsuit related to light damage probably would not stand a chance in court. Any expert witness would have to agree that damage to artwork from light or UV radiation could only be caused by environmental exposure beyond the control of a manufacturer or framer. All makers of UV-filtering glazing products publish similar, clear specifications and none of them have never claimed absolute protection from light/UV radiation damage. Moreover, informed framers would not suggest otherwise. The owner/custodian of the framing would have to accept most of the responsibility for that sort of damage in any case.

    In the past quarter-century, I have heard of only three lawsuits by consumers against framers. In all three cases, the framers were accused of damage by malpractice or neglegence, causing devaluation of collectible artwork. An actionable claim might stem from cutting the art paper, adding paint to the image, tearing, gluing, or spilling something on the image, etc.
     
  34. johnny

    johnny SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    When Jeff says "What would a reasonable person believe" he's pretty close to the mark in one respect. There is no governmental standard regarding the level of UV protection a framer would use in a protective framing package. In the absence of a governmental standard it would fall to the industry standard. And this is where Jeff's comment applies. The industry standard, in this case, would almost certainly not be 97%. The reason is because, as far as I know, there is no glass currently made that protects at 97%. That number seemed to come up when TruVue glass protected at 97%, though I don't know the source. TruVue is now higher, 99% of the given spectrum.

    The legal test for industry standard isn't what the PPFA, FACTS, or glass manufacturers say it is. The legal test is what is commonly used when selling conservation glass.

    Now, is that any glass over 92%? Or is it 99%?

    That's where an expensive legal tug and pull would ensue. And what would most likely happen is that industry experts would be called upon to give expert testimony on what constitutes the industry standard. Not as if they were scientifically tested, but instead what does the average framer reasonably consider to be a conservation glass product and why. This is where Jeff loses because the industry expert could be any of a number of people who have been arguing this stance for years and we all know where it would end up. Yes 99%, no 92%. Doesn't matter if Jeff is right or wrong.

    So in pure CYA mode a framer should probably use 99%.

    But we choose glass for many reasons. One is conservation, one is clarity. One is ease of use but since the coated glass is only more difficult for the framer to use, not for the customer to maintain, it shouldn't be a reason above conservation or clarity.

    The practical upshot is that people are arguing cross purposes. If you're trying to argue an industry standard for legal liability then you're looking for common use, what would most framers deem a reasonable product. If you're trying to argue an industry standard for best practices purposes because you're concerned about offering your customers the right product then that seems ripe for debate and I can double-#### guarantee you that your average framer hasn't the first clue of how to quantify the difference between the UV protection of the brands or what the difference between their actual numbers and 97% really means.
     
  35. mlmintz

    mlmintz CGF II, Certified Grumble Framer Level 2

    @Jim
    I totally agree. There is very little merit. i was strictly referring to the potential cam of worms that could be opened.
     
  36. Rob Markoff

    Rob Markoff PFG, Picture Framing God

    As was pointed out in my case - the expert witness brought up the concept of "curatorial care" and said that the choice of where to display the item (in an office with fluorescent lights (without UV sleeves) that were on for a substantial period of time is the owner's choice - and that my scope of work as a framer did not include responsibility for exhibition of the work- so the owner needed to bear some responsibility for the fading. Another point raised was the lack of "warranty" of the seller of the jersey and the buyer's obligation to determine the long term suitability of the ink used for the signature.

    Though as a routine matter of practice, my staff always enquires as to where the piece is to be hung and the environmental factors surrounding the best practices for display.
     
  37. Jim Miller

    Jim Miller SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    The standard is not "97%". The standard is "at least 97%". Here is the exact wording of the IPI publication:
    The actual testing was done by ISO, which is among the most reputable standards-testing agencies on the planet.

    Tru Vue's absorptive UV coating has blocked 99% since long before the "at least 97%" standard was determined by ISO 18902.

    Your insinuation that Tru Vue bought the standard suggests that IPI and ISO are both corrupt agencies, which is highly unlikely. Here's what Wikipedia says about IPI:

     
  38. Jim Miller

    Jim Miller SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    So how did ISO come up with the "at least 97%" standard? I have not found a firm answer to that question, but my guess is that the testing agency wanted to accept only absorptive UV filtering elements, which block the range of wavelengths equally at all angles of incidence. Absorptive UV filters are available from several manufacturers, in the adhesives of laminated glass, and in the dedicated UV-filtering coating used by Tru Vue.

    The optical coatings from all makers filter more UV than ordinary glass or acrylic, but those coatings are reflective, not absorptive. Reflective optical coatings block most effectively the radiation with a perpendicular angle of incidence to the surface. But as the radiation's angle of incidence changes, the blocking diminishes. Of course, the UV radiation does not come from only one or a few angles, but from an infinite number of angles, so the UV blocking potential varies significantly. It would be fair to specify the UV blocking as an average, rather than s a maximum percentage. In any case, reflective coatings could not block an absolute percentage of the UV radiation.

    I'm no lighting engineer, but that's my understanding of the difference between the absorptive and reflective blocking technologies.
     
  39. mlmintz

    mlmintz CGF II, Certified Grumble Framer Level 2

    For the record, I'm not illiterate, I can spell, and I know how to use proper grammar and syntax. "I" should be capitalized, and yes, a can not cam of worms.
     
  40. Jim Miller

    Jim Miller SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    Yes, we knew what you meant and the point was well taken.
     
  41. johnny

    johnny SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    I didn't insinuate that Tru Vue bought the standard. I insinuated that the 97% might have come about as an industry standard because the most common glass blocked 97% in the past, and that's not the case anymore. I'm not trying to be combative. I actually tried to avoid being combative but still make my points.
     
  42. mlmintz

    mlmintz CGF II, Certified Grumble Framer Level 2

    I figured you did, but I'm usually a stickler for the language and it really annoys me when I botch it up.
     
  43. Jim Miller

    Jim Miller SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    Sorry to misinterpret your insinuation, but that particular insinuation has come up before, and you seemed to be revisiting the myth.

    Can you explain what you mean by "certain protection at their 92% level"? Maybe I'm missing your point. The percentage of UV blocking is the protection, and as far as I know, ISO does not test the individual manufacturers' products.

    ISO probably tested things such as paper, art media, and related materials in order to come up with a minimum percentage of UV blocking for their standard. It is a worldwide standard and probably had nothing to do with any particular manufacturers' products.

    The manufacturers pay for testing of their own products, and for those that meet the standard, the manufacturer can claim compliance. If any manufacturer were to 'fudge the numbers', competitors would surely know it, because some makers have competitive brands tested, as well as their own products. Performance specifications are quite open among the manufacturers, actually.

    For the record, Groglass does have a product that meets the ISO/IPI standard for UV filtering. Artglass Protect filters 100% of UV, which may be why Groglass is has no interest in bashing the standard.
     
  44. johnny

    johnny SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    You caught that quick. I deleted that comment a few seconds after I posted it because I didn't want to get into a degenerative back-and-forth.

    The point of my original post was that people were bringing up lawsuit potential and confusing how industry standards would be applied.
     
  45. Jim Miller

    Jim Miller SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    Back-and-forth can often be useful, so please don't hesitate to question or comment.

    Well taken. We seem to agree that the published standard would not be much help in court.
     
  46. Dave

    Dave SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    Back around 1960 we framed some limited edition prints for a customer. UV coated glass, I believe, was an available option but rarely used in the retail framing market. These prints were framed with regular clear picture glass but rag mats and rag backing with appropriate hinging.

    Come Christmas Eve of 1978 we got a call from our customer stating that the prints were not framed to conservation standards and that he intended to sue us. When the prints were originally framed I was 5 years old. When the customer called with his timely call (Christmas Eve! My dad did not have a very Merry Christmas that year. :mad:) I was 23. I don't remember all the details of what happened afterwards but I know my dad settled out of court for $ 20,000 even though he had letters from glass and mat board manufacturers stating that at the time these prints were framed they were framed to normal industry "standards".

    My dad just didn't want the hassle and bad publicity that would result from a court case and chose not to fight the case.

    So, yes, a customer could possibly sue. People sue all the time for all kinds of warranted or unwarranted reasons.
     
  47. johnny

    johnny SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    That's really harsh. It really sucks your family had to go through that. When people are in danger of losing value and they see a scapegoat they can be really dangerous. It's a rare year that goes by where we aren't put in the awkward position of having to decline a customer's request to falsify receipts for insurance claims. No reason that customer won't turn around and do the same to us given the opportunity. We've avoided litigation, but we have been reported to the police when a customer lost his own artwork and accused us of stealing it.
     
  48. mlmintz

    mlmintz CGF II, Certified Grumble Framer Level 2

    @ Dave
    Did you dad consult an attorney? For $20k, I would be fighting pretty hard.
     
  49. Dave

    Dave SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    Not sure. I just know he didn't want the hassle and bad publicity. We were a pretty good target back then doing over a half mil a year in framing and it just wasn't worth it to him. The customer was a fairly high profile figure in town too and it would've been ugly.
     
  50. Puppiesonacid

    Puppiesonacid SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    no press is bad press :)... esp back then... who knew what conservation was but the one guy suing your family. that stinks. ugh.

    That makes me mad, that the customer got away with it. 20k isn't a little bit of money, not then nor now.
     
Sponsor Wanted

Share This Page

Wizard Ad