1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. The board will be closed after the daily backup on Thursday 8/22/2019. The site will reopen about 12 hours later.

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

Problem Tru Vue Conservation Clear

Discussion in 'The Grumble' started by neilframer, Aug 12, 2011.

  1. neilframer

    neilframer PFG, Picture Framing God

    Opened a fresh box of 24 x 36 Tru Vue Conservation Clear today.
    Took out the first lite and there was a weird scratch in the uncoated side all the way down the 36" side. It looks like it was made by a wheel or something in the conveyor system during manufacturing.
    It's not a single line but more like this ******************** .
    I took out the next lite and, same thing.
    I opened the other box that we also just got in and took out the first lite and, same thing.
    I can only assume that it's all bad and I'm not going to pull out every piece.
    The boxes each had #208113 stamped on them. I'm returning for replacements. Anyone else come across this?
    I've never seen 2 whole bad boxes like this before. :popc:
  2. wendy lang

    wendy lang CGF II, Certified Grumble Framer Level 2

    Tru-Vue's QC has been "spotty" at best lately. We keep getting scratched lites fresh from the box and huge black ink over-sprays from the printed "score on other side" notices along the edges.


    The Art Corner
    Salem, MA
  3. neilframer

    neilframer PFG, Picture Framing God

    I've had the over spray problem before also, but at least I can wipe that off with a little acetone. Can't wipe off the scratches.
  4. Jerry Ervin

    Jerry Ervin PFG, Picture Framing God

    It can be that way when you have no competition.

    In my area, every distributor carries their product.
  5. free2beme

    free2beme CGF, Certified Grumble Framer

    I have only had problems with the conservation reflection control being streaky, like the non glare coating was sprayed on unevenly. Had three boxes of that about two years ago and I stopped carrying it and switched to AR and museum only for non glares, people didn't seem to mind!
  6. Puppiesonacid

    Puppiesonacid SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    I get bubbles once in a while... quite a bit lately actually, i just save the piece till i have something smaller to use it on.

    haven't seen the scratches yet, must be a new thing.
  7. Ylva

    Ylva SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    Well...when you try to tone down a high glossy photo; the conservation reflection control still works better.....

    Have not seen any problems here so far.
  8. Bob Doyle

    Bob Doyle SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    Well just look on the bright side. They came out with nice new blue stickers :)
  9. wvframer

    wvframer MGF, Master Grumble Framer

    Let your distributor know. TV is usually quick to replace the glass. They usually just credit it to the distributor so you get the replacement right away. It is rare, but I have seen it before.
  10. Ylva

    Ylva SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    Don't tell me that you LIKE THEM????? Give me back the silver MG stickers!!!!!!!
  11. Bob Doyle

    Bob Doyle SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    I want the ones on the roll from way back when :)
  12. Ylva

    Ylva SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    I'm not that old yet.....

    I am going to print my own....don't like the new ones whatsoever.
  13. Bob Doyle

    Bob Doyle SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    Just don't use them. I rarely stick them on anymore. I used to when regular glass was my default. But now it's the rare piece that gets "glass", and then usually it is Non Glare. I have a few customers that really "demand" non-glare.
  14. wendy lang

    wendy lang CGF II, Certified Grumble Framer Level 2

    I've taken a sheet of the blue and white stickers with the cleaning instructions and printed them on 8 1/2"x11" single sheet sticky labels from Staples, then sliced them apart, so I can still use them ad infinatum. The new blue HUGE stickers are in the trash!

    I'd opt for the silver and blue ones, too, if they still existed. Our shop stickers were designed with them in mind! Too bad Staples or Avery don't make a single sheet sticky label in silver. Hmmm...could have them custom printed, but why go to that expense?

    The Art Corner
    Salem, MA
  15. jim_p

    jim_p SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    I actually came up with a new shop label on 2"x4" shipping label stock; one side is my shop logo and contact info, the other is a slightly-reduced version of the old blue-and-white Tru Vue label.
  16. monkey

    monkey CGF II, Certified Grumble Framer Level 2

    Is there an alternative supplier for UV Glass?

    I'm getting annoyed with True Vue too, getting a lot of quality issues these days. From dirty glass to bubbles to scratches. I just don't have time to keep calling my vendor for replacements.

    Quality has gone down over the years while price has gone up. Instead of spending money on all of these marking gimmicks like secret shopper, I wish they would put that money towards improving their products. when they switch to the white stickers it didn't even mention 99% uv proctection.

    Is there another brand of UV glass besides Tru Vue? Wonder if Art Glass makes UV glass.

    I tried Art Glass's Anti-Reflection glass (non-UV) for the first time and it's so much easer to handle than Tru Vue. So So So much easier to clean. I'll be switching over to Art Glass.
  17. wendy lang

    wendy lang CGF II, Certified Grumble Framer Level 2

    ArtGlass makes a UV! It is claimed 92% UV filtering--though WHICH UV rays are ANY of them blocking? A or B? Makes a BIG difference! As I often tell my clients, true fade prevention means storing your art in a drawer or closet.
    Tru-Vue claims 99% for Con Clear and Museum; ArtGlass UV is 92%. I say: what is 7% among friends? We frame alot of valueable art and museum quality stuff. Using Art Glass UV. We also reccommend keeping your art away from "aggressive" light--florescent bulbs and sunlight. Museums do not have strong lights in their galleries. AND they are using GLASS on oils! Don't know what brands they are using, but they are using it.

    The Art Corner
    Salem, MA
  18. osgood

    osgood SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    UV light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum, which is a logarithmic scale.
    Small increases or decreases mean quite dramatic changes and this is important when considering blocking percentages of glass. (Thanks for explaining this to me in Sydney, Rob Markoff)

    7% is a much greater difference than us non-scientists think.
    I want as much UV protection as I can get, and would not settle for 92%.
  19. Jeff Rodier

    Jeff Rodier SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    But would you settle for 46% which is the protection you get from 99%.
  20. RParrish

    RParrish PFG, Picture Framing God

    Don't get me started on the new stickers!!!

    It says for Museum Glass "You have chosen the best...blah blah blah....".
    So when they can only afford Conservation it makes it seem like they did not make the best choice or I did not offer them the best...

  21. Bob Doyle

    Bob Doyle SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    Don't use the sticker :)

    If your motor oil came with stickers in the box would you plaster them on your car?

    If McD's put stickers in the happy meals would you place them on your waist line? (OK, but would you do it every time :))

    The only sticker that "has to" go on your frame jobs are the ones with your name and number on them, the rest are just "banner ads". If you like them, use them; if not, don't. If they have a purpose beyond advertising for your supplier use them, if it's only an ad use it only if you want to.

    But seriously, as to the "sticker, not opinion" part of your comment; ithe sticker is advertising for TruVue, of course it's gonna have boasts and fluff associated with it :) Your advertising doesn't just say Frame shop, it says why the customer should want you over all others.
  22. Jeff Rodier

    Jeff Rodier SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    ...or be honest by saying that the framer sorted through 6 lites to find one without flaws, cut it and then found another flaw starting the process all over again.:shrug:
  23. osgood

    osgood SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    You will have to enlighten me about this calculation, Jeff.

    As far as I know Tru Vue has the highest protection available in Australia. That's why I use it!
  24. Jeff Rodier

    Jeff Rodier SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    All blocking figures are based on a very small sample of harmful light. 99% of UV equals 46% of the enire spectrum.

    I have had many customers bring a piece with CC in to have work done. Many framers are not educated about what they are selling or just less than honest. The artwork still fades but the customer is lead to believe it won't.
  25. Pat Murphey

    Pat Murphey SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    I don't know where you get your glass, but that characterization is absurd. I buy Tru-Vue, primarily Museum and CC, from LJ and is is very rare that I find any flaw.
  26. johnny

    johnny SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    Don't use the stickers. I only keep some around for customers that demand them. Believe it or not that's happened. Rarely, but it has.

    They are negative. How would you like to go to a car dealership and buy a mid-priced car for $22,000 and have the salesman say "Here you go! Thanks for buying a car that's not as good as these other ones!"

    When you customer takes the project home and is looking at it, its all about them. They don't need to be reminded that they didn't get the best. It can be disenchanting. Why would you put something that serves no real purpose on there that has that effect. Plus, if they put it in direct harsh sunlight for a good while and it does fade that sticker is just going to #### them off further.
  27. Jeff Rodier

    Jeff Rodier SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    Flaws in Museum are the primary reason I don't promote it. The last box had over a dozen flaws on 5 lites out of 16.

    I have seen many pieces of museum glass used by other frames and have found that my quality standards are very unrealistic when compared to competitors.

    My generic clear glass (not TV) is more along the lines of 1 flaw per 25 cases. In pricing I have to assume a flaw rate of about 50% w/ Museum and can sometimes cut around it. How do I price for time and additional glass used.
  28. Jim Miller

    Jim Miller SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    What size of Museum Glass comes 16 lites to a box?
  29. Jeff Rodier

    Jeff Rodier SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

  30. FramerDave

    FramerDave PFG, Picture Framing God

    So what you're saying is that UV light is only a very small part of the spectrum, and all light is damaging? If so, then yes, you're entirely correct. But what needs to be mentioned is that UV is the most harmful portion of the spectrum, but also the one most easily controlled.

    Visible light is also harmful, but we framers don't exactly have much control over where a customer hangs her artwork, now do we? Do you really think they would pay attention if we advised that the art should be displayed in the dark, or that an opaque sheet be placed over it when not on view?

    Heat (infrared) is also harmful, but again how much control does the framer have over that? Very little. How much control does the framer have over what type of glazing to recommend? Plenty.

    I hope you're wrong on the dishonest part, but you're correct on the educated part. There is a long way left to go in all aspects of framing knowledge. I mean, many framers still think tape on original artwork is fine as long as it's "acid free."

    If a framer assures a customer that her artwork will not fade, he doesn't have his facts straight. Heck, some art will fade even in complete darkness. As for me, I will make sure my customer gets good value out of the framing job by using materials and methods that will keep the artwork in as good of shape as possible, as long as possible.

    And yes Jeff, I realize I will not change your mind. I think your opinion of me and TruVue are amply clear.
  31. monkey

    monkey CGF II, Certified Grumble Framer Level 2

    I don't even want to get started on the TV stickers!

    When TV made the switch to the white sticker there were no mention of UV prectetion. I guess it is MY JOB to educate my customer that the TV trade name "Conservation Clear" mean UV protection.

    In addition, what makes no sense is that when you buy Tru Vue Conservation Acrylic it doesn't come with any stickers and yet Acrylic cost more than Glass. I'm paying more and getting less. Am I missing something?

    I think glazing stickers are important, otherwise how else would anyone know what type of glazing was use say 2 years later.

    TRU VUE, Just bring back the Silver Sticker.

    I also have been seeing more defects in my Museum Glass, tiny bubbles and minor scratches that I have to cut around. nothing worse than cutting a large piece and having to re-cut another one.
  32. Jerry Ervin

    Jerry Ervin PFG, Picture Framing God

    I buy most of my glass from LJ and it is rare for me to get a piece of Museum that is not flawed in some way.

    I have sent back a lot and have been credited for a lot of glass.

    There is a smaller supplier that I can get glass from that has nearly zero flaws. Their TV Museum glass is $100 a box higher. Go figure.

    Flat out, if I had an alternative I would buy it.

    I have considered only offering PC and RC. I find very few or no flaws with those two products.
  33. wendy lang

    wendy lang CGF II, Certified Grumble Framer Level 2

    I ALWAYS explain to my customers that UV filtering glass will "help" in preventing fading, but assure them that the best way to really protect their most valueable pieces is to hide them in a dark closet until the guests arrive!

    TV Con Clear vs ArtGlass UV thus IS "just a few percentage points away" from each other.

    Also, UV "protective" coated glass no matter from which manufacturer only "protects" against ONE of the two UV rays. What about the other?

    In the end, it's all marketing from those manufacturers, though us framers who care what we produce are often left holding the bag.

    The Art Corner
    Salem, MA
  34. monkey

    monkey CGF II, Certified Grumble Framer Level 2


    Were you referring to the ArtGlass Anti-Reflection with UV (equivalent to TV's Museum Glass). Because I was looking for the equivalent to TV's Conservasion Clear Glass, for those customers who aren't willing to pay for Anti-Reflection. I don't see it in the Omega catalog.

  35. Jeff Rodier

    Jeff Rodier SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    I'm sorry if I have left you feeling that I don't have a favorable opinion of you Dave. There are things we disagree on but I have no problem with you whatsoever.

    As far as TV I feel the product is overpriced considering the huge propaganda budget. I would like for them to take one of 2 paths with the first being if you charge the high prices bump the quality up to that price point or second, lower the price.

    As long as all framers are honest about the level of protection in CC the product is a benefit but many of us are looking for better prices without games such as rebates. I still have a bad taste in my mouth from the rebate game. If I were less busy I might have time to play their games but that is not the goal.
  36. Jim Miller

    Jim Miller SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    How did you come up with 46%?
  37. Jeff Rodier

    Jeff Rodier SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    That's the number the glass industry has calculated for 99% in the limited spectrum of UV light when applied across the entire spectrum of light.
  38. Jim Miller

    Jim Miller SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    Hmmm. Got a reference? Curiosity is aroused.

    Things in frames are affected by UV radiation, 300 to 400 nanometers; visible light, 400 to 700 nanometers; and infrared radiation, from 700 to 1500 nanometers. That's a range of about 1,200 nanometers. The significant UV range is only 80 nanometers, which represents only (1200/80) 6.7% of the whole range.

    Or, if you omit infrared and consider only the UV and visible light range from 300 to 700 nanometers, that would represent (1200/400) only 33% of the whole range.

    As we have been saying all along, all light is damaging, but the worst damage comes from UV radiation, 99% of which can be eliminated.

    So, what is the significance of 46%, and from what range of radiation is it derived? I await enlightenment. :shrug:
  39. Jim Miller

    Jim Miller SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    You're talking about their 92% UV filtering glass, right? It filters more UV than other ArtGlass products, and perhaps that is satisfactory to you. But please understand that it is not "equivalent" to any glazing product that filters 99% of UV radiation, and it does not meet any established preservation framing standard.

    I refuse to disclose that I am a Tru Vue user and consultant. That's a secret, to everyone who doesn't have internet access.
  40. Jeff Rodier

    Jeff Rodier SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God


    Post #55 will answer your question here as it did in that thread as well. You were right, my number for 99% was wrong as the protection is only 44%.


    Dear Jim - thank you for the thoughtful reply. Although the Claryl manufacturers may have said something to that effect, it is wrong to suggest that the Artglass manufacturer has somehow dismissed the importance of "blocking as much as possible". If you look carefully at the Artglass value proposition, they actually recommend blocking "as much of UV as possible, without affecting the visible light transmission," since they have put the aim of displaying the art first, and protecting it a close second. If you look at it in damage-weighted terms (such as the KDF), the real difference between a 99% UV blocking coating and a 92% UV blocking coating is that between a glazing that blocks 44% of all possible damage (including the visible light!) and 41% (with 0% being no glass at all).
  41. osgood

    osgood SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    This 44% vs 41% things sounds like someone playing around with numbers in order to give a certain impression.

    It totally ignores the fact that the most harmful range, is dramatically more harmful than the remainder.

    It seems to me that it is devaluing the importance of blocking as much as possible of that most harmful range and it's increasing the importance of the lesser harmful light!

    I'm afraid it's illogical to me and I don't buy it!

    (I am not sponsored or paid by any supplier organisation, nor do I obtain any discounts or considerations from any supplier!)
  42. Jim Miller

    Jim Miller SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    Ah, yes. Now I remember that thread from last year. The representative from ArtGlass might not represent all of "the glass industry". He said:

    "Damage-weighted terms" is a new phrase to me, and I'm still wondering how it applies to UV-filtering glass in picture framing. The numbers are confusing and seem to be nonsense, which may be why we don't find them in any publication from any maker about UV filtering. It seems like a smoke-screen to me, but I'm just a framer.
  43. Jeff Rodier

    Jeff Rodier SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God

    Sort of like when you choose a very small target spectrum and declare 99% protection while failing to mention the rest of the spectrum.

    This would be like Zippo Lighters proclaiming that they offer 99% protection from bullets during a war (as long as the bullet is below a certain caliber, traveling below a certain velocity and contact must occur directly on the lighter in your shirt pocket and none of the 99% of your unprotected body).

    Your right, I can see why TV would not include any disclaimer that would cause one to get involved in a thought process.:nuts:
  44. Cliff Wilson

    Cliff Wilson SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    I've been wrestling with this lately. I think it's a circular argument based on erroneous unsophisticated science. The existence of UV rays in 1801 by JoHann Ritter, then called "Chemical Rays," by exposure to silver chloride. ALL he proved was that rays exist above the visible range. The name was later called UV. He had no way to determine where the visible range ended and the UV range started.

    I can not find a definitive explanation for the use of the 380nm as the cut off between visible and UV light. What I CAN prove is that 380 nm is WRONG! It's simple really, take a piece of 92% UV blocking glass and a piece of 99% UV blocking glass and put it on a white matboard. The 99% UV glass is "yellower" clearly indicating that it is blocking some of the violet visible rays.

    If science had properly delineated the UV/Visible spectrum, we'd be screaming that the 99% glass is blocking visible light.

    So therefore, because the rays are defined wrong, and we had glass that OVER blocked visible rays, and it was the only glass available, we get standards that say it's necessary, and because the standards say it's necessary, it must be right?

    Why do we think it's not just OK, but desirable, to block visible light?
  45. osgood

    osgood SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    I understood that the 'very small target spectrum' was much more harmful than the remainder! Is this wrong? If so, I would like to understand the truth!

    Apart from the most harmful range, I wonder how much of the light spectrum is blocked, by both brands of UV glass?
  46. RoboFramer

    RoboFramer PFG, Picture Framing God

    Oh yes it does, it meets the Fine Art Trade Guild's 'Museum' level of framing - which must be higher than (snort) preservation framing.

    They recommend glass with a 'high level' of UV protection - we get to decide what 'high' is - how cool is that!
  47. FramerDave

    FramerDave PFG, Picture Framing God

    I consider 97% to be high. So there.
  48. Cliff Wilson

    Cliff Wilson SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    Ormond, to the best I've been able to discover in my (primarily web) investigations, it is speculation and theory by many that UV is the most harmful. I found at one point (sorry don't have the reference) a group that was postulating that the IR area of the spectrum was actually more harmful.

    The reason they seem to think UV is more harmful appears to come from two different observations ...
    1) UV definitely has a photoelectric effect that causes sunburn and skin cancers. -- This yields the supposition that since it hurts us, it must hurt paper.
    2) UV is "the most energetic," therefore it must cause the "most" harm.

    I have found no empirical tests or proof that UV is more harmful than anything else. Just theories.

    The people that were hypothesising that IR was the most harmful had made observations that IR actually caused chemical reactions in the pigments (as I recall most notably blacks) and therefore were potentially more damaging to the art color than other energies. They were theorizing that some of the ghosting you see on glass when you take the art out of a frame was caused by this chemical reaction with IR waves.

    Of course we know that heat, pollutants, humidity and other factors damage art and cause perceived fading.

    My own current working hypothesis is that the particular factor that will cause the "most damage" to any particular piece of art will depend so heavily on the substrate, pigments, binders, and other attributes of the art itself that none of us can actually guess what might happen to a piece of art over time. That includes whether blocking UV actually helps a particular piece of art or not.

    That said, UV is the only enemy we can block right now, therefore, even if it isn't the "biggest potential offender," it's one we can do something about.

    However, the obsession with it over the other potential dangers seems to be disproportionate, and to block visible colors in the name of protection seems absurd.
  49. Puppiesonacid

    Puppiesonacid SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    All this UV talk hurts my brain. I sell it as sunscreen to my customers.

    The only true way to really know is to take 3 identical pictures/ probably on paper and not a photo since photos seem to say they last 100 years with the ink from the printers with any glass in front of them.

    Put UV glass on one, same mats, and reg glass on the other, and hang them in your store for years to come. Have a third sitting in a drawer somewhere.

    Take them out in 5 or 10 years, and see what the differences are between them all...

    Then we might know more.

    I hope some of these tests have been done. The putting anything in sun trick doesn't suit me. its a lot of heat as well as UV rays and IR rays hitting it and will cause anything to fade no matter what. Glass that you can see through still lets some of these things through and will only help for so long which is why some say UV glass fails

    If the kind of test I am talking about hasn't been done with normal inside conditions, do we really know if it works or not?
  50. Cliff Wilson

    Cliff Wilson SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer

    nope. all you know is what happened to that ink set, with that application, with that substrate.

Share This Page

Sponsor Wanted