Tru-Vue Survey

Intel, Apple, Microsoft and various other companies all have competitors too. Know what else they have in common?

 

Thanks, JIm!

Jim, thank you so much for letting us know about what you saw. I will probably never have the opportunity to see a TV facility, although I have had the chance to go through a glass factory - which is really fascinating!

I suspected there were different facilities for different products, but I didn't know for sure.

Regarding the flaw rate, years ago a TV rep told me what the acceptable flaw rate for CC was at that time, and was comparing it to the number of rodent feces, hair, wood chips, and other debris that is deemed "acceptable" in food that we eat. Of course, the flaw rate for glass would, and should, be higher than our food, and one has to consider the cost of eliminating flaws against the cost of what the product can sell for.

Jim, you wrote that the conservation coating is completely different from the optical coating, whcih I think we all understand. But are the UV coatings the same coating on all TV products? I have been under the impression that the UV coating on museum glass was the same coating as on the other UV glasses TV produces. In other words, clear glass is given the UV coating and is CC, museum glass is clear glass with the UV coating and the anti reflective coating. Is the UV coating different on museum glass? Is it different on CRC? Do they bring boxes of UV coated glass from the UV coating facility to the museum glass facility to apply the anti reflective coating?

And thinking about all of the recent posts on "green" issues, can the glass that goes into the dumpster be recycled? My glass suppliers here are able to sell their dumpster waste on the waste glass market. They are paid by a recycling facility various prices for various kinds of glass, and the recycling facility picks up their dumpsters because they generate so much waste. Most of this is architectural glass and auto glass, of course.

Jim, thanks again for sharing some of what you saw. The making of any product is always fascinating. I wish more people had an interest in how things were made. It sure might improve a custom picture framers image in the retail public mind!

Paul N. regarding your experience with Claryl. Claryl was trying to find a distributor in our neck of the woods last year to introduce their glass out here. The glass distributor and Claryl left a small sample or two of the glass with a few framers for us to try and see how we liked it. I took my museum glass sampler apart and replaced the CC side with Claryl. I put the sampler out with a little sign asking my customers to pick the glass they liked the best. The sign also indicated the retail price for a certain size piece of each glass, and indicated the UV filtering of each. 100% of the customers picked the Claryl side for clarity, color, and price, but wanted the museum glass side because they understood 99% UV filtering to equal 99% fade protection. They all said "well, 99% is a lot better than 67% (or whatever the figure was) so my picture will not fade, and the more expensive glass costs so much more that it must be a better product, even if it isn't as clear and the color isn't as good."

People are so interesting in how they perceive things! That's one thing I like about the g - we are able to express a variety of viewpoints here. I hope that we can continue to do so.

 

Museum uses a metallic coating on both sides of the glass so it would have to be done before the UV coating.

 

What about the "special responsibilities" of competitors to compete?

You don't want to buy Museum Glass? You can buy products comparable to Museum Glass from DonMar (Invisium), Maryland Glass, M&M, Turner & Associates and other suppliers. Schott MiroGard Protect, Amiran TN, Luxar Classic, or Flabeg ArtControl are all comparable. Never mind that their prices are higher than Museum Glass.

Dictionary definition of monopoly:
1. control of market supply:a situation in which one company controls an industry or is the only provider of a product or service.

There is no monopoly in UV-filtering, optically coated framing glass, but Tru Vue does have a dominant position in that type of glass, and for good reasons.

If Museum Glass were over-priced as you claim, why are all of the above-mentioned comparable brands' prices higher?

 

Thanks, Jeff.

So, do the boxed up glass of Museum glass and Masterpiece glass go to the UV coating facilty, get opened up, unpacked, and then put through the UV coating process, repackaged, and then sent out to the warehouse for distribution to our various suppliers?

Isn't that what would happen if the anti reflective coating were applied first?

Jeff and Jim, what about CRC?

 

They came in and from the beginning went through the design process asking to exclude the glass, other than asking for the total with CC vs. MG. They told us they would make the glazing decision later but to go ahead with frames, mats, etc. By the time they admitted the Museum/Masterpiece glass had already been purchased it was a done deal; I handed them the matted prints and frame and wished them luck.

 

CRC is laminated with a combo coating which is the UV and non-glare in the same coating. This is applied to the outside of the lite. I don't know the steps involved in getting the Museum from one facility to the next.

 

Maybe when using full lites...it's just speculating right now as we don't know the sizes. I still don't think my price would be $100 per lite more than M's...but then, I have no clue what they are paying/selling it for.

 

coatings...

Terry,

It is my understanding that the UV coatings are applied at the TruVue facility in Chicago. (I also visited the Chicago facility back in 1992-3?? when the UV coatings were fairly new). If the product is to become Conservation Clear for example, it gets inspected, leaved and boxed

If the product is to become Museum Glass, then it is trucked as pallets of glass to their Minnesota facility where it will receive the AR coatings, then inspected, leaved and boxed.

Hence - the UV protection on both products would be identical!

Although typically open minded, you'll find this amusing in that I am not a personal fan of Museum Glass, but LOVE Conservation Clear. Our shop sells a boatload of CC and I'll have to pull up the report on our SpecialtySoft pos to see what our numbers actually are.

We stock a couple of boxes of Museum Glass, but in today's age of distributors weekly/daily deliveries it's a no brainer to sell whatever the customer desires, despite our own predjudices.

John

 

You had quite a picky customer Frances! Were they returning customers, or new? (just curious, I couldn't dream up this kind of scenario, think it's really an exception)

Guess your frames and mats and mounting were much better than M's!

 

Uh, I think M's contract for private branding might just prevent that. I'm sure it's part of the deal. You don't think M's owns "Masterpiece"?

 

They were pretty regular customers and in the past, while not throwing money around, were willing to pay for what they wanted and for having it done correctly. This really threw me, as it was totally about a product whose quality they wanted but they knew it would be cheaper at the Big Box. Though I don't know what they paid for their glass, it would have been about $700+ to me and I certainly could have used it!

 

And that's what Paul C has been saying all along in his posts on this thread: Michael's special pricing with TV made you lose out on the glass.

 

My understanding is that the UV coating is the same for Conservation Clear and Museum Glass. I thought it was applied on top of the optical coating, but we saw the glass go through the coating process, inspection, sorting, and final packaging. So, apparently the UV coating must be applied to the glass before it goes up to the Faribault plant, and the optical coating must go on top of that.

The UV coating is different for Conservation Reflection Control; it is incorporated with the texture coating. Standard Reflection Control is still etched.

Not sure about that. I think that matter was discussed briefly, but I don't remember the answer. Maybe it's in the notes. :shrug: Frankly, they crammed us full of information the whole time we were there.

You are most welcome. Thanks for understanding why we took two days away from our businesses to go there.

 

The problem with recycling comes with the mineral content in the glass. It has a higher mineral content than other types of glass because of the need for optical clarity. Think of leaded crystal: the high lead content gives it its sparkle and clarity.

When glass is recycled it is used mainly for food containers like the mustard jar sitting in your fridge. Nobody wants the potential problems of anything that might contaminate food, so that is why only food and beverage containers are accepted for recycling.

About the only avenue for recycling framing glass is for paving material where it is ground up and added to the mix, but the municipalities who make this easy are few and far between.

 

Thank you Pat. I wasted a lunch hour on this thread which is a nasty rehash of previous information and misinformation. For the record, I am not on TV's payroll, I do not receive money from any supplier. I am not a rep. I am an independent frame shop owner of 33 years. I have written four trade magazine articles that have nothing to do with glass. I use TV value added glass as well as washed glass. We like CC, sell some MG, and don't carry Reflection Control. (I prefer NG Acrylic for this purpose because the etch seems more fine and works for corporate jobs)

Here is what I know:

None is this is new information. We had the TV national sales director at our shop giving a 2 hour seminar to our staff several years ago. (Why? Because we sell a fair amount of glass and participated in a sales promotion.) We grilled him with every imaginable question. His answers regarding Masterpiece Glass were identical to what the tour group recently saw. Also, the glass does get the UV coating first and then gets its magnetron sputtering to make it MG. We saw photos of the whole process. The MG production information was fascinating and I wish I had been part of the tour group!

 

Thank you Dave. It is glimmers of useful information in the midst of threads like this that make ploughing through the rest of it worthwhile. Moderators--please don't take the thread down. If people here could just mind their manners we could have a civilized, useful discussion. BTW, never saw a survey.

 

Jim and John;

Thank you again for sharing some more about your visit. I hope you two will be writing this up for an article for all of us to read. Regardless of how people feel about a particular product, brand, company, etc., there is always something more to learn. Sometimes it is so easy to let our own prejudices stand in the way of moving forward.

Dave, I'll look into that recycling thing again. Several years ago when looking into glass recycling for our EPFG "green" meeting, I found a place on line that listed the current prices for the glass waste used in recycling. I was surprised at how much some kinds of glass product were worth when selling them for recycling. Sometimes it was the coating materials on them that were valuable - the coatings are melted off and the glass itself is dumped. A sales rep and I joke that if business continues as it has, we are going to start stealing the high end glass out of glass company dumpsters to make ends meet!

Francis, I've had the same thing happen a couple of times, too. Makes you feel bad, but it's just the ugly part of business. I hope another customer comes in who really appreciates you and more than makes up for that incident.

 

Manners are nice Kirstie, I agree, but ethics are far more important.

 

Paul, since you seem to be questioning my ethics I will ask you to point out anything anything in this thread that is false and back it up.

Yes, I took a tour of the TruVue facility in Minnesota along with John Ranes, Rob Markoff, Jim Miller, Ken Baur and Meg Peters. Those of us who have posted here have told you exactly what we have seen with our own eyes. If you think that has changed my opinions then please go back through any and all of my posts and any article or class in which I have ever mentioned TruVue glazing and show me the inconsistencies.

If you can't back up your assertions you should retract them and apologize.

 

Most of my beef is with Tru-Vue, but as far as I can tell, not one of the "Respected Educators", had the decency to divulge that your "Educational Trip" was paid for by the Educator.

You come on here and endorse products and companies, but there's a conflict of interest when you receive a free trip or other benefits from those compnaies and you aren't up front about it. Makes the compnay look bad and it destroys your creditbility. You didn't lead the pack Dave, but you followed it.

I have a lot of respect for you and the others, but it has become a standard practice in our industry that some advertiser benefits everytime one of our experts gives out what is represented as a detached view or a piece of advice. It's happened in magazines and it happens here on a regular basis.

Tell me why that's not wrong?

Ranes said of the rejected glass, "It would either be trashed (Recycled outside of our industry) or downsized into smaller stock sizes. This happens more with Museum Glass, hence more labor and more waste."

So tell me, does Michaels gets it Masterpiece glass from TV's dumpster?

 

Again Paul, please produce one post in which you can show I lied or gave misleading information.

 

You can thank your colleague for his info sure but it's kind of a backhanded way to address the other concerns isn't it?

I have some empathy because I stopped giving some of my opinions a long time ago because of this kind of thing. If someone posts a point of view and he has a multi-headed rebuttal coming at him, and those heads all receive financial considerations from the entities benefiting from the opposing point of view it's natural to want to let the other readers know that financial consideration exists.

It's actually quite frustrating.

And there are cliques and pattings on the back and when you know the underlaying relationships it's even more frustrating.

You're an up-and-coming educator yourself. So if I was Paul and I saw your comment I'm likely to squint my eyes closed and wait for the pang of frustration to pass, hope I don't develop a headache, already having been aggravated by the smarmy comments from others when I know who they are compensated by and so I feel like it's a free-pass for the company to belittle me.

The solution is probably just to shut up and let you guys talk to each other. Largely, that's what I've done.

But let me be clear. It doesn't matter who is right or wrong. When you're arguing with people whose statements promote a company that benefits them financially you want others to know this. Likewise, it's also highly annoying to see people posting things promoting something, often starting a thread, saying how great it is without the casual reader knowing that person's relationship, educator, rep, administration in an organization, or what have you.

When you have the old time snake oil salesmen talking to a man in the crowd who expounds about how great the product worked for him! all the time being compensated by the salesman... that wasn't right. Is this stuff different? Certainly. The products are not snake oil. They can be quite good. But the practice should still be avoided. It STRENGTHENS perceptions when the affiliations are open and out there. Partially because then no one can accuse someone of hiding it. Partially because the statements can be backed up as being the truth, because the product is not snake oil.

 

I didn't say you lied, do you have a confession to make?

It's you failure to disclose that is the problem. Most people here don't even know that when you praise of defend The Great Frameup that you are a corporate employee/representative of the franchisor.

Is it in your profile where Jim Miller suggested such information would be found? No.

 

Very few people will take the time to read a profile when they consider the posters advice. The "Tag and Release" program that ran for some time in the past placed disclosure in the tagline.

 

Read back to your post #119 in this topic. Since you have not addressed my direct question there's nothing more to say.

 

I just don't get it.

A group of educators, who by the way, all make their living by running active shops (and are not traveling the country supporting themselves through teaching, speaking and writing) is invited by a manufacturer to tour their manufacturing plant and spend some time with the marketing department- and as a result, all of their years of experience in the trenches actually working with clients and various framing products is immediatelty discounted?

What impressed me about the group that was invied is that we were from all different parts of the country, had very different business models, and we were never asked about our "feelings" about Tru Vue products or whether or not we sold them prior to the invitation or as a "condition" of the invite.

In fact, there was never a sales pitch, not even a hand out or other product related "pro- Museum Glass propaganda" or a request that we change our pitch about their products or change our way of thinking.

I was shocked to find that there were more than one of us that does not use Museum Glass as a regular part of our product mix, or has "drunken the Kool Aid" re: that it is the "best" solution for our glazing needs.

We were "allowed" to be outspoken, tell the people at Tru Vue honestly how we felt about a variety of things related to the company and its products (and other products from other companies and distributors as well).

However, a reasonable person (and I will generously include Paul C in the mix) could not have come away from the tour without being impressed by the facility and have a better appreciation of how the product is manufactured, the amount of money it takes to manufacture the product, and the potential problems that are inherrent in the manufacturing process.

I am not here to debate the "use MG or not" concept. Or whether or not there are no "alternatives" to MG. I will tell you that I believe it to be a high quality product manufactured with state of the art equipment - and that there are many framers who have found it appropriate for their framing needs and are making a significant amount of money as a result.

I believe that as an industry, we suffer from "self limitations" and in many cases, DENY OUR CUSTOMERS an opportunity to spend their money on something that we personally feel is "too expensive" or whose style/design does not fit our mold.

With all of the "what's so-s" (meaning cost, handling, price differential from Michaels etc) taken into consideration - to not sell MG "on principal" or even offer it as a part of your product mix (at any price) is foolish. AND - that was my opinion before the tour . And, if you want to make even more $$ on your glass sales, a dialogue regarding proven effective pricing and sales methods from those who do use it and are succesful would be way more beneficial than the dogpile on Tru Vue and a few educators who took a tour.

I know of framers who in Alaska outright rejected 6" wide mouldings because "no one else had them" and there was not a perceived need. One framer I knew took a chance and put some samples up and they immediately began selling, with the first comment from a customer being, " I have never seen anything like this before."

I am disappointed and offended that anyone (including Tru Vue) would think that a simple trip to view a manufacturing plant would:

A. Radically change the way I feel about a product such that I would become a "witness" and begin going frameshop door to frameshop door to promote the product.

B. Negate the "value" of my 40 years of experience in this industry. Or that my values are so low that I could be "bought."

 

Just like Paul I find it rather odd that the group of educators don't take pride in the fact that they have relationships with certain manufacturers they consult with in this industry. This is the reason in the past that the disclosure was added to tag lines. I know that every time a Grumbler asks for a recommendation on a V-nailer one of the educators sends a PM for a Fletcher V-nailer that he always touts as the best. If a sale occurs as a result the educator is paid a commission.

There are thousands of people that read the Grumble and have no idea who the players are. Reading posts by certain individuals may cause them to say "So an So" recommends this product and they also write for the trade magazines so I will take their opinion at face value. When I give an opinion it is based on 30 years of experience and use of nearly every product and piece of equipment in the industry. I receive no compensation from anybody other than my customers. It's a shame that readers are not aware that this is not the case among many of the group that Paul has called out here.

 

How much longer is this rant going to go on? There are no "rules". If you have an opinion state it. Once is enough.

 

Turns out that I was wrong about the commission piece of my statement. There is no commission just ongoing compensation in one way or another. If an educator has a company name in their tag line then they should not take my comments as pointed toward them when it comes to disclosure. If you list the names of companies you do work for then by all means please continue to promote those companies and the readers will know that you are giving opinions of companies you believe to be very solid manufacturers. If you don't list those names why are you hiding the information.

The name Kleenex is a trademarked name as well just in case anyone was wondering.

 

Are you sure? We never saw the glass being "flipped" and the rods where the elements being applied were always "above" the glass as it travelled through the vacuum. The glass I saw being produced went from one end of the line where it was loaded to the other where it was packaged.

What is your source?

 

This is the process for camera lenses. The technology causes the light rays to reflect back from the back side of the glass toward the front. When the light rays meet in the middle they cancel each other out. Is it possible that the charge from the top side also causes particles from the back to be adhered to the glass. Annodizing uses a similar process where the moulding length is charged with negative ions in a single point but runs through the entire length. When the positive ions are introduced they adhere to the negatively charged rod.

 

Respect? Paul, be honest. You have demonstrated only your vehement disrespect for us.

If you respected us, you would not question our ethics or assume we are dishonest in answering questions or offering information about any supplier's product.

Since I'm your primary target here, I can't resist responding to this carp. Can you find a questionable "detached view or piece of advice" from me in this thread? Let us review:

Post 26, my first in the thread? I gave no opinion, no advice.
Post 30? No opinion stated.
Post 33? No opinion stated.
Post 34? No opinion stated.
Post 39? Yes, I'll call that a detached view. You disagree?
Post 46? No opinion stated.
Post 51? Yes, my view about your view.
Post 76? No opinion stated.
Post 79? Yes, my opinion about your motive.
Post 89? No opinion stated.
Post 95? Yes, my view of Ylva's view.
Post 104? No opinion stated.

Paul, in several of these posts I have asked you specific questions, which remain unanswered. Why is that?

 

Wow. That sure makes me wanna rush right over

By now, enough others have reread 119 and are scratching their heads Go read 119 yourself.

 

Sorry Ylva, I might be misunderstood on that one.

Just to be clear, I'm not. I have absolutely no issue with it because again I think it goes back to bulk purchasing. I was only curious why those vendors weren't beat about. In reality, since this is a thread about a TV survey, that's the reason, but I still thought it interesting to ask. FOR THE RECORD - I have no issue with any vendor buying a product (private label or otherwise) for less than me because of higher volume/purchasing advantages and fully expect them to be able to price it more effectively than someone who only piddles in a percent of that volume.

 

I have always wondered if TV Museum WAS actually optically coated both sides of the glass, due to their UV coating going inside anyway.

The UV coating would negate the broadband coating purpose to scatter the light, thereby making optical coating both sides of their glass a process that would be a waste of time / $.

Schott (Mirogard and) Mirogard Plus for example, and the old DenglasUV IS / WAS coated both sides, and there is/was no need for UV block later as it is/was contained in their optical coating processes (to their respected levels, 84% and 99%).

As such, TV Museum should always have around twice the reflection of the above other glasses, as the inner surface of Museum with the UV coating does reflect light, only the outer glass surface does the low refection part.

This one side only optical coating difference would not really be visible to the human eye.

I think someone commented earlier about the optical coatings going over the UV coating ?
If what Rob said is right re the one sided optical coating, then it most likely arrives at the optical plant as TV CC, has the optical coating applied to the outer surface, then final packing as a finished product.

Re recyclying waste glass (was that mentioned in this thread, or another somewhere ?).
I am 99% sure the coatings plants don't actually make any glass (base glass from Guardian), waste would either be dumped, or held in special 'cullet' bins to be trucked to glass plants. Cullet, only broken clear glass, is a necessary part of float glass manufacture, fed into the lehr with other new ingredients to melt down and flow through the tin bath chamber.

Cheers,
Les

Disclaimer - I do stock Schott Mirogard Plus, and occassionally sell it cut to size to frame shops in Australia.

 

The way to know for sure would be if the Reflection Free glass does not require one side out versus the other. If it can be installed in either direction then both sides are coated. I haven't used it so I don't know. Can someone that uses Reflection Free let us know if it can be installed in either direction.

 

Jeff:

The new kid on the block, Claryl, cays it can. At least with their product.

 

I wish I had a Claryl distributor in my area. I will have to see who in the South sells it.

 

Museum Glass and AR Glass have the optical coating on both sides. Could they achieve 97% transmisssion (soon to be improved to 98% transmission, they say) by coating only one side?

The glass is coated on one side, and then taken back to the beginning of the coating machine for coating of the opposite side before inspection, sorting, and packaging. The glass we watched go through the coating machine had already been coated on the first side - I remember seeing the muted reflections on the sheets the robots were flipping onto the conveyor into the machine-- a fun operation to watch, by the way.

Since AR Glass has no UV coating, like the Claryl product, it may be used with either side out. Museum Glass as the UV coating on one side, apparently under the optical coating, so the coated side is marked.

 

Is anyone surprised, Jim Miller is ALWAYS going to scrap with anyone who has a different opinion to his own when it concerns one of his cash cows.

Sometimes it is a book, glass or method that he teaches about i am used to it.

(Jim save the nasty emails like the ones you sent last time, it is a waste of your time)

I don't push the glass but I do sell it on occasion and let the customer know up front it is ridiculously overpriced.

:bdh:

Bob

 

Disclaimer:

I went to the Tru Vue Plant as a guest of Tru Vue and was allowed to see the actual process of the glass being coated.

I also went to the Cardinal Aluminum (Designer Moulding) plant (at my expense (I don't remember if they bought me lunch)) to see picture frame moulding being extruded, anodized and powder coated and have received education from Nielsen Moulding which included an excellent video (that I have in my posession) of the entire manufacturing process.

Jeff - I am not sure your anology is a good one or your description of the process is entirely accurate. I think the only thing the two processes have in common is that they use electricity.

Anodizing, (spelled with one "n")or anodising in British English, is an electrolytic passivation process used to increase the thickness of the natural oxide layer on the surface of metal parts. The process is called "anodizing" because the part to be treated forms the anode electrode of an electrical circuit. The anode is the POSITIVE charge, not the negative one as you posted. It is a wet process, meaning the moulding is in a solution when the electrical charge is applied.

Deposition technology, otherwise know as sputtering is a process whereby atoms are ejected from a solid target material due to bombardment of the target by energetic particles. It is commonly used for thin-film deposition, etching and analytical techniques. It is done in a vacuum.

 

Okay, for those of you that are schilling for TV....

I didnt get the survey. Last time I did one was last year over the phone and had to hang up...customer comes in. Last I heard from them.

I would ask that you pass on my recommendation to go back to the old way of packing the lites. I did a fair amount of sales until the repackaging and the economy tanked.

I am not going to sit on inventory now that I cannot turn over quickly. MG is not a line item sell that I can turn over quickly at this time.

As for the coating process, several different comments here. Confused as heck.

 

Thank you for correcting my polarity and spelling issues Rob. Jim Miller was kind enough to share his recollection of the flipped glass issue resulting in the coating of the reverse side with the optical coating.

Now a thread like this would have benefitted (is my spelling correct as I don't use spell check on the G) from disclosure as to the depth of your knowledge of the product due to a professional relationship. Use of your credentials in educating us as to the cost and complexity of the process would go miles farther than saying M's deserves to sell it retail at our wholesale cost. Also the suck it up and pay twice as much because the product is that good sells no more glass and maybe less than consoling us because we get skrewed on the product (sorry for my run on sentences but I also don't use grammar check on the G).

Now should this continue to be a tinkling contest or would you guys who got a free lunch (not that there's anything wrong with that) like to tell us all about the product, process and the plant.:thumbsup:

 

And to be fair, if one were to critique others for their spelling, they might want to spell "possession" by using the letter s at least 4 times.

Really.

So, now that we are here, if you are a paid consultant of a certain product (and I really think you should be proud to be so) then are you against disclosing that?

 

Where does anyone ever get that I am opposed to stating that I am a paid consultant for anything? I do agree that if one is a paid consultant for a company, that fact should be made known if one is discussing the product. I always have felt as such - no disagreement here.

However, I think it is ridiculous to think that because I have said relationship, that my 40 years in the framing industry, and the experiences derived from them are no longer of value - or that I would accept a consulting position that would also require me to use or endorse a product that I did not believe in. The companies that "sponsor" classes I teach have no input into the classes and most often sponsor the class as a benefit or service to the industry. They make the class possible because they believe that better educated framers will be more successful and produce a better product. I am not paid by the sponsor. I am paid by the venue (i.e. PFM) and the sponsorship allows PFM to rent the room and the equipment (and monitor the class), print handouts , etc.

Knowing the other educators as I do, I would never think differently of any of them either. Therefore, if a "newbie" would be reading a post from one of us about a product that is made by a firm that we may consult for, I would think the fact that we work for that firm is irrelevant as it would have no bearing on the opinion given. To think otherwise about any of us is insulting.

I don't see it as "paid endorsements." No one is telling us what to think or say.

Nor is the compensation large enough for any of us to quit our day jobs . The last time I did something like this, my flight home was weather diverted and I ended up having to fly to New York from Dallas to catch a plane to San Diego and got home on Thursday AM after leaving Michigan on Monday evening. Think I was paid for my travel time?

Or a compromise on any of our parts to be paid by companies in our industry that recognize the fact that we are credible, knowledgeable, have a proven track record (walk the walk) - and may actually have knowledge that is of value to the companies we consult for.

In the interest of full disclosure, I was one of the educators who went on the tour and does not use Museum Glass as a significant part of my production. Please do not misinterpret this statement. It only means that due to the scope of our work (mostly corporate and healthcare framing) - the use of Museum Glass is not a cost effective or competitive option for that portion of our business.

I never posted in the initial thread and was only identified as one who went to the tour by another attendee. I had no cause to state that I am a consultant to Tru Vue for any other post as I see it as irrelevant unless the post refers to the product(s) being discussed.

Any prior discussion or posting that I may have had regarding any Tru Vue product was done before the tour or any consulting relationship with Tru Vue.

 

Where did you get the idea I'm disinterested? My first post said I attended the same tour Ken did. My profile says I am a "consultant to suppliers", and I confirmed that fact again in post #76.

Unlike Rob, I offer Museum Glass to most of my framing customers and it has become a key contributor to my frame shop's profit. Far from being disinterested, I am very interested in using optically coated glazing products. If you expect me, as a picture framer and shop owner, to not share what I know about this or any other product I enjoy using, whether I work with the supplier or not, don't hold your breath.

We're still waiting for your answers to the questions in Post #133, by the way.

 

Rob,

Then it shouldn't be a big deal to disclose those relationships. Right?

Since you aren't opposed to it, then I assume you'll lead the way?

 

Now this is a point that is worth being reposted here.


As far as the coating what we have figured out is that the UV coating is applied at the first plant and the optical coating is applied at the second. The optical coating is a metalic coating applied to both sides of the glass. A full description of how it works can be found on the Nikon Camera Lens website. I have posted it a few times in the past.