Glass-spacer-glass-spacer

[Roboframer]

This is how I was going to do the TPB competition print - (Keith Richards) in deepest rebated LJ 'Ferrosa' moulding - bronze.

But 'MUSEUM' glass - spacer - 'MUSEUM' glass - (or - for this inner piece - other 'invisible' glass, without the UV filter as artwork would be attached on to this inner piece) - spacer - backing.

Backing with related stuff on - news cuttings, whatever - spacers with related stuff on - maybe a music score - some objects scattered about - not many; not big - a guitar pick, some cigarette ash - whatever - all at different depths - all 'floating' - uncannily.

First spacer would be the minimum req'd to keep artwork off glass, second spacer would be deeper. Artwork would just be right there in your face - pushed right to the front but how the hec is it staying there!!

Artwork - hopefully with no paper margin, would be dry-mounted to artcare restore and edged with the matching Ferrosa fillet - reverse mitred. 'S' hinges an option.

All based on an idea I had for my own POS display for museum glass and have not got around to yet - supplier's free one seems to be doing fine!

Aaaaanyway - today a young lady comes in - photographer - recommended by another photographer we have known for donkey's - who had said "Just don't go anywhere else"

No eggshell behind my ears - hatched a long time ago - this lady was NOT dressed for Winter either. She's going to want a discount.

Works for me

Posh Hotel in Horsham, which is about 18 framers from here, has commissioned her - 24x30" photo(s) in each room - what they want, she says is 'like that' (points to a framed print with an artcare bevelled accent) 'but the other way around'

"EH!!!"

Floated is what they mean - but well proud of the backing - first thing I thought of was the above - you want 'floated' get a load of THIS (baby)

She was very bright - knew exactly what I meant - asked me to make three samples, with much smaller photos, to show the hotel.

1. Normal - mounted (matted) just over the photo, with fillet and 4" wide mat (mount ...... Gawd let's unify this framing speak!!) Normal glass - but CC at least if and when 'for real'

2. Floated onto 4" mat with fillet reversed - spacer - glass as above.

3. Full Monty as described.

"But" I asked "What if they don't go for any at all - I mean these samples are costing you £lots"

"Oh they will - they have a budget pre VAT and that top job is within it - ex VAT!"

"BUT ... but"

"Look - worst case - I'll sell these samples myself anyway"

So - potentially 30 or so frames, each with two bits of museum (type) glass measuring 32x38"

I gave her 20% off the museum glass in her sample and offered 20% off the whole job - whichever option they go for.

If they say 'bugger off' then just these 3 samples are a damned good order anyway!

[Not your average framer]

Backing with related stuff on - news cuttings, whatever - spacers with related stuff on - maybe a music score - some objects scattered about - not many; not big - a guitar pick, some cigarette ash - whatever - all at different depths - all 'floating' - uncannily.

First spacer would be the minimum req'd to keep artwork off glass, second spacer would be deeper. Artwork would just be right there in your face - pushed right to the front but how the hec is it staying there!!

Hi John,

How about this. The artwork is floated on to mountboard, etc. and edged as you suggested with the reverse slip, but now with a twist.

The float mounted artwork and slip is fixed to the front of the second sheet of glass which is placed well forward in a very deep box frame. On the rear of the second sheet of glass so as to cover the back of the artwork and slip, you float mount a collection of related memorabilia etc. This will completely obscure any silicon or whatever used to secure the artwork to the front of the glass. Now spaced about an inch behind the second sheet of glass, you add a sheet of mirror glass.

So you not only cannot see what is holding up the artwork and slip, but also you can see what appears to be the back of it too! A complete and total baffling illustion. As a visual display this is something to totally amaze your customers with too!

[Roboframer]

Took me a while to get my head around that - like it does most things!

Hmmmm - OK - but that would be even more "What the .......?!" A great POS display but maybe too much detraction from artwork.

You could really confuse things if you backed the artwork with some mirror-imaged text

Also I'd not back the whole thing with a mirror - just one right behind, and the same size as, the artwork, maybe even smaller - so people could see the back of the artwork, but not themselves etc.

[Not your average framer]

Also I'd not back the whole thing with a mirror - just one right behind, and the same size as, the artwork, maybe even smaller - so people could see the back of the artwork, but not themselves etc.

Hi John,

Yes, I like that even better! A while back we did a large batch of cheap framing for some friends with a pub and they put a large number of old theater and circus posters in these, we liked them so much that they gave us the CD which these out of copyright images came from.

One of these is a Houdini poster and just the thing for a framing illusion like this!

[Roboframer]

I started doing these samples today - glass-spacer-glass-spacer first - then I suddenly realised I am stupid!

OK - if using a few small objects that are seemingly unsupported - fine - but if it's just a drymounted/close framed print etc - then why bother with that inner piece of glass - all you have to do is make a plinth small enough to be impossible to see from the sides.

I found that a plinth made from 15mm depth of foam board cut 2" smaller than the mounted and slipframed photo, (another 5mm deep) could not be seen from the sides with 3" of space around the artwork - and the thing is - if you use the other method - this is exactly what people will think you have done anyway - used a concealed something or other. A waste of v expensive glass!

Plus with the other method you will see a gap in the spacers where the glass goes between them.

So - that's saved her £162 per frame, well, say a tenner less than that for the plinth!

[Roboframer]

Well - I learned as I went - discovered that edging the photo with a reverse mitred fillet was a real pain - it has to butt right up to the photo - was too thin to underpin and with no support underneath - very difficult to get a good join.

Not impossible by any means - just that I thought 'do I want to do this 30 times over on something much much larger?'

(NOPE!)

So - rang photographer with another idea - the smallest frame from the same range instead of the fillet around the photo.






It's got about 20mm of space behind it - looks like it's stuck to the glass - yes the photo was taken with glass in - with a flash too.

Photographer (who looks about 11 months pregnant!) is 'thrilled' - sure the hotel will go for this option - we'll see.

Thought we'd posh the back up - quite an extravagant dustcover - black core alphamat artcare with a burnished bevelled edge (to avoid paper cuts)

[Not your average framer]

Hi John,

Very nice indeed. Such a classic look. Are you going to put it on the Grumble too? It's not the kind of thing that everyone thinks of!

How did you fix the inner frame?

I'm also thinking that you may have changed my mind about using black licky sticky, to do my "all back" backs. How did you fix the black-core mountboard? This looks like the way for me too!

Why didn't I think of doing the back like that? It's so obvious when you see it!

[Roboframer]

Hi Mark,

This was inspired by our phone conversation!

A lot of Grumblers use all-black backing - maybe not artcare - that was just what I had handy - they'd just yawn if I posted it there!

The inner frame is on a 'plinth' of built up foam board 2" smaller than the photo (photo 9x6" - plinth 5x2" - so 4" smaller - but 2" all round - I'm confused now!)

I fixed it a-la-dustcover USA - with PVA on the back of the frame only (and a few dabs of ATG tape so as not to have to worry about weighting it 'til it went off.)

Thing was I did not want to use foam board as a backing in the rebate - too thick - wanted max space behind that inner frame, so I made my spacers - which are strips of unlined 3mm artcare FC - just deep enough to make the back mount flush in the rebate - no room for a backing board as well.

Was going to do the same as above photo but with artbak but then remembered our conversation (thanks) - but didn't want a white core showing - or have any black tape - so a black core was the way to go.

The back mount you can see is semi-rigid tabbed - and sealed with brown licky sticky.

Shame my 'D' rings are brass and my wire is steel.

Wonder what the cheapest black core mountboard is - I may go for this as standard - where poss, rebate depth and all - but it would mean a price hike - artcare undermount plus any other backing on top, costs more per sq ft than artcare FC.

[Not your average framer]

Wonder what the cheapest black core mountboard is - I may go for this as standard - where poss, rebate depth and all - but it would mean a price hike - artcare undermount plus any other backing on top, costs more per sq ft than artcare FC.

Hi John,

I'm going for the black mountboard in the Simons key range white core (Colourmount 300 series), it's nice and stiff and it's a great price if you order 40 sheets. I will black the edges with a black touch up pen!

My new labels in satin gold on matt black will be with me early next week and the Lion "super crimper" and furrules arrived today. I'm already using both sizes of Lion's "plate rings" on my less "run of the mill" work.

I was a little disappointed to find that the quick-wire I also ordered is far too stiff to wrap, but I've got some ordinary brass wire in a drawer somewhere and I've also ordered some more, so things are on the move.

I was hoping that the "super crimper" was going to do a really stunning job, but it just squashes the ferrule flat. So I'm ordering another crimper eslewhere next week which will do something really the business. Unfortunately Photo-bucket and others will no longer talk to my Windows 98 computer, so there will be a small delay before I can post some pics.

[Not your average framer]

Opps: I meant to edit. John can you delete please! Thanks.

[Roboframer]

Couldn't be doing with blackening the cut edges with a sharpie - or them thar feral crimpin' wotsit fingys.

I quite like the look of neatly tied SSS - (this is a bit out of focus) - looks like a really hard-to-do thing - but isn't.

[Not your average framer]

Couldn't be doing with blackening the cut edges with a sharpie - or them thar feral crimpin' wotsit fingys.

I quite like the look of neatly tied SSS - (this is a bit out of focus) - looks like a really hard-to-do thing - but isn't.

My thoughts too, but one of my customers brought in a hand finished frame by one of the big name, up market, London framers and it the brass wire looked amazing. I spent a long time looking at how it was done. It's very neatly wraped and twisted, but with a quite thick twisted bit and the end finished with a ferrule. It was stunning! That's what I'm going for too.

[Roboframer]

Incidentally - something else we do - non-surgical nipple enhancement.

See those domed bumpers?

Get two (Duh) of those - stick them on top of two of Lion's thick felt bumpers - place under your blouse/shirt - high as you like.

For a bit of extra fun - and we have tried this - and by 'we' - I mean me too - place one very high and one very low. Or both a-la Maria Carey -and then some.

Watch the faces.

[osgood]

The black back looks fabulous, John.

My personal opinion is that the back of any frame should look neat, tidy and as if it was done with care and attention to detail.

My personal opinion is that that it doesn't need to be designed and done so wonderfully well that we might need to screw the dee rings and fix the wire to the front of the moulding because the back looks absolutely stunning and is more important to show than the front.

A line needs to be drawn and we all need to draw the line where we see fit.

My line was drawn about 22 years ago and it's not going to be changed......... for a few reasons:

The first reason is that my backs already look good enough and look humungously and strikingly better than anyone else's in my area.

The second reason is about the time taken. Too much time spent on the back means it costs too much to do. I am doing this to make a living!

The third reason is cost of materials. Adding a black core Alphamat to the back is just unnecessarily costly and I know, John that you don't intend to do that all the time, but if this example is what the customer sees, it's likely that that's what they will expect on the finished frames.......very risky IMO! Buying huge quantities of special tapes, backings, getting dee rings painted black, wire etc. etc. is just not an option for me! I am doing this to make a living!

There is a question! What will I gain by going further than where my line is drawn? Will dozens more customers flock to my door each week screaming for me to frame their art because they just can't live without my stunningly designed and executed, all black backs??? No..........I don't think so.......... not Aussies, Mate!

[Not your average framer]

if this example is what the customer sees, it's likely that that's what they will expect on the finished frames.......

Hi Ormond,

That's the general idea! Maybe the Aussies don't go for stuff like that, but both John and I are in locations where many will go for it and also come back for more.

[Not your average framer]

I fixed it a-la-dustcover USA - with PVA on the back of the frame only (and a few dabs of ATG tape so as not to have to worry about weighting it 'til it went off.)

Hi John,

I've been thinking about the pros and cons regarding the PVA. If for any reason you or another framer needs to get inside the frame, it won't be a simple matter to remove the PVA residue and fit a new dust cover, because the PVA is not water soluble. Any thoughts on this one?

[Roboframer]

it doesn't need to be designed and done so wonderfully well that we might need to screw the dee rings and fix the wire to the front of the moulding because the back looks absolutely stunning and is more important to show than the front.

I wouldn't call it wonderful or stunning - just simple, clean and fuss-free - a standard look in The States.

The second reason is about the time taken. Too much time spent on the back means it costs too much to do. I am doing this to make a living!

It replaced an artcare FC backing - the bevelling, chamfering and ATG-ing /gluing took no time at all.

The third reason is cost of materials. Adding a black core Alphamat to the back is just unnecessarily costly and I know, John that you don't intend to do that all the time, but if this example is what the customer sees, it's likely that that's what they will expect on the finished frames.......very risky IMO!

As I said - it replaced an artcare FC backing - at about the same sq ft price and included in the cost. This job - if it comes off WILL get this treatment - artcare is not necc as a backing but I can't find a solid black board, or any black core board that I'll be paying less for - not from the suppliers I deal with at least.

This method solved a problem for me - how to avoid taking space up in the rebate - which is one and a half inches deep with one and three eigths being used.

There is a question! What will I gain by going further than where my line is drawn?

For this job - the likes of which (from the front) the hotel owners would probably not have seen anything like, I'll hopefully gain an £11,000+ order. Maybe the look of the back will help the decision - doubt if they've seen anything like that either.

For future jobs - if I were to use this method as standard - wherever possible - it would further set me apart and it would add (to me) another 30p + VAT per sq ft per frame.

Then I also can say this ....

my backs already look good enough and look humungously and strikingly better than anyone else's in my area

I've not yet reached a point where I can draw a line and that's part of what keeps me going.

[Not your average framer]

Exactly so, John.

[osgood]

John,
I admire your dedication to produce such wonderful looking backs, but I just don't see the necessity, myself and the bottom line for me is, as I said, what advantage would it give me?.........a big fat 'NONE'.

A nice big order like yours is indeed worth chasing, but I don't understand why this method of backing the frames will get you the job!

Am I correct in thinking that the customer would not give you the job if you did your backs in the same way you normally do?

I sincerely hope you do get the job!

[Roboframer]

I
couldn't
do
it
the
way
I
normally
do
it

There
was
no
room
in
the
expletive
deleted
rebate


What you see from the front takes up the whole rebate and needs to for the best effect - so the options were either add a back the same size and depend on flexitabs bent over it and looking like carp under the sealing tape - or cover the whole frame back. Or I could've covered all but half an inch or so of the frame all around and sealed with tape.

Decided it would look better, and take less time if I covered the whole back and used glue/atg.

Thought of artback, but you'd see a brown corrugated edge - thicker too, then, after speaking to Mark (NYAF) thought of a black back.

Liked it - thinking of doing it all the time - maybe it won't win more work - don't think it will lose any.

Then again maybe it will win more work - bumpers have done in the past!