5 levels of framing question

[Nigel Nobody]

Thanks for the info, Mark.

I checked the Conservation Resources Australian site and I don't see a reference to Evacon R. I don't see any EVA adhesives listed.

I suspect that some other liquid EVA adhesive might be similar to Evacon R, but can't be definite about it. Unless chemical specs are available from other suppliers, we can't really be sure. Some suppliers don't publish the specs, because they don't want other people cooking up the same product.

[Mary Evans]

Surely I can’t be the only framer who has been asked to keep an existing mount? I accept that England is a bit more “nutty” about antiques and distressed items than most countries and I guess I must just be one of the nuts! Of course it is better for the art to have nice new museum or conservation mountboards, but if the mount has the artist’s signature or inscription, or even if the customer has just grown accustomed to the old mount and loves it for its rather subtle (probably brownish!) colouring and decoration , who am I to tell them they must change it? I think, as framers, we can sometimes get carried away with what is good for the art - surely the number one purpose of any art is to give enjoyment and if the owner wants to keep an old mount why should we spoil their pleasure? I do explain that the mount will be giving off harmful gasses even if it is not touching the art. But when they still want to keep it then the best I can do is separate it from the artwork. Let’s face it, if you take preservation to its ultimate, then all valuable art would be wrapped in acid-free tissue and kept in a dark drawer! But it is on display to be enjoyed, and some people like distressed or old items. If everybody liked the same things life would be very boring!

I understand the argument that says if you retain an old windowmount then the frame doesn’t come up to a certain Framing Level. The decision the Framers Committee took was that if a customer insists on keeping an old or original windowmount, then that effectively becomes part of artwork. I’m sure there will be people who disagree with this, but we felt it was a reasonable compromise in these situations.

Also the Evacon R adhesive described by Not Your Average Framer is the EVA adhesive I use and find it works really well.

Mary

[Roboframer]

I agree with all you say Mary, bar that I wouldn't be calling anything containing that old mount a museum level job, regardless of it being considered part of the artwork, and I wouldn't be calling it a museum level job if it wasn't there but the artwork was stuck to straw board with hide glue either.

I'd only be calling it a museum quality job if all the frame's contents were up to standard and the artwork, if stuck to a board, had been removed and treated by a conservator
and also sometimes that old mount is stuck to the artwork and the backing, and removal, unless you're brave, is also a job for a conservator.

My main point was though, that PVA to bond a double mount would be far less of an issue and that most framers will put ATG tape in there as well as any wet adhesive.

The thickness of board and the distance from the old mount in the museum level recommendations are not enough anyway - it's thinner and closer than you should place a sealed mount slip, .

[Nigel Nobody]

Mary,
It's rather funny that you bring up the subject of keeping old mats/mounts at this time. Last week I picked up five framed pieces that are all more than 20 years old and the customer wants the mats kept in three of them. This is the first time in 26 years that this has been requested!

They are going to get an undermount of 4ply Alphamat or Alpharag that will be set back 1mm from the current edge, and will have a reverse bevel where the size of the art permits.

She also wants several of the badly acid affected cardboard backings kept because they have hand written info on them. They too will be getting a piece of 4ply Alphamat or Alpharag underneath the cardboard.

One other interesting drawing has faded badly and she tells me that other pieces by the same artist, that friends have in their possession are faded even worse. I suggested using UV glazing on it to slow the progress of the fading, but no, she is quite happy to see it fade completely away.

[Roboframer]

Now we have a focussed topic, I wonder if I could for the first time get an opinion .... from anyone, but hopefully Mary, Max or Louise ... or that conservator geezer that shows up from time to to time ... on this, from one of the other threads ....

some say, (and I've asked opinions on this a couple of times and got little or no response) that cotton boards provide no more protection than the best conservation boards made from woodpulp - i.e. pure alpha cellulose.
Cotton boards are also alpha cellulose ... alpha cellulose is alpha cellulose, but the wood version takes longer to process.

If we/the FATG believed this, it would write off museum level (as long as UV glass and alpha cellulose board was a requirement of conservation level framing) and museum quality mount board.

I would say though, that the smallprint should advise that if in doubt, (maybe due to bewildering technical spec or lack of technical spec), to opt for cotton

[Roboframer]

if you take preservation to its ultimate, then all valuable art would be wrapped in acid-free tissue and kept in a dark drawer

But would the drawer be sealed like a frame can be?

Scroll down the link for 'dark fading' http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10315403/preser ... raming.pdf - I know it's all about photos and I know you can take things a bit far, like vacuum storage where you'd have to wear breathing appartus to view, and surely nothing is stored like that. Just saying, that's all.

[Gesso&Bole]

I think Mary is talking about a situation where the original mount (gilded or decorated) is considered to be a part of the artwork, and the client wants to keep it. I don't think there is any suggestion in the Guild guidelines that this is advantageous from a conservation point of view per se.

[Not your average framer]

I understand that the "R" at the end of "EVACON R" is important as it indicates that this particular EVA formulation is reversible. As such reversibility is not a characteristic normally required for EVA adhesives.

[Not your average framer]

I checked the Conservation Resources Australian site and I don't see a reference to Evacon R. I don't see any EVA adhesives listed.

Sorry Nigel,

Thinking about it. I haven't bought any for a while. I think I was wrong, it may have come from "Conservation by Design" which is another supplier.

BTW, anyone in the UK who is interested into subject of conservation, would find it of interest to request catalogues from: "Conservation Resources", "Conservation by Design", "Picreator" and P.E.L. These companies do not all supply the same range of products, so check out all of them. It is also informative to download product data sheets to get a detailed knowledge of products you may be interested in using.

[Mary Evans]

To answer Roboframers question on mountboards, I am not an expert on the technical properties. I appreciate that the Microchamber technology is claimed to be superior, but I’m not aware that Nielsen have submitted it for independent testing so, to use a rather overused quote, “they would say that, wouldn’t they?”

I haven’t ever heard a claim that ordinary Conservation (chemically reduced woodpulp) mountboards are as good as Cotton Museum boards. My understanding was that chemically reduced boards are left with a trace (about 0.65% comes to mind, but I really can’t remember where that came from and it may not be correct). Assuming there is a trace left, then I think it would be reasonable to assume that cotton boards, which are naturally free from harmful acids, would be preferable. In my experience of working for conservators there has always been an assumption that Cotton Museum boards are the best, with the reassurance that they have been tried and tested in framing for well over 100 years, so their reliability is known. …..which I think is the conclusion Roboframer came to as well?

“Dark fading” What I love about the picture framing trade is that you never stop learning! I’d never heard of dark fading. So I stand corrected with my “dark drawer” for the ultimate storage, but I’m not entirely sure where that leaves me in a domestic house! This article only refers to photographs, so perhaps Ormond or some other conservator can tell us if the same applies to art on paper? My guess is that it doesn’t, but it would be interesting to know.

[Roboframer]

From Hugh Phibbs - a conservator who's word is gospel on The Grumble (and not only)

"We are fortunate to have conservation quality four ply available in so many shades, sizes and thicknesses. To amplify what has been explained, lignin-free alpha cellulose, from wood and cotton are both safe and stable (the advantage that cotton linters have is that they are lignin-free as they come from the bole).
The molecular sieves (zeolites = alumina silicates) in the board are in the inner plys and will not touch the art. They will take up organic pollutants for many years and will not give the back, since the pollutants bond chemically to the interior of the zeolite. It is most important that the board be lignin-free and the concern about "acid-free" is less important"

and ...


"The improtant question is whether the board is lignin-free. Alpha cellulose that has been de-lignified performs fine and the advantage of the cotton linters is that cotton comes to us without lignin, from nature. The zeolites (alumna silicate molecular sieves) covalently bond with organic pollutants and will not re-emit them. They are in the interior plys of the board and can not touch the art. They are passive."

This is the thread these quotes are from, http://www.thegrumble.com/showthread.ph ... ough/page2 carry on to the next page and you'll see I asked for elaboration and the responses.

[Roboframer]

I’d never heard of dark fading. So I stand corrected with my “dark drawer” for the ultimate storage, but I’m not entirely sure where that leaves me in a domestic house! This article only refers to photographs, so perhaps Ormond or some other conservator can tell us if the same applies to art on paper? My guess is that it doesn’t, but it would be interesting to know.

Ormond's not a conservator. But I (who am even less of one) think that the gist, for any type of artwork, would be that an unsealed, dark drawer would protect from only one main enemy - light. A properly sealed frame would protect from the other things that could get in to the drawer.

[Nigel Nobody]

“Dark fading” What I love about the picture framing trade is that you never stop learning! I’d never heard of dark fading. So I stand corrected with my “dark drawer” for the ultimate storage, but I’m not entirely sure where that leaves me in a domestic house! This article only refers to photographs, so perhaps Ormond or some other conservator can tell us if the same applies to art on paper? My guess is that it doesn’t, but it would be interesting to know.

Mary,
As Robo says, I am not a conservator, so I am unable to tell you if the same applies to other art on paper. It might apply so maybe it's best to assume it will and take precautions.

You are so right in saying "you never stop learning". That is until you get stuck in a box and put in a dark place on the other side of the grass!
I have always had the same attitude and have learned as much as possible from people who know more than I do, which isn't hard because that means almost everyone.

It has been well known in North America for quite a long time that Alphamat with zeolytes is not only as good as cotton rag, but has some advantages over it. You only have to look at the examples showing deterioration of images, matted without zeolytes on the Bainbridge website to see that. I know there will be some objections about them making their own examples and they could be fake or exaggerated, but I believe there is an advantage. Hugh Phibbs has more knowledge on preservation than probably anyone in the universe, so I am happy to go along with whatever he says as being 'gospel', as Robo says.

It seems to me that there are a lot of people in UK who are not keeping up with a lot of conservation info coming from North America. Perhaps they are stuck in their ways, perhaps they don't want to admit that someone else has better knowledge. I don't know what it is, but it certainly is.
A perfect example of closed minds is the use of MDF by framers participating in this forum. In Australia and North America is isn't all that popular and hasn't been for quite while. There are some who still use it,but a much smaller percentage than it appears in UK.

This is one area that I personally have been trying to educate people about, here on the forum , but to no avail. I might as well give myself seven whacks on the head every morning with a big hammer.

Anyway, all I'm saying is that an open mind is a good thing!

[Nigel Nobody]

I haven’t ever heard a claim that ordinary Conservation (chemically reduced woodpulp) mountboards are as good as Cotton Museum boards.

I've been hearing that for many years and I'm sure that FACTS and the Library of Congress have both been stating it for a long time. This does not apply to any or all matboards that have been chemically treated, just the ones that have achieved a specific set of standards. Alphamat and Peterboro Conservation in particular. There may be others, but these are two I am familiar with.

[stcstc]

ormand

what are the disadvantages of MDF, as backing. or otherwise

If its got a board between it and the artwork, is it just a gas issue?

so if we used it with the alpharag board does that absorb the gases?

[Roboframer]

Why make the alpharag board do overtime?

If you are using a board of that quality (which is as good as it gets IMHO) then you're talking a top level preservation job (unless you just like the way it looks/cuts), in which case, why introduce ANYTHING in to the package that will cause damage unless you provide a barrier?

Can you imagine how the conversation with a customer might go ....

"Well Mrs Jones, our default backing is MDF - it's, like TOTALLY teeming with acid and has the ability to absorb even more (slaps thigh) plus moisture .. but it's OK, we'll put a board behind it that will protect your artwork from it"

First thing, as a customer, that I'd be thinking is why the frell do you use stuff so bad that it needs better stuff underneath it?

Most framers' answer - if they were totally honest would be - 'well, it's cheap and I don't know any better'

[stcstc]

i dont use MDF,well apart from blockmounting,(of which i do loads, and make a fortune from them), i prefer using card type stuff

Is MDF that bad??

[span2iels]

To return to the original thread regarding photographs and unbuffered mountboard for a moment. As we are aware Cotton Museum Board is made from 100% cotton fibre and the unbuffered board is especially made for mounting certain types of photographs. It would appear that these photographs are particularly those that, in the development process a protein based emulsion, iron salts or other alkaline sensitive materials have been used and it is these that are prone to chemically degrade in an alkaline environment and hence the requirement for unbuffered board that has passed the PAT. Such photographic processes include chromogenic (1942 to present day and include companies such as Kodacolor, Ektacolor, Konica, Agfa, and Fujicolor), albumen (between 1850 – 1906),and dye transfer (1946 – to present day.)

I am sure that many of us have seen photographs that have been stored together where the humidity and heat has caused the emulsion to soften and the photographs to stick together and when attempts to separate them the emulsion has pulled from the image. This is typical of the reaction between photographs developed using the chromogenic process.

The problem for us framers is to attempt to identify which process has or has not been used. One might suggest that it is not our problem and that the customer should be aware of the potential problems but then are they aware of the techniques employed by the photographer in developing/printing the photographs!

In a similar way and as Ormond suggests natural fibres that fall into the protein category such as silks, wools will react in the same way and again are likely to degrade in an alkaline environment. The converse is also true with regard to cellulose fibres such as cotton, linen ramie etc. Natural fibres in the same category react in a similar manner to chemical and environmental changes as others in the same category.

[stcstc]

mal

thanks for the explanation

Does this mean its very different with Glicee prints on cotton rag papers?

as they dont use the same emulsions. this is what prompted my question in the first place.

[span2iels]

Yes - I believe that to be the case. Certainly when I frame my own photos that are giclee printed on fine art paper I use buffered conservation boards as the printing process obviously does not use emulsions and the only connection to any photographic process is by taking the photograph in the first place.