Conservation Framing?
Posted: Fri 06 Jan, 2023 3:06 pm
A customer brought in a high value original piece. The framer's label states it's from Academy Framing at the Royal Academy of Arts (no longer in existence according to Google, Academy Framing not the RA!). The customer mentioned the name Terry Barnes as the Framer. I was excited to have the opportunity to open it up and inspect the workmanship. The work is dated 1988, so I guess that's a possible framing date.
I'm wary of being accused of naming and shaming and more interested in discussing the changes/improvements in materials and techniques over the years. Perhaps some framers with more years than me under their belts might have some opinions about framing in that era.
It came in because the work was no longer being contained by the mount, or as the customer put it " Terry must have cut the mount too big", but I can't believe it was always like this.
The backing tape was still doing its job, not too much bridging, some rust on the triangle points, as you'd expect. Below the backing the package was sandwiched with a self adhesive tape. I was surprised, as I thought that this was a relatively recent method. Not an easy job to undo obviously, but testament to the fact that it is an effective method for sealing the package. Having opened the mount I was disappointed to see self adhesive hinges onto a 500 mic undermount, probably rag board. My job is to simply add a rag board to the bottom of the mounts, decreasing the window size to contain the work again. It was obvious from the front that a 2000mic rag board had been placed under the linen wrapped mount, I was assuming to protect the work from being in contact with the wrapped mount.
I was then faced with this... From previous experiences, it seems to have been fairly standard practice to skimp on the undermount, often making the rag mount inclusion redundant. But brown self adhesive tape? Was this ever common practice on a valuable original piece?
I'm wary of being accused of naming and shaming and more interested in discussing the changes/improvements in materials and techniques over the years. Perhaps some framers with more years than me under their belts might have some opinions about framing in that era.
It came in because the work was no longer being contained by the mount, or as the customer put it " Terry must have cut the mount too big", but I can't believe it was always like this.
The backing tape was still doing its job, not too much bridging, some rust on the triangle points, as you'd expect. Below the backing the package was sandwiched with a self adhesive tape. I was surprised, as I thought that this was a relatively recent method. Not an easy job to undo obviously, but testament to the fact that it is an effective method for sealing the package. Having opened the mount I was disappointed to see self adhesive hinges onto a 500 mic undermount, probably rag board. My job is to simply add a rag board to the bottom of the mounts, decreasing the window size to contain the work again. It was obvious from the front that a 2000mic rag board had been placed under the linen wrapped mount, I was assuming to protect the work from being in contact with the wrapped mount.
I was then faced with this... From previous experiences, it seems to have been fairly standard practice to skimp on the undermount, often making the rag mount inclusion redundant. But brown self adhesive tape? Was this ever common practice on a valuable original piece?