Museum quality?

[Roboframer]

This is a glass replacement job - a sticker on the back stated that it had been framed to 'museum quality specifications with 100% rag mat and backing' It was framed in the USA. I'd show the sticker but it includes the shop details - and I can't attach more than 3 images anyway - never knew that!

We pointed out the brown bevels and the standard glass, but they just went for new standard glass and keep the old mounts anyway.

Inside we found that that back (under)mount was maybe cotton - but very thin, and then they had put offcuts of the same stuff under the mount (mat)

I just wondered if that framer actually believed that the job actually was up to the described standards or maybe thought that if push came to shove s/he could have them on a technicality?

[prospero]

Hmmmmm......What the eye doesn't see.....

I had a frame in the other day for repair. The artwork was a v nice oriental ink/watercolour on a beautiful sheet of untrimmed handmade paper. Nicely made frame and a very intricate double mount. The customer asked if I could do something about the wrinkles in the painting, whereupon I said with great confidence that this was certainly a sympton of being stuck down on all four sides with masking tape. I took the frame apart. It was.

Don't ya just love it when that happens?

[JFeig]

That print is dated '75.

Framers concepts of quality framing has changed a lot in the 30 years since that print was framed. Back in those days, Standard cream center boards were the norm. Placing a separator of 2 ply and or 4 ply mat board over the back of a mat was also considered a premium product to sell. It however, was never considered "Museum Quality" by a reputable shop.

That is at the very beginning of the PPFA. I am not sure that the "Frame Guild" group of PPFA was even in existence as I started framing in 1984. Frame Guild was an early attempt at an quality standards organization.

[Bill Henry]

We pointed out the brown bevels and the standard glass, …

Inside we found that that back (under)mount was maybe cotton - but very thin, and then they had put offcuts of the same stuff under the mount (mat)

I just wondered if that framer actually believed that the job actually was up to the described standards or maybe thought that if push came to shove s/he could have them on a technicality?

So, whazzamatter, youze got a pro’lem wid dat?

Museum Quality ?

Remember what Humpty Dumpty said, “A word means just what I choose it to mean. Neither more, nor less.”