The Framers Forum

Hi All

Just after your advice on what you would suggest. Customer brought in a canvas which is 40mil deep. They have picked a moulding to suit the picture but as i pointed out its not deep enough to cover the back. They don't want the white side of the canvas showing.

The moulding is 93539.1104 Ashworth & Thompson its a pewter . What would you suggest to hide the white sides of the canvas. There is only about 15mil white showing

Thanks

Hi Wireman,

It is possible to extend the rebate on a moulding, but I'm not sure about the best way to go about it. Depending on the "face-on" moulding used, sometimes I will create a "stacked" frame rim using a flat, fairly shallow moulding on its side, so that the "front" frame sits into the upturned rebate of the "side" frame.

I'm sure other members will be able to advise you further. Also, try searching on The Grumble for more tips!

If you are going to add something like another moulding and then maybe paint it to blend in with the frame, then you'll be charging for that.

So why not just re-stretch the canvas over normal stretcher bars?

Roboframer wrote:So why not just re-stretch the canvas over normal stretcher bars?

So simple! Yet more proof of Robo's genius!

ask the customer if they would like the sides painted black, we have done this, and it can look very good, like the frame is floating off the wall.
Simple, economical, and easy.

Or make a slip over, to cover the exposed canvas sides, from (say) 15x4 or 15x6mm PAR and paint that.

One thing - How much will actually be visible when its on the wall.

I have framed quite a few of these 'gallery wrap' canvases lately. Why people use tem when they are going to use a conventional frame, I do not know. Possibly because they are cheap. But they can be a pain when the customer insists on a narrow frame. These canvases are mostly aimed at absract works where the artist would continue the image onto the sides so no frame is needed (thx a bunch. ). Blacking the edge is good, but I did some before xmas like this and then I remembered that black oil paint takes weeks to dry. They were still tacky in palces when the customer picked them up. Suppose I could have used arcylic but was abit worried about adhesion where the sides meet the oil paint on the front.

Robo has the elegant solution. Takes true genius to see the bleedin' obvious.

btw. anyone know a supplier who has 'off the shelf' bog standard stretcher bars in metric sizes. (that don't cost the earth)

acrylic dries in a few minutes in the warm, half an hour on a humid day, once installed you can paint the z clips too although on some of these cheap canvasses I've been known to affix them with the nailgun

quicker than a re-stretch, but not the "proper" solution.

I had to convince a customer that I couldn't (well, wouldn't) frame one of those very deep ones with the sloping (bevelled) sides. 25x25cm image size front edge, 40x40cm overall at the back edge, sides were not painted.

we re-stretched that one

Re stretchers - why not keep in the full length (3m/10ft) ones (eg. mainline) and morso to any size as needed? I find that the most convenient and economical way.

kev@frames wrote:Re stretchers - why not keep in the full length (3m/10ft) ones (eg. mainline) and morso to any size as needed? I find that the most convenient and economical way.

Same here, and also the most practical for me, given the mixed sizes of canvasses I get in for stretching: I've a box of standard bars sitting there for 2 years.

I also like the flexibility the stretcher lengths give: one can really maximise the visible area of the painting.

Now when I were a lad..........

I must admit that for long measurents I tend to think in imperial. (that's about 10 foot wide, etc), but I would never dream of cutting mounts or frames in anything other than metric. (whats 30 1/4 plus 2x 4 9/16 ?). It's MUCH quicker. Strange thing is I always use millimetres. If someone gives me a measurement in centimetres I have to think twice. 1534 mm - no problem. 153.4 cm, errrr wait a minute. Daft, but there it is.

I well remember the first job I had in a factory that made plastic injection mouded components. Part of the job was to colour the raw plastic in pellet form by adding 3% by weight of a colourant. At the time the natural coloured plastic came in 50lb (that's pounds for younsters) bags. So you tipped 4 bags = 200lb in a barrel and added 6lb colurant. Not rocket science you think.... There were a few old boys working there at the time. Most were a few years off retirement and the trouble started when bags started coming in in 25kg size. Well 25kg =55.27 lb (I think).
I really made no difference to the mix. 4 bags = 100kg. add 3kg colouring.
You just mixed a bit more at a time. But one chap insisted of putting a bit more colouring in to compensate for the extra 20lb or so. No way could I get it into his head that 3% is the same in metric. No, the 25kg bags have 5lb more in them so they need extra colourant..... Thing is that it made no difference to the result. 3% was optimum and any extra made no difference, but a bag of colourant cost about a months wages for me at the time he was actually wasting loads of money for the firm apart from driving me up the wall. I gave up in the end...

I had a long argument with another old boy about maps. He had just got a new road map and was moaning about it being metric. I told him that OS maps at any rate had always been metric. 1 KM is a perfect division of the Earth's circumference. A mile is something to do with the marching speed of Roman legions or whatever. I happened to have an old OS map dated 1908 and had to bring it to work to show him that the squares were kilometres before he was born.

Puts me in mind of the 'Open all Hours': "we are converting this clothesline
to metric" episode.

[quote="prospero"I must admit that for long measurents I tend to think in imperial. (that's about 10 foot wide, etc), but I would never dream of cutting mounts or frames in anything other than metric. (whats 30 1/4 plus 2x 4 9/16 ?). It's MUCH quicker. Strange thing is I always use millimetres. If someone gives me a measurement in centimetres I have to think twice. 1534 mm - no problem. 153.4 cm, errrr wait a minute. Daft, but there it is.[/quote]
I'm exactly the same! Take the 1 centimetre mark. Think below it - millimetres. Anything equal to or above starts at half an inch!

I think it's easier to related to imperial measurements because they seem to be more related to things in the real (cf. scientific) world. Makes 'em easier for we mere humans to grok!

Is a 'tad' bigger or smaller than a 'smigeon'? that's what I want to know.

And does a group of 8 hobbits = 1hobbyte?

In answer to the first question, 'tad' is bigger, I reckon!

As for the second, you're the Tolkien expert!

If you want to get into nano-technology, try 'three parts of a spider's eyebrow'. or a 'gnat's whisker'.

We use the gnats, whisker and smidgen system. Gnats is the smallest and a smidgen is the largest.

prospero wrote:If you want to get into nano-technology, try 'three parts of a spider's eyebrow'. or a 'gnat's whisker'.

ah, thats about the same as a "nadger", which is a slightly smaller version of the good old Cornish "nadge".

A nadge is slighly bigger than a "Smidgin" but smaller than the English "tad" (well it would be wouldn't it, he says with all the bitterness of the offended Celt).

Now im just off for a "spot" of tea.

kev@frames wrote:...a "spot" of tea.

Luxury! Your poor Celtic cousins over here only get a "drop"...

Measurement tolerance? The "bit for luck"!