Reversibility

Conservation Issues
Post Reply
Roboframer

Reversibility

Post by Roboframer »

Is that a real word?

Anyway, if you claim that an adhesive material/method you use is 'reversible' can YOU reverse it .... leaving the paper (to keep it simple) in the exact same state as it was before you got your hands on it? (notwithstanding anything that might have happened to it/that it might have absorbed, that is out of your control)
User avatar
IFGL
Posts: 3087
Joined: Sun 06 May, 2012 5:27 pm
Location: Sheffield UK
Organisation: Inframe Gallery Ltd
Interests: Films ,music and art, my wife and kids are pretty cool too.
Location: Sheffield
Contact:

Re: Reversibility

Post by IFGL »

no, and because of this we have been using platform mounts more and more, we learned this technique from your good self.

zest it does an outstanding job of removing many sticky tapes and often leaves no visible residue, there is bound to be one though.
User avatar
benjiman grapes
Posts: 97
Joined: Sun 23 Jun, 2013 8:07 pm
Location: Norwich
Organisation: GN Framing
Interests: I'm a philosophical tea drinking film geek gamer with OCD. My family is established in Norfolk, England prior to 1686 and I butter with a spoon.
Location: Norwich
Contact:

Re: Reversibility

Post by benjiman grapes »

This a conversation one should have with the customers/clients.
Keeping examples of reversed techniques is good practice. Allows customer to see what would be left/condition if wanting re-framing later.

But agreed platform mounts would be best practice.

But my understanding is for the average customer is that no matter what we do. Once you start displaying in the home. UV.
Have the best glass in place but UV wins every time.
Benjiman Grapes
DURUM PATIENTIA FRANCO
| www.benjiman.co.uk | benjiman.grapes@hotmail.co.uk |
User avatar
prospero
Posts: 11492
Joined: Tue 05 Jun, 2007 4:16 pm
Location: Lincolnshire

Re: Reversibility

Post by prospero »

Look at it this way: If you frame something, can you turn around and un-frame it leaving it with no sign that it had ever been framed?
If the answer is YES, then you are fully reversible. :D
Preservation is a slightly different thing. However well you frame it there factors (as Robo rightly points out) beyond your control. If the owner decides to store it in a damp cellar, or hang it in a greenhouse or bathroom then your efforts will mitigate damage to some extent, but not defend the work completely from such outrages.
Watch Out. There's A Humphrey About
Jamesnkr

Re: Reversibility

Post by Jamesnkr »

Mostly, who cares. If you unframe something and it has a bit of tape on the top that will be under the replacement mount, who cares? If it is theoretically reversible, then it could be reversed by a conservator if somebody really wants to. Most customers aren't museums.

Any method of framing that involves obscuring some of the paper means you're going to create tide-lines around the edge of the artwork. And I know you'll say "that's what the customer does to it, not what I the framer am doing to it" but it's still the end result of framing the picture which is being done by you the framer on the instructions of your customer in a fashion agreed between you.

So, the only two acceptable framing methods are: tissue paper in a Melinex sleeve in a drawer, or getting the frame fairies to hold it in place magically. I guess Melinex encapsulation is also acceptable from a conservation perspective, but it's really not aesthetically acceptable until they produce AR Melinex.

And most of the artwork framed by customers isn't really worth anything anyway. If it costs £400 to frame a large contemporary print that cost £300 (and in the centre of London you don't need me to tell you that's a perfectly possible cost for a bog-standard h/f AR frame [those are the two buzz words (h/f and AR, not bog-standard...) that people will pay for]) then the value is in the frame, not in the print. The print is essentially disposable. Its resale value is probably only £50 anyway - if you're lucky. And when the owner is bored with it or moves house, it probably will be junked.

Trust me, I sell art. Saying 'I'll frame it free' is a great way of getting a sale away.
User avatar
prospero
Posts: 11492
Joined: Tue 05 Jun, 2007 4:16 pm
Location: Lincolnshire

Re: Reversibility

Post by prospero »

Limited edition print mint condition - £1500.00 Same print with a bit torn off - £500.00.

I had a customer once back in the silly season of the '90s who had a fine collection of Robert Taylor prints. Secondary market value at the time about 40K. He got a mate of his to frame them cheap. Trimmed and dry mounted the lot and not very well either. Wiped out most of the value if not all of it. Collectors know condition is all and so they buy as mint as they can. Knackered copies are virtually worthless.

He cared. :| At least he did when I pointed this out to him. :giggle:
Watch Out. There's A Humphrey About
User avatar
IFGL
Posts: 3087
Joined: Sun 06 May, 2012 5:27 pm
Location: Sheffield UK
Organisation: Inframe Gallery Ltd
Interests: Films ,music and art, my wife and kids are pretty cool too.
Location: Sheffield
Contact:

Re: Reversibility

Post by IFGL »

Reversible methods don't take any longer to do, cost about the same and are better for the artwork, so why not use them?
Jamesnkr

Re: Reversibility

Post by Jamesnkr »

prospero wrote:Limited edition print mint condition - £1500.00 Same print with a bit torn off - £500.00.
Yes; or perhaps. The moment you frame it, it's no longer mint. And sticking a bit on that can be taken off by a paper conservator, then that's not damage. Bit torn off under the mount, nothing to worry about (not at that price level where it's just a decorative item).
Roboframer

Re: Reversibility

Post by Roboframer »

Jamesnkr wrote:the only two acceptable framing methods are: tissue paper in a Melinex sleeve in a drawer, or getting the frame fairies to hold it in place magically. I guess Melinex encapsulation is also acceptable from a conservation perspective, but it's really not aesthetically acceptable until they produce AR Melinex.
There are other methods - well, one I can think of quickly - long winded - go to TFG and search "Direct contact overlay"

Have you heard of 'Dark fading"? :-)

Encapsulation can be aesthetically pleasing in many cases - and when it's maybe not so then it can be a compromise - like "If you REALLY must see the whole thing then there is this method but ........". Glass that is not optically coated can be aesthetically pleasing so what's wrong with having something no more shiny below it! ... and there are many things that start out shiny before they are encapsulated..

From normal viewing distance your own body is probably stopping any reflection - and if the item is very large then even with AR glass you'll still probably see reflection.
Jamesnkr

Re: Reversibility

Post by Jamesnkr »

DCO isn't really conservation framing though is it. The problem is with the 'C' word. It is, after all, a version of the worst sort of framing - picture up against the glass.

I personally don't like the wrinkles in Melinex, distracting - I know you love it!
Roboframer

Re: Reversibility

Post by Roboframer »

It can get wrinkly over certain sizes, in which cases I don't recommend it. Nor do I love it - not for encapsulation - it's a means to an end. I love it more in thin straps for fastening objects in place - I have a shell in the shop done in them, I challenge people to spot the straps, no-one has so far.

Read about DCO before trashing it - no "glass" is used.

Encapsulation is a DCO method
Jamesnkr

Re: Reversibility

Post by Jamesnkr »

Roboframer wrote:Read about DCO before trashing it - no "glass" is used.

Encapsulation is a DCO method
The whole point is that "glass" IS used, for all that no glass is used. ;)

I don't think I'd be inclined to recommend DCO as a preferred conservation option, it's particularly superb for big posters and I heartily recommend it for framing purposes. It's closely related to the stuff-it-in-a-clip-frame but with acrylic glazing instead of glass. Nothing's going to come to much harm. But it's not exactly text book conservation framing for properly valuable items.
Roboframer

Re: Reversibility

Post by Roboframer »

One of us knows shat we're talking about
(Clue - it's not you)
User avatar
IFGL
Posts: 3087
Joined: Sun 06 May, 2012 5:27 pm
Location: Sheffield UK
Organisation: Inframe Gallery Ltd
Interests: Films ,music and art, my wife and kids are pretty cool too.
Location: Sheffield
Contact:

Re: Reversibility

Post by IFGL »

Well I was just going to say James is misinformed, but you put it better John.
User avatar
prospero
Posts: 11492
Joined: Tue 05 Jun, 2007 4:16 pm
Location: Lincolnshire

Re: Reversibility

Post by prospero »

The 'reversible' ethos is a good one to follow in framing. Not necessarily anything to do with conservation.

How many times has someone brought you an item for re-framing and you find that you can't remove the art from the frame without risking damage? I've had quite valuable prints where the mount has been stuck to the margin of the print. In one case with copious amounts of hide glue. A lot of prints that come ready-mounted take a lot of careful work to extract them.

Even on frames themselves. I've had a few where the customer wanted them refinished but the frame had a liner in that was firmly glued in all round. Impossible, or at least impractical to separate. One or two dots of glue or a few small nails would have done the job.

Canvases fixed in with huge nails though the stretchers. I've had to resort to an angle grinder to liberate some of these. :?
Watch Out. There's A Humphrey About
Jamesnkr

Re: Reversibility

Post by Jamesnkr »

Roboframer wrote:One of us knows shat we're talking about
(Clue - it's not you)
If you like framing things so they touch acrylic glazing, I'm not going to protest outside your shop. But I hope you will excuse me if I leave this method for framing large posters. It may well be reversible, it is not properly conservation. Lots of things will not appreciate touching the glazing. Anything printed or painted, for example. You still have the issue of condensation that you have with glass, and the foxing consequence, for all that the extent of the issue is much lower than with glass.
Roboframer

Re: Reversibility

Post by Roboframer »

I don't think I've mentioned anything against the glazing.
Post Reply