Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
I'm looking to frame a large 30" x 40" US movie poster using conversation techniques, but the black mountboard I have, although white core, is not rated for conservation use.
If I were to use a double mount, and place a white conservation-friendly mountboard as the bottom mount, would that be enough to protect the poster - or would the acidity in the top mountboard still pose a risk by being in the frame in the first place?
What follows are the two framing options I've narrowed it down to, with one just using a simple single conservation-friendly Ice White mountboard. I'd be interested in any opinions in which looks better to someone approaching this with fresh eyes....
When it comes to mountboards, what's described as 'non-conservation' is a whole lot better than the nasty old stuff
of yesteryear. Frankly, I wouldn't agonise too much about it.
When it comes to acid damage some papers are more vulnerable than others. You movie poster should be quite resistant.
I've framed things way back using std cream core and some I have had the opportunity to examine after over 30 years and not
a trace of acid damage. It's true you do see old watercolours/engravings with the characteristic brown shadow around
the edge but these are ususally 100+ years old when the mountboard used was extremely nasty. Saying that, I've seen very old
watercolours that have had very acidic mountboard around them that have not exhibited any damage whatsoever. Good paper.
I have asked the same question on framers only recently. Advice included using a barrier paper under the black mount, creating a shadow gap using a reverse bevelled white mount underneath, to not worrying because framers tests have shown that acids do not migrate from black mounts as you would expect them to, but as Próspero points out, maybe that's to do with the quality of paper.
Personally I like a shadow gap. I've also atg taped a white then black then white board together and cut one window which gives an interesting look, mimicking the LJ board but with thicker layers.
Big Wednesday! Great cult film!!
Out of choice, I like the top pic, I think it pulls your eye into the poster.
One thing that people tend to overlook when trying to apply 'conservation' principles: What is the acid content of the actual artwork.
If the artwork itself is full of acid and attendant nasties, no amount of Acid-Free/Museum/Conservation grade board is going to preserve it.
That movie poster is relatively modern and therefore maybe done on decent paper. Older ones were printed on cheap stock as they were not
intended to last. So if you have say, an original King Kong poster from 1933 it will be worth a fortune, but you can bet what ever nasty mountboard
you put next to it, it won't be as nasty as the actual poster.
prospero wrote:
That movie poster is relatively modern and therefore maybe done on decent paper. Older ones were printed on cheap stock as they were not
intended to last. So if you have say, an original King Kong poster from 1933...
I'm glad you clarified relatively modern Próspero, as the film came out in 1978 when I was still in single figures. I guess that makes me relatively young!!
I can't claim to be an expert on the quality of the paper used for film posters, but if it's not really old it probably is a smooth faced paper where the surface has been treated with china clay. They do this to get the smoothest possible surface to print on when using offset litho printing to ensure the very best quality of printing. The china clay is not only relatively alkaline, but also since it does not contain any cellulose fibres as in the under laying paper, there is nothing to be visually affected by the presence of acid escaping from the mountboard.
I am assuming that the non conversation quality mountboard is going to be from a range of boards where some would be classified as white core mountboard, while others would be classified as conservation quality, if this is the case then the facing papers on the presentation face of the mountboard is likely to explain why this particular colour of mountboard does not fully comform to all the requirements to be certified as of conservation quality.
Failure of the facing paper to comply with the conservation requirements, can include bleed resistance where to colour pigment can bleed out of the facing paper when wet, or failure of the fade resistance tests (blue wool scale test) and there may be other unspecified problems, but that's about it. Being an ex-design engineer, I'm one of those people who tends to read manufacturers published specification and these can tell you a lot, if you can understand what they are telling you.
Well, it's a fairly normal thing for most conversation and white core boards to use PVA as the means of bonding the facing papers to the core material and this has some helpful implications, which are that there is a barrier of PVA between the facing papers and the core material. If you examine older mounts removed from an older framed artwork using a neutral pH cream core board it is often possible to see that the facing paper adjacent to the artwork has not discoloured due to acidic attack in the same way that the core has discoloured.
I am suggesting that it is not unreasonable to attribute this lack of acidic contamination to either the PVA separating the facing paper from the core and /or differences in the material qualities of the facing paper. I therefore would suggest that there tangible reasons why Prosperro's comments have a certain amount of scientific substance backing up what he has said.
In conclusion, I would point out that from a purists point of view that this is a bit of a liberty, but you can argue that at least there are a number of factors which be taken into account when attempting to justify this course of action. At the end of the day, it is you as the framer who has to justify the reasons for doing this. I hope that this helps.
Mark Lacey
“Life is short. Art long. Opportunity is fleeting. Experience treacherous. Judgement difficult.”
― Geoffrey Chaucer
Justintime wrote:
I'm glad you clarified relatively modern Próspero, as the film came out in 1978 when I was still in single figures. I guess that makes me relatively young!!
1978 is modern to me.
The point I was trying to make was if you framed identical two posters, one in so-called 'conservation' quality and one so-called 'non-conservation'
and hung them in the same room for 50 years I would bet that they would still be in identical condition.
It's true you do see old watercolours/engravings with the characteristic brown shadow around
