The Framers Forum

Hi all,

I have a lovely client who has asked me to frame his late fathers spectacles, they are a modern (plastic rectangle) frame . However they want the arms hidden. I just wanted to see if folks have mounted glasses in a similar way and could offer some advice?

My thought is to remove the arms of the glasses (I have permission) and then to use the 'eye' of the hing on the frame to thread the glasses to the mountcard. This obviously won't keep the glasses from moving but the client was also keen to avoid anything obvious fixing the frame to the mount.

As always I am grateful for the experience and advice!

Your idea is very doable. Place the temples behind the mount/backing board.

I'm not so sure that it won't be likely to prevent the glasses for moving, but might be very possible to prevent the glasses for moving and without the method of fixing from showing either. I've just been having a good look at my own glasses and the plastic nose rests are visble just outside of the frames and lenses.

They are translucent plastic rest, but hide the metal fixings for these nose rests quite well. These metal fixings for the nose resrs are something that you have to look for, if you want to see them. In the case of my own glasses, it would be very easy to feed some 15 amp fuse wire around these metal fittings and twist the ends of the fuse wire together and feed them through two find holes in the mountboard behind, without being able to set the fuse wire at all.

Of course my glasses may not be exactly the same as the glasses your are framing, so you will have to evaluate if this method is suitable.

Thank you both.

I should have mentioned Mark, the nose rests form part of the glasses frame, they don't have a separate nose rest - I know what you mean ... i'm a glasses wearer.

Cut two hole in the mountcard so the arms can go through and fold, make a nice snug fit, thus helping to secure the spectacles

Thanks Steve, I failed to add that I had first thought of this but the depth of the folded arms is about 35mm and would require a fairly deep box frame (60mm +), the client wasn't too keen to have such a deep frame.

I also thought that the holes created could / would (from my initial test) look a bit scruffy?

I've done similar by taking some foamboard and sticking a velvet-type material to it. You can easily do this with carpet tape.
The tape joins won't show if you do it right. Then you can cut slits and the holes shouldn't look rough as the material gets 'tucked in'.
Foamboard is rigid but can be squashed to conform. Any sort of fabric would work, but velvet would look very appropriate. If you
can find a little bit the right colour. You could even pad it behind.

A very interesting and timely thread. I say timely because I have an object framing job that is very complicated.

Looking at my own glasses, they also are nearly 40cm deep when folded and would require a box frame to accommodate that depth. I see in your OP you have permission to remove the arms of the glasses - that should make the life much easier.

Your comment about holes in mountboard can look "a bit scruffy" is very pertinent. This is one of the problems I have with this specific custom frame.

Prospero's point about using material as the edges around the hole get "tucked in" is a very good one and can also work with mountboard. If a minute hole is required I use an appropriate size sewing needle. For much bigger holes or slits a sharp chisel does the job.

The object framing I am working requires a type of formed rods and I have found, by practising on scrap card, that drilling a small hole initially lifts the surface paper, pushing the rods through from the front "tucks" it back in.

Very best of luck framing the glasses and in the meantime, it would be interesting to hear if anyone has other ways of making neat holes in mountboard.

Peter.

Hollow punches such as those used to make holes in leather belts also work well on mount board and start of at 1 or 2 mm diameter up to 10 or more.
Quite reasonably priced direct from the rain forest

Thank you for the "hollow punches" suggestion. I had thought about them buts it's nice to have that idea confirmed.

Peter.