Box Framing

jeyelle · Post by **jeyelle** » Fri 02 Feb, 2007 5:56 pm

Hi Everyone

Hope your having a good start to the New Year.
The Question......
I do quite a bit of box framing, usually from either natural wood or foamcore, and recently stumbled across this boxing glove. I have a couple to frame and wondered what the best way to frame like this i.e sloping sides using foamcore.
Just wondered if anyone else had used before and what is the best way to acheive this. Sorry for the small photo, but only one I could find

All the best to everyone

Jeyelle

Post by **John** » Fri 02 Feb, 2007 6:52 pm

Have you looked on The Grumble?

I saw a couple of good boxing glove examples a couple of months back.

Roboframer · Post by **Roboframer** » Fri 02 Feb, 2007 8:04 pm

John wrote:Have you looked on The Grumble?

I saw a couple of good boxing glove examples a couple of months back.

Here you go

Roboframer · Post by **Roboframer** » Fri 02 Feb, 2007 10:09 pm

Have to say that I have never attempted one of those 'coved' mounts, where you cut a mitre from each corner, score the back aperture, fold in and tape from the back. Best example I saw was fabric-wrapped, hides the joins.

But I don't like the idea of what pokes out of the back, or, if it is made flush, all that space that needs to be filled in - I also just don't like the overall look - much prefer a sink mount, a box.

I had two gloves before Christmas, showed the customer the photos from that Grumble link "Ooooh yes please" Worked them out at about £500 each "Ooooh - no thanks!"

realhotglass · Post by **realhotglass** » Fri 02 Feb, 2007 10:53 pm

Isn't it John (admin) that has used the convex acrylic ?
Takes the item bulk instead of the need for a deep box.

We make a lot of our 20" x 16" deep convex glass, among other sizes, for boxing gloves.
The benefit that it won't scratch / dull like acrylic.

This one is 450mm x 450mm (17-3/4" x 17-3/4"), about 120mm (4") deep.

Hey hey, we can now UV block these too : )

Roboframer · Post by **Roboframer** » Fri 02 Feb, 2007 11:15 pm

Now that's something else I just don't like the look of - to me it's not 'framed' - it's poking OUT OF the frame - like it's on a plinth.

Framed things are IN the frame - but that's just my '2 cents'

realhotglass · Post by **realhotglass** » Sat 03 Feb, 2007 2:43 pm

Robo, you're certainly entitled to that opinion.
I will say, it's hard to get the total aspect of something from a picture too.
Seeing this type of job in the flesh may change your view.

Many framers (and particularly their clients) love this product, preferring a lower profile 'non boxy' piece on the wall.

Saves an awful lot of time and mucking about constructing very deep custom 'behinds' too.

Some shadow boxes for boxing gloves for example can be 18" x 18" in size with 6" - 8" depth needed.
That looks atrocious (IMHO).

Plus they're not called shadow boxes for nothing. Dark and dingy places, some of them.

Actually, I prefer glass display cases for really bulky, difficult to mount items.
Eg. footballs (real ones and round ones), basketballs, boxing gloves, and the like).

Edit : Actually, I do like Jeyelles design. The light colours and coved design keeps it quite bright and open looking.

osgood · Post by **osgood** » Sat 03 Feb, 2007 7:39 pm

Roboframer wrote:Now that's something else I just don't like the look of - to me it's not 'framed' - it's poking OUT OF the frame - like it's on a plinth.
Framed things are IN the frame - but that's just my '2 cents'

Everything doesn't have to always be "behind" the actual frame to be called "framed". It would be a bit boring and as Les says, "dark and dingey"if everything was done that way.
You certainly are entitled to not like the look of something, but it does place a limit on the designs that your customers are offered. The majority of them would probably love the design that Les showed. I'm sure that if you actually saw that frame, "in the flesh" your opinion might be swayed a little!

2 cents is about right.