Mountcutting re-visited

Not your average framer · Sat 03 Mar, 2007 9:10 pm

I am now really happy with my Keencut Ultimat and I dont get any hooking at all, even when I lay the mount onto a piece of graph paper and use the magnification of a x8 magnifier (Lupe). I admit that I'm very fussy about mounts, but eventually I got there.

The solution was so easy I can hardly believe it. The problem was staring me in the face, but I didn't know what it was. My really old C&H at home never hooks, but I couldn't understand what was different. Well, the difference was in the base-plate and the weight of the cutting bar clamping the mount while you cut it. I have now stuck a strip of barrier paper to the base-plate of the Ultimat with double sided tape, (I still use a slip mat of scrap mountboard on top as before). The mount cannot move now while the blade is inserted or spring back as the blade travels along the cut. This is because the aluminium baseplate is quite smooth and I clean it with baby lotion as advised on another post on this forum which might or might not help, but the additional grip from the barrier paper now makes all the difference.

A further improvement also, (now I am using single edge blades), is to lift the cutter bar very slightly before withdrawing the blade from the mount. This further advice came from Andy at Keencut and avoids the exit scuff mark on the bevel - My only problem is I keep forgetting to do it.

osgood · Post by **osgood** » Sat 03 Mar, 2007 9:30 pm

It's really interesting that most of us framers are so particular about the openings in our mats.
We never want overcuts, undercuts, hooks, scuffs, or any other microscopic defects.

I wonder if our customers are as particular as we are?

Many times I have had people bring in a glass replacement job that has been done somewhere else and the mat cutting has been unbelievably poor. There have sometimes been undercuts that result in a 2mm gap between the cuts in the corner, then after the fallout has been removed there is a "dag", flapping in the breeze that blind Freddy could see from 20 paces. On pointing these out to the customer they almost always say "Oh, I didn't notice that before".

At what point in our meticulous and painstaking efforts to achieve perfection do we stop???

Roboframer · Post by **Roboframer** » Sat 03 Mar, 2007 10:34 pm

Labels!!!

Not your average framer · Sat 03 Mar, 2007 11:09 pm

That's a good question Osgood,

It's not an easy one to answer. Very small hooks of as liitle as say 0.1mm to 0.2mm can easily be seen if you look for them, but IMHO really stand out when they occur on multiple aperture which in a nice neat line. Some of it comes from my ex-engineering mindset. If you want to find someone who is into machinery, you'll probably find he is into engineering too!

As I've mentioned on this forum before, if a customer brings in a job so I can match the frame, replace the glass, etc. This is my oportunity to up-stage my competition and hopefully win another regular customer. Do I tell them I can cut mounts better than that and show them some examples? Wouldn't you? I think you would too! My photographic magnifier (an 8x Lupe), shows up everything and the more difference to be seen between my work and a competitors work to my avdvantage the better I like it.

I'm not 100% sure, but I think my mountcutting problems probably started when I began cleaning the mountcutter with baby lotion, which I still do. It's the best way of keeping it clean that I know.

I am also into being creative with my mountcutting too! Most things ain't that difficult, but how many can be bothered to practice until they can do it right first time, every time. Even while the customer waits, it's only practice. We can't be good at everything, but we don't need to, only a few specialities will go a very long way in setting you apart from the rest.

Here's one of my regular favorites:

The customers love them and everyone wants to know who did the framing. It's only practice and getting your head around getting the best out of the machinery. It's actually quite easy to do!

Roboframer · Post by **Roboframer** » Sun 04 Mar, 2007 1:05 am

OK - I'm always up for a bit of constructive criticism - taking or giving.... hope you don't mind, seen this design previous and kept schtung, but ....

Here's my two bob's ..... The neutral double mount is easier on the eye than the gold one - but why the arched top? It's not relative and actually seems to be covering detail.

The gold one? Well, the Xmas tree is pointed and has a square design around or behind, again - why the arch? Especially with the shoulders? Well, I know why the shoulders are there - ever tried to do an arch without shoulders on a manual cutter? It's a cop-out and one I'd avoid unless it particularly suited - it doesn't here (IMHO)

The white bevels are too close to each other, especially at the top of the arch, but all way round too and the negative space on the bottom mount, created by that arch is all wrong - makes the whole thing look top-heavy.

Too much going on - too much fighting for pride of place and (IMHO) the mount wins!

Not your average framer · Sun 04 Mar, 2007 9:49 am

Hi John,

It's a fair comment.

The Chrismas tree which is a cross-stitch had nothing else around it at the top and looked a bit empty I showed a sample to the customer and she loved it. The mount is in Artcare brushed gold with exactly complements the obsolete antique brown and gold frame and the Lady likes the victorian look.

The print of Petra by David Roberts in a trade order for a secondhand bookshop which I do regular work for. It is one of a cheap portfolio set of which five are portrait orientation some of these images include large arches, this one doesn't, but together they make a nice set and the bookshop's punters always like something victorian. With any luck someone will fancy the set and I'll get some more work to follow on.

markw · Post by **markw** » Sun 04 Mar, 2007 10:00 am

Broken arch mounts can look very good - Robo is right about the shoulders - they dont maintain a balance with the edges and that tends to make the mount look top heavy. Of course at the end of the day its the customers opinion that matters.

Not your average framer · Sun 04 Mar, 2007 3:36 pm

Roboframer wrote: The neutral double mount is easier on the eye than the gold one - but why the arched top? It's not relative and actually seems to be covering detail.

The white bevels are too close to each other, especially at the top of the arch, but all way round too and the negative space on the bottom mount, created by that arch is all wrong - makes the whole thing look top-heavy.

Too much going on - too much fighting for pride of place and (IMHO) the mount wins!

Hi John,

Yes, guilty as charged. It's almost impossible to weight to bottom to look right on this kind of mount. Also the mounted Petra prints were done that way as we find they sell quickly like that and my friends customers will often buy two or more because they go so well together.

Sorry, blatent commercialism on the Petra ones and prints mounted like that usually don't take long to sell. Of course the whole point is they look different, and that often helps you to get noticed which sooner or later gets translated into more business coming your way.

Having admitted the problem with balancing the top and bottom margins, I would be interested if anyone knows how to beat that one.

The following picture shows one of the arches which was part of the thinking behind mounting them as I did. The first picture was done like that just to match.

Roboframer · Post by **Roboframer** » Sun 04 Mar, 2007 11:30 pm

Not your average framer wrote:
Having admitted the problem with balancing the top and bottom margins, I would be interested if anyone knows how to beat that one.

OK - just the X Stitch - I'd've put the same amount of fabric below the stitching as above it, as indeed you have left and right, and then weighted the bottom margin by 25% or so. Three inches top & sides, three and a half bottom - etc.

The extra space in the fabric above, compared to the bottom, added to the extra amount of mount in the top corners is what makes it top-heavy, it needs to be (at least) matched at the bottom.

With a design like this you have the option of negative space within the design, or of filling that negative space with mountboard - it's still negative space that needs to be balanced out.

Personally I'd've worked from that stitched square and kept the mount aperture x inches from it all round, regardless of what pokes out of it.

If you ignore the artwork, this is a better balanced thing, maybe?

markw · Post by **markw** » Mon 05 Mar, 2007 7:48 am

Robo - your stating some basic principles of graphic design - balance the space. Trouble with arches and ovals is that extra dead area - in this case the additional line created by the top mount helps emphasise the dead space and therfore makes the mount top heavy. Possibly a second mount following the shape of the first would have helped to emphasise the shape and lessen the dead space.

Not your average framer · Mon 05 Mar, 2007 9:16 am

To quote Markw "Possibly a second mount following the shape of the first would have helped to emphasise the shape and lessen the dead space."

Hi John & Mark,

I think we would all agree that this is a subject well worth looking at. Personally I've so far taken the easy way out and not done both mounts the same. I must try it sometime and see how it works.

One on the reasons I haven't is the difficulties which occur with trailing blade oval cutters such as the Keencut Oval 6 in my case. For some un-explained reason centring the oval or circle varies a little with the size you set and as you will no doubt agree any lack of alignment between the two circles will really show. However, I will try this sometime - Maybe the difficulties are less than expected.

Incidentally John, the spacing between the top of the circle and the sides and bottom of the inner aperture to the bevel of the out aperture are exactly the same, but it doesn't look like it on the photo. I thought it was o.k. before your comments, but yes I now agree and think a bigger space btween the two apertures would be an improvement. Also John, your criticism is appreciated and is received in the constructive way it was offered. Thanks also to Mark, this is one of the great advantages of this forum.

BTW John, the bottom margin is weighted by about 10% - 12%, I think the camera angle doesn't help, but it's a very small room. That said, You may well be about right with the 25%, I'll give it a try next time.

markw · Post by **markw** » Mon 05 Mar, 2007 10:07 am

With a CMC cutting mounts like this become easy - and the temptation to over elaborate even easier. I dont mind cutting elaborate shaped mounts when the work calls for it - I hate it when a customer brings in a piece of work that you just know wont work - keep it simple stupid being the best maxim.

Having been a graphic artist for many years I tend to look at the balance of space relative to the shape - I can become pathetically boring about multi apertures and take far too long to do a simple job - again that ability to design on screen helps - but as I said before - if the customer thinks it looks good - then you've done your job

kaptain.kopter · Post by **kaptain.kopter** » Mon 05 Mar, 2007 2:06 pm

Not to bore anbody beyond belief, but the following link is worth looking at.

It demonstrates why we find certain length to width ratios aesthetically pleasing. Hence the name 'The Golden Ratio'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio

It's a fascinating subject that has enthralled me for years. If interested, you can also check out details on the 'Fibonacci sequence' as well.

Caz755 · Post by **Caz755** » Mon 05 Mar, 2007 5:59 pm

I remember watching some tv program once about the golden ratio 1:1.618..... if i remember correctly, the most beautiful people in the world have this ratio about there persons....(no not tattoed on them!!)

The length of their legs to their upper torso was 1:1.618, the distance between the eyes to the nose etc etc the same..... quite interesting really.

They tested the theory by putting a young girl on a dating site, with her original photo, then made her up with make up to make it look like she had this ratio, and put her on the same site, needless to say, she got far more 'hits' than beforehand.

I think my ratio is 1:16.18 bars of chocolate

Not your average framer · Mon 05 Mar, 2007 7:55 pm

Yes, Cazz,

The golden ratio is indeed as you have said and was known at least as far back as the ancient greeks, or even earlier. Many of the greatest designers, architects and engineers of all time used the golden ratio all the time.

With regards to the spacing and layout of multi-aperture mounts, the golden ratio is also applicable here too! I have a copy of Andrea Palladio's "The Four Books of Architecture" and also "Palladio" by Wundram, Pape and Marton. This second book shows most of the Buildings designed by Palladio.

This may not at first sound all that obvious, but this man's work is truly inspirational when making up ornate frames and finishing them by hand as are the window and door layouts, proportions and shapes when doing something special with multi-aperature mounts.

osgood · Post by **osgood** » Mon 05 Mar, 2007 9:12 pm

Not your average framer wrote:That's a good question Osgood,

It's not an easy one to answer. Very small hooks of as liitle as say 0.1mm to 0.2mm can easily be seen if you look for them, but IMHO really stand out when they occur on multiple aperture which in a nice neat line. Some of it comes from my ex-engineering mindset. If you want to find someone who is into machinery, you'll probably find he is into engineering too!

As I've mentioned on this forum before, if a customer brings in a job so I can match the frame, replace the glass, etc. This is my oportunity to up-stage my competition and hopefully win another regular customer. Do I tell them I can cut mounts better than that and show them some examples? Wouldn't you? I think you would too! My photographic magnifier (an 8x Lupe), shows up everything and the more difference to be seen between my work and a competitors work to my avdvantage the better I like it.

Your engineering background is obviously the reason why you are very particular. In my opinion, perhaps a little too particular, especially when employing a magnifier! I'm not sure that your customers will be purchasing a magnifier to check out their mats.

As far as "upstaging your competition" goes, we have to be careful that this doesn't become an obsession that makes us appear negative to our customers.

If we talk too much about the differences between what we do and what others do when talking with a customer this can be interpreted as being negative and also competition "bashing". I know if I go into a shop and the person serving me rabbits on about how bad their competition is, I don't like it and don't want to hear it at all. They will be very lucky if I ever make a purchase.

In my opinion it is far better to just tell the customer what I do without mentioning what others do. This gives the customer only positive input. On some rare occasions it can be worthwhile showing the customer some differences, but I would never use a magnifier. Picture frames are never viewed through a magnifier in the home or gallery or office, so IMHO there is no valid reason to use one.

Our customers do not evaluate the microscopic nuances of the frame they buy from us. They view the art and the frame as an entire package, unless we have designed it badly. We do need to keep in mind that we, as frame makers, are concerned with all the components of the frame, but the customer is only concerned with the overall completed package!

With this in mind, the design of the frame is probably more important than the minute detail of the matcutting. The arched mat designs you have shown here have some design issues that you have now become aware of and hopefully we would all do well to remember that the design is what the customer will be far more concerned with rather than how close to perfectly cut the opening is. Perhaps more of our time and thought should be spent in the design area than the "perfection of cutting mats" area. It will give a better return!

From experience, most customers are not as particular as I am, so if I turn out work that I am happy with, I know my customers will be very happy and I also know that my work is above average.

A principle that is worthwhile in business and in life is - Avoid negative!

Not your average framer · Tue 06 Mar, 2007 1:09 am

Thanks Osgood,

I never run down other framers, but some of my customers like the fact that I do things the way I do. I was taught to work this way by another very well respected framer who uses the same technique to show people why he charges more for his work.

I do the same, I charge top rates for everything I do and I make sure it worth it to the customer. I want to do the best and I want to be paid accordingly.

A lot of people believe that you get what you pay for, I believe that too and can prove to my customers that my work is worth the extra! In multi-aperature mounts where aperatures are in line, any hooks (even if they are small) deviate from the line and are clearly seen. If I can see it so can they. Many of my customers live in houses worth millions and expect the best.

If a customer brings in a frame to have the broken glass fixed and there's a hook on the mount I ask them if they are happy with the mount or do them want me to replace it with one that's not got the hook or overcuts or whatever. While I'm changing the glass, it's the ideal time to offer to do it - What's wrong with that! If I also gain another regular customer, even better!

Not your average framer · Tue 06 Mar, 2007 9:05 am

I learnt my approach to mountcutting from another framer, Mike Jeans Williams, who is a Guild Commended Framer. I had originally sold him some hand coloured local engravings and used to pop-in and see him from time to time. He had a lot of influence in me becoming a framer and he showed me his own mountcutting using the photographic lupe magnifier and explained the importance of how he set things up and did things. His work is just outstanding and it was charged for accordingly.

I used to see him when he had a framing and gallery business called Portfolio in Torquay. He started this business, but later sold it and moved to Exeter and started another called South Gate Gallery, which he has since sold also. Both businesses still continue with excellent reputations and he has now started another business somewhere in London. He gave me some very good advice about not going down market, but aiming to be at the top.

James Bullen (previously the area rep for Neilsen and with A & T) and I both admired the way Mike worked and did things. James also told me that one time he was visiting Mike's business, someone was trying to knock him down on price. Mike's reply was "I don't need the practice".

I'll always be thankful for some very valuable advice and tips, which I got from Mike. In this business, for many framers a major pre-occupation is price. In many cases this is un-avoidable, as high overheads need lots of business coming in all the time. However, some of us operating from less high profile locations, with lower overheads have a choice.

I'm with Mike on this one. Quality is something special in a world where standards are no longer kept to and people will pay the extra if it really is worth it. There was a slogan on posters in engineering companies at one time, it said "Quality is no compromise"

markw · Post by **markw** » Tue 06 Mar, 2007 11:03 am

It seems to me that an artists approach to mounting is to get the balance and feel of the mount right - an engineers approach is to get the detail and construction right. Customers perception is often just instinctive - it looks good.

If you cant see overcuts from a foot away with good eyesight - dont worry - its a good mount. On the other hand if you look at the finished pic and think - that just doesnt sit well - then, however good the technical quality - its a bad mount.

kev@frames · Post by **kev@frames** » Tue 06 Mar, 2007 3:45 pm

shame you cant convince some "artists" of that - their criteria usually seems to be "make it fit into this size frame which i got at the car boot" or "will narrower borders make it a smaller and therefore cheaper mount"....
Fortunately the retail customers have more taste than the artists do round these parts, so you get to do the job twice - assuming the item sold in the first place