Use of 'flexi tabs'

[deepictureman]

Can anyone explain why the FATG frowns on the use of flexi-tabs for closing artwork backing boards?

Regards,

Dave

[Moglet]

Good question, Dave.

I have to use flexitabs on a fairly regular basis, as I consider it to be the best way to deal with the distinct lack of rebate depth on so many mouldings (without starting into the use of RabbetSpace). In so many cases, all it requires is a double mount in the design, and the option to use rigid points goes out the window.

[Merlin]

If you use Corri-cor / Art Bak then to help with narrow rebates.

Roll a hard object along the sides of the board, thereby effectively flattening the edge.

You can then get 1 piece of 2mm float. 2 mount boards and the backing all in the frame and use the Rigid points...

But to answer the original question viz Flexi Tabs. I have no idea. Sorry

[Roboframer]

I suppose the FATG's view is that flexible points are ...... flexible, and if those points are fired from a manual gun I'd agree - especially an old one.

Frame something that fits well within the rebate with flexible tabs (from a manual gun) - seal in the normal way and then push the glass - it will probably move - depending on how hard the wood is maybe.

But I'd also say that flexible points fired from a pneumatic gun are more secure than rigid points fired from a manual gun.

I use semi-rigid points for everything bar ready mades and jobs such as described by Áine. If and when I add another junction to my airline I'll get a gun that fires rigid tabs.

[Moglet]

Fwiw, when using flexipoints, I tend to use more of them along each side than I would when using rigid points, especially on larger frames.

[Roboframer]

A lot of problems with the package being proud of the rebate can be solved.

Firstly by being hard at the design counter - "Sorry - that moulding is not deep enough for ..... (e.g. Glass, three mounts, under-mount and backing) how about this one ...."

Secondly - if it is borderline - it's just the backing that will be proud - fit the backing separately - i.e. pin and seal the mount(s)/undermount package into the rebate and then fix the backing to the undermount with ATG plus a few dabs of PVA and add more sealing tape to create the same look with no ugly bulges where flexi tabs are.

Or cut the backing board to the full o/a frame size and stick it to the frame, with ATG and PVA - it's securely pinned and sealed underneath - the backing still offers protection/cosmetics.

Nielsen exclusives all have generous rebates - Larson Juhl mouldings and most of D&J Simons plain woods ditto - more.

Using foam centre board as a backing - which crushes easily and looks like carp if proud of the rebate with flexitabs digging into it - I have to be selective with mouldings, but I'd say 80% of over 1000 on display are 10mm deep or over.

[Not your average framer]

There are several problems with flexitabs:-

The tightness of the seal between the glass and the frame cannot be guaranteed with flexi-tabs, because it only takes a little pressure against the glass to deform the flexi-tabs. This would then permit easy access between the glass and the frame for insects, dust and other contaminating matter.

The use of flexi-tabs makes everything within the framing package easily accessible by the customer without any way of showing that someone other than the framer has been in there. This may be of particular importance in the event of a dispute between the customer and the framer, especially if as a FATG member you want them to mediate in the dispute. Clear proof of entry / tampering by someone else will stand-up in a court of law, if it can be shown that the points have been removed for entry.

Also in the event of anything distorting inside the framing package, there is nothing substantial enough to resist the distortion if only flexi-tabs are used to fasten the back in place. This could soon result in other problems, such as gaps between the art and the mount.

Traditionally the method employed to solve inadequate rebate depths was to chamfer to edges of the backing board by shaving material away with a suitable tool to permit small framers points such as the fletcher framemaster "glazers points" to be used.

It is also worth noticing that the FATG standards for "Commended level" and above, could be considered as to imply that the stiffness and durability of the backing board and it's fastenings is a significant issue.

I would also suggest that the exclusion of cardboard for "Commended level" and above, as a backing material in these standards would be a good reason not to use CorriCor or similar for GCF exam pieces. Also foamboard may be suspect from a durability point of view as the general public routinely hang pictures on nails, etc., which can easily penetrate foamboard and cause permanent damage to the artwork or create a point of entry for insects, etc.

[MickD]

FLEXIPOINTS : I only use them on ready-made frames for clients to assemble themselves or where the lack of rebate poses a real problem. Otherwise I would never use them. They don't give anywhere near the support given by rigid points, and on large frames they are very unsatisfactory in my opinion for that very reason. I can understand the FATG's dislike of them.

MickD

[markw]

Semi rigid tabs applied with a pneumatic gun give a very good level of fastening. The spread of pressure over a flat tab on materials such as Artbak or foamcore can be better than more traditional methods that relied upon the more rigid hardboard.


My problem with FATG standards is that they fail to keep up with evolving materials and methods. As far as I am concerned the ruling should be that the fixing method should take into account the materials used - with the result being a back fixed in such a way to ensure rigidity of the correct specification materials. I have at least six methods of fixing the backing board into the frame - they all get used from time to time depending on the numerous factors involved.


When it comes to making sure that your work, should some dispute arise, is untampered with then I suggest you get nice sticky labels and stick them over half over the tape - half over the backing board. Any attempt to remove the back will be immediately obvious.

[JFeig]

I see this as a lot of talk about nothing. I agree with the last post, in that the standards really do not give a reason for the standard from a scientific standpoint and changing materials, etc.

" The frame must be secured firmly with framers' points, tacks or similar. Flexible tabs are not acceptable."

In this example, nowhere does the standard comment on the quantity of fasteners. What is the holding power of rigid fasteners spaced 4" apart (100mm) vs flex tabs fasteners spaced 1/2" apart (12mm). Forces spread out through many fasteners can be more secure than a few, spread out farther apart.

[Framer Dave]

It is also worth noticing that the FATG standards for "Commended level" and above, could be considered as to imply that the stiffness and durability of the backing board and it's fastenings is a significant issue.

I would also suggest that the exclusion of cardboard for "Commended level" and above, as a backing material in these standards would be a good reason not to use CorriCor or similar for GCF exam pieces. Also foamboard may be suspect from a durability point of view as the general public routinely hang pictures on nails, etc., which can easily penetrate foamboard and cause permanent damage to the artwork or create a point of entry for insects, etc.

What are your thoughts on putting a final layer of mount board on the outside, assuming the rebate depth will allow? The backing will still add support to the mount package, fill the rebate and the extra piece of mount board will stand up better to abuse. And looks better, in my opinion.

[Not your average framer]

Hi Dave,

I threw that one in hoping to stimulate a little extra discussion. You see the FATG stardards don't even mention foamboard for backing and it is interesting to speculate as to whether the FATG would consider it as acceptable on a GCF exam piece. I suspect they might have plenty of grounds for objecting, based on well reasoned and practical considerations.

While foamboard and CorriCor may have gained popularity with many framers, they provide very little mechanical resistance to damage and I suspect that this has a lot to do with the thinking behind FATG standards, which appear to me to have been drawn up with a lot more care than some may realise.

Personally I still have concerns about the physical durability issues when framing anything of value to the customer and would happily use MDF with proper barrier precautions to negate it's undesirable aspects, particularly lignen, acidity, mould growth risks and any resulting threat to the framed contents.

BTW, I do stock and use Artcare foamboard, also if required I will add extra protection too!

[Roboframer]

I threw that one in hoping to stimulate a little extra discussion. You see the FATG stardards don't even mention foamboard for backing !

There are a lot of things the FATG do not mention!

Who does this in the UK???

[JFeig]

I have never understood the use of MDF as a backing board in the FATG standards due to its chemical makeup.

I once talked with a FATG representative in Atlanta, GA at a trade show and discussed the issue. I also commented on the poor wording relating to having a protective barrier between the MDF and the art.

Coroplast (Corricor)and its equivalents(extruded propylene) have been approved by both the CCI and AIC for some years.

As far a puncture resistance from the rear of a frame package, that possibility is minimal. A standard 4 ply rag backing has probably less puncture resistance.

[Roboframer]

Coroplast (Corricor)and its equivalents(extruded propylene) have been approved by both the CCI and AIC for some years.

Corricor and its spinoffs such as 'artbak' and this stuff are basically ph neutral corrugated cardboard; nothing like Coroplast.

[Not your average framer]

Coroplast and its equivalents(extruded propylene) have been approved by both the CCI and AIC for some years.

I already stock and use Correx (extruded propylene) for applications requiring a waterproof back. It's good stuff, but again not referred to in the FATG standards.

In the UK, the 3mm thick version is available from Lion, but I use the 4mm version which is stiffer, but even 4mm thick is not as stiff as most other backing boards.

[Roboframer]

Here are 4mm corrugated plastic sheets - have a look around the PEL website and you'll find stuff, from a British Company, mentioned on The Grumble over and over, but not in the FATG standards - or ever in their mag or in The Picture business.

Melinex, used for overlays and encapsulation (never seen an article on either in a Brit trade mag) all the starch paste and mulberry papers you can think of - more.

Price comparisons from there for what is available within the UK framing trade is also interesting!!

[Not your average framer]

Correx is also available from some packaging suppliers and Robert Horne who not only sell the Correx brand, but their own brand "Huntsman flutted display board", it's the same stuff from a different source. Their version of the 4mm thick board is 3.8mm instead, which is in fact 0.15 inches thick.

[Roboframer]

Their version of the 4mm thick board is 3.8mm instead .

Love that!

Thinking of breaking in to the market with a version of their 3.8mm board - dunno whether to go 3.7 or 3.9 mm though.

(Sorry)

[Not your average framer]

Hi John,

You might also love the fact that the 3.8mm version is about 30% cheaper than their price for Correx.