Glass-spacer-glass-spacer

Roboframer · Post by **Roboframer** » Sat 24 Nov, 2007 9:09 pm

Incidentally

For those as inquistive as me - glass size is 15x12"
Photo size is 9x6" drymounted to artcare restore.

Don't have the moulding refs/price per ft at hand - but inner is the smallest LJ Ferrosa pewter - outer is the deepest flat one.

Other materials/methods already covered.

Cost - £110 - all from offcuts - as in no full lengths or sheets of anything used. Not that I'd charge more if there were - just one of those 'nice' jobs.

V V quick & easy too.

Not your average framer · Sat 24 Nov, 2007 9:12 pm

It didn't cost more to do,
it doesn't take any longer to do,
if required you can use the whole rebate depth for effect,
customers are bound to notice it
and everybody loves the way it looks.

I can't see any problem!

Roboframer · Post by **Roboframer** » Sat 24 Nov, 2007 9:18 pm

Not your average framer wrote: I've been thinking about the pros and cons regarding the PVA. If for any reason you or another framer needs to get inside the frame, it won't be a simple matter to remove the PVA residue and fit a new dust cover, because the PVA is not water soluble. Any thoughts on this one?

Slice slice - rip rip - scrape scrape.

Then - if it's to replace glass - same again for the spacers.

If it's to replace the back mount - same again for the plinth stuck to it and the back of the artcare restore.

Drymounting can easily be reversed (it sez 'ere)

Simple answer is 'I dunno' - what do they do in The States?

What is 'white glue?'

Wood glue is white - builders PVA is too - I dilute that with water and use it to seal rebates of mouldings with bits of foil that otherwise the flumb pervert wreaks havoc with - other uses too - including this.

osgood · Post by **osgood** » Sat 24 Nov, 2007 10:15 pm

Not your average framer wrote:It didn't cost more to do,
it doesn't take any longer to do,

I can't see any problem!

Black core Alphamat is more expensive down here than Artcare foamboard is, so it would cost more. Black core Alphamat 32x40 is approx. the same cost as Artcare foamboard in 60X40.

If both products were being used on general framing jobs it would add considerably to the costs and we are not talking a few cents/pence!
That is where I see a problem as some people were stating that they were thinking of making this a standard practise!

As someone has already pointed out, it will also be a pain in the a#*e to remove if it is stuck with PVA in the event of a broken glass or if it needs cleaning!

I agree that it looks great in John's job, but as a standard practise, it's not for me!

Not your average framer · Sat 24 Nov, 2007 11:01 pm

osgood wrote:Black core Alphamat is more expensive down here than Artcare foamboard is, so it would cost more.

John used it because that was what he had, but there is no intention of continuing using it, because there are much cheaper options.

osgood wrote:As someone has already pointed out, it will also be a pain in the a#*e to remove if it is stuck with PVA in the event of a broken glass or if it needs cleaning!

It was me that pointed that out, so we can discuss and look for the solution. It's a simple problem and there will be a simple solution!

Roboframer · Post by **Roboframer** » Sat 24 Nov, 2007 11:03 pm

osgood wrote: Black core Alphamat is more expensive down here than Artcare foamboard is, so it would cost more. Black core Alphamat 32x40 is approx. the same cost as Artcare foamboard in 60X40.

Is that per sheet or per sq ft Ormond?

It costs about the same per sq ft here - and - whatever - would cost me pennies more per sq ft per frame as stated. Nothing more in this case.

If the costs per sheet are the same - which is what you surely mean - are you paying more for the mountboard than us, or less for the foamboard I wonder.

Another point - all my prices are based on suppliers' list - as they should be - I could very easily upgrade to this backing as standard without a price increase by passing on a discount.

I won't though!

Going to be totally honest and blunt now - I really don't care about reversibility in the component parts of a frame - we're not talking hand-finished closed corner gilded stuff that in time may fetch a fortune on some future antiques roadshow.

If I get stuff like this back of my own I'll know that the time it will take to carefully remove things like those spacers will cost more than new spacers - so if the glass goes, new spacers will need paying for too - and a new dustcover.

But once everything is out of the frame I can scrape and sand all the residue off easily - and factor doing that into my costing. Not my fault they dropped it or they changed their colour scheme - I built it to last - the artwork being mounted reversibly is my only, or main concern.

Could be that I screwed up and missed a flumb or two - same applies - mistakes have to be paid for.

Every replacement job that comes here - new glass, new mount, new frame only, slipped artwork, mouldy backing .... etc - I see as a total reframe and work back from there.

Post by **prospero** » Sun 25 Nov, 2007 5:48 am

Hate to introduce a proverbial fly in the ointment chaps, but have you thought what would happen in a humid atmos if the black back is fixed all around the edge? My guess is that it will bow out as the board absorbs moisture. I would be inclined to test a bit before adopting the method as standard practice. Stick the ends of a long strip to a rigid board and leave it in a bathroom. Just for ref, a full sheet of watercolour paper (30") will grow about 1" when fully saturated.

Just a thought......

Roboframer · Post by **Roboframer** » Sun 25 Nov, 2007 12:24 pm

A humid atmosphere can or will have affects anyway - inside and outside the frame.

If you pin and tape a backing in the normal way it is still secured all around the edges only.

Is a mountboard backing more likely to bow than MDF, foam board, corricor, artbak etc? Is it any more or less absorbent?

Would it help if you pasted that backboard onto whatever board is behind it - or would that just make that bow as well?

If we are made aware that something is to be hung in a humid location we can adapt materials accordingly and I wouldn't use this method in that case - just for cosmetics perhaps, but underneath would be different stuff and methods of sealing.

Came across another good use for this backing yesterday too - a tiny 300 year old map - both sides need to be seen.

Whatever method of mounting etc, back with glass/acrylic of your choice -apply backing a-la my photo, but with a hole in it.

Will post a piccy next week - then you can compare it to a piccy of something needing the same treatment in the last issue of TPB.

Post by **prospero** » Sun 25 Nov, 2007 2:16 pm

I just thought I would mention the point as years ago (when I didn't know any better) I backed some largish pics with greyboard. I then had the bright idea of using a portable gas heater in the workshop. The heater put so much moisture into the air that the backs bowed out about 3". OK, that is an extreme scenario they went down again after I got shot of the heater but if it had happened to a customer it would not have made avery good impression. I am long past being suprised at the things customers do with pictures.

With the usual method of backing the back has room to expand slightly as it can move in and out under the pins. (providing it is not a tight fit in the frame) But if glued down it has nowhere to go but up. I wouldn't be suprised if an expanding piece of card could break the corner on a frame.
The ancient Egyptians used a similar technique for splitting rocks.

Not your average framer · Sun 25 Nov, 2007 6:46 pm

prospero wrote:have you thought what would happen in a humid atmos if the black back is fixed all around the edge? My guess is that it will bow out as the board absorbs moisture.

Hi Prospero,

I very good point! I must admit I was just thinking how great it looked, but for me this is an issue I will not compromise on. Once there's a doubt on anything which can affect my reputation, I won't go any futher.

I'm going to get a made to order batch of black gummed paper tape, it will still look great and if need be the board can move a little in the frame.

Not your average framer · Sun 25 Nov, 2007 6:48 pm

Sorry, clicked on quote instead of edit (again). John can you please delete. Thanks.

Roboframer · Post by **Roboframer** » Sun 25 Nov, 2007 8:34 pm

Well, given our climate I don't think it's much of a problem.

I have however thought of another - mountboard is made up of sheets, or plys; not designed for exterior (of frame) use - Could those sheets separate at the edges on, say, an outer wall?

Whatever - I like the look of this so much that I'll find a way, even if it's black paper.

Think I'll put my tin hat on and ask The Grumble!

osgood · Post by **osgood** » Sun 25 Nov, 2007 8:45 pm

Some framers are using black 'Tyvex' stuck to the back with ATG tape!
I looked into it once but didn't go further than that!

Roboframer · Post by **Roboframer** » Sun 25 Nov, 2007 9:18 pm

Yes, I've looked in to Tyvek - to discover that we sell the stuff in a herd of colours (One herd = 1.75 shedloads) But only in A4 size!!

If I could get it from one of our craft suppliers it would be great - priced for resale; not end use.

PEL do it, but only in white I think - anyone got a link for black Tyvek? that would be a great solution - waterproof too, and it's got to cost less per sq ft than artcare!

osgood · Post by **osgood** » Sun 25 Nov, 2007 9:44 pm

Building construction supplier should have black Tyvek as it is used in the building/construction trade and is very inexpensive in quite large rolls!

Lance E from New Zealand uses it.

Roboframer · Post by **Roboframer** » Sun 25 Nov, 2007 9:50 pm

Roboframer wrote:
Think I'll put my tin hat on and ask The Grumble!

Done that - here's the link.

Post by **prospero** » Sun 25 Nov, 2007 10:35 pm

The Cresent Blackcore range is very dense (at least up to the last lot - I don't use it much nowadays). The black cover paper has a nice texture and would look great for backing. Maybe this board is less hygroscopic than softer boards. In any case you could probably minimise any potential bowing by normalising the boards in a dampish atmos (anyone got a sauna?

) prior to fixing. If they do expand then they would pull tight in a normal atmos but there should be enough 'give' in the board not to pull away from the glue.

Only certain way to tell is to try it and see.

Not your average framer · Sun 25 Nov, 2007 10:44 pm

Hi John,

All things considered, the bevelled black mountboard is still so classy to look at, that nothing else looks quite as good. If it could be determined that this is a problem free method, I would still want to go for it.

If the mountboard was not all that thick, or stiff, this might not be much of a problem after all. Having done paper covered backs quite often when resealing old frames, I know that the paper tension soon relaxes, but nobody minds at all. Some slight bowing might not matter and perhaps would not be all that discernable either.

Moglet · Post by **Moglet** » Mon 26 Nov, 2007 1:06 am

Roboframer wrote:I have however thought of another - mountboard is made up of sheets, or plys; not designed for exterior (of frame) use - Could those sheets separate at the edges on, say, an outer wall?

It is possible for the sheets to separate in one's storage rack!

I had this problem with a batch of Colourmount solid black (472).

May have just been a duff batch that might not have been stored properly prior to my receipt of it. It was enough to persuade me to switch to stocking Arqadia solid black (7011) immediately after, and I stayed with that product until I recently started my migration to Artcare.

Roboframer · Post by **Roboframer** » Tue 27 Nov, 2007 12:25 am

Well I'm glad I put it on The Grumble - there were two people I really hoped would chip in - and they did.

Prospero has a point - it could warp - but the operative word is 'could'

It could also get stolen!

In your average living room in this country I don't think it's a problem.

Bit of a dilemma now - I love this look - but our good 'ole method does the job - and if I take on ANY 'dustcover' method - that good 'ole method will be underneath it anyway - as it is indeed in this case.

It's the artwork that matters and bowing/warping of a dustcover isn't going to affect that.

Is it?

A paper dustcover does not appeal - I've seen what happens to licky sticky tape in extreme conditions - like my shop window in the height of summer!

I also do not want to have a thin paper backing with half an inch, or more, of fresh air behind it in a deep rebated frame - I make some deep rebated frames flush anyway - depending on the foam board offcut situation - don't want to have to do it in every case - no need to with 'our' good 'ole method.

Paper dustcovers are no thicker - or not much - than licky sticky tape and I don't want cockling & rippling all over the back - or even tearing as the paper contracts.

What I've learned over three different topics here and one on The Grumble - plus a shedload more in their archives - or think I have, is that 'our' method really is the best - it just looks like carp compared to theirs.

On the wall - who gives one?

Ours cannot be easily punctured or torn in any circumstance; theirs can in some. Framers long before us used paper dustcovers - you'd have had some in no doubt - looked good didn't they? (NOT!)

How and why did we evolve to the method that we now all use?

Is it because we have more history than those that are still using dustcovers?

Is it because we are cheapskates?

I certainly will use this and other 'dustcover' methods when and if - but I don't think it will ever be a 'default' method.

This situation - maximising the depth of a rebate - is one where I will indeed use it - and I've done it regularly in the past - only I've used artbak (etc) not to the edge of the frame, secured with staples and tape.

Functionally better; cosmetically worse - which is the priority?

Anyway - I stand by my job with this photographer lady - I just hope this hotel does not have the same problems as the last hotel fit that was discussed here did. Remember that one?

PS - I am really REALLY confused.