Double-sided Frame

[RobM]

A treasure trove of information there, thanks everybody.

I'm going to try the frame method suggested by Dermot, with a slip on the back, and then the melinex method, mindful that there's a concern of historical object looking too glossy (the client is happy to work through options, so maybe I'll get ahold of some acrylic too), and sandwiching it between glass.

So am I right in saying the melinex primarily to protect from condensation when sandwiched between either glass or perspex, rather than holding the object into place?

Is there any risk of the envelope slipping? Imagine this would sometimes be the issue with this sort of thing. Or does the melinex tend to keep it stuck?

Maybe not for this project, but I like the sound of magnets for maintaining a double frame, so I might speak to Alec about a tutorial.

I'll post the end result for some very frank feedback in due course!

[Justintime]

As I see it and when used as wannabe Framer was describing, melinex/mylar can be used to hold a piece floating if the envelope is made correctly which may take some experimentation. I don't think it would hold it as firmly as acrylic but will have less contact than the acrylic. Do not use glass with a piece of paper work. Glass exchanges heat and cold far more rapidly than acrylic, subjecting the piece to far more rapid fluctuations, making it more susceptible to micro condensation. Maybe someone else can explain this better.

[RobM]

(added in error)

[RobM]

I'd be interested in any feedback on this ongoing saga (they're all sagas for me)...

So, double sided image consisting of: front glass-mat-document-mat-rear glass (the document also has Melinex on both sides for protection from sweating).

While I liked the idea of allowing a see-through border around the document before the mat, I was unable to achieve this with my hand-cut mats - you can always see the back of one when looking through the other. I desperately need a working CMC to iron out such problems.

The pictures are of the back where I'm looking to conceal the points. I see two options:
1. a spacer deep enough to cover the points, glued in. Though I'm mildly sceptical of the thin side of the spacer being effectively glued to hold properly.
2. based on a suggestion by Jim Miller on the Grumble, a piece of mat with a window cut out, glued to the back of the frame (though I would do it with a different mat and larger window than that shown in the photo). The d-rings would then be installed through the mat.

I personally like the latter; it's just a new one to me. Have any of you used this method before?

Thanks

[Justintime]

Imo unless the used two mouldings to create a true double sided frame and I'm not saying you need to, then the back of the frame is always going to be the back of the frame. A simple option might be to forget the points and simply fix in a traditional subframe to hold it in place. Tape over the back and subframe as usual. This will still leave plenty of the reverse visible. If you're not familiar, the subframe glued and joined as any other frame, then drilled and countersunk and screwed into the frame .

[robjbc]

Hi all, sorry joining this late, but been considering something similar for an old postcard with writing on the back.
My thought was: have window mounts front and back, that just slightly creep over (2mm) the edges of the postcard on all edges on both sides.
Then, in between those beveled aperture boards, have another sheet of board as a sink mount, with an aperture cut (straight edge) almost exactly the dimensions of the postcard, hopefully this would adequately 'cradle' the item, while the slight overlaps at the front and back would be sufficient to keep it from dropping out/making contact with the glass.
Not sure though. Double sided framing certainly does get the mental computations working overtime (speaking personally, and reviewing this chat!)
Wonder if anyone's (successfully/disastrously) done similar, or would foresee issues with this type of approach?