Glass for special certificate

[Roboframer]

if light was really affected in this way then a subject would look the same regardless of whether viewed through one, two (or more) identical red filters

We're not talking all light, we're talking UV light which is invisible - so how something would "look" through two or more layers of glass is irrelevant as we don't need UV light to see things ..... I think.

[JamesC]

When we last framed an OBE medal we photoed the certificate and printed it off so the original could be retained in safe storage. That was cheaper than museum glass.

Artglass or Claryl/Clarity is perhaps best for presentation, museum glass for conservation but you pay extra. Museum glass also has purply tinges from certain angles and when you buy it in single sheets it often seems pre-scratched to me - it's delicate. A lot of the anti-reflective glasses do also still have a fair bit of reflection - more than the cleverly designed small samples suggest. I include museum in that. It's cool stuff though - just overhyped and probably overpriced - but the best glass still for protection if you want it and least reflection.

Even northlight sunshine is much stronger than artificial light I believe so an as important thing is to hang out of direct windowlight - though Claryl used to say in advertising that light coming through windows was already much less harmful - maybe the angle is important.

We also don't know how fade resistant the red paper is do we - it is a great test but I notice from my display window that often mountboard fades quicker than prints - not something I would have assumed but seemingly the case. If it fades quickly then the difference is more marked but possibly less significant than it might be for prints/art - where the glass might be the difference between noticeable fading and as new appearance.

[Roboframer]

Museum glass is not the best glass for both protection and least reflection, it's the best single layer glass but as I mentioned earlier, there are laminated AR waterwhite products with 100% UV protection (assuming that protection is within the same range as museum glass, I'm sure it is) Then again Tru Vue claim 99% protection on Museum, Conservation clear and Conservation Reflection Control - how big a deal is that extra 1%?

How big a deal is the 9% between artglass UV at 92% and TruVue at 99% too? I wanna know (because my customers do/would)

Here's something to think about ... There are many other things that can contribute towards fading, like airborne pollutants and the quality (or lack of) of the paper and the medium (paint/pencil/ink/pastel/whatever) plus temperature, humidity and whether there's an 'R' in the month.

But what about what YOU add to the package besides glass? What about the mount board you use, front and back, what does it actually do? Well, even the bestest quality cotton boards do .......... nothing! Bugger all, not a sausage .... that's what's good about them, they stay in the same condition for longer than inferior boards.

Passive protection.

What about boards that contain zeolites that trap airborne pollutants in micro-chambers, including what may come from the artwork itself, and turn them in to harmless salts?

Active protection
(whether a cotton board or not).

So, something framed with 'normal' cotton board and 99% UV filtering glass versus the exact same something, hung in the exact same location but mounted (back & front) with these 'scavenging' boards but with glass with 'only' 92% UV protection .... which would last longest?

[Roboframer]

How big a deal is the 9% between artglass UV at 92% and TruVue at 99% too?

Make that 7%

[stcstc]

robo, like i said before

we dont actually know

the tru vue tests are done by the image permenance lab or something like that, who happened to be sponsored by (yes you guessed it) tru vue!!!!

and the art glass is tested differently.

so we actually dont know if the 92 & 99 % figures are comparable, as we are not comparing apples with apple, if that makes sense

didnt true vue change from 98 to 99 recently, my understanding is it was actually the testing that changed and not the properties!!!!!

[JohnMcafee]

You are right, Roboframer, in that our eyes can only a detect a very small band (light) within electromagnetic spectrum.

However, the laws of physics are not magically suspended within a particular range, and apply equally to Infra red, visible light, ultra violet, and beyond.

The truth is that none of us has the answers when it comes to UV, but we can say with certainty that in relation to picture framing, protection from it is a good thing. Lets not pretend that we know more than we really do about this subject.

[prospero]

One wonders just what ink her Madge used to sign the said article. Some inks fade very rapidly. One would assume that they are actually printed to a high quality, but who knows? Maybe they get them done in China. I've done a few MBE/OBE certs and I haven't had any comebacks.

Who is going to e-mail the palace to enquire?

[Roboframer]

I'm asking questions too and I did end what was MHO with "I think" - and all after this too

The differences are best kept simple I think

but I still THINK that the sieve explanation is pretty good and still THINK that if 98% of UV light is already filtered, 98% of the rermaing 2% won't be filtered - some may be, just like some flour may be left on the mesh of the sieve.

Some manufacturers may state the UV properties between different ranges (measured in nanometers) than others but both tru vue and artglass are tested within the same 'critical' range - I can't remember what that is but the info is on both of their websites.

There's an article by the IPI on glass for framing photos which is regularly quoted on TFG; it's written 'in conjunction with' Tru vue.

There's also an International Standard (ISO) recommending 97% plus - again Tru Vue have a finger in that pie. What none of these standards/recommendations tell you is WHY 97%. How did they reach that figure, what tests were done?

[strokebloke]

You're the Elder Statesman on the website, Peter.
You have a subtle way with words.
I'm nominating you to go and have a chat with Queenie
Whilst you're there, enquire whether or not she might be able to shed some light (as it were) on this factious matter of the best sort of glass for her gongs.

[Framer Dave]

the tru vue tests are done by the image permenance lab or something like that, who happened to be sponsored by (yes you guessed it) tru vue!!!!

No, sorry but this is completely wrong. TruVue does their testing in-house; I know this because I have seen the testing facility in person and have spoken with the engineers who do the testing.

You make reference to the Image Permanence Institute an independent organization. Let me clarify: somewhere around 2001 the IPI established a standard for UV filtering glazing as filtering 97% or more of the UV radiation in the 300 to 380 nanometer range. Other organizations such as ISO have set the same standards. Somewhere around 2009 or 2010 TruVue gave the IPI a grant to fund publishing and distribution of A Consumer Guide for Preservation Framing and the Display of Photographic images (https://www.imagepermanenceinstitute.org/webfm_send/312).

Just to make it clear: the Image Permanence Institute developed their standards a full ten years before TruVue provided the grant. To suggest the TruVue "bought" the standard is ridiculous.

[Framer Dave]

There's also an International Standard (ISO) recommending 97% plus - again Tru Vue have a finger in that pie. What none of these standards/recommendations tell you is WHY 97%. How did they reach that figure, what tests were done?

No, they do not "have a finger in that pie." ISO are fiercely independent and TruVue have no financial association with them at all.

[misterdiy]

Just to throw my two penny worth in. There are two factors at work, which are UV light and heat. In James C's example he says mountboard fades quicker than prints, but then the mountboard will absorb far more heat than the print which I assume is predominantly white which will reflect the heat. From John's pictures of the paper and the UV glass/ float glass no glass samples, it is interesting that the UV paper has faded almost as much as normal glass. being in the shop window it will probably absorb a lot of heat and being red will absorb loads.
So is it back to Matobel and hide it in a darkened room?

[Trinity]

There's a hesitation on price with my customer and I mentioned the possibilty of using a photocopy to offset the accepted absolute need for a special glass if the original was used.

Unfortunately the very light buff colour of the certificate will just not pick up, has anyone else attempted this before and got a result - did you for instance use coloured card / paper?

[misterdiy]

You could of course photocopy onto light coloured card.

[Roboframer]

..... and it'll fade in no time flat - but that's OK because it only cost a quid - but of course then it has to be swapped for another copy, which costs how much of a fitting charge? More or less than the lite of UV glass?

Or a really high quality copy could be made (if that, or a photocopy is legal anyway) on acid free paper with lightfast inks ........... and how much would that cost? More or less than ^^^^^^^^^ ??

[Trinity]

I tried it with some coloured card from Hobby Craft. I could barely get the card out of the rack without creasing it slightly. When I did manage to use it on the copier it looked like a photocopy of the MBE - now there's a surpise.
So it's Artgalss AR UV cut to size.

[Custard]

Perhaps this will shed some light

This frame was placed in our north facing window two years ago.
The glass on the left is TV-CC, the center is 2mm float and there is no glass on the right hand side.

before.jpg

The sample has been taken out of the frame this morning and photographed with a scrap of the original paper for comparison

after.jpg

That's worrying.

[Roboframer]

Not really, it's exposure to something UV glass does not protect against, visible light - not much point in a test like that IMHO.

Some people may hang their pictures in ideal conditions, others may hang them in less than ideal conditions, but I've yet to meet anyone who hangs them in a window facing out (yes, yes, shops selling pictures excepted) so they'd have to walk outside and look through the window to view them.

[IFGL]

Also the test was only with one type of dye, light effects different dyes and pigments in different degres of severity, we can only offer the best we have to give.
What good is a picture kept in the dark.