UV Glass

[armouredbear]

Is it worth it?

Given two identical pieces of work framed in exactly the same way and then displayed alongside each other, how much longer would the UV protected piece of work last compared to the unprotected work?

I understand cost shouldn't really be an issue if we were talking about expensive artwork but if we're really trying to get the best protection and enjoyment from said artwork and with cost allegedly not an issue then surely we would use museum glass anyway?

So if that's the case whats the point of UV glass?

Bear.

[prospero]

It's not so much the glass as the item in the frame. You have to consider the value of the framed work and just how lightfast the pigments are. Or course, if you aren't certain ere on the side of caution. I have tried a few tests in the past with accelerated fading (putting things in a sunny windowsill and covering up part of them). Some things can be there all summer and not fade at all. Paintings done with good quality paints need a lot of exposure to fade them. A good artist will take heed of the lightfastness ratings on paints. But most will not give it a second thought. Some paints are produced for illustrators who's work is intended for repro only, so there are a lot of weird shades that are very fade-prone (fugitive, as they say in the trade....). Some artists like to experiment and use all sorts of felt pens and stuff. A recipe for disaster unless you test them first.
So all in all, not knowing how fast the pigments are and if the painting is valuable, UV glass is a good idea. £200 extra for a piece of museum glass on a £10K painting makes sense. But people will gib at £200 extra on a £100 painting. (which may or may not be worth £10k in years to come - or considerably less if it's faded).

There is also the benefit of actually being able to see the painting more clearly with museum glass.

[armouredbear]

So all in all, not knowing how fast the pigments are and if the painting is valuable, UV glass is a good idea.

So if it fades it wasn't really valuable anyway? Other than for the twit that paid too much?

There is also the benefit of actually being able to see the painting more clearly with museum glass.

Which actually was my main point. Why pay for UV if unsure about the quality of the artwork, particularly if your enjoyment on said possibly good art is ruined by not being able to view it properly !!!??

If its potentially carp then float is good enough.

If its definitely a family heirloom then museum is a must.

No?

Bear.

[sim.on]

I'm quite happy to potter along catering for the 'bottom end' of the framing market from home but I do sometimes get asked to frame some quite valuable stuff. I use conservation mountboard as standard and the quotes I give are for standard 2mm glass. When I recommend upgrading to UV glass no one has ever gone for it yet.

[prospero]

So if it fades it wasn't really valuable anyway? Other than for the twit that paid too much?

Not always so. Some artists may be very talented and 'collectable' but are a bit short on the 'craft' side. Then there are prints.... Signed limited edition by Russell-Flint that date from the 60's were all done with very dodgy inks. Never seen one that hadn't faded badly. There probably are no 'mint' copies in existence. If museum glass had been used, they would have survived much better. Of course in those days framing standards in general were also very iffy compared with today.

As far as the cosmetic aspect goes, using AR glass with less UV filtering properties will look better. But the difference in price between this option and full UV glass is nowhere near the difference between standard float and AR only. For this reason I use either std or museum.

btw. The good old 'non-reflective' glass is something I avoid. It only works properly if the picture is tight up against it. Which is another no-no. Another little known fact is that it will acually make fading happen faster in the right circumstances. It isn't only light that causes fading.

[Roboframer]

the quotes I give are for standard 2mm glass. When I recommend upgrading to UV glass no one has ever gone for it yet.

Try giving a price including UV glass without mentioning it, you can easily sell down, but no so easily sell up.

For quite some time I have been automatically pricing mostly everything up to 1.5 sq ft with UV glass (Tru Vue Conservation Clear) - mainly to get rid of offcuts, and I've also been pricing anything else that is 'worth it' - which is most things really, with the same.

If the customer thinks it's a bit too much to pay - THEN I tell them that the price includes UV glass, quickly explain the benefits, tell them the price with regular glass, and quickly explain the disadvantages of that.

I'd say 70% of customers don't blnk anyway and I'll win half of the rest.

[JamesC]

I wrote about htis earlier today and included this from the Claryl brochure:

"To what extent does ®claryl picture framing glass also protect against UV rays?
®claryl picture framing glass has not been specially developed for UV protection. In most instances
this is not a requirement either, because windows in houses and buildings already offer protection
against UV rays. Only if a work of art is hanging in full sunlight for the whole day, is there a small
risk of discolouration. Where this is the case we advise you to opt for a UV-protective glass."

Because Claryl is about anti-reflection and letting more light through (maybe then it's worse than standard UV but they won't mention that)

Read True Vue who do do UV glass instead:

"Only Tru-Vue offers a full line of Conservation Grade 99% UV glazing. Did you know? All photographs and art need to be glazed with at least 97% UV protection to prevent irreversible damage.* *Image Permanence Institute Consumer Guide to Materials for Preservation Framing and Display of Images ©2010. ISO 18902 Report ©2007."

They claim somewhere else true vue is only unnecessary for "sentimental" and above artwork when your windows have a special UV coating.

As I mentioned also in the "large poster" thread my van glass supplier has only ever sold 1 sheet of museum, 4 sheets of conservation (he claims he is so busy he's never got round to putting it on the price list though). Suggests not many small general framers are crying out for it.

I think personally the jump from float to tru vue conservation clear is quite small - £17 per sheet from another van supplier, but from float to museum large £125 (the jump to con reflection control is £32 per sheet approx.)

I'm getting all the free promotional stuff in for truevue now so I can see the difference once more and show the customer too. I think to raise the issue will show good knowledge and make a good impression - point of difference from shop frames. I wouldn't argue strongly with a framer who said it was all carp either and chose not to unless doing very valuable work when I think it's almost a must.

When my head framer started out 30 years ago he said you couldn't buy half the stuff you can now and there was only one or two types of tape, and we have to be wary of how good the americans are at marketing stuff. Like most things I'd happily pay 30-50% extra for all-singing glass but we are taking much more than that so it's much harder to justify. He has also mentioned the Robert Flint prints.

I'm going to start with the low price float and attempt to sell up so people don't go away thinking I'm expensive (or more importantly telling people I am). Bringing up the issue so they don't think we are low quality or oiks. I'm not too bothered which I sell because I don't think I can add much of a margin to conservation glass if I add it due to sheer expense already (time + materials type price instead).

I do think once the customer gets home and has their lamp shining in their pictures they may wish they had spent an extra £50 on reflection control at least (so they can see the picture). When you are stood in the shop £50 seems very painful I imagine on the off chance.

[Nigel Nobody]

Is it worth it?

Given two identical pieces of work framed in exactly the same way and then displayed alongside each other, how much longer would the UV protected piece of work last compared to the unprotected work?

No-one can answer that question accurately because the duration is not measurable due to many factors. It's like that old question "how long is a piece of string?"

I understand cost shouldn't really be an issue if we were talking about expensive artwork but if we're really trying to get the best protection and enjoyment from said artwork and with cost allegedly not an issue then surely we would use museum glass anyway?

UV glass and Museum glass are two different products. Museum has UV protection, but it has an added feature in that it is almost invisible when viewed from most positions in a room. I think the decision as to which glass is used belongs to the customer. I think the framers task is to supply good information to the customer so they can make an informed decision. Whether cost is an issue or not, has nothing to do with the framer!

So if that's the case whats the point of UV glass?

The point of UV glass is that it stops 97-99% of the harmful rays of UV light in the 300 to 380 nanometer range, which happens to be the range that includes the most harmful UV light. UV light is the most harmful, but infra red light is also harmful. In fact all light is harmful. The only safe place to put art so that it is never damaged by light is in total darkness.

My advice is to provide customers with information on the benefits of UV protecting glasses and pricing of several types of glass and let them make an informed decision. It's not our job as framers to make those decisions.
Unless framers have the correct information on different types of glass, it will be difficult to explain it to anyone and if you can't explain it in a way that customer will understand, guess how much UV or Museum glass you will sell?