Tru-Vue vs. Artglass + UV protection

Create a Post
Z

ZORG1317

Grumbler
Joined
Apr 1, 2021
Posts
16
Loc
North Carolina
Business
F&P Shop
Greetings!

My second post!

My shop is looking to offer Artglass in addition to Tru-Vue products. I have only ever worked with Tru-Vue glass and acrylic in the 15+ years I have been framing, this shop included (although I have handled Artglass a couple of time in unfitting customers' projects.) One of my fellow framers is raving about Artglass, and he also claims that 92% UV protection is really no different than 99% UV protection (although my personal logic tells me otherwise.)

What is everyone's experience and opinion about Tru-Vue as compared to Artglass, and also my coworker's claim into 92% vs. 99% protection?

Thank you everyone!
 
The 92% version of artglass is reflective not absorptive and does not meet the standard for preservation framing.
But they do a version that offers the same protection and meets the same standard as TruVue Con clear AND museum and my experience is that the coatings are tougher and there is no ripple.

In UK those versions are called Artglass 99 and artglass AR 99. Not sure if they're available in USA
 
AR99 (anti-reflective) and Artglass 99 are both available in the US. They don't have as extensive a network as TruVue does, but seem to be growing.

Preservation standard requires 97% UV filtering, so the Artglass 92 falls a tad short.
 
wpfay said:
AR99 (anti-reflective) and Artglass 99 are both available in the US. They don't have as extensive a network as TruVue does, but seem to be growing.

Preservation standard requires 97% UV filtering, so the Artglass 92 falls a tad short.
Click to expand...
I have always believed that 99% UV protection was the way to go, so thank you for reinforcing this knowledge with my co-worker. :)
 
Ylva said:
I would gladly try out Artglass, but my suppliers who have free truck delivery do not offer it.
I have heard that it is easier to handle than museum glass. However, I don't have much of a problem handling MG myself.
Click to expand...
Same here.
 
Years ago, when color photocopiers first became available an artist friend of mine decided to
take some of his paintings to a local print shop and get some color prints done. Previously he
had to do 100s using offset-litho. He thought it was a great idea but I was a tad windy about it.
I got a reject print from him and put it on my windowsill, half covered up. No glass (except for the window).
It was there a full summer and the window in question got a good fierce blast from the sun.
When I examined it I was amazed to see that it hadn't faded at all. You couldn't see a line where it was covered.

The moral of this tale if it has one......

People do tend to agonise about UV glass without paying heed to the lightfastness of the item to be protected.
If something is highly fugitive then UV glass is appropriate, but it will not prevent fading completely. It might slow
it down. I feel that very often framers get hung up on conforming with various 'Standards of Preservation' that, while
very laudable, make not-a-lot of difference.

** I have a little frame in my shop window that I printed myself. It has MG in it (I had an offcut). That has faded.
I also have watercolors that have 'cooking' grade glass in the same window that are as bright and fresh as the day they were painted.

😉
 
Wally is correct, that the accepted standard for ultraviolet filtering in preservation framing is 97% or better, according to ISO Standard 18902, and the Image Permanence Institute.
RoboFramer said:
The 92% version of artglass is reflective not absorptive and does not meet the standard for preservation framing.
Click to expand...
This is a key point about ultraviolet filtering capabilities. To my knowledge, no manufacturer has developed a way to bock more than 92% of ultraviolet radiation without a dedicated coating just for that purpose. Both Museum Glass and ArtGlass 99 have anti-reflection coatings on both sides, plus a separate coating to block ultraviolet radiation on one side, which is to be placed toward the frame's interior.

It is notable that, even when 99% of the invisible ultraviolet radiation (280-380 nanometers) is blocked, exposure to radiation (light) in the 380-700 nanometers visible range can also cause similar fading, color shift, embrittlement, and other damage. So, blocking all UV radiation may be the best protection available, but it does not stop the damage. For more on this, see the video here.

It is also notable that 99% UV-filtering acrylic does not require a separate coating to block the ultraviolet radiation, because that capability is included with the plastic sheet's chemistry.
 
Last edited:
Prospero said:
Years ago, when color photocopiers first became available an artist friend of mine decided to
take some of his paintings to a local print shop and get some color prints done. Previously he
had to do 100s using offset-litho. He thought it was a great idea but I was a tad windy about it.
I got a reject print from him and put it on my windowsill, half covered up. No glass (except for the window).
It was there a full summer and the window in question got a good fierce blast from the sun.
When I examined it I was amazed to see that it hadn't faded at all. You couldn't see a line where it was covered.

The moral of this tale if it has one......

People do tend to agonise about UV glass without paying heed to the lightfastness of the item to be protected.
If something is highly fugitive then UV glass is appropriate, but it will not prevent fading completely. It might slow
it down. I feel that very often framers get hung up on conforming with various 'Standards of Preservation' that, while
very laudable, make not-a-lot of difference.

** I have a little frame in my shop window that I printed myself. It has MG in it (I had an offcut). That has faded.
I also have watercolors that have 'cooking' grade glass in the same window that are as bright and fresh as the day they were painted.

😉
Click to expand...
I agree. We only use TruVue glass, but it's not necessary on some of the pieces we frame. For instance etchings and lithographs use pigment ink that doesn't fade. We recently framed an oil on paper piece, even though oil paint is made from pigments that don't fade, we used TruVue. One issue is it's all we stock, and the other is it's confusing for the customer when you try to educate them about the importance of UV blocking glass, and then tell them they don't need it. And yes, I've reframed a number of cheap prints that had faded even though they were framed using TruVue glass.
 
Echobelly said:
I agree. We only use TruVue glass, but it's not necessary on some of the pieces we frame. For instance etchings and lithographs use pigment ink that doesn't fade. We recently framed an oil on paper piece, even though oil paint is made from pigments that don't fade, we used TruVue. One issue is it's all we stock, and the other is it's confusing for the customer when you try to educate them about the importance of UV blocking glass, and then tell them they don't need it. And yes, I've reframed a number of cheap prints that had faded even though they were framed using TruVue glass.
Click to expand...
And even if the art won't fade, protective glazing can help preserve mat color.
 
Shayla said:
And even if the art won't fade, protective glazing can help preserve mat color.
Click to expand...
And paper that these pigments that won't fade (oh yes they will) are printed on.

Framers that play down the benefits of UV protection ........... well, never mind.
 
I tell folks that anything will fade over time, (due to all the other light in the spectrum, heat, fugitive media, etc...), but that conservation/Museum glass will slow the process. We sell 75% con. clear, 20% Museum, and about 5% other.
 
Echobelly, TruVue is a brand name. They produce many types of glass of varying UV and anti-reflective properties. Are you using only one particular type of glass from the TruVue Brand?
Did you mean to say you use TruVue Conservation, TruVue Museum, TruVue UltraVue92, TruVue Premium Clear. etc., etc.? They all have different UltraViolet light protection ratings.
Echobelly said:
And yes, I've reframed a number of cheap prints that had faded even though they were framed using TruVue glass.
Click to expand...
Sure, if you used TruVue Premium Clear, fading would certainly occur more quickly than if you used TrueVue Conservation Clear.

Not arguing against your statement in that post.
Just looking for clarification.
 
My 'spiel' when selling:

EVERYTHING fades (thanks Rob M).
This glass ( I only use TV, con clear, con refl contr and MG, so 99%) will slow down fading.
I don't know the quality of the paper or inks/paints used on this and this is out of anyone's control. However, this glass is the best that is available and will help slow down fading. it won't prevent it, that is not possible.

(or something like this)
 
Shayla said:
And even if the art won't fade, protective glazing can help preserve mat color.
Click to expand...

Oh yes. Some use actual tinted drawing paper and that fades very easily. It's generally is not too noticeable though.
One thing I learned is not to put price labels on the glass area. The mat will get a little dark patch within days.
What is really strange is that if you expose the whole mat in an attempt to 'even it out' you don't seem to be able
to lose the dark patch. 🙄

Prints that were done pre-1980 or so have a marked proclivity for fading and some have a significant collectable value.
I'm thinking such artists as Russell-Flint and the like. In fact there are editions where maybe no 'mint' copies exist. If you
happen across one that has been in a drawer for 50 years then the last thing you would want to do is frame it - UV glass of not.
Unless you had a pair of curtains in front. 😆
 
The reduction of light energy, visible or invisible, into the frame also reduces any reactions, such as oxidation, that are accelerated by such energy.

Stuff fades and stuff oxidizes and all we can hope to do is mitigate the rates and extend the life of the object in the frame for as long as possible.
 
Nikodeumus said:
Echobelly, TruVue is a brand name. They produce many types of glass of varying UV and anti-reflective properties. Are you using only one particular type of glass from the TruVue Brand?
Did you mean to say you use TruVue Conservation, TruVue Museum, TruVue UltraVue92, TruVue Premium Clear. etc., etc.? They all have different UltraViolet light protection ratings.

Sure, if you used TruVue Premium Clear, fading would certainly occur more quickly than if you used TrueVue Conservation Clear.

Not arguing against your statement in that post.
Just looking for clarification.
Click to expand...
We only stock TruVue Cons. Clear, Reflection Control and Museum glass, both in glass and acrylic.
 
ZORG1317 said:
Greetings!

My second post!

My shop is looking to offer Artglass in addition to Tru-Vue products. I have only ever worked with Tru-Vue glass and acrylic in the 15+ years I have been framing, this shop included (although I have handled Artglass a couple of time in unfitting customers' projects.) One of my fellow framers is raving about Artglass, and he also claims that 92% UV protection is really no different than 99% UV protection (although my personal logic tells me otherwise.)

What is everyone's experience and opinion about Tru-Vue as compared to Artglass, and also my coworker's claim into 92% vs. 99% protection?

Thank you everyone!
Click to expand...
I have used Both for some years now. I really do love the Artglass, especially (art glass 70%) for non-conservation type jobs it's scratch-resistant. So no problems storing it!! Which means less waste. Gotta love that!. However, they do sell 99% so no worries if you need it for more delicate jobs too. Two thumbs up from me!!
 
I'm not a framer, and have never framed anything of "value". To me, back in the day, using "picture glass" rather than "window glass" was an upgrade. 100 years ago, 200 years ago, 500 years ago there were virtually no options other than "glass" or "nothing". I think we have gotten rather spoiled.

The fact is, nothing on this earth is permanent. And while I understand the view to extending "life" of an object is important to some because of either personal/sentimental or financial value, you cannot stop time.

Just finished reading a very interesting book (novel) about the elimination of death by aging. It brings up a lot of thoughts/points I had never considered. It was called "The Price of Time" by Tim Tigner if you want to follow up (free on Kindle via BookBub somewhere in the recent past).
 
RoboFramer said:
A very quick google shows the oldest "painting" in the world is on a cave wall in Spain - almost 36,000 years old.
Click to expand...
The beauty of a well controlled environment. Convenient that Neolithic humans chose a cave with very stable environment to record their lives.
 
wpfay said:
The beauty of a well controlled environment. Convenient that Neolithic humans chose a cave with very stable environment to record their lives.
Click to expand...
Maybe not so much "convenient" as 36 millions years of observation of failed processes/media/environment.
 
Our distant ancestors used 'earth' pigments. These are very permanent. Have you ever seen a faded mountain? 🙄

Since then we have developed lots of synthetic colors. Many of these are very vibrant. They aren't quite so permanent though.

Earth pigments are still widely used. Ochres, Umbers, etc. Nobody has found anything better since the Dawn of Man. 😁
 
In terms of UV protection, think bout how much UV gets through, not how much is blocked.
92% protection lets through 8%
99% protection lets through 1%.
1% vs 8% is a big difference.
 
Taking notes:
Regular Glass~40% UV protection, regular visibility/reflection
Artglass 92= 92% UV protection, regular visiblility/reflection
Artglass 99 and TV Conservation Clear=99% UV, regular visibility/reflection
Artglass AR 99 and TV Museum Glass=99% UV, high visibility/low reflection
Spanish Cave=100% UV, low visibility/no reflection-only the abyss staring back

I shall consider adding caves as an option for the cheapos that don't want glass.
 
We call them closets now.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Mary Beth van der Horst said:
Taking notes:
Regular Glass~40% UV protection, regular visibility/reflection
Artglass 92= 92% UV protection, regular visiblility/reflection
Artglass 99 and TV Conservation Clear=99% UV, regular visibility/reflection
Artglass AR 99 and TV Museum Glass=99% UV, high visibility/low reflection
Spanish Cave=100% UV, low visibility/no reflection-only the abyss staring back

I shall consider adding caves as an option for the cheapos that don't want glass.
Click to expand...
season 5 GIF by SpongeBob SquarePants

Hehe, so now when we get customers who make poor decisions about glazing despite our best efforts to help them, we can literally tell them to "go crawl in a cave"! 😂
 
Mary Beth van der Horst said:
Taking notes:
Regular Glass~40% UV protection, regular visibility/reflection
Artglass 92= 92% UV protection, regular visiblility/reflection
Artglass 99 and TV Conservation Clear=99% UV, regular visibility/reflection
Artglass AR 99 and TV Museum Glass=99% UV, high visibility/low reflection
Spanish Cave=100% UV, low visibility/no reflection-only the abyss staring back

I shall consider adding caves as an option for the cheapos that don't want glass.
Click to expand...
It's Artglass AR 92, optically coated and waterwhite
 
Mary Beth van der Horst said:
Taking notes:
Regular Glass~40% UV protection, regular visibility/reflection
Artglass 92= 92% UV protection, regular visiblility/reflection
Artglass 99 and TV Conservation Clear=99% UV, regular visibility/reflection
Artglass AR 99 and TV Museum Glass=99% UV, high visibility/low reflection
Spanish Cave=100% UV, low visibility/no reflection-only the abyss staring back

I shall consider adding caves as an option for the cheapos that don't want glass.
Click to expand...
We need Peril Sensitive Glass.
 
Create a Post
Back
Top