Shallow Rabbets

Create a Post
Stephen Enggass

Stephen Enggass

CGF, Certified Grumble Framer
Joined
Aug 12, 2019
Posts
185
Location
Maine
Why do so many nice large ornate frames have such shallow rabbets? Ie. 3/8”... I have a client looking to put a large gold frame on a large canvas painting. @ 3-4.5” wide frame. If I need to use such a frame is the best way to use offset clips? Input needed. I have only done Floater Frames with canvas works to this point. Thanks!!
 
Yes to the offsets.

When I’m working with a customer and a shallow rabbet frame, I tell them it would work on an end wall where they can’t see the side. But on a side wall where they see that huge gap at the side it is less nice. Then we find a deeper frame.
 
Offset clips will work fine, but be sure your customer can see how far it extends out from the wall. There are plenty of canvas depth frames out there. Once you get used to it, most of the time, you will be able to reach for the canvas depth corners and head off their falling in love with a frame that is not deep enough.
 
I agree, would be nice to have more frames with deeper rabbets.
 
This has been a perennial gripe with framers since time immemorial. 😠

Fact is, that mouldings are made from prepared planks that come in various thicknesses
an stepping up to the next thickness would increase to cost dramatically. That's the story
I've had from reps for years. Makes some sort of sense I suppose...........

You can blank out the gap if the canvas protrudes too far by fixing a flat piece of wood to
the back, slightly inset and painting it black. Bit of a compromise but it can do the trick
depending on the proportions of the frame. At least it covers the 'works'.

Not so simple on an oval. 😕
 
Ditto the build up with strainers, though I have only used it on frames with dark sides. Haven't figured out whether I could pull it off matching a gold finish.
 
Frances M. said:
Ditto the build up with strainers, though I have only used it on frames with dark sides. Haven't figured out whether I could pull it off matching a gold finish.
Click to expand...

Easy. Make another frame the same size but rip off the rabbet. Then fix it back-to-back to the first one.

😕🤣
 
I'm currently doing buildouts on vintage frames and keep ocher, a very dark brown, lamp black, and red (for tinting) to paint the buildouts. The paint is a synthetic milk paint, and the build outs are from no.1 bass wood.
Short of setting up a rudimentary woodworking shop, getting a variety of milled basswood rectangular profiles will suffice for most jobs. Chamfered profiles work well for frames where you want to create a negative space in the side view.
 
Hey Wally seeing as how I’ve never done this, can you post a photo?
 
Frametek has a product just or this problem called RabbetSpace. See it and the how to video on the FrameTek web pages.
 
I would like to see a pic or a sketch. I am wondering if I have been doing this the best way.
 
OBTW, when I had a frame shop back in the 70s I made a rabbet depth gage to test salesman's samples when they came into my shop. It was about 3x3" and consisted of a piece of glass, 2 mat layers and a piece of foamboard. If it didn't fit in the rabbet with enough room for a fitting staple or point, I wouldn't buy the stuff. Pretty soon the moulding companies will get the picture (pun intended)
 
I have several versions of that depth gauge made up; single, double, triple mat, etc. I thought I was brilliant when I thought it up. (It is amazing how often we reinvent the wheel).

I find rabbit space to be very useful for a lot of things and have used it for years.

But sometimes, particularly when designing a shadowbox, I need to extend the frame itself.
 
I do have a table saw, but a hand Japanese pull-saw will make short work of it.
(Saw it off before you make the frame).

Most of my frames start as plain wood, so I don't have to do this. Any extensions end
up being finished and blended in one operation. 😁
 
Here is one that bugs me. Why put a chamfered edge on a moulding with only a 3/8" rabbit to begin with?

For me, a 3/8" rabbit is the minimum I can use. With a 1/8" (actually .118") acrylic and 3/16" FC, you have barely enough room for the framing points. And if you want a mat(s), you are forced to use turn buttons.

This is one frame that I sell with a 3/8" rabbit.

red.jpg
champher.jpg

I sell it in red and blue and will be adding it in white and black soon.

Here is a view of the rabbit. They chamfered the rabbit edge, cutting down the already skinny 3/8" rabbit.

Why? Why? Why?

but-why-meme-generator-but-why-84103d.jpg


2bxdkn.jpg


Maybe later I will let you know what I really think.
 
images.jpeg
 
Usually, weird things like this are to satisfy the specs of a major purchaser of the moulding. A production photo framer may need a perfectly flat back, for instance, and this chamfer allows the use of some kind of turn button that is consumer-friendly.

It is never intended to drive us wild. That is just an unfortunate byproduct.
 
I frequently chamfer the backing board and use multipoints at an angle.

I also keep a stock of 1/4" thick flat wood in various widths to extend mouldings with titchy rabbets.
Bit of a faff but saves a lot of shoehorning. 🙂
 
prospero said:
I frequently chamfer the backing board and use multipoints at an angle.

I also keep a stock of 1/4" thick flat wood in various widths to extend mouldings with titchy rabbets.
Bit of a faff but saves a lot of shoehorning. 🙂
Click to expand...
Shoehorning itself can be a tad faff! 😎
 
9504479.jpg
 
Speak of the devil. Got an order today for a 20x24 version of the frame in my original post so I though I would post some pics showing how tight it is. Used .098" acrylic rather than the usual .118" and 1/8" AF FC rather than 3/16" and I still had to angle the points in. Customer doesn't mind because this is the second she has bought from me.

rabbit1.jpg


rabbit2.jpg

rabbit3.jpg
 
CHolt said:
You could do so with flex-points and then bend them over.
Click to expand...

Never - there has to be some room for the art to expand and contract. Bending over flex-points don't allow for that and the art could start getting waves in it, no thank you. Either build up the back of the frame or don't carry it - I do not carry any corner sample that I can't put in a piece of glass, 1 mat, 1/8" backer, and have enough space to allow a 2 ply mat sample to fit between the point and backer.
 
Last edited:
Joe B said:
Never - there has to be some room for the art to expand and contract. Bending over flex-points don't allow for that and the art could start getting waves in it, no thank you. Either build up the back of the frame or don't carry it - I do not carry any corner sample that I can't put in a piece of glass, 1 mat, 1/8" backer, and have enough space to allow a 2 ply mat sample to fit between the point and backer.
Click to expand...
Adding a slip of 2ply under the point, and giving it a bend (not just levering it down), then removing the slip will add some "wiggle" room to keep things loose.


I do see your perspective. Using appropriate materials to start with is certainly preferable.
But sometimes I just can't sell a customer on a budget something they don't want to spend the extra money on (deeper frame or building up back, etc.). Especially if they don't understand the concepts behind expansion/contraction of materials, etc.

I explain to the customer what may happen if "squishing" a frame package is done (or other improper mounting/fitting practices).

We have all opened up very old frames that look fine from the outside, then see the crazy methods that were used to mount and package, and are astonished that the artwork somehow survived relatively unharmed.

No one can predict for certain what will happen to a piece of art over the long term, all we can do is use best practices to minimize the possible risks.
As long as I inform the customer of the benefits or risks of various options, it's ultimately their decision.

I think we have also all opened relatively new frame packages that have warped/cockled or torn art pieces, which upon inspection appear to have been treated with all the appropriate care and attention. Yet, somehow the damage occurred. A little "CSI" style investigating can often reveal what caused the problem, but not always. Sometimes it's just a mystery that only a trained conservator would be able to figure out.


I like your idea of culling out undesirable shallow frames even better. I think I'm going to do that. 👍
Keep them in a box for those times when shallow frames would be OK. Such as a dry-mounted poster with no matt, etc.
 
The idea of having a "space" between the backer and the point to allow for expansion/contraction is not needed at all. You will never get waves in the art for pinning it in tightly... except if you don't put enough pins in. Like putting only 3 in on a 16" length side will allow the work to bow out, which is another problem than waves.

Waves are caused by fitting it into the frame too tightly. That is why we allow an 1/8" when we make the frame.

The space needed for expansion is in the LENGTH/WIDTH of the package, not the thickness. All of the materials in the package will never expand enough in that direction to need that tiny space. The whole idea of pinning the piece into the frame is to make it snug.

So, basically, the whole procedure of placing a 2ply in and then pinning and then removing the 2 ply is a waste of time and materials.

Just as a thought.. where did you learn to do that procedure?

I wasn't taught it when I went to school and I don't ever remember reading it in any framing book.
 
framah said:
The space needed for expansion is in the LENGTH/WIDTH of the package, not the thickness. All of the materials in the package will never expand enough in that direction to need that tiny space. The whole idea of pinning the piece into the frame is to make it snug.
So, basically, the whole procedure of placing a 2ply in and then pinning and then removing the 2 ply is a waste of time and materials.
Click to expand...

I believe that may be a matter of opinion. I happening to have learned that from a framer that was in the framing business probably longer than you and I together.
It was explained to me this way, paper swells and not only length and height when changes in heat/cold, & humidity. Paper is like a sponge, when the sponge is dry it shrinks, height, length, and depth. When you add water to the sponge it expands in height, length, and depth - try it some time and you will see I am correct. You are correct that space is needed on all sides but space is also needed in the depth. I have been doing the spacing this way for close to 20 years and I have never had a problem with waves. Before I gave it the necessary space on all side I did have a few that did wave.
But again, it is a matter of opinion - fasten it any way you want to, that is totally your prerogative.
 
I've just done some olde watercolors. Single mat with a fillet. So late's say the mat board is 1.5mm.
The mat is built up with another layer of mat board to make the fillet top flush at the front. When the fillet
is fitted I level that out with 3mm foam board. Add the undermount (in this case to water colors were mounted
to matboard so I pinwheeled strips of matboard around). So the whole inner package = 7.5mm +/-.
Add the glass/backboard and you have about a 12mm sandwich. So a 15mm rabbet is about the ideal depth.
Not many mouldings have this depth. Even a basic single mat only just goes in a 10mm rabbet.

There are still a great number of moulding where the rabbet is 7-8mm and apart from a basic glass/thin bit of paper/back
they aren't a great deal of use. 😕
 
framah said:
So, basically, the whole procedure of placing a 2ply in and then pinning and then removing the 2 ply is a waste of time and materials.

Just as a thought.. where did you learn to do that procedure?

I wasn't taught it when I went to school and I don't ever remember reading it in any framing book.
Click to expand...

I read somewhere (probably on the Grumble) about the idea of allowing some space in frame depth as well as on edges. It sounded like a good idea to me.

I came up with the "bend" idea on my own one day when puzzling over the problem of fitting a shallow depth frame.
It seems to fit the mantra of "do no harm" to the artwork.

It doesn't require any additional materials as the 2-ply is removed and reused over and over. It can be done deeper (4ply, etc.), as long as the flexi point is long enough to still have a decent amount of support on the backer.

As for time, it literally takes only an additional minute.

If doing this procedure is advantageous and costs next to nothing in production, then why not?

If others here who are far more knowledgeable than me suggest this procedure could somehow be harmful then I would stop doing it.

This seems to be another one of those "it depends on who you ask" topics.
 
I didn't say it was harmful to the art, just that it was a waste of time. Yes the paper does expand in all directions but the percentage of expansion in relation to the thickness of the paper is so minute as to be not relevant. Expansion in the other directions does show a measurable difference proportional to the size.

Even tho it might take only a minute and a bit of paper, all that adds up overall. That time would be better spent on something like burnishing the edge of a mat cut so that tiny ridge isn't there... or using a finger nail sanding stick to break the edge of the corners of the frame and touching it up with a matching color.

I know, whatever floats your boat, right?

I also never take anything taught by another framer from eons ago as anything that is gosple. Just because it was passed down from one old timer to another doesn't make it right or the best. It only makes it something they did.

I take alot more stock in what is taught in framing schools by experts in the most current methods for framing.

I would enjoy hearing from anyone who teaches whether this technique is taught as it wasn't by the school I went to.
 
framah said:
I also never take anything taught by another framer from eons ago as anything that is gosple. Just because it was passed down from one old timer to another doesn't make it right or the best. It only makes it something they did.
Click to expand...

Well, how do you think all of the standards of today were made, it was the framers from eons ago that were the first to start coming up with the standard, the standards didn't all at once come into being. And since you are telling me I am wrong with how I do that I will return the favor - take a piece of mat board and put a couple drops of water on it - tell me that it doesn't swell significantly at those drops - it actually swells in depth more than it swells vertically or horizontally.

And for your information - I don't believe I know everything there is to know about framing and I would never criticize a technique that in your own words "I didn't say it was harmful". Also, there is so much to teach in these classes, maybe this was taught but you weren't in the class or maybe it was never taught in a class. There are tons of techniques that we use that aren't taught in the classes because it is common sense or common knowledge.

Also, Jim Miller is an instructor. Please look at this tread from 2017 :
My mats are wavy.
Aug 10, 2017
Jim Miller said:
In general, hard-setting adhesives are better than pressure-sensitive adhesives, but ATG is among the most costly and least dependable adhesives used in frame shops. For all pressure-sensitive adhesives, "pressure" is the operative term, so ATG probably will fail if it is not thoroughly burnished, and it can flow over time in any case. Ordinary frame glue is OK for general purpose framing, but for preservation framing, I suggest using an acid-free PVA or EVA glue. Dabs of inexpensive acrylic gel medium also are suitable for joining mats in levels of all framing, but may take longer to dry.

Yes, expansion/contraction cycles are quite normal in controlled environments, but they increase with radical changes of moisture content and temperature inside the frame. That is why completely closing the frame with glazing and a tight-fitting dustcover is important, in order to slow down the rate of change inside the frame. As tedh noted, 1/8 is the usual allowance for normal expansion and contraction cycles, and very large frames might require more.

Also, be careful not to fit the frame too tightly front-to-back. That is, do not push down when installing the fitting points, because the front-to-back pressure of too-tight fitting also can prevent normal expansion/contraction cycles. For example, in sectional metal frames fitted with spring clips, have you ever noticed the mat' edges ruffling under the clips? That is due to the pressure of the clips preventing expansion/contraction.

After fitting, the typical framing package should be loose enough that it shifts a little if you shake the frame side-to-side. That will normally (and properly) make the glass rattle, and in my shop, if you can't rattle the glass after fitting, then it's too tight. [Exception: Acrylic DCO framing]
Click to expand...


This was my addition to that thread and Jim Miller and Ted liked my suggestion:

Joe B said:
I use a discontinued mat corner between the backing and the point driver when installing points. That gives me adequate room for expansion and contraction. Like Jim Miller says, if the framing package doesn't shift a little in the frame it is installed way to tight.
Click to expand...



So now you have heard it from Jim Miller who is an instructor. Oh, and by the way, I wouldn't say what you do is a waste of time and money. It is your option on how you do something. We are here to help one and another as framers and we should all have the opportunity to give out information without someone stating it is a waste of time and money. We are all adults and should be able to decide if something is going to work for us without negative comments.

https://www.thegrumble.com/index.php?threads/my-mats-are-wavy.80746/watch
 
Last edited:
Create a Post
Back
Top