1,000 checks for $30

Create a Post
nona powers

nona powers

MGF, Master Grumble Framer
Joined
Jun 15, 1999
Posts
735
Loc
san diego
I have just written a check to FACTS for $30. I will start the pot that must contain 1,0000 checks by the Atlanta show in Sept. I'm asking that every framer who cares about the industry and the continuation of FACTS send me a check for $30, or more if you can. I will hold the checks until I have received all 1,000. If I'm wrong and out of 17,000 framers, 1,000 don't care enough to keep FACTS alive, then the checks will be returned uncashed.

Send a check made out to FACTS for $30
Mail it to:
Nona Powers, CPF, GCF
P. O. Box 600025
San Diego, CA 92160-0025

I hope this topic stays on the top of the postings because I will note every day how many checks I get and will say who sent it if you would like to be publicly acknowledged.

I don't know if anything has been done like this before. We could make history and save a worthy entity from oblivion. I would also be right about the character of framers. I know in my heart of hearts that I'm right. Help me prove it!!!

Nona Powers, CPF, GCF
www.nonapowers.com

FACTS can be found at www.artfacts.org
 
Nona.

Not sure why any of us framers should have to foot the bill for this...

This is clearly a responsibitly that the PPFA/PMA should be on top of.. One would think they would foot the bill for this and there payback would come from the manufaactures paying for the PPFA to test and approve the product in question..
 
Originally posted by Paul M:

This is clearly a responsibitly that the PPFA/PMA should be on top of..
Click to expand...
And the PPFA is made up of who.....? Why "us framers" of course. And correct me if I'm wrong, but the PPFA doesn't "test" any product that I know of.

Betty
 
Hi Nona:

My check's in the mail (really), keep up the good work! :D

-Mike.
 
>>And the PPFA is made up of who.....? Why "us framers" of course. And correct me if I'm wrong, but the PPFA doesn't "test" any product that I know of.<<

Betty

As a governing body the PPFA should do the testing of the products we use...

They should publish a list of approved materials for us to use... For us "framers" to form our own group would only undermind the responability the PPFAA/PMA should have..

If we were to run out and form our own groups for everything we wanted done to improve our standards, we have no need what so ever for the PPFA.

If the PPFA isn't doing what is in our best interest.. Why is it we pay them to belong...
 
Mine's there too! Thanks for championing the cause!
 
 
Framers are the ones who should support FACTS. It's for framers and they will derive benefit from it. It does not help manufacturers. They will help support it if the framers will stand up and be counted, but if they won't, no one will support it.

PMA/PPFA is committing a fortune right now to education for regional shows and to chapter development. They do not have the resources to take this on also. They might down the road, but right now are in no position to do it. FACTS won't last that long without funding. No one part of the industry can do it alone anyway. As Betty said, who better to do it than the framer? If we start and show commitment, the manufacturers will join in. As Jim Miller said Bainbridge already gave $7,5000. That’s certainly shows commitment.

We managed to get Crescent and Bainbridge to agree to put whether their products meet FACTS PMMB 2000 standards for preservation framing on their samples. That is huge. FACTS can be the benchmark for years to come and the benefits from that are totally for the framer.

I've gotten several posts saying the checks are on the way. Good for them. I'll keep everyone posted as I receive them. One check that's coming is for $50. I think I'll change mine to $50.

Nona Powers, CPF, GCF
www.nonapowers.com
 
Hi Nona-I love dedication and passion; it's what separates the few from the many. So I figured, heck, I can afford .08/ a day to make my industry better. And who better than me to take some action. In fact, I'm gonna splurge and up my ante to a little over a quarter a day (I'm sure I can figure a way to save two bits everyday).

My check for $100 is on the way and challenge all the independent shop owners to match my offer. And $30 for every non-owner sure sounds like a nice gesture, too.

This industry is only as good as we make it.
 
AJH, I'm going to step completely out of character.

You've been a solid and contributing member of this board for a very long time. If you are avowing to this group that you have never heard of FACTS, then you are reading a very selected number of posts....and not reading them very well.

FACTS has been discussed here for at least two years in any number of post headings, and it is indeed important. You may not ever in good conscience dismiss the topic of any subject if you've never heard of it. I am both surprised and disappointed in your statement.
 
I love numbers, don't you? Here are some numbers to chew on. These are estimates, but probably pretty good ones.

There are about 17,000 picture framers in the U.S.

There are about 3,500 PPFA members.

There are about 4,000 CPFs - Certified Picture Framers. (PPFA members are shops, mostly. CPFs are individuals. That's why you have more CPFs than PPFA members.)

Picture Framing Magazine has a circulation of about 17,000.

Nona is looking for 1,000 framers who will commit $30 to help ensure the future of FACTS. Jim Miller told us at the meeting that, when he began utilizing the FACTS standards in his business, his sales increased 20% almost immediately. I believe him.

It is expected that a large part of the operating budget for FACTS will come from the large manufacturers and suppliers. Some of them have been supporting FACTS for years. Don't you suppose those vendors will take notice if 1,000 or more framers sign on in the next six weeks? We are, after all, the ones who stand to gain the most.
 
The reason that PPFA is not ingaged in the standards and testing business is that it is a TRADE ASSOCIATION. The credibility of a trade association is not the same as a non-for profit education organization that is totaly independent from the trade [IRS 501 (c) (3)]. This was discussed at the meeting.

ASTM standards for most industries are this type of organization. FACTS has contacted ASTM and is very impressed with what FACTS has done. In fact FACTS has done more than ASTM in a very short time in our very tiny industry according to Don
Pierce. ASTM has been around for well over 100 years and is independent from all trade associations.
 
When FACTS first formed it was considerably more than $30.00/ year to be a part of it. I was involved for two years with FACTS and later with GAFP but was unable to continue.
I am now in a better position (due in no small part to the MBA I am working on at Grumble U.) to take Bob's challenge and support FACTS. I'll have to forgo just one trip to my favorite restaurant this year, but it's worth the trade.
Nona, thanks for your efforts to provide momentum to this project. Your energy is contageous, and my check goes out in today's mail.
 
IF you're a believer in FACTS....add 25 cents to your fitting charge for the next month. Depending on your volume of business, you should be able to contribute $30.00 plus with no out of pocket expense. We'll send our $30 check now - and the "balance due" at the end of 30 days!
 
Originally posted by Paul M:
Nona.

Not sure why any of us framers should have to foot the bill for this...

This is clearly a responsibitly that the PPFA/PMA should be on top of.. One would think they would foot the bill for this and there payback would come from the manufaactures paying for the PPFA to test and approve the product in question..
Click to expand...
FACTS is about standards.

FACTS, in its current iteration, neither tests nor certifies that products, services or definitions are in compliance with its standards. It is up to an individual company to test and certify its products. As I understand, this will not change. I would certainly hope it doesn't.

And if the PPFA was in charge of the testing/certification process, then you (assuming you're a member) would be paying for it anyways.
 
Originally posted by Paul M:
...Not sure why any of us framers should have to foot the bill for this...This is clearly a responsibitly that the PPFA/PMA should be on top of... One would think they would foot the bill for this and there payback would come from the manufaactures paying for the PPFA to test and approve the product in question..
Click to expand...
PPFA/PMA's job is to take care of its members. Today, most framers are not PPFA members. PPFA/PMA promotes FACTS to its 3,500+ members becasuse it is a great concept. But how could PPFA/PMA effectively promote FACTS to non-members?

Indeed, why should PPFA/PMA members foot the bill to help non-members? Those who want PPFA/PMA benefits are invited to join the association.

FACTS is for all framers, not just PPFA/PMA members. FACTS must not rely on PPFA/PMA for its survival. FACTS can -- and I believe will -- thrive on its own merits.

In the perfect world, FACTS should remain independent of any contributor who could exert influence over the standards or the evaluation/publication process.

In the real world, FACTS needs funding just like every other enterprise. PPFA/PMA and Corporate contributors are the best immediate way to keep FACTS going. Also, corporate support of FACTS helps to get framers (including ajh) acquainted with the concept. However, contributions are not in any way a license to lobby for any particular product. Influence peddling is a danger in the business of developing standards, and FACTS is carefully avoiding that possibility.

As a 501(c)(3) charity (just like the March of Dimes), all contributions are tax deductible. Can you see where this is going? FACTS wants its funding to come from the FRAMERS who benefit most from using the standards.

Nona, my check's in the mail.
 
Framers are the ones who should support FACTS. It's for framers and they will derive benefit from it. It does not help manufacturers. They will help support it if the framers will stand up and be counted, but if they won't, no one will support it.

Agreed and they should do that by requesting that the PPFA/PMA be the ones to do it...

All the money you collect should be turned over to the PPFA If fact it should be sent to them instead of you.. Let them do what they should be doing.. To much money will be wasted by this unneeded committee..

The PPFA already has meeting so it will not cost much more for them to meet on this matter as it will just be one more thing the need to deal with
 
Originally posted by nona powers:
[
PMA/PPFA is committing a fortune right now to education for regional shows and to chapter development. They do not have the resources to take this on also.

If they are spending so much on education why is it I have to pay for a class.. You make it seem like the are footing the bill.. All they are doing here is floating a loan as I see it.. It also seems to me that the price has gone thru the roof....
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by RonEggers:
Jim Miller told us at the meeting that, when he began utilizing the FACTS standards in his business, his sales increased 20% almost immediately. I believe him.

I am new here.. I spent most of my time over the last two years talking to sales reps about the the material they sold... Now that I am satisified that the stuff I use is good for me and my customers I took the time to come here and chat...

I would love a 20% increase in sales...So could someone explain to me how using the FACTS standards will increase my sales by 20%
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by David N Waldmann:

FACTS, in its current iteration, neither tests nor certifies that products, services or definitions are in compliance with its standards. It is up to an individual company to test and certify its products. As I understand, this will not change. I would certainly hope it doesn't.

And if the PPFA was in charge of the testing/certification process, then you (assuming you're a member) would be paying for it anyways.[/QB]
Click to expand...
When you allow the manufacturer to test there own product you get the results they think you will be happy with..

I do think it would be wise for a group to challenge there findings on a regular basis.. However the committee challenging this should not be a new group...

The machanic of it alone will eat into the money sent in.. Let the group that should be doing the work do it.. that Group is the PPFA.. Let those who feel it is important to get this done volunteer there time to assit them...

Let the PPFA add the 30 dollars to the yearly cost of memebership... It will be for a good purpose... One they should have been doing all along
 
Paul M,

I don't know you and I won't presume to understand your concerns. Obviously, it was not possible for everyone to attend the FACTS meeting in Chicago, though I'm sure Jay would have done his best to accomodate 17,000 attendees. The PPFA was well-represented, however, by members, chapter leaders and administration. Regular Grumblers were aware that Nona, Jim Miller and I, among others, were going to attend and many emailed or posted comments and ideas ahead of time.

Like the others, I felt strongly enough about this issue to spend a day and a couple hundred dollars to attend the meeting to look for solutions. (I hate meetings, BTW.) I went to <U>this</U> meeting thinking that the PPFA should assume authority over FACTS. After listening to both sides of the argument, I understand why that isn't possible or desireable. If you don't yet understand it, we're not doing a good enough job explaining it, or you're not reading carefully. But please don't assume the PPFA even wants to take over FACTS.

It's not essential that you send Nona $30. You'll still gain considerable, though possibly incomplete, benefits from FACTS. It's also not essential that anyone attend trade shows, pay for books or education, belong to the PPFA, take the CPF test, join Framer Select or have a CPA do their books.

I'm sure you'll make the decision that's best for your business as others will for theirs. I'm perfectly sincere when I tell you, "Best of luck."
 
Originally posted by RonEggers:
Paul M,

I'm sure you'll make the decision that's best for your business as others will for theirs. I'm perfectly sincere when I tell you, "Best of luck."
Click to expand...
Thanks..

I do beleive what is best for my business is a strong industry.. That will not happen if we all go our separate ways every time some thing ilke this comes up.. We need to stand together... the more Groups you have the more seperate we become.

I am a beleiver in the Mission of FACTS.. I just would hate to see a waste of valuable resuorses doing what another group can easily handle.. The PPFA already meets and has a commucation chain in place..
 
It was getting long, so I quit before I was really done.

This is an idea you can choose to support or not to support. There is no enforcement committee. Jim Miller isn't going to show up at your shop with a tire iron and try to adjust your attitude. In fact, you probably aren't going to even get a phone call. Nobody wants to spend a big chunk of money raising money. And nobody expects EVERBODY to sign on!

Here is the absolute truth. You can hold me to it. If 1,000 framers send $30 to Nona before the Atlanta show, it is very likely that the organization will continue. If less than 6% of the framers in the U.S. do that, FACTS will be allowed to disappear. No one else is waiting or wanting to take it over - not the PPFA, the AIC or the CIA. We can do what we've done for years - ask for opinions and guesses about what materials we should use in our industry for maximum protection of artwork. If you don't believe that's what we do, spend some time digging through the archives. Look up ATG, fomecore, Coroplast, Zeolites, alpha cellulose, cotton rag . . .
 
In trying to understand Paul M's opposition in this thread I visited his web site. Very nice. I think I know where the confusion is coming from.

Paul, I see by your web site you sell a big variety of department store style novelty frames. (I certainly don't mean that in a bad way) No matting, no custom cut frames. Are you aware the materials everyone is refering to are those used by "Custom" framers? The materials used for conservation and preservation framing. I think if you understand the FACTS, you'll see a big difference in what you are selling and what the "Custom" framer is selling and the importance of FACTS.

By the way Paul for your link to work, in your profile enter http://www.theframeplace.com .

(Hope I'm not to far out of line)

Denny Baer
 
I get the feeling that some folks think that FACTS is a new organization. It was founded about eight years ago and has been working, maybe a little too quietly, during a time when the PPFA itself was struggling for survival. For all intents and purposes, the PPFA in it's current form is a much newer organization.

The purpose of the meeting on Sunday was to consider new sources of funding and to reorganize FACTS leadership and committee structure, not to form a new trade association. Most, though not all, of the FACTS leaders and committee members are also PPFA supporters, leaders and educators. It's not an either/or proposition.
 
:rolleyes:
 
To insure a fair sampling, I called the tattoo parlor across the street, the pet store in the next block and the U.S. Congressman's office next door and none of THEM had ever heard of FACTS either.

I guess the publicity committee has its work cut out for it.

In all seriousness, ajh, I never heard of FACTS until a few months ago. I wouldn't know about it now if it weren't for Nona and The Grumble. I've latched onto it now with such a passion, not because I like Nona and Jim Miller and Jay Goltz and a bunch of other people that are behind it - though I do - but because I like the idea of eliminating as much conjecture and hearsay as I can in my business.

When I'm sick, I wanna know the name of the bug that got me. The fact that I've never heard of it doesn't mean it's not going to get me.
 
I joined the grumble in Dec. 2001. I had not heard of FACTS until joining this group. Yet another reason that I am so grateful the day I stumbled across this site. This should not become a devisive issue among framers. Anytime a group of leaders in our industry care enough to get together to further the education of ALL that are in the industry and to adopt procedure and material standards for the industry, we should offer up our support whenever and however possible. Thankfully these people exist, otherwise organizations such as FACTS would be left to die on the vine. I'm excited to see how far FACTS can evolve and more excited to learn how I can use it as a tool to hopefully improve my business much like Jim Miller has. I applaud those who have taken this initiative, and attended the meeting in Chicago, I did not attend, but my check was mailed out to Nona this morning. Bob Carter put it into perspective when he said .08/day is a small price to pay to make this industry better. Well said Bob. My eyes and ears are open for ways to help in the future. I will now climb down from my soapbox.

-Mike.
 
Could it be that some of us have been aware of FACTS for years because we are PPFA members. I just took it for granted that everyone knew. It is been a huge topic at conventions and trade shows for so long, and yes, some of it was controversial, funding, staffing, you name it, but it was all worked out. I'm just amazed that some of you seasoned framers don't know, I thought surely I had read about it in trade magazines. It never occured to me that all this time it was a benefit of being a member. :cool:

A relatively small group of dedicated people devoted a huge amount of personal time to something that was not gauranteed to succeed. I hope each of them feels the satisfaction of accomplishing a monumental task. Just last weekend a conservator mentioned that the AIC is extremely pleased with the FACTS guidelines. :cool:

We should start a discussion thread about the guidlines...everybody would read a selected portion of the guidlines and then on a set date the discussion begins.
 
Well! It seems that I have come in on a rather controversial thread. (Or should I say "controversial" to a few of you).

Being the unappointed rabble rouser and confrontational "Grumbler in Residence" on this forum, I have a few comments to post on this subject.

First, F.A.C.T.S. has been working hard to promote standardization in our profession for the past 8 or 9 years that I am aware of. I heard about this group a few years ago and I read as much as I could find on them and I have to say that I originally thought that they were trying to standardize some things that the A.I.C. had already addressed in their endeavors. But I didn't understand exactly what was being specifically addressed by F.A.C.T.S. and, now that Nona Powers and a few others involved in this process, have clarified the position of the group, I am in full agreement with them and encourage their efforts.

With that in mind, I would answer Paul M.'s questions with one of my own. What would YOU LIKE to see done in our industry to standardize the lines of products that we use?

Redundant question?? Maybe, but I see quite a few of your comments as having absolutely no research to back them up and many of your comments have since been answered (to MY satisfaction, at least) by others in their posts. The PPFA IS, in fact, a "Trade Association" and is not involved in testing products nor should they be.

(A quote from one of your posts)

"If they are spending so much on education why is it I have to pay for a class.. You make it seem like the are footing the bill.. All they are doing here is floating a loan as I see it.. It also seems to me that the price has gone thru the roof...."

Do you have any idea how much it costs to provide workshop training at these trade shows? Do you think that the advertising, training materials, mat cutters, slide presentations, take-home materials, etc. come free? Regarding prices going through the roof, are you referring to the PPFA dues? Do you mean that the workshop fees have "gone through the roof"? I can't imagine how you can arrive at either of those conclusions!

(Another quote from your posts)

"I am new here.. I spent most of my time over the last two years talking to sales reps about the the material they sold... Now that I am satisified that the stuff I use is good for me and my customers I took the time to come here and chat..."

So, you are condemning the manufacturers on one hand for feeding "what they think you want to hear" about their product information and testing but, on the other hand, you are satisfied with what those same manufacturer's SALES reps are telling you about their products. (emphasis on SALES). How do you qualify these sales reps as far as being totally objective and unbiased in what they tell you? And regarding your being new on the Grumble and simply coming to this forum to "chat", I have to respectfully disagree with your definition of the word "chat". There are tactful and polite ways to get your point across to others. But, I see an arrogant headstrong guy who has his mind set and will "go down with the ship" before he lets anybody else sway his opinion about his beliefs, right or wrong! Have you considered the possibility that you COULD be mis-informed about the F.A.C.T.S. group??

(Still another quote from your posts)

"I would love a 20% increase in sales...So could someone explain to me how using the FACTS standards will increase my sales by 20%"

You bet!! Wouldn't we all like that kind of increase!! But, that increase is NOT an automatic perk of putting up F.A.C.T.S. signs in your gallery or telling your customers that "these matboards adhere to F.A.C.T.S. standards." I think that you will find that the framer who posted a 20% increase in sales did some active promotion of the benefits of adhering to standards that spell out specific parameters for the products that are used in c/p framing.

(And yet another post of yours)

"When you allow the manufacturer to test there own product you get the results they think you will be happy with.."

I do think it would be wise for a group to challenge there findings on a regular basis.. However the committee challenging this should not be a new group...

The machanic of it alone will eat into the money sent in.. Let the group that should be doing the work do it.. that Group is the PPFA.. Let those who feel it is important to get this done volunteer there time to assit them...

Let the PPFA add the 30 dollars to the yearly cost of memebership... It will be for a good purpose... One they should have been doing all along"

Paul, we are NOT talking about Rocket Science here!! We are talking about the content of harmful materials in matboards and foamcore, and adhesives! Why would you even think that the manufacturers of these products would risk legal action, loss of income from their mis-represented products, and a general decline of sales to framers who would become very apprehensive about buying from a company that intentionally lies about their products??

Increase PPFA dues by another $30.00??? Where HAVE you been?? The dues have just been adjusted to a reasonable level since the merger with PMA!! The high dues was the ONLY reason that I dropped OUT of the PPFA a few years ago. When they came down to a level that I felt I could afford, I rejoined and I feel that the PMA/PPFA is heading in the right direction for a change. And now YOU want to raise dues before the new organization is even through their first year. That is simply RIDICULOUS!!

If your frame shop is located at 520 Route 22 in Scotch Plains then you ARE a member of the PPFA and should understand what the PPFA is all about. Why not try to educate yourself on what F.A.C.T.S. is trying to do and the mission statement of the PPFA before you continue to make a total fool of yourself on this forum.

These are educated, long term professional framers you are talking to! And even the new framers to the profession have the common sense to sit back and learn about something that may be new to them. You seem to have only one ally on this thread and he has a very unique opinion of those of us who have chosen to educate ourselves and operate a fulltime business in a professional manner.

I would hope that both of you would try to look at this concept with a little more open mind and not be so quick to condemn the efforts of other professionals to move this business into the next level of efficient operation. If it doesn't work for you I suggest that you stick to your present ways and let the rest of us make the same decisions according to OUR beliefs in what would help us be better framers.

Framerguy
 
I am new to the grumble, but I have been around the framing industry for at least 25 years.
I beleive that FACTS is a good thing for all framers that are willing to keep an open mind.

You've got my 30 dollars!
 
Hey Mark,

Welcome to the Grumble, my friend!

I knew you wouldn't be able to hang back and be a listener for long!

Hope you enjoy the posts and keep posting yourself. I'm probably the only Grumbler who knows you so you have only a 1 in over 2000 chance of getting ribbed on here!! ;)

Framerguy
 
You guys are so great! I don't have to explain a thing; you all do it so much better than I could. I'm so glad you’re aboard and see how valuable FACTS is to the industry. If framers show support, as you did for the FACTS PMMB-2000 labeling on the back of samples, FACTS can be saved and be the vital organization it should be, should always have been.

Please, if your part of a chapter, mention the idea to the group and see if you can get support from people who are not on line.

I have my heart set on this working. I totally believe in framers and you keep proving me right. I hope we can do it again but 1,000 is a lot. It will take a lot of work from all of us to pull it off. (I can't wait to see a couple of people eat their words. The ones who said 1,000 framers just won't care.)

Nona Powers, CPF, GCF
www.nonapowers.com
 
Originally posted by Dancinbaer:
[QB]In trying to understand Paul M's opposition in this thread I visited his web site. Very nice. I think I know where the confusion is coming from.

Well no, your still very confused my friend. The site you went to is not my business.. I'd love to have the imcome they rake in but I am just a small custom shop in New Jersey.

I am not opposed to FACTS in any way... I am Opposed to starting yet another group to teach us the proper way to frame... When one is already in place to do just that...

Perhaps asking first would have better suited your needs here...
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by RonEggers:
[QB]I get the feeling that some folks think that FACTS is a new organization. It was founded about eight years ago and has been working, maybe a little too quietly, during a time when the PPFA itself was struggling for survival. For all intents and purposes, the PPFA in it's current form is a much newer organization.

Okay Ron

We are getting somewhere now.. Where did the funding use to come from....Why is not in place now....

What was the purpose of FACTS and why is it they were not totally effective..

Exactly what direction change are they taking and what is the expected result..

I sent in a check to the Red Cross after 9/11 only to find out the money wasn't diong what I thought it would be doing... Am I making the same mistake here as well I don't know So I will be asking a few queestion to make sure

$30,000 is nothing at all when attempting to get a set of standards adopted, even if the people who use it most already agree and are in compliance.. I assume here, the question is are some of the maufacturers in compliance...
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Framerguy:
[QB]Well! It seems that I have come in on a rather controversial thread. (Or should I say "controversial" to a few of you).

Being the unappointed rabble rouser and confrontational "Grumbler in Residence" on this forum, I have a few comments to post on this subject.

Framerguy... Don't take this wrong... But if I ask a question and you haven't the answer do not bother to post..

I am not here to feed your ego... I am here to decide if this FACTS committee is going to make my life easier..And what the money I send in will actuall do...

AS you know I do not have all the answers so I am asking questions... Lucky for you You know everthing there is and ever was to know about everything...
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Paul M:
When you allow the manufacturer to test there own product you get the results they think you will be happy with..
Click to expand...
It is a worldwide standard that an individual company is responsible for testing its products and certifying that they meet set standards. If the company chooses to hire independant testing facilities to carry the test out they may increase their credibility. As was mentioned earlier, if someone says their products meet the standards and they don't, they are pretty stupid, considering the current lawsuit-happy American public.

If it so chose, an entity such as the PPFA, Decor Magazine, Picture Framing Magazine, et cetera, could review various companies products and rate them, just like Consumer Reports does for consumer products. However, that would be an entirely different matter.

Originally posted by Paul M:
We are getting somewhere now.. Where did the funding use to come from....Why is not in place now....
Click to expand...
Funding originally came from manufacturers, distributors, frame shops & galleries who agreed to abide by the standards. I don't remember now whether it was supposed to be a yearly fee or not. It seems that we just paid a one time fee for the right to use the logo and to copy any of the standards. Maybe that would explain whay funding has dried up.

Have you looked at the website? There is quite a lot of history there, including financial statements going back to 1995.

Just as a matter of record, we support FACTS and have done so since 1996. Our check (for more than $30) is on its way to Nona.
 
Originally posted by jframe:
Could it be that some of us have been aware of FACTS for years because we are PPFA members. I just took it for granted that everyone knew.
Click to expand...
PPFA may have been instrumental in getting the word out there, and I have no doubt that more PPFA members know than the non-PPFA members. But we were members of FACTS for several years before we came on board at PPFA. I think we found out about FACTS at a Frame-O-Rama show.
 
I think everyone needs to take a deep breath or two and r e l a x.... ;)

We're all here for a common goal and shouldn't be taking each other so seriously. Doing so will lead to hostility and an environment that may discourage future participation. Of course everyone won't always agree, but let's be civil.

I, for one, would like to learn more about FACTS; and I'm following with great interest. Once I'm convinced that it has a chance to positively impact the cause, our check will be in the mail.

Our industry seems to lack leadership/direction/standards, and things like this are vital to helping the cause.

I'm anxious to learn more, and hope the friendly exchange continues!
 
Originally posted by nona powers:
[QB]You guys are so great! I don't have to explain a thing; you all do it so much better than I could.

Well, I have to argee that FACTS can do only good and it needs to be supported.. Question is What is the best organization and who are the right people????

However No one has given us here a "NEW" course of direction.. I still haven't a clue as to why the "old" FACTS program didn't takeoff..

Agreed not many know much about it and it is difficult to get any serious info..

I trust Nona,

however I'd think as professionals we'd need more then a meeting most here didn't attend and a couple of posters who are quick to tell us we are fools for not sending in our checks...

For us to send in money with a hope and a prayer that it will be used to our satisfaction...Is asking for disappointment... Isn't that one of the reasons for a "NEW" FACTS because the "old" FACTS was not successful in implementation....

What needs to be done is to ensure this is the "right time" and this is the "right direction".. What is the direction again??? what is this 30,000 going to do???

I did not go the meeting...
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by David N Waldmann:
[qb] if someone says their products meet the standards and they don't, they are pretty stupid, considering the current lawsuit-happy American public.

It is something that they get away with everyday..

Can you and I stand up and sue a company that makes millions in foamcore alone.. of course not they'd eat us for lunch..

However with a committee like say FACTS on board and on our side we'd have a leg to stand on....

Have you looked at the website? There is quite a lot of history there, including financial statements going back to 1995.

Wow thanks Dave

That is a great start...(I have been there before).. Now we can see what it was like... That will make it easy for us to understand the changes some have in mind.....
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Paul M:
Well no, your still very confused my friend. The site you went to is not my business.. I'd love to have the imcome they rake in but I am just a small custom shop in New Jersey.
Click to expand...
Sorry Paul M...I didn't have my facts straight
 
I have belonged to the PPFA (with about a 2 +/- year gap) since 1991 or 92. Before that the shop I worked in from 1972-1981 was a member. But I remember learning about FACTS from articles in PFM. At that time I thought PFM was "going overboard" in all this preservation stuff. Not that I didn't agree that it was important, they just seemed to talk of nothing else. (Either they, or I have changed)

My understanding of FACTS at the beginning was that it was an organization that was to be membership based (yeah, "yet another group") and I didn't particularly care to join. I thought they were doing good things, but my focus on my business was entirely different then. The people that founded it (again, according to my understanding) were basically working out of a "labor of love" on something that they felt strongly about. I just didn't feel the same.

Why have I changed? For one thing, my focus on my business has changed. Although I am homebased in location, I am not "homebased" in attitude. I do understand how many framers would not feel that this is important. Whether homebased or small shop, one could feel that "Most of my customers are only concerned with decorative art, and not the longevity of it, therefore I don't need to burden my brain with learning another thing, or burden my budget with the expense." But like many things in history that may not have affected us personally at the time, we have benefited from them in the long run. And ALL framers will benefit from this in the long run.

Betty
 
Before I jump on this bandwagon, I would like to know more about it. The first time I looked at FACTs a year or so ago, it looked a lot like "Legaleez" to me. It seemed to cover a whole lot more than preservation of art work. It seemed to cover every aspect of any framing project we could ever handle. Every little detail was precisly spelled out in the most eye glazing legal terms, that I havn't seen since my divorce, thirty some years ago.

The facts supporters have called these precise steps in framing as being only guides on how we could frame pictures. I would disagree with that. When the lawyers take one of us to court for any reason, you can bet that these FACTs will be used as their main tool against us. It will become a VERY mandatory set of standards that will have to be followed to the letter, if you want to protect yourself from lawsuits.

I have always been an independent type fellow my entire life, I like doing things my way. It is probably the biggest reason that I became part of this industry in the first place.

I am very concerned that once a few of us have been crucified in a court room on account of these precise "Guidlines" for as simple a thing as winding picture wire in the wrong direction, or whatever, our independence and individuality will be lost.

I, for one, can not understand why this crusade to standerdise every aspect of our industry is so darn important to the " leaders" in our field. We have been doing things "our way" for several hundred years. Many inovations have occured because we have the flexability to experiment as we grow. When FACTs gets a strong foothold based on court decisions, I think inovation and experimenting will be greatly reduced due to the fear of doing it wrong.

I'm just not so sure FACTs is such a great idea for our industry as a whole. The concept of having guides explaining how each step should be acomplished and with the proper materials to be used does make sense. It just seems overly done in the current FACTs format.

For me, FACTs just seems too overpowering leaving absolutly no flexability. I have only read a few pages of it about a year ago, so I could be wrong, my gut feeling though is I am right. When I start reading legal looking documents on how a picture is to be framed, it makes me realy nervous about the direction we are headed.

John
 
Originally posted by Paul M:
Originally posted by Framerguy:
[QB]Well!
Framerguy... Don't take this wrong... But if I ask a question and you haven't the answer do not bother to post..

I am not here to feed your ego... I am here to decide if this FACTS committee is going to make my life easier..And what the money I send in will actuall do...

AS you know I do not have all the answers so I am asking questions... Lucky for you You know everthing there is and ever was to know about everything...
Click to expand...
I did the best I could to identify your questions and to answer them but my answers were apparently not what you wanted to hear.

I will follow your advice and will not reply to your future posts unless I think that my opinion will somehow match what you may want to hear from other framers.

I am sorry that you do not want to hear other opinions or answers that don't agree with your opinions or questions. I think that you will find that we here on the Grumble are basically a friendly bunch of people. Some of us just don't care to be dictated to by somebody who we don't know nor has contributed any positive information before taking the tack that you have taken towards the PPFA and the FACTS group.

Feeding time has been long over for my ego. It has been on a strict diet for many years and I don't consider your offerings as "feeding anybody's ego".

I wish you well in your quest to create a product testing group within the PPFA. I am sure that they will be thrilled with yet another "cause" to add to their present responsibilities.

Framerguy
Click to expand...
 
John, you've raised a reasonable concern here. And Paul, you're asking some good questions as well. They all deserve answers but frankly, I'm going to have to do some framing today or my $30 check is going to bounce.

John, if you have a customer who's going to sue you because she believes you ruined her art, she can do that with or without FACTS standards in place. It happens all the time. Not to me, so far, and probably not to you, but it happens.

What the FACTS standards would do in this case would be to allow you to say, "Look, I followed the prevailing industry standards at the time this piece was framed, with the following exceptions, which were noted, discussed and APPROVED IN WRITING BY THIS CUSTOMER." As ajh is fond of saying, "Case closed."

Documentation is the key, though we all hate paperwork. If a customer insists on deviating from a recommended course of action, we document it now, right? Right? (Well, sometimes.) That is the best possible defense in a case like this. Much better, for example, than saying, "Hey, it said buffered and acid-free on my mat sample so I figured it was safe."

One of the main purposes of FACTS is to establish standards for maximum protection. Some framers will chose to adhere to them rigidly. Most of us won't, and we'll make informed exceptions and note them in writing. The goal is to be able to choose materials and procedures APPROPRIATE TO THE PROJECT.

Paul, I'll get back to you later, but if I don't do some paid work here, FACTS isn't going to be able to help me at all.
 
Originally posted by JRB:
I, for one, can not understand why this crusade to standerdise every aspect of our industry is so darn important to the " leaders" in our field. We have been doing things "our way" for several hundred years. Many inovations have occured because we have the flexability to experiment as we grow. When FACTs gets a strong foothold based on court decisions, I think inovation and experimenting will be greatly reduced due to the fear of doing it wrong.

I'm just not so sure FACTs is such a great idea for our industry as a whole. The concept of having guides explaining how each step should be acomplished and with the proper materials to be used does make sense. It just seems overly done in the current FACTs format.
John
Click to expand...
John,

I understand where you're coming from and agree that framing should be individualistic, and that people will (and no doubt have) been sued for things like the wire being wound the wrong way. I mean, if burning yourself with a cup of coffee because you didn't think it was going to be hot brings in the mills :eek: :eek: :eek:

However, there are a couple of things I'd like to expound on.

As a standard, FACTS does not and would not make anyone more or less liable to do a job in any particular manner. Unless or until there is a regulation to meet a set of standards - such as automobile saftey, whether a job is contracted to be done to a set of standards is ultimately up to the customer.

As a parallel, there is a body of standards called ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers) which set standards for boiler and compressor tanks. Manufacturers may (and do) choose to make some tanks that do not meet those specifications. It is up to the purchaser to determine whether an ASME certified tank is necessary for the application. The same thing goes for ISO. Some companies will only deal with companies that meet ISO 9000, others only those that meet ISO 9002 and yet others really don't care (like me
)

As for why we should have standards let me tell you a story.

About 10 years ago we had a customer who placed an order for quite a few chops (I don't remember the number, but it was at least 10 and as many as 30). He said that the measurements he gave us were to be "the free clear opening". So we ascertained that what he wanted was an exact measurement, no allowance. OK fine, we do that all the time. After the customer received the frames he was rather irate, as what he gave us was what is now called "sight size" according to the FACTS standards. We couldn't come to an amicable solution and lost him as a customer (he did start buying again about 2 years ago). A simple terminology standard would have saved a lot of hassle.

Now, I'm not involved in the actual framing process, but I can easily imagine that there are similar hurdles in conservation/preservation issues that can easily be defined. Yeah, I know, you're saying "Easily defined, my foot!" ;) . The problem is that in order to be definitive you have to be definitive. On the other hand, I don't believe that the FACTS standards are anywhere near as complex as divorce papers are today - 30 some years ago, maybe :D
 
Create a Post
Back
Top