Call to action C/P materials

Create a Post
nona powers

nona powers

MGF, Master Grumble Framer
Joined
Jun 15, 1999
Posts
735
Loc
san diego
There have been many posts about “acid free”, foamboard, rag board, wood pulp board which have clearly illustrated the confusion about the framing materials framers use every day to accomplish our jobs.

I would like that confusion to end and there is a way it can be accomplished. FACTS is a group of framers, manufacturers and scientists, who gathered together to prepare a set of standards for the framing industry. There are Guidelines describing how things should be framed along with other documents. The particular document I’m concerned with right now is the PMMB-2000, which sets standards for paper, mat and mounting boards to meet in order to be used for preservation framing.

I want framers to require that manufactures state whether their products meet the current FACTS PMMB-2000 or not. Crescent states right on their product information flyer that their rag line does. Bainbridge says their Alpharag, Alphamats, AlphaLinens and Denims do, Any of those products can be used for preservation framing because they meet the standards. If a product does not say it meets the standards, it should not be used for the highest levels of framing. Period.

Which other products on the market, right now, actually meet the FACTS PMMB-2000 standards? If the manufacturers will state clearly which ones actually meet the standards, framers can use those products and be assured they are using the best materials for conservation/preservation framing. (C/P framing) Knowing that information will make choosing framing materials much easier without every framer having to be a scientist. We won’t have to interpret words like, museum, conservation, archival, which have all been used on materials in the past that did not necessarily met these particular standards.

The call to action here is that standards have been set, manufacturers should be asked to state which of their products meet these standards for C/P quality framing. If enough framers ask for it in a reasonable manner, it will happen. If they don't, it won't.

Nona Powers, CPF, GCF
www.nonapowers.com

The following is a partial copy of the FACTS PMMB-2000. The full text can be found at www.artfacts.org

FACTS publishes this document as a public service. Its use is voluntary, and all results obtained by its use must be entirely the responsibility of the user. This document is subject to revision, change and/or withdrawal at any time. © FACTS 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------


This is a guide to the composition and characteristics of paper, mat and mounting boards used for preservation applications. As would be used with, artworks, documents and keepsake when they are framed, stored, and display. This document includes a standard, information, and terminology, so that it may be more easily understood by those not familiar with paper and/or mat and mounting board manufacture.

Introduction

Not all paper, mat or mounting boards are alike, their composition and characteristics may greatly vary. Content or characteristics maybe very important to avoid material conflicts. To assure that the material meets your requirements this standard "Permanence in Paper, Mat and Mounting Boards" covers those content and characteristics questions.
The (P.O.) specifications of the US Library of Congress for mat and mounting board. (Library of Congress Specification Number 400-401-Feb. 18, 1997, Specifications for Mat/Mounting Board for Non-Photographic Materials; and Specification Number 400-402-Feb. 18, 1997, same for Photographic Materials.) have a good technical foundation. However, they are incomplete as a workable guide due to the great variety of materials selection. The standard FRM-2000 allows for a broad range of papers, mat and mounting boards. The user is free to determine composition, color, surface textures and characteristics base upon their individual requirements, using the standard to determine their preservation requirements.
Paper mat and mount board are used in a wide range of applications from temporary use to permanent displays. These materials are also used with a variety of artwork, art on paper, textiles, photographs, memorabilia and keepsakes all that may require preservation.
This Guide to "Permanence in Paper Mat and Mounting Boards" sets the standard for these materials used for preservation.
This document describes the properties in terms that will facilitate communication among buyer, seller and consumer. This is especially important for those who may not be familiar with manufacturing procedures, and who need enough information to make an intelligent decision concerning their needs in relation to what is available in the marketplace.

FACTS Standard Guide
Permanence in Paper Mat and Mounting Boards

1.00 Scope
1.01 A standard guide for determining permanence in paper products when used with artworks, keepsakes and memorabilia.
1.02 A method of identifying and describing the composition and characteristics of the many types of paper mat and mount board products.
1.03 This guide is directed to the composition, combinations and characteristics of papers and paperboards so to aid in the selection of the best material for each application
2.00 Terminology
2.01 FACTS Standard Terminology,(latest revision) and/or Random House Webster's Dictionary, 1999
2.02 Terminology Format-The following words are defined to clarify the importance of the articles, sections or formats, and to identify those that are mandatory.
2.02.1 "Shall"-indicates that a provision is mandatory.
2.02.2 "Should"- indicates that a provision is recommended as good practice.
2.02.3 "May"- indicates that a provision is optional.
2.03 "Consensus"-majority of opinion.
2.04 "Unbuffered"¾shall mean no alkaline filler
2.05 "Buffered"¾shall mean the addition of alkaline filler
3.00 Pulp
3.01 Fiber-The product shall be made from cotton, new rag or other high alpha-cellulose content virgin pulp. It shall not contain post consumer waste (TAPPI T 401).
3.02 Lignin-The stock shall have a Kappa number of 5, or less (TAPPI T 236).
3.03 Impurities-The product shall be free of metal particles, waxes, plasticizers, residual bleach, peroxide, or other components that could lead to the degradation of paper and artifacts in contact with, or in the immediate vicinity of, the paper or board.
3.04 The product shall contain less than 0.0008 % of reducible sulfur (TAPPI T 406).
3.05 Free Metallic Impurities-Iron shall not exceed 150 ppm and copper should not exceed 6 ppm (TAPPI T 266).
4.00 pH (TAPPI T 509)
4.01 No alkaline filler-unbuffered-usually in the range 7.0 to 7.5.
4.02 Alkaline filler, calcium carbonate, buffered usually in the range 8.5.
5.00 Filler-Alkaline Reserve (ASTM 4988)
5.01 Filler may or may not serve as an alkaline reserve; an alkaline reserve is also a filler.
5.02 The minimum alkaline reserve should be about two-percent and the maximum about five-percent by weight.
5.03 As carbonate filler may be a source of impurities, excess is not desirable, but excess has not been defined.
5.04 Zeolites and activated charcoal may be used as fillers.
6.00 Sizing
6.01 Only neutral or alkaline sizing shall be used.
6.02 Rosin-alum sizing-shall not be used (TAPPI T 408).
7.00 Photographic Activity Test (P.A.T.) (ANSI IT9 16-1994, or latest revision).
7.01 This test shall be required when the product is to be used for mounting photographs.
7.02 In the US, the Image Permanence Institute in Rochester, NY or any other pre-approved laboratory should perform tests.
8.00 Thickness (TAPPI T 411)
8.01 Reference to thickness as number of plys shall only be a descriptive term.
8.02 Thickness shall be expressed in metric units-millimeters-mm.
8.03 Thickness may also be expressed in points (0.001 inch) or inches-in.
8.04 For papers, a basis weight may be used.
9.00 Dimensions (length, width)
9.01 Dimensions may be expressed in metric units-millimeters-mm, or centimeters-cm. Dimensions may also be expressed in inches-in.
9.02 Tolerance-zero minus tolerance, 3 mm plus tolerance-(0.125 in.-1/8"-one eighth inch).
9.03 Size, squaring, and tolerance for length and width (ASTM D5625).
10.00 Added Color
10.01 The color of the product is a matter of agreement between buyer and seller.
10.02 Dyes and/or pigments shall be non-bleeding, lightfast and resistant to abrasion.
10.03 Bleeding-Any dye or pigment in the matboard shall show no bleeding when soaked in distilled water for 48 hours at room temperature while held down with a weight against a sheet of white bond paper.
10.04 Lightfastness-The color of the stock should not change more than 5 points of brightness (TAPPI T 452) after exposure in Sunlighter II for 96 hours, or when exposed in a standard fadometer for 36 hours (ASTM D3424).
10.05 Abrasion-With about one pound of pressure, rub the surface of the board about ten times, back and forth, with a white cotton towel. Nothing should transfer or rub off. Obviously, this is a very empirical and subjective test.

11.00 Surface Characteristics
11.01 The type of surface, and texture, shall be specified.
11.02 If the surface is designed to accept decoration and embellishments, it should conform to FACTS Mat Decoration Test No. 6-97. See Section 16.04.
11.03 The product should be free of fingerprints, dirt, bubbles, knots, shives and other abrasive particles.
12.00 Adhesive
12 .01 Any adhesive used shall not soften or run under normal environmental conditions and use.
12.02 Any adhesive used shall not cause the product to become transparent, or alter the color of the board.
12.03 Any adhesive used shall not discolor, or fail, causing delamination.
13.00 Identification Marking
13.01 Any markings on the product shall be permanent with no bleed or transfer.
14.00 Moisture Content
14.01 In order to prevent warping, waving or curling, the equilibrium moisture content of the product should be in the range between 4 and 7% at time of manufacture.
15.00 Packaging
15.01 The product should be packaged so that it will maintain the moisture content that it had at the time of manufacture.
15.02 The product should be packaged securely for transit, and the packages have proper identification marks.
16.00 Workmanship
16.01 Edges should be cut square and clean.
16.02 The product should be free of bent corners and delamination of plys.
17.00 Inspection
17.01 It is the responsibility of the purchaser to examine the shipment of the product, and determine whether it complies with the above-suggested requirements.
 
I applaud your effort Nona. About a year ago I made a similar request on the PPFA Hitch Hiker On Line Exchange. I think that this is something all of us should get behind and push for. I would love to see the back of compliant mat samples printed with the statement that they meet the PMMB-2000 standard.

One of the arguments that I have heard against this is that the manufacturers do not want to imply the suitability of use for a given product for a specific application. I beleive the only thing that they would be saying is that there product has met certain standards.

This is a cause that all framers should get behind. I'm sure that any specific ideas that you have to lobby the manufacturers to bring about this change would be welcomed by the Grumblers.
 
If enough framers ask for it to happen, it will happen. If the question is met with complacency, which I'm afraid it will, nothing will change and new framers will not know what to use and even experienced framers will not know when new products have been introduced whether they are the right ones to use or not. If the manufacturers say the boards meet the standards, the user is still responsible for using it correctly, but at least the user knows what it is intended for.

Your right, if the product was stamped that it meets the FACTS PMMB-2000, there would be no doubt. If not that, then at least in the literature the facts should be stated.

52 posts for how to get a picture on the post, but how many framers will care about a question that could truly make a difference in our industry, not just for today, but also for the future? Speak up, now is the time to be heard. If enough posts come out in support, I personally will see that the different manufacturers see them. If there are enough posts, I won't have to, the manufacturers will know. If enough framers ask their sales reps, does this product meet FACTS PMMB-2000, they will eventually have to put it in writing.

Nona Powers, CPF, GCF
www.nonapowers.com
 
OK Nona, tell me exactally what I need to do. Do I say here, "I want to see materials labeled correctly." Or do I e-mail somebody, do I need to write a letter? Being a rural framer, I don't see reps. I order matboard and glass, etc from a local supplier who delivers. I order frames and other supplies either by phone, fax, or online. What do I need to say to whom?

I don't know if we're afraid to show our ignorance (never been a problem with me, I just open mouth and insert foot on a daily basis), or already know all we need to know, or if these kinds of threads just "aren't fun", but for some reason, technical or business threads just seem to sink slowly into oblivion with 3-4 posts.

This time in my case, it's because I don't know just what it is I'm supposed to do. Tell me and I'll do it!

Betty
 
#1: State here, on The Grumble and or HH, whether you think there is a problem and whether this particular solution might work. If enough framers say they are concerned and want change, it will happen. Framers have a great deal more influence than they know.

#2:Call or write to the mat board company you use and ask them to please tell you which of their products meet the FACTS PMMB-2000 standards. You want a yes or no. Ask them to please, in the future, publish such information in their literature about the products.

That should do it.

Nona Powers, CPF, GCF
www.nonapowers.com
 
I would like to see each product we use stamped to state that it meets the FACTS PMMB-2000 guidlines.
There is a lot of confusion within the industry regarding which materials are correct to use in a given situation. I would be greatful to have a guideline to use that isn't just hearsay!
Thanks Nona for telling us what we need to do to accomplish this!
 
I too,would like to see each product we use stamped to state that it meets the FACTS PMMB-2000 guidlines.

For those of us who began framing when a utility knife and straight edge was the norm for mat cutting, the industry has grown so quickly, and terminologies changed so many times, that it is hard to know just what is correct. I think we've finally settled on the term "c/p" for what to call what we do, but we need some consistancy in terminology for the boards that we use.

Betty Newman
 
I fully concur with the standardization and stamping of framing materials and I hope that the standards are further expanded to include solvents, adhesives, and cleaners.

I will say this, the first of the matboard companies to comply with this simple standard will get my business right out of the gate! I stock N/Bainbridge, Crescent, and Artique and I will be glad to remove from my customer counter those mat samples that don't comply with this standard once one of them comes out with a stamped declaration on each board sample.

C'mon board companies, your standards may be high but we want to know whether they adhere to OUR standards also. Now is the time to show us. I am willing to speculate that the first matboard company to mark their boards with FACTS PMMB-2000 standards will lead the pack in sales from that time on. Let's see who has the "spark" to become the board company we depend on for quality products.

Framerguy
 
Originally posted by Framerguy:
I will say this, the first of the matboard companies to comply with this simple standard will get my business right out of the gate!
Click to expand...
Anybody want to guess who that might be? I use Crescent, Bainbridge, Miller and Artique with Crescent being my current volume leader. But Bainbridge seems to be the innovator and the risk taker. There's a downside in that for every exciting new board that hits the shelves, there's an old favorite that's discontinued, but I'm guessing they'd be the first to embrace a system of standards labeling.

I love many of the Miller boards, and they had the first flannels, marbles and black core boards (I think.) But they seem unable to consistantly label their boards with even the correct number, so I don't expect much innovation in that area. Crescent is solid, dependable and conservative, and Artique is, I believe, British.

I'm sorry if my idle speculation seems irresponsible, but I think Framerguy is on the right track. If enough framers say unequivocally, "I will buy the bulk of my matboard from the first company that begins labeling their boards with clear standards," that would send a powerful message.

P.S. I will buy the bulk of my matboard from the first company that begins labeling their boards with clear standards.
 
First, I would like to see the FACTS coding standard being used, promoted & identified for our mat boards. I believe using the FACTS coding may eventually help lower concerns between using 100% rag solid core vs many of the appropriate & widely approved alpha celulose products as well as help handle the "acid-free" mess.

But, I recall some earlier discussion about how the stamping of a number, code, whatever creates another set of problems......that could make product not be acceptable for some conservation standards. I recall recently no printing of any kind was allowed on the board---and I thought it was Library of Congress? And, haven't we recently talked about how none of the solid core rags are coded at all as they are reversable--would we really want that changed?

As a framer, I personally LIKE the identifying numbers on the boards and I haven't had to re-do a mat because the ugly black print was visible in years........but feel it could get way out of line to have to have the company's identifying numbers as well as FACTS & then various other international codings, which would most likely occur.

I am fully in favor of having it printed quite visibly on our samples as well as clearly added to the specifiers, showing which series of boards fit in which standards -- but NOT the mat boards themselves.

I do see that it would be good for the manufacturers to code the product for date and batch, so to speak, for their own legal protection.........but that reminds me of another point on adding standards codes to the boards themselves----will it no longer be c/p framing if the codes aren't on that particular portion of the mat board?

Do many framers know what all those numbers Crescent has on theirs now---and though I've been told, I don't remember. This will just be another set of unknown numbers---while a corner sample could say something like Meets FACTS (Fine Art Care & Treatment Standards) code XXXXXXXXX for use in conservation/preservation framing.

Stamping a code DOES NOT educate the framer or our public-----one has to be taught what the symbols mean. Without some information its just some jumbled letters and numbers to be ignored.

And, if you do look for that PM#######, I don't see what problem it solves to have the boards stamped ---- does it mean when you go to frame the product you go -- oops, I didn't sell a c/p mat for this piece?

Sorry, I guess someone has to dissent -- and I am hoping this is helpful, not just grumbly dissent!
 
I must be particularly impressionable today because, while Framerguy makes sense (on this one issue,) rosetl makes even more sense. So maybe labeling the back of each individual board is not the answer. But it's not useful to have the information buried in some spec sheet somewhere. It needs to be on the corner samples or in the specifiers or on a concise list that all of us have. It's not too hard to remember the Crescent Rag mats or the Bainbridge Alphamat Artcare, but what about all those specialty boards and fabrics?
 
Maybe I didn't read the original post closely enough. I thought when Nora said "I want framers to require that manufactures state whether their products meet the current FACTS PMMB-2000 or not. Crescent states right on their product information flyer that their rag line does." That she was just calling for the manufacturers to list it on info sheets. We could then post the flyer if we want our customers to see then, or use them for reference. We, then would just go by the numbers as we always do. If they would say emphatically "this does", and "this does not". I don't see that it has to be on each item.

Or did I misunderstand?

Betty
 
I would think that the manufacturers would embrace having the FACTS info put on the back of the samples. They shouldn't worry if it will hurt their products suitability for all applications. There is a place for all types of matboard. We don't always frame things to the nth degree. But when we do we need to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that what we are using is correct. I am not a scientist, some sort of set standard for all matboard companies would eliminate the guesswork. I get confused by the terminology, so you know the customers are too. Years ago when Crescent came out with the "acid free buffered" board I misunderstood at first, it made me feel I could offer a lower priced alternative and still be C/P. All that gimmicky terminology clouds the facts. It is up to us to know the difference, but like I said some sort of standardized codes for all mat companies would eliminate guessing and I think also give the customer some sort of reassurance that their artwork was being treated appropriately.
 
In the US, we need to know which materials meet the standards for the highest level of framing. In the FACTS standards they call it preservation. Whatever it's called, I want to know which materials meet the highest standards and that information has to come from the manufacturer. Anything less than the highest standards would be up to me and really don't need to be labeled. The companies would rather do it the way it's being done in the UK. It gives them more room for interpretation. I want specific information. Does a product meet the highest standards or not? Does it meet the FACTS PMMB-2000 or not? Wouldn't that make life so much easier for the framer?

Nona Powers, CPF, GCF
www.nonapowers.com
 
My understanding is that the UK standards meet in full the FACT standards, the delay in getting the UK standards in place was to ensure that they do comply with the FACT standards.

The thinking behind the UK standards is that it is black or white no grey areas in the standards you are using #1, #2 or #3, how much clearer do you want it, by 2004 all mat/mount board sold in the UK will have the required labelling on the outer packaging.

BTW on C/P framing the materials are only one area you need to worry about, what about external contamination, handling contamination, I spent part of my working career developing the market for clean rooms in Ireland and the standards that are applied to framing if you were to frame in a non contamination environment method do not exist as far as I can gather yet (how much contamination are you introducing into the frame package by bad handling of framing products), Jim Miller and Hugh Phibs (sp) get close to the point of contamination reduction, most others appear to be more concerned with the aesthetics rather than external reduction.

As a point don’t mix up clean room methods of cross contamination reduction with sterile conditions both are different, clean room is to reduce cross contamination, sterilisation is the next step which involves ETO, Irradiation, Steam/Heat or Chemical methods.
 
We would like to see each product including solvents, adhesives, and cleaners we use stamped to state that it meets the FACTS guidelines.

When mat samples are laid out at the design table and a customer picks up a Bainbridge Artcare sample and reads the back, we really don’t have to explain any further. Thanks Nona for getting the ball rolling on this. Great Idea!!
 
It is time for to implement the standards that the FACTS committee has worked so hard on. I'm sure the implementation of these standards would be a great benefit to the sales of FACTS approved C/P products.

It would be a great help to framers if mat corner samples were stamped with "Meets FACTS Standards", or "FACTS Approved". I would go a step further and ask that mat corner samples which do not meet FACTS standards be stamped "Does not meet FACTS standards", or "Not FACTS Approved". I also think it would be a good idea to apply those qualifications to other framing products such as boxes of foam core, boxes of ATG tape, other various tapes and adhesives.

Jo Burns, CPF
Fort Worth, Tx.
 
I think the efforts of Nona Powers are long over due.It should have been implimented long ago. FACTS can define what makes a TRUE C/P package but if any unscrupulos framer wants to call their work C/P they can until all materials are labeled as being acceptable.
It's not unlike the term "ACID FREE" . In the past no one had heard of this requirement. Now when ever a framer uses these magic words the job is totaly acceptable by all consumers. Wouldn't it be great if no framer could hide behind BUZZ words like these? To that end I belive all products should be labeled by their manufactureres and a description should be forulated stateing that if any component failed to meet these standars then the framing package was less then COMPLETE C/P.
However this is incumbant on all framers .And the efforts of NONA POWERS should have been implemented as soon as FACTS defined what made a each product acceptable.
BUDDY
 
I just reread some of this thread to see what I forgot. I must admitt I think Dermot made a very good point when he posted:

BTW on C/P framing the materials are only one are you need to worry about, what about external contamination, handling contamination, I spent part of my working career developing the market for clean rooms in Ireland and the standards that are applied to framing if you were to frame in a non contamination environment method do not exist as far as I can gather yet (how much contamination are you introducing into the frame package by bad handling of framing products), Jim Miller and Hugh Phibs (sp) get close to the point of contamination reduction, most others appear to be more concerned with the aesthetics rather than external reduction

While I completely agree with Nona's efforts( As aleady stated)I think we all should make every effort to learn why these FACTS standards are to be posted and what happens if we short cut this in any way.I think that a continued education program ( LIKE but not limited to the CPF® program) is also very necessary so that we don't get complasant about why we use these FACTS labeled components; and maybe start framing by the numbers(FACTS labels). Other wise when our work fails down the road consumers will feel this was just a ploy to cost more and our trust is lost forever.
BUDDY
 
I just posted this on the HH and thinks it addresses some of the points in both of the lastt messages.

I included the text of the document, FACTS PMMB-2000 when I posted my call to action and they can be accessed on the FACTS website, www.artfacts.org. Changing those standards is where the PPFA comes in. They should support the FACTS website and the documents it contains, plus keep up the work. In my opinion the certification committee should review the standards once a year with a panel of industry experts and a couple of outside people and change the document as new information becomes known. The reason I think the certification committee should do it is because they run the rectification program and the goal of rectification is to keep the framer up to date on new information throughout the industry.

I also think the FACTS Guidelines for maximum framing should be taught in the industry, along with the FACTS PMMB-2000 and framers should be tested on it for advanced certification in preservation.

Again, those FACTS Guidelines should be reviewed once a year based on new information.

I realize this is pretty ambitious, but can you see how it would change the industry? The framers would have a benchmark to start from. They would not all have to frame to the maximum standards, but at least it would be clear what the minimum standards for the highest levels of framing are. This doesn't mean regular mat boards don't have a place in the industry, they do, but their function should be clear.

I think if the PPFA wants to be the organization that framers look to for leadership, these steps have to be taken.

What do you think?

Nona Powers, CPF, GCF
www.nonapowers.com

By the way, there are some companies and people out there, who do not want these changes. They like the fact that the industry is muddled and they would like it to stay that way. The confusion with terms makes marketing products very easy. I want the framer to have the help they need. So much time is spent trying to run a business, the scientific stuff should be made readily available, made understandable and easy to interpret. Having the companies state which of their products meet the FACTS PMMB-2000 would help do that.
 
So far, most of this discussion has centered around matboards and maybe fomecore. I think most of us feel pretty comfortable with Crescent Rag and Bainbridge Artcare - don't we? And Orton has me about convinced that fomecore boards do not belong in a c-p environment - even as a filler.

Where I could really use some clarification (in addition to matboard) is with all the other stuff we stick into frames: tapes, pastes, adhesives, corrugated plastics, "archival corrugated" and all the various sleeves and mounting tabs from Lineco and others.

Now that we have a search function again, I looked for some answers about Coroplast. There's a lot of stuff on TG about this and I'm not trying to add to it here, but all those posts just gave me a headache and a resolve to stick with "archival corrugated" (which sounds like an oxymoron.)

I could go on. I think I will . . .

Another example is ATG. In addition to the regular ATG, we have "acid-free" ATG and, more recently, ATG Gold. What's a poor framer to do?

Maybe listing standards and the materials that comply with them would be like "preaching to the choir." But the choir is confused! And the choir wants to do the right thing!

I'm getting fired up about this. I think I'll start emailing the manufacturers and let them know I've waited 25 years for this and I can't afford to wait another 25.
 
The particular document I’m concerned with right now is the PMMB-2000, which sets standards for paper, mat and mounting boards to meet in order to be used for preservation framing.
Click to expand...
So I understand that this is a start and that agonizing over tapes and glues and corrugated plastic is a bit premature. But, as I said, I don't have another 25 years.
 
Ron -- maybe you should be the PPFA poster boy! You are talking the very reasons I understand PPFA and CPF and CPF Recertification are so important to the PPFA; why trade shows and education at those shows is important, etc. etc.........and why the forums are so useful, besides the fun.

I know I have learned from the framing forums things I managed to overlook in the mags or other venue's available to us. Now, with the hours I have spent in archives I almost feel I should get a degree!

And, many many framers are not on line or are not participating and learning this stuff and the continual small changes that are occuring to standards. Heck, how many have even heard of FACTS? Many a grumbler asks about who they are from time to time.

I see that what Nona is promoting will assist FACTS as well as framers (& some of the mat board companies) and be another big step towards getting all standards defined----a very lenghty process, worse than writing a bill for Congress!

I also understand FACTS may want some more framers on their committees--and they certainly would like more members, I'm sure.
 
rosetl, you bring up another point as well. Why hasn't PPFA embraced FACTS as a working document?

I definitely believe that we should know what materials meet certain standards, whether it's top-of-the-line FACTS standards or, conversely, if a product does not meet the aforementioned PMMB-2000 standard, what is it in its makeup, whether internally or covering, which causes it to not be presented as meeting the standard?

One wonders why the "new" PPFA hasn't talked yet about endorsing the highest-quality standard, as well as clearing the air of fuzzy hazes such as the "acid-free" mess?
 
I would like to see each product the framing industry uses, stamped to state that it meets the FACTS PMMB-2000 guidelines. I believe this is an important issue to both framers and our customers alike.

Sincerely,
Jack
 
Originally posted by nona powers:
By the way, there are some companies and people out there, who do not want these changes. They like the fact that the industry is muddled and they would like it to stay that way. The confusion with terms makes marketing products very easy. I want the framer to have the help they need. So much time is spent trying to run a business, the scientific stuff should be made readily available, made understandable and easy to interpret. Having the companies state which of their products meet the FACTS PMMB-2000 would help do that.
Click to expand...
Imagine being able to tell your customers beyond a shadow of a doubt the level of conservation certain combinations provide! Communication and education is important not only in how we do business, but how we treat each other.

I would like to see each and every product our industry uses labeled stating that it meets the FACTS PMMB-2000 Guidelines.

Why would this be asking too much? I find Nona's statement about certain companies wanting our industry to remain muddled, disappointing.

Disappointing because it is believable and could be true.
It's the old image of "Them vs. Us" which doesn't do anyone any good.
 
As one of the guys who is constantly bringing up the past,I think I remeber that the FACTS group did in deed approach the PPFA first with the offer to publish the standards. I also think I remember that the then administration feared the possible Repercussions when the STANDARDS needed to be Legally defended.I think it had something to do with the fact that once a written standard was established consumers could hold framers liable for damages if the standard wasn't adhered to.But that is what my failing memory rembers.
My question is aren't we as professionals liable for mishandleing artwork anyway? So why not eatblish a set way to handle all frameing so we know what we are responsible for?
Now that I have stuck my 10.5 D in my mouth will someone from both the PPFA's and the FACTS group correct my inaccuraceies with the way it actually happened and if we can change things after the fact?
BUDDY
 
Nona,

Three cheers for you and this campaign. While we carried TruVue I made it my business to find out how matboard is made and I was surprised to discover that most framers don't know that acid-free is only part of the story. ALL of the matboard manufacturers have a responsibility to define their products according to a code that can be easily understood by the experienced framer and the novice. I realize framers MUST spend their time learning things that help them be more creative in designing framing and other things that will help them be profitable and good business people. They are also constantly exposed to new items from all the suppliers. It's a lot to keep up with and I think it's important for ALL manufacturers to help make the life of a framer more productive as well as simplier. Is that possible to do. I hope so. One of the ways to do this is to be clear about exactly what the product is, in terms of "museum, conservation, or standard" I also like those terms and think they work well to define types and qualities of matboard. This isn't even my area, but I feel exactly the same way about acrylic. I know framers don't have time to learn everything in detail about every process to produce matboard or acrylic or whatever and you are framers, not chemist or paper manufacturers, but you should have a working knowledge of the products that you are being asked to purchase and it's about time all manufactures that are asking for your business make it easier for you to identify these products and their uses. In case you were wondering I have been known to rant a bit. Again NONA thanks for getting us all thinking about helping framers do their best work because they know and understand the products being presented to them. What do you want to know about acrylic?

Lois
whew!!
 
I brought this thread back up when I saw Jim Miller make this Post:

And we have recently learned that he is hosting a mid-July meeting at his Chicago offices to rejuvinate support support for FACTS framing standards.

Yep, that's a Guru if ever there was one.

--------------------
Jim Miller, CPFcm

Jim was replying to "who is Jay Goltz" But he brought up a meeting that will be given at Jay's Ofices and jointly sponsored by PPFA/PMAI and FACTS. This could be a great Place to expresss any opinions about the desire to see Nona's efforts come to completion. Contact PPFA,Jay or FACTS to get the details.I believeit's scheduled for July14 .
BUDDY
 
Create a Post
Back
Top