Originally posted by susang:
Is there any difference between the two products? I am thinking of using it as filler board.
Susan
There is a difference as was previously stated.
But I am a bit confused as to what your intended use is going to be; in the above quote you state that "I am thinking of using it as a filler board." Then in a subsequent post you state, "I just want this for a stronger backing board than fome core or archival corragate."
If you want a filler board, coroplast is among the tops for inert filler boards at a rock bottom cost. I can't think of any other product that is readily available and costs so little that would serve the purpose intended for a filler board.
But, as a backing board directly behind artwork, I would have to disagree about using the regular coroplast and in some instances using the archival coroplast. The fluting could imprint a thin paper art piece and ruin its value even though it may be archival. Granted the fluting is marginal but who wants to take the chance of the fluted pattern showing through on a customers cherished Kinkade print???

And the UV factor needs to be clarified for preservation usage. It is commonly used to extend the life of regular coroplast for outdoor signs but the effect on artwork hasn't been studied to any great length as far as I know.
I think that coroplast has its place in the framing world but, as with each product we use, it may also have some limitations that should be addressed before using it for everything.
Framerguy