Help Framing very large lithograph!

Create a Post
Pangolin

Pangolin

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Posts
1,187
Loc
Columbus, Ohio
I just had a customer come in for a quote. He has a large, old, lithograph that's been glued down to some kind of stiff fabric (to help keep it together).

The piece is 40.25" by 56", and he wants spacers so it doesn't touch the glass/plexi.

We decided we can put a fillet in the frame to help cover up the 3/8"-1/2" of white linen around the original piece. (After he left I realized I could also use a fabric-wrapped liner, but it still has the acid wood againt the piece problem under the glass tis way, and he seemed to like minimal, clean lines.)

The current frame he's looking at is LJ 573235 and the fillet is possibly LJ 109630 (unless we find a better match).

Here are my questions:

1. Since he doesn't want the piece to touch the glass/plexi, how do I mount this so that is doesn't warp/wrinkle/roll/wave with a spacer in there?

2. I'm guessing Gator Foam would be better than foamcore for the backing - any idea which thickness will give me the best results?

3. He's a bit worried about weight because of the size of the piece, but also paying some attention to price. Am I better off to use glass (cheaper but heavier) or OP3 Acrylic (more expensive, but lighter)?
 
It's not that big, but use Con Clr acrylic anyways and use archival coroplast. I would probably do a large rag mat covered in fabric and spacers.
 
Actually foam board would be a better choice for a backing than Gator.
GatorBoard is not neutral pH but is still a viable choice but rather expensive. Cover it with Aluminum foil overlapped and spliced with mylar tape or the like on the back side. A good barrier and cheap.

About foamboard: In my 40+ years in this crazy business, I've never seen ANY art damaged by foam board. Have you? I rememeber in the 70's there was a brand that turned slightly yellowish but everone I asked this question in the 7-8 years we worked on the foam board standard for FACTS, nobody else had ever seen any damage either. ISO recently released a standard on foam boards that OK'd certain foam boards for permanent storage enclosures for photograpic prints, negatives, and such. The board had to have passed the PAT (Photographic Activity Test) so ask your foam board supplier (in writing) which of their boards pass the PAT and begin saving a lot of money over "Acid Free" boards.

You may not have enough coverage over the edge of the art with ANY commerically available spacer (Even ours). I've used a wider lipped linen liner to act as a spacer for the monster fabric mounted posters. You can line the liner rabbet with that same mylar tape. The wood moulding under the fabric will still be a problem but you have to draw the line someplace. I've had to rip a wider lip on some liners to get them to cover a bit more of uneven art edges.

I've always been concerned with that alu tape marking off on the face of the art as the art rubs back and forth with the movement of the art because of the "Allowance".

The tighter you fit the frame, the more pressure on the alu tape against the art (and the more likely it will rub off on the art) but you'll never get it tight enough to to keep the art from moving back and forth in the allowance space. Think of how much a frame will flex (the limit of the allowance) if the frame is pushed into a parallelogram. Th acrylic and the art will still be square but the frame will go caddywhumpas.

PS: If you think that a thin layer of "Acid Free Paper" bonded to a foam board substrate is any kind of a barrier - you would be wrong. Same with so-called "barrier paper", 2 or 4 ply "Cotton Lintner" boards or "Wood Pulp"boards - NOT BARRIERS! Just look at paper and mat board in a microscope and you'll see that it looks just like a scotch brite pad. Some barrier! I've seen examples of a 4 ply rag "barrier" mat under a lime green carp mat and the art was burned right through the barrier? Except... where the ATG type tape used to hold the mats mats together - I guess the gumminess of the tape was a better barrier than the 4 ply board.
 
Greg... I've always liked your common sense believe-what-you-see approach to judging products and procedures used in preservation framing as a counter balance to what is often spoon fed us by certain manufacturers and others that possibly are just relaying what they have heard without solid research or enough time tested experience to back up the claims. Often these accepted "truths" are very easily held as gospel.

You brought up the issue of regular fom-cor board vs AF foam core to me about five years ago and I realized that I too had never seen damage to paper from regular foam core board.

When did foam-core first come out anyway??? Early '70's? I have been around quite a while and can't quite remember when it became available.

You have a fresh approach to things that I like because it challenges accepted thinking.
 
When inspecting items that have been framed for a number of years, it is apparent that clay-coated foamcore does yellow, a phenomenon I have not seen with "acid-free" foamcore. This is not to say that this does any harm to the artwork, especially if it is used as filler and the art is mounted to a separate backing. I'm just pointing out the change in appearance. What is really disgusting is, for example, an old metal frame with exposed clay-coated foamcore backing which has not only yellowed, but which shows the brown tobacco-like staining caused by the deterioration of old galvanized steel braided hanging wire.

Greg, that example you gave of ATG adhesive acting as a barrier to acid migration is illustrative, if ironic. It's amazing some of the things one sees when opening old frame jobs.

Here's a tutorial sign I made that hangs in my shop. Everything in it (except the text panel) is made from nasty old frame components. The pointers are bits of rotten braided wire.
:cool: Rick

frameitright.jpg
 
Foamcore does damage artworks, especially photographs, even with the so called acid free foamcores, it may not cause any damage in the short term, but eventually it will degrade, the materials sandwiched in between is never truly archival. Foamcore is not acceptable in a full conservation package. Even when used as fillers/spacers in the frame rabbet, it cannot be sealed off with foil.

If it is a valuable piece, only use corflute board made from archival grade polypropylene or museum quality blue/grey corrugated board as backing substrate.

Back to the original post, you mentioned that the lithograph is glued onto some kind of fabric? considering it will be too expensive to have paper professionally separated from the backing even if it is possible. Does the fabric create any margins around the lithograph? if so you can sew the edges onto rag board or if the backing fabric is thick enough you can use Velcros around the edges, to float mount it. One should never have the artwork touching the glazing, no matter it is glass or perspex.
 
Dave said:
...
You brought up the issue of regular fom-cor board vs AF foam core to me about five years ago and I realized that I too had never seen damage to paper from regular foam core board.
Click to expand...

Although I am not writing this as an endorsement of foam core as a backing for artwork, I must admit that in 33 years of framing, I too have not seen visible damage caused by foam core. I have a lot of budget minded customers and when such a customer is trying to decide upon which elements to forgo in the preservation package, I always stress Conservation Clear glass as the first and most important line of defense in the short run. The short run might be twenty years, and I know from years of experience that fading almost always occurs way before any visible damage from foam core, acid-free or otherwise.
 
It is important that the spacer does not sit on the print, but it can sit on the fabric around the print. Gator type boards can emit formaldehyde and foam core boards will not. UV acrylic sheet is a safe and wise choice. Coroplast will not warp, as foam/paper boards will.


Hugh
 
Thanks "guys"! (Especially Hugh - short and sweet and to the point!)

One issue os that he really doesn't want a mat or liner under the frame, so putting a fillet in the frame is the only way to cover up the linen margin unless I try to wrap it around the substrate, which I think I can do, but am not sure if it's a fantastic idea to do.

So, now I'm looking at a coroplast backing, possibly sewing down the piece (utilizing the linen edges) and then putting in a spacer (that'll be fun) with a OP3 UV Clear Acrylic. It's not that the piece is huge, it's just that it's very wavy to start with - which can make it harder to keep off the glazing.
 
Shana is this an old poster mounted onto linen? IF so I have a question for Hugh and Jim and everyone else. Would this be a case for Direct Contact Overlay, DCO ? Since your probably going with acrylic, do you need spacer? Just curious why some cases you can use DCO and others not.
 
Certainly not to be argumentive, but where did Le Corb get his information?

Does he have substantional information to totally disregard the research done by ASTM and ISO on the use of foam boards for permanent storage of photo stuff? I'd like to know and I'll bet ASTM and ISO would too.
 
No museums or galleries would use foamcore as backing substrate, they may purchase them for display and installation uses, but never in a full conservation package with valuable artwork on paper.

The polystyrene clad layer is not archival even with acid free ones, eventually it will degrade, and outgas.

I have seen damages from older foamcore on photographs, it is still too early to tell with the newer "acid free" foamcores. However considering the materials normally used to produce them, it is not generally used by museums and conservators in a framing package.

Thats just my 2 cents.
 
RParrish said:
Shana is this an old poster mounted onto linen? IF so I have a question for Hugh and Jim and everyone else. Would this be a case for Direct Contact Overlay, DCO ? Since your probably going with acrylic, do you need spacer? Just curious why some cases you can use DCO and others not.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see that answered too. My first reaction to Shana's post was, why not put the acrylic right on the poster?
 
Ylva said:
... why not put the acrylic right on the poster?
Click to expand...

An acrylic DCO mount might be OK, and could be among the best choices if the poster is wavy, as the padded backing would tend to flatten it. Admittedly, a DCO could be the simplest of assemblies for the poster.

However, most of the vintage lithographed posters I've seen have quite a fragile ink layer. Abrasion of the printed surface during normal expansion/contraction cycles might damage the vintage poster more than it would damage a better quality print. Or maybe not...I'm just guessing here.

Also, the rubbing of surfaces in contact would be more of an issue for a large-dimension sheet, because expansion/contraction movement is generally proportional to the size.

If an acrylic DCO is the decision, be sure to use abrasion-resistant (type AR) acrylic. Otherwise, the poster's surface would probably abrade the inside of the acrylic.
 
It is an old poster mounted on linen. The ink didn't appear at first glance to be rubbing or coming off in any way... it's just old with obvious discoloration from uv/acid burns, ect...

The customer requested the use of spacers, but I'm already concerned about the bowing of the substrate and the waviness off the piece - I'd much prefer to go with a DCO mount, and it would be a lot easier to fit.

I'm less worried about the off-gasing of acid-free foamcore than I am about the whole substrate bowing and pushing the piece against the glazing if I have to use spacers. I think I'll go with coroplast if I have the option on this one though.
 
Bowing of the acrylic should not be an issue if you use a 3/16" or 1/4" thick sheet. But bowing could be a problem with a too-thin acrylic sheet either way, whether you use a DCO mount, which would press outward from the inside, or a spacer.
 
Jim's point about abrasion shows the problem with direct contact between acrylic sheet and framed items on paper. Indeed, many media will abraid acrylic sheet, but that means that the acrylic is givein way, not the medium. A sheet with a harder surface poses different problems, since it has a greater chance of affecting the medium and it should be used with care.


Hugh
 
Create a Post
Back
Top