Removable archival mounting?

Create a Post
T

terrytown

Grumbler
Joined
Mar 9, 2006
Posts
31
Loc
Salt Lake City, UT
Hi guys,

Thanks to all the grumblers who've steered me in the right direction with my previous framing delemas. You guys are great! Your support and humor has made a positive difference. Thanks so much. So, here's the latest . . .

A customer has brought in a 1927 Maxfield Parrish poster he wants remounted because of extensive "buckeling". It's 15" x 23" and the customer wants to keep it in the same unmatted frame.

I've referred to Vivian Kistler's Mounting Methods, but which one do you choose? Right now I have Gudy 870 and 831 adhesive films, and 3M removable and Super 77 spray mounts in my shop. Are any of these suitable, or do I order something else? Should I find someone with a dry mounting press? WHAT??? PLEEEEESE Help! THANKS!

P.S. I've left a message on the customer's voice mail that the process might be permanent and won't proceed without his permission. I'm waiting for his reply.
 
You could use Artcare Restore foam board by Bainbridge. This would allow you to drymount it, and later if need by unmount it. This is a heat press type of thing, so you would need to call a framer friend.

Pl
 
If this poster has significant value, I suggest using only reversible methods/materials. ArtCare Restore is advertised as such.

The best way to proceed would be to flatten the poster, which can be done properly by a paper conservator. You might be able to accomplish the purpose by placing it under weights for a while. Then hinge mount it.

And no matter what you do, be sure to include a generous spacer between the glass and the art when refitting. That insulating air gap is important -- the lack of it may have caused the paper to wrinkle.
 
This "Poster" that you describe probably just from the size given has a least $250.00 - $300.00 value.
I would put it in a heat press first. That should flatten it out. But depends on how dry and brittle it is. Many collectors are still on the fence about artcare restore. I would be wary of using Artcare restore from a collectors perspective. How extensive is the buckling?
 
Conservator first, mulberry hinges next.

If it truly is a 1927 re-pop, it's still worth some dough and will continue to become more valuable as time and mounting framers take their toll.

Right now I have Gudy 870 and 831 adhesive films, and 3M removable and Super 77 spray mounts in my shop. Are any of these suitable, or do I order something else? Should I find someone with a dry mounting press?
Click to expand...
Let's see, [IMHO] You have 77 spray, but need to FIND "someone" [just anyone? :eek: ] with a dry mounting press?

Terrytown, if you hadn't planned to make it to Vegas for either the WCAF or the PPFA... with an emphasis on learning about mounting... may I strongly suggest you do so before you attempt to tackle something like a 80 year old poster of known value.

IMHO.
 
Jerry, this is not just a question of product here. Terrytown doesn't have a press or (no offense, Terrytown) the expertise to use it.

There is an element of risk involved in putting anything in a press - even without any adhesive at all.

Practice and experience diminish that risk, but I think I'd practice on something else.
 
I can imagine all the eye-rolling that went on after reading my entry! Well, I got a lot to learn!

Yes, Baer, I am planning on attending some mounting (and as many others I can fit in) workshops. I'm painfully aware of my inexperience, so do I turn customers away until next January?
I have an art background and have a limited amount of mounting experience with my own photos and art. A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing, EXCEPT I have you guys! I know not to ever do anything permanent to any artwork, so when in doubt I put it out here on the G and have never been disappointed. It's a harder learning curve, but I'd rather be learning as I go than turn customers away.

FTP, the buckeling is "moderate"? Not sure how to describe it. The top is a little more than the bottom with only one place near the center that appears to go the width of the piece.

Looks like I'll call on a local framer friend to give a hand. At least now I'll know what to ask for.

Thanks, everyone once again. I appreciate the input.

Terry
 
I've called around to a couple of my resources only to learn they haven't ever HEARD of ArtCare Restore!

Ron, you're right about me not having the expertise (no offense taken) but it seems there's not too many others around here are much better than me!
faintthud.gif
 
Originally posted by terrytown:
I've called around to a couple of my resources only to learn they haven't ever HEARD of ArtCare Restore!

Ron, you're right about me not having the expertise (no offense taken) but it seems there's not too many others around here are much better than me!
faintthud.gif
Click to expand...
Lesson learned! At my local supplier's warehouse sit several PALLETS of TruVue premium clear glass, while the few conservation grade boxes sit dusty on shelves.

Conservation framing is not what's happening locally.
 
In my opinion, whatever it's worth, I would hesitate to buy an antique print that has been mounted in ANY way... artcare restore or not. I don't trust that stuff to not leave any residue, and with older prints, that get brittle with time, I wouldn't guarantee that the print would release completely from the substrate. That being said, if the customer really wants it flat, use the Restore, and warn them. I think, if you are able to minimize the buckeling that is happening now, and reframe it in the original frame, using some sort of rag backing, it should be fine. If it is still in the original frame, you shouldn't even need any sort of hinges, it may be the same size as the frame. I had a customer that was an antique Parrish print dealer, and he would do just that when sprucing up old prints in original frames.
 
Originally posted by framinzfun:
...I would hesitate to buy an antique print that has been mounted in ANY way...reframe it in the original frame, using some sort of rag backing...If it is still in the original frame, you shouldn't even need any sort of hinges, it may be the same size as the frame...
Click to expand...
We have seen old prints in frames cut-to-size, sandwiched between the glass and a board backer. But you're not recommending that, I'm sure.

If the wooden frame is the same size as the art paper, then it is important to line the rabbet with a gas-impermeable barrier of glass or metal. Left exposed, the unfinished wood's lignin would soon discolor (acid burn) the art paper's edges. Lining the rabbet with matboard, polyester film, or other material is better than nothing, and provides protection for some time. Lineco's foil tape, made for the purpose, is most suitable for the long term.

If matting is not used, then glass spacers are necessary to create the insulating air gap.

In my limited experience, most paper artworks are matted, making the frame larger than the paper. Some sort of mount is necessary in that case. Preservation hinges are generally preferred, but sturdy papers may be successfully mounted with Japanese paper edge mounts.
 
What I can’t understand is why so many are quick to approve “newer” un-time-tested tools like mylar and shrink tubing and zeolites, and will fight to the death products like Restore? I’m not sure if the shrink tubing people or mylar people are making specific claims for framing but Artcare does makes VERY specific claims. I’m sure that before they made those claims Bainbridge did more tests than we could dream of doing.

“With Artcare Restore, you can safely reverse art to its exact, pre-mounting condition. The non-permeable adhesive meets all archival standards and can be completely removed from the art.”

Bainbridge says “Removable means that the adhesive bond may be broken…however this process will always leave adhesive residue in the art. Reversible means that no adhesive residue will remain in the detached art bringing it back to its original unmounted state. Artcare restore is the only heat-activated foamboard that is both removable and reversible.”

Man those are some pretty big and specific claims. I think it would only be responsible to give some specific reason other than your gut as to why you don’t think those claims are accurate.

They continue “Essentially all mounting adhesives used in the framing market today are inert…the fact that there will always remain a degree of adhesive residue in the removed art that makes it non-archival. Artcare Restore’s patented adhesive is completely removable making both the product and the process archival.”

And there is another HUGE claim!!!!

Why would we disregard those claims and never question other less specific claims (UV glass) or worse products that make NO claims at all (shrink tubing)?

If Artcare made the same vague claims that TruVue does about what UV protection can and can’t do in the real world, then I would also tread very carefully and be skeptical. However they aren’t vague at all. If backing paper can turn into a 6 page thread about pro’s and con’s surely we can come up with more than “I just don’t like it” when we show such contempt for a product like this.
 
Why are we dithering about with theory?

Who has done it? That's the person I'd like to hear from. Has anyone mounted something with ArtCare Restore and removed it? How did it work?

Kit
 
I have, many times. It works as advertised, unless you have used it to mount 2ply toilet paper and then there is a minute amount of adhesive on the bottom layer of tissue and some of the tissue fibers of the bottom layer left behind on the foamcore.

I have mounted and removed newspaper, RC photos, open edition prints, limited edition prints, paper towel, toilet paper and others. Not a hint of adhesive left behind when instructions followed. As far as my eye can tell, I consider it proven using my UV lamp because the adhesive contains brighteners that glow under UV if present. My temperature measurement indicates the adhesive begins to activate around 117 degrees (though Bainbridge argues that point) but we use it strickly following Bainbridge temperature recommendations.

Actually, one of my fears came true last week and 2 mounted pieces unmounted themselves while being transported for installation. The pieces were held directly against the glass, shielded from sunlight in my car by 2 sheets of regular foamcore. The perimeter and inward 8-12 inches released and looked really bad. Ambient temperature was in the upper, mid 70s. Car air conditioned. Bright, sunny day. After an 80 miles round trip, the pieces have been remounted using speedmount and await the second trip for hanging.

[ 07-06-2006, 09:31 PM: Message edited by: Rick Bergeron - CPF ]
 
Thanks, Rick.

It's good to hear from someone who's used it that it works as advertised.

The unmounting could be a problem. (And so could the door you just opened to a thread about mounting toilet paper.)

Kit
 
I have used it several times. I have had to unmount about three. I was nervous as all heck when I did it. The adhesive did come off very easily. All seemed well. It was pretty easy to remount. As to adhesive residue being transferred into the paper, that I do not know.

Pl
 
I use it daily. If you have calibrated your heat press correctly and weight evenly during cooling you should experience no problems. I've only had to remove one item and had no problems.

Be aware that ArtCare Restore is not for all substrata. Read and follow the directions.

Dave Makielski
 
Originally posted by Jay H:
What I can’t understand is why so many are quick to approve “newer” un-time-tested tools like mylar and shrink tubing and zeolites, and will fight to the death products like Restore?...
If Artcare made the same vague claims that TruVue does about what UV protection can and can’t do in the real world, then I would also tread very carefully and be skeptical...surely we can come up with more than “I just don’t like it” when we show such contempt for a product like this...
Click to expand...
Jay, conservation research and testing have shown that certain polyester films and polyolefin plastic shrink tubing are suitable for some framing applications. Those products certainly are not new, but thoroughly time-tested and quite well established in conservation and framing. Notice who's using them in the conservation community, do the research, and you might better understand why framers use them with a high degree of confidence in the recommended applications.

UV-filtering attributes in glass and acrylic are also well established, having been tested and verified by scientific specialists -- that is, by conservators who know what they are doing, and know the requirements of our industry. What is your reason to disrespect their conclusions? If you think one particular glass maker's claims are vague, what do you say about all of the other glass companies that make similar claims about their UV-filtering products?

Zeolites are not new, either. That technology has been used for decades in passive filtration of water and air. Bainbridge was simply the first to put that established, existing technology to use in our industry. Some conservators still want further proof that in certain circumstances, the molecular traps could not release within a closed frame package the chemical contiminants they hold. On the other hand, most of what I've seen, read, and heard indicates that for our retail framing purposes, at worst, zeolites are not harmful. And at best, they are helpful in trapping or converting chemical contaminants.

Of all the products you mentioned, ArtCare Restore is the newest. Framers probably have no reason to disrespect the maker's claims. However, Restore is deemed still too new to earn the endorsement of some conservators, who are perfectly willing to wait for long term testing to yield unquestionable answers to their concerns about the product.

Meanwhile, who has expressed a desire to "fight to the death" that product?
shrug.gif
 
Jim, there is no need to turn this into a smoke and mirrors act. I’m not discrediting those other products at all. The thing I am pointing out is that their claims pale in comparison to the claims that Bainbridge is making.

It sounded like it but I didn’t mean to suggest that Restore was “newer” than the others were. I just meant that compared to the real “time tested” things like rags and wheat starch paste they are “newer”. In fact I was lumping Restore in with that group.

If there is a problem with this product, I want to know it. I just don’t think it’s prudent to entertain ‘whatifs’ and ‘maybe buts’. Those might not be a war cry but they are plenty common and unfounded.
 
Jim can I ask a retorical question that may make what I think your trying to say clearer? For how long was Philmoplast 90 considered safe and water reverseble? Then it was said to be a good product but not at all truly reverseble.

In fact there is a post to me from Rebecca a Conservator that states that not all Japanese hinges or really reverseble but they are still consider to be.

So I guess that claims by reputable and accepted manufacturers and USERS doesn't mean that things won't be discovered later that was thought to be correct for a VERY LONG time and by a HOST of people in the INDUSTRY.

Personally I have no practicle experience with Restore ,but I have seen problems with the others I have mentioned,just as I have seen them work as well.

In the needle work business a lot of Press-On boards were sold and they were said to be reveseble "If properly used" and they had a list of great barriers and films .But in the end it was one of the WORST products made for mounting .But still consummers love the stuff and sware that we are trying to keep them from doing there own work.

Some things take time to be found out and others never are.So we post "Framing Myths" later on TFG.
BUDDY
 
Originally posted by BUDDY:
Jim can I ask a retorical question...For how long was Philmoplast 90 considered safe and water reverseble? ...In fact... a Conservator that states that not all Japanese hinges or really reverseble but they are still consider to be...BUDDY
Click to expand...
Every product and procedure has limitations. Nothing is completely safe, and nothing is completely destructive in framing -- except maybe masking tape, rubber cement, and corrugated cardboard.

Japanese paper hinges with pure starch paste are among the best ways to mount paper. Completely reversible and non-invasive? No, because some of the paste soaks into the paper permanently, and the application of wet paste could locally cockle the paper.

On the other hand, hinging is the only way to hang the paper like a curtain behind the window mat, using gravity to help it stay flat & wrinkle-free. The most-similar preservation-worthy alternative is edge strips. But they ask the paper to stand on its bottom edge, with secondary support by the mat holding down the sides & top. Edge mounts are less invasive, in that no immediate change to the paper is necessary. But will the paper be stiff enough to withstand the gravitational stress that tends to create horizontal wrinkles? It's a decision best made by framers who are fully informed and understand the attributes & limitations.

Filmoplast never was accepted by those who know that all pressure-sensitive adhesives migrate into the fibers of paper. But those who thought chemically stable adhesive on good paper tape was "good enough" were happy to use P-90. Then we learned that the paper wasn't all that good, and the adhesive never was chemically stable, and the whole world was wrong about P-90.

That doesn't happen very often, thank Goodness. The lessons of P-90 have prompted a new skepticism among conservators & framers. That may be a good thing, so long as the skeptic cares to learn all about the product in question.

The problem comes when a product is accepted simply because somebody said something good about it, or rejected because somebody said something bad about it. Consensus is usually right when it comes from learning the informed opinions of knowledgeable people. Conservators with access to adequate laboratories, for example.
 
Then we learned that the paper wasn't all that good, and the adhesive never was chemically stable, and the whole world was wrong about P-90. That doesn't happen very often, thank Goodness. The lessons of P-90 have prompted a new skepticism among conservators & framers. That may be a good thing, so long as the skeptic cares to learn all about the product in question.
Click to expand...
Jim

Along the lines of "learning about the product in question" can you point me to the documentation that demonstrates P-90 as having chemically unstable adhesive, with marginal quality paper.

To be quite clear, I am not arguing the merits or de-merits of this product, I am just interested in the proof behind the comments you make. The archives yield nothing in this regard, and the manufacturer still claims the product to be "archival quality".

Thanks.
 
Just thought I'd add a few cents to the discussion...For one, Bainbridge products have a huge reputation to live up to, and so we wouldn't claim a product works without significant and extensive testing. Artcare Restore comes with full instructions and information on what you can and can't use it on. Every framer can receive a sample kit of the product along with a poster, tool, and instructions just by asking their Bainbridge rep, if you don't see your rep very often, you can request it from the website. I encourage everyone to ask for their free kit and try it themselves.
On a personal note, I recently framed a poster for my dad, it was a 1960's black light 24x36 velvet poster that had been rolled up and stuffed in the bottem of a trunk for who knows how long. (Dad isn't very good on storing stuff!) It had many tears, wrinkles, and creases, but I took it to one of my framers and asked him to use Restore, he did and it turned out great, you couldn't even see the wrinkles or where it had torn. I don't think there will be a need to ever remove it, but I have removed other pieces and had no problem. For what its worth, I recommend it without reservation to all my heat press framers.
 
CAframer your replie ;"To be quite clear, I am not arguing the merits or de-merits of this product" doesn't need to do either for me .It does exactly what I was trying to point out .As Jim and many knowledgable framers will say P-90 isn't what we thought it was or what it was claimed to be ,BUT it is still advertised as such and I 'll bet many don't bother to check any further nor do they have the means that conservators do to test a product but still they BLINDLY agree since for now or when they used it,it worked.
BUDDY
PS I was and am no different .I have merely learned not to blanketly accept what a manufacturer says ,especailly about being reverseble or safe. after all they do want to sell their product, and some ill effects may take a long time to be discovered.

In a gross over statement at one time suppliers sold White faced Corrogated board as suitable mount board,and I have see antigue mountings that were made of Lien sheets with wooden slats inbetween them used also. We learn as time goes on.
 
Buddy:

I couldn't agree more strongly ... I wholeheartedly agree that we shouldn't take assertions at face value ... facts are the cornerstone of good practice .. that's why I posted the request to Jim for more information about the comments he (and others) have made about this product. I would love to read the documentation supporting these statements.

As previously mentioned a search of these and HH archives reveals very little. There are some anecdotal comments (both good and bad), some very dated comments (circa 2001) providing favorable references from Ontario Museum and Toronto Archivists; and a general internet search just produces commercial comments from the manufacturer and distributors.

Again, I am not defending P-90 ... I would just like to read the proof behind the critique before repeating those assertions myself.
 
Directly from the horses mouth!

While not a replacement for traditional wheat paste and rice paper hinges filmoplast® P 90 is an excellent choice for those works that do not warrant a full conservation treatment.
Click to expand...
http://www.neschenusa.com/framing/tapes.html

I'm courious, where are you all reading that they claim to be for archival framing? Some suppliers website? Perhaps we should get our information from the ones most likely to KNOW!
 
Originally posted by Jay H.
I'm courious, where are you all reading that they claim to be for archival framing? Some suppliers website? Perhaps we should get our information from the ones most likely to KNOW!
Click to expand...
Jay, perhaps people get confused about P 90's "archival" quality when P 90's box has these words printed on it: "archival quality, water removable, solvent free, no pollution, water based adhesive, buffered with CaCO3, acid free"

I just read that from the box of P 90 tape that I had. On the back of the box, in fine print, it states its limitations, and Neschen guarantees its product to be a "safe, acid free means of hinging outside printed or coloured areas". I can see how someone could be confused that P 90 tape is "archival" by reading what is printed on the box.
 
Jay

I've never thought of P-90 as an acceptable hinge in archival applications ... and as you point out their website so stipulates ... however it is interesting to note that the P-90 box clearly states "archival quality" (whatever that means). It also states "water removable" although respected framers have reported that this just ain't so.
 
You're right about that. I'll bet we could turn the definition of "archival" in to 20 page mess. However we shouldn't develope an entire framing theology over one adjective should we?

I would note that according to Bainbridges own definition of "removable" that P-90 is completely "removable" however its not reversable. Not so ironic is how they don't use the word "reversable".

To the point we are disreguarding another product makers claims and yet support, daily, products that make vague or no claims at all.

Oh and BTW Artist Mag suggests that "archival" means “An archival material should have a neutral or slightly alkaline pH; it should also have good aging properties”. If we can say that is a resonable explanation, P-90 is archival!
 
Jay I don't have any desire to get into a semantics debate but could it be that to an "ARTIST" the definition "An archival material should have a neutral or slightly alkaline pH; it should also have good aging properties” may make a lot of sense but to a Framer it may not go far enough ergo reversibility. And to a conservator it may make even less sense. But then most of us while maybe being ARTIST are Framers and some are Conservators as well, so shouldn't we be looking for the definition that fits the toughest requirements?

And don't you get just a bit suspicious of a claim that skirts using words or phrases that can restrict their product even tighter?

I am sure they omit certain words for a reason in technical explanations ,but to me that packaging wording is very deceptive especially in light of website says conversely.

BTW "removable" IMHO isn't the same as "TOTALY REVERSABLE" ( one means that it can be taken off of something ,the other means it leaves NO residue of any kind after it is removed or alters it in any way once it has been "REMOVED".) which is what I thought was the requirement for true C/P work.
But then I said i didn't want to get into semantics didn't I.LOL
BUDDY
 
Originally posted by Jay H:
I'll bet we could turn the definition of "archival" in to 20 page mess. However we shouldn't develope an entire framing theology over one adjective should we?
Click to expand...
I don't see any sense in it either. Yet it would seem that many do just plug along with wreckless abandon when they see words like acid free, ph neutral, uv protectant, archival and other words like that?

Words like that seem to dance around the subject a bit. Bainbridge certianly doesn't do that even a little bit.
 
Originally posted by Buddy:
BTW "removable" IMHO isn't the same as "TOTALY REVERSABLE"
Click to expand...
I agree totally with you Buddy. And Jay makes very valid points as well. It just goes to show that you shouldn't blindly consider something is suitable for conservation practices just because it says it has "archival qualities", etc. (just like Jay said!)
 
Originally posted by CAframer:
Along the lines of "learning about the product in question" can you point me to the documentation that demonstrates P-90 as having chemically unstable adhesive, with marginal quality paper.
. [/QB]
Click to expand...
No, I can't. I have seen its discoloration on a few old documents that have come through my own shop. On two occasions when I have contracted conservators to restore documents taped with P90, they have told me the adhesive loses its solubility over time, and that the discoloration of the tape resulted from "inherent faults". Their opinions were shared by another conservator I asked, too.
A fourth conservator was unaware of a problem.

I doubt you will find published condemnation of P90 -- or any other useful product, for that matter -- as most conservators would not express negative opinions publicly. Note that many of the best work in the public sector (for government institutions) and are prohibited from saying anything that could be taken as an endorsement or damaging to any product..

Rather than seeking published reports of problems, ask a few conservators privately. Not all have encountered problems; nor do they all agree on these issues. But most will inform us about the projects we bring to them. Off record, or regarding a specific job, we can learn a lot.

It's important to realize that P90 is perfectly suitable for lots of tape uses, but who decides what should be taped? We do. Trouble is, we don't know enough to analyze the chemical compatibilities for every project. Should all framers be concerned about preservation at that level in their retail businesses?

Let's face it - most of us rarely encounter Abe Lincoln's signature on a document we are to frame. But when it comes in, will we know exactly what to do, with full confidence about the long term effects? If not, will we recognize our limitations and call a conservator? Or will we just hinge it with P90 tape, like we do the diplomas we frame routinely?

I have used a lot of P90 tape.
 
Thanks Rick .However I wasn't trying to add any pages to the 20 already stated. It seems as though this says that the REMOVAL of the TAPE isn't the real difficulty and it may still require a conservator to achieve the complete REVERSIBLE application, even when Neschen's box still refers to it as an Archival product.

Hence the point I was trying to make .( not an indictment of P-90 or any other product) .The point is ;just because a label or advertisement says something that we THINK we understand in TERMS we commonly use ,those they may be implying may mean something very different. Or the technology of the products use may have changed while the labeling hasn't.

So Buzz words and Guarantees are only as good as can be proven by a consensus over a long period of time . I think I have heard that some where before.
BUDDY
 
Create a Post
Back
Top