Tru Vue Conservation Glass

Create a Post
G

Gene Scott

True Grumbler
Joined
Jul 3, 2001
Posts
93
Loc
Elizabeth City, N.C., USA
Wow...Two posts in one day after being basically a "lurker" for 3+ years!

Another question or request for info....

A new "customer" came in the shop today and told me today that a "gallery" that did her framing in her previous hometown told her that they had quit using Tru Vue Conservation Glass because they had problems with the UV capabilities of the glass breaking down over time and not providing the "advertised" protection. Now...how they knew this...I don't know!

I read Hitchhiker and the Grumble regularly and, if this was the case, I'm sure someone would have mentioned it. But...since TV Conservation glass is my glass of choice...I'm really curious if someone else has heard this or has her old framer decided not to use it anymore...probably because it can be a "pain" to handle sometimes or someone complained of art fading after hanging it in the sun! I tell my customers that UV protection is like sunscreen...if you go into the sun with sunscreen on, the effects of the sun will be lessened. However, you will still burn if you stay out long enough. Conversely, if you hang art in the bright sunlit area, UV glass will slow the fading, but, ultimately, it will fade!

What say you Grumbler experts?

BTW...Thanks RichM and Maria for the responses on the French Matting tapes/papers...I'm ordering "sample packs."

Gene
 
Well, Gene, I have one word for that "customer" of yours .................... Bunk!! Poppycock!!

(Oops, that was more than one word, sorry.)

Don't you imagine that, if this were the case, that at least one other framer amongst the over 3000 who are registered on the Grumble would have asked about it by now??

I would guess that either the "other gallery" didn't know how to handle/install the glass (couldn't read the instructions printed on the edge of each lite of glass) or they figured they could charge the same for Premium Clear and get away with the customer not knowing the difference. If you put the coated side out it will scratch and probably wear away over time and render the framing a complete mess that offers little or no UV protection.

Stick with your glass of choice and try to educate this new customer in the basics of glass and how it is to be used. Your analogy to sunscreen is probably one that a customer would understand.

Why don't you build a demo framing with PC glass in one half and CC in the other half, put a cheap poster in it and hang it in a full sun window for a month or so and you will probably have a perfect example of what CC will do to protect the artwork.

Framerguy
 
Perhaps there was an honest misunderstanding. The 3% of the UV that sneaks through conservation glass, as well as other parts of the light spectrum that aren't filtered, can fade an image very effectively. I've done my own tests, and the effect is cumulative.

I still think 97-98% UV-filtering is the best we've got and most of my framing is done with conservation clear, but I warn my customers that it won't make their art "fade-proof."

I've heard the argument (maybe on The Grumble) that we shouldn't use UV-filtering glazing because it makes us, and our customers, complacent about fading. That's like saying you shouldn't use sun screen 'cause it makes you complacent about skin cancer.

You do the best you can and that's all anyone can do.
 
97% protection..... hummmm, I've heard those numbers before....
shrug.gif
Let's see, the pill has been around 38 years and is still only 98%, condoms are only 94%, Diaphrams are 89%, IUDs are only WAIT!! THAT'S IT!!! I knew I'd remember!!! :D IUDs are 97% effective protection; :eek: oops, wait, the fine print: only if used in combination with jell or foam.......
fire.gif


But, of course, nobody uses those, they all practice abstinence......
sleep.gif
:(

But then regular glass is like .......

TMI. Good night all. 4:30am come early.
You guys are all so bad forcing me to stay up so late.
baer
 
if they want 100% protection, to leave their framed artwork wrapped up in the Kraft paper
Click to expand...
Ah, Peter, but only if it is "acid free" paper. :D
 
Gene,
Technical information about the relative UV protection of Conservation Clear is available from TruVue.
Guardian has graphs and charts about UV protection in relationship to the most damaging wave lengths in the UV spectrum, and if you get to a trade show where they are giving their seminar on UV glass you will learn more about UV glass than you can possibly use.
Any higher protection level in UV would start filtering out some of the visible violet spectrum resulting in a yellow color shift to the glazing.
Visible light also causes fading, and no products that I am aware of remain transparent when they filter visible light.
 
Hmmmm, could that possibly be why most museums and places of curatorial care of works of art carefully control all aspects of the environment in which the art is displayed/stored??
kaffeetrinker_2.gif


Maybe that is the the solution for those customers who want to nitpick the numbers to within a hair's breadth of perfection, suggest to them that, if they want further protection, that they build a mini-museum in their back yard to house their framed art!

I'll bet that Hugh Phibbs could put together a good comprehensive fully detailed working plan for a mini-museum and sell it to these finicky collectors. :D ;) :D

(Yeah, Hugh, whatcha doin' this weekend??)
help.gif


Framerguy
 
I think sometimes framers make up little stories to tell their customers when they have to justify some action. Probably they don't realize that the customer will repeat the (sometimes) little lie to another framer who will, in turn, post it on The Grumble.

It's probably a good policy to frame as if another framer (say, Bossy Ellen) is going to dismantle the package for inspection and talk to customers as if they're wearing a wire and all of The Grumble is listening in.

I should have stayed home today.
 
I was told that even though the glass manufacturers don't convey this, UV protection breaks down over time and is only as effective as regular picture glass after approx. 8 years.

Regular glass blocks about 62% of harmful UV rays.

This information came from my glass distributor who also acts as a consultant to the manufacturers.

Another fact to consider...most newer homes have double pane windows and the UV blockage is cumulative. Therefore if you have regular picture glass on a picture and double pane windows the effective UV filtering would be:

.38 X .38 X .38 or approx. 5.5% harmful rays from direct or ambient sunlight.

If you have double pane windows and museum glass the formula would be:

.38 X .38 X .02 or approx. .3% harmful rays from direct or ambient sunlight.

Remember that ALL light has some harmful UV rays.
Flourescent lighting or incandescent lighting also will fade artwork and related framing materials (matboard, etc.)

Another consideration...modern color copies are relatively lightfast compared to most lithographic and other printing methods and even photographs. I often will suggest color copying certain materials and framing the copies storing the original between barrier paper or the like in the bottom of a drawer that is rarely opened.

Color copies of old faded photographs can be manipulated in the copying process to greatly increase the contrast for better appearance also. This is also a good solution for framing newspaper clippings and the like because newspaper will destroy itself even in darkness from the acids, lignins, etc. in the paper itself.

If anyone cna refute the UV breakdown information (or confirm it), I would appreciate it.

Dave Makielski
 
Just for review, here are Tru Vue's own specs for UV blocking.

Glazing Properties:
UV-Blocking Capacity
amount of light (300-380nm) prevented from reaching the artwork

Premium Clear 47%
Reflection Control 53%
Anti-Reflective 78%
Conservation Clear >97%
Conservation Reflection Control >97%
Museum Glass >97%

No offense, Dave, but given the discrepancy in the UV-blocking of regular glass (and why would Tru Vue understate it?) I am skeptical of the statement of 8-year usefulness of Conservation glass from your distributor/consultant.

If true, UV glass would turn out to be one of the greatest hoaxes played on framers (and their customers) in the history of framing.

Right up there with white-core matboard, I'd say.
 
I too have heard of the breakdown of Conservation glass, but can't confirm it's truth.
 
Originally posted by Dave:

Another fact to consider...most newer homes have double pane windows and the UV blockage is cumulative. Therefore if you have regular picture glass on a picture and double pane windows the effective UV filtering would be:

.38 X .38 X .38 or approx. 5.5% harmful rays from direct or ambient sunlight.

If you have double pane windows and museum glass the formula would be:

.38 X .38 X .02 or approx. .3% harmful rays from direct or ambient sunlight.

Dave Makielski
Click to expand...
Nope, sorry but it doesn't work that way. Regular glass blocks a percentage of the UV frequency (or wavelength) of light. Adding more sheets of glass or thicker glass doesn't change the frequencies it blocks so the effect is NOT accumlative. (Did I shout loud enough for everyone to hear?)


Remember that ALL light has some harmful UV rays.
Flourescent lighting or incandescent lighting also will fade artwork and related framing materials (matboard, etc.)
Click to expand...


Not quite right but close. UV is not present in all light it is a frequency of light that is invisible to us unlike blue, red, yellow which are also frequencies of light but are visible to us. It is at the lower end of the spectrum, IR is at the upper end. Just think of them as some colors we can't see like some sound frequencies that are real high or low we can't hear. Some light sources have very little UV and some have more. As I recall most incandescent has very little if any UV but can still cause fading because ALL frequencies of light can cause fading. That's right; ALL LIGHT CAUSES FADING. We block UV because we can't see it anyway.


Another consideration...modern color copies are relatively lightfast compared to most lithographic and other printing methods and even photographs. I often will suggest color copying certain materials and framing the copies storing the original between barrier paper or the like in the bottom of a drawer that is rarely opened.
Click to expand...


This is probably the best solution to the fading problem.

quit using Tru Vue Conservation Glass because they had problems with the UV capabilities of the glass breaking down over time and not providing the "advertised" protection.
Click to expand...


This is TruVue's fault. When they first came out with Conservation Glass their initial sales pitch was that the coating was like filling a bucket with water, eventually it would be full and the water would spill out. At that time they were saying the useful life of Conservation Glass was 5-10 years. This has since been disproved but keeps cropping up as framers who read the brochures 15 years ago and haven't bothered to improve their education since start spouting off about it. That's not to say that the coating won't lose it's effectiveness but the time span is closer to 50-100 years under normal use than 5-10.

I guess I've been around long enough that these urban legends about glass that keep cropping up over and over are starting to become a real peave anymore. This has been discussed on the grumble several times. Why oh why won't the topic go away?

Say has anybody heard that Larson-Juhl is going into retail with JoAnnes fabric?
party.gif
 
But Frank,

If all these reoccurring subjects just up and disappeared, we would have nothing to talk about but dog farts and fat cats!! :eek:
faintthud.gif
:D

Framerguy
 
How do the Glass Manufacturers conduct there test for UV blockage….in other words what are test standards.. or what exactly does the published % of blockage represent…..or what is the original a % of !!!!

Are the test methods and results published anywhere !!!
 
The transmission characteristic of glazing material can be tested with a photo-spectometer.
The results can be shown as a graph of wavelengths
blocked or transmitted. As was noted, all light
causes fading, UV is more energetic and causes
more change and we prefer to filter it out since,
unlike insects, we can't see it. It also promotes
the breakdown of lignin. The blue portion of the
visible spectrum causes bleaching of cellulose.
Infra red light heats up dark surfaces. Thus,
in a museum, library, or archive materials are
kept from light as much as possible. The absorbers
that do the filtering transmute the light into heat (very little heat) and they last for decades.
UV filtration is very useful, but storage in the
dark is the only way to ensure the preservation
of light-sensitive materials, since oxygen-free
packaging (which stops most fading) is so expensive and difficult to do.

Hugh
 
My own, unscientific, tests involved putting a mounted print in a south-facing window. 1/3 of it was covered with (hopefully) opaque matboard, 1/3 with regular glass and 1/3 with conservation clear. Oh, and the piece was matted with a red Alphamat.

The south-facing widow had a UV film professionally installed. Supposedly, it had the highest UV filtration available for a non-reflective film. Anything higher, and nobody could see through my windows from the outside.

After a week, there was noticeable fading on the regular glass side. After two weeks, the fading behind both types of glass was severe and indistinguishable from one-another.

As expected, the portion covered with matboard was unaffected.

I learned two things. Multiple layers of UV protection are not additive, and nothing is going to save your art if you hang it in a south-facing window.

BTW, the red Alphamat faded as badly as the print.
 
I have to concur with the others that no glazing will prevent artwork from fading. My own experience in my store is that everything shows visible fading within two to six years - with conservation glazing.

My store has lots of windows, so lots of light. Not necessarily sunlight shining directly on the artwork. Even artwork on the back walls, 45 feet back from the windows, show visible fading within six years. With conservation glazing.

At home, a series of prints hung on a side wall from a window with obscure glass in a north facing room faded in successive increments the further the print was from the window wall. The first picture, about 7 feet from the window wall, showed the most fading, the last picture, about 8 1/2 feet from the window wall, showed the least fading. A little over 10 years. With conservation glazing.

The best I can do as a framer is to suggest using good quality matboards, backings, attachments, UV filtering glazing, and some suggestions locating the artwork in lower light areas of their homes and offices.
 
The kind of testing that Ron and Terry did is an
extremely useful thing for preservation framers
to carry out. No graph or set of figures can
give as clear and convincing a result as can carefully observed tests that one does on one's own. That is the only way to get a "feel" for how severe a problem is and to what extent our responses will prevent that problem.

Hugh
 
"After two weeks, the fading behind both types of glass was severe and indistinguishable from one-another."

Then why do you, if you do, support using CC? I wish I had windows here at the store I would do my own test as well. Im afraid if I had the exact same results I would have a hard time justifying twice the cost for nothing.
 
Jay, I use CC glass almost exclusively. I tell my customers, and there is a label on the back that tells them, that this glass will slow the fading but will not eliminate it.

It's the best we've got, and it does help, but it's not 100%.

My tests were conducted under extreme conditions because I wanted to accelerate the effect. In my current location (my FINAL location, I hope) I have windows facing north. I would be embarrassed to tell you how long some of the art has been in the window (with CC glass) and it takes a year or more before any fading is noticeable. Personal items hanging on the wall with CC glass, indirect window light and fluorescent have not faded noticeably in four years.

Customers who expect to hang their art in the window had best stick with black and white posters.

The Ansel Adams series is nice.
 
As a giclee(inkjet) printmaker I find this discussion of fading interesting. While fading is an issue with our prints, it's mostly a minor one. According to Wilhelm Imaging Research, prints made on an Epson 10000 using Epson Archival inks on Epson papers will last 100+ years under regular glass and ordinary viewing conditions before any noticable fading. Using Epson Ultrachrome inks on an Epson 76/9600 printer, prints last 80+ years. My understanding is that print fading is largely a function of ink/paper quality. Dye based inks are more fugitive than pigment based inks. Wilhelm has found that air pollution is a major factor. Prints prone to fading, fade much faster exposed to ambiant air than those under glass. These prints also fade rather rapidly in dark storage when exposed to ambient air. I guess what I'm saying is that prints made with materials that are not archival quality will fade no matter what we do with them. Those made with archival matrerials will last a reasonable (80 to 100 years)length of time before there is noticable fading. I'm sure that what is true of inkjet prints is also true of lithographic, silkscreen, intaglio prints.

My experience as a framer has suggested that most people expect decorative art to last around 7 years at most.

Since I have a good deal experience in digital imaging and printmaking, I was amazed at the suggestion that works of art (or any image, for that matter) be copied on a color copier. I'll leave aside the experience I've had about longivity but have to point out that the "copy" will not come close to reproducing faithfully the colors of the original. Even with the best color managed system, we can only come within about 90% to the original. To get the last 10%, color correction is necessary and that can at times be a long, tedious process. Of course an exact copy is generally impossible. And if the original is made from fugitive dyes, the colors will drift no matter how the original is stored.
 
There is no doubt, in my mind, that a $10 poster will fade more quickly than an original or even a quality reproduction. Here is my rationale behind selling conservation glass for that $10 poster.

Let's say it's 24x36. It fades after a few years. Assuming they can get another poster for $10, I'm going to charge them another $27 to dry mount it and $23 to refit it into their frame. So, at best, it'll cost them $60 to replace that faded $10 poster.

I contend that spending an extra $15 for conservation glass ($36 vs $21) in the first place is the better investment. Of course, you have to believe that the UV glass is going to make the print last longer, and I do.

If people expect their decorative art to last seven years, maybe it really doesn't matter, but I'm constantly getting decorative art in for repairs or reframing that was hanging over somebody's grandma's sofa and is being passed from one generation to the next. It might be crap, but it's sentimental crap and it's irreplaceable.

What do people do with their decorative art after seven years? They give it to their kids, 'cause it feels better than throwing it out. The stuff ends up hanging around for generations.
 
Wilhelm has a very interestin web page <http://www.wilhelm-research.com> that has fade information on different ink jet printers, inks, and papers.

I have heard that his tests use only UV light and that it is not all that bright. I called him once a few years agoa and asked him which part of the visible spectrum was the biggest fader next to UV. He said something like different colered inks are affected by different visible spectrum colors differently. Ie: Some greens are affected by red light while other greens are affected by blue light. It all has to do with photons and actual chemical changes in the inks or dyes.

In my past life I did some fade testing on fabrics for United Airlines and I was amazed just how quickly stuff faded in direct sunlight. Back when UV-3 Plexiglass first came out I did some fade tests in direct sunlight comparing regular clear plex and clear glass and found very little difference in fading in just a few weeks.

Greg Fremstad
FrameTek, Inc. Eugene Oregon
In Oregon it's "Damp if you do, damp if you don't"
 
This is really good information for framers, and now we have an easy reference in the archives for future newbies who want to clear up the myths. Thanks.

On the same topic, the light at the opposite end of the spectrum, infrared, also causes other damage not common to the high frequency ultraviolet light.

Low frequency IR light increases molecular activity, which causes heat buildup, advances aging, and leads to embrittlement & disintegration of hygroscopic fibers. If acid damage or other chemical reactions are a problem, IR light exposure would amplify their effects.
 
Along with Ron's reply.
I just rematted an etching/advertisement from the late 1800's. I'm sure that when it was originally framed, it was not intended to be still hanging over 100 years later. It is one of the fortunate few that has survived and now is quite valuable. Of course they didn't have UV glass back then, but it was framed well and obviously taken care of over the years. I'm probably the 3rd or 4th framer to do some maintenance work on it.
You just don't know what will become valuable in the future, if not now.
kaffeetrinker_2.gif
 
"Low frequency IR light increases molecular activity, which causes heat buildup, advances aging, and leads to embrittlement & disintegration of hygroscopic fibers."

So THAT'S what happened to me outer layer. :(
 
I have to say given the way this thread has gone I very surprised that there is no indication of a published test or test results for this type of glass

….OK I will ask again….. are the results claimed by the manufacturers and test methodology for this type of glass published any where!!!! ……..
 
Ron, you and Warren aught to get together and slap one of those 100+ year Giglies in that south window of yours.
I don't know if that $83 print of mine was a Giglie or not but I do know that it sat around in my diningroom half under one of the "piles" my wife hates, and when I went to take it to the shop. . . . well the part under the pile was nice, but the exposed part . . . some darned fade troll had come along and stole the color right out of that bunch of flowers......

Light is light and enough of it is cumilative enough to fade the color right out of my hair....
Oh good night.
baer
 
Create a Post
Back
Top