what do you do?

Create a Post
D

dressurfan

Grumbler
Joined
May 12, 2001
Posts
29
Had a client come in yesterday asking us to remove a 200 year old print from an old frame she brought in 2 years ago. Originally, when she first brought in the work, she asked us to reframe it to preserve the piece. It was badly acid burned from being glued onto a very old board and was stained and yellowed. I carefully explained to her, that part of the reason that is was damaged was due to the board it was glued to. With extreme care, I took it off this board, used hinges to attach it to a piece of ragboard, and reframed it in her existing frame. She declined conservation glass, even though, that is also what I recommended.

2 years later...she comes into our shop, madder than a hatter because I took it off this "original" board. Then she demanded that I take it apart and take it off the ragboard. She wanted to sell it in "antique original condition" and implied that I ruined the piece. I easily removed it from its hinges, handed it to her and wished her a good day. We never throw anything of the clients away and she still had her precious yellow, stained board to attach it to.

Without being too confrontational - what is the best way to deal with a situation as this? 2 years ago, I explained very carefully the benefits of ragmating, hinges etc. Am I giving the wrong advice here in this situation?
 
Dear Dressurfan, Stay cool, relax,you have certainly treated the DEAR LADY and her print a whole lot better than the DEAR LADY has treated you. If I have learned anything in almost 30years of working with old prints, it is that no decent, self-respecting Museum,Auction House, Dealer or Collector will do anything but congratulate you on you efforts to help preserve a work of art. People 'who know' do not need to worry abou the DEAR LADY'S "Antique Original Condition". Only someone who is unsure, not to say ignorant, of a print's age or condition would need the existence of the board to which the print was attached, as corroborating evidence that the print is indeed as old as it looks! That someone is also most unlikely to know the true market value of the print and is unlikely to offer a decent price. Keep up the good work dear Dressurfan. OH AND BY THE WAY I do hope that you charged the DEAR LADY yesterday. I AM NOW GOING TO SHOW YOUR POST TO MY BELOVED WIFE AS CONCLUSIVE PROOF THAT I AM NOT THE ONLY PICTURE FRAMER IN THE WORLD WHO "NEVER THROWS ANYTHING AWAY". Alan

MEASURE TWICE - CUT ONCE
 
Well said Alan Rolph! and welcome to both you and Dressurfan! I was just going to start a thread about customers wanting the "original" cardboard! Last week I had a young man wanting to frame what was obviously one of his prize possesions-a reproduction of the movie poster for the original Star Wars movie. He was concerned that it be properly preserved on the "original" cardboard it was shrink wrapped and shipped on. Once I explained, however, what that cardboard would eventually do to his poster he agreed to let me use my best judgement as to the best way to mount and frame it. I also handed him a brochure on proper framing.

Then today I had an older man in who wanted a piece of cardboard to put in a frame a friend was making for him. I explained that we don't do that (and why). Asked him some questions about the piece to be framed, found out he was just going to put it between the glass and the cardboard. Explained that you shouldn't do that either (and why). He kept wanting a piece of "what ever you use for the backing". I quoted him a price less than if I mounted it which was, of course, too much for him and he left before I could give him any brochures. But then his friend and him obviously know better than I do.
After all I'm only a Certified Framer!
wink.gif


------------------
Anne LeBouton
 
You did the right thing. She should have been impressed that you still had the old boad after two years.

She and the antique dealer assumed that the art was attached to the board by the artist...maybe, but probably not. The art was probably glued down by an ignorant framer.

What to say? Something like "The board was destructive to the art, and will cause continued deterioration if it is in contact with the art."

"The problem is acid burn, which comes from inherent lignin in the wood. The damage can not be reversed. The art paper is actually burning, just as surely as if you put a match to it -- it just takes a lot longer without the match."

Re-attaching the art to the board most likely assures its total destruction. Some day in the future a conservator might be able to remove it again, but that is doubtful and risky."
 
Easy on Jim, you are getting my Irish up, let's not start down the road of applying today's standards to yesterday's actions, it is most likely from what I have read and seen (a very old piece of art in my parents home for example which was checked out some years ago by one of the consultants to the National Gallery in Dublin) that the way this piece of art was "glued" down is what was the correct standard of it's day.

Will framers of the present day be called ignorant in the future if we find that what we consider are correct methods at present, prove to be wrong or superceded in future times.

The very essence of calling framers of the past ignorant is to suggest to my mind that framers no longer have a place in this world to practise their craft and what you are suggesting is that there will only be a place for those practising conservation, perseveration, protective, museum, etc. type of work or what ever the industry decides to designate the work that it can do, that is if the industry can ever come to any sort of united description for what they do.

Alan welcome to The Grumble two Scots and one Irish Guy, nice to have another few from this side of the pond I was feeling very isolated for a long time.


------------------
Dermot
"May you never forget what is worth remembering, or remember what is best forgotten"

[This message has been edited by Dermot (edited January 10, 2002).]
 
Thanks for the words of encouragement. Dermot - I hear what you are saying. Thinking back on our original conversation with this client - she wanted to protect the piece to the best of our ability. I do not make it a practice in our firm to give our clients a perception of excellence by critisizing anothers work...whether it is from the framer down the street or from another era. My work speaks for itself.

The problem I had is how to positively educate this particular individual without seeming condescending or confrontational. And, I was wondering if other framers had the same issue with antique original only condition being more valuable than ones that had been reframed in a more current conservative/archival fashion.
 
Dermot,
I've always thought ignorance is when a person doesn't know better. But, stupidity is when a person DOES know better and continues doing the wrong thing. I think as long as we educate our customers and leave the decision up to them, then it's their stupidity if they choose to have anything framed incorrectly.

I'm ignorant about ALOT of topics.

Janet
 
Welcome to the Grumble dressurfan and Alan!!
 
I think some people watch "Antiques Roadshow" too much and start thinking that all actions done to old things are BAD. They hear about the Chippendale table that WOULD have been worth $100,000 but some stupid person CLEANED it or stripped it and now it's only worth $50,000!!

I have had clients who have insisted that I install a stained filthy shingleback on the outside of the acid-free frame package just to prove that the artwork is old. And, on the other hand, I was speaking with a museum curator once and apologizing for an acid-laden mat I had cut for a piece of artwork 30 years ago, and he said, "Don't worry, dear, we didn't know any better back then!"

Go figure!
 
Welcome Dressurfan and a big welcome to another ALAN - even spelt the correct way. We expect great things from you and a fair bit if bull also. Regards Alan

------------------
If you can't be a good example you'll just have to be a horrible warning
 
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Janet L:

I'm ignorant about ALOT of topics.
Janet<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Will Rogers said, "Everyone is ignorant, only in different subjects."

Betty
 
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dermot:
...let's not start down the road of applying today's standards to yesterday's actions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The customer's insistence on keeping the art glued to the board is exactly the opposite -- applying yesterday's standards to today's actions.

...Will framers of the present day be called ignorant in the future...
The word "ignorant" is a problem. We don't know the standards of the time and place of the original treatment, or whether that framer was ignorant. I should not have used it in that context, and apologize for one such inflammatory word. I agree that it is wrong to impose current standards retroactively.

Kindly remove that controversial word, "ignorant", from the previous post, and read it again. Is it OK now?

To avoid ignorance we should keep ourselves informed and apply improved standards as they become practical. It is wrong to do the opposite -- to use outdated standards for current work, which is the dilemma presented. Again, Dressurfan did the right thing.

...what you are suggesting is that there will only be a place for those practising conservation...or what ever the industry decides to designate...
Your assumption is incorrect. I say framers should apply current standards *appropriate for the work*. If preservation is of no concern, then whatever the customer wants is OK, no matter how destructive. Each project calls for some degree of preservation, be it minimum (one step better than a thumbtack), moderate (protect from some hazards), or maximum (protect from all hazards as much as possible).

Maximum preservation was the order in this case. Aside from misleading the customer with less-than-maximum preservation treatment when it is expected, one issue of concern (in this country anyway) is litigation, so I suggest that applying outdated standards to "preserve" a valuable item today could be a disasterous mistake, (if not ignorant).

Fortunately Dressurfan didn't fall into the trap. If a framer uses destructive methods & materials -- even at the customer's insistence -- then he/she may be held liable for damages later. And if the item is very valuable, or one-of-a-kind and not replaceable, then a lawsuit might assure bankruptcy of the business.

At this moment I feel like Alan's "horrible warning".
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dressurfan:
... a 200 year old print... badly acid burned from being glued onto a very old board and was stained and yellowed. I carefully explained to her, that part of the reason that is was damaged was due to the board it was glued to. With extreme care, I took it off this board... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the part that caused a few alarm bells to sound in my mind.
If the print had been GLUED to it's backing board, how in the heck did you remove it? Most paper conservators I work with will even hesitate to do this in fear of doing even more damage to the print by handling it than would be prevented. My concern is that some change or damage was inflicted on this piece while being removed from it's backing. Was lady customer upset by something like this? Please tell me that this had nothing to do with it! Did lady customer KNOW that you would be removing it from it's original backing? This is something worth discussing with a customer up front. Was there information of any sort noted on the original backer? Margaret Bourke-White rubber cemented quite a few of her early photos to crummy acidic backers that bore her signature! Get rid of this backing, alter it in any way and suddenly it becomes much more difficult for future appraisers to verify it's provenance and value!
Unless the print was almost literally dangling from a thread from it's backing board, I would have never attempted anything like this. We are framers, not conservators.
Please post a rebuttal to this d-fan, I want to hear that my fears are totally unfounded.
Thanks for bearing my rant!
-Edie
 
After reading this thread, I was wondering if anybody does a condition report? On ours, we list any damage to the print, and included is a section where it says "preservation matting was discussed and accepted/declined", preservation glass was accepted/declined" etc. The customer than signs the report and gets a copy. I keep one on file and a third copy gets enclosed with the work. I don't know if the report would stand up in court, but it can't hurt.
 
I was going to jump in on this one, but it looks like you guys are doing great without me.
smile.gif


John
 
Hi Pam-I would be real careful about that type of disclaimer. It really states that you knew better and still did it incorrectly. Sometimes it might be wiser to decline the project, as hard as that might be.

I would have to weigh each case separately. But I think that disclaimer would implicate you more than insulate.
 
Even as a newboy I get the feeling that this thread could just run and run. Before it finishes up in court let's go back to the original question "What do you do?"

I see nothing wrong in dressurfan's
handling of the customer.

If we look at the technical situation then maybe, just maybe, a lack of experience with 200 year old pieces of art on paper could
cause a more serious situation on a future occasion. CONSIDER:
I have never seen a genuinely 200 year old print mounted ,in any form, on to a 200 year old board, because I have never seen a genuinely 200 year old board. If, and it's a very big IF, there was a 200 year old board it would almost certainly be made from rag
and not such a problem.

The print could be a later making using a 200year old plate or block,that had been mounted onto an acidic woodpulp board .
by removing this print an expert could almost cetainly tell from the paper (although it sometimes happpens that sheets of old paper are available for a later printing) ONCE THE PRINT HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE BOARD.

In my experience, those prints that have not been trimmed back to their plate marks for framing, have been either, spot stuck in each corner or paper hinged onto album pages or onto support paper and kept in portfolios.

In the UK the cut mount - sorry mat- or "window" mat began as a "SUNKEN" mat to allow collectors to store their pictures in piles so that they did not wear through rubbing against each other and for ease of handling and to reduce consequent damage. The introduction of machine produce paper from wood pulp also introduced the "ACID FULL" card or board ABOUT 1840.

Most of us in picture framing must have made mistakes through inexperience (ignorance?) but most of us do our best. Restorers, conservators and others have,over the years, been quick to tell framers what we should NOT do when they come across earlier framers "mistakes". Museum people are general nice folk but most of them do not work in the harsher commercial world that framers do.After all we do handle far more pictures, including the future 200 year old prints, than they do, and I for one would appreciate a slightly more realistic and positive approach by them to the framing fraternity. Prevention is better than cure and restorers would do well to occasionally ponder that without framers "mistakes" they would be without work. Now I've said it!!!


MEASURE TWICE - CUT ONCE

ALWAYS KEEP YOUR HAND BEHIND A MOVING BLADE
 
Even as a newboy I get the feeling that this thread could just run and run. Before it finishes up in court let's go back to the original question "What do you do?"

I see nothing wrong in dressurfan's
handling of the customer.

If we look at the technical situation then maybe, just maybe, a lack of experience with 200 year old pieces of art on paper could
cause a more serious situation on a future occasion. CONSIDER:
I have never seen a genuinely 200 year old print mounted ,in any form, on to a 200 year old board, because I have never seen a genuinely 200 year old board. If, and it's a very big IF, there was a 200 year old board it would almost certainly be made from rag
and not such a problem.

The print could be a later making using a 200year old plate or block,that had been mounted onto an acidic woodpulp board .
by removing this print an expert could almost cetainly tell from the paper (although it sometimes happpens that sheets of old paper are available for a later printing) ONCE THE PRINT HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE BOARD.

In my experience, those prints that have not been trimmed back to their plate marks for framing, have been either, spot stuck in each corner or paper hinged onto album pages or onto support paper and kept in portfolios.

In the UK the cut mount - sorry mat- or "window" mat began as a "SUNKEN" mat to allow collectors to store their pictures in piles so that they did not wear through rubbing against each other and for ease of handling and to reduce consequent damage. The introduction of machine produce paper from wood pulp also introduced the "ACID FULL" card or board ABOUT 1840.

Most of us in picture framing must have made mistakes through inexperience (ignorance?) but most of us do our best. Restorers, conservators and others have,over the years, been quick to tell framers what we should NOT do when they come across earlier framers "mistakes". Museum people are general nice folk but most of them do not work in the harsher commercial world that framers do.After all we do handle far more pictures, including the future 200 year old prints, than they do, and I for one would appreciate a slightly more realistic and positive approach by them to the framing fraternity. Prevention is better than cure and restorers would do well to occasionally ponder that without framers "mistakes" they would be without work. Now I've said it!!!


MEASURE TWICE - CUT ONCE

ALWAYS KEEP YOUR HAND BEHIND A MOVING BLADE
 
Originally posted by Framing Goddess:
This is the part that caused a few alarm bells to sound in my mind.
If the print had been GLUED to it's backing board, how in the heck did you remove it?

I understand what you are concerned about. First of all - the 200 year old claim was by the client, and I have no way of verifying this. The piece itself was "attached" for lack of a better word with a sort of yellow dry brittle glue. Two small dabs - one at the top of the piece, and one at the bottom. When I took the piece out of its old frame...because the glue was so dry and brittle it took very very little to unattach it to this old board that had newpaper stuck on the back. I carefully lifted one corner, and the print came off the board. There was absolutely no tearing whatsoever, but I did tell the client that I would not be able to remove the glue residue on the back of the piece.

There was no signature on this board or any way of identifying the piece. The only thing was a strip of newpaper stuck on its back.

I am not a conservator - you are absolutely correct. I do have a conservator locally whom I consult with on a regular basis and have learned a great deal from her over the years.

You are questioning how I did this - and I told you with extreme care. This includes the surgical glove treatment. When I get something in that is very old or very valuable - I snap on the gloves. All dissassembly is done in front of the client. Great care is taken here.
Click to expand...
 
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PAMELA DESIMONE,CPF:
...we list any damage to the print, and included is a section where it says "preservation matting was discussed and accepted/declined", preservation glass was accepted/declined" etc...I don't know if the report would stand up in court, but it can't hurt. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bob's right according to my lawyer -- the report probably wouldn't win a court case. Your best chance of defense is to prove that you used generally accepted framing practices, as verified by expert witnesses -- yours vs. theirs.

But the disclaimer serves a more immediate purpose. It gives the skeptical customer pause, and reinforces your sincere concern for the work. When asked to sign the disclaimer, most of my customers listen more carefully to a review of the recommended features, and end up taking at least some of our advice. Occasionally we decline a job. Painful as that option is, it is much less painful than going to court.

In any case, we fulfill our responsibility to inform the customer. That done, he/she goes away with realistic expectations about the finished project. If there is damage later, it should be no surprise. Documentation on the dustcover (and inside the frame) serves as a reminder of our long-forgotten warnings.

The problem comes when the customer misunderstands a given frame design's preservative value, or is left to assume that all custom framing is pretty much alike in terms of preservative value, or simply forgets our warnings. In these cases, the customer is more likely to seek compensation/legal retribution.

The best defense is up-front understanding and cooperation. "How to Promote and Sell Preservation Framing" (coming to the Las Vegas and New York shows) is a whole course about this very topic.

If a framer ends up a defendant in court, it's probably too late. Whether the framer would win or lose may be a moot point, because bankruptcy often comes before the court's decision. Beware the revenge-seeking consumer.


[This message has been edited by Jim Miller (edited January 12, 2002).]
 
Create a Post
Back
Top