Opinions Wanted What do you know about F.A.C.T.S. ?

Create a Post
Keith L Hewitt

Keith L Hewitt

SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
Forum Donor
Joined
May 26, 2006
Posts
1,616
Loc
Bollington England
Business
Mfg & exporting mat boards
I need your help as I'm attending a couple of meetings this month, and need some views and opinions from USA/Canadian framers.

What can you framers tell me about F.A.C.T.S. - without first looking at their web site - http://www.artfacts.org/index.html
Please answer these few questions.

1) Have you heard of FACTS? Please post a No or Yes - even if you dont want to answer the following questions.
2) If Yes - how has it influenced your framing?
3) What would you like to see FACTS to do in the future?
4) Have you heard of the F.A.T.G.?
5) If yes - What do they do?

PLEASE - dont simply move onto the next topic, if you have not heard of FACTS. Just post a "NO" - then it will give me accurate feed back. Thank you
 
Last edited:
Three hours and still no replies? OK, so they are three of the darker hours of the day. (5, 6, and 7am EST on a Sunday) but surely some of you set the alarm to get up early and be the first responding post.

1. Yes, I have heard of FACTS. In fact, I was one who gave some of the original input to it.
2. The main way it has influenced my framing is because I can say "FACTS standards strongly recommend the glass be two mats' depth from the artwork [so quit trying to save two pennies by buying only one mat]" and once you know the correct way, it is harder to compromise for the sake of expediency.
3. I fear FACTS is now permanent, unless someone else wants to step up and band their head against a brick wall for a while. But it is pretty good as it is....
4. Yes.
5. It's kinda like PPFAish, but they talk more elegant (except for Sheila Pursglove... she already talks elegant.) Maybe I might even do their certification, if only to have a tax deductible trip to the UK.
 
The Fine Art Care and Treatment Standards were well written in the mid-90s and are still valid, for as far as they go. The originally-stated purpose was to develop, maintain, and promote better framing standards for the benefit of framers.

I chaired the FACTS Education Committee for about two years, developing a two-hour educational lecture and PowerPoint presentation for framers, which was officially introduced during a meeting of supporters at Jay Goltz's Chicago gallery in 2002, as I recall. All of the lectures were presented at trade shows, distributor events, and PPFA chapter meetings by volunteers at their own expense, but Nona Powers and I did most of them. During that period FACTS grew, died, was reborn, and died again.

The standards were good, but the FACTS administration was not. As a 501-C-3 charity, the ogranization was always begging for donations. One serious issue was that there was never a clear accounting of where the money went, which turned away most of the framers and corporations who supported FACTS.

Near its end, in 2005 as I recall, the organization's leaders decided to promote FACTS as an independent agency for developing material standards, and not for the benefit of framers. That reversal of purpose, in addition to the financial issues, brought an end to widespread support.

FACTS was dormant (again) for several years before FATG picked it up.

I am familiar with the Fine Art Trade Guild and earned the Guild Commended Framer designation some years ago. I would also like to earn FATG's newer, advanced credentials.
 
Thanks Ellen and Jim for your replies. You 2 obviously know plenty about FACTS and Jim is on the ball to know its been merged with the F.A.T.G.
But there were 48 others who viewed, but didn't post.
:help:Can I ask anyone who reads this post, and who has not heard of FACTS just to post the word "NO" And to answer the subsequent questions. I need some feedback

Many thanks :D
 
Sorry for the delay Keith, but I don't read the Grumble when I am sleeping.....:p


  • 1 - Yes
  • 2 - It made me more aware about framing conservation standards
  • 3 - Keep updating the standards as new materials are introduced into the framing world.
  • 4 - No.
 
Yes I am familiar with FACTS and have read several sections of it. FACTS is wriiten best practices that have been used by many framers for some time. I started with a conservator so much of what is there is what I had been doing for fine art. I was glad to see some written standards that framers could refer to to gain some uniformity in the industry.

I don't necessarily agree that every item should be treated as priceless as FACTS has strived to do. Mass produced junk has been touted as priceless by framers and framing has been priced accoringly. I have seen this all or nothing attitude has been the downfall of many out of business framers.

FATG I have heard of and read none.
 
1) Have you heard of FACTS? Yes
2) If Yes - how has it influenced your framing? It got me thinking about and working with standards instead of making up my own. It got me more involved in the framing community as a whole: Trade shows, PPFA, etc.
3) What would you like to see FACTS to do in the future? Survive and expand
4) Have you heard of the F.A.T.G.? Yes
5) If yes - What do they do? Goals similar to FACTS
 
Here in sunny CA it is still early, especially on a Sunday!

  1. Yes
  2. Very little direct influence - use it mainly as a talking point with clients, along with many other reference entities such as CCI
  3. How much can be done from beyond the grave? Isn't it dead?
  4. Yes
  5. UK based trade association with unrealized global aspirations
 
Keith, you must have thought long and hard about your questions. Especially #1 in asking 'have you heard' instead of "what have you heard or know".

It makes my heart sad and happy at the same time to see that the score is currently about even.

Having been around when Don and Kris dreamed up this retirement plan and essentially tried to hold up the leaders in the industry as well as PPFA.... It carries a foul taste in my mouth. The adoption of it's support was conditional on the cease and desist of the Guild arm of the PPFA.
The Guild was independent of vendors and store owners. It was a collective of the masses of picture framers who were the workers in the trenches. For $25/yr, we gathered information (phone, fax and US Snail in those days.... if we had internet back then, it would still be going today), and put out a dang fine 4 page newsletter from the third month. Don's scheme killed that fine collective of framers, restorers, and some of the instructors for restoration at Stanford University who saw this as an avenue towards scientific education of framers in the use of best practices, instead of the vision of one man who had no serious education beyond experience.

Jim holds his input as a badge of virtue, and may very well be. But I also know that there were many who did hundreds of hours of scientific research on information and practices only to have that information blocked because it didn't fit Don's private little manifesto. A few years back, the discussion of some of the information and the organization itself was heatedly debated on this forum.

The loud and powerful "insiders" discredited disparagingly the less noted, yet no less informed and diligent in the search for the truth. All of us on the "outside" who weren't drinking the kool-aid were painted with a brush usually reserved for lunatic fringe.

The cult factor quieted somewhat when Don retired, but passed the lectern and bloated paycheck for doing less than was promised to his wife/girlfriend/whatever Kris. When even that was looking like a bad move, they tried to sell the corporation to PPFA. Some said that PPFA didn't have the money was the reason it fell through, but the real reason was it's illegal to sell that kind of non-profit corp..... "because you would be selling it for a profit".

IF FatG can get it together, and allow it all to be reviewed and corrected by the different museum/conservators/preservationist then there stands a shot of the manifesto actually being used, and adopted.

Sorry for Frankenthreading, but just felt that the air needed a little window opened..... IMHO

So here are your answers:

1) Have you heard of FACTS? Unfortunately
2) If Yes - how has it influenced your framing? **** no.
3) What would you like to see FACTS to do in the future? Die
 4) Have you heard of the F.A.T.G.? yes
5) If yes - What do they do? A weak version of the PPFA based in the UK.
 
That wasn't a Frankenthread. It was an editorial - and insulting to those who worked long and hard on FACTS with only the good of the industry in mind.
 
And how insulting is it when a volunteer works hundreds of hours doing due diligence researching glass and it's characteristics and properties, only to have the patriarch kill the research because it disproved what he wanted to have stand as a Fact?
I never said the people who worked long and hard to move the industry forward were wrong...... it was the editorial execution of the administration that and the reaching out and killing that which was good for the industry that stokes my coals.
I also hope that FatG can rectify and bring a greatness to the industry that helps unify this very small community.
 
1) Have you heard of FACTS? Yes.
2) If Yes - how has it influenced your framing? It has by default, as in I believe it has influenced the manufacturers of our framing materials and our educators which trickles down to the framers.
3) What would you like to see FACTS to do in the future? Keep on keepin' on.
4) Have you heard of the F.A.T.G.? No.
5) If yes - What do they do?

As an aside, it makes me sad to have been unfortunate enough to have been privy to back-biting and personality conflicts behind the scenes in our industry as far back as the old days of the Hendrixson/Carrithers hissy fits and I guess I have always found these types of revelations to be unsettling.
 
1. Yes, and i have read them and snored thru most of the reading
2. Yes, thru the trickle down effect, which is a heck of a lot more interesting and entertaining. In the end, I make my own decision.
3. Yes, but make it more realistic.
4. Yes
5. Have no idea
 
Just want to say a big " Thanks " to all who have replied so far.

To Baer I should explain I know very little about FACTS, and did not put any long thought into my question #1. Either framers have heard of it or not. The 2nd question gives anyone the chance to elaborate :-)

Its now bedtime over here - so look forward to reading again Mon am.
 
Yes, I know about it. I remember when they came out, thinking
it was good to have some sort of industry standard for definitions
and guidelines. But I haven't ever read the whole thing, just a few
pieces of it.

I'd say that it's influenced my framing for the better, though.
Even though I've not studied the document, it seemed to me
that the creation of it helped to raise awareness of the importance
of good framing technique. Whatever flaws such a document might
have, or any frustrations and misunderstandings in the making of it,
the net result of getting people interested in learning more seems
a great plus to me.

I'm just a small town framer, and not a mover and shaker
in the industry, so what I think wouldn't matter a lot. But it's
the average framer who the crafters of this probably hoped
it would help, and so I appreciate that they took the time. I
think it's helped to broaden and deepen the understanding that
people have about what good preservation techniques, and
to give people a common frame of reference for future discussion.

The way I see it, something like that is almost certain to have
flaws, and often it's only time and experience that reveal those
with clarity. But at least it's a springboard for those future
conversations and growth to take place. I'd rather we have
an industry that seeks to improve itself than one that doesn't
give a hang about such things.

Keith, I'm not familiar with FATG, but I'm in a bit of a bubble,
so my lack of knowledge in that regard is of little note.
 
As to what I'd like to see FACTS do in the future, I don't know
enough about it to speak to specific changes. But I do appreciate
having been given so many good resources, and I think it's affected
the tone of conversation in the framing industry. If they can manage
to stay fluid, open to possible changes of view, and continue to invigorate
the framing community around the value using high quality framing
materials, then that would be a useful service. Then they would be wise to
winnow their output to that which is truly new information. Otherwise,
people could easily begin to see future editions as being self-derivative and
redundant. They should only update it with things that are truly worth sharing,
and in that way, they'll continue to be heard.

Spoken freely by someone who's a speck on the eye
of a fly on the wall of the framing industry. :)
 
Yes, I have heard of and read much of FACTS and it has been one of several influences (including The Grumble) that has pushed me to move away from some of the wacky techniques I learned from the gentleman who taught me, and toward more of the industry standards. (All of which can also be a bit intimidating at times, too.)

Haven't heard of FATG.

It is always good to have lots of places to look for information and guidance.
 
I forgot to add that I think it's influenced my framing
in an oblique but very real way. By keeping the focus
of the industry on good preservation techniques, they've
helped to create demand for better products. I just learned
how to make mulberry hinges with rice starch last year,
and I'm so glad that they were available. I also try to
educate my customers as to the different levels of matboard
and glass available.

By establishing guidelines for product quality, things like FACTS
surely give the industry benchmarks of quality to aspire to.
That can help to keep the quality level of products at a high
level, and keep companies investing in finding new improvements.
In this economy, it's true that many companies are cutting corners,
but I hope that framing industry quality demands will stay at a high
enough level for our suppliers to keep maintain product integrity
and find a reward in so doing.
 
Jeff Rodier said:
I don't necessarily agree that every item should be treated as priceless as FACTS has strived to do.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter now, but that always was the most popular myth about FACTS. It never was true.

The Fine Art Care and Treatment Standards address only preservation framing methods and materials, and make no judgments about decorative items.

If another group had created Junk Art Care and Treatment Standards, there might have been a myth that everything should be treated as junk, and that one wouldn't have been true, either.
 
1) Have you heard of FACTS? Yes.

2) If Yes - how has it influenced your framing? I've read parts of it, but it hasn't influenced my framing much.

3) What would you like to see FACTS to do in the future? I'd need to read it over much more carefully to be able to give suggestions. I would think that since the techniques and materials used in working with Fine Art do change over time, that FACTS, in order to be useful and informative, should be updated as the understandings of how Fine Art should be handled in better understood.

4) Have you heard of the F.A.T.G.? Yes.

5) If yes - What do they do? No idea, but I'll go now and find out!
 
Keith L Hewitt said:
1) Have you heard of FACTS?
Click to expand...
Yes

Keith L Hewitt said:
2) If Yes - how has it influenced your framing?
Click to expand...
We don't do framing, but we have used it to standardize our terminology for frame measuring, including the requirement that our customers use the same terminology.

Keith L Hewitt said:
3) What would you like to see FACTS to do in the future?
Click to expand...
--

Keith L Hewitt said:
4) Have you heard of the F.A.T.G.?
Click to expand...
Yes

Keith L Hewitt said:
5) If yes - What do they do?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure, but I believe that they establish standards, as well as provide certification for both framing knowledge and skills - kind of a combination of PPFA and FACTS.
 
1) Have you heard of FACTS?
Yes. We supported it with small donations years ago, read the whole document, posted a link on our preservation framing web page, and Jeff attended a class on in with Nona at WCAF.

2) If Yes - how has it influenced your framing?
By association and trickle down education, but the standards are so stringent that some of it is impractical for everyday purposes.

3) What would you like to see FACTS to do in the future?
Be redone and made more practical for the working framer. It was never clear to us, for instance, who determined how many inches the wood frame must be from the art. There are a lot of pronouncements like this in the document that are not always practical for much of what we frame.
Revison and updating would take money and after the sour taste it left in the mouths of many, I wonder if that funding woudl ever come. I respect the work that went in to FACTS and hope that one day we will have a clear and concise document that standardizes preservation framing.
4) Have you heard of the F.A.T.G.?
Yes

5) If yes - What do they do?
UK trade association similar to PPFA with certification available to its menbers.
 
Yes, I have heard about FACTS.

I use the term often in relation to fine art that I am framing. The trickle down effect is probably how it has most likely affected me. I do use the term when trying make a point with a customer on the care of their artwork.

I have heard of the FATG and knew it had something to do with industry.

I am also one of those that looked at this and did not get to answer the first time.
 
1) Have you heard of FACTS? Please post a No or Yes - even if you don't want to answer the following questions.
2) If Yes - how has it influenced your framing?
3) What would you like to see FACTS to do in the future?
4) Have you heard of the F.A.T.G.?
5) If yes - What do they do?

1) Yes
2) helps confirm the standards of framing which we offer
3) continue to update info & standards.
4) Yes
5) Fine Art Trade Guild offers information in helping the Artist/Framers upgrade their craft Primarily in the UK. Similar to PPFA but has a broader range of members, offers a certification through written exam + a test of skills by having to actually perform the skills needed to do the framing. Not simular to PPFA since it does promote it's members.

Gumby's F.A.T.G. certificate # is 550
 
1) F.A.C.T.S. – yes.

2) Promotes the ideal, but not always the most practical or necessary.

3). Address real world situations.

4) F.A.T.G – yes.

5) No first hand experience, but according to many on Framer’s Forum, Guild does very little except promote the exclusivity of its own own members rather than the industry as a whole.
 
Yes. I was one of the one's that sloughed through the first couple years of the technical writing. I dropped out after a couple years (I guess the fact that I was volunteering my services and having to pay a pretty healthy premium diminished my interests) and joined back up when there was a surge of interest in getting the standards completed and out to the framer. I don't recall any of the subterfuge that Baer mentions, but then I was not that close to the top.
Yes, FACTS made me more keenley aware of the need for preservation framing standards and the standardization of the lexicon of the industry.
No opinion.
Yes.
I thought they were the UK version of PPFA.
 
FACTS One mans tenacious dream !

# 1 Yes

# 2 FACTS was very influential in the framing industry,
early on. They produced guidelines not standards. Standards can get you sued !

# 3 FACTS has seen it's day ! Nothing !

# 4 Yes

# 5 Years ago they provided a ligitiment numbering system ( code )
for limited edition prints . ( lithographs )

Tom
 
Disappointed !

Why is it necessary to discredit others on the G. Why is it necessary to demean a dreamer. There are 5 questions here and none of the answers warranted personal attack ! I am ashamed !
Tom
 
1. Yes
2. Improved framing techniques
3. Whether FACTS or some other group, updating always is important. Otherwise we would still be using masking tape.
4. Not until this thread.
5. N/A
 
Yes, I have heard of Facts and for the most part they were a good organization that helped set the standards for preservation in the framing industry.

However the one thing they did for me was to hold me back for several years due to misinformation and lack of understanding. They seemed to believe that because something was easy it couldn't possibly be archival. Fortunately most of the shops who took the time to watch a demonstration could easily figure out for themselves that my methods were not harmful in any way. Because of the misinformation disseminated by Facts, none of the newer archival methods were being recommended by them for several years after they were brought on to the market, and after thousands of framers were already using them. Most people who saw it for themselves didn't heed the organization's recommendations, and IMHO Facts lost a lot of credibility because of it . The fact is that even today there are some who still believe that Attach-EZ is just one tagging tool that they can buy on line, and know exactly how to use it for framing.

From my perspective, if any organization is going to have influence on the industry such as Facts did, those who are volunteering to head it up need to remain open minded and unbiased to new ideas and products. Going back to the traditional methods of the past as the only acceptable archival way is not only misguided, but unrealistic for most shops that are trying to be profitable in today's market.

Don't get me wrong, I totally respect those who volunteered and headed up Facts. I know that it was not always easy to satisfy everyone, but again there must be a balance within the organization to be effective, and to stay that way. If Facts is going to be the go to place for the industry to get advise and information on products and methods, then those who are volunteering should try to be ahead of the market, not years behind it like it was.

This also goes for PPFA and the CPF exam as well. Which I believe to be effective should be updated every 2 years. Or at the very least be amended in order to include the new products and methods that are being developed. From what I understand the test that is being used to certify framers today has not been updated for years and does not reflect the more recent methods, practices, or products available to framers. It should.

Not just for my sake, but for the sake of all the inventors like Greg Framsted and Len Lastuck, and companies like Crescent, Bainbridge, Bienfang, Frank's Fabric and a multitude of others who constantly work to keep bringing new products and ideas to the industry.

Facts should not be an organization that works against progress to keep tradition alive. They could be immensely helpful to the industry when new products come along that are better and have taken the place of the outdated. That's where I see their future and where they could be most helpful from both ends of the spectrum.
 
Hey, Keith, how's the survey working out so far?

Maybe we could save the editorializing for another thread and just answer the questions. I've met Keith. He's a nice guy. He deserves some straight answers.
 
The way things are....

Ron Eggers said:
....Maybe we could save the editorializing for another thread and just answer the questions. I've met Keith. He's a nice guy. He deserves some straight answers.
Click to expand...

Ron,

The very nature of the subject and the way Keith asked the question makes it almost manditory that some editorializing in responses is deserved.

My response will be forthcoming.

John
 
You're probably right. I can't be objective about FACTS and Keith is certainly smart enough to figure out who is.
 
Yes

Answering on a smart phone so can't really elaborate too much but
FACTS has help me focus on preservation even though I think some of
the "standards" are arbitrary.
 
Mandatory Response

# 1 Yes

# 2 yes

# 3 Update standards as the change

# 4 no

# 5 N/A
 
1. Yes I know of them.

2. Hasn't influenced me as much as other sources. However I have referred customers to graphic on 2 hangers on wall instead of one.

3. In the past I did not know who FACTS really was, and what the basis was for their "standards" - was it based on opinion or fact. Also, are their guidelines / standards current?

The Library of Congress has guidelines that I have confidence in, because I believe they have a basis for their "standards". When Hugh has opinions, I listen because I know he has a basis for his opinion.

When others have opinions I listen, but I filter based on what I think I know, and what I have heard from others. For example, when I checked about 4 years ago FACTS [on glazing] had something similar to "UV blocking qualities shall be not less than 70% of all light in the 300-400 nanometer range." Based on what I heard from other sources, the 70% was low, so I disregarded the FACTS guideline. They were out of date.

4. I have heard of them

5. I don't know what they do. I only knew they were involved in framing in the UK. I had heard of the Conservation Register in the UK, and I did know that the Conservation Register did have guidelines / standards for framing.
 
"UV blocking qualities shall be not less than 70% of all light in the 300-400 nanometer range." Based on what I heard from other sources, the 70% was low, so I disregarded the FACTS guideline. They were out of date.
Click to expand...

Actually, the FACTS glazing standard called for 50% UV blocking in the frequency range of 300 to 400 nanometers. I'm not sure it was right when it was written.

UV blocking specifications would be difficult to compare when they include different ranges of light frequency. The only glazing specifications I've studied are from Tru-Vue. Their UV-blocking tests are in the frequency range
of 300 to 380 nanometers. They and PPFA call for 98% blocking in that frequency range.

Since (for "conservation" glazing) there is a very steep curve of light transmission from almost zero to almost 100% between 380 and 400 nm, most of the UV light between 380 and 400 nanometers probably would be transmitted and not blocked. So averaging for that 20 nm wider frequency range, from 300 to 400 nm, would drag down the average percentage of UV blocking.

I'm not sure, but maybe an average of 70% UV blocking in the range of 300 to 400 nanometers would be roughly the same as an average of 98% in the range of 300 to 380 nanometers.

Maybe RealHotGlass can set us straight on this.
 
facts

1. yes
2. provides standards of reference
3. Fact check the science, make some determinations about materials
4. Yes
5. UK framers association

Editorial Comment:
I gave money to this organization when there was little to go around because Nona Powers asked me to at a show in Atlanta. I never heard from them again. It has been enlightening to read these posts.

I hope that the new home might breathe some new life into what is a truly noble and useful concept. I am pretty familiar with the standards, but still refer to them with some frequency when some truly dicey job presents itself.
 
wvframer said:
Editorial Comment:
I gave money to this organization when there was little to go around because Nona Powers asked me to at a show in Atlanta. I never heard from them again.
Click to expand...

Your experience is universal. FACTS never provided an accounting for the donations. That was a huge embarrassment for Nona, for me, and for others who publicly supported FACTS.

If I was among those who asked you to donate to FACTS, then please accept my personal apology.

I hope that the new home might breathe some new life into what is a truly noble and useful concept.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is a useful concept. Let us hope its history has not doomed it forever and that FATG can bring it back to life without our donations.
 
I to made a small contribution to FACTS in Atlanta, I was not asked for it, I made the contribution voluntary as I had already gained quite a bit from what FACTS had to offer and have continued over the years to gain from what FACTS have to offer.

Back some time ago I made another attempt to provide a small contribution on this occasion the offer was declined.

I have no idea what the plans are for FACTS going forward but I won’t be holding my breath for anything innovative or progressive if the FATG are involved, I’m sad to have this view but I think the involvement of the FATG will be the final nail in the coffin of FACTS.
 
Framing: said:
I think the involvement of the FATG will be the final nail in the coffin of FACTS.
Click to expand...

That's a fact!

Under their name I have recently seen demonstrated -

1. Loose threads on the back of a X stitch folded back and fixed with glue.

2. Silicone for medals - the guy actually passed around a coin stuck on to matboard with silicone and said if anyone could remove it, without REALLY forcing it off, they could keep the coin.

3. Article in their trade mag - framing wedding rings - with superglue.
 
RoboFramer said:
That's a fact!

Under their name I have recently seen demonstrated -

1. Loose threads on the back of a X stitch folded back and fixed with glue.

2. Silicone for medals - the guy actually passed around a coin stuck on to matboard with silicone and said if anyone could remove it, without REALLY forcing it off, they could keep the coin.

3. Article in their trade mag - framing wedding rings - with superglue.
Click to expand...

Superglue!!!!:eek: That stuff in an enclosed space makes crazy amounts of nasty gassy vapour..that sticks to everything!! Forensics labs use small gently heated cups of it ,under an airtight enclosure to find fingerprints on difficult surfaces,because the clouds of white powdery vapour sticks to em!! L.
 
Jim Miller said:
Your experience is universal. FACTS never provided an accounting for the donations. That was a huge embarrassment for Nona, for me, and for others who publicly supported FACTS.

Jim, I got value for my money. It was a small amount, maybe $30, about what I would have paid for a book. I would have gladly kept paying in order to support it. I never knew until today what happened. No wonder the room goes quiet anytime I mention it in polite company!
Click to expand...
 
An update

Thanks to all who contributed to this thread.

I have been asked to make it clear for those not familiar with the abbreviation F.A.T.G. - it stands for Fine Art Trade Guild, as this is the better known name in U.S.A and Canada.

3 meetings have been held - Las Vegas, Birmingham and Bologna. It was generally agreed that a merging of the 2 standards, to create one world standard will be the best way forward.

The work will require some funding, and it is planned that this will come from the mat board mfgs. No contributions will be expected from any framers or trainers/lecturers.
 
Create a Post
Back
Top