Today I opened an old picture that I framed over 20 years ago. What I found on the inside of this picture was the print and backing board looking the same as the day I framed it. The backing board was non acid free clay and shows no sign of doing harm to the picture. It got me to thinking and now am wondering where the archival acid free stuff came into the picture and why clay has got such a bad rap? Not saying that people shouldn't use acid free, just wondering why the clay has been thought to do harm? I'm not sure I've ever seen a picture that was harmed from using clay backing boards, cardboard yes, but not clay. It seems to be the same thing on other old pictures that have come in to be re done. So where did the idea come from that clay will do harm? Just curious.
Question Where did it come from?
- Thread starter JP Herb
- Start date
The Wavy Framer
SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
I have reframed old art backed on FC, and have not seen visible damage, but the FC had turned yellowish.
Damage to art or photos is not always visible.
Damage to art or photos is not always visible.
I have reframed old art backed on FC, and have not seen visible damage, but the FC had turned yellowish.
Damage to art or photos is not always visible.
If it doesn't show then how can a person tell if the art has been damaged? I didn't see anything that made me think there was damage to the one I just got back to re do after over 20 years with the foam board on the back of the print. The glass was dirty, (smokers) but cleaned up great. Is the old stuff supposed to out gas more? and when is clay ok to use today?
Are you referring to standard foam board? If not, could you provide some description other than "clay"? In my limited experience, most framers use paperboard backings, or foam boards covered by paper.
I'm talking about the not acid free claycoat foam board that people used for years before it became to be known as not proper for good frming. This is the stuff that was on the back of the 20 y o re do we just opened. It would have been Crsnt. or Bain. because they were the only two I ever used back in the late 80's to 90 s. I think it's called clay coat foam board today. Don't remember what it was called back then.
I know they use paper board backing now. So do I. I'm just wondering why clay is thought to do harm. I don't see it.
That's what I thought, but thanks for the clarification.
To my knowledge, the problem with foam boards was not the cover material, but offgassing from the expanded polystyrene core. I can still remember how the odor of plastic permeated the whole shop when we opened a carton of foam board, back in the day. Nowadays the foam board makers use better manufacturing processes that remove nearly all of the nasty gasses from the plastic core material, and the covering materials are better, as well.
Problems with the old foam boards were generally associated with chemical reactivity in the closed environment of a frame. With the composition of the framing materials unknown, potential chemical reactions inside the closed frame were (and still are) unpredictable. It always has been true that extremes of temperature, moisture, or light exposure could amplify destructive chemical reactions in the frame package.
Today, good-quality plastic products are commonly used in picture frames, such as fluted polypropylene, polystyrene foam, polyester, and acrylic, and they generally cause no problems in normal ambient conditions. However, high temperature, high moisture, and intense/prolonged light exposure can promote deterioration.
I'm no chemist, but the explanation might be that your fortunate frame has spent the past two decades in a moderate environment that did not promote destructive chemical reactions.
pwalters
SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
And while you might not see damage, you don't know what condition that piece originally was when it was brought to that framer originally. So it may have changed and you just don't have a point of comparison. It also could be more fragile and impacted in ways that aren't visible to the naked eye. Tough to tell. I've taken apart hundreds of things that were framed during various eras and very rarely is there not something noticeable about the piece if it has been framed incorrectly or with inferior components.
Paul, I believe he was reframing a piece he had framed originally, so he has a better chance of noticing any visible change.
JPHerb, I have noticed the same thing, even with pieces that were not hung in ideal environmental conditions. I'm not ready to draw any conclusions from the odd bit of data when I do see so much damage from what were acceptable framing practices several decades ago. There are just too many variables and too many unknowns. I try to stick with the best current information and hope it doesn't prove erroneous.
JPHerb, I have noticed the same thing, even with pieces that were not hung in ideal environmental conditions. I'm not ready to draw any conclusions from the odd bit of data when I do see so much damage from what were acceptable framing practices several decades ago. There are just too many variables and too many unknowns. I try to stick with the best current information and hope it doesn't prove erroneous.
I did frame the print over 20 years ago. It was new back then and the only damage I can find is a little yellowing on the front of the print where there was a half inch of white boarder between the picture and the mat. We didn't have UV glass when this print was framed. Under the mat it is perfectly white, but the exposed boarder is yellowed. From the back it doesn't look any different from the day it was done. Guess I will continue to use the good stuff unless money is a problem. Don't see any reason not to use the clay for jobs where we might not get the work if we can't best the competition. Some may not think that it is a good idea but I need to make a living.
pwalters
SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
Sorry JP. My reading comprehension didn't fire up correct that day. I did read where you said you had framed it first. Just didn't connect. So you are seeing changes on the art? Sounds like it from your last post. If so, then that's why. YMMV
No, the only changes to the art were on the front side that was exposed to the uv light. Under the mat and on the back there was no sign of change to the print. I've seen that happen on pictures that had the AF foam board and and no uv glass that were only framed for 5 years so I don't think it has anything to do with the backing board. The yellow came from uv exposure.
pwalters
SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
No possibility that the paper changed at all? Even ever so slightly? No chance your memory of it from 20 years ago has made you think it wasn't just a little brighter, more flexible, etc?
Guess it could be but sure dosn't look like it. if all there is after over 20 years is changes that are so small I can't see them I'm more inclinded to use clay on cheap jobs now. It sure beats the cardboard that I find behind old pitures all the time. Just opened one yesterday. Limited Edition print from the late 80s that has some value. The print was higned with masking tape, and the whole package was stapled to the frame with a cardboard backing. Give me clay any day to that mess. the cardboard WAS damaging the print in a way that I could see.
SusanG
SGF, Supreme Grumble Framer
I sure wish that "Preservator" Hugh would chime in. I think that he posted once that he took apart some clayed coated fomeboard packages that had gotten some water damage and things were not too bad. Hugh should tell about it though, not me. I would love to hear Hugh's position on this.
Susan
Susan
- Joined
- Nov 5, 1997
- Posts
- 3,722
- Business
- Full time grey nomad traveling Oz!
I have taken apart frames where clay coated foamboard was used as backing and they have changed dramatically. Colour changes as well as patches and spots of what looks like acid damage. My town is on the coast and the climate is quite humid. I'm guessing that Texas is a pretty dry climate which is the exact opposite. Perhaps the dry climate is a factor?
We never know when a customer is going to move or send framed art to a different climate, so perhaps it's wise to use products that are know to be safe!
We never know when a customer is going to move or send framed art to a different climate, so perhaps it's wise to use products that are know to be safe!
One factor that often gets overlooked is the composition of the artwork itself. Some is going to be more resistant to nastiness than others. A more delicate print or whatever in the identical frame may not have fared so well over the years. And there is also the question of the environment it had been hanging in. I've seen really old watercolours framed in contact with really acidic materials that show no signs of damage at all.