• Welcome to the Framer's Corner Forum, hosted by the Professional Picture Framers Association. (PPFA)
    You will have to register a free account, before you can SEARCH or access the system. If you have already registered, please LOG IN
    If you have already registered, but can't remember your password, CLICK HERE to reset it.
Picture Framing Magazine

Better than Museum Glass???

D

Douglas Highfield

PPFA Member Former PPFA President 1994-1995
OAKS CLUB
Messages
1
Loc
Irving (Dallas) TX
Company
Art Enhancement Inc.
I'm being dogged by a designer who said the Museum Glass we used on several pieces is not the right stuff. He maintains there is a glass that is better - completely invisible. He maintains that you have to walk up and touch it to tell there is glass there - I told him that's the definition of about Museum Glass. He said what about a glass called Masterpiece, I've given him all the information from discussions here on the Grumble,but he still maintains there is something better

I doubt there is anything else in this country, or I would have heard about it. Does anyone know if there might be something else from Europe?

Thank you
 
Masterpiece is a trade name for Museum Glass used by Michael's stores. I have seen it referred to on a stamp collecting web site as well. http://www.masterpieceglass.org/

There are some laminated glazing products that might be superior to Museum Glass, but the cost would be prohibitive for most custom framing purposes. There is no better glass available at an affordable price in terms of UV protection and clarity than Tru Vue's Museum Glass.

Even Museum Glass has some reflectivity under some lighting conditions. But in most cases is as near invisible as you can get. My display frequently prompts questions about whether there is really glass in the frame.

If there is something better out there, I haven't heard of it either.
 
The thing with glass is, that the less light it reflects by distortion such as standard clear, the more light it allows onto the artwork. So if an artwork is framed with just optically coated glass without the u.v. protection, it will fade faster than an artwork that is framed with non-reflective glass. Someone can prove me wrong here if you like.
 
Kai Vanuffelen said:
The thing with glass is, that the less light it reflects by distortion such as standard clear, the more light it allows onto the artwork. So if an artwork is framed with just optically coated glass without the u.v. protection, it will fade faster than an artwork that is framed with non-reflective glass. Someone can prove me wrong here if you like.
Click to expand...

Ok, you're wrong.

Take a look at the Tru Vue website and look at the specs on their various types of glass.

Premium clear (no added UV protection): Blocks 45% of UV light

Reflection Control (etched surface, no added UV protection): Blocks 45% of UV light

AR Reflection Free (anti reflective coating, no added UV protection): Blocks 78% of UV light

Conservation Clear (UV filtering coating applied): Blocks 99% of UV light

Museum Glass (anti reflective coating, UV filtering coating): Blocks 99% of UV light



Note that while 78% is better than 45%, it still falls far well short of the 97% standard of the IPI and ISO.
 
As stated Masterpiece IS Museum.

as for "better" - it depends what you mean by better

Artglass UV has better color fidelity (it's water white) with optical coating for reduced reflection.
But it is rated at 92% UV protection, so does not meet conservation standards.

but, it does look better to me and many of my customers.
 
Good to know these statistics. I was just using my gut-feeling and still find it hard to believe that standard non-reflective glass lets in more u.v. light than optically coated glass without a u.v. blocking coat. Perhaps the standard clear and non-reflective glazing blocks other wavelengths more.
It's the same as standing on the moon and looking up at the heavens. The number of stars you can see overthere compared to on this planet is so much more. Of course the chance of developing melanoma while stargazing for days on end on the moon also increases.
 
Kai Vanuffelen said:
It's the same as standing on the moon and looking up at the heavens. The number of stars you can see overthere compared to on this planet is so much more. Of course the chance of developing melanoma while stargazing for days on end on the moon also increases.
Click to expand...

Wait, what?

Apollo astronauts reported that they saw very few stars on while on the moon's surface, and photos taken there do not show any stars.

Although the sky appears pitch black from the lunar surface, the sun is very bright and the regolith is rather reflective. Therefore the astronauts' pupils were greatly constricted and the stars were washed out by the bright sun and lunar soil. Imagine standing in the middle of a parking lot at night with bright street lights around you. The sky might be dark, but you're not llikely to see any stars.

A similar explanation shows why stars aren't visible in photographs. The film and camera setting were all chosen with one thing in mind: to take pictures of the moon's surface and astronauts in white suits, not stars.

More info: http://www.clavius.org/stars.html

Not that any of this has anything to do with Museum Glass.
 
If the astronauts had landed on the dark side of the moon during a solar eclipse a different picture would have emerged, but then there would not have been live pictures and communication between the moon and earth. Even if they had landed during a lunar eclipse on the side visible from earth, earth's reflection would have played havock. Then again David - you are a walking encyclopedia. You will win a million dollars in the game of Master mind on t.v. Do they have this on American telly? You may have seen the movie Slumdog Millionaire.
 
'Masterpiece' is the brand name that Michael's/Aaron Brothers uses for museum glass. I believe that this is their default glazing type, when an order is priced.

It was explained to me once that Masterpiece rolls off the same assembly line as Museum Glass, but doesn't have to meet the same quality control standards as MG. I'm not sure if that claim is true or not, but they are the same product.

We have had many big box jobs come into our shop for repairs with 'masterpiece', and it looked exactly the same as MG.

It may be a case where the big box was very effective in selling the benefits of their product, comparing it with premium clear and CC sold by most other indys.

Mike
Get The Picture
Lincoln, RI
 
You're correct, Mike. Here's a copypasta job from a post I made on another forum explaining the difference:

TruVue gets their glass from their factory outside of Chicago where the UV-filtering coating is applied. It's then shipped to Faribault, Minnesota to their plant where the anti-reflective coating is applied. As it comes out of the long line it's inspected automatically by cameras. If the glass meets their standards it goes on and is boxed up in Museum Glass boxes and shipped out. If it falls short then it's shunted off to another area where it's packaged in the black and white Masterpiece Glass boxes which is sold exclusively to Michael's.


Now what those standards are I don't know; I imagine it's proprietary information. It's probably something like it must have fewer than X flaws of Y microns or larger per square meter.


So Michael's has decided that for the money it's worth the extra time and labor for their framers to cut around the flaws and accept more waste. Or maybe some framers there don't care and they're willing to send out glass with flaws. Who knows. So that's why Michael's is able to sell the glass at such a low price, and if you're willing to deal with a few flaws here and there it's a great bargain.

So, I have no idea where the framer in the OP got the idea that its better than Museum Glass.
 
Douglas Highfield said:
I'm being dogged by a designer who said the Museum Glass we used on several pieces is not the right stuff. He maintains there is a glass that is better - completely invisible. He maintains that you have to walk up and touch it to tell there is glass there...
Click to expand...

Optically coated glass and acrylic products are all quite similar in terms of appearance, with light transmission (clarity) of 97% to 99%. Museum Glass, AR Glass, Ultra Vue, Museum Optium Acrylic, and Optium Acrylic are all from the Tru Vue Glass Company in Chicago.

ArtGlass (GroGlass), Claryl (recently bankrupt), and Flabeg are single-layer glass products from Europe, similar to Tru Vue's products. Schott, Luxar, and a few others, also from Europe, are brands of 2-layer laminated glass products having greater shatter-resistance by virtue of the elastic coating between the 2 layers. The laminated glass products are more costly and used mostly by museums. Some of them have UV filtering up to 100%, and some are almost bullet-proof.

All of these glazing products would be invisible in carefully-controlled lighting, but none of them would be invisible in ordinary lighting. It is important to understand that the visual/optical differences your customer has seen are due to differences in the display lighting, and are not due to significant differences among the glazing products.

He said what about a glass called Masterpiece...
Click to expand...
Masterpiece Glass, as noted by others, is also a Tru Vue product brand-named for Michaels craft stores. Generally, it is the same product as Museum Glass and is produced on the same production lines in Faribault, Minnesota. The only difference is that the quality-control specifications are somewhat relaxed for Masterpiece Glass, allowing more and greater flaws.
 
Jim- do you know who made Crescent's Crystal View UV AR? It is still by far the best looking glass I have ever used. You may recall that the product was discontinued before distribution when Crescent bought Miller from Tru-Vue and Tru-Vue bought Crystal View from Crescent and never put it into distribution.

I still have my sample boxes (and several pieces in my home framed with it). It is a water white (low iron) UV filtering product, though I cannot find my Crescent literature regarding the percentage of UV filtration. Maybe it is the same as Artglass?
 
Rob Markoff said:
Jim- do you know who made Crescent's Crystal View UV AR? It is still by far the best looking glass I have ever used. You may recall that the product was discontinued before distribution when Crescent bought Miller from Tru-Vue and Tru-Vue bought Crystal View from Crescent and never put it into distribution.

I still have my sample boxes (and several pieces in my home framed with it). It is a water white (low iron) UV filtering product, though I cannot find my Crescent literature regarding the percentage of UV filtration. Maybe it is the same as Artglass?
Click to expand...

I can't be sure of the source for "Crystal View," but I believe the other Crescent glass products were manufactured by Guardian.
 
Rob, I believe I saw a partial box of Crystal View Glass when we moved last May. I have not looked at it in years, but I remember that I did not like it. Is Crystal View the product that had a strange Newton-Ring-like surface appearance, or is it the one that was micro-etched and almost impossible to clean?

Now that you've got me curious, I'll have to dig out the old box.
 
Jim- Please check to see if you can find the old box. I agree with Rick that you may be confusing Crystal View with something else. Unless you were "consulting" for Crescent, I don't see how you could have a box as the product never made it into distribution.

Crystal View was a low iron optically coated (sputtered) product that is super easy to clean and almost disappears. There is no "roping" but there are no specs re: the percentage of UV filtering so I do not have a basis of comparison. All I know is that it is the best looking product I have seen....and since Tru Vue "bought" the product from Crescent, they surely know what it is and how it was made....and if they felt it was superior, would have adopted the technology - or perhaps Crescent was only a distributor and the product is really what is known today as Artglass?
 
Rob Markoff said:
....and since Tru Vue "bought" the product from Crescent, they surely know what it is and how it was made....and if they felt it was superior, would have adopted the technology
Click to expand...

Or, they bought a competing company and closed it down. Even if the product was superior, maybe the profit margin was too low, or they didn't feel there was a market for it, or who knows what.
 
WCAF 2025
Back
Top