Storing painted art

[Bronty]

I really appreciate your posts on this thread btw

[Bronty]

do you have any critique on these? One of the Cdn distributors linked above carries the University Products line, so I was considering some of the 30 by 22 boxes shown here

 

http://www.universityproducts.com/cart.php?m=product_list&c=1842

 

One of the things I liked about them was that they appear to be grey on the outside white on the inside like my first batch.

 

 

[Bronty]

thanks for sharing that, that's a really good link. How strong are they? Do they feel like they could handle a lot of weight.

 

I would suggest considering something with metal corner supports though if you are storing pieces on illustration board. They get heavy when stacked and need the corner strength

 

http://www.conservationresources.com/Main/section_2/section2_5.htm

 

I tried the metal corners items you linked at one time, but they are a different material - more like a heavy pasteboard. However they are still very sturdy at small sizes, lighter, and more portable.

 

The ones I just got in are corrugated and are very robust. The top and the lid are both fold-to-build (like a comic box). So the sides end up being 4-pieces thick once you put the lid on. This is great for stacking.

 

However, with my 32"x40" I don't go more than 2 units high without a shelf in between because the weight makes the middle sag. By the time I get one of those loaded up with posters and interleave sheets (and I also put in archive foamcore spacers to act as dividers -- helps with browsing, just like a comic box) they are heavy enough to need two people to move.

 

hows the stacking at 30 by 20 type sizes?

 

I do like to stack these, and would be concerned about middle sag as well.

 

I have them stacked a fair bit higher than that right now without any real issues. I find 6 high is fine as long as the boxes are full, if you get 12 high or so, you risk popping a corner over time

[Bronty]

You mention interleaving paper. Do you just have sheets in between and no other protection?

 

Might I suggest using heavyweight drawing paper as a cover overtop of glassine paper (or wax paper per vodou's suggestion).

 

Its what I've seen illustrators do, so its what I copy and I like the result. The black drawing paper shields light, and provides a surface that will minimize/ eliminate rubbing from stacking, and more importantly, just makes things a little easier to handle without worrying you are going to destroy the surface.

 

I get a big piece of drawing paper and cut the width the fit, and cut it about 2-4 inches taller than the piece.

 

 

 

Next, I cut some glassine (or wax if you prefer) paper the same way, and hinge it around the back. This is right next to the surface of the piece.

 

 

 

The end result is that you have the piece covered with a very thin and then a very thick protection. It works great. Each pieces ends up looking like this closed

 

 

and then like this when you open it up. Give it a try!

 

[BCarter27]

There are a lot of these pasteboard-style boxes on the market in various materials. The white on the inside boxes are usually because the inside has a calcium buffer, but check the particular brand's specs. I just happen to like the MicroChamber boards and papers. (Drinking the Kool Aid.)

 

Lineco (that you linked to) is a pretty solid brand. So I think you are in good hands there. I like the clamshell on smaller boxes because you can move pieces right and left when browsing.

 

And I still like the pasteboard-style for smaller pieces as they are lighter, etc.

 

I think 30x22 would be OK to go 6 high as you suggested with the corrugated units. If you saw a particular middle sagging problem, you could even put a piece of masonite or plexi between boxes to stiffen. The sides can definitely hold the weight on the corrugated.

 

I am not worried about the box corners collapsing, but I am worried about middle sag putting excess pressure on the pieces in the bottom box. That might lead to media transfer or sticking to the interleave.

 

I haven't needed to do so yet, but any stacks too high and I would start looking into some kind of other shelving or stand.

 

The 32x40 I also use for posters and prints. Those get just an interleave sheet (or glassine is OK too) in between. Then a foamcore spacer every 10-15 pieces or so.

 

The original works on board are setup just as you describe, but I sub a piece of foamcore instead of the drawing paper per piece. However, this is overkill. The drawing paper is the lighter way to go.

 

If the paint is raised (such as a textured oil), I will cut a mat window to make a spacer. I was toying with the idea of using old used frames as spacers, but it is sometimes tricky to find one the right size. Frame shops sometimes have a clearance box or flea markets, etc.

 

Let's hear it for arts and crafts! :-)

[Bronty]

Awesome, thanks! Good to know the Lineco boxes are solid. I think I am going to try them instead of the corrugated just because I can get them here in canada without needing to order in from the states (with such bulky items, I want to keep it in-country).

 

thanks for the discussion!

[Peter G]

Loving the Magnus The Robot Fighter # 1 cover

 

http://dyn2.heritagestatic.com/lf?set=path%5B1%2F2%2F8%2F8%2F3%2F12883893%5D%2Csizedata%5B776x2000%5D&call=url%5Bfile%3Aproduct.chain%5D

[Bronty]

Its cool, but while I could be wrong I think that anyone who expects it to look like that scan will be disappointed. Will look considerably 'flatter' and less "shiny." Brightness is amped way up.

[Peter G]

Its cool, but while I could be wrong I think that anyone who expects it to look like that scan will be disappointed. Will look considerably 'flatter' and less "shiny." Brightness is amped way up.

 

Its classic to me

 

I love it

[cloud cloddie]

Its cool, but while I could be wrong I think that anyone who expects it to look like that scan will be disappointed. Will look considerably 'flatter' and less "shiny." Brightness is amped way up.

 

Its classic to me

 

I love it

 

They had it on display at their SDCC booth this year. Still pretty rich colors, and completely worth the $10K estimate they had on it IMO

[Bronty]

Its cool, but while I could be wrong I think that anyone who expects it to look like that scan will be disappointed. Will look considerably 'flatter' and less "shiny." Brightness is amped way up.

 

Its classic to me

 

I love it

 

dont get me wrong. cool item, and just 'what it is' is enough to justify the price.

 

Just strictly talking aesthetics here, which is not that important a valuation point!

 

But, ajullay says he has seen it, so there's first hand info!

[cloud cloddie]

But yeah, the brightness is amped up a little.

I feel like every heritage scan, book or art, always is a bit...

[Bronty]

Yeah, and the colors are such an important aspect of a painting that it has to be said.

 

Some of those 1960s paintings have a flatter look than paintings of other eras but from the scan you'd think you need sunglasses to look at it

[Peter G]

Its cool, but while I could be wrong I think that anyone who expects it to look like that scan will be disappointed. Will look considerably 'flatter' and less "shiny." Brightness is amped way up.

 

Its classic to me

 

I love it

 

dont get me wrong. cool item, and just 'what it is' is enough to justify the price.

 

Just strictly talking aesthetics here, which is not that important a valuation point!

 

But, ajullay says he has seen it, so there's first hand info!

 

yes - It is what it is even if HA amped it up

[pemart1966]

Looks as if there could be some fading to the main image area…

[vodou]

Some of those 1960s paintings have a flatter look than paintings of other eras...

Illustration artists of the day mostly moved to gouache (away from oils) to speed dry time.

[Bronty]

right, that's it, its the gouache look. good call.

 

But, I have lots of pieces that are at least partially gouache from a later time period and those are much more vivid, brighter, etc. That dull look is gone.

 

Must have been something specific to the gouache from that time? I am kind of (well, totally) guessing here, but I don't see it on later works, even in the same medium (I think. A bit hard for me to tell as a lot of mine are acryclic with gouache accents)