Seems like earlier this year someone on MOPO was talking about a restorer that
somehow starched one sheets, or something to that effect. But I'm not sure if
that is better for the paper or not. I believe you could still see the
markings
on the back and so on with this resto method.
When it comes to replacing larger pieces of a poster, I'm not sure how you
would
get around linen backing. If you want the poster to look as it did originally
that is.
And I've never had any kind of lifting on one of my professionally restored
posters. My posters are in a dehumidified, air conditioned room. So the
environment is somewhat controlled.
If you no longer collect posters, what is your involvement with movie posters
at
this point. Are you a seller?
John W
________________________________
From: Customer Service <empireposte...@verizon.net>
To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Sent: Thu, October 7, 2010 1:07:50 PM
Subject: Re: [MOPO] Linen-backing versus Paper-backing
John,
I'm afraid you are missing the point. I don't care whether particular
linen-backing companies are hacks or not. I'm sure some of them are positively
professional. My main point is that the linen-backing process itself is a
travesty. The fact that you own good looking posters on linen that are 10 years
old means nothing. Sure, if you keep a linen-backed poster in a perfectly
stable
environment, it should last you several centuries.
A long time ago, I also used to collect expensive posters, and like many
collectors, I had a ton of money invested in linen-backed posters, because like
many collectors, I bought into the whole linen-backing insanity. But something
was bothering me about it. A linen-backed posters just didn't seem like a
poster
any more. It looked like a strange hybrid of canvas and print art. Gone were
the
tell-tale signs of age. Gone was all the original writing on the
back, another-words... gone was everything that makes an "original" poster
beautiful. Everything that served as evidence of the poster's age and its many
travels before it got to me. After all, isn't "age" precisely the point of
owning a "vintage" poster, as apposed to a brand new repro? And yet
that's exactly what most linen-backing companies tend to wipe clean... they
make
posters look almost brand new. When they stretch a poster onto canvas, they
make
a perfectly flat looking piece of art. On top of that, they airbrush any damage
or even natural discoloration on the white borders. What a travesty! If you
wouldn't do that to a Picasso, why do it to a movie poster? If you want a
perfect looking poster, just buy a repro for $20. Much cheaper, don't you think?
So, I started doing research. I visited several smaller linen-backing companies
to see what they did. The owner of one company that did some of my posters told
me straight out that someone had showed him how to mount posters on linen, and
he thought what a great idea for a business. So he set up shop, hired some
locals to work for him (people who had never worked with paper in their life),
and advertised himself as a quality linen-backing company.
Next, I started calling professional paper conservators. I called the Library
of Congress, The Northeast Document Conservation Center, as well as about
10 private conservators, to get their opinion on the whole thing. Without
exception, they all told me to NEVER line a paper poster with canvas. The exact
reasons are as follows:
1- Esthetically displeasing, for reasons I already mentioned above in paragraph
#2. First two rules of any professional conservation effort of antique
artifacts: ALWAYS USE "LIKE" MATERIALS. DO AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE.
2- Always use "like" materials (expanded): Paper and canvas react differently
to temperature and humidity changes. Canvas will expand and contract at a
different ratio than the paper that's glued to it. This creates tension. And
because canvas is much stronger then paper, it will take the paper with it,
not visa-versa. You may not see the damage for decades, but it is taking place
even as you read this. Now, if you keep the linen-backed poster in a climate
controlled room, this won't be an issue, but how many collectors have
climate-controlled rooms?
Several of the conservators I spoke to went even further. They were totally
against even paper-backing a poster, unless it was extremely fragile.
They advocated simply reinforcing the fold lines and any tears with
thin strips of Japanese paper, in order to retain access to the back of the
poster. I personally agree with this the most.
Meanwhile, I started noticing bubbles forming on some of my posters, between
the
canvas and the paper. This made me come to a final decision, to either sell my
linen-backed posters, or to try and have the process reversed. After all, don't
all linen-backing companies claim that their process is fully reversible?
So I found a good professional conservator, who wasn't too expensive, and
brought him one of my more expensive posters. I asked him to remove it from the
canvas and mount it on Japanese paper only, the way it should have been done in
the first place, and to remove all signs of airbrushing restoration. "No
problem," he said.
Three weeks later, I went back to pick up my expensive, newly mounted poster.
When I saw it, my jaw dropped and my face turned red. The poster looked twice
as
bad as before. Parts of it were obviously separated and glued back on, as if it
were a jigsaw puzzle. "What's going on?" I exclaimed. "What happened to my
poster?"
"Well..." the conservator started, "it was more difficult than I thought to
dismount the poster because the starch glue that was used was apparently much
thicker and stronger than I had ever seen before. Besides, don't you know about
the '10% rule?"
This is how I learned about the '10% rule.' In all professional conservation,
whenever you try to reverse any previous conservation/restoration process, you
have to be prepared to loose as much as 10% of your original artifact. I
confirmed this with others, to make sure it wasn't just this one guy who made
it
up.
Sorry to write such a long essay, but the subject of linen-backing really gets
up my nose. Even though I don't collect any more, I hate to see a whole
generation of well meaning collectors permanently ruin vintage posters which
can
never be replaced. Once they're gone that's it. And if there is anything I can
do to prevent it, I will.
SW
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 9:13 AM, John Waldman <jhnwald...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dima,
>
>Here is the definition of libelous:
>libelous - (used of statements) harmful and often untrue; tending to discredit
>or malign.
>
>Only in our sue happy cockeyed society do we always think about suing
>someone.
>So no, I didn't think the resto people would sue you over you statements. And
>sure, you didn't name one company or person, you lumped them all in one big
>pile as being deceitful and hacks.
>
>Since there are a number of companies/ people that do linen backing as
>members
>on MOPO, it is interesting that none of them have objected to your statements.
>
>John W
>
>
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: lists...@listserv.american.edu
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFFMOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: lists...@listserv.american.edu
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
