Yahoo Groups archive

Digital BW, The Print

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 22:56 UTC

Thread

Re:] Digest Number 2734 3M Positionable mounting adhesive

Re:] Digest Number 2734 3M Positionable mounting adhesive

2005-01-05 by ArleneLoveL@aol.com

I've used it for years for presentations, but not for  archival prints . If 
it IS archival - someone -  please let us know, because it's so easy and always 
perfect.  No waste, and no machinery or tools needed except the little 
plastic squegee included in the box. If it IS archival, it will save a lot of money 
& time.
            Arlene
www.arlenelove.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re:] 3M Positionable mounting adhesive

2005-01-06 by mark_gatehouse

> I've used it for years for presentations, but not for  archival 
> prints . If 
> it IS archival - someone -  please let us know, because it's so 
> easy and always 
> perfect.  No waste, and no machinery or tools needed except the 
little 
> plastic squegee included in the box. If it IS archival, it will 
> save a lot of money 
> & time.
>             Arlene
> www.arlenelove.com

Wilhelm lists it as the preferred method for permanent cold mounting 
polyester based prints (as well as RC based prints) in his standard 
text on colour photographic materials (he also recommends against dry 
mounting for colour and other materials for museum and archive 
collections)

Most Conservators would advise against most forms of dry mounting for 
any kind of photogrpahic (or inkjet) prints for the long term. Aside 
from the general lack of data about the long term effects of the 
adhesives as well as the effectiveness of the adhesives over time, 
the differentials of joining the two surfaces is problematic.

I once saw a lovely Ansel Adams print at the National Gallery of 
Canada which had been kept in non-archival conditions for the first 
part of it's life. Flexing over the years and differential expansion 
and contraction between the print base and the backing mount has led 
to small ripples in it. Even though it was mounted with "standard" 
mounting tissue it proved virtually impossible to repair.

Basically, for long term "archival" storage, just don't dry mount. If 
you dry mount then it isn't "archival" (whatever the manufacturers 
claims might be). Most texts from conservation institutes will advise 
against it. If you are dry mounting for display then it isn't meant 
for long term "archival" storage.

Re:] 3M Positionable mounting adhesive

2005-01-06 by outlaw07480

Arlene, I have been using 3M Positionable Mounting Adhesive to mount 
Ilfochrome CLM.1K (that's the polyester stuff) to non-buffered board 
for the past eight years.  I haven't had a failure or suffered any 
discoloration yet.  I roll mime on with a Coda roller press.


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mark_gatehouse" 
<mark_gatehouse@y...> wrote:
> 
> 
> > I've used it for years for presentations, but not for  archival 
> > prints . If 
> > it IS archival - someone -  please let us know, because it's so 
> > easy and always 
> > perfect.  No waste, and no machinery or tools needed except the 
> little 
> > plastic squegee included in the box. If it IS archival, it will 
> > save a lot of money 
> > & time.
> >             Arlene
> > www.arlenelove.com
> 
> Wilhelm lists it as the preferred method for permanent cold 
mounting 
> polyester based prints (as well as RC based prints) in his standard 
> text on colour photographic materials (he also recommends against 
dry 
> mounting for colour and other materials for museum and archive 
> collections)
> 
> Most Conservators would advise against most forms of dry mounting 
for 
> any kind of photogrpahic (or inkjet) prints for the long term. 
Aside 
> from the general lack of data about the long term effects of the 
> adhesives as well as the effectiveness of the adhesives over time, 
> the differentials of joining the two surfaces is problematic.
> 
> I once saw a lovely Ansel Adams print at the National Gallery of 
> Canada which had been kept in non-archival conditions for the first 
> part of it's life. Flexing over the years and differential 
expansion 
> and contraction between the print base and the backing mount has 
led 
> to small ripples in it. Even though it was mounted with "standard" 
> mounting tissue it proved virtually impossible to repair.
> 
> Basically, for long term "archival" storage, just don't dry mount. 
If 
> you dry mount then it isn't "archival" (whatever the manufacturers 
> claims might be). Most texts from conservation institutes will 
advise 
> against it. If you are dry mounting for display then it isn't meant 
> for long term "archival" storage.

Re:] 3M Positionable mounting adhesive

2005-01-06 by bwinkjet

Hello,
This is a response from 3M regarding the film.  They now make an 
acid free version.    
"Thank you for your interest in our Scotch (R) Cat. 568 Positionable
Mounting Adhesive.

This product is available in two formulations; our original formula, 
and
the new, acid-free formula.

The original formula has been used extensively by professional 
framers for
many years; the acid-free version was developed in response to 
customer
requests for an acid-free product.

"Archival" is a claim not used on Scotch(R) brand adhesive products, 
since
there isn't an industry-standard definition or test procedure for 
verifying
this claim.

That said, both versions of this product will provide a permanent,
professional mounting adhesive, for bonding prints, photos, etc. to 
smooth,
high-quality mounting surfaces.

I hope that this answers your question; if you have additional 
questions,
don't hesitate to contact us again.

Regards,

Lucinda
3M Stationery Products Division"

HTH
Paul


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "outlaw07480" 
<outlaw07480@y...> wrote:
> 
> Arlene, I have been using 3M Positionable Mounting Adhesive to 
mount 
> Ilfochrome CLM.1K (that's the polyester stuff) to non-buffered 
board 
> for the past eight years.  I haven't had a failure or suffered any 
> discoloration yet.  I roll mime on with a Coda roller press.
> 
> 
> --- In 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mark_gatehouse" 
> <mark_gatehouse@y...> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > > I've used it for years for presentations, but not for  
archival 
> > > prints . If 
> > > it IS archival - someone -  please let us know, because it's 
so 
> > > easy and always 
> > > perfect.  No waste, and no machinery or tools needed except 
the 
> > little 
> > > plastic squegee included in the box. If it IS archival, it 
will 
> > > save a lot of money 
> > > & time.
> > >             Arlene
> > > www.arlenelove.com
> > 
> > Wilhelm lists it as the preferred method for permanent cold 
> mounting 
> > polyester based prints (as well as RC based prints) in his 
standard 
> > text on colour photographic materials (he also recommends 
against 
> dry 
> > mounting for colour and other materials for museum and archive 
> > collections)
> > 
> > Most Conservators would advise against most forms of dry 
mounting 
> for 
> > any kind of photogrpahic (or inkjet) prints for the long term. 
> Aside 
> > from the general lack of data about the long term effects of the 
> > adhesives as well as the effectiveness of the adhesives over 
time, 
> > the differentials of joining the two surfaces is problematic.
> > 
> > I once saw a lovely Ansel Adams print at the National Gallery of 
> > Canada which had been kept in non-archival conditions for the 
first 
> > part of it's life. Flexing over the years and differential 
> expansion 
> > and contraction between the print base and the backing mount has 
> led 
> > to small ripples in it. Even though it was mounted 
with "standard" 
> > mounting tissue it proved virtually impossible to repair.
> > 
> > Basically, for long term "archival" storage, just don't dry 
mount. 
> If 
> > you dry mount then it isn't "archival" (whatever the 
manufacturers 
> > claims might be). Most texts from conservation institutes will 
> advise 
> > against it. If you are dry mounting for display then it isn't 
meant 
> > for long term "archival" storage.

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.