Why can't inserts and half-sheets be linen-backed?

[Sci-Fi_Sorcerer]

Forgive my ignorance; in the few years I've been collecting, I gather the reason is that inserts and half-sheets are on too thick card, but why can't they be attached to linen? I understand inserts/half-sheets can be paper-backed but is this really as permanent a way to preserve a poster as linen? Is paper-backing therefore the end of the line in terms of preserving these posters? Any info would be much appreciated.

[Charlie]

They can.  It just depends on preference.  They are normally paperbacked because the additional support of linen isn't needed.  My understanding is that paper backing just provides the support necessary post conservation/restoration.  Also since almost all paperbacked stuff is trimmed to the edge... you don't normally (or ever!) want to trim linen to the edge, because it has a chance to unravel on you and the support to deteriorate, where as paper can be trimmed to the edge with little future concerns...  Another thought is that if a thicker paper is put on linen, it creates an edge than can be caught (the rise of the cardstock above the masa).  Else, I have no clue why things are done the way they are...  Some like thicker paper for paperbacking, like that chipboard crap on the recent Casablanca posts...

[Sci-Fi_Sorcerer]

Thanks Charlie! That's cleared it up (sort of). Yes, I'm not a fan of trimmed linen - it kind of defeats the purpose when the linen border is so useful at preventing finger marks on the poster and edge wear.

[Mirosae]

Else, I have no clue why things are done the way they are...  Some like thicker paper for paperbacking, like that chipboard crap on the recent Casablanca posts...

So true!!!  crap indeed..

[Charlie]

So true!!!  crap indeed..

Sissss... Sorry there I wasn't trying to knock the poster; I just don't understand certain things.  They could have paper backed it with a much higher quality rives paper or something if not masa.  I just use regular masa but have been wanting to give it a go with the thicker but higher quality stuff...  Of course for some, $10 worth of paper may just be too much for a $5K poster though... 

http://www.rivespaper.com/

http://www.dickblick.com/products/rives-printmaking-papers/

[Mirosae]

I wasnt offended!!

and that you said was right, methinks!

[erik1925]

So true!!!  crap indeed..

Rosa,

Remember, too, that the GWTW daybill was not "backed" by anyone who was looking to do it with conservation or preservation in mind, i would be willing to wager. 

Someone (perhaps someone at the theater) got the daybill, realized it was too large for the available frame (that may have even come with that masonite back board), trimmed off the borders so it would fit and glued it to the masonite. It was then ready to display in the theater lobby.

And because the frame had no glass, gluing it down held it in place. 

[Mirosae]

Rosa,

Remember, too, that the GWTW daybill was not "backed" by anyone who was looking to do it with conservation or preservation in mind, i would be willing to wager. 

Someone (perhaps someone at the theater) got the daybill, realized it was too large for the available frame (that may have even come with that masonite back board), trimmed off the borders so it would fit and glued it to the masonite. It was then ready to display in the theater lobby.

And because the frame had no glass, gluing it down held it in place. 

Hi Jeff

Thanks, very helpful, as always. Though, now that you mention this again, the real prob that I had with GWTW was the trimming. I am never that sure if it is worth my time, effort and [money] to buy a trimmed poster... I really liked that GWTH, much better than other more expesnsive ones.

That said, I got over my Cassy backing, but every time I think about that ugly, cheap-looking-depressing cardboard i feel like 

ah...

[CSM]

Hi Jeff

Thanks, very helpful, as always. Though, now that you mention this again, the real prob that I had with GWTW was the trimming. I am never that sure if it is worth my time, effort and [money] to buy a trimmed poster... I really liked that GWTH, much better than other more expesnsive ones.

I'd be more concerned on if it can actually be removed from the masonite if it's real meaning it's been on there for nearly 75 years

[Bruce]

I have had the "pleasure" of paying to have several posters removed from masonite.

First, there is no restorer who does this more than once, because it takes FOREVER to do, and whatever they charge is not enough.

Second, the only way to remove it is to shave the masonite from the back, layer by layer, until you have a thin film of it left on the back, and then the most careful shaving of that thin film (I don't believe anyone has found a solvent to separate it without damaging the poster).

Since the poster looks fine, and since it will look fine decades from now, just leave it as it is (this one, and any others you come across).

[Charlie]

Rosa,

Remember, too, that the GWTW daybill was not "backed" by anyone who was looking to do it with conservation or preservation in mind, i would be willing to wager. 

Someone (perhaps someone at the theater) got the daybill, realized it was too large for the available frame (that may have even come with that masonite back board), trimmed off the borders so it would fit and glued it to the masonite. It was then ready to display in the theater lobby.

And because the frame had no glass, gluing it down held it in place. 

Nicely put...  However, I was talking about the Casablanca window card with the interesting cardboard backing brought up a while back.  That was confirmed by Heritage to be done with conservation in mind.  Not sure how we ended up on the daybill here...

[Charlie]

I have had the "pleasure" of paying to have several posters removed from masonite.

First, there is no restorer who does this more than once, because it takes FOREVER to do, and whatever they charge is not enough.

Second, the only way to remove it is to shave the masonite from the back, layer by layer, until you have a thin film of it left on the back, and then the most careful shaving of that thin film (I don't believe anyone has found a solvent to separate it without damaging the poster).

Since the poster looks fine, and since it will look fine decades from now, just leave it as it is (this one, and any others you come across).

I wonder if the poster had been put on with a water based adhesive if it couldn't just be steamed off?  I've never seen once on masonite; but isn't that how most theaters put posters up like the Berwick stuff.  Heck there may even be other posters under it...

[Bruce]

Charlie, every one I have seen with masonite has some god-awful adhesive that is 100% non-water soluble. Maybe this one is the exception. But I strongly doubt it.

[Ari]

Since anyone sticking to Masonite obviously hasn't got preservation in mind, it would be lucky if they happened to use a water soluble glue.

[erik1925]

Nicely put...  However, I was talking about the Casablanca window card with the interesting cardboard backing brought up a while back.  That was confirmed by Heritage to be done with conservation in mind.  Not sure how we ended up on the daybill here...

Hit with a bit of the flu today.. I picked me wrong thread.

And, Ari, yes.. that would be a bugger, if it wasn't water soluble & instead, put down with a rubber cement or contact-type adhesive. I guess attaching to masonite was the precursor to those who now dry mount posters to foam core. 

[Ari]

Probably just a homemade technique, I have a few sheets in my shed and thought about gluing some posters down my myself. I know it's a sin, but not valuable posters, but large ones that fall down if I pin them up and I could just lean against a wall or screw nto a wall. $10 French posters perhaps, but with art I like.

[syracuselaxfan]

If anyone wants to play with gluing, steaming, shaving or fixing posters attached to different medium I have a whole bunch of cheap Project X posters you can have for the cost of shipping. I think I have a bunch of Quest for Camelot and Police Academy 4 posters too.

[DinDinTahm]

Forgive my ignorance; in the few years I've been collecting, I gather the reason is that inserts and half-sheets are on too thick card, but why can't they be attached to linen? I understand inserts/half-sheets can be paper-backed but is this really as permanent a way to preserve a poster as linen? Is paper-backing therefore the end of the line in terms of preserving these posters? Any info would be much appreciated.

https://youtu.be/UTcA-e6bqVY


I have the same questions and I don't think they were exactly answered in the thread. Are inserts on thick card and if so, do they have to be shipped in an oversized flat package or can they be rolled? I've seen linen backed inserts and assume they can be but I've also seen inserts (normally paper-backed ones) that sellers can't roll, otherwise "it will damage the poster." Are earlier inserts, pre '60's, on different type of paper, either heavier or lighter, than later inserts or are there variations in any given year; ones that can be rolled and ones that can't?

[Simes]

Inserts can be rolled.

Don't know about backed inserts.

I believe the card stock for inserts has remained uniform throughout its life cycle.

[DinDinTahm]

Inserts can be rolled.

Don't know about backed inserts.

I believe the card stock for inserts has remained uniform throughout its life cycle.

https://youtu.be/jaP-IO-mHNg


God, you're good.

[Charlie]

Linenbacked inserts, half sheets, 30x40 can be rolled. If paperbacked with lower weight paper than the card stock (mulberry for example), I would think the folds might have a chance to return on the older heavy stock inserts Pre 1960... But really I don’t see why, if backed well, rolling an insert would be an issue other than restorer preference...