Skip to navigation – Site map
Dossier

The conservation of a 19th century framed miniature portrait painted on ivory

Removing adhesive tape from a historic object
Violeta Machado Prin

Abstracts

This article addresses the conservation treatment of a 19th century framed miniatured portrait painted on ivory. The object was in poor condition, with all the pieces necessary to hold the object separated and with the attempt of securing these parts with brown and clear adhesive tape. This article addresses the condition of the object and consequently, the treatments undertaken for its conservation: tape removal procedure with heat and solvents; paper mending and repairs; cleaning process of the back of the painting and remounting process of the frame with appropriate conservation materials to strengthen it and provide stability.

Top of page

Full text

Introduction

1The conservation department of the University of Lincoln received a framed miniature portrait of a young man dressed in a military uniform. The painting was not secured inside the frame due to poor handling of the object and most importantly, large amounts of adhesive tape covering the frame and painting, in an attempt of holding all parts of the object together. The tapes covered two pieces of paper glued to each other, with written information about the portrayed man. The information was handwritten with ink and partially covered by the tape. During the first examination, it was clear that the paper presented the most fragile and ‘urgent need for treatment’ condition, while the ivory painting seemed stable (despite its natural fragility and being covered as well with clear adhesive tape on its back). Overall, the possibility of fitting all pieces together inside the frame was highly positive. This paper discusses the conservation treatment of the ivory miniature, including a research of its historic background, a treatment proposal, final treatment and conclusions

Fig.1. Miniature portrait of James Don Kennedy

Fig.1. Miniature portrait of James Don Kennedy

Front view of the object.

Credits: Violeta Machado.

Historic background

2A research about the historic background of an object can contribute enormously to its conservation process. Many details can be important from the moment the object was created, such as: materials and manufacture, deterioration causes, originality, etc. Conservators often have the opportunity to access the object in exclusive ways that can help our understanding. Sometimes unexpected information can be obtained, making each conservation process unique and rewarding. In this case, narrowing the date when the portrait was painted was one of the first priorities to understand the object.

3The family owning this portrait are the descendants of the young man represented on it. According to the owners, he was a Major General named James Don Kennedy, and unlike other historic objects, a broad context was possible to develop from many other personal belongings from him, still in the family, such as: his diary, sword or other portraits at different stages of his life.

4Despite the accessibility to its personal belongings, the family tree or records could not be accessed and there was not much specific information more than his name, and that he lived during the 19th century. The date written in his military diary stated “1824” but without knowing the year he was born, this information was not useful. A very interesting object was also brought to the research for its similarity: a miniature portrait on ivory of James Don Kennedy’s brother Thomas Gilbert Kennedy, but also undated and consequently not contributing to James’s portrait.

5To continue the research, a more detailed examination of the object was carried out. After this, the first observation was that the identity stated by the owners did not match the one in the portrait. In the back of the picture, an old piece of paper (probably the one used for backing the frame) was handwritten with a few words readable. On top of it, a modern paper was glued to the old one, which seemed to repeat the same information (possibly an attempt of saving the old paper’s information). It stated the following: “Turner (possibly Thomas William). Great grandfather of Eliza Madeline Kennedy née Turner, wife of General James Don Kennedy (written in the old paper).1/29 NI previously ??NI” (written in the modern paper).

6With this information, the aim was to find if it was James Don Kennedy or William Turner’s portrait, for that the author decided to use the genealogy research site Ancestry®. Besides the different names, the number “29” painted in the man’s uniform was also researched, with hope of finding information in military records.

7The information found was the family tree and the wedding record, from which the identity of the portrayed and possible date of production was found. After this research, it was clear that William Turner was in fact not the portrayed man but his father in law. He was also Captain of the 25th Regt. Bengal Native Infantry, but could have been an officer at the 29th Regiment, which were both formed in 1824, the year he would have been eighteen and matching the date of the diary. Thus, the portrait could not have been older than the year the 29th Regiment was formed and most likely he had the portrait painted that year, at the time Kennedy joined the military.

8What is interesting is that the information written in the back paper was historically correct, except for the identity’s confusion. This is also another reason why it could be deduced that the person who wrote this information did not remember him personally, therefore it could not be an original handwriting from the moment it was made.

9The Kennedy’s were one of the many British families living in India during the rule of the British Empire. At the time, it was quite common to make these types of portraits in ivory, especially with the presence of British miniaturists based there from the end of the 18th century (Victoria and Albert Museum n.d.).

10The art of painting portrait miniatures in watercolour was a peculiar English art form and had developed a very prestigious School of artists. The use of ivory as a support started shortly after 1700 (Murdoch et al 1981). It substituted vellum and it took many decades for artists to master this new material since it was very difficult to paint with watercolours in such a slippery surface. The reason for choosing ivory probably relied on the yellowish and transparent tone resembling human skin, providing a unique luminosity and more realistic appearance (Pappe 2016).

Technique and materials

11As said previously, ivory portraits were very fashionable during the 18th and 19th century, however the combination of watercolours and an oily and unabsorbent surface demanded a preparation of the surface that took many decades to develop. Because the portrait dates probably from 1824, the artist must have been aware of these techniques and used them. The style of the portrait is similar to one of the techniques used towards the end of 18th century. This method consisted on a textural contrast between the person’s coat were matt gouache was used with the transparency of the head and background (Murdoch et al 1981). This exact same method can be seen in the portrait with very fine, small linear brushwork used for head, hands and background, contrasting with very thick and rough lines for the uniform

Fig. 2. Close-up of the painting work

Fig. 2. Close-up of the painting work

Detail of the brushwork contrast between the background and the uniform.

Credits: Violeta Machado.

12The preparation of the surface and the modification of the paint was an essential part of the ivory painting process. The early ivories used were thick with a polished surface. They were replaced with thinly cut ivory that needed a scraping process to remove saw marks. After this, the surface was polished. The oily surface was degreased and to achieve transparency and richness with the paint, a great proportion of Gum Arabic was added to the pigment. With the increase of the gum, it was necessary to add to all pigments sugar candy to prevent crackling and peeling from the ivory, as well as a wetting agent to facilitate the painting process. Some of these techniques could have been used to prepare the ivory and paint of this portrait, as it appears to have been under a detailed preparation. This can be appreciated by its thinness, transparency, lack of cutting marks and overall, a polished surface where paint seemed to be applied easily and did not present a visually cracked or peeled surface.

13As for the frame, it appears to be a pinewood “Hogarth” style frame, which refers usually to a reverse style moulding shape with the characteristic black central margin and a gilded outer edge and sight edge (Cunning 1993). Historically, this style of frames would have appeared later in the 19th century and not when the portrait was produced, even showing physical similarities with 20th century mass produced example of frames, in the way the gesso and composition decoration is not hand carved but instead is added to the frame as a ready “block”. In addition to this information, the velvet mount does not fit in the frame, which could also mean this was not the original frame and could have been adapted to a new one.

Examination and condition

14After the first examination of the object, it seemed that different levels of deterioration were affecting the portrait. Overall, the frame itself, glass and mount did not seem to need urgent treatment. The back paper had the most concerning condition, in part due to its poor-quality material and that most of it was covered with adhesive tape. Fortunately, the ivory painting was in good condition, except for some clear adhesive tape on the back.

15Because of the possibility of communicating with the portrait’s owner, the reasons for its damage were discussed. It seems that the portrait was hung from a nail on the wall and fell, consequently separating all the pieces that hold together the frame. In addition, with the intention of conserving the paper on the back, adhesive tape was used to hold it back together, unsuccessfully.

16Starting with the frame itself, due to its fragile undercoating, the paint and gesso layer were easily broken. This deterioration could be seen in different places, being more noticeable in the edges of the gilded decoration. Some old reparations were also visible, with some colour retouching over gesso losses. The gilding decoration was also retouched with an orange-gold toned paint. The original gold was still visible in some internal areas as the retouching was not made carefully. Structurally, the frame was in a stable condition, the back was coated with animal glue (probably to adhere some paper such as sealing tape), which had crystallised along with some paper residues. In order to find the type of glue used, a Biuret test for Protein was carried out twice, which showed inconclusive results since the first time the sample presented only a feeble colour alteration (as it would for a positive result) and the second time no alteration was detected. However, under visual examination as well as a with a solubility test with hot water it was finally identified as animal glue. Some illegible pencil handwriting could be seen at the bottom of the frame, covered also by the mixture of paper and crystallised animal glue. The nails supporting all the different layers to hold the painting were missing, although their position holes were still visible. A strong metal wire attached with two nails was still in place to hang the painting.

17The glass was in good condition, with no stains or damaged surface except for some unclean cut in one of the edges, which implied a careless manufacture. The mount had some cutter marks for the same reasons, and clearly a not very good card quality was used, with a very acidic pH between 4 and 5. The mount was also considerably smaller than the frame, making it difficult to secure it. This could have been intended or perhaps the card could have shrunk over the years. The fabric adhered to the mount was made of dark blue velvet, and had suffered some losses on the sides.

Fig. 3. Deterioration of the mount

Fig. 3. Deterioration of the mount

Material losses of blue velvet on the sides of the mount.

Credits: Violeta Machado.

18The painting was in a stable condition. The first visual examination indicated a similarity with ivory, although a UV light examination was carried out confirming this hypothesis by showing fluorescence. It is very usual for ivory to split or warp under RH fluctuations (McKay 1993). Fortunately, the ivory did not show significant structural movements. Some scraping marks were also found in the back, and most importantly, three strips of clear adhesive tape. Some rests of paper were found glued to the top and bottom of the ivory and the velvet mount, possibly as the original method to hold the portrait. Even though the adhesive tape was not strongly adhered to the surface of the ivory, it left yellowish toned stains.

19The front of the portrait seemed in good condition. However, when microscope examination was carried out with Dino-Lite digital microscope, very small losses were found in the matt red paint from the uniform. This paint flaking is prone to happen when not enough medium is used for the paint or when the bond between the support and paint is not strong enough (McKay 1993), which could be a possibility if the artist used a different material paint for the red uniform and consequently, with a different behaviour than the watercolour.

20While examining the paint losses, a blue toned colour seemed to appear in some areas underneath the red paint. Considering this observation and the difference in the style of the brushwork that was used in the uniform (matt texture and long movements) with the rest of the painting, the possibility of a different paint layer underneath was considered. To eliminate the doubts the IR and UV Dino-Lite digital microscope were used. The results showed that there was probably only one paint layer and the blue toned colour could be the transparency of the ivory showing through it (highly fluorescent under the UV light) so the different paint layer hypotheses was discarded.

Fig. 4. Examination of red paint layer

Fig. 4. Examination of red paint layer

Analysis with UV Dino-Lite microscope (left) and IR Dino-Lite microscope (right) under 50 X magnification.

Credits: Violeta Machado.

21Behind the ivory portrait and the velvet mount, a backing board must have been placed to hold all those pieces together with pressure, however this piece was missing. Then, the old paper would have been placed to seal all the previous layers.

22Overall, the most obvious damage was in the paper (the old and new one), presenting an urgent condition in need for treatment. The bad quality of the papers and the large amount of brown and clear tape combined made it extremely fragile. The oldest paper was very acidic with a pH of 4. Consequently, it was brittle and almost impossible to handle without breaking. In some areas, only tape was holding together the pieces as a support. Besides the adhesive tape problem, both papers presented folded areas, losses, scrapings and unidentified yellow stains.

Fig. 5. Photography of paper on the back of the painting

Fig. 5. Photography of paper on the back of the painting

Front (A) and back (B) of the paper.

Credits: Violeta Machado.

Conservation treatment

23The main goal of the treatment was to remove the adhesive tapes from the paper and ivory and restructure the different pieces that would hold the painting inside the frame.

24The first step for the paper treatment was to test the solubility of the handwriting’s ink to see if water based treatments were possible. The ink resulted to be water soluble, so all the materials chosen needed to take this in consideration, whether it would imply the use of water during treatment or to ensure a compatible reversibility in a possible future treatment. Then, the solubility of the adhesive tapes was tested in order to observe the different reactions dissolving the adhesive. Due to a large area of tape not covering the paper, it was removed with scissors and used for the tests. The results can be seen in Table 1

Table 1. Adhesive tapes solvent test

Table 1. Adhesive tapes solvent test

Different solvent test results using eight tests in each type of adhesive tape.

Credits: Violeta Machado.

25With the solvent test results, it was decided to test those which worked best again, this time directly in the tape in contact with the paper. The solvents selected for this were: water and ethanol 1:1; warm water; White spirit; isopropanol and acetone.

26The results were not the same when the tapes were tested by themselves than when in contact with the paper. One of the concerns was that if the adhesive in the brown tape could stain the cotton swab, it could potentially stain the paper. However, once tried in the paper this did not happen. Eventually, the chosen solvent was acetone for both tapes, because it presented good results but also evaporated quickly, which was necessary. The methodology that was found to work best with the brown tape was the following: heat application with hot spatula at 35ºC through a Melinex® film to help the adhesive to soften; application of acetone with cotton swabs and slowly lifted small strips of tape with the help of tweezers and small scissors.

Fig. 6. Process of tape removal

Fig. 6. Process of tape removal

Heating the adhesive tape with hot spatula through Melinex® (a); cutting with scissors and lifting a small tape strip with tweezers (b); application of acetone with cotton swab while lifting tape (c) and removal of adhesive strip tape (d).

Credits: Violeta Machado.

27This method did work when the adhesive was able to detach itself from the tape and then removed with the cotton swab; however, if the adhesive was still adhered to the plastic film of the tape, the lifting did remove the top surface layer of the paper, and consequently removing written information. This process required not to be impatient and to wait until the adhesive was completely detached from the film, repeating the heating process and solvent application when necessary. As for the clear tape, the removal process was easier and did not require heat.

28Once the tape was removed, the paper was left in many fragments and was prepared to undertake paper repairs so that the breaks could be bonded and the losses filled, while being consolidated at the same time. The material chosen for the paper repairs was Ok tissue paper of 12 gr, because its thinness allowed making double layer repairs. Prior to use the paper, it was dyed with Golden artist colours® Acrylics. Several dyeing tests were carried out until a suitable tone was found. The process consisted of diluting the acrylic paint with water to a thin consistency (this allowed the colour to be built up to a darker tone if needed), and then applying it to the paper, which was placed on a Melinex® film. The colours chosen to dye the paper were: Raw Umber; Raw Sienna; Yellow Ochre; Burnt Sienna; and Paynes Gray.

29Because of the inks solubility mentioned before, it was necessary to find a non-aqueous consolidant that could also be easily reversible. While researching alternatives suitable for these conditions, the use of Lascaux Acrylic Adhesives was recommended. For this project, Lascaux 498 HV was chosen, which dried leaving a hard but elastic surface and was soluble in acetone (Sheesley 2011). This also permitted the possibility of a further removal in the future, compatible with the ink’s solubility. The process consisted in diluting a small amount of adhesive in approximately 10 ml of acetone. The solution needed to be of a liquid consistency to avoid an excessive amount of adhesive, which could possibly leave a shiny surface on the paper.

30With the tissue paper prepared, mending strips were teared to join the pieces which were broken after the tape removal, and adhered to the back of the paper with Lascaux 498 HV. These strips were also applied when fragments were fragile and susceptible of breaking. To fill loses, double layered patches were prepared with the help of a light box, to cut the perfect shape. First, a teared patch slightly bigger than the gap to fill was placed on the back of the paper. Then, a sized fitted patch was applied in the front, providing a suitable thickness similar to the original paper

Fig. 7. Process of filling the paper

Fig. 7. Process of filling the paper

Filling with double layered paper patches: gluing a paper patch on the back of the paper (a, b) gluing on the front a paper patch on top of the previous one (c, d).

Credits: Violeta Machado.

31While the patches were drying, a weight was placed on top of them with a layer of Reemay® fabric in between for protection. This aided to flatten the paper and avoid wrinkles. Finally, once all the repairs were done and the paper was strengthened, it was placed on a Melinex® envelope fitted to be positioned on the back of the frame.

Fig. 8. Final result

Fig. 8. Final result

Paper after the treatment and inside the protective envelope.

Credits: Violeta Machado.

32To prevent the portrait’s identity of being confused or lost again, a small piece of paper written with pencil was introduced inside the envelope with the relevant information.

33For the frame treatment, it was considered necessary to remove the animal glue and old paper residues on the back, because they no longer had adhering purposes and were creating an uneven surface, which was not appropriate for a further protection of the frame as it was planned for a last step in the conservation process. The frame was then cleaned with warm distilled water, cotton swabs and with a scalpel. On the bottom part, some pencil handwriting covered with the glue could not be cleaned without removing the pencil marks, so it was decided to leave them covered to preserve the information. Then, some fragments that broke during the treatment were glued back with Polyvinyl Alcohol Adhesive (PVA), often chosen for wood because of its strength, stability and high reversibility properties.

34To fill the loss of gesso and/or paint in the front and the edges, fine surface Polyfilla® was used, thinned with water when necessary. Once dried, it was sanded and colour matched with Golden artist colours® acrylics mixed with a metallic powder pigment in the tone ‘Orange Gold’ that was added to simulate the gilding. Finally, a thin layer of microcrystalline wax dissolved in White Spirit was applied to simulate the polished surface of the original frame.

Fig. 9. Restoration treatment of the frame

Fig. 9. Restoration treatment of the frame

Comparison between the original state of the frame (above) and final result (below).

Credits: Violeta Machado.

35The ivory was cleaned by removing the adhesive tape with tweezers and the sticky residues with saliva. The cotton swabs were lightly moistened and a dry cotton wool fragment was used to immediately remove the excess of moisture.

36The results were successful except for the pencil marks, since they were very vulnerable to the cleaning process and had to be left intact to preserve them.

Fig. 10 Restoration treatment of the ivory

Fig. 10 Restoration treatment of the ivory

Comparison between the original state with adhesive tape (left) and final result after tape removal and cleaning process (right).

Credits: Violeta Machado.

37As a last step, after all different pieces were treated, it was time to fit them all together into a package. The materials used for this step were chosen carefully so that they would meet the conservation standards, such as acid free materials, only designed for conservation purposes and most of all, that they would allow reversibility (e.g. not adding adhesives with high strength properties).

38The first step was to cover the interior of the frame with sealing tape, specifically, gummed tape suitable for conservation to protect the wood. This tape was applied by moistening the tape with a small brush or a sponge, which would be the same for removing it if needed. Then, the glass was cleaned with acetone and placed inside the frame. The velvet mount was secured with four strips of foam board, and then covered with a film of Melinex® and neutral pH card, both cut to fit the ivory painting inside of them, securing it. These layers prevented the acidic mount to be in contact with the painting or other layers. To seal the painting and prevent it from falling, a rectangular neutral pH card was cut to cover all the interior of the frame. Above it, the repaired paper inside the Melinex® envelope was placed and finally hold with sealing tape as well as protecting the rest of the wooden frame.

Fig. 11 Final result after the object’s treatment

Fig. 11 Final result after the object’s treatment

Front and back result of the miniature portrait treatment.

Credits: Violeta Machado.

39A graphic scheme can be seen with all the different layers used to fit the painting and their position order

Fig. 12 Graphic scheme of the different layers to hold the painting inside the frame

Fig. 12 Graphic scheme of the different layers to hold the painting inside the frame

From the bottom layer to the top (1 to 8).

Credits: Violeta Machado.

Conclusion

40The historic background research revealed crucial information to narrow the date when the object was produced and consequently materials and techniques were found, which helped to understand their condition. The information gained by communicating with the owners and visiting the original placement of the object was extremely useful to understand the condition of the object and propose a suitable conservation treatment. This project contributed to the conservation of the ivory painting but also to the preservation of the owner’s familiar Heritage.

41Regarding the overall outcome of the object’s treatment results, it has improved the structural support of the frame as well as protecting each material from further decay. However, it is significant to state that this research has also found a successful solution for tape removal on water sensitive materials, including the importance as well of saving and interpreting the information written underneath. This was a challenging situation that required a very careful treatment and with the example of this object’s restoration, an important contribution was made to the field since it could be transferred to other conservation treatments involving tape removal on paper or cases under similar conditions of aqueous incompatibility.

Top of page

Bibliography

ANDERSON, P. and PUGLIA, A. (2003). <<Solvent-Set Book Repair Tissue>>, in The Book and Paper Group Annual, 2003, 22, 3-8.

Victoria and Albert Museum (n.d.) A History of the Portrait Miniature. Available at: http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/h/a-history-of-the-portrait-miniature/
[Accessed March 2017].

CUNNING, R. (1993). The encyclopedia of picture framing techniques. A step-by-step visual directory of framing techniques, plus full assembly guidelines and comprehensive coverage of decorative effects. London: Search Press.

National Portrait Gallery (2012). <<British picture framemakers, 1600-1950 – H>>. Available at: https://www.npg.org.uk/research/conservation/directory-of-british-framemakers/h.php [Accessed March 2017]

MCKAY, H. (1993). <<Care of Pictures on Ivory, Metal and Glass >>, in Canadian Conservation Institute Notes, 1993, 10/14. Available at: http://canada.pch.gc.ca/DAMAssetPub/DAM-PCH2-Museology-PreservConserv/STAGING/texte-text/cCI-Notes-10-14pdf_1468517521517_eng.pdf?WT.contentAuthority=4.4.10 [Accessed April 2017]

MURDOCH, J.; MURRELL, J.; NOON, P.; STRONG, R. (1981). The English Miniature. New Haven, London: Yale University Press.

PAPPE, B. (2016). Conservation of portrait miniatures at the Sinebrychoff Art Museum, Finnish National Gallery, Helsinki [video] April 2016. Available from: https://vimeo.com/174356601 [Accessed March 2017]

SHEESLEY, S. (2011) <<Practical Applications of Lascaux Acrylic Dispersions in Paper Conservation>>, in The Book and Paper Group Annual. 30, 79-81. Available at: http://cool.conservation-us.org/coolaic/sg/bpg/annual/v30/bp30-10.pdf
[Accessed February 2017].

STONE, T. (2010) <<Care of Ivory, Bone, Horn, and Antler>>, in Canadian Conservation Institute Notes , 2010, 6/1. Available at: https://www.cci-icc.gc.ca/resources-ressources/ccinotesicc/6-1_e.pdf
[Accessed February 2017].

Top of page

List of illustrations

Title Fig.1. Miniature portrait of James Don Kennedy
Caption Front view of the object.
Credits Credits: Violeta Machado.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/ceroart/docannexe/image/5238/img-1.jpg
File image/jpeg, 1020k
Title Fig. 2. Close-up of the painting work
Caption Detail of the brushwork contrast between the background and the uniform.
Credits Credits: Violeta Machado.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/ceroart/docannexe/image/5238/img-2.jpg
File image/jpeg, 1.2M
Title Fig. 3. Deterioration of the mount
Caption Material losses of blue velvet on the sides of the mount.
Credits Credits: Violeta Machado.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/ceroart/docannexe/image/5238/img-3.jpg
File image/jpeg, 3.6M
Title Fig. 4. Examination of red paint layer
Caption Analysis with UV Dino-Lite microscope (left) and IR Dino-Lite microscope (right) under 50 X magnification.
Credits Credits: Violeta Machado.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/ceroart/docannexe/image/5238/img-4.jpg
File image/jpeg, 48k
Title Fig. 5. Photography of paper on the back of the painting
Caption Front (A) and back (B) of the paper.
Credits Credits: Violeta Machado.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/ceroart/docannexe/image/5238/img-5.jpg
File image/jpeg, 316k
Title Table 1. Adhesive tapes solvent test
Caption Different solvent test results using eight tests in each type of adhesive tape.
Credits Credits: Violeta Machado.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/ceroart/docannexe/image/5238/img-6.jpg
File image/jpeg, 172k
Title Fig. 6. Process of tape removal
Caption Heating the adhesive tape with hot spatula through Melinex® (a); cutting with scissors and lifting a small tape strip with tweezers (b); application of acetone with cotton swab while lifting tape (c) and removal of adhesive strip tape (d).
Credits Credits: Violeta Machado.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/ceroart/docannexe/image/5238/img-7.jpg
File image/jpeg, 560k
Title Fig. 7. Process of filling the paper
Caption Filling with double layered paper patches: gluing a paper patch on the back of the paper (a, b) gluing on the front a paper patch on top of the previous one (c, d).
Credits Credits: Violeta Machado.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/ceroart/docannexe/image/5238/img-8.jpg
File image/jpeg, 1.6M
Title Fig. 8. Final result
Caption Paper after the treatment and inside the protective envelope.
Credits Credits: Violeta Machado.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/ceroart/docannexe/image/5238/img-9.jpg
File image/jpeg, 176k
Title Fig. 9. Restoration treatment of the frame
Caption Comparison between the original state of the frame (above) and final result (below).
Credits Credits: Violeta Machado.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/ceroart/docannexe/image/5238/img-10.jpg
File image/jpeg, 208k
Title Fig. 10 Restoration treatment of the ivory
Caption Comparison between the original state with adhesive tape (left) and final result after tape removal and cleaning process (right).
Credits Credits: Violeta Machado.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/ceroart/docannexe/image/5238/img-11.jpg
File image/jpeg, 140k
Title Fig. 11 Final result after the object’s treatment
Caption Front and back result of the miniature portrait treatment.
Credits Credits: Violeta Machado.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/ceroart/docannexe/image/5238/img-12.jpg
File image/jpeg, 280k
Title Fig. 12 Graphic scheme of the different layers to hold the painting inside the frame
Caption From the bottom layer to the top (1 to 8).
Credits Credits: Violeta Machado.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/ceroart/docannexe/image/5238/img-13.jpg
File image/jpeg, 62k
Top of page

References

Electronic reference

Violeta Machado Prin, « The conservation of a 19th century framed miniature portrait painted on ivory », CeROArt [Online], EGG 6 | 2017, Online since 18 May 2018, connection on 18 August 2018. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/ceroart/5238

Top of page

About the author

Violeta Machado Prin

Violeta Machado Prin (vmachadoprin02@gmail.com) is a conservator (University Complutense of Madrid) and recently finished her MA studies in Conservation of Historic Objects (University of Lincoln). She has worked with paintings, sculptures and has a special interest in digital technologies applied to conservation of cultural objects, in which she has a Virtual Restoration specialisation (University of Alicante).

Top of page

Copyright

Licence Creative Commons
CeROArt – Conservation, exposition, restauration d'objets d'arts est mis à disposition selon les termes de la licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International.

Top of page
  • Logo Fondation Périer-d’Ieteren
  • Logo DOAJ – Directory of Open Access Journals
  • OpenEdition Journals