An alternate title to this blog could be, “That time we X-rayed medieval choir book at the UC Medical Center, and then the pandemic happened I forgot to write a blog post about it”. Oops!
Let’s rewind the story back to mid-2019, when our Associate Conservator, Ashleigh, expressed interest in radiography on a beautiful, oversized choir book from the Classics Library. I, at the time, was the Photographic Documentation Specialist and had never carried out or assisted with any radiography projects, so I was very keen to start reaching out to anyone I could think of on West and East campus who might have access to such equipment. The most logical answer, UC Health, proved to be the winning one when finally the Director of Diagnostic Radiology put me in contact with the Enterprise Director of Imaging, who said yes to my request, and ultimately put me in contact with my main contact for the project, the Radiology Manager at UC Medical Center.
The date was set, October 22, 2019. Ashleigh, Holly and I packed up the heavy, choir book and carefully transported it from West campus to East campus to be imaged. The UC Health staff were beyond friendly, and I think they got a kick out of imaging the oversized leather volume. The technician really worked with us to adjust the intensity of the radiography depending on what we were trying to capture, whether it was the cover, the sewing and the supports, or the illuminated text (which was a little harder to capture with their equipment).
Aligning the bookViewing the first imagesPositioning the coverThe technician position the equipment for the optimal scanAttempting to image the illuminated textRepositioning the volumeImaging the spineRepositioning the volume to image spine
Overall, we discovered…a lot of nails, split thong supports, and on the lower board, four mends to the wooden board that appear to be bracing a split in the wood that is running vertically.
Detail of lower board with cover openDetail of lower board with cover open
The larger red arrows indicate metal braces while the smaller red arrows indicate the crack in the wooden board.
Image of the spine which allows you to see the split thong supports and you can even see the tattle-tape security strip!
Then following the radiography session, they were kind enough to ask if we would also like to place the volume in the CT scanner. Since the scanner could easily and safely accommodate the volume while keeping it wrapped in foam, we jumped at the chance!
We received all the imaging files on two CDs from UC Health, and then I went about making heads and tails of it. The radiography images were fairly straightforward. For the most impactful imaging, namely of the spine, upper and lower boards, I created composite images using the panorama feature in Photoshop to merge the images. For example, each cover consisted of four separate images.
With the CT imaging, the CD came with a reviewer software (Sorna) to view the files. Frankly, the CT scans were a little bit harder to comprehend, but nonetheless interesting. Ultimately the CT scanner allows you to view the various materials within the object. Whereas normally for the equipment that was used that would mean bones, organs and tissues, for the choir book that meant metal material like brass, leather, ink and pigment. Within the viewer function there was also an interactive component to the CT data as well, which allowed you to manipulate various levels to see various intensities, but even after a lot of trail and error and experimentation I found it very confusing, though I did get some interesting, and some less impactful, results. Let’s just say, I do not have a future as a CT technician! I’ll stick to my day job.
With so much special collections materials going through the lab, sometimes I forget to appreciate the beauty of general collection items. No such problem with this beauty – a stenciled book cover with splashes of gold.
I love pochoir, screen printing, and risograph (the stencil arts), so was thrilled to see this Greek monograph from 1899. It really reminds one of the intense labor that goes into the production of even one book and the subtle difference apparent in each one.
Holly Prochaska, Head, Preservation Services & Lab at the University of Cincinnati
When a collection of Egyptian mummy bandage fragments at the Cincinnati and Hamilton County Public Library was found in an area used to store uncatalogued flat materials, the lab was asked to play a role in providing better stewardship.
Click the links below to jump to the following posts:
The textiles will remain in the enclosure for both storage and potential display
The matting system will support the fragments for handling and viewing
The fragments will not move or slide in the enclosure, yet be stored non-adhesively
Portfolio Matting System
Before constructing the final portfolio, models were created to test functionality. The first prototype was a helpful learning experience that lead to improvements in the final product.
In particular, I made one big change: rather than constructing the sink mat portfolio out of corrugated board, I used museum rag mat board. I also added a hinged window mat on top of the pillow. Below the window mat, notes or labels could be discretely added below so the object would be exhibit ready with no handling required.
A few other alterations included using 4-ply mat board for the inset board rather than 2-ply (I used the cut out from the window mat trimmed a bit smaller), and instead of using polyester webbing adhesive, I used Jade 403 PVA along areas where the construction materials did not come into contact with the textile.
Completed first prototype: a sink mat portfolio made out of museum rag board with an added window mat
The first model had many successful features; however, there were two main failures in its construction. These related to the cloth tie closures and Tyvek lining. Pros and cons in the construction were determined using a mock-up Egyptian textile fragment (made out of linen book cloth colored with acrylic paint and inscribed with Sharpie).
Pros:
The cover folds behind the backing board which is useful for saving space when on display.
The cotton/polyester pillow holds the textile in place non-adhesively with Velcro-like surface tension.
The cover’s inset board applies gentle compression that safely holds the textile in place when closed. The 4-ply board was the appropriate thickness for our thin textile.
Both the front and back of the fragment can be viewed without excess handling: If the portfolio is opened while laying face-down, the back of the fragment can be safely viewed while resting on the inside of the cover. Then the portfolio can be closed while still laying face down. Once closed, it can be flipped and reopened to the front. (See handling video below.)
Cons:
The cloth edge ties are cumbersome during handling. Ties showed potential to drape over and catch on textiles, becoming a potential for damage.
The soft Tyvek lining created such a strong static cling charge that the textile often became stuck to the cover lid when opened, posing a hazard of falling unexpectedly!
Nicole tests the portfolio finding the textile stuck to the inside of the cover upon opening due to static cling!
Improved Portfolio Model
Improvements to the second model included replacing the cloth ties with rare earth magnets and eliminating the soft Tyvek. A smooth, stiffer Tyvek was used instead. These changes proved highly successful and also felt more elegant!
It was a bit more time consuming to use rare earth magnets because the magnets were inlaid both to the cover and the hinged window. While creating the model, I learned to strategically use a stronger magnetic pull for the window so that when the portfolio was opened, the cover released preferentially. If you’d like to read step by step instructions about its construction, please check out my notes here.
Additional lesson learned: Be sure to double check how the magnets are oriented so they attract each other rather than repel!
Revealing rare earth magnets below the Tyvek lining and Tyvek tape to reorient them so they attract the opposing magnets rather than repel
Final Portfolio
This versatile portfolio facilitates storage, handling, and display as the cover can be folded behind the window and backing board.
Cloth Covered Clamshell with Trays and Chemise
Each fragment received a custom matted portfolio that then needed to be grouped appropriately and stored as a collection.
Overall, the collection of six fragments were stored together in a cloth covered clamshell, constructed by Conservation Specialist, Matt McCoy. We designed the enclosure as follows:
Each matted fragment sits on a custom support tray within the box because many portfolios varied in size and needed to be easily stacked.
To retain the context of the three fragments that belonged to a priest named Wennofer, these trays were grouped within the box inside a cloth-covered chemise.
Labels were added to the portfolios and trays for easy replacement into the custom trays.
This GIF shows the different layers within the enclosure system.
Curious on how these storage enclosures facilitate handling? Check out the video below for instructions on use.
If you missed the earlier installments, you can jump to the previous posts below:
When a collection of Egyptian mummy bandage fragments at the Cincinnati and Hamilton County Public Library was found in an area used to store uncatalogued flat materials, the lab was asked to play a role in providing better stewardship.
Click the links below to jump to the following posts:
History – Historical information provided about the Egyptian inscriptions
Treatment – How the materials were treated after learning about their content
Storage Solutions – Individual solutions for separated fragments as well as storage as a collection
Conservation Treatment Consultations
Being a primarily book, paper, and photograph conservator, working on textiles comes up only intermittently as minor stabilization or housing. When these projects do arise, I tend to consult immediately with a textile conservator. This project was no different. Generously, Obie from the Cincinnati Art Museum kindly visited the lab to look at the fragments with me in person.
Initial Treatment Idea
Before consulting with Obie, my initial plan was to cut the overall board and separate the individual fragments. Once separated, I thought I might hinge the fragments to a backboard inside a sink matting system. I had briefly corresponded with a textile conservator at the MFA Boston who is familiar with ancient textiles and she confirmed this would be a sufficient option.
Testing
However, with Obie present, together we tested the solubility of the adhesives and likelihood of removing the fragments from the acidic board for better storage. Surprisingly, we determined removal was possible with the smallest amount of moisture!
Being familiar with backing removals and conserving degraded cloth covers (and now encouraged after having Obie’s support) I next went beyond spot testing and decided to perform a test treatment on one of the fragments to remove the backing board… with the caveat that I would stop at any point if I felt uncomfortable. Should I ever feel out of my element at any step, or have concerns that removing the textiles from the backing would not keep them intact, I knew I could always pivot to my initial solution of storing the mounted parts in mats.
Treatment
My new plan was now to first reduce the acidic backing board layer by layer. Once the backing was removed, I would assess if it was appropriate to remove the brown paper lining. (While my test treatment was performed on only one of the smaller fragments, images below are pulled from the actual treatment for better illustration).
Low and behold on my first fragment, treatment proceeded without a hitch.
The board was removed slowly, layer by layer. The fragment was kept planar to prevent mechanical damage to the textile.
Before I knew it, it felt as though I was performing a regular backing removal on a photograph or document and soon found myself down to the final brown paper layer.
After removing multiple layers of board, the brown paper lining was revealed. Some areas of the brown paper were no longer adhered to the textile and readily released during mechanical removal while other areas remained more firmly attached.
At this point, with the backing and lining parts removed as much as possible, I decided to test a corner of the paper backing with light moisture. To my surprise, the paper backing adhesive quickly reactivated, the lining lifted with little effort, and the humidification strengthened the fibers of the linen fragment. All of this eased fears the fragments might fracture during final treatment steps. Proceeding with treatment felt obtainable.
The final step was releasing the brown paper lining with moisture from a water pen and lifting the lining with spatulas.
With this new turn of events, I realized, if I ventured so far as to remove both the mounted board AND the paper backing, I’d need a new storage solution.
I halted treatment and went back to the drawing board to research storage enclosures (click here to jump to my post on storage solutions). Once I felt confident in selecting a method of storage for the loose textiles, I resumed treatment to remove the brown lining paper and proceeded with treatment on the rest of the fragments.
This is a time-lapse video showing how the brown paper lining was removed in stages. Localized humidification was applied from the back while mechanically separating the paper from the textile with spatulas.
Before Treatment
Collection is mounted to an acidic board with two of the fragments oriented upside down.
Normal Illumination, Before Treatment
After Treatment
Fragments are stored individually in storage solutions that double as long-term housing. The enclosures facilitate handling as well as display. Being stored individually, the fragments are able to be grouped as necessary by their context.
Recto, Normal Illumination
Verso, Normal Illumination
Recto, Normal Illumination
Verso, Normal Illumination
Recto, Normal Illumination
Verso, Normal Illumination
Recto, Normal Illumination
Verso, Normal Illumination
Recto, Normal Illumination
Verso, Normal Illumination
Recto, Normal Illumination
Verso, Normal Illumination
Raking Illumination, Before Treatment
Recto, Normal Illumination, After Treatment
Raking Illumination, Before Treatment
Recto, Normal Illumination, After Treatment
Raking Illumination, Before Treatment
Recto, Normal Illumination, After Treatment
Raking Illumination, Before Treatment, Upside Down
Recto, Normal Illumination, After Treatment
Raking Illumination, Before Treatment, Upside Down
Recto, Normal Illumination, After Treatment
Raking Illumination, Before Treatment
Recto, Normal Illumination, After Treatment
To learn more about the storage, check out the final post of the four-part series: Storage Solutions!
If you missed the earlier installments, you can jump to previous posts using the links below:
When a collection of Egyptian mummy bandage fragments at the Cincinnati and Hamilton County Public Library was found in an area used to store uncatalogued flat materials, the lab was asked to play a role in providing better stewardship.
Click the links below to jump to the following posts:
History – Historical information provided about the Egyptian inscriptions
Treatment – How the materials were treated after learning about their content
Storage Solutions – Individual solutions for separated fragments as well as storage as a collection
Learning About the Collection
Before coming to the lab, the library knew little about the fragments. So first and foremost, I reached out to a handful of scholars to see if I could glean any information. I soon found myself engulfed in a journey of discovery with each colleague leading me to a new reference, sharing a collective wealth of knowledge.
History
With generous information provided by colleagues, the library learned the following about the fragments (fragment measurements below are with height and width at the widest points):
Normal Illumination
Raking Illumination
Ultraviolet Fluorescence
Infrared Radiation
This is the center fragment. It contains Hieroglyphic script, measuring 21 x 23 cm. It’s part of a 3-piece set that belonged to a priest called Wennofer. The large scene in the middle belongs to Book of the Dead Spell 110 showing the deceased doing various things in the netherworld.
Normal Illumination
Raking Illumination
Ultraviolet Fluorescence
Infrared Radiation
This is the upper left fragment. It measures 8 x 14 cm. Script contains images and no preserved text. This is part of the 3-piece set that also belonged to a priest called Wennofer. Images belong to the vignette of Book of the Dead Spell 148. “For making provision for a spirit in the realm of the dead” this spell provides the names of the Bull of Heaven and his seven cows, providing an eternal supply of food and beer.
Normal Illumination
Raking Illumination
Ultraviolet Fluorescence
Infrared Radiation
This is the bottom right fragment. It contains Hieroglyphic writing and measures approximately 10 x 17 cm, containing a Thoth god image. It’s the final part of the 3-piece set that belonged to a priest called Wennofer. Preserved images are part of the vignette of Book of the Dead Spell 125, the so-called judgement scene.
Normal Illumination
Raking Illumination
Ultraviolet Fluorescence
Infrared Illumination
This is the bottom left fragment containing Hieratic script, however it is oriented upside down. It measures approximately 13 x 12 cm. There isn’t an owner’s name preserved so we’re unsure if it belongs with any other fragments in this collection. Images contain a shrine column, sections of Book of the Dead Spells 125 and 126, as well as traces of the vignette belonging to Book of the Dead Spell 125.
Normal Illumination
Raking Illumination
Ultraviolet Fluorescence
Infrared Radiation
This is the upper right hieratic fragment with Hieratic script. It measures approximately 9 x 7 cm. There is no owner’s name preserved.
Normal Illumination
Raking Illumination
Ultraviolet Fluorescence
Infrared Illumination
This is the bottom center hieratic fragment measuring 4 x 10 cm, also with no owner’s name preserved and oriented upside down.
Further Reading
Check out this essayfor Glencairn Museum News by Dr. Jennifer Houser Wegner to learn more about burial practices and in particular, funerary texts, such as the Book of the Dead.
To learn about how the fragments were treated in preparation for long-term storage, check out the third post of the four-part series: The Treatment
If you missed the earlier installment, you can jump to previous post using the links below (or even skip to the final post on storage):
These days, nanocellulose can be found in everyday products, like compostable plastic-like bags; however, the use of nanocellulose is still in its infancy in terms of research and use in art conservation. (For example, these decomposable poop bags look like plastic bags, but can actually be tossed in your compost pile!)
Introduction
This post takes a look at how nanocellulose films might be used in art conservation. To dip our toes in, experiments at the Cincinnati Art Museum were performed with a group of conservators who work in different specialties: textiles, objects, fine art, photographs and bound materials. We tried out various types of nanocellulose films and how they might be applied to a range of materials.
Laura shows the high degree of translucency of the crystalline films she made in Indianapolis at a prior workshop
Cecile examines repairs on a war bond poster
Obie tests film on a textile
What is Nanocellulose?
Nanocellulose is made up of nanoscale cellulose particles that come from different sources, like:
Wood: The most common source
Non-Wood Plants: Cotton, ramie, sisal, bamboo, and agricultural by-products. The decomposable poop bags mentioned above are made from corn starch nanoparticles!
Tunicates: Marine invertebrates, the only animals known to produce cellulose microfibrils.
Algae: Some species produce cellulose microfibrils within their cell walls.
Bacteria: Certain bacteria, like Gluconacetobacter xylinus, can produce cellulose microfibrils under the right conditions.
Types of Nanocellulose:
In conservation, the field has been experimenting with two main types:
Microfibrillated Cellulose (MFC): A mix of cellulose microfibrils from pre-delignified cellulosic materials. This type of nanocellulose appears cloudy once dispersed into a film format.
MFC films are slightly cloudy
2. Cellulose Nanocrystals (CNC): Composed solely of the crystalline part of cellulose, exhibiting high crystallinity and a high aspect ratio. This type of nanocellulose appears clear in a cast film.
CNC films are more translucent
Where to Buy
Many labs and companies around the world make nanocellulose products like gels, nanopapers, and foams. Here are a few:
Europe: Technical Center of Paper (CTP, France), EMPA (Switzerland), Weidmann Fiber Technology (Switzerland), Aalto University (Finland), VTT Technical Research Center of Finland, KTH (Sweden)
North America: The University of Maine (USA), Forest Products Lab, Wisconsin (USA), American Process Inc., Atlanta (USA), Celluforce (Quebec), Kruger Inc. (Quebec)
Asia: University of Tokyo, University of Kyoto, Asahi Kasei
What We Bought
In Cincinnati, we experimented with two products purchased from Weidmann Fiber Technology in Switzerland:
Celova for Art Conservation, 500g Gel: According to the Weidman Fiber Technology website, the gel has a high degree of fibrillation and is recommended for technical applications like art conservation.
During practical applications, the MFC powder did not react the same way as the gel during the film creation. The powder precipitated out and did not cast a homogeneous film.
Cecile’s initial tests with Solka-Floc Powdered Cellulose from Solvaira Specialties. It is a very fine, highly purified cellulose powder made from bleached wood pulp.
While it may have been a mistake in our method of production, my guess is the powder isn’t as well fibrillated for casting and wonder if that’s why it stayed out of solution.
High Purity and Stability: They’re almost pure cellulose, super stable, and have a neutral pH. They’re less affected by temperature and humidity than regular paper.
Strong Yet Delicate: Mechanically, they’re stronger than traditional paper in some ways but less elastic and easier to tear.
Remarkable Transparency: The nanoscale dimensions of the fibers eliminate light scattering, resulting in highly transparent films, often called “nanopapers.” The transparency is influenced by the film’s structural density, particle size (MFC or CNC), the source material, and the manufacturing process. In practice, this transparency reminded me of the appearance of glassine tape.
How are nanocellulose films made?
There are various ways to make nanocellulose films, but conservators use one main method (as the others are found in larger scale manufacturing processes).
Casting Film by Evaporation: A low-cost and easily reproducible method where a nanocellulose solution is cast onto a substrate like a silicone mold or a polystyrene petri dish, allowing the solvent to evaporate. This technique produces homogeneous films.
Interestingly, it took an extraordinary amount of time for the solvents to evaporate at the Cincinnati Art Museum. Even after placing the trays in a fume hood to encourage drying, it took many days for the films to form during a low RH in December!
Glass and polyester dishes are not recommended for casting onto as the films will not release from these containers.
What are nanocomposite films?
Simply put, nanocellulose is combined with an adhesive. During the film’s creation, the adhesive is added into the nanocellulose solution to enhance the film’s physical and optical properties. Common conservation adhesives added to films include Klucel G, wheat starch paste, methyl cellulose, and gelatin.
In our experiments, we used 5% Klucel G, 4% Methocel A4CP, and strained Zen Shofu wheat starch paste. Two batches were made of varying amounts of gel to see if there was a difference in thickness of the films (spoiler: I couldn’t tell a noticeable difference!).
For another batch, Cecile also added in some QoR Golden watercolors that have an aquazol-based binder for a bit of a brown-toned tint that might be handy for filling losses in photograph conservation.
Nanocomposite films created with 20ml of MFC gel with 5% Klucel G and 5% methocel added
Nanocomposite films created with 15ml of MFC gel with 5% Klucel G and 5% methocel added
Nanocomposite film with QoR raw umber and 25% Methocel
Applications of nanocellulose films in art conservation:
Nanocellulose film properties may be handy for use in art conservation for their:
High transparency and stability. Used as a repair material, the films blend into substrates and supporting fragile artifacts.
Compatibility with various adhesives
Minimal discoloration after aging ensures long-term stability and visual integrity of treated artworks.
Reversibility. They can be safely removed if needed.
Limitations to using nanocellulose films in conservation:
While promising, there are some downsides to consider:
Lower tear strength compared to traditional paper. The films are delicate and might not work for items that need to withstand a lot of use.
Water Sensitivity: the films are highly reactive to moisture and require different application repair techniques than traditional paper repairs. For me, I wondered if the amount of time required for the learning curve of successful application was worth the result over traditional paper repairs.
Long-term behavior of nanocomposite films and their interaction with art materials requires further research to ensure compatibility and prevent unintended consequences.
Testing the Films on Paper-Based Materials
Both pure nanocellulose films and nanocomposite films were tested on a non-collection items using a variety of techniques.
Pure films were applied with a range of adhesives while nanocomposite films were adhered either by remoistening/reactivating with solvents or adhered by applying additional adhesive to the film, in addition to what was mixed in during the casting.
While Cecile worked on a war bond poster, Obie worked on a garment, and Laura tested treatment on an ink jet print, I tried my luck on a map.
Together, we all tested a scrapbook owned by Kelly.
First applications on a dark and brittle substrate surprisingly reminded us of the appearance of glassine tape in specular light!After multiple tries, Cecile impressed me with her application in the red “u” that blends in better than in the black and yellow regions on the war bond poster
My Successful Applications
I had best luck with the nanocomposite films but only when they were reactivated with the adhesive they were made with.
I used a map for a variety of tests on one item to compare results
For example, the 20 ml 0.2% MFC gel created with 0.6 g 5% methocel film blended beautifully into the paper when reactivated with 5% methocel. The methocel was brush applied thickly. See the repair below along the left side in specular light. It doesn’t even look like tape here! The repairs blend nicely. Between the two, I found the methocel nanocomposite film blended better than the wheat starch paste.
Repair on far left: Nanocomposite film made with 5% methocel was reactivated with brush application of 5% methocel.
My second favorite options were the pure MFC films adhered with methocel and wheat starch paste.
My Application Failures
I could not for the life of me find a way to successfully apply the nanocomposite film with Klucel G to a paper substrate without it falling apart during the process. Cecile had better luck while for me, it stuck to everything! I struggled both when it was reactivated with ethanol and when the film was brushed with the Klucel G solution. Plus, it was super shiny and didn’t help the paper lie flat.
Shiny repair on far left: Nanocomposite film made with 5% Klucel G was reactivated with dip in ethanol
I had even worse luck with the nanocomposite films when they were only reactivated with water. I could easily apply them to the paper, however, these performed the worst out of all the repairs, with the methocel nanocomposite film failing to even hold the tear together! See the two center repairs below in specular light. The wheat starch paste held, but didn’t want to hold the tear well aligned.
Failed repair in center: nanocomposite film with 5% methocel reactivated with water before adhering
Compared to kozo tissue repairs (on the same paper): the nanocellulose repairs overall were shinier (more akin to glassine tape in appearance!), but they didn’t seem to cause any planar distortions like the kozo tissue naturally wants to do. However, the kozo tissue blends visually into the paper better. The kozo tissue repairs are the ones with the tails sticking off the edge of the paper.
Repair on left: nanocomposite film made with 5% methocel applied with 5% methocel almost has a glassine tape-like appearance. Repairs on right with tails sticking off paper: traditional kozo paper repairs adhered with wheat starch paste
Conclusion:
Nanocellulose films offer promising potential for art conservation but require a learning curve to handle and apply. Their unique properties, combined with ongoing research and development, could lead to innovative solutions for preserving cultural heritage, but research on long-term stability, compatibility with specific artwork materials, and ethical considerations will be crucial for wider adoption in the field.
Health and Safety:
Pure nanocellulose gels and films are generally considered safe to handle.
Resources
Most of the info here comes from resources shared by paper conservator, Cecile Mear who organized our informal experimentations. Photograph Conservator, Laura Moeller also provided additional resources she gathered from a workshop held at the Indiana Historical Society in June 2019.
bpga36-20.pdf Detailed introduction to nanocellulose films use in conservation
The Preservation Lab, after 13 years of collaboration between the University of Cincinnati and the Cincinnati & Hamilton County Public Library, is embarking on an expanded mission to provide our expertise and services to the larger cultural heritage community.
Beginning in 2025, The Preservation Lab is transitioning to a regional lab model that is entirely managed, staffed and equipped by the University of Cincinnati. The Preservation Lab’s current staffing and location will remain the same during this transition.
The Preservation Lab provides the full suite of preservation services to the University of Cincinnati Libraries and, for a fee, to other cultural heritage institutions. The Preservation Lab’s expertise is in book and paper conservation, with services available in general circulating materials repair, single-item conservation treatment, housing, exhibition prep, and preservation consulting.Please visit The Preservation Lab’s new website at https://libraries.uc.edu/thepreservationlab.html for updates and more information.
Holly Prochaska, Head, Preservation Services & Lab at the University of Cincinnati
This week the Preservation Lab and the Archives and Rare Books Library hosted a 2-day workshop with the conservator and book historian Julia Miller. The workshop, Identifying and Describing Historical Binding Structure: A Stacks Appraisal Workshop, provided the Preservation Lab staff, University of Cincinnati Libraries’ (UCL) special collections catalogers, and UCL special collections stewards an opportunity to strengthen their skills of historical binding identification and description. We honed our descriptive skills by examining collections from the Archives and Rare Books Library and models/exemplars from Julia’s personal teaching collection.
Julia Miller presenting to the Historical Binding Structures class.
Thanks to Julia Miller, one of the most knowledgeable and giving people that we have had the privilege to learn from.
Thanks to Chris Harter for providing access to so many Archives and Rare Book treasures and a wonderful space to learn and collaborate.
Thanks to Catarina Figueirinhas for suggesting the course and being the on-site coordinator and organizer.
Lastly, thanks to University of Cincinnati Libraries for their continued support of staff professional development!
This set of Japanese side-sewn, crepe paper bindings, or Chirimen-bon, came to the Preservation Lab housed in their damaged traditional Japanese wraparound case, known as a maru chitsu. The set belongs to the Cincinnati and Hamilton County Public Library, which has an extensive Lafcadio Hearn collection. This collection of volumes was printed by Hasegawa Takejirō, a Japanese publisher who specialized in books written in European languages on Japanese subjects. The Japanese Fairy Tale Series was one of the more popular series, beginning with six volumes in 1885; though this later collection only has five volumes of fairy tales. Lacadio Hearn was one of the foreign translators employed by T. Hasegawa.
Original enclosureFive volumes withing the original enclosure (pictured after treatment)
Due to the high profile nature of Lafcadio Hearn for the library and the beauty of the bindings, the collection is often shown during tours and used for display, however, the crepe paper volumes, while in excellent condition, are extremely floppy, and they are also side-sewn, both factors make them difficult to handle and display. The original enclosure is also very fragile and damaged, and susceptible to further damage if used as an enclosure moving forward. For all these reasons, the curators wanted an enclosure that would not only store the collection long-term, but could also be used for display.
This proved to be a challenge, but a fun one. I started by making a couple of sketches and then a couple of models…
Models – two types of collapsible cradles and one model of the display tray/stand
For the models, I had two main focuses: 1) a collapsible cradle that would house and display one of the volumes, and 2) a display component that would act as a tray or level within the enclosure and house the remaining four volumes, in two stacks of two, side by side.
I will always advocate for making a model if you are trying to work through a new enclosure or adjust an existing enclosure or display piece, like a cradle. For example, I knew that a normal collapsible cradle wasn’t going to fit the bill for these volumes. Instead, I was going to need a stiff, squared off spine piece built into the cradle to help support the bindings’ spines.
One of the main areas I had to troubleshoot was the display tray, which would house the four remaining volumes. I knew I wanted to create a stand that would basically replicate one side of a collapsible cradle and have a 1/2 inch Plastazote foam insert, which happened to nestle the thickness of two volumes perfectly, that was covered in Tyvek. But I had concerns about gravity and reliability of PVA to hold the foam insert in place overtime. And I wasn’t happy with my initial ideas of how to remove the volumes (and also the original enclosure and collapsible cradle) from the insert(s), which consisted of a tab underneath the volume. It created friction that would ultimately cause damage to the actual volumes.
Ultimately, I am extremely happy with what I came up with. I think it functions very well, and checks all the boxes it needed to check. Safe, secure storage. Elegant display. User-friendly.
Display stand openDisplay stand closed. A lip was added to support the foam insert overtimeDisplay stand closed with one set of volumes removedPolyester slings were created as a solution for removing items safely and easily from the enclosure
The display stand includes a cloth tape inserted into the boards to keep it from opening too far, a foam insert covered in Tyvek, a lip to support the foam insert overtime, and two polyester film slings to aid in removing the volumes from the foam insert. The polyester slings proved to be an excellent solution for removing all the elements from the enclosure safely and easily.
For those interested in how some of the components were constructed, here are some in-progress images…
Detail of the turn-in for the display stand lip; cut similarly to how we cut our clamshell enclosure tray turn-insDetail of the turn-in for the display stand lip; cut similarly to how we cut our clamshell enclosure tray turn-insFoam insert, vertical panels covered in Tyvek firstTyvek sheet cut in preparation for attaching to foamTyvek sheet cut in preparation for attaching to foamTyvek attached to the front of the foam pieceTyvek turn-ins cut
Because of the way the trays/components of the enclosure are constructed, they are actually interchangeable. So if the “lower tray” with the original enclosure and collapsible cradle ends up on top of the display tray/stand, that’s not an issue at all. And there is a 1/4 inch Volara foam piece adhered to the outer tray of the clamshell enclosure, so whatever items are on top will be cushioned by soft foam in the enclosure.
Get a full tour of the enclosure by watching our reel on Instagram:
