| Posted: Mon Sep 5th, 2011 10:59 pm |
|
1st Post |
Nonnie
AGG Member
| Joined: | Sat Jul 24th, 2010 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 54 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
For my second "Ask the Experts" column for GlassCraftsman I am posing this question: What are your feelings about saving and repairing old lead as much as possible when restoring old windows versus stripping it and using new lead?" I might have to re-word it in a prettier way, but you get the gist. Who wants to answer? I need both sides of the aisle on this one, four to six experts total.
Thanks!!!!! Nonnie
P.S. I can include your headshots in this one because pictures of old lead aren't as attractive as pictures of you.*
*in most cases.
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 5th, 2011 11:36 pm |
|
2nd Post |
Vic
AGG Member
back to top
|
The truth of the matter is, that there is NO absolute correct answer to this question. If the lead is shot it should be replaced. EXCEPT in some cases. Such as historically significant windows or windows in museums. In these cases the lead should be saved if possible.
The only absolute answer to this question is that the age of the lead or the window has NO bearing what so ever as to whether a window needs to be releaded. There are leads in windows in Europe that are centuries old and in fine condition. And there are windows that are only 50 years old that can use a total relead. EVERY window condition is different and needs to analyzed on it's own merits.
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 6th, 2011 02:13 pm |
|
3rd Post |
CZL
AGG Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 9th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 109 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
I hate old lead, it never re-solders well, it smells funny and it is only going to revert to it's old position (sag and bulge) a short time after you repair and re putty it. That is a short time compared to new lead which should last it least, another 50 years with no further attention. The Maestro used to say it is a hundred year German job when using new lead and reenforcing it CORRECTLY, which he did. I have been around a studio that does not seem to grasp that concept. But when I do it, I do it Sussex County Style, NEW LEAD, and lotza bars. Sorry Dick where ever you are.
Good Luck,
CZ
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 7th, 2011 01:17 pm |
|
4th Post |
Nonnie
AGG Member
| Joined: | Sat Jul 24th, 2010 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 54 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Thanks very much CZ and Vic. Others are welcome to chime in! Nonnie
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 7th, 2011 01:31 pm |
|
5th Post |
artfem
AGG Member
back to top
|
Nonnie:
I would agree with Vic. It is also a function of the design import the lead plays in a window as well as its physical condition. In opalescent windows, especially good ones, the lead is a very important design element. For many painted windows, the lead is less important, the painted line rules. When lead evinces serious metal fatigue and/or corrosion it should be replaced. Most old leads can be soldered well if the surface corrosion is cleaned away. It is important to scrape the corrosion away not abrade it. I also find that a stearic acid flux works better than pure oleic for soldering old leads. The age of lead is not an indicator of its condition.
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 7th, 2011 03:00 pm |
|
6th Post |
Susana Rutherford
AGG Member
back to top
|
On the subject of lead I think it really needs to be a case by case
assessment, the lead condition varies by thickness and width. As CZ said too
design is a huge factor lack of support bars and poor design contribute to
failure of windows as much as age of lead. The surrounding material is also
a factor where I live wooden frames rot and crack due to moisture and
freezing.
In my opinion and experience which is only 25 years or so, you cannot make
a blanket rule about lead repairs. Some old lead solders fine with a little
scrubbing and other pieces are too broken down to work on.
I agree that as to personal preference it is much easier and cleaner to
complete a project with new lead.
Susana Rutherford
http://firehorsestudios.ca
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 7th, 2011 03:06 pm |
|
7th Post |
Kal Tiki
AGG Member
back to top
|
I am all for preserving old lead if it is in perfect condition but my experience has been that this is only about 5% of the time with windows close to 100 years old. All lead will eventually be replaced, the question is when. The best indication of when to replace lead is cracking of the lead adjacent to the solder joints. The heat from soldering starts what Newton called "thermal crystallization". The lead adjacent to the solder joint eventually becomes brittle and cracks all the way through. Therein lies the problem with "resoldering" the joint, you are only soldering the top flange of brittle lead and the heart of the lead which is essential to maximum strength remains broken. Of course buckling compounds the problem but the severity of the buckling is a factor. The life of the lead until restoration is needed again is significantly less than when new. Rewaterproofing helps to stiffen the window further but the lead is significantly weaker.
Part of the argument is "How significant is the lead as part of the art of the window or hand of the artist?". Obviously some leaded details are very unusual and significant and should try to be conserved but others are mundane and parts of high production windows. Should all lead be considered significant? I have always believed that the glass is the art of the window and the lead is the frame that holds the art and in the best interest of the art the lead frame should be properly maintained and if replacement is needed so be it.
Good preservation principles include maintaining as much of the original material as possible and be least intrusive. In the case of lead these two principles can be in conflict. Restoring a window is intrusive. Is it more important to preserve the lead than to restore the window less frequently? I have seen many windows that I recommended be releaded 25-30 years ago that were partially restored and are now again in need of restoration. The most extreme example of this were windows that had been "restored" 7 years prior to my being called to examine the windows and they were already buckling again. When I gave my recommendation of full restoration and a better method of setting the windows I was called a crook. Many people and institutions opt for preserving the lead as a cost savings and assume that is more of a "preservation" approach than full releading. I disagree that it should be defined as a course of action closer to preservation principles than full releading.
I look forward to seeing more opinions on the question. Dan Maher
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 7th, 2011 03:16 pm |
|
8th Post |
Mary Clerkin Higgins
AGG Member
back to top
|
Below is my opinion on the subject, as quoted from my paper in the Detroit AGG Post-print:
"Releading is an issue that our field is sorting out and there have been strong feelings and discussions about the pros and cons of it, but I hope for a discussion that is more about real problem solving than what I often hear. The situation has been confused because -one - there are many different levels of stained glass (works of art, cultural artifacts, simple building fabric); two - some “restorers” have chosen to relead when there was not a good reason (in the stained glass) to do so; and three – it’s easier to depict situations as black and white, rather than as nuanced, where each situation must be thought through anew and on its own merits.
Serious conservators should be as creative as artists while anchored in sound conservation principles, without “always” and “never” as their fallback positions. The lead is an important artifact, but it also has an important job to do, and when it is in danger of failing at its job we need to remember that the lead network is, in most cases, much less important than the glass it holds. There is no question that if something was in cast, rather than milled or extruded, leads, the lead must be retained, but that’s hardly a common situation.
If the lead network is no longer strong enough, if nearly all the original glass needs to be addressed, if the last releading was ludicrous and insensitive, these are legitimate concerns.
While every “problem” and “solution” must stand on its own merits, the work of the original artist/s is the most significant “history” of any artwork. And in stained glass the glass takes precedence over the lead, if choices must be made.
Saving the work of incompetent, insensitive restorers and favoring it over that of the original artist does not make sense. Just because the artist’s work had the misfortune of falling into the wrong hands it is now doomed forever because the “history” of the object is more important than the original artists’ work, according to some philosophies. Most of the papers I read on the issue never once mention that stained glass is an art form and that the aesthetic decisions (or lack of them) made by artists and conservators have real consequences.
As an artist, the glass and paint are what I spend all my time and energy on. In stained glass, that is where an artist’s vision lies. And then, when all of the most important work is done, I glaze the window. If someone in the future endangers all my work (aesthetically or physically) because they favor the lead or an incompetent restorer over my glass, well, let me just level a curse right now and hope it lingers.
This is what guides me as I conserve the work of other artists - many far greater than I can ever hope to be. I try to deduce what was most important in the creation of the artwork in front of me (which also helps me as an artist) and then do all I can to respect that as I work to prolong its life, with conservation principles informing my effort.
I hope I never forget that in almost all instances, it’s the original artists and their vision that makes stained glass a work of art or cultural artifact worth preserving. Forgetting that awakens the curses that linger. "
Best, Mary
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11th, 2011 11:12 am |
|
9th Post |
Nonnie
AGG Member
| Joined: | Sat Jul 24th, 2010 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 54 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
back to top
|
Thank you everyone for your responses here! You make my job so easy, and I'll make sure that I mention that this was on the AGG forum for publicity's sake. Once I write it up I might come knocking for photos, but I just want to say thanks. If anyone else has thoughts to add, I still have a couple of weeks before my deadline.
Happy fall, Nonnie
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 12th, 2011 05:53 pm |
|
10th Post |
Tod
AGG Member
back to top
|
Mary's reply illustrates what seems to be a second level of concern where 'fixing" a leaded window is concerned. In most of the discussions I've read or sat in on, the issue is condition of the window as a whole which includes consideration of all the component parts: glass, paint, lead, solder, cement, reinforcing and frame (that's pretty much all of them).
Mary suggests (I'm not picking on you, Mary!) that we should be most concerned with the glass, and, indeed, that's the most important component for her own work. However, I can't imagine that Ludwig Schaffrath would agree, for example.
Perhaps, in looking at medieval windows or "catalog windows" from 1900, glass is king and all other ingredients are secondary, but that's not always the case all windows I suspect.
- Tod
Last edited on Mon Sep 12th, 2011 05:56 pm by Tod
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 12th, 2011 06:18 pm |
|
11th Post |
Mary Clerkin Higgins
AGG Member
back to top
|
I suspect that Shaffrath would agree with me. His work relies upon expert leading, but IF the lead is shot, WHEN it needs replacing it should be replaced - with expert leading. I doubt he would want the glass - and his beautiful graphic - endangered because the lead can't do its job any longer. Of course, each situation rests upon its own merits.
My argument is with some who say that even though a medieval or other masterpiece was releaded incompetently, we must now keep that lead forever. It's illogical when we're talking about a work of art. It's been disfigured and we know exactly how, so why are we aiding and abetting incompetence?
And, a different, but collateral issue is that some claim it is "unethical" to relead. Blanket statements like that are an abnegation of professional responsibility. It implies a black and white situation exists, and any responsible person knows that is not the case. It's time for a much more nuanced discussion.
Thanks for being part of that, Tod. Best, Mary
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 27th, 2012 12:50 pm |
|
12th Post |
sebaheguia
Non AGG Member
back to top
|
Yes I completly agree with Vic and CZ. Thank you for set me free.
I'm not a rip-realead maniac but lately I become too feel guilty when I must to relead a window. Something like a lead sinner.
|
|
