Smithsonian American Art Museum

Lunder Conservation Center

Analysis of Wax and Wax-Resin Materials used in Previous Lining Treatments

Sarah Gowen

Paintings Conservation Graduate Intern

Winterthur/University of Delaware Program in Art Conservation Fellow

Supervisor:

Amber Kerr-Allison

Paintings Conservator, Smithsonian American Art Museum

July, 2012

1

Analysis of Wax and Wax-Resin Materials used in Previous Lining Treatments

Introduction

Wax and wax-resin mixtures have been used since the nineteenth century in adhesive recipes used for lining paintings. While there are advantages for this hot melt material, including its reversibility and

ability to penetrate canvas, the disadvantages have been discussed since the mid-twentieth century and

have led conservators to use other materials (Ackroyd, Phenix, and Villers 2002). Notably, wax does not function well as an adhesive. Resin is added to amend this weakness; however, it can lead to chemical

instability (Phenix 1995). If the lining mixture does not effectively act as a consolidant, the condition

problems initially treated can return. This seems to be the case for multiple paintings within the

Smithsonian American Art Museum collection. Paintings conservator Amber Kerr-Allison has noted that many of the paintings that were lined to reduce cupping paint have returning paint deformations. The

cause for this is unknown, but it is presumed that the adhesive recipes are causing the linings to fail, and

the stability of the paintings is of major concern.

This project is designed as a preliminary investigation of what may be occurring to the paintings in the

American Art collection. The project has included the examination and documentation of gallery paintings, the research of lining recipes in the conservation studio files, as well as the analysis of wax and

wax-resin samples taken from four paintings and six materials found in the Lunder Conservation Center

studio. While this project is still in its early stages, the return of cupped paint is an emerging problem,

and it is hoped that a more comprehensive investigation can be continued in the near future. If it is discovered that one or more particular lining recipes are found to inherently fail over time, paintings

within the galleries may need to be re-treated sooner than previously anticipated.

Project Description

The first step of this project was to survey the paintings hanging in the galleries and determine which works appear to have stability concerns, specifically the return of cupping paint. Some lined paintings

that are in good structural condition were also noted for material comparison. Once a list of paintings was

developed, the conservation files associated with the works were examined to research the possible

lining-adhesive recipes used in the conservation treatments. Unfortunately, much of the conservation documentation contains little information regarding recipe materials and concentrations. Nevertheless,

file information relevant to lining treatment was recorded for each examined painting and is provided in

Appendix 1. The condition for each work is also designated as one or a combination of the following: good or stable condition (for paintings with linings that have maintained adhesive strength), slight

cupping, moderate cupping, and severe cupping. Examples of each are provided in the images below.

2

Although paintings in the galleries are exhibiting paint deformations, these paintings were not sampled

due to scheduling conflicts with art handlers and restricted access to the linings as the paintings were

hanging on the gallery walls. Instead, samples were taken from lining materials available in the conservation studio as well as from lined paintings that had been brought to the studio for treatment. A

total of seventeen lining materials were collected for analysis, but due to the limited time and resources

available, only ten of the samples were analyzed. Descriptions and locations of the samples are listed in table 1.

Four of the analyzed and two of the unanalyzed samples were taken from the linings of four paintings,

each of which was brought to the conservation center for treatment regarding the associated wax or wax-resin lining. Sampled painting linings and the painting treatments are listed below. Each painting was

treated by Amber Kerr-Allison, Paintings Conservator.

The current lining of Rockbound Coast, Cape Ann by Cullen Yates, 1910.9.14

This painting was on loan to the Supreme Court and returned to the studio due to disfiguring cracks

associated with cupping paint. Treatment included filling and inpainting the cracks using Paraloid

B72 Retouching Gels and Golden PVA Conservation Paints. The current lining of Going to the Bath by Kathleen McEnery Cunningham, 1972.77

This work was stored in an off-site facility and then in the American Art Museum building. It was

brought to the studio in preparation for museum loan. Paint cracks were inpainted using Golden

PVA Conservation Paints.

The previous lining of City Store Fronts by Francis Criss, 1964.1.35

City Store Fronts was on loan to the Smithsonian Institution Castle and was returned because of

severe cupping. The lining adhesive was gummy and appeared to fail due to loss in adhesive

strength. The painting was re-lined on Sunbrella using BEVA 371 and heat. Cracks and losses

were inpainted using Golden PVA Conservation Paints and Paraloid B72 Retouching Gels. The previous lining of Lake Scene by Edward Custer, 1956.11.8

This painting was also on loan to the Smithsonian Institution Castle and was returned due to

severe tenting and minor paint loss. The lining adhesive appeared to fail because of age, as it

had become embrittled and no longer held the paint in plane. The painting was re-lined on pre-stretched linen using BEVA 371 and heat. Cracks and losses were inpainted using Gamblin

Conservation Colors and Paraloid B72 Retouching Gels.

The other samples were taken from lining materials stored in the studio for conservation treatments. A selection of waxes and wax mixtures were analyzed. The unanalyzed samples are also listed as a record

of the materials available in the conservation studio and for reference should the materials be needed for

future analysis. The materials were sampled in one of two ways. Most were taken using a metal spatula

Painting details showing condition assessment definitions: A) Albert Bierstadt, Among the Sierra Nevada Mountains in California, good condition; B) Max Weber, Summer, slight

cupping; C) Frederic Edwin Church, Aurora Borealis, moderate cupping; D) Abbott Thayer, Angel, severe cupping

3

or metal scissors and stored in glass vials; however, some of the materials had been stored in polyethylene

plastic bags. In these cases, the materials were kept as stored. The former housing of each studio sample is noted in table 1 to document samples that may be contaminated. Whether or not the sample was

analyzed is also indicated in the table. Due to time constraints and the results of samples S-01 to S-04

(discussed below), analysis focused on the wax samples. The resins should be analyzed at a later date.

Table 1

Number Sample Information Location Analyzed?

S-01 Rockbound Coast, Cape Ann,

Cullen Yates, 1910.9.14

Current lining

Sample of wax/wax-resin and glass-fiber fabric cut

from upper proper left corner of the canvas verso

No

S-02 Rockbound Coast, Cape Ann,

Cullen Yates, 1910.9.14

Current lining

Sample of wax/wax-resin taken from upper proper

left corner of the canvas verso

Yes

S-03 Going to the Bath, Kathleen

McEnery Cunningham, 1972.77

Current lining

Sample of wax/wax-resin and glass-fiber fabric cut

from the proper right corner

No

S-04 Going to the Bath, Kathleen

McEnery Cunningham, 1972.77

Current lining

Sample of wax/wax-resin taken from proper right

tacking edge around the edge staples

Yes

S-05 City Store Fronts, Francis Criss,

1964.1.35

Previous lining

Sample taken from previous lining that has been

stored in a plastic bag

Yes

S-06 Lake Scene, Edward Custer,

1956.11.8

Previous lining

Sample taken from previous lining that has been

stored in a plastic bag

Yes

S-07 Carnauba wax from Lunder studio

Fisher Scientific Company

Cat. #W-30; MP 81-86˚C (from Fisher Scientific MSDS)*

Sample taken from glass bottle Yes

S-08 Multiwax from Lunder studio Microcrystalline wax, Witco; MP

of 150˚F (65.5˚C) provided on

container

Sample taken from the interior of the wax block Yes

S-09 Multiwax from Lunder studio

Microcrystalline wax, Witco;

MP of 150˚F (65.5˚C) provided on

container

Sample taken from section wrapped in Butcher’s

wax paper and in cardboard box

No

S-10 “Pure beeswax” from Lunder

studio; beeswax MP 61-70˚C

(from Fisher Scientific MSDS and

CAMEO)*

Sample taken from supply stored in cardboard box Yes

S-11 Black wax from Lunder studio

Bareco Waxes, microcrystalline

wax, Batch 8617; MP possibly

84˚C (from Baker Hughes)*

Sample taken from supply stored in cardboard box Yes

S-12 Residual material in melting pot Sample taken from material found in studio melting

pot

Yes

S-13 Wax used in treatment from 2007 Sample taken from wax stored in plastic bag; wax

previously used in a painting treatment by Amber

Kerr-Allison

Yes

S-14 AW-2 resin Resin taken from glass bottle No

S-15 K. Resin N, 4521338 Resin taken from glass bottle No

4

S-16 BEVA 371 Sample taken from glass bottle No

S-17 Glass-fiber fabric Sample cut from fabric roll No

*The melting point (MP) of the waxes varies based on brand and processing. The temperature ranges indicated were

taken from manufacturer information and from the Conservation & Art Material Encyclopedia Online (CAMEO) available on the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston webpage http://cameo.mfa.org/index.asp.

Samples were analyzed on January 11, 2012. The Museum Conservation Institute (MCI) of the

Smithsonian Institution was unavailable for the analysis, and so the samples were taken to the Scientific

Research and Analysis Laboratory (SRAL) at the Winterthur Museum.1 Dr. Jennifer Mass (Senior

Scientist and Adjunct Assistant Professor), Catherine Matsen (Associate Scientist and Adjunct Assistant

Professor), and Dr. Chris Petersen (Adjunct Associate Professor) assisted with the analysis. Each of the

ten samples was analyzed using Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR), and Dr. Petersen analyzed each of the painting samples using Gas Chromatography – Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) at a

later date.

Experimental Procedures

Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR-Transmission Mode)

FTIR is particularly successful in characterizing organic materials. As the samples are of conservation materials and not the original painting materials, a considerable amount of each could be taken for the

analysis. A portion (at least a 20μg) of each sample was placed on a diamond cell and flattened using a

steel micro-roller to allow light to transmit through the material. The analysis was then completed using a Thermo Scientific Nicolet 6700 FTIR with a Nicolet Continuum FTIR microscope. Each spectrum was

acquired with 128 scans in a range of 4000-650 cm-1

and with a spectral resolution of 4cm-1

. Omnic 8.0

software was used to record the spectra, which were compared with both the standard samples taken from the Lunder studio and references found in commercial and IRUG reference libraries.

Gas Chromatography – Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS)

This analytical technique was used to specifically identify molecular organic components in the four lining samples. Dr. Chris Petersen completed the analysis and used two methods to derivatize the

material components. In the first method, he used MethPrep to cleave triglycerides and esters. The

procedure was as follows. First, a portion of each sample was placed in a heavy-walled vial (100-300μL) and prepared with MethPrepII (approximately 100μL of 1:2 Alltech MethPrepII reagent in benzene). The

samples were heated at 60˚C for an hour, cooled, and analyzed using a Hewlett-Packard 6890 series gas

chromatogragh with a 5973 mass selective detector (MSD) and 7683 automatic liquid injector. The

Winterthur RTLMPREP procedure was followed for the analysis. In this method, the temperature of the inlet and transfer line to the MSD (SCAN mode) was 300˚C. Each sample volume of 1μL was injected

into a 30m×250µm×0.25µm film thickness HP-5MS column (of 5% phenyl methyl siloxane and a flow

rate of 2.3mL/min). The oven temperature was held for 2 minutes at 55˚C and programmed to increase at 10˚C/min to 325˚C, where it was held for 10.5 minutes.

In the second analytical method, N,O-bis(trimethylsilyl) trifluoroacetamide (BSTFA) was used to analyze

portions of three of the four samples (all but the sample from Cunningham’s Going to the Bath). BSTFA reacts with free alcohols and free acids (such as resin acid). Each sample was placed in a heavy-walled

vial (100-300μL) and treated with 50μL of BSTFA. After this preparation, the procedure was the same as

that for the MethPrepII; the samples were heated at 60˚C for an hour, cooled, and then analyzed using the

Winterthur RTLMPREP method.

Results

1 Winterthur/University of Delaware Program in Art Conservation students have free use of the equipment at SRAL.

5

Sample information and the results for FTIR and GC-MS analysis are provided in tables 2 and 3 below.

The individual spectra are given in Appendix 2.

Table 2: FTIR Summary

Sample/

Artist

Location/

Description

Matches

Found

Sample Peaks (cm-1

) Reference Peaks (cm-1

) Estimated

Movement

AL5551

S-02

Cullen Yates

Sample taken from upper proper left

corner of the canvas verso; wax was brittle

Beeswax

“Pure

Beeswax”

3600-3100 broad

2954, 2916, and 2849

1736 and 1710

1472, 1463, 1413,

and 1374

1194, and 1169

955 and 918

731 and 720

--

2952, 2916, and 2848

1738 and 1712

1473, 1466, 1411, and

1377

1196 and 1175

957 and 918

731 and 721

O-H stretch

C-H stretches

C=O stretch

C-H bends

C-O stretches

C-H torsion

C-H torsion

AL5552

S-04

Kathleen

McEnery

Cunningham

Sample taken from proper right tacking edge near the staples; wax was soft

Beeswax

“Pure Beeswax”

2958, 2916, and 2848

1738 and 1712 1474, 1466, and 1380

1170

730 and 719

2952, 2916, and 2848

1738 and 1712 1473, 1466, and 1377

1175

731 and 721

C-H stretches

C=O stretch C-H bends

C-O stretches

C-H torsion

AL5553

S-05

Francis Criss

Sample taken from previous

lining that had been stored in a plastic bag; wax was soft

Paraffin

wax

Black wax

2952, 2914, and 2848

1474, 1461, and 1377

728 and 721

2955, 2918, and 2848

1473, 1460, and 1375

731 and 721

C-H stretches

C-H bends

C-H torsion

AL5554

S-06

Edward

Custer

Sample taken from previous lining that had

been stored in a plastic bag; wax was brittle

Beeswax

“Pure

Beeswax”

2955, 2920, and 2849

1735 and 1715

1473, 1463, 1417,

and 1378

1199 and 1176

955 and 917

735 and 724

2952, 2916, and 2848

1738 and 1712

1473, 1466, 1411, and

1377

1196 and 1175

957 and 918

731 and 721

C-H stretches

C=O stretch

C-H bends

C-O stretches

C-H torsion

C-H torsion

AL5555-1

S-07

Carnauba

wax from

Lunder

studio

Fisher Scientific Company, Cat.

#W-30; MP~

81-86˚C; wax

taken from glass bottle

N/A 2955, 2916, and 2848

1738

1606 and 1515 1473 and 1466

1172

731 and 721

N/A C-H stretches

C=O stretch

C-C stretches C-H bends

C-O stretch

C-H torsion

AL5555-2

S-08

Multiwax

from Lunder

studio

Microcrystalline

wax, Witco, MP 150˚F (65.5˚C); sample taken from the interior of the wax block

N/A 2953, 2914, and 2846

1473, 1460, and 1374

728 and 717

N/A C-H stretches

C-H bends

C-H torsion

AL5555-3

S-10

“Pure

beeswax”

from Lunder

studio

MP~61-70˚C;

sample taken

from supply stored in cardboard box

N/A 2952, 2916, and 2848

1738 and 1712

1473, 1466, 1411,

and 1377

1196 and 1175

957 and 918

731 and 721

N/A C-H stretches

C=O stretch

C-H bends

C-O stretches

C-H torsion

C-H torsion

AL5555-4

S-11

Black wax

from Lunder

Bareco Waxes, microcrystalline wax, Batch

8617; MP

N/A 2955, 2918, and 2848

1473, 1460, and 1375

731 and 721

N/A C-H stretches

C-H bends

C-H torsion

6

studio possibly 84˚C; sample taken from supply stored in cardboard box

AL5555-5

S-12

Sample from

melting pot

in Lunder

studio

Residual wax or wax-resin found in melting pot

N/A 2952, 2918, and 2848

1738 and 1709

1473, 1463, and 1377 1170

731 and 721

682 and 669

N/A C-H stretches

C=O stretch

C-H bends C-O stretch

C-H torsion

C-H torsion

AL5555-6

S-13

Sample from

wax used in

previous

treatment

Sample taken from wax stored

in plastic bag; wax previously used in a painting treatment by Amber Kerr-Allison

N/A 3500-3100 broad

2918 and 2851

1735 and 1709

1473, 1466, 1447,

and 1375

1170 and 1058

960

729 and 721

N/A O-H stretch

C-H stretches

C=O stretch

C-H bends

C-O stretches

C-H torsion

C-H torsion

Table 3: GC-MS Summary, information provided by Dr. Chris Petersen

Sample/Artist Description Matches Treatment Compounds

AL5551

S-02 Cullen Yates

Sample taken from upper proper left corner of the canvas verso; wax was brittle

Beeswax

MethPrep -High palmitic acid to stearic acid ratio

-High level of fatty acid 24 in comparison to other acids higher than 18

-Higher number of odd-numbered over

even-numbered hydrocarbons

AL5551

S-02

Cullen Yates

Sample taken from upper proper left

corner of the canvas verso; wax was brittle

Beeswax

BSTFA -Same as in previous MethPrep test

-Presence of wax esters and alcohols

AL5552

S-04

Kathleen

McEnery

Cunningham

Sample taken from proper right tacking edge, around the edge staples; wax was soft

Beeswax

MethPrep -High palmitic acid

-High level of fatty acid 24

-Presence of diols

-Presence of an unknown

AL5553

S-05

Francis Criss

Sample taken from previous lining that has been stored in a plastic bag

Paraffin wax

MethPrep -Even and odd-numbered hydrocarbons

-Negligible amount of fatty acids

AL5553

S-05

Francis Criss

Sample taken from

previous lining that has been stored in a plastic bag

Paraffin wax

Microcrystalline

BSTFA -Same as in previous MethPrep test

-High molecular weight

-Possibly microcrystalline

AL5554

S-06

Edward

Custer

Sample taken from previous lining that has been stored in a plastic bag

Beeswax MethPrep -High palmitic acid

-High level of fatty acid 24

-High level of stearic acid (possibly

added)

-Marker for dammar resin

AL5554

S-06

Edward

Custer

Sample taken from previous lining that has been stored in a plastic bag

Beeswax BSTFA -Same as previous MethPrep test

-Presence of triterpenoid resins

-Presence of wax esters

Discussion

7

Regarding the examination of gallery paintings and subsequent research of the conservation files (see

Appendix 1), it is clear that more analysis should be completed before conclusions can be made about the lining adhesive recipes. In most cases, very little recipe information is included in the painting files, and

for those that do have specific wax-resin formulas, there does not appear to be an apparent correlation

between the recipe and the condition of the lining. The one exception appears to be the recipe of 1.5 parts

Multiwax 445, 1.5 parts beeswax, and 1part Zonarez B-85 resin. There are three painting linings listed in Appendix 1 with this recipe and each has little to no cupping. Otherwise, however, “wax-resin” formulas

have resulted in cases of good condition to severe cupping, and the percentages of wax and resin are

needed for comparison.

The analysis during this preliminary investigation focused on the samples from the lined paintings and the

wax materials available in the studio. The analytical results collected during this project indicate that three of the four analyzed paintings were lined with beeswax. Store Front by Francis Criss appears to

have been lined with paraffin or microcrystalline wax. Each of the material spectra matches at least one

of the materials (“pure beeswax” and the microcrystalline waxes) found in the Lunder studio. The lining

spectra are compared to these studio materials in Appendix 2. Surprisingly, the FTIR analysis does not yield a significant indication for the presence of resin. Because of this, and due to time constraints, the

studio resin samples were not analyzed during this session of the study. (A spectrum for resin is provided

in Appendix 2 for comparison.) All of the lining sample spectra peaks closely match those of the control wax materials; however, it is possible that the amount of resin in the samples was small enough to not be

readily detected. Some of the FTIR peaks, such as the broad O-H peaks in the Cullen Yates and residual

material from the melting pot, could be due to low amounts of natural resin. Additionally, some of the C-H stretches could indicate the presence of a non-wax component; however, the spectra show that the

samples are predominantly wax. If little resin was added to the lining adhesive mixtures, it could explain

why the linings are failing and why paint cupping is returning. Without resin, wax-based lining material

has little adhesive strength.

Because FTIR was unsuccessful in detecting resin, Dr. Petersen offered to analyze the lining samples

further using GC-MS. The results confirm that Store Front had either a paraffin or microcrystalline wax lining while the other three paintings were lined using predominantly beeswax; however, the GC-MS

results also indicate that the previous lining of Lake Scene by Edward Custer contained some resinous

material. Finally, there appears to be a difference between the beeswax from the current lining of Going

to the Bath by Kathleen McEnery Cunningham and the other beeswax lining recipes. The Cunningham sample was soft wax, while the others were brittle. GC-MS indicates that the main difference between

the materials is the presence of more long chains diols in the Cunningham sample. The effect of diols on

the structure and aging of the wax/wax-resin components should be researched further.

Conclusion and Suggestions for Continued Research As previously mentioned, the research to determine the cause of returning paint deformation is in its early

stages. More lining materials from paintings within the American Art Museum collection should be

sampled and analyzed to gather information regarding lining adhesive formulas. Additionally, as little

recipe information is available in the museum conservation files, it would be beneficial to create an open dialogue with conservation professionals and survey lining mixtures currently or previously used by

others in the field. Concurrent to this research, the condition of the paintings in the collection should be

regularly monitored.

Wax and wax-resin materials have advantages for use in conservation; however, the use of wax in

adhesive recipes could be the cause of failing linings in the American Art collection. The return of cupping paint is an emerging problem for the museum. The cause is still unknown, but if previously used

8

lining formulas contained little resinous material, the adhesive strength of current linings may be a

concern.

References Ackroyd, P. A. Phenix, and C. Villers. 2002. Not lining in the twenty-first century: attitudes to the

structural conservation of canvas paintings. The Conservator 26 (1): 14-23.

Phenix, A. 1995. The lining of paintings: traditions, principles and developments. In Lining and backing:

the support of paintings, paper and textiles. Papers presented at the UKIC Conference, London. 21-33.

Appendix 1: Galleries Painting Survey

Paintings with an asterisk were located on the first floor at the time of this study; all others were located in the second-floor galleries. The table rows are colored to indicate the extent of cupping (green for good

condition, yellow for slight or slight to moderate cupping, and red for moderate and severe cupping).

Accession # Artist Title Condition / Cupping Treatment (from studio files)

1977.107.1 Albert

Bierstadt

Among the

Sierra Nevada

Mountains in

California

good condition 1978: wax-resin lined to fiber-glass

fabric interleaf and aluminum

honeycomb panel

1929.6.3 Ralph

Blakelock

Moonlight,

Indian Encampment

slight cupping 1960 (possibly by Cross in NYC): re-

lined likely with wax-resin

1975.86 E. L. Blumenschein

The Gift slight cupping 1985 (by Ann Creager): wax-resin lined to a double-layer fiberglass

fabric; not previously lined

1976.118 Alfred T.

Bricher

Castle Rock,

Marblehead

slight cupping 1977 (by T. Carter and C. Grimm):

wax-resin lined to Belgian linen and

aluminum honeycomb panel; linen

alone did not provide enough support

to reduce cupping

1956.11.2 Richard Norris

Brooke

A Dog Swap moderate to severe

cupping

n/d (possibly by Charles Olin): infused

with Keck’s wax-resin adhesive and

pre-stretched Belgian canvas on heated

table; max temperature for the

treatment was 54ºC

1964.1.77 Norman S.

Chamberlain

Corn Dance,

Taos Pueblo

moderate cupping 1978 (possibly by Ann Creager): wax-

resin lined to double-layer fiberglass

1911.4.1 Frederic

Edwin Church

Aurora

Borealis

moderate cupping 1976 (by Stefano Scafetta): left

previous lining of wax-resin in place,

applied new microcrystalline wax

(Multiwax W-445), ironed wax

through the two canvases; stretched fiber-glass fabric infused with wax

(1:4 Piccolyte Alpha 100 to Multiwax

W-445) on stretcher first

1910.9.5 Eanger Irving

Couse

Elk Foot of the

Taos Tribe

slight cupping 1986 (by Ann Creager): wax-resin

lined to double-layer fiberglass fabric

support using vacuum hot table

9

1983.104.1 Robert

Duncanson

Valley Pasture slight cupping 1984 (by Quentin Rankin): lined with

“1.5p Multiwax 445, 1.5p beeswax, 1p

Zonarez B-85 resin” onto two layers

of fiberglass fabric using a hot table;

maximum temperature of 155ºF

1943.11.1 Frank

Duveneck

Water

Carriers,

Venice

good condition 1964 (by Henri Courtais): old lining

removed and new lining applied,

possibly with wax

1971.290 John Ehninger October good condition 1974 (by Cleo Mullins): old glue (est.)

lining removed and then wax-resin

lined to fiberglass fabric and masonite

panel

1972.107 John Francis Luncheon Still

Life

slight cupping 1972 (by Joyce Hill Stoner): old glue

(est.) lining removed and lined with wax-resin (Multiwax W-445 and

Piccolyte Alpha 85) to linen and

fiberglass fabric

1909.9.1 Glenn Fuller Illusions slight to moderate

cupping

1957 (possibly by Glenn Martin in

Washington, D.C.): stretched and re-

tacked but no indication of lining

1968.138 James

Hamilton

Scene on the

Hudson (Rip

van Winkle)

moderate cupping 1969 (by Charles Olin): lined with

linen and wax emulsion; conservator

noted that the paint remained cupped

after four heated treatments on a hot

table

1929.6.52 Childe Hassam Celian Thaxter

in her Garden

good condition 1984 (by Ann Creager): lined to

single-layer fiberglass fabric with

BEVA 371; some cupping set down

from the front with wax-resin and

heat; not previously lined

1929.6.61 Childe Hassam Ponte S.

Trinita

good condition; stable

but strong craquelure

1965 (by Robert Scott Wiles and

Marion Mecklenburg): lined with

"wax adhesive" to fabric; not previously lined

1909.7.29 Winslow Homer

High Cliff, Coast of Maine

slight cupping 1966 (by Sheldon and Caroline Keck): lined with wax-resin on linen

1909.7.34* George Inness September Afternoon

good condition with areas of strong

craquelure

1972 (by Thomas Carter): lined the painting with “wax-piccolyte adhesive”

to linen; then lined to masonite that had

first been coated on both sides with

polyvinyl alcohol; attached wooden

strips to the verso of the board and

aluminum strips to the edges

1929.6.68 La Farge Wreath of

Flowers

slight cupping 1960 (by Harold Cross in Washington,

D.C.): re-lined with wax onto canvas

(possibly linen)

1981.51 Emanuel

Leutze

Birds Nesting good condition 1981 (by Quentin Rankin): lined to

stretched linen using wax-resin (1.5p

Multiwax 445, 1.5p beeswax, 1p

Zonarez B-85 resin); lined using hand-

held iron

1982.120 Charles

Christian Nahl

and August Wenderoth

Miners in the

Sierras

slight to moderate

cupping

Appears to have entered the collection

lined with wax-resin adhesive on a

fabric support

10

1976.119 Peter

Frederick

Rothermel

Columbus

before the

Queen

good condition 1984 (by Stefano Scafetta): removed

old lining and white lead adhesive; re-

lined with wax-resin (1.5p Multiwax,

1.5p beeswax, 1p Zonarez B-85 resin)

to canvas and fiberglass fabric; first

attempt at lining failed, and gesso was

applied to the verso to even out the

surface prior to second lining attempt

1985.66.248,

932

John Mix

Stanley

Buffalo Hunt

on the Southwestern

Prairies

good condition 1966 (by “HST” and “MMR”): wax-

resin (Bareco wax) applied and ironed locally; does not appear to be fully

lined

1985.66.248,

933

John Mix

Stanley

Black Knife, an

Apache

Warrior

slight cupping 1973 (by Thomas Carter): removed

old glue (est.) lining and re-lined with

microcrystalline wax (Piccolyte Alpha

85 “2/1”adhesive) onto two layers of

fiberglass fabric; also filled some

losses with microcrystalline wax

1929.112 Abbott Thayer Angel moderate to severe

cupping

n/d: wax-resin lined

1975 (by Stefano Scafetta): areas of

cleavage set down with PVA-AYAA

and re-infused with microcrystalline

wax

1929.6.115 Abbott Thayer Cornish

Headlands

slight cupping 1965: lining treatment listed in

proposal but the process is not

described

1929.6.122 Abbott Thayer My Children stable; strong

craquelure

1959 (by Harold Cross): lined but

process not specified in file

1929.6.127 Abbott Thayer Stevenson

Memorial

slight to moderate

cupping

Before 1964: lining not specified

1978 (by Ann Creager): infused wax-

resin

1929.6.131 Abbott Thayer Virgin

Enthroned

stable; strong

craquelure

1960 (by Henri G. Courtais):re-lined

Likely before 1974: wax-resin (possibly Keck’s formula) infused

through front to secure paint

1909.7.64 John Henry

Twachtman

Round Hill

Road

moderate cupping 1971 (possibly by Charles Olin):

treatment report not available

1915.4.1 Henry O.

Walker

Mrs. William

T. Evans and

her Son

slight cupping 1959 (by Janice Hines): re-lined but

treatment not specified

1993.7 Max Weber Summer slight cupping appears that the painting entered the

museum lined

1909.7.73* J. Alden Weir Upland

Pasture

moderate to severe

cupping

1975 (by Stefano Scafetta): removed

lining of wax-resin; set down paint

cleavage with wax-resin and re-lined

with wax-resin on Belgian linen

2006.12.2 William

Williams

The Wiley

Family

good condition Lined with wax adhesive onto

synthetic fabric (based on

examination); treatment not specified

in the file

1966.56 John

Wollaston

Portrait of

Lucy Parry,

Wife of

Admiral Parry

good condition 1983 (by Ann Creager): removed glue

lining and re-lined the painting with

wax-resin onto double-layer fiberglass

fabric using a vacuum hot table

11

Appendix 2: FTIR and GC-MS Spectra

FTIR Spectra:

Individual Spectra

Wax from the current lining of Rockbound Coast, Cape Ann by Cullen Yates (AL5551, S-02)

Wax from the current lining of Going to the Bath by Kathleen M. Cunningham (AL5552, S-04)

12

Wax from the previous lining of City Store Fronts by Francis Criss (AL5553, S-05)

Wax from the previous lining of Lake Scene by Edward L. Custer (AL5554, S-06)

13

Carnauba Wax (AL5555-1, S-07)

Multiwax (AL5555-2, S-08)

14

“Pure Beeswax” (AL5555-3, S-10)

Black Wax (AL5555-4, S-11)

15

Residual Wax in Melting Pot (AL5555-5, S-12)

Wax from Previous Treatment (AL5555-6, S-13)

16

Comparison Spectra

Top: Wax from the current lining of Rockbound Coast, Cape Ann by Cullen Yates (AL5551, S-02)

Bottom: “Pure Beeswax” (AL5555-3, S-10)

17

Top: Wax from the current lining of Going to the Bath by Kathleen M. Cunningham (AL5552, S-04)

Middle: “Pure Beeswax” (AL5555-3, S-10) Bottom: Multiwax (AL 5555-2, S-08)

Top: Wax from the previous lining of City Store Fronts by Francis Criss (AL5553, S-05) Middle: Black Wax (AL5555-4, S-11)

Bottom: Multiwax (AL 5555-2, S-08)

18

Top: Wax from the previous lining of Lake Scene by Edward L. Custer (AL5554, S-06)

Bottom: “Pure Beeswax” (AL5555-3, S-10)

Top: Wax from the current lining of Rockbound Coast, Cape Ann by Cullen Yates (AL5551, S-02)

Bottom: Natural resin varnish spectrum from IRUG library

GC-MS Spectra: Spectra provided by Dr. Chris Petersen (WUDPAC Adjunct Associate Professor)

19

Wax from the current lining of Rockbound Coast, Cape Ann by Cullen Yates (AL5551, S-02) Sample treated with MethPrep

Same treated sample with separated hydrocarbon content (top) and fatty acid content (bottom)

20

Wax from the current lining of Rockbound Coast, Cape Ann by Cullen Yates (AL5551, S-02)

Sample treated with BSTFA

Wax from the current lining of Going to the Bath by Kathleen M. Cunningham (AL5552, S-04)

Sample treated with MethPrep

21

Wax from the previous lining of City Store Fronts by Francis Criss (AL5553, S-05)

Sample treated with MethPrep

Same treated sample with separated non-beeswax fatty acids (top) and the straight-chain alkanes (bottom)

22

Wax from the previous lining of City Store Fronts by Francis Criss (AL5553, S-05) Sample treated with BSTFA

Wax from the previous lining of Lake Scene by Edward L. Custer (AL5554, S-06)

Sample treated with MethPrep

23

Wax from the previous lining of Lake Scene by Edward L. Custer (AL5554, S-06) Sample treated with BSTFA