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