Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
3 November 1997
Abstract
This article traces the development of a new method of glass restoration for fragmentary
and incomplete vessels. The technique involves making a blank of the missing area and
then moulding and casting away from the object as an alternative to conventional gap-
filling in situ.
Introduction
Traditional glass restoration techniques involve the casting of missing areas in situ
(Newton & Davison 1996; Penelope & Norman 1987; Black & Wilson 1983; Larsen
1979; Davison 1978; Fiorention & Borelli 1975; Errett 1972; Staude 1972; Wihr 1968;
Wihr 1963). Such techniques often involve moulding from a similar part of the glass
object and then placing this over the missing area and casting; moulding from a
modeled area and then placing this over the missing area and casting; or moulding from
existing gap-fills, removing them, and then placing the mould over the missing areas.
Although highly effective, such techniques also involve the cutting back of excess resin
and the finishing of the surfaces of the casts, increasing the potential for damaging the
glass and possibly creating stresses between the newly casted area and the glass itself.
The following is a brief account of conservation measures undertaken to restore a large
missing area of a second century A.D. Romano-British glass amphora at the Institute of
Archaeology in London. It is hoped that the techniques described may provide a useful
example of an alternative casting technique in which all work is done away from the
glass object, consequently reducing the potential for any damage.
Aside from the numerous fragments, the glass itself was in relatively good condition.
There was some surface weathering but no actual flaking. Based on research and photos
of similar type vessels, the fragments were sorted into their believed categories: base,
body, shoulder, neck, rim, and handle. Eventually, the vessel was found to preserve the
entire rim, neck, handle, and one flat wall. Two walls were only a quarter and a half
present. The base was a little under half preserved. Together, the fragments were found
to comprise about sixty percent of the vessel which stood roughly 355 mm high and was
190 mm in diameter (Figure 2).
In the case of such an incomplete glass artefact, full restoration involved the
consideration of whether such a procedure was desirable on ethical grounds, as well as
its overall feasibility. After considering the possibility of improving the stability of the
object, as well as improving its aesthetic appearance for display, reconstruction was
decided upon. Consultation with owners determined the amount of reconstruction
desired. The amount of time and resources available, as well as the bottle's size, shape,
and thickness determined the feasibility of reconstruction. In the end, it was decided that
a full reconstruction was both possible and appropriate.
Since enough of the vessel was preserved so that an accurate profile could be
determined, the first step was to weld several sheets of medium thickness dental wax
together. This was then heated with a hot-air blower and impressed into the interior of
the vessel, moulding the one existing flat wall and the curvatures of the shoulder and
neck, the curves to the other two flat walls, and the curve to the base. The wax sheet
was allowed to harden and removed from the inside of the vessel. All the exposed glass
break edges were then covered in aluminium foil to seal them from any potential
contamination. The wax impression was inverted and positioned onto the inside of the
object (Figure 3). The sheet was fixed to the aluminium foil with a hot spatula inserted
through the neck.
Both parts of the mould were formed with Dow Corning Silastic E RTV silicone rubber.
The outer silicone rubber mould was made in one section. After a wall of Aloplast was
constructed to completely surround the plaster and to prevent any uncured silicone
rubber from escaping (Figure 5), a thin layer of silicone rubber was brushed over the
plaster surface. When the silicone rubber had cured, silicone rubber thickened with
Santocel silicone matting agent was poured on until the area delineated by the Aloplast
had been was completely filled. The whole thing was then inverted and polyvinyl
alcohol was painted along the exposed silicone rubber to act as a separating agent
between it and the second part of the mould which was made just like the other side, by
adding layers of gradually thickened silicone rubber to the surface of the plaster. In this
way, a two-piece mould conforming to the interior and exterior profiles of the fill was
made (Figure 6).
Afterwards, a batch of Araldite 20/20 epoxy casting resin was colored with translucent
pigment to match the glass. The bulk of the resin was catalyzed and introduced into the
mould from a syringe through the plastic straws incorporated in the outer mould. A
small amount of resin was left uncatalyzed in order to encourage it to rise and escape
through other straws acting as air holes by gently tapping the mould. The resin was then
allowed to cure fully for nine days before being removed.
Excess resin on the outer surface of the epoxy cast in the form of seam-lines and stumps
which had formed in the pour and air holes was removed with a small grinding wheel
attached to a flexible dental drill. Tiny holes caused by trapped air-bubbles were filled
using colored resin applied with a syringe. Finally, the surface was polished to a glossy
finish using a felt polishing buff attached to a dental drill and Solvol Autosol (Figure 7).
The cast was then attached to the glass vessel with Araldite 20/20 (Figure 8) placed at
each corner to allow for easy removal if needed.
Conclusion
The method described above illustrates a technique for making glass casts with little
risk to the glass itself. With the exception of the wax and plaster stages, all work was
done away from the glass. At no point were any modeling, moulding, or casting
materials in contact with the glass surface, and at no point was any sanding, cutting
back, or surface finishing done in contact with the glass. Consequently, it is hoped that
this serves as a helpful and more ethical alternative to the traditional techniques of glass
restoration.
Basic Alpha Plaster - Alec Tiranti Ltd. 27 Warren Street, London W1P 5DG, U.K.
Aloplast® - Alec Tiranti Ltd. 27 Warren Street, London W1P 5DG, U.K.
Dow Corning Silastic E RTV Silicone Rubber® - Alec Tiranti Ltd. 27 Warren Street,
London W1P 5DG, U.K.
Araldite 20/20® -B&K Resins Ltd. Ashgrove Estate, Ashgrove Road, Bromley, Kent
BR1 4TH, U.K.
Black, J. and Wilson, A. (eds.) 1983. Making Replicas of Museum Objects: Moulding,
Casting, and Finishing. London: Institute of Archaeology.
Davison, S. 1978. "The problems of restoring glass vessels." The Conservator 2, 3-8.
Errett, R. 1972. "The repair and restoration of glass objects." IIC Bulletin of the
American Group 12(2), 48-49.
Fiorention, P. and Borelli, L.V. 1975. "A preliminary note on the use of adhesives and
fillers in the restoration of ancient materials with special reference to glass." Studies in
Conservation 20, 201-205.
Penelope, F. and Norman, K. 1987. "A new approach to the reconstruction of two
Anglo-Saxon glass claw beakers." Studies in Conservation 32, 49-58.
Staude, H. 1972. "Die Technik des Zusanmen setzens und Erganzens antiker Glaser."
Arbeitblatter fur Restoratoren Heft 1, Gruppe 5, 20-28.
Wihr, R. 1963. "Repair and reproduction of ancient glass." In: Recent Advances in
Conservation. London: Butterworths, 152-155.
The methods, techniques, and conclusions found in individual papers are the work and
responsibility of the author of the paper, and should in no way be thought to represent
the opinion or endorsement of either the Journal of Conservation & Museum Studies,
the Institute of Archaeology, or University College London. No liability or contract is
accepted or implied by the publication of these data.