(Hertel 1853:24). In 1904 von Frimmel described wood-to-wood transfer as
an impractical method no longer in use (von Frimmel 1904:136).
There is no mention of this topic in earlier German literature, but
oral traditions regarding the quality and species of wood for new supports
seem to be summarized in the Wolters Report. The use of the same wood
as that of the panel—from trees cut in winter, growing on the west side of
mountains or in the forest—is recommended. Wood from higher mountain
regions was considered preferable. The cut trunk was stored vertically dur-
ing the winter in a protected place. In spring, the bark was removed and
the trunk dried in a place protected from sun and wind. If the trunk were
floated or boiled for a long time in water, the quality of the wood
improved. Only the heartwood board could be used for the new support
(Wolters 1952:20). Sometimes restorers were secretive about their new sup-
ports; one of these “secrets” was plywood (Goldkuhle 1932). (New types of
rigid supports are described below in the context of auxiliary supports.)
Transfer from wood to canvas. Hacquin ’s work on the Madonna
di Foligno is one of the most famous transfers of a wooden panel painting
to canvas in the history of conservation and restoration. Canvas was pre-
ferred as a new support for panel paintings during the nineteenth century.
The arguments against this method, however, started early. In 1834 this
treatment was thought to be very difficult and dangerous (Welsch
1834:66). In 1873 the transfer ofpaintings from wooden panels to new can-
vas supports was officially rejected by museum custodians, conservators of
monuments, and restorers (Koller 1991:78). In the first half of the twenti-
eth century, negative opinion about total transfer increased very quickly.
Painters voted against it—among them Doerner (1921:290). The loss of
the genuine character of a panel painting and its transformation into a
canvas painting was decried. It was noted that the painting so treated
would then have two types of craquelure at once (Bauer-Bolton 1933:110).
The survey of public conservation laboratories revealed that, on the
whole, transfer of paintings from wooden panels to canvas was no longer
accepted. Transfer in general was now classified as a treatment that could
be carried out only as a last resort (Wolters 1952:19). Straub’s important
paper on the conservation of panel paintings does not address that subject,
as he considered the technique unnecessary (Straub 1963:108). Today
many old transfers on canvas require additional conservation treatment,
particularly if the transfer was not done properly. According to A. Schulze,
at the conservation laboratories of the Saxonian Institute for the Care of
Monuments and Sites in Dresden, a painting transferred improperly from
wood at the beginning of the twentieth century was heavily damaged,
with wooden particles left on the back of the paint layer (Figs. 17, 18)
(Schulze 1994).Auxiliary supports since about 1865
The history of total and partial transfer has been related to the history of
new rigid auxiliary supports since about 1865, when plywood was first pro-
duced industrially in the United States. Around 1900 the first plywood
mills were founded in Germany; they appeared in Austria in 1903 and in
Switzerland in 1920. The history of wooden fiberboards began in the early
nineteenth century. Production started in Germany in 1932 (Schiessl
1983:72–77). Masonite and Sundeala boards were often used in Germany.
Particleboards were invented in 1943 in Switzerland; industrial production
began in 1950 (Schiessl 1983:72–77).220 Schiessl