The Structural Conservation of Panel Paintings

tion, the adhesive used was made mostly of resin, with wax added. In con-

trast, the second stage used a largely wax adhesive, with resin added. The

wax-resin mixture used in the second stage was also used in various forms

in the subsequent reconstructions.

The treatment of many panels followed this general form: origi-

nal panel material was removed where the wood was too damaged by

insect tunneling to provide adequate support or where it seemed necessary

to allow secure consolidation of the paint film. Occasionally this meant a

complete transfer, but often the excavations were limited to only small sec-

tions of the panel. Sometimes these excavations extended to the back of

the paint film, but, where possible, a layer of original wood was left in

place next to the paint.

Where an overall backing was required, it was usually made up of

wooden battens and cross bracing. A diagram taken from the treatment

records shows the elements of the 1937 reconstruction of two panels

(Fig. 1). Although he did not examine these panels personally, Kolch reports

that the condition of the treated panels was stable as of 1966, while an

untreated companion panel continued to show blistering of the paint.

In 1938 a set of four panels was treated to flatten and reinforce

them. These panels were scored diagonally on the reverse and moistened

to reduce the warp. Channels were then cut parallel to the grain and filled

with bulked wax-resin and hemp fiber s. This treatment also included the

addition ofaluminum tubing set across the wood grain to add strength.

The stability and surface conformation of these panels were found to be

ex cellent. Channels cut along the grain to reduce the warping and alu-

minum tubes or bars placed across the grain were used on several paint-

ings in the following years.

Adramatic example of this reconstruction method was carried

out in 1939 and 1940. The treatment record includes the initials of both

Murry Pease and Richard Buck. The painting measured 170.5 3 123.0 cm

and had a thickness of 1.9 cm. It had been thinned and cradled before 1917

and after that continued to show instability of the paint and multiple con-

ve x warps. Insects had done extensive damage to the panel. The treatment

included the complete removal of the original panel, as well as much of

R B: T D  U   B B  P P 291

Construction of support

Figure 1
Diagram ofa panel reconstruction, Fogg
Museum Laboratory, 1937.