Matting or free float? what's your preference?

[baseballart]

I don't think we've had this debate here. Perhaps it will reach the heights of the PSA/SGC debate on the other side (not likely).

What do people prefer? Matting out a photo that might have slight damages to the edges or free floating? I am in the latter camp

[Jay Wolt]

Max, actually they both look great.
All my stuff has been matted, never tried the free float method

[Leon]

The one piece I have that has been framed got triple matted. It is my Horner League Composite. I think different things look better one way or the other. Many documents look better to me when they are free floating.

[william_9]

I like vintage items with worn edges. They have character and history behind them. I'd most likely show the edges.

[PhilNap]

In the free float gehrig piece is the item touching the glass or is it shadow boxed? Also, how is it mounted to the backing?

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by william_9

I like vintage items with worn edges. They have character and history behind them. I'd most likely show the edges.

+1

[3-2-count]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

+1

Free floating for sure. David that picture is remarkable.......

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Leon

The one piece I have that has been framed got triple matted. It is my Horner League Composite. I think different things look better one way or the other. Many documents look better to me when they are free floating.

I completely agree with this... it depends on the composition and make-up of the piece. I have done it both ways with great success. If the edge wear is severe, it can be quite distracting, and in those cases I like to mat it out.

When framing pennants, however, I would NEVER mat out any portion of it. They look horrible this way, and you have to see the pennants' borders no matter what.

#1 & 2 - Free floating works best
#3 - Matting out the edge wear was the best option
#4 & 5 - A combination of both worked best... the photo portions are matted, and the Comiskey Letter/Mays Auravision are both fully exposed using clear mounting corners. They would have looked funny and incomplete if the borders were hiding behind a mat.

So I believe it just depends on the nature of the piece.

[perezfan]

Here's another that might make the "photo guys" cringe...

I liked this incredible image of Clemente losing the battle against Wrigley Field's Ivy (and thought this moment of futility spoke for itself). I found the caption along the right to be quite distracting, and felt it took away from the beauty and artistry of this interesting photo. So I chose to ma out the caption, and was happy with the result...

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Here's another that might make the "photo guys" cringe...

I liked this incredible image of Clemente losing the battle against Wrigley Field's Ivy (and thought this moment of futility spoke for itself). I found the caption along the right to be quite distracting, and felt it took away from the beauty and artistry of this interesting photo. So I chose to ma out the caption, and was happy with the result...

No cringing here whatsoever Mark. All of your pieces came out great. I concur that it's a matter of personal taste and the situation dictates. That is a big part of the allure of collecting original news service photos as the "game used" wear & tear that is indicative to the nature of the newsroom, can be matted out in most cases as the central image usually remains presentable.

My best, Jimmy

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by Jay Wolt

Max, actually they both look great.
All my stuff has been matted, never tried the free float method

BOY, that's a great piece Jay!