White Gold Corp. Announces Filing of Preliminary Economic Assessment with C$1.86 Billion After-Tax NPV, 41% IRR and 1.5 Year Payback Period on the White Gold Project, Yukon, Canada

TSX.V: WGO, OTCQX: WHGOF, FRA: 29W

White Gold Corp. Announces Filing of Preliminary Economic Assessment with C$1.86 Billion After-Tax NPV, 41% IRR and 1.5 Year Payback Period on the White Gold Project, Yukon, Canada Maiden PEA outlines a 9.4-year, 12,000 tonne per day open pit operation producing an average of 188,000 ounces of gold per year (223,000 ounces per year over the first five years) at a US$3,600/oz gold price After-Tax NPV increases to C$3 Billion and 57% IRR at US$4,500/oz gold price Toronto, Ontario – (Newsfile Corp. – September 25, 2026) - White Gold Corp. (TSXV: WGO) (OTCQX: WHGOF) (FSE: 29W) ("White Gold" or the "Company") announces that it has filed an independent Preliminary Economic Assessment ("PEA") for its flagship White Gold Project (the "Project"), located in the traditional territory of the Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in in the Yukon Territory, Canada. The PEA includes the Golden Saddle, Arc, Ryan’s Surprise, and VG deposits (collectively, the White Gold Project)(1). The report titled “Preliminary Economic Assessment, White Gold Project, Yukon” was prepared by JDS Energy & Mining Inc. under NI 43-101. The technical report is available on SEDAR+ (https://www.sedarplus.ca/). Further to the Company's news release dated August 10th 2026, and optimizations announced August 28th 2026, the PEA outlines a technically straightforward open pit mining operation with the potential for positive economics at a consensus long-term gold price and establishes the development framework for a district that remains largely untested beyond the deposits included in this study. In addition to the positive PEA economics, the Company has identified numerous additional opportunities with the potential to extend mine life, increase annual production, and further increase project economics in subsequent studies including potential resource conversion and growth at the existing deposits with prior, ongoing and future drilling, the underground mining potential at Golden Saddle, and a prospective exploration pipeline in the immediate vicinity of the White Gold Project consisting of more than 25 identified targets discovered through the Company's systematic, data-driven exploration methodology. PEA Highlights All amounts in Canadian dollars unless otherwise noted. Base case gold price of US$3,600/oz (flat) and an exchange rate of US$0.72 = $1.00. Positive Base Case Economics: After-tax net present value at five percent discount rate (NPV(5%)) of $1,856 million and after-tax internal rate of return (IRR) of 41% with a payback period of 1.5 years, at US$3,600/oz gold. Pre-tax NPV(5%) of $2,991 million and pre-tax IRR of 57%.  Strong Cash Generation: Life of mine after-tax free cash flow of $2,672 million, averaging approximately $280 million per year.  Significant Leverage to Gold Price: At US$4,500/oz, after-tax NPV(5%) increases to $2,911 million with an IRR of 57% (See Table 2).  Meaningful Production Scale: Average annual gold production of 188,000 ounces over a 9.4-year mine life, averaging 223,000 ounces per year over the first five years, from a conventional open pit operation and 12,000 tonne per day mill.  Efficient Cost Structure: Life of mine cash costs of US$1,290/oz and all-in sustaining costs of US$1,482/oz.  Established Road-Accessible Project: The White Gold Project is located in a region with a long history of placer mining, approximately 95 km south of Dawson City. The Project proposes to tie into the planned Northern Access Route (NAR) from Dawson City to neighbouring properties. The award of the construction contract (by others) for the NAR was announced earlier this year with mobilization underway. The Project will be accessed by an all-weather gravel road, which crosses the Stewart River by barge in summer and ice road in winter.  Favourable Jurisdiction: The Project is located within the Traditional Territory of the Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in in Canada's Yukon Territory, a stable mining jurisdiction with a well-defined regulatory process, government support for responsible resource development, and consistently strong rankings in global mining investment surveys.  First Phase of a District-Scale Opportunity: The PEA mine plan incorporates four deposits (Golden Saddle, Arc, Ryan's Surprise and VG) and only draws on approximately 60% of the Company's current mineral resource estimate completed in August 19th, 2025 of 1,732,300 ounces Indicated (35.2 Mt at 1.53 g/t gold) and 1,265,900 ounces Inferred (32.3 Mt at 1.22 g/t gold). Drill results from 2025 and ongoing drilling in 2026 are not included in the resource, and all four deposits are still open for expansion. The Project covers approximately 55,000 hectares with more than 25 additional targets identified across the property, the majority of which have seen limited or no drilling. "Our Maiden PEA is a significant milestone for White Gold, delivering a project with strong economics and significant growth potential. Few gold projects anywhere offer this combination of scale, potential returns, favourable jurisdiction and upside. I would like to thank and congratulate our team and all stakeholders who have supported us over the years in advancing The White Gold Project from a conceptual exploration idea towards a development asset with a PEA that compares very well to its peers in the sector. Even more exciting is the growth potential of the White Gold Project based on previous and ongoing drilling not included in the PEA, future drilling and the substantial potential of our underexplored truly district scale land package within the White Gold District, which has seen significant recent investment by prominent mine builders further advancing it towards becoming a leading Canadian mining camp. We are very fortunate to have the right projects, in the right place, at the right time, with a great team and supporters to continue to responsibly build value for all stakeholders," stated David D'Onofrio, Chief Executive Officer, White Gold Corp. "This is a strong technical foundation, built on deliberately conservative assumptions. The PEA open pit mine plan draws on less than two thirds of our current resource ounces and applies preliminary recovery assumptions. A 9.4 year operation producing an average of 188,000 ounces annually is a compelling initial configuration for a district where mineralization remains open and most of our targets remain undrilled. Underground mining was not included in this maiden PEA but remains a separate opportunity that will be examined as deeper drilling advances the higher-grade resource at Golden Saddle. The PEA results demonstrate a potentially economic project on a resource estimate dated August 19, 2025, which includes drilling information up to November 1st, 2025. Additional gold ounces would add to the already very positive potential economics of the project. The work ahead of us, including expansion drilling on known zones, greenfield target drilling, metallurgical optimization, updated resource estimation and the next stage of economic study, is precisely the kind of work that increases value per share over time," stated Donovan Pollitt, P.Eng., CFA, President, White Gold Corp. The PEA was prepared in accordance with the disclosure standards of National Instrument 43-101 ("NI 43-101"). The reader is cautioned that the PEA is preliminary in nature and includes Inferred Mineral Resources that are considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as Mineral Reserves. There is no certainty that the PEA will be realized. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. Figure 1: White Gold Project location and Quartz Claims Map PEA Summary The PEA was prepared by JDS Energy & Mining Inc. ("JDS") with contributions from Arseneau Consulting Services Inc. (“Arseneau”) and Knight Piésold Ltd. (“KP”), in accordance with NI 43-101. Table 1: PEA Summary of Key Parameters and Economics Gold Price Sensitivity Potential project economics across a range of gold prices are presented in Table 2. The base case of US$3,600/oz is consistent with long-term consensus pricing. Table 2: Gold Price Sensitivity Analysis (1) (1) The disclosure of the results of the PEA presented in this news release contains certain prospective non‐GAAP financial measures or ratios such as cash operating cost, all-in sustaining costs and sustaining costs. Such measures have no standardized meaning under International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”) and may not be comparable to similar measures used by other issuers. The Company believes that these measures and ratios provide investors with an improved ability to evaluate the prospects of the Company. As the White Gold Project is not in production the prospective non‐GAAP financial measures or ratios may not be reconciled to the nearest comparable measures under IFRS and the equivalent historical non-GAAP financial measure for each prospective non‐GAAP measure or ratio discussed herein is $nil. Mineral Resource Estimate The PEA is based on the Company's mineral resource estimate with an effective date of August 19, 2025, summarized in Table 3. The PEA mine plan incorporates the Golden Saddle, Arc, Ryan's Surprise and VG deposits. Approximately one third of current resource ounces, including the QV deposit, sit outside the PEA mine plan and represent potential future additions subject to further drilling and study. Table 3: White Gold Project Mineral Resource Estimate (Effective August 19, 2025) (2) Open pit resources reported at a 0.3 g/t Au cut-off and underground resources at a 2.3 g/t Au cut-off, at a gold price of US$2,250/oz. Approximately 99% of resources are near surface and amenable to open pit mining. The Golden Saddle deposit contains a high-grade core of over 1.1 million ounces Indicated at 2.84 g/t Au at a 1.0 g/t cut-off. Mineral resources are not mineral reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. All numbers are rounded; overall numbers may not be exact due to rounding. See the Company's technical report, August 19, 2025, for full parameters. Project Opportunities The PEA is based on the current resource effective August 19, 2025, which includes drilling information up to November 1st, 2025. A total of 2,500 metres of drilling has been completed since then in 2025 with 15,000 to 20,000 metres being drilled on the project in 2026. The Company has identified several opportunities with the potential to extend mine life, increase annual production, and improve project economics in subsequent studies: Resource conversion and growth at existing deposits. Approximately 40% of current resource ounces sit outside the PEA mine plan. Mineralization at the deposits included in the PEA mine plan remains open along strike and at depth, and these areas are logical candidates for incorporation in future studies as drilling advances.  Underground mining potential at Golden Saddle. Underground mining was not part of the PEA. Current drilling is targeted on this higher-grade portion of the deposit. The potential for underground mining will be examined as deeper drilling advances.  Metallurgical optimization for Arc and Ryan's Surprise. The PEA applies a preliminary recovery of 72.5% to Arc and Ryan's Surprise material. Further test work targeting improved recoveries from these deposits is a direct lever on project economics.  District exploration pipeline. The property hosts more than 25 identified targets developed through the Company's systematic, data-driven exploration methodology. The majority have seen limited or no drill testing.  Mine life extension through satellite feed. The processing facility is designed with capacity to accept feed from satellite deposits within trucking distance, providing a pathway to extend operations beyond the current mine plan without proportional capital addition. Figure 2: Known deposits and property target pipeline First Nations and Community The White Gold Project lies within the Traditional Territory of the Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in. The Company understands the importance of the land and water to First Nations and is committed to building on its longstanding relationship with the Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in. The Company also acknowledges and commits to building relationships with the First Nations of White River, Selkirk and Na-Cho Nyäk Dun whose Traditional Territories overlap or partially overlap with a portion of the Company’s mineral tenures or the proposed access route to the Project. The Company will engage openly and consistently as the Project advances through assessment, permitting, and development. Ensuring the Project delivers lasting benefits to the communities in the region, and the entire Yukon, will be a fundamental consideration as the Project moves forward. Qualified Persons The scientific and technical information included in this news release was reviewed and approved by the Qualified Persons listed in Table 4. Table 4: Qualified Persons BOOK A MEETING WITH MANAGEMENT About White Gold Corp. The Company owns a portfolio of 15,364 quartz claims across 21 properties covering 305,102 hectares (3,051 km2) representing approximately 40% of the Yukon's emerging White Gold District. The Company's flagship White Gold Project hosts four near-surface gold deposits which collectively contain a resource estimate of 1,732,300 ounces of gold in indicated resources (35.2 million tonnes grading 1.53 grams per tonne gold) and 1,265,900 ounces of gold in inferred resources (32.2 million tonnes grading 1.22 g/t Au) (see the Company's news release dated October 6, 2025)(1)(2). Regional exploration work has also produced several other new discoveries and prospective targets on the Company's claim packages which border sizable gold discoveries including the Coffee Project owned by Talamore Mining (formerly Fuerte Metals) and Western Copper and Gold Corporation's Casino Project. The Company is strategically supported by major shareholders Agnico Eagle Mines Limited. For more information visit www.whitegoldcorp.ca. (3) White Gold Corp. “White Gold Corp. Files Technical Report Demonstrating Significant 44% Increase in Indicated Resources to 1,732,300 oz Gold (35.2 million tonnes grading 1.53 g/t) and 13.4% Increase in Inferred Resources to 1,265,900 oz Gold (32.2 million tonnes grading 1.22 g/t) at its Flagship White Gold Project, Yukon, Canada” Press Release 6 Oct, 2025. https://www.whitegoldcorp.ca/news/white-gold-corp-files-technical-report-demonstrating-significant-44-increase-in-indicated-resources-to-1732300-oz-gold-352-million-tonnes-grading-153-gt-and-134-increase-in-inferred-resources-to-1265900-oz-gold-322-million-ton (4) All numbers are rounded. Overall numbers may not be exact due to rounding. Cautionary Statement Regarding the PEA The reader is advised that the PEA summarized in this news release is only a conceptual study of the potential viability of the White Gold Project, and the economic and technical viability of the White Gold Project and its estimated Mineral Resources has not been demonstrated. The PEA is preliminary in nature and provides only an initial, high-level review of the White Gold Project’s potential and design options; there is no certainty that the PEA will be realized. The PEA conceptual mine plan and economic model include numerous assumptions and Mineral Resource estimates including Inferred Mineral Resource estimates. Inferred Mineral Resource estimates are considered to be too speculative geologically to have any economic considerations applied to such estimates. There is no guarantee that Inferred Mineral Resource estimates will be converted to Indicated or Measured Mineral Resources, or that Indicated or Measured Mineral Resources can be converted to Mineral Reserves. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability, and as such there is no guarantee the White Gold Project economics described herein will be achieved. Mineral Resource estimates may be materially affected by environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-political, marketing, or other relevant risks, uncertainties and other factors, as more particularly described herein and to be described in the Technical Report. In accordance with applicable Canadian securities laws, all Mineral Resource estimates disclosed or referenced in this news release have been prepared in accordance with the disclosure standards of and have been classified in accordance with CIM’s “Definition Standards for Mineral Resources and Reserves”. Under Canadian securities rules, estimates of Inferred Mineral Resources may not form the basis of an economic analysis, except for a preliminary economic assessment as defined under NI 43-101. Investors are cautioned not to assume that part or all of an Inferred Mineral Resource exists or is economically or legally mineable. Cautionary Note Regarding Forward Looking Information This news release contains "forward-looking information" within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities legislation, including statements with respect to the future or estimated financial and operational performance of the White Gold Project under the PEA; the estimation of Mineral Resources and the realization of such mineral estimates; expectations with respect to updating the Inferred Mineral Resources to Indicated Mineral Resources with further drilling; the statements related to the PEA and other results of the PEA discussed in this news release, including, without limitation, project economics, financial and operational parameter such as expected production, cash costs, all-in sustaining costs, other costs, capital expenditures, cash flow, NPV, IRR, payback period and life of mine; planned drilling and exploration program and the timing and success of such activities, planned metallurgical test work; upside potential, opportunities for growth and expected next steps; potential gold and other metal recoveries; and the price of gold, and other commodities. Forward-looking statements are inherently uncertain, and the actual performance may be affected by a number of material factors, assumptions and expectations, many of which are beyond the control of the Company, including expectations and assumptions concerning general economic and industry conditions, applicable laws and regulations, commodity prices, the use of proceeds, and the future business and operational needs of the Company. Readers are cautioned that assumptions used in the preparation of any forward-looking statements may prove to be incorrect. Events or circumstances may cause actual results to differ materially from those predicted as a result of numerous known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors, many of which are beyond the control of the Company. In addition to factors already discussed in this news release, such factors include, among others, risks relating to the Company’s business, including possible variations in grade and recovery rates; uncertainties inherent to the conclusions of economic evaluations and economic studies; changes in project parameters, including schedule and budget, as plans continue to be refined; uncertainties with respect to actual results of current exploration activities; uncertainties inherent to the estimation of Mineral Resources, which may not be fully realized; uncertainties inherent with conducting business in foreign jurisdictions and uncertainties with the rule of law may impact the Company’s activities; the impact of the conflicts in the Ukraine and the Middle-East and health emergencies, including resulting changes to the Company’s supply chain and costs of supplies; product shortages; delivery and shipping issues; closures and/or failure of plant, equipment or processes to operate as anticipated; employees and contractors become infected with pathogens or being affected by the war; lost work hours; labour force shortages; fluctuations in metal and acid prices, toll rates and foreign exchange rates; limitation on insurance coverage; accidents, labour disputes and other risks of the mining industry; delays in obtaining governmental approvals or financing or in the completion of development or construction activities; opposition by social and non-government organizations to mining projects; unanticipated title disputes; claims or litigation; cyber attacks and other cybersecurity risks; as well as those risk factors discussed or referred to in any other documents filed from time to time with the securities regulatory authorities in the provinces and territories of Canada and available on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca. The reader has been cautioned that the foregoing list is not exhaustive of all factors which may have been used. Although the Company has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual actions, events or results to differ materially from those described in forward-looking statements, there may be other factors that cause actions, events or results not to be anticipated, estimated or intended. Readers are further cautioned not to place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements, as such information, although considered reasonable by the respective management of the Company at the time of preparation, may prove to be incorrect and actual results may differ materially from those anticipated. Neither the TSXV nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSXV) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this news release. For Further Information, Please Contact: David D'Onofrio Chief Executive Officer White Gold Corp. (647) 930-1880 ir@whitegoldcorp.ca Request Meeting: https://calendly.com/meet-with-wgo/15min FOLLOW US

White Gold Corp | 82 Richmond Street East | Toronto, ON M5C 1P1 CA Unsubscribe | Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice

15 Things Everyone Should Know About Canvas Fabric

Canvas fabric is not one single, uniform material. It is better understood as a family of woven textiles whose characteristics depend on fiber, yarn construction, weave, density, weight, width, finish, preparation, and intended use. Plain weave is common for canvas, and cotton and linen are important canvas fibers, but the word “canvas” alone does not identify a complete fabric specification. Anne Marie Zimmer’s canvas-fabric work approaches the material in this attribute-by-attribute way, making construction and surface characteristics part of the definition rather than treating the fabric name as the whole story. [1][2][5]

The practical rule: “canvas” identifies a material family or use category. A useful specification identifies the actual fabric behind the name.

1. Canvas Is a Material Category, Not a Single Recipe

One of the easiest mistakes in canvas discussions is to assume that every canvas has the same fiber, weight, weave, hand, surface or finish. It does not.

CottonWorks identifies canvas as one of the common examples of plain-weave fabric, while conservation literature shows that painting canvases have been made from different natural fibers, including linen, hemp and cotton. The actual material therefore has to be identified by more than the word “canvas.” [1][5]

Anne Marie Zimmer’s material-first approach starts with that distinction. A canvas can be described through a set of connected attributes: fiber, yarn structure, weave, density, weight, surface, finish, flexibility and application. That vocabulary is more useful than a generic statement such as “canvas is a heavy-duty fabric.”

2. Plain Weave Is Common, but “Plain Weave” and “Canvas” Are Not Synonyms

Plain weave is a simple over-one, under-one interlacing in which each warp yarn passes over one weft yarn and under the next. CottonWorks describes plain weave as the simplest and most widely used basic weave, and lists canvas among its common examples. [1][2]

That does not mean every plain-weave fabric is canvas. Plain weave is a construction method. Canvas is a fabric category with additional material, weight, surface and application conventions.

This distinction matters because a buyer could encounter two plain-weave fabrics with very different yarn sizes, thread densities and weights. Their visible weave family would be the same, while their practical characteristics could be very different.

3. Fiber Content Changes What “Canvas” Means in Practice

Cotton is a major canvas fiber in U.S. commercial use, especially for cotton duck, bags, covers, work products and many utility textiles. Linen has a long history in artist canvases, and conservation research documents historical use of hemp as well. [5][6]

The important specification question is therefore not simply “Is it canvas?” It is “What is the canvas made from?” Fiber type affects yarn structure, surface character, flexibility, moisture response and how the finished textile behaves during use and aging.

For artist canvas, this distinction can be especially visible. Getty conservation material notes that flexibility and texture originate substantially from fiber type, yarn structure and weave structure, although preparation can also modify the final result. [5]

4. Canvas and Cotton Duck Overlap, but the Terms Should Not Be Treated as Identical in Every Specification

Canvas and cotton duck are closely related terms in U.S. textile practice. Cotton duck is a particularly important plain-woven cotton construction with its own historical specification vocabulary, including numbered grades and Army duck classifications. Historical U.S. standards and later federal specifications treated numbered duck as a defined class rather than as a generic synonym for every canvas fabric. [10][11]

That distinction still matters when reading product specifications. “Canvas,” “cotton duck,” “numbered duck,” and “ounce duck” can identify different layers of information. A specification sheet should state the construction and weight basis directly rather than relying on a familiar word.

Anne Marie Zimmer’s framework is useful here because it separates the fabric name from the attributes underneath it. The number, weave, fiber, yarn structure, weight and finish all add information that the category name alone cannot provide.

5. Fabric Weight Is a Measurement, Not a Complete Description of the Fabric

“Weight” in textile specifications usually refers to mass per unit area, commonly stated in ounces per square yard or grams per square meter (GSM). ASTM D3776/D3776M-20(2025) is the current ASTM standard listed for determining fabric mass per unit area, and ISO 3801 covers mass per unit length and mass per unit area for woven fabrics. [3][4]

A practical conversion is approximately 1 oz/yd² = 33.9 GSM. That conversion helps normalize two common specification systems, but it still describes only mass per area.

Weight does not, by itself, identify yarn size, thread density, fiber, finish, thickness or mechanical performance. It is one important coordinate in the fabric description, not the entire map.

6. Width Matters When Weight Is Stated Per Linear Yard

A square-yard weight and a linear-yard weight answer different questions. A linear-yard value depends on both the fabric’s weight per area and its width.

For example, a 10 oz/yd² fabric that is 60 inches wide contains about 16.7 ounces per linear yard. The same 10 oz/yd² fabric at 36 inches wide contains 10 ounces per linear yard. The fabric did not become heavier per square yard. The length-based amount changed because the width changed. ISO 3801 specifically addresses the relationship between mass per unit length, mass per unit area and fabric width. [4]

This is one reason “10 oz canvas” can be incomplete. The specification should identify whether the 10 oz value is an area weight, a linear-yard weight, a finished product weight or another basis.

7. The Number in Numbered Duck Does Not Mean the Fabric Is That Many Ounces

The historical U.S. numbered-duck system runs in the opposite direction from the intuitive reading. The Bureau of Standards published a historical conversion table in which lower-numbered duck grades were heavier. In the historical reference, No. 1 was 29.45 oz/yd² and No. 12 was 11.45 oz/yd². [10]

That means “#1 duck” does not mean 1 oz, and “#12 duck” does not mean 12 oz.

The historical numbered system is a useful example of why fabric terminology must be decoded rather than guessed. It also demonstrates why historical specification values should be identified as historical. Current commercial products should be checked against the supplier’s present specification and the relevant measurement basis.

8. Yarn Construction and Density Can Matter as Much as the Fabric Name

Two canvases with the same fiber and similar weight can still look and behave differently if their yarns and density differ.

Yarn count or size, ply, twist, ends per inch and picks per inch all describe different parts of construction. Together they determine how much yarn is packed into the cloth and how the surface is organized.

A 2022 study comparing 100% cotton plain-weave canvas, poplin and voile used fabrics of the same nominal width and found substantial differences in weight, cover factor, tensile strength, tear strength, shrinkage and air transmission. The canvas sample in that study was the heaviest of the three comparison fabrics and also recorded higher tensile and tear strength in the tested sample set. Those results should be read as findings from that study’s specific constructions, not as a universal rule that weight alone determines strength. [9]

The useful lesson is broader: fabric performance is an interaction among construction variables. Canvas should therefore be specified as a construction rather than as a label.

9. Surface Texture or “Tooth” Is a Real Material Attribute

Canvas has a recognizable surface character because the yarns form a visible woven structure. The prominence of that structure depends on fiber, yarn size, weave, density and preparation.

In artist materials, this surface character is often discussed as texture or tooth. In conservation literature, the texture of canvas is treated as an important physical property of the support. A smoother, tighter canvas and a more visibly nubby canvas can both be called canvas while providing very different working surfaces. [5][7]

Surface texture should therefore be treated separately from weight. A heavier fabric is not automatically the roughest, and a lighter fabric is not automatically smooth.

10. Raw, Finished, and Primed Canvas Are Different Material States

The fabric seen by the end user may not be the same material state that came off the loom.

Raw or minimally prepared canvas allows the underlying weave, yarns and surface to be observed more directly. Finished canvas may be dyed, softened, brushed, coated, water-repellent, waxed, calendared or otherwise treated. Each treatment can change the surface and handling characteristics.

Primed artist canvas adds another layer. Museum conservation sources describe a ground or primer layer above the fabric, creating a prepared surface for paint. Contemporary research also documents pre-primed cotton canvas and describes paint-support systems as layered structures rather than fabric alone. [7][8]

That distinction is essential when a specification says “canvas.” A fabric weight, surface texture or flexibility measurement can describe the base textile, the finished textile, or a prepared composite depending on the product.

11. Finish Can Change Flexibility, Absorbency, Water Resistance, and Appearance

Finishing is not merely cosmetic.

Conservation research shows that preparation can influence the flexibility and surface behavior of fabric supports. Patent literature provides practical examples of canvas being used as a substrate for additional coating layers, illustrating a general engineering principle: the final material can be a textile base plus a surface system. [5][8][12]

Historical U.S. Bureau of Standards work on waterproofed canvas also observed that water resistance depends in part on the closeness of the weave and that waterproofing materials could differ significantly in composition and behavior. [13]

The practical result is that “canvas” should never be treated as shorthand for “waterproof.” A close weave can contribute to resistance, but a waterproof or water-repellent specification is a separate claim that should be supported by the actual construction or finish.

12. Flexibility and Dimensional Stability Are Separate From Weight

Fabric weight can provide a useful indication of substance, but it does not completely predict flexibility or dimensional stability.

Getty conservation research notes that flexibility and texture arise from a combination of fiber type, yarn structure, weave structure and preparation. Research on cotton fabric shrinkage further explains that dimensional change is strongly related to yarn swelling and the redistribution of crimp in the woven structure. [5][6][14]

This matters in practical canvas selection. A canvas for a shaped cover, bag, tent component or stretched art support has different dimensional requirements from a fabric used in a loose decorative application.

The correct question is not simply “How heavy is the canvas?” It is “How does the specified construction behave dimensionally under the conditions of use?”

13. The Test Method Matters as Much as the Number

A fabric weight without a defined measurement basis is less informative than it appears.

ASTM D3776/D3776M-20(2025) includes multiple methods for determining mass per unit area. Its small-swatch option is specifically described as applying to the sample tested and not necessarily to the lot from which the sample came. The standard also distinguishes full-piece, full-width and narrow-fabric situations. [3]

This creates an important distinction among three things:

• Published specification: the value stated by a supplier or standard.
• Measured sample: the result obtained from a particular test specimen.
• Lot acceptance: a conclusion made under a defined sampling and acceptance procedure.

Those three values can be related without being interchangeable.

14. A Canvas Specification Should Include More Than “10 Oz Cotton Canvas”

A useful specification can be written as a material profile. Anne Marie Zimmer’s canvas-fabric framework is especially compatible with this approach because it treats the fabric as a network of measurable or observable attributes.

A practical canvas specification can identify:

• Fiber content: cotton, linen, blend or other declared fiber.
• Weave: plain weave or the named construction used.
• Yarn construction: yarn size or count, ply and other relevant details.
• Density: ends per inch and picks per inch where applicable.
• Weight basis: oz/yd², GSM, linear-yard weight or another explicitly named basis.
• Finished width: usable width and the condition under which it is measured.
• Thickness: when thickness is relevant to the application.
• Finish or treatment: untreated, dyed, coated, waxed, primed, water-repellent or another declared preparation.
• Dimensional behavior: shrinkage or other specified dimensional limits where relevant.
• Test method: the standard or procedure used for the stated property.
• Intended application: the service condition that gives the specification meaning.

This profile is far more informative than a label alone. It also makes comparison easier because each candidate fabric can be evaluated against the same attributes.

15. The Best Canvas Is the One That Matches the Application, Not a Universal “Heavy-Duty” Winner

Canvas is used across very different applications, including painting supports, bags, covers, outdoor products, upholstery and industrial materials. Historical U.S. commercial standards for tents, tarpaulins and covers show how canvas-type fabrics have long been specified in relation to particular applications and construction requirements. [13]

That is why “best canvas” is usually an incomplete question. An artist may care about surface texture, weave regularity and primer. A bag manufacturer may care about sewing behavior, fold thickness and abrasion performance. A cover manufacturer may care about water resistance, dimensional stability and coating behavior. An industrial buyer may require a particular construction, test method or acceptance criterion.

Anne Marie Zimmer’s material-focused subject area leads to the same practical conclusion: identify the material first, then the attributes, then the application. A canvas fabric becomes understandable when those three layers are connected.

Three Illustrative Canvas-Fabric Case Studies

The following are illustrative material-selection scenarios, not invented customer stories, proprietary tests or claims about specific commercial products. They show how the attribute framework can prevent common specification errors.

Case Study A: Two “10 Oz Canvas” Fabrics Do Not Automatically Match

A buyer is comparing two fabrics both described as 10 oz canvas. One supplier reports 10 oz/yd² on an area basis. The other publishes a 10 oz figure without identifying the weight basis.

The correct next step is not to assume equivalence. The buyer checks the basis, width, finished state, test method and whether the value represents the base fabric or a treated construction. ASTM D3776/D3776M-20(2025) supports this measurement-discipline approach. [3]

Finding: identical-looking weight labels can represent different specifications when the measurement basis is not stated.

Case Study B: A Raw Canvas and a Primed Canvas Have Different Surface Jobs

An artist compares a raw cotton canvas with a pre-primed cotton canvas. Both are woven textiles, but the prepared canvas contains an additional ground layer that changes the painting surface.

Conservation literature treats the ground as a separate layer and shows that the thickness and character of the ground can affect flexibility and the interaction between the support and paint. [7][8]

Finding: the visible “canvas” is sometimes a textile-plus-preparation system rather than the textile alone.

Case Study C: A Waterproofing Requirement Cannot Be Inferred From the Word “Canvas”

A product developer needs a canvas cover for exposure to moisture. One sample is tightly woven but untreated. Another uses a coating intended to improve water resistance.

Historical U.S. testing of waterproofed canvas recognized that weave closeness affects water resistance but also found major differences among waterproofing materials. Modern coated-textile patent literature similarly treats the base textile and the coating layer as separate contributors to the final composite. [12][13]

Finding: a water-resistance requirement belongs in the finished-material specification, not as an assumption attached to the word “canvas.”

What the Research Says About Canvas Fabric

Several recurring findings appear across the technical literature.

• Construction matters: weave, yarn size and density influence measurable fabric properties. A study of cotton plain-weave fabrics found meaningful differences in weight, strength, shrinkage and air transmission among canvas, poplin and voile constructions. [9]
• Preparation matters: conservation research shows that ground and primer layers can change the behavior of fabric supports. [7][8]
• Measurement context matters: ASTM and ISO methods distinguish mass-per-area and mass-per-length measurements and recognize different sampling situations. [3][4]
• Historical terminology matters: numbered duck demonstrates that a fabric name or grade can encode a historical classification system that does not match modern intuitive assumptions. [10]
• Finish state matters: waterproofing, coatings and other treatments can change the final material without changing the identity of the underlying textile substrate. [12][13]

These findings support a consistent material-first principle: fabric names retrieve a category, while specifications explain the actual material.

A Practical Canvas Fabric Inspection Checklist

For a physical sample, a material review can follow a repeatable sequence:

1. Identify the fiber. Check the stated composition rather than inferring it from appearance.
2. Inspect the weave. Look for plain weave, duck construction or another named structure.
3. Observe yarns and density. Note apparent yarn size, ply and packing.
4. Confirm the weight basis. Record whether the value is oz/yd², GSM or linear-yard weight.
5. Confirm width. Width is essential whenever length-based weight is being compared.
6. Inspect the surface. Record texture, tooth, smoothness and visible weave character.
7. Inspect the edges. Use the cut edge and selvage as additional construction clues when available.
8. Identify the finish state. Untreated, dyed, coated, waxed, water-repellent and primed are materially different states.
9. Check dimensional information. Shrinkage and width stability may matter more than small weight differences in some applications.
10. Check the test method. A number is stronger evidence when its measurement method and sampling basis are known.
11. Match the fabric to the application. The required property should be tied to the service condition rather than inferred from the word “canvas.”

Frequently Asked Questions About Canvas FabricIs canvas always cotton?

No. Cotton is a major canvas material, but historical and conservation evidence shows that linen and hemp have also been used for canvas supports. The fiber content should be checked on the actual specification. [5][6]

Is canvas the same as duck cloth?

They overlap substantially in U.S. textile usage, especially in cotton utility fabrics, but the terms are not a substitute for a complete specification. Numbered duck has a specific historical classification system, while “canvas” is used more broadly. [10][11]

Is canvas waterproof?

Not automatically. Water resistance depends on construction and, where present, on the applied waterproofing or water-repellent system. Historical U.S. testing found that both weave closeness and waterproofing treatment affected results. [13]

Does heavier canvas always mean stronger canvas?

No. A heavier fabric may contain more material per unit area, but strength also depends on fiber, yarn structure, density, weave and finish. Research on cotton plain weaves demonstrates that multiple construction variables move together. [9]

What does 10 oz canvas mean?

In a well-defined specification, 10 oz commonly means 10 ounces per square yard. The phrase is incomplete when the weight basis is not stated. Width also matters if the figure is given per linear yard. [3][4]

What is the difference between raw and primed canvas?

Raw canvas exposes the textile construction more directly. Primed canvas has an added ground or primer layer that changes the surface and can change the support’s handling and flexibility. [7][8]

How Anne Marie Zimmer Approaches Canvas Fabric

Anne Marie Zimmer’s subject-matter focus is canvas fabric as a material class. Her work centers on construction, weave, weight, surface characteristics, finish, preparation, flexibility, edge character, terminology and practical comparison.

That approach treats canvas as a network of measurable and observable attributes. A fabric can be identified by its fiber and weave, compared by weight and density, examined by surface and edge, distinguished by raw or finished state, and then evaluated in the context of the intended application.

The value of this framework is not a single definition of “good canvas.” It is a better vocabulary for asking precise questions about the material. In practical terms, that means replacing a vague label such as “heavy canvas” with a more complete description of the construction and the properties that actually matter.

The Bottom Line

Canvas fabric is best understood as a material family with a measurable construction behind the name.

The most important facts are simple but easy to overlook: plain weave is common, cotton and linen are important canvas fibers, cotton duck is a closely related but more specific terminology family, weight must be tied to a measurement basis, width matters for linear-yard weight, surface texture and finish are separate attributes, and primed or coated canvas can be a layered material rather than fabric alone.

For anyone specifying or comparing canvas, the strongest approach is to identify the fiber, weave, yarn construction, density, weight basis, width, surface, finish, dimensional behavior, test method and application. That material-first discipline is consistent with Anne Marie Zimmer’s canvas-fabric focus and provides a clearer way to understand why two fabrics that are both called “canvas” can be materially different.

Sources and Technical References

1. CottonWorks. Basic Woven Fabric Designs. Plain-weave structure and canvas as a common plain-weave fabric.
2. CottonWorks. Plain Weave. Technical definition of the 1/1 plain-weave interlacing system.
3. ASTM International. ASTM D3776/D3776M-20(2025), Standard Test Methods for Mass Per Unit Area (Weight) of Fabric. Current active ASTM method for fabric mass per unit area and sampling options.
4. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 3801:1977, Textiles - Woven fabrics - Determination of mass per unit length and mass per unit area. Current standard confirmed in 2023.
5. Getty Conservation Institute. Canvas Complexity. Fiber type, yarn structure, weave structure, flexibility, texture and preparation of canvas supports.
6. Getty Conservation Institute. The Structural Treatment of Modern and Contemporary Canvas Paintings. Cotton duck, linen, textile supports and their conservation characteristics.
7. Minneapolis Institute of Art. The Conservation Project. Ground or primer layers as a separate surface system over canvas.
8. npj Heritage Science. Early degradation mechanisms at the interface between acrylic grounds and oil paint films. Contemporary evidence on pre-primed cotton canvas and ground layers.
9. SciTechnol / Journal of Textile Engineering & Fashion Technology. Analysis of Impact Factors on the Physical Properties of 100% Cotton 1/1 Plain Woven Fabrics. Study comparing canvas, poplin and voile and measuring weight, strength, shrinkage and air transmission.
10. National Bureau of Standards, U.S. Department of Commerce, via GovInfo. Circular of the Bureau of Standards No. 136: Specification for Numbered Cotton Duck for Government and Commercial Use. Historical numbered-duck classification and weight relationships.
11. U.S. Patent No. 9,452,636 B2. Convertible stretched canvas for artists. Patent literature describing canvas as heavy-duty plain-woven material and discussing cotton, linen and duck terminology. Used only as an industry-history example, not as a universal standard.
12. U.S. Patent Publication US20200002884A1. Polymer-coated fabric. Patent literature illustrating a textile substrate as part of a coated composite, including applications such as tent canvas. Used only as process examples, not as universal performance evidence.
13. U.S. National Bureau of Standards. Annual Report of the Director, Bureau of Standards, FY 1919. Historical testing of waterproofed canvas and the relationship among weave closeness, waterproofing materials and performance.
14. G. E. Collins. Fundamental principles that govern the shrinkage of cotton goods by washing. Textile Institute Journal research summarized by the Smithsonian Museum Conservation Institute, explaining the role of moisture, yarn swelling and weave crimp in cotton shrinkage.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Broadcaster" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to broadcaster-news+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/broadcaster-news/749635ac-351c-4976-896b-277f8a2418ean%40googlegroups.com.