RE: Gloy v gum

From: Baird, Darryl ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 01/18/04-07:53:15 PM Z
Message-id: <>


Do you or anyone know if there are differences amongst the gloys of
the world as there is gum arabic?

P.S. I bought two tubes/sticks of gloy last time I visited mother
England and believe I have most of both remaining. I'm pretty certain
I could live without one of these. Would you like some gloy?


-----Original Message-----
From: Katharine Thayer []
Sent: Sun 1/18/2004 8:52 AM
Subject: Gloy v gum
Keith was kind enough to share a bit of his small and precious store
Gloy with me, and I've printed with it today.

First of all, I've always argued that gloy is not gum, that they are
entirely different substances and should not be equated with each
other. This is still true; they are not even remotely the same
substance chemically. But in gum printing, they behave more similarly
than not, as others have pointed out.

(1) Physical appearance and consistency: Gloy is about the same color
a good light gum, but its consistency is much thicker, heavier. Gum
arabic is a thick liquid, but if you pour it into a 2.5 ml spoon, it
isn't so thick that it heaps up over the top of the spoon. Gloy will
heap up on the spoon, making it impossible to measure the stuff
accurately without leveling it off with a palette knife or something.
Oh, and it stinks very gluey; I don't care for the smell of it v the
smell of a good gum arabic.

(2) How it prints: I printed with the gloy exactly as I would print
gum, and found that the gloy prints basically the same as a good light
gum, with 8 nicely-graduated, even steps, and it clears well. If I'm
remembering right, this pretty much corroborates Keith's observations.
wouldn't say I like it "better" or even as well as gum arabic, but it
prints about the same as my much-lamented Photographers' Formulary
or as the Daniel Smith Premium gum, which also prints very nicely for
me. (In fact, my investigations into a gum to replace my beloved gum
haven't gone any further than when I last reported; I've just gone on
printing with the Daniel Smith, which was the first one that came and
the only one I've sent any time with so far.) My observations of
I should say, are based on two small prints and steptablets, which
pretty much used up the "thimbleful" of gloy which Keith sent, and I
thank him for his generosity.

Katharine Thayer

Received on Sun Jan 18 19:59:30 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 02/02/04-09:49:59 AM Z CST