Re: Gloy v gum

From: Judy Seigel ^lt;>
Date: 01/18/04-09:29:34 PM Z
Message-id: <>

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004, Katharine Thayer wrote:
> (1) Physical appearance and consistency: Gloy is about the same color as
> 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.

Which just goes to show that you can't generalize even about a brand name.
My gloy, which is in fact 6 years old, ought I would think be even
thicker, yet does not now, nor ever has, heaped up on a spoon -- tho I
generally measure by drops anyway.

> Oh, and it stinks very gluey; I don't care for the smell of it v the
> smell of a good gum arabic.

Maybe they added the stink later... But, as I have noted before, I
couldn't get more than 2 steps out of it. I'm beginning to think it might
have something to do with the water supply, because --- the one gum I
really couldn't bear (I've liked 5 or 6 different ones, and use them for
different "speeds,") was the premier gum from Daniel Smith that Katharine
finds ideal. Yet I don't think there's anything that different in the rest
of our ingredients.


> (2) How it prints: I printed with the gloy exactly as I would print with
> 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. I
> 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 gum,
> 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 gloy,
> 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 21:29:49 2004

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