Re: fabriano paper

From: Katharine Thayer ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 05/06/04-03:54:29 AM Z
Message-id: <>

Christina Z. Anderson wrote:
> Let me rephrase then: both catalogs explain the paper changes, so read
> them. Whether they are wrong or right, I have no clue.

Gracious, why does this have to be a fight?

Daniel Smith's is wrong. It fooled me for a long time into thinking that
the new Artistico Extra-White is the same as the old Uno. I thought it
was useful to point out that the Daniel Smith catalog is wrong, so other
people wouldn't be fooled like I was. I guess I don't see the utility
of advising people to read wrong information.

Jerry's does not
> say it is the same paper (in other words, Uno = Artistico hot press extra
> white). Jerry's does say that the new Artistico has kept the old Uno's soft
> pressed surface, so that could explain D. Smith's confusion.

I doubt it. Daniel Smith goes into great detail, with a little chart
about the different surfaces and which are the same and which are
different, and there's a full page ad from the company which says in big
letters "Uno Is Now the New Artistico" so it's obvious that Daniel Smith
is taking its cue from the company in telling the story this way.

When I talked to someone at Daniel Smith, she said yes, the papers are
different, but the reason they say they are the same in the catalog is
because the manufacturer wants them to say that. So they say the papers
are the same, but everyone who uses them says they are different.

> Both catalogs do describe the sizing, which I am more interested in:
> "externally and internally sized with a specially formulated, gelatin-free
> sizing that is odorless when wet. It takes color beautifully, has
> excellenct liftability and withstands scraping."

This is how the catalog used to describe Uno, as I recall. Unfortunately
I don't keep my old catalogs so I can't verify this memory.

The old Artistico had more
> external sizing than the old Uno.
It may be that Fabriano kept the positive
> things of both papers and combined them: the heavier sizing, and the soft
> pressed surface.

> That is important to me, because the sizing does affect gum practice.

Of course, but the point is that you won't learn from the Daniel smith
catalog that the sizing on the new Artistico extra-white is different
from the sizing on the old Uno.

> Which leads me to my next point: if one gum printer DOES prefer a paper,
> and another one DOESN'T, it probably indicates gum practice more than paper
> unsuitability.

Of course again. When I say I don't like a paper, that has nothing to do
with whether the paper is suited for gum printing or not. In my
experience ALL papers (with the exception of Arches 88) are suitable for
gum printing. I don't like the texture of soft press, but that's a
personal preference, not a recommendation that people shouldn't use soft
press for gum printing, for heavens' sake. When I say different strokes
for different folks, that's exactly what I mean -- different people will
have different preferences. I was just being chatty --- "you like soft
press? I don't." But it has nothing at all to do with how well the stuff
WORKS. It works just dandy. I guess I thought I've said this enough
times that I don't need to say it every time, but apparently not. I
don't believe that I have ever made a blanket statement about how well a
paper works for gum printing, and I doubt I ever will.
Received on Thu May 6 10:50:58 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 06/04/04-01:20:52 PM Z CST