Re: What/how is Magnani Pescia sized with?

From: Katharine Thayer ^lt;>
Date: 11/26/04-11:54:32 AM Z
Message-id: <>

It just shows that everything is relative. My characterization of Pescia
as "absorbent" was in comparison to other papers I've used a lot, which
are mostly hot press and other papers that are all harder and less
absorbent than Pescia. I offered Daniel Smith's description of Pescia as
"very lightly sized" for whatever it was worth, but I wouldn't agree
with them that Pescia shouldn't be soaked, as it does keep its integrity
well under soaking, as you say. I can't claim any familiarity with BFK,
since I only printed a few sheets of it early in my gum printing career
when I was trying a lot of different papers-- didn't like it well enough
to keep using it further.

Ryuji Suzuki wrote:
> From: Katharine Thayer <>
> Subject: Re: What/how is Magnani Pescia sized with?
> Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 10:50:34 +0000
> > [...] but I do know that whatever it is, the paper is hardly sized
> > at all. Some sources classify it as a waterleaf (waterleaf being a
> > paper with little or no sizing, making it very absorbent but not
> > always amenable to soaking (think blotters)) and the Daniel Smith
> > catalog says, "Because Pescia is very lightly sized, dampen it with
> > an atomizer rather than soaking."
> When I compared side by side with Rives BFK, Magnani Pescia absorbed
> significantly less sizing solution. The paper also keeps its body when
> it's wet, while Rives becomes soft and harder to handle. Surface
> ablation is not a problem for me because I apply sizing solution which
> is a mixture of gelatin and emulsion of poly(vinyl alcohol-co-vinyl
> acetate) and ethyl methacrylate (it's actually a proprietary product
> Primal AC-33 from Kremer, which I think is a repackaged Rhoplex AC-33
> from Rohm and Haas. I don't know exact content of AC-33 but think this
> is close to what it is.) mixed with glut, antifoaming agent, and
> Triton X-100, coated with a fine grain foam roller. It's pretty tough
> once it's dried. The surface retains the paper's texture (slight, very
> fine cross-hatch-like texture in Pescia), and it's not gritty at all
> like gesso. Also the paper curls less when drying compared to plain
> gelatin size. (I dont know if this works for gum but works great for
> silver gelatin.)
> Rives looks differently when wet. As I apply the sizing solution,
> "pressure mark" appears. Wet paper changes its apparent "opacity" or
> "reflectance" (I use double quotes here because I don't know what's
> the right word) where pressure is applied. Plus the paper soaks so
> much solution and is much slower to dry. The paper loses body and easy
> to get kink marks.
> There are probably many other differences but the way they absorb
> differently made me think Pescia is somewhat sized, though maybe not
> as much as Artistico, and that may be the primary reason for this
> difference.
> I size full 22x30 sheet and dry in a flat file cabinet (the ultimate
> intent is to make prints of this size). While sizing and also while
> processing the exposed prints, I find Pescia and Artistico much easier
> to handle than Rives as well.
> I'm reluctant to comment about the surface of Pescia v. Artistico
> because I only used cold press for Artistico so far (my local store
> doesn't carry Artistico HP). But that would be the next comparison
> before buying either paper in bulk.
> --
> Ryuji Suzuki
> "People seldom do what they believe in. They do what is convenient,
> then repent." (Bob Dylan, Brownsville Girl, 1986)
Received on Fri Nov 26 19:50:38 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 12/08/04-10:51:34 AM Z CST