[alt-photo] Re: platinum

[Keith Schreiber]

Hi Diana,

So I guess that means he won't count Bob's & your complaints as "recorded issues", eh? Don't acknowledge the problem therefore it doesn't exist. Lovely logic. Actually, I think he is being a bit disingenuous since I remember discussion, here or on one of the other forums, about variable quality of COT320 in the past complete with batch numbers and I think he was a participant in that discussion.

Some time ago I think I mentioned here about the 22x30 COT320 that I special ordered thru B&S. It had cut edges like all COT320 and looked like every other sheet of that paper that I have ever used or seen, but it also had the Arches Platine watermark on every sheet. (I suppose Horowy would deny too!) Unfortunately, it didn't print as well as I needed and it was to complete a portfolio project so I returned it to B&S. 

Looking forward to trying Revere again.

~ Keith


On Feb 14, 2013, at 9:22 PM, Diana Bloomfield wrote:

> Related to papers that are good for pt/pd-- Bob had asked that I write to John, at Bergger, about the problem I had with the latest COT320 batch I bought.  John just emailed and basically said that, "for the record, we have not had any recorded issues with COT320 in years.  The product has been stable in performance and quality."   
> 
> So that's the party line from Bergger.  He also said that since "artists aren't shy about issues with products," that he'd have his "phone ringing off the hook with complaints" if there was a problem with the paper.  He suggested that maybe it's a "localized" issue, and that "grain and emulsion muddiness could be any number of problems, pointing more to chemistry, process, and humidity of paper."   I read that as .  . .  this is my problem-- obviously something dumb I'm doing-- although I had told him my experience-- that there really were no other variables, except paper (and even an old COT320 sheet of paper resulted in a fine print). All prints were done in the same studio, same afternoon, same everything, really-- except paper.
> 
> So he basically refused to believe Bergger had a problem with anything, but did offer to send some examples of my prints to France, for "a professional opinion."
> 
> Anyway--just thought I'd pass this along, for what it's worth.  I wrote to him only because Bob asked me to do so. :)  I basically told John it made no difference to me; I was simply informing him of a problem I had with that batch and thought they'd like to know-- but no issue for me-- that I would continue to use other papers that are more readily available and, in my opinion, more consistently reliable.