I am most interested in your recent epistle on Quoting Paul Anderson
>Reluctant though I am to quote Paul Anderson, father of the futile
"pigment-in-gum" test preserved for posterity by Henney & Dudley, Keepers
of Light, and now Scopick (no doubt among others), destined it seems to
debilitate and mislead the faithful as long as gum is printed s I
them,<
Are you stating that this test does not work ? .Please don't ask me to
troll the archive it is much to big for an old chap like myself to go
through, have mercy.
It would be most interesting, to put this one to rest if in fact it does
not work, have you verified this important piece of information with an
independent authority.
I would be quite happy to help in this respect should you wish.
I feel that there is far to much folk law relating to gum printing this
perfectly understandable considering the elastic nature of the process, but
if we can clarify the obvious myths from facts we will all be the stronger
, just because Demarche ,Puyo, Anderson,Mortenson, said this or that ,does
not mean they could not be wrong in the light of recent research, and the
availability of modern materials, these things are not written in tablets
of stone.
Also we need some good scientific research To find out what is really going on
inside the emulsion and substrate preferably through the microscope,
eyeballing is just not good enough.
Their are a number problems which we need to get to grips with,
precisely what happens in the size layer, how can the substrate be
stabilised from a dimensional point of view, what are the optimum gum to
pigment ratios, this is where I came in so lets start by putting this one
to bed first.
pete