Last January I had to go to England to get that kit (which I confess to
not having done yet, since by the time I actually got it I had plighted my
troth to gum, forsaking all others). Wider marketing was promised, but I
have heard no more on the subject. The formula is published (no I don't
have it, but it is **** ta da ***** IN THE ARCHIVE!!! from the first year
of the list). The only thing that seemed at all tricky about the formula
was that it called for silver oxide, which is a bit harder to find & more
expensive here than in England, where it is sold by Silverprint.
But what you leave out, Peter, is that Argyrotype (for which we must, I
suppose forgive the impossible name -- I suggested Ware Silver :-) ) was
formulated to be more archival than either VDB or kallitype. When I did
those processes I knew less about the hazards of fading than I learned
subsequently; looking back at work of 10 years ago, I find archivality
erratic, some perfect as the day they were made, others blotched and/or
mottled and/or faded overall. I suspect it was careless washing, since
the most likely to be damaged were VDB strips done only as *tests.*
Probably, once I saw what I was looking for I washed no more.
In any event, for all iron silver processes (other silver process, too, of
course), I'd recommend a few trials with the HT2 residual hypo test to get
the washing "parameters." You can probably save time & water, too,
because washing is much less, especially if you use hypoclear, than for
factory paper with gelatine base and hardener in the fix.
Need I add, however, that ***gum*** is as archival as the pigment and the
paper (:-)....?
Cheers,
Judy