I have come to the part in the Photo Techniques "New" cyanotype story
where the caption for two prints shown side by side, one "old", one "new",
says the paper was Cranes Parchmont [sic] Wove.
Inquiring of paper guru David Aldera at New York Central Artists
Materials, I learn that (a) the name of the paper must be "Cranes
Parchment" (as in the English word "parchment"), and (b) the company has
renamed it anyway, now it's listed as "Cranes Cover". I assume therefore
that references I've seen on this list to "Parchmont" were an ongoing
misspelling, not a different paper.
I'm wondering meanwhile if anyone can explain why the choice of this
paper, which seemed fairly unbeautiful to me (tho maybe wetting improves
the surface), especially for platinum. Apparently it's sold largely for
things like business cards, printers, & commercial presses.
I was also reminded how insignificant our "art" market is to most large
manufacturers (such as Cranes), who will sell 40,000 sheets of a given
paper every few months to a business customer, but only 100 in a year (or
a lifetime) to a platinum printer. This makes them often indifferent to
our problems, as when Arches, told that a paper they listed as "acid free"
in fact tested full of acid, ruining much ardent labor in artists' book
works, simply replied "It's acid free." (Didn't someone last year describe
a complaint about an Arches paper, which had changed so that it no longer
worked for platinum printing? The distributor insisted it was for all
practical purposes the same, then asked "What's a platinum print?")
Note also that Rives BFK is listed in David's catalogs as "acid free and
buffered," which, given the apparent casualness of the company in these
matters, is not necessarily so. Nevertheless, cyanotype printers might
want to take the possibility into account.
But I have digressed. I meant only to verify that this Cranes Parchment
(or "Cover") is indeed the paper at issue and to inquire if there are any
comments on its use and why.
Thanks,
Judy