From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 02/10/01-05:51:29 PM Z
On Fri, 9 Feb 2001, Peter Fredrik wrote:
>
> Although most of the papers seemed to follow a similar pattern, b) was
> the odd man out. This paper was very thin and designed to be used as a
> paper for contie> crayon and chalks not really suitable for our processes it did
> stabilize but kept moving around slightly.
>
The early gum printers claimed this or that paper I'd never heard of
didn't shrink. I've always figured they just didn't notice, their prints
being small. Also most of the folks making that claim were French, who
did almost only one-coat gum. So it's catch 22: if it's non-shrink, it's
too fragile to do a 2nd coat in any event... That particular paper, Pete,
isn't one I've heard of either. May not be in this country?
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/06/01-04:55:38 PM Z CST