Formulary Gum again

A while back someone asked me what gum I use and I said that I have
always used Photographers' Formulary gum. More recently it came to my
attention that the gum Photographers' Formulary now carries is not the
gum I have always used. I was familiar with and fond of the gum that the
Formulary had mixed directly from powder; I ordered extra the last time
to make sure of having the same batch for several years, so I was still
using gum I had in stock two years after Formulary stopped mixing gum
themselves and started carrying a premixed liquid lithographers' gum.

I reported here a week or two ago that I don't like this new gum. A
question arose whether perhaps the batch I was using had gone bad, so
the gals at the Formulary sent me a fresh batch to test. I'm sorry to
have to repay their kindness by saying that I don't like the fresh batch
any better than the old one. It behaves slightly better; that is, it
doesn't produce dichromate stains with every color, just with some
colors, which still isn't good enough for me. And while the fresh gum is
a bit lighter than the older batch, it's still too dark for the way I
work; it makes it impossible to see the colors correctly when mixing.
I also don't like the gloopiness of it, the fact that it doesn't pour in
a steady stream but every now and then a gloop comes out that's thicker
than the rest of the liquid. This was what made me think that maybe I
had a bad batch, but I guess it's all like that. Since I've never used
any of these lithographers' gums, it's entirely possible that it's not
just this particular gum, but that I wouldn't like any gum of this type.
So I wouldn't want to put off anyone from using it just because I don't
like it. It "works" fine in the sense that it will make a perfectly
acceptable gum print; if you consider dichromate clearing a necessary
step in the process and if you don't need a clear gum for color mixing,
you might really like this gum. I just prefer a lighter, clearer, purer
gum that doesn't stain ever.

The Formulary is the best supply house a gal could ever have; I've
always appreciated their thoughtful professionalism and customer
service. So I'm sorry that I can't use their present gum, but I can't.
But let's just leave it at saying that I personally don't care for the
gum, but that's not to say that someone else might not find it perfectly
satisfactory. In a way the fact that I'm so little honored here makes me
hopeful that my dislike of this gum won't cost the Formulary any
business on my account.

In the meantime, thanks to the kindness of friends and strangers I have
several gums coming to try. I've already spent a day with one gum and am
very pleased with it; it equals the old Photographers' Formulary gum in
every respect --prints on all papers, with all colors, with no staining
of any kind, a beautiful gum. But I'll wait til I see the other gums
before I make a decision. Thanks to all who were so generous with offers
of samples.

One more comment before I go back to writing my book:

Judy wrote:

> PS: Years ago, Stephen Livick swore by RGB gum, but then got on the
> Bostick & Sullivan web site, and -- guess what?

Stephen Livick and I don't agree on much, but one of the several things
I know for certain about him is how much stock he puts in the quality of
his prints and the integrity and specificity of his process; he's quite
obsessive about it. I'm not sure what's being suggested here, but the
idea that Livick would change gums for any reason other than for the
sake of his prints seems quite unlikely, if that's what's being
implied.

Katharine Thayer
Received on Wed Nov 19 09:52:57 2003