From: Katharine Thayer (kthayer@pacifier.com)
Date: 09/19/03-07:16:43 AM Z
> Judy Seigel wrote:
> >
> > Sorry I didn't get back on this sooner, but reality intervened, as it so
> > likes to do. I return to the point, however, because the longer the world
> > believes that Indanthrene is indigo, the harder the notion will be to
> > dislodge from the collective brain and the more it will defy correction
> > (as per the so-called Gum Pigment Ratio test which, after 3/4 of a
> > century, WILL NOT DIE!).
I deleted that post without reading the rest of it; the first paragraph
and a half were enough for me. But while we're at it, perhaps a comment
about that pigment test is in order, since there it is again.
I've never understood the virulence of the attacks lobbied here against
that pigment test and its proponents; it simply makes no sense to me. My
position on the pigment test, which I've elucidated at length before,
(anyone who's interested can consult the archives) is that if the test
is useful to you (as it was to me) use it and be glad for it, and if
it's not useful, don't use it. But to attack so vehemently those who
have used the test and found it useful, makes no sense. It makes no
sense in terms of community; it makes no sense in terms of science, it
simply makes no sense.
The argument that pigment and gum without dichromate can't tell you
anything is a theoretical argument that must be tested empirically; it
can't be stated as a fact without empirical evidence to support it.
Since those who have tested it empirically have come up with widely
differing results (some say that the addition of dichromate DECREASES
the likelihood of staining; some (myself included) say that the addition
of dichromate doesn't seem to make enough difference to matter, and some
say that the addition of dichromate INCREASES the likelihood of
staining) the only possible thing that can be said about it, from a
scientific point of view, is that the evidence is inconclusive, and that
none of us can say with any certainty that we have the final answer on
this question.
That's the last I'm going to say on the pigment test; there's no point
in going around and around in circles on this. I just don't see any
evidence that supports the suggestion above that the pigment test should
be dead by now; the reason it's still around is probably that people
have found it useful. As I've said several times before; one afternoon
with a rough version of that test, when I first started learning to
print gum, took care of staining for me forever. And (to anticipate the
argument that's always made about this) that tired old argument that
people who use that test will print only pale gum prints because only
pale pigment mixes will pass that test, is just simply not factual.
Katharine Thayer
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 10/01/03-03:09:00 PM Z CST