> Mats
>
> And the disadvantages...? :-)
>
> Gerald

Actually, I haven't found any so far.

I have always used steel-backed plates, but decided to give
plastic-backed plates a try after having gotten the tip from Debbie and
Harold at the Boxcar Press a year or two ago. I feared that I would
experience registration problems between colors on large plates, but so
far everything has been fine.

Do I hear a proponent for steel-backed plates...? :-)

All the best,
Mats Broberg

Stockholm - Sweden

I am a proponent of steel backed plates. The ease of making very tiny
adjustments to the plate while setting up trapped color makes them easy. I
have only printed with plastic once. The double adhesive tape made it
difficult to make little adjustments.

With the steelback plate, I lay a scoring rule down on my magnetic base,
just on the edge of the plate and give it little taps with a hammer to
delicately tap the plate into position. Itıs great when running  on guides
with the windmill.


I just setup and registered a tight trap second color on a letterhead job I
am printing in under 10 minutes.





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> I am a proponent of steel backed plates. The ease of making
> very tiny adjustments to the plate while setting up trapped
> color makes them easy. I have only printed with plastic once.
> The double adhesive tape made it difficult to make little adjustments.
>
> With the steelback plate, I lay a scoring rule down on my
> magnetic base, just on the edge of the plate and give it
> little taps with a hammer to delicately tap the plate into
> position. Itıs great when running  on guides with the windmill.
>
>
> I just setup and registered a tight trap second color on a
> letterhead job I am printing in under 10 minutes.

Bryan,

You have a good point regarding how to make very small adjustments to
the plate. Tapping the plate by using a small hammer and a scoring rule
is what I did when printing from steel-backed plates.

When I print from plastic-backed plates I use the gauges of the cylinder
or platen to make the same small adjustments - but to the sheet rather
than to the plate. For larger adjustments I add or remove reglets, or
furniture.

How do you mount large plates, like 4-up or 8-up? One reason I switched
to plastic-backed plates was the steep price for a Cerface base when I
inquired about a base for my Albert Frankenthal ALA cylinder press.
Ouch!

Printers who prefer using steel-backed plates in large formats but don't
want to invest in large Cerface bases might want to look into using a
vacuum chuck. I looked into this a few years ago and still think it is a
very good alternative to Cerface bases if you print from large-format
steel-backed plates. The last time I inquired, Magnalock was willing to
make custom vacuum chucks (and smaller channels - 1/16" - so that the
plates don't give) to type height, minus the thickness of the
photopolymer plate:

http://www.magnalock.com/vc_mav.asp

However, switching to plastic-backed plates and Harold's Boxcar base
would save oneself from these troubles.

All the best,
Mats Broberg

Stockholm - Sweden

> Do I hear a proponent for steel-backed plates...? :-)
>
> All the best,
> Mats Broberg

Mats

Ok, my thoughts on this.

I've used a variety of different bases for photopolymer: homemade
rubber magnetic sheeting on aluminum, Patmag, Bunting, Boxcar,
non-magnetic plastic bases (used by newspaper publishers in the old
days). I've not yet tried the magnetic pads that work with honeycomb
bases.

For production work, I stay with the Bunting Cerface. The advantages
of this for me is I don't have to deal with the base/plate thing and
I've no complaints about the bases (except for the initial cost, but
I've always felt it was money well spent). Affix the plate, register
it, and print. Out of mind. I've not experienced travel with a Bunting
and the top to bottom registration is exact (without stretch), and,
the impression is quite true. I'd previously used Patmags and did not
like the problem of travel (and having to deal with that during
presswork) or the lack of true impression that are inherent with
magnetic sheeting bases.

I know Harold came up with the idea for the Boxcar after he
experienced travel with a Bunting. I know others have suggested this
can occur on larger cylinder presses but, like I said, I've not
encountered it.

I was in Mpls giving a workshop several years ago and saw the first
prototype of the Boxcar Base and thought it a worthwhile development.
I believe I'm the one who suggested to Harold he put a grid on it!!!
Harold sent me a Boxcar Base a while back and I tried it out as a
demonstration for students. Twice. Both times the adhesive stretched
and curled up when I tried to re-register. Now... I DO have SOME craft
sensibility and skills, so I figured there is something not quite
right here. Could just be me, or a batch of bad adhesive, but I've
since stayed away from using the base in production work because I
simply can't afford the time to screw around with this kind of thing.
I know there are others who have no problems whatsoever with this
plate/base combination and are quite happy with it.

I believe plastic-backed plates were originally designed for use on
cylinders, rather than flatbeds. So, to some extent I also worry about
the inherent flexibility (and possibility of stretch) and floppiness
of plastic-backs, since they were initially designed to accommodate
cylinder stretch. I assume this is negligible but... Also I do not
like the secondary concerns of dealing with adhesives, film or spray
or whatever. There are problems, as Harold points out, somewhat, on
his site, in regard to the possibility of air bubbles, dirt or hair
adhering to the adhesive, solvents effecting the bond, etc. These are
things I just don't want to have to deal with.

In terms of the advantages that you point out...

Yes, plastic backed plates are easier to cut, if you are using a
scissors. You do need a guillotine sheers to cut steel-backed plates.

In regard to positioning, I'm not sure that one could say that a
six-pica grid is all that exacting. I measure my work in points and
fractions of points and I do like the rigidity and reassurance of
steel. I use a thin padding knife to lift the plate and then slide a
thin sheet of acetate under to provide lift when I shift large plates
around so they don't get bent in the process of pick-up. With a steel
ruler or pieces of steel plate metal on the base in position, the
plate is easily butted up for registration. It rarely takes me more
than a couple attempts to register in this manner.

I've never seen the shear strength claim for film adhesive backed up
with technical specifications. And I'd be very interested in seeing
them, especially in comparison to the Bunting or any of the other
professional magnetic registration systems out there.

Yes, plastic-backed plates are a bit cheaper, but not by that much,
and it depends somewhat on who your processor is. As always in life,
you usually get what you pay for.

All best

Gerald

> I know Harold came up with the idea for the Boxcar after he
> experienced travel with a Bunting. I know others have suggested this
> can occur on larger cylinder presses but, like I said, I've not
> encountered it.

If you're printing with any kind of impression - plates on buntings will
move, whether on a proof press or a large cylinder - sometimes, but rarely,
on a platen if you're sloppy with packing thickness, or the plate is very
small.   I don't want to start an argument about whether "real" letterpress
ought not show impression - so please hold back ye who are of that school -
I'm only talking about plate creep.
    I ran 10x9 solid on my Little Giant (got execellent coverage by the way),
but the plate moved well over a pica within 1000 impressions. That's a whole
lot if it matters at all (I anticipated this with plenty of bleed).
    The solution, by the way, is spray glue... or a blocking sheet of steel
at bottom of printing plate (meaning a large enough base and bed).

e.

I have been taping my plates and have had few problems with plate creep. I
tape all 4 sides with the high tack Scotch tape (not magic ape) and it seems
to hold the plate perfectly in registration. It also seems to minimize creep
if the roller/plate pressure is kept to a minimum and press speed is not too
fast. And keeping the base really clean seems to help as well.

I just finished an ultra-tight-trap 2-color stationery job with runs of 1m.
There was absolutely no plate creep at all.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Gerald,

Good thoughts about steel-backed plates vs. plastic-backed plates.

I have neither experienced plate travel on presses when using
steel-backed plates, so that was not the reason I switched to
plastic-backed. Nor was the price the reason, since I pay the same price
for plastic-backed plates as I do for steel-backed plates.

However, I was deterred when getting a quote for a magnetic base for the
Albert Frankenthal press, which would have amounted to several thousand
dollars. I am very cautious about cutting corners, but when getting this
quote I think most printers would have asked themselves if the added
benefit of steel-backed plates justifies this investment. Personally, I
doubt it, but that remains to be seen. You have a point about the risk
of stretching, but on the other hand the base material on the
plastic-backed plates is several times thicker than imagesetter film,
and most people don't worry about the dimensional stability of that
film. Future will show if stretch is a problem. It may - or it may not.

Regarding positioning you are right ofcourse, and I take back what I
wrote about that.

All the best,
Mats Broberg

Stockholm - Sweden

> Mats
>
> Ok, my thoughts on this.
>
> I've used a variety of different bases for photopolymer:
> homemade rubber magnetic sheeting on aluminum, Patmag,
> Bunting, Boxcar, non-magnetic plastic bases (used by
> newspaper publishers in the old days). I've not yet tried the
> magnetic pads that work with honeycomb bases.
>
> For production work, I stay with the Bunting Cerface. The
> advantages of this for me is I don't have to deal with the
> base/plate thing and I've no complaints about the bases
> (except for the initial cost, but I've always felt it was
> money well spent). Affix the plate, register it, and print.
> Out of mind. I've not experienced travel with a Bunting and
> the top to bottom registration is exact (without stretch),
> and, the impression is quite true. I'd previously used
> Patmags and did not like the problem of travel (and having to
> deal with that during
> presswork) or the lack of true impression that are inherent
> with magnetic sheeting bases.
>
> I know Harold came up with the idea for the Boxcar after he
> experienced travel with a Bunting. I know others have
> suggested this can occur on larger cylinder presses but, like
> I said, I've not encountered it.
>
> I was in Mpls giving a workshop several years ago and saw the
> first prototype of the Boxcar Base and thought it a
> worthwhile development. I believe I'm the one who suggested
> to Harold he put a grid on it!!! Harold sent me a Boxcar Base
> a while back and I tried it out as a demonstration for
> students. Twice. Both times the adhesive stretched and curled
> up when I tried to re-register. Now... I DO have SOME craft
> sensibility and skills, so I figured there is something not
> quite right here. Could just be me, or a batch of bad
> adhesive, but I've since stayed away from using the base in
> production work because I simply can't afford the time to
> screw around with this kind of thing. I know there are others
> who have no problems whatsoever with this plate/base
> combination and are quite happy with it.
>
> I believe plastic-backed plates were originally designed for
> use on cylinders, rather than flatbeds. So, to some extent I
> also worry about the inherent flexibility (and possibility of
> stretch) and floppiness of plastic-backs, since they were
> initially designed to accommodate cylinder stretch. I assume
> this is negligible but... Also I do not like the secondary
> concerns of dealing with adhesives, film or spray or
> whatever. There are problems, as Harold points out, somewhat,
> on his site, in regard to the possibility of air bubbles,
> dirt or hair adhering to the adhesive, solvents effecting the
> bond, etc. These are
> things I just don't want to have to deal with.
>
> In terms of the advantages that you point out...
>
> Yes, plastic backed plates are easier to cut, if you are
> using a scissors. You do need a guillotine sheers to cut
> steel-backed plates.
>
> In regard to positioning, I'm not sure that one could say
> that a six-pica grid is all that exacting. I measure my work
> in points and fractions of points and I do like the rigidity
> and reassurance of steel. I use a thin padding knife to lift
> the plate and then slide a thin sheet of acetate under to
> provide lift when I shift large plates around so they don't
> get bent in the process of pick-up. With a steel ruler or
> pieces of steel plate metal on the base in position, the
> plate is easily butted up for registration. It rarely takes
> me more than a couple attempts to register in this manner.
>
> I've never seen the shear strength claim for film adhesive
> backed up with technical specifications. And I'd be very
> interested in seeing them, especially in comparison to the
> Bunting or any of the other professional magnetic
> registration systems out there.
>
> Yes, plastic-backed plates are a bit cheaper, but not by that
> much, and it depends somewhat on who your processor is. As
> always in life, you usually get what you pay for.
>
> All best
>
> Gerald

This is a good forum to discuss the merits of different bases for
letterpress, but I think readers should keep in mind that Gerald and I
distribute competitive products: Boxcar Press sells adhesive bases, Bieler
Press sells magnetic bases. This is why I am particularly pleased that the
readerships of this list and of Letpress are so enthusiastic about our
system. We satisfy our customers, who find that printing is more satisfying
with the right tools. The notion that you "get what you pay for", in my
opinion, ignores the fact that our products offer a better value: more
features with less cost.

I feel I should address some of Gerald's specific concerns about our
registration system in detail:

Regarding the adhesive "bunching up", Gerald is the only user of our film
adhesive who has brought this to our attention since our inception. My only
response is that thousands of plates have not experienced this problem. We
mount adhesive on a dozen plates a day and Gerald's problem still has us
scratching our heads. We give detailed instructions for mounting adhesive
(and it isn't hard) in our owners manual. Our adhesive manufacturer is of
the highest quality and hasn't produced any "bad batches" to my knowledge.

The grid doesn't solve every registration problem, as Gerald pointed out.
When we need to measure in fractions of points, we would never rely solely
on the grid on a base. This is much better handled on the screen, before the
films are made, when such accurate measurements are at ones disposal. The
Grid does save time and aggravation, especially on multiple color work when
it aids alignment of crop marks on the transparent plates. I think Gerald
and I both use (as Mats mentioned) the gauges on the press to accurately
register a plate to the paper stock.

Our customers have found the grid on our base so useful that the most
commonly heard feedback to our Boxcar Base is to make more lines in the
gridding. As a result, our newest (fifth) generation of Boxcar Bases will
have a more detailed Grid, marked in 1/4 inches on the surface of the base.
We will have some models ready to sell next week, in fact.

The "floppiness" of the plates and the possibility of getting a hair on the
adhesive should not be concerns for a careful printer. Keep in mind many
rotary letterpress printers use the same adhesive and plate material for
200lpi 4-color process printing of medicine bottle labeling. Floppiness does
not affect the printing quality. The concern of the floppiness of
plastic-backed plates strikes me as similar to the traditionalists' argument
that metal type "feels better" or more "substantial" so it must therefore
print better.

Gerald: What scientific measure would you suggest for comparing the shear
strength of a film adhesive with the ability of a magnet to hold a plate
down? Instead Boxcar Press guarantees that our base will not allow plates
larger than a 1/4" square to move out of register (details online). We put
our money where our mouth is. I have heard no such guarantee from
competitive products.

Our adhesive manufacturer provides the following information, which is not
quite as helpful to the prospective buyer (hence our lack in publicizing
it): On the side that faces the base: Shear Strength of 34 hours by the
Finat FTM 8 Method. On the side that holds the plate, 52 hours.

I hope this clarifies the concerns that Gerald brought up. As always, we're
committed to helping our customers achieve, with the help of our products,
the finest printing possible.

Thanks,
Harold


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Boxcar Press
Fine Printing and Binding ~ Digital Letterpress Supplies
640 Fellows Avenue ~ Syracuse, NY 13210
315-473-0930 ~ phone and fax
www.boxcarpress.com
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Harold

Since this is a forum for discussion I would like to address some of
your points. Actually I am not in the business of selling bases. I do
sell them, but as a service to inquiries. I don't "actively" promote
this. When I am asked about bases I try to feel the person out to find
out what they need. I will recommend a Bunting, a Patmag, or a Boxcar
depending upon what I perceive the person really needs and what they
can afford. I know I recommend more Patmags and Boxcars than I sell
Buntings. And I believe I am very up front about the pros and cons of
each though obviously prejudiced based on my own experiences. But any
base purchase usually does come down to a matter of price and how much
a person wants to spend on the tool.

In regard to your statement, "The notion that you 'get what you pay
for', in my opinion, ignores the fact that our products offer a better
value: more features with less cost." If you are talking strictly
about the Boxcar Base, um, what are the features? You are offering a
sheet of well machined aluminum. The Bunting is a sheet of well
machined aluminum as well, but with many many ceramic magnetics
imbedded in grid-like fashion into its surface. One can, by the way,
as I am sure you realize, actually use plastic-backed plates with film
adhesive on a Bunting.

I'm just trying to clarify here, not start a war. You have a very good
product, it fills a definite niche, but I do think some of the claims
made on your web site are a bit over the top. I realize you are in the
business of selling a product you have manufactured and I don't take
that away from you but... I think you are quite aware that my concerns
are informational.


The Finat FTM 8 Method is a test for adhesives, isn't it? I probably
should ask Bunting for a comparable shear strength test.


I don't know why the adhesive bunched up, but I did find it
disconcerting. Especially now, since, as you point out, I am
apparently the only one who cannot figure out how to work with the it!!!!


Gerald



--- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, Harold Kyle <harold@b...> wrote:
> This is a good forum to discuss the merits of different bases for
> letterpress, but I think readers should keep in mind that Gerald and I
> distribute competitive products: Boxcar Press sells adhesive bases,
Bieler
> Press sells magnetic bases. This is why I am particularly pleased
that the
> readerships of this list and of Letpress are so enthusiastic about our
> system. We satisfy our customers, who find that printing is more
satisfying
> with the right tools.
>
> I feel I should address some of Gerald's specific concerns about our
> registration system in detail:
>
> Regarding the adhesive "bunching up", Gerald is the only user of our
film
> adhesive who has brought this to our attention since our inception.
My only
> response is that thousands of plates have not experienced this
problem. We
> mount adhesive on a dozen plates a day and Gerald's problem still has us
> scratching our heads. We give detailed instructions for mounting
adhesive
> (and it isn't hard) in our owners manual. Our adhesive manufacturer
is of
> the highest quality and hasn't produced any "bad batches" to my
knowledge.
>
> The grid doesn't solve every registration problem, as Gerald pointed
out.
> When we need to measure in fractions of points, we would never rely
solely
> on the grid on a base. This is much better handled on the screen,
before the
> films are made, when such accurate measurements are at ones
disposal. The
> Grid does save time and aggravation, especially on multiple color
work when
> it aids alignment of crop marks on the transparent plates. I think
Gerald
> and I both use (as Mats mentioned) the gauges on the press to accurately
> register a plate to the paper stock.
>
> Our customers have found the grid on our base so useful that the most
> commonly heard feedback to our Boxcar Base is to make more lines in the
> gridding. As a result, our newest (fifth) generation of Boxcar Bases
will
> have a more detailed Grid, marked in 1/4 inches on the surface of
the base.
> We will have some models ready to sell next week, in fact.
>
> The "floppiness" of the plates and the possibility of getting a hair
on the
> adhesive should not be concerns for a careful printer. Keep in mind many
> rotary letterpress printers use the same adhesive and plate material for
> 200lpi 4-color process printing of medicine bottle labeling.
Floppiness does
> not affect the printing quality. The concern of the floppiness of
> plastic-backed plates strikes me as similar to the traditionalists'
argument
> that metal type "feels better" or more "substantial" so it must
therefore
> print better.
>
> Gerald: What scientific measure would you suggest for comparing the
shear
> strength of a film adhesive with the ability of a magnet to hold a plate
> down? Instead Boxcar Press guarantees that our base will not allow
plates
> larger than a 1/4" square to move out of register (details online).
We put
> our money where our mouth is. I have heard no such guarantee from
> competitive products.
>
> Our adhesive manufacturer provides the following information, which
is not
> quite as helpful to the prospective buyer (hence our lack in publicizing
> it): On the side that faces the base: Shear Strength of 34 hours by the
> Finat FTM 8 Method. On the side that holds the plate, 52 hours.
>
> I hope this clarifies the concerns that Gerald brought up. As
always, we're
> committed to helping our customers achieve, with the help of our
products,
> the finest printing possible.
>
> Thanks,
> Harold
>
>
> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
> Boxcar Press
> Fine Printing and Binding ~ Digital Letterpress Supplies
> 640 Fellows Avenue ~ Syracuse, NY 13210
> 315-473-0930 ~ phone and fax
> www.boxcarpress.com
> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I was recently informed that Curtis Fine Papers has called it quits.
Their Curtis Flannel Cover was a great cover weight sheet for
letterpress printing. After losing Mohawk Letterpress Text (a while
back) and Basingwerk (about a year and a half ago), there aren't any
really good machine-made papers left as far as I know?

Gerald

Gerald,

Mohawk Letterpress Text was close to 80 lbs/ream, right? These
conversions between imperial and metric units makes one confused, but I
think that would be close to 115-120 gsm.

If so, I think there still are a few really good machine-made papers.
Having used Mohawk Letterpress Text, I assume you are also familiar with
Mohawk Superfine White/Softwhite Eggshell, which I find to be a good
paper for certain kinds of work. There's also Somerset Book
White/Softwhite, made from 100 % cotton (which, I understand, was used
for Arion Press's Bible), and Zerkall's Buetten-Druckpapier (cotton +
high alpha cellulose). Zerkall is, by the way, the mill that made the
custom paper for Barry Moser's Pennyroyal Caxton Bible.

You may also want to take a look at Lessebo Design - two Swedish papers
close to Mohawk Superfine White/Softwhite Eggshell in colors, weights
and textures. I have a few reams of Lessebo in my printing office and
would be glad to send you a few samples.

http://www.inveresk.co.uk/stcuth/somerset.htm

http://www.klippan-paper.com/index.asp

http://www.zerkall.de/English/IndexEnglish.html

All the best,
Mats Broberg

Stockholm - Sweden

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gerald Lange [mailto:bieler@...]
> Sent: den 9 augusti 2003 09:43
> To: PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [PPLetterpress] Letterpress papers?
>
>
> I was recently informed that Curtis Fine Papers has called it
> quits. Their Curtis Flannel Cover was a great cover weight
> sheet for letterpress printing. After losing Mohawk
> Letterpress Text (a while
> back) and Basingwerk (about a year and a half ago), there
> aren't any really good machine-made papers left as far as I know?
>
> Gerald
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ---------------------~--> Low on Ink? Get 80% off inkjet
> cartridges & Free Shipping at 77Colors.com. We have your
> brand: HP, Epson, Lexmark, Canon, Compaq and more!
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5981
http://us.click.yahoo.com/DmnqpB/IyhGAA/ySSFAA/mFXtlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

. To respond to a post or post a message to the membership:
PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com
. Encountering problems? contact: PPLetterpress-owner@yahoogroups.com
. To unsubscribe:
PPLetterpress-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Mats

I was always under the impression that the Somerset and Zerkall were
mouldmades!!! Lordy. Don't know the Lessebo. Thanks for the offer but it
would cost you more to send them than it is worth. The information is
much more useful!!! I'll check them out.

But I really haven't been buying. I have still have useful stocks of the
Letterpress Text, Curtis Cover, Basingwerk, as well as the Frankfurts
(Zerkall). Probably to last me to the end.

Thanks

Gerald


Mats Broberg wrote:
> Gerald,
>
> Mohawk Letterpress Text was close to 80 lbs/ream, right? These
> conversions between imperial and metric units makes one confused, but I
> think that would be close to 115-120 gsm.
>
> If so, I think there still are a few really good machine-made papers.
> Having used Mohawk Letterpress Text, I assume you are also familiar with
> Mohawk Superfine White/Softwhite Eggshell, which I find to be a good
> paper for certain kinds of work. There's also Somerset Book
> White/Softwhite, made from 100 % cotton (which, I understand, was used
> for Arion Press's Bible), and Zerkall's Buetten-Druckpapier (cotton +
> high alpha cellulose). Zerkall is, by the way, the mill that made the
> custom paper for Barry Moser's Pennyroyal Caxton Bible.
>
> You may also want to take a look at Lessebo Design - two Swedish papers
> close to Mohawk Superfine White/Softwhite Eggshell in colors, weights
> and textures. I have a few reams of Lessebo in my printing office and
> would be glad to send you a few samples.
>
> http://www.inveresk.co.uk/stcuth/somerset.htm
>
> http://www.klippan-paper.com/index.asp
>
> http://www.zerkall.de/English/IndexEnglish.html
>
> All the best,
> Mats Broberg
>
> Stockholm - Sweden
>

> Mats
>
> I was always under the impression that the Somerset and Zerkall were
> mouldmades!!! Lordy. Don't know the Lessebo. Thanks for the
> offer but it
> would cost you more to send them than it is worth. The information is
> much more useful!!! I'll check them out.
>
> But I really haven't been buying. I have still have useful
> stocks of the
> Letterpress Text, Curtis Cover, Basingwerk, as well as the Frankfurts
> (Zerkall). Probably to last me to the end.
>
> Thanks
>
> Gerald

Gerald,

My mistake - the Somerset and Zerkall papers are indeed mouldmade, and
not machine-made.

I suppose I just didn't realise "machine-made" was the key word in this
discussion, but rather finding a financially viable high-quality
printing paper...! :-)

All the best,
Mats Broberg

Stockholm - Sweden

It's amazing how different everyone's
experiences with various bases can be. I've got
two Bunting bases, and I always dreaded printing
with them. I ALWAYS had trouble with the
plates moving, & I found registration to be very
unfun---especially if I had two plates
simultaneously on the same base. After
borrowing Patmag bases, I thought for sure that
Bunting bases would solve the problem of
slippage----and I guess they do, if one is to use
spray adhesive on a 'brake plate' or use tape.

Every July 25th I take a moment to recall my first
joyous experience with Harold's vinyl backed
plates. The whole Boxcar system just makes
good sense, whereas I always felt positioning
plates on a Bunting base was a crap shoot, made
even worse by the fact that the plates were
always slipping. It seems ridiculous that my good
friend Elias has to PLAN for plate slippage when
he's printing, or that further steps need to be
taken with 'brake plates' and tape. This, to me, is
a sign that the Bunting system is not the right
tool for the job. I know I can take one of
Harold's plates, place it on the base, and get right
to work without any worries about the plate
moving.

That one could get hair on a Boxcar plate seems
an unfair accusation, as I have---with my
constantly shedding dog always in the shop---
locked up hair in type, or had it between a
Bunting base and plate as well. The way to avoid
this is, I've found, to keep a clean shop or, less
ideally, shave the dog.

I learned to print in a Monotype shop, so my
preference is to always print from metal
whenever possible. Not only do I just like the
idea of metal, but everything is square (at right
angles). That's one less thing to worry about.
Should I be printing a book with the Boxcar
system, once I get position on the first form,
switching plates from form to form is almost like
changing forms of metal type. With the base grid,
I know that each plate will be just about in the
right position every time I put a plate down,
because I can SEE that the type is falling in the
same place on the base. With a few turns of the
dials (often not even needed), I'm ready to go.
But with the Bunting system, I found it to be a
real drag to switch plates, as I could never be
certain that the type would fall in the same
place---and it could fall at any angle. Each form
was like the first, and I was always starting from
scratch.

I have great respect for those that can get their
Bunting bases to work for them. I wish I had
their skills or patience, so perhaps I wouldn't feel
that I had thrown away $1200 on Bunting
bases---although, I now use one of my Bunting
bases to hold up the grocery list on my
refrigerator, and the other one is in the path of
my garden. I guess all was not lost.



Michael
--
Kat Ran Press
221 Pine Street #1G5
Florence, Massachusetts 01062
413.584.1152 phone & fax
katran@...
http://www.katranpress.com (in progress)

Six of one

    Half dozen of another

If youıre serious, youıll most likely be able to use either of the base
mounting methods with perfect results. Both require a little effort. Both do
basically the same thing. We use bases because they do what we need them to
do. Both have advantages and disadvantages.

I bought a bunting base over a year ago and could not do the work I do
without it. They are amazing. Another local printer I know uses the Boxcar
base and she also likes it. So the bottom line is they are both good bases.
One is more expensive than the other, but also gives you a little more
breathing room when registering on press. The other is less expensive, and
also gives you a pretty sweet set of guide rules for registering before you
go on press. I have used both, but prefer the bunting base, mainly because I
have an A&V platemaker and use steel back plates.

The old argument used to be Chevy and Ford... Or the skateboarding Tracker
vs Gullwing debate comes to mind...now itıs a base debate...


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Michael & the list,

This has been an interesting thread to read.

I have been printing on bunting bases for the last 6 years and have never
had a problem with slippage even on 3 color / 2 sided jobs with runs up to
1500 impression on a Vandercook sp-20. (Using Jet plates: LSL-94SB plates)

I work with bunting bases not only because I have a small fortune invested
in the four bases I own, but also because I hand wash my plates and I find
it easier to do so with steel backed plates.

I have tried Haroldıs Boxcar base system and it worked just fine for me the
few time I tried it. There are two problems that I have encountered with
vinyl backed plates. First, I didn't like pining the vinyl plate down to
dense foam because the thumb tacks I used tended to release during hand
washing.  Once, a plate got damaged from the loose tack that accidentally
got brushed onto the type on the plate. Does anyone have any other tricks
for securing vinyl plates during hand washing?

Secondly, I find it easier to see when a steel backed plate is fully washed
out and if there are any problems with the exposure and wash out. With vinyl
plates, I found it more difficult to judge these problems. I tried placing a
piece of scrap metal behind the  vinyl plate after wash out to help me see
whether there we any problems with the wash out of the vinyl plate. This
helped a little, but it wasn't nearly as easy to see as with the steel
backed plates.  Aside from proofing plates on the press, does anyone have
any other tricks for checking vinyl plates for problems with exposure and
washout? I do suppose that if you are processing vinyl plates all the time
your eyes adjust to their particular idiosyncrasies.

By the way (Jay) how do vinyl plates attach to the washout unit in the
processing machines?

I recently acquired Vandercook Model 4 and could use another bunting base.
Michael or anyone else who is interested in getting rid of their bunting
bases please let me know.  Since the one in the garden is most likely
completely trashed, do you want to sell the refrigerator base. How thick,
what size, and what would you sell it for? I could use atleast one more base
ground to .881

Chip
--

Chip Schilling - Indulgence Press
1332 Marshall St. NE
Minneapolis, Mn 55413
Phone (612) 379-4743
Fax (612) 331-8114
www.indulgencepress.com






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I certainly agree that this discussion will probably
not convert any one from one base to the other.
I think it's a good idea that all issues be aired,
though, so we don't have to got through this
every few months. Hopefully in the future,
interested parties can be directed to the archives.




Michael

I always preferred Independent trucks (as opposed
to Gullwing or Tracker).

--
Kat Ran Press
221 Pine Street #1G5
Florence, Massachusetts 01062
413.584.1152 phone & fax
katran@...
http://www.katranpress.com (in progress)








From: M a n i f e s t o     P r e s s <bryan@...>
Reply-To: PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2003 13:01:18 -0400
To: <PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PPLetterpress] Re: Vinyl backed plates




    Six of one

    Half dozen of another

If youıre serious, youıll most likely be able to use either of the base
mounting methods with perfect results. Both require a little effort. Both do
basically the same thing. We use bases because they do what we need them to
do. Both have advantages and disadvantages.

I bought a bunting base over a year ago and could not do the work I do
without it. They are amazing. Another local printer I know uses the Boxcar
base and she also likes it. So the bottom line is they are both good bases.
One is more expensive than the other, but also gives you a little more
breathing room when registering on press. The other is less expensive, and
also gives you a pretty sweet set of guide rules for registering before you
go on press. I have used both, but prefer the bunting base, mainly because I
have an A&V platemaker and use steel back plates.

The old argument used to be Chevy and Ford... Or the skateboarding Tracker
vs Gullwing debate comes to mind...now itıs a base debate...


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor   ADVERTISEMENT

• To respond to a post or post a message to the membership:
PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com
• Encountering problems? contact:
PPLetterpress-owner@yahoogroups.com
• To unsubscribe:
PPLetterpress-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

Hello all,

Another noob question for those of you who have done it all...

I'm embarking on a series of mixed media prints that will involve
silkscreening multiple colors, THEN finishing with an impression from my proof
press. I'm
doing all I can to keep the images as simple as possible, but the
registration of the letterpress to the silkscreen art is semi-critical.

My question involves paper sizing. I would prefer to use a soft printmaking
paper like Rives, and I'm wondering the best way to dampen the paper *after*
it's been silkscreened so I can get a nice impression on the press. Obviously I
could use a non-water based silkscreen ink and soak the prints like usual, but
it would be nice to avoid that hassle.

I've read several references to "damp boxes" around these parts, and think
this might be the best way to prep the prints for letterpress and not harm the
silkscreen artwork. Just what's involved with one, and how do they work?

Any suggestions or dire warnings? With every question or problem I feel like
i'm digging a deeper hole for myself! What fun it will be to try and climb
out...

Jim Harrison
Gainesville, FL


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Jim

There is some discussion regarding paper dampening and damp boxes in
the Archives. Back in March and April, and a bit on it later in November
and December, of last year.

Rives responds well to dampening and I doubt you will have a problem
because of the silkscreening, but I would do a test first.

In the Lewis Allen book _Printing with the Handpress_, Allen discusses
his technique and the use of damp boxes. He also provides several
graphics and instructions on how to construct these yourself. I've got
half-dozen of them and find them invaluable for controlling the
hydration of paper. Gabriel Rummonds also discusses dampening in his
book _Printing with the Iron Handpress_, which is still in print. From
what I recall though, Gabriel used plastic bags rather than damp boxes.

There were at least three editions of the Allen book and one or
another often shows up with a search at abe.com.

Gerald


>
> My question involves paper sizing. I would prefer to use a soft
printmaking
> paper like Rives, and I'm wondering the best way to dampen the paper
*after*
> it's been silkscreened so I can get a nice impression on the press.
Obviously I
> could use a non-water based silkscreen ink and soak the prints like
usual, but
> it would be nice to avoid that hassle.
>
> I've read several references to "damp boxes" around these parts, and
think
> this might be the best way to prep the prints for letterpress and
not harm the
> silkscreen artwork. Just what's involved with one, and how do they work?
>
> Any suggestions or dire warnings? With every question or problem I
feel like
> i'm digging a deeper hole for myself! What fun it will be to try and
climb
> out...
>
> Jim Harrison
> Gainesville, FL

Does anyone have any other tricks
> for securing vinyl plates during hand washing?
>

Chip

Get yourself a 3/8 of an inch thick piece of acetate cut about two
inches wider in either direction than any plate you intend to washout.
Adhere a piece of wide double stick industrial tape (at a bit bigger
than the size of the theoretical plate). I have occasional need to run
a very thick (.100), deep-relief plastic-back and this jig works well for hand
washout. The adhesive needs to completely dry out between washings or
the plate could slip away from it.

The various machines either come with a platen with a magnetic rubber
sheet, a platen with a PVC adhesive sheet (for plastic-backs) or a
"sticky" magnetic plate (for both).


Gerald

I thought mouldmades were machine made and have a grain.  Both unlike
handmade.
Greg Shattenberg

> -----Original Message-----
> From: G. Shattenberg [mailto:ssss@...]
> Sent: den 10 augusti 2003 14:34
> To: PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [PPLetterpress] Letterpress papers?
>
>
> I thought mouldmades were machine made and have a grain.
> Both unlike handmade. Greg Shattenberg

Greg,

Yes, both machinemades and mouldmades take advantage of a machine, but
there is a difference in how the water/fibre mixture forms into paper.
As far as I understand, mouldmades use a slowly rotating drum that picks
up the mixture from the vat and then transfers it on a moving felt.

When making a machinemade paper I understand the Fourdrinier process is
used, which means that the water/fibre mixture is sprayed from nozzles
onto a rapidly moving mesh.

All the best,
Mats Broberg

Stockholm - Sweden

> Yes, both machinemades and mouldmades take advantage of a machine, but
> there is a difference in how the water/fibre mixture forms into paper.
> As far as I understand, mouldmades use a slowly rotating drum that picks
> up the mixture from the vat and then transfers it on a moving felt.
>
> When making a machinemade paper I understand the Fourdrinier process is
> used, which means that the water/fibre mixture is sprayed from nozzles
> onto a rapidly moving mesh.
>
> All the best,
> Mats Broberg
>
> Stockholm - Sweden

Mats

I've never known of a mouldmade that originated from North America.
Were the Fourdrinier and the mouldmade technique developed somewhat
simultaneously? and the latter technology never made it to NA?

Gerald

While a newbie to letterpress and never having seen a steel or vinyl
plate in my life, I have found the discussion fascinating as to how
passionately yet fairly proponents of different systems have
explained their preferences - thank you for an enlightening series.
--
Henrietta in Blue Hill, Maine

On 8/9/03 1:24 PM, "Chip Schilling" <chip@...> wrote:
> I have tried Haroldıs Boxcar base system and it worked just fine for me the
> few time I tried it. There are two problems that I have encountered with
> vinyl backed plates. First, I didn't like pining the vinyl plate down to
> dense foam because the thumb tacks I used tended to release during hand
> washing.  Once, a plate got damaged from the loose tack that accidentally
> got brushed onto the type on the plate. Does anyone have any other tricks
> for securing vinyl plates during hand washing?
The thumb tack system is a relic of early experiments at MCBA. For the
reasons you've cited it didn't work out too well! Now for hand-washing I
recommend using the green mat used in commercial photopolymer platemakers.
This material holds all types of photopolymer (steel-backed, plastic-backed,
etc.) flat during processing. We can mount the green mat on an acrylic panel
or magnetic stainless steel that can drop in to the bottom of a washout
basin (the latter can be used to temporarily convert existing magnetic
panels). You will need to remove the panel and squeegie it dry between
plates. Once it's squeegied, it will hold onto the plate quite well during
washout. We have prices online at www.boxcarpress.com/shop

> Secondly, I find it easier to see when a steel backed plate is fully washed
> out and if there are any problems with the exposure and wash out. With vinyl
> plates, I found it more difficult to judge these problems. I tried placing a
> piece of scrap metal behind the  vinyl plate after wash out to help me see
> whether there we any problems with the wash out of the vinyl plate. This
> helped a little, but it wasn't nearly as easy to see as with the steel
> backed plates.  Aside from proofing plates on the press, does anyone have
> any other tricks for checking vinyl plates for problems with exposure and
> washout? I do suppose that if you are processing vinyl plates all the time
> your eyes adjust to their particular idiosyncrasies.
I've never noticed a difference in judging how washed out either plate was
(we process both here). What method do you use to see if a metal-backed
plate is washed out? In either situation we remove the plate from the
washout unit, let the water run off the surface, and look closely at the
edges of type or in corners of the plate to see if there are deposits of
polymer.

We do our best to completely wash out the plate before actually proofing it
on the press. If any unwashed areas slipped by during the washout, they are
much more obvious after the plate has dried. We then put the plate briefly
back in the washout to finish the job.

I hope this answers your questions!
Thanks,
Harold

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Boxcar Press
Fine Printing ~ Digital Letterpress Supplies
640 Fellows Avenue ~ Syracuse, NY 13210
315-473-0930 phone ~ 315-473-0967 fax
www.boxcarpress.com
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

> In regard to your statement, "The notion that you 'get what you pay
> for', in my opinion, ignores the fact that our products offer a better
> value: more features with less cost." If you are talking strictly
> about the Boxcar Base, um, what are the features?
By extra features, I mean the advantages to the whole process of using
polyester-backed plates on the Boxcar Base.  Our system allows multiple
color jobs printed from just one plate; ability to cut plates with a knife;
registration "through the plate" to a grid; and, of course, accurate
register without worrying about plate drift. I could go on but there are
more features listed on our website.

Sure, a printer could attach a plastic-backed plate to a Bunting but would
be paying a steep price for the experience. Just because that printer spent
more money doesn't make his or her choice smart! Hence my taking exception
with the notion "you get what you pay for": that printer might have been
better off purchasing a base designed to take full advantage of
plastic-backed plates. We have sold plates and adhesive to two customers who
mounted them onto magnetic bases (as a way to dip their toe in the water).
They both later purchased a Boxcar Grid Base for the task. Since the Boxcar
Base is 100% aluminum, it makes a more rigid foundation for their plates.

> I'm just trying to clarify here, not start a war. You have a very good
> product, it fills a definite niche, but I do think some of the claims
> made on your web site are a bit over the top.
Our claims are born of experience with our products. We have enough
confidence in them to offer a satisfaction guarantee on our products. The
last thing I want is a war in our small community--with you or with anyone!
If our marketing claims at Boxcar Press were overblown, we would certainly
have heard so from our customers by now.

> The Finat FTM 8 Method is a test for adhesives, isn't it? I probably
> should ask Bunting for a comparable shear strength test.
I would be interested in what you discover, but I would also be surprised if
there exists a scientific comparison of magnetic attraction and adhesive
shear strength. I think practical "real-world" experiences on press would
provide results more applicable to letterpress.

> I don't know why the adhesive bunched up, but I did find it
> disconcerting. Especially now, since, as you point out, I am
> apparently the only one who cannot figure out how to work with the it!!!!
If you would like to try more than the one sheet I sent, I would be happy to
send some more adhesive! I can try to help iron out the problem, as best I
can.

Thanks,

Harold

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Boxcar Press
Fine Printing ~ Digital Letterpress Supplies
640 Fellows Avenue ~ Syracuse, NY 13210
315-473-0930 phone ~ 315-473-0967 fax
www.boxcarpress.com
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

> Mats
>
> I've never known of a mouldmade that originated from North
> America. Were the Fourdrinier and the mouldmade technique
> developed somewhat simultaneously? and the latter technology
> never made it to NA?
>
> Gerald

Gerald,

Yes, your suspicion is right:

The Fourdrinier process was patented January 18th, 1799 by Louis
Roberts, then sold to Saint-Leger Didot (yes, that Didot family!). Due
to a quarrel between Messrs Robert and Didot, Robert withdrew the patent
but Didot and his nephew John Gamble continued to develop it for the
Fourdrinier brothers, two paper merchants in Paris, in cooperation with
Bryan Donkin. The machine is said to have been in successful operation
somewhere around 1805-1807.

Images of Fourdrinier machines:

http://www.baph.freeserve.co.uk/imagepages/q13p13.html
http://www.dartfordarchive.org.uk/technology/magnified/Fourdrinier.htm

The process of making a mouldmade paper, on the other hand, was patented
by John Dickinson in 1809. His patent was based on a machine designed by
Georg Dodd, which originally was built for cutting and placing the paper
produced by the Fourdrinier process.

An image of a cylinder mould machine:

http://www.baph.freeserve.co.uk/imagepages/q04p4.html

It would be interesting to know why the process of making mouldmade
paper never made it to North America. It seems that the first
Fourdrinier was imported to USA in 1827, and the first US-designed
Fourdrinier built in 1829. No mentioning of cylinder mould machines.

I should also add a correction to my posting yesterday: On a Fourdrinier
machine the fiber/water mixture may also flow out on the mesh, rather
than being sprayed onto the mesh. Mea culpa!

All the best,
Mats Broberg

Stockholm - Sweden

Absolutely no creep experienced after switching to Scotch brand # 893 strapping
tape. Secure all four sides.
  A short tab of the same tape also makes a convenient method of lifting the
steel plate from magnetic bases when adjustments are necessary. This prevents
any damage to the magnetic base surface from sharp metal instruments that one
might be tempted to use to lift the plate.


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I have followed this thread with interest as we are a supplier of raw
plates, finished plates and bases. We also use what we sell, so as a test
for my own benefit, I ran a 2-up business card last night with a Jet
LSL-145SB plate on a Bunting base where I moved the base 6 times to end up
with a 12-up 8 1/2 x 11 sheet of business cards. The original file was
created by Elias Roustom and had both type and an oval halftone. I printed
it on 80# Kromekote cover, and to mildly put it, used about a 75% "Elias"
impression, which means way too much for traditional letterpress, but worked
fine on the coated stock. I have several blocks of aluminum milled to
precisely 2x3 1/2, so I can move the base around the chase and have absolute
alignment when doing multiple-up runs of business cards. I was looking for
plate creep in the 3000 impressions I ran and detected none. This was
printed on a Miehle Vertical V-50. I would never consider such a run or job
on a Vandercook of any persuasion, and I have 4 in our shop that I could
potentially use. And normally, I would have run this 2-up on the windmill.

I freely acknowledge that our el cheapo wood bases, and the Patmags will
evidence plate creep, but that's easily overcome. I had only a minor
adjustment after I mounted the plate as it was slightly out of square. I
marked up the base with pencil lines where I wanted the plate, made sure the
leading edge of the plate was trimmed reasonably parallel with the first
line of type, and was printing fairly soon--my only problem was backing off
on the roller adjustment so that the base didn't get inked. Metal type is so
much more forgiving on the inking side than the photopolymer approach. My
next job in a couple of days is all Linotype with a few hand set lines.

One amazing thing about this run was that when I pulled my first impression,
I had completely forgotten that my last job was for scoring and that I had
left the scoring matrix attached to the cylinder tympan. Of course, I ran
that matrix right through both halftones which is akin to leaving a bale on
top of the tympan on a hand fed press. But, I could not detect any visual
damage to the plate and ended up adding about .004 in makeready to each
halftone that eliminated the slight shadow left by the matrix in the face of
the plate. I was very impressed with the ability of the plate to sustain
damage that would have smashed metal type and left a distinct furrow in a
zinc or magnesium plate. All said and done, I still prefer metal type. I
could have made a new plate in 20 minutes, but I wanted to see if I could
salvage that plate, and it worked fine. I printed a halftone last week using
a BASF plate that was the easiest and nicest halftone I've ever run--no
makeready, lined up perfectly the first time on the Bunting base and I was
running perfectly acceptable work within 15 minutes of locking up the form.

Fritz

----- Original Message -----
From: "henrietta" <quilter@...>
To: <PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 9:30 PM
Subject: [PPLetterpress] very interesting


While a newbie to letterpress and never having seen a steel or vinyl
plate in my life, I have found the discussion fascinating as to how
passionately yet fairly proponents of different systems have
explained their preferences - thank you for an enlightening series.
--
Henrietta in Blue Hill, Maine


. To respond to a post or post a message to the membership:
PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com
. Encountering problems? contact:
PPLetterpress-owner@yahoogroups.com
. To unsubscribe:
PPLetterpress-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Thomas

I checked the Poll and I see you are using a Patmag. This is good
information. No need for spray adhesives then! Thanks.

Gerald

--- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, Thomas Krakowiak <tkrakowi@y...>
wrote:
> Absolutely no creep experienced after switching to Scotch brand #
893 strapping tape. Secure all four sides.
>  A short tab of the same tape also makes a convenient method of
lifting the steel plate from magnetic bases when adjustments are
necessary. This prevents any damage to the magnetic base surface from
sharp metal instruments that one might be tempted to use to lift the
plate.
>