Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Difference Among Platemakers?

Expand Messages
  • Gerald Lange
    Timothy I suspect that most machines that incorporate exposure, washout, drying, are pretty much the same. Like everything else there are cheaper brands and
    Message 1 of 7 , Mar 30, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Timothy

      I suspect that most machines that incorporate exposure, washout,
      drying, are pretty much the same. Like everything else there are
      cheaper brands and more expensive brands and there are usually reasons
      for the pricing difference. Features also differ a bit as to intended
      use. BASF, for instance, offers a double exposure rack (a
      post-exposure unit on some of their models—useful more for heavy
      commercial work). V&A is made in the US and uses parts that can easily
      be obtained at a hardware store or industrial supplier and provides
      for service and repair (something to consider if you are going to out
      lay the kind of money required for a new machine).

      Older technology models are a bit more suspect, i.e., machines
      designed for liguid photopolymer, flexography, chemical-based rather
      than water-based washout, etc.

      V&A recently introduced a new line but I am uncertain as to how much
      these differ from the older series. I would think that machines set up
      more for film-less technologies would be the next go around.

      Gerald

      --- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, Timothy Arthur Brown
      <t.a.brown@m...> wrote:
      > Hello,
      >
      > Are all brands and models of photopolymer platemakers equally capable of
      > producing excellent plates given proper knowledge and skill, or are
      > certain models intrinsically bad and to be avoided?
      >
      > T. A. Brown
      > Franconia, New Hampshire USA
    • Timothy Arthur Brown
      Thank you John and Gerald, John, I am doing book production so I ve decided to use the dedicated machine approach rather than dealing with the variables of a
      Message 2 of 7 , Mar 30, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Thank you John and Gerald,

        John, I am doing book production so I've decided to use the dedicated
        machine approach rather than dealing with the variables of a homemade
        setup. Having decided this, the only remaining concern was over brand,
        model, and price.

        What you say about machines being pretty much the same, Gerald, is
        reassuring. By V&A, I'm guessing that you mean Anderson & Vreeland - and
        it is an Anderson & Vreeland Orbital VIII A2 Model Platemaker offered on
        eBay for which I placed a winning bid yesterday afternoon. Previous to
        bidding I had phoned Anderson & Vreeland with some questions and learned
        that the Orbital X series has replaced the Orbital VIII series but that
        they are essentially the same machines. One obvious difference that was
        noted is that the new series has a powder coat finish rather than the
        stainless steel finish of the Orbital VIII series. The rep mentioned
        that there were a couple of other minor enhancements, but didn't
        elaborate. I also discovered that the Orbital X series equivalent of the
        used model I was thinking of bidding on retails in excess of $10,000.
        Suddenly the pre-owned Orbital VIII looked especially good (and I even
        prefered the stainless steel housing of the older series). So I placed
        my bid and won the platemaker for about 15% the cost of a new machine.

        T. A. Brown
        Franconia, New Hampshire USA


        Gerald Lange wrote:

        >
        >Timothy
        >
        >I suspect that most machines that incorporate exposure, washout,
        >drying, are pretty much the same. Like everything else there are
        >cheaper brands and more expensive brands and there are usually reasons
        >for the pricing difference. Features also differ a bit as to intended
        >use. BASF, for instance, offers a double exposure rack (a
        >post-exposure unit on some of their models—useful more for heavy
        >commercial work). V&A is made in the US and uses parts that can easily
        >be obtained at a hardware store or industrial supplier and provides
        >for service and repair (something to consider if you are going to out
        >lay the kind of money required for a new machine).
        >
        >Older technology models are a bit more suspect, i.e., machines
        >designed for liguid photopolymer, flexography, chemical-based rather
        >than water-based washout, etc.
        >
        >V&A recently introduced a new line but I am uncertain as to how much
        >these differ from the older series. I would think that machines set up
        >more for film-less technologies would be the next go around.
        >
        >Gerald
        >
        >--- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, Timothy Arthur Brown
        ><t.a.brown@m...> wrote:
        >
        >
        >>Hello,
        >>
        >>Are all brands and models of photopolymer platemakers equally capable of
        >>producing excellent plates given proper knowledge and skill, or are
        >>certain models intrinsically bad and to be avoided?
        >>
        >>T. A. Brown
        >>Franconia, New Hampshire USA
        >>
        >>
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • Fritz Klinke
        I would agree that a stainless steel cabinet is preferable to powder coat, and wonder why A&V would call the powder coat an enhancement. That is actually a
        Message 3 of 7 , Mar 30, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          I would agree that a stainless steel cabinet is preferable to powder coat, and
          wonder why A&V would call the powder coat an enhancement. That is actually a
          lessening of quality, but may reflect what is happening to steel prices.

          Fritz

          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Timothy Arthur Brown" <t.a.brown@...>
          To: <PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com>
          Cc: "J. Bruce Prior" <prior@...>
          Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 6:35 AM
          Subject: Re: [PPLetterpress] Re: Difference Among Platemakers?


          >
          > Thank you John and Gerald,
          >
          > John, I am doing book production so I've decided to use the dedicated
          > machine approach rather than dealing with the variables of a homemade
          > setup. Having decided this, the only remaining concern was over brand,
          > model, and price.
          >
          > What you say about machines being pretty much the same, Gerald, is
          > reassuring. By V&A, I'm guessing that you mean Anderson & Vreeland - and
          > it is an Anderson & Vreeland Orbital VIII A2 Model Platemaker offered on
          > eBay for which I placed a winning bid yesterday afternoon. Previous to
          > bidding I had phoned Anderson & Vreeland with some questions and learned
          > that the Orbital X series has replaced the Orbital VIII series but that
          > they are essentially the same machines. One obvious difference that was
          > noted is that the new series has a powder coat finish rather than the
          > stainless steel finish of the Orbital VIII series. The rep mentioned
          > that there were a couple of other minor enhancements, but didn't
          > elaborate. I also discovered that the Orbital X series equivalent of the
          > used model I was thinking of bidding on retails in excess of $10,000.
          > Suddenly the pre-owned Orbital VIII looked especially good (and I even
          > prefered the stainless steel housing of the older series). So I placed
          > my bid and won the platemaker for about 15% the cost of a new machine.
          >
          > T. A. Brown
          > Franconia, New Hampshire USA
          >
          >
          > Gerald Lange wrote:
          >
          > >
          > >Timothy
          > >
          > >I suspect that most machines that incorporate exposure, washout,
          > >drying, are pretty much the same. Like everything else there are
          > >cheaper brands and more expensive brands and there are usually reasons
          > >for the pricing difference. Features also differ a bit as to intended
          > >use. BASF, for instance, offers a double exposure rack (a
          > >post-exposure unit on some of their models-useful more for heavy
          > >commercial work). V&A is made in the US and uses parts that can easily
          > >be obtained at a hardware store or industrial supplier and provides
          > >for service and repair (something to consider if you are going to out
          > >lay the kind of money required for a new machine).
          > >
          > >Older technology models are a bit more suspect, i.e., machines
          > >designed for liguid photopolymer, flexography, chemical-based rather
          > >than water-based washout, etc.
          > >
          > >V&A recently introduced a new line but I am uncertain as to how much
          > >these differ from the older series. I would think that machines set up
          > >more for film-less technologies would be the next go around.
          > >
          > >Gerald
          > >
          > >--- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, Timothy Arthur Brown
          > ><t.a.brown@m...> wrote:
          > >
          > >
          > >>Hello,
          > >>
          > >>Are all brands and models of photopolymer platemakers equally capable of
          > >>producing excellent plates given proper knowledge and skill, or are
          > >>certain models intrinsically bad and to be avoided?
          > >>
          > >>T. A. Brown
          > >>Franconia, New Hampshire USA
          > >>
          > >>
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >Yahoo! Groups Links
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • Gerald Lange
          Timothy Congratulations. Used A&V s like the one you purchased easily run twice that. I have the same model, bought it new ten years ago, and it has never
          Message 4 of 7 , Mar 30, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Timothy

            Congratulations. Used A&V's like the one you purchased easily run
            twice that. I have the same model, bought it new ten years ago, and it
            has never missed a beat.(yeah, A&V, not V&A, bit tired last night!!!)

            Two things about that machine, looks like it has a PVC adhesive sheet
            instead of magback on the platen. If so, you will need to sub that out
            if you want to process steel-backed photopolymer. Mine has magback and
            I have a PVC carrier sheet (steel-backed) that I attach when making
            polyester-backed plates. Also, there is something odd about the brush
            pattern on the machine, or maybe they just photograph like that?

            These are usually shipped with the lamp unit pulled by the way, but if
            not, request that some bubble wrap packing be placed beneath the lamps
            to prevent them from dislodging and dropping during shippment. And
            make sure the unit is crated. An institution where I teach received
            one totally trashed as it had been shipped on a pallet only.

            This will serve you well for bookwork.

            Gerald
            > Thank you John and Gerald,
            >
            > John, I am doing book production so I've decided to use the dedicated
            > machine approach rather than dealing with the variables of a homemade
            > setup. Having decided this, the only remaining concern was over brand,
            > model, and price.
            >
            > What you say about machines being pretty much the same, Gerald, is
            > reassuring. By V&A, I'm guessing that you mean Anderson & Vreeland -
            and
            > it is an Anderson & Vreeland Orbital VIII A2 Model Platemaker
            offered on
            > eBay for which I placed a winning bid yesterday afternoon. Previous to
            > bidding I had phoned Anderson & Vreeland with some questions and
            learned
            > that the Orbital X series has replaced the Orbital VIII series but that
            > they are essentially the same machines. One obvious difference that was
            > noted is that the new series has a powder coat finish rather than the
            > stainless steel finish of the Orbital VIII series. The rep mentioned
            > that there were a couple of other minor enhancements, but didn't
            > elaborate. I also discovered that the Orbital X series equivalent of
            the
            > used model I was thinking of bidding on retails in excess of $10,000.
            > Suddenly the pre-owned Orbital VIII looked especially good (and I even
            > prefered the stainless steel housing of the older series). So I placed
            > my bid and won the platemaker for about 15% the cost of a new machine.
            >
            > T. A. Brown
            > Franconia, New Hampshire USA
            >
            >
            > Gerald Lange wrote:
            >
            > >
            > >Timothy
            > >
            > >I suspect that most machines that incorporate exposure, washout,
            > >drying, are pretty much the same. Like everything else there are
            > >cheaper brands and more expensive brands and there are usually reasons
            > >for the pricing difference. Features also differ a bit as to intended
            > >use. BASF, for instance, offers a double exposure rack (a
            > >post-exposure unit on some of their models—useful more for heavy
            > >commercial work). V&A is made in the US and uses parts that can easily
            > >be obtained at a hardware store or industrial supplier and provides
            > >for service and repair (something to consider if you are going to out
            > >lay the kind of money required for a new machine).
            > >
            > >Older technology models are a bit more suspect, i.e., machines
            > >designed for liguid photopolymer, flexography, chemical-based rather
            > >than water-based washout, etc.
            > >
            > >V&A recently introduced a new line but I am uncertain as to how much
            > >these differ from the older series. I would think that machines set up
            > >more for film-less technologies would be the next go around.
            > >
            > >Gerald
            > >
            > >--- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, Timothy Arthur Brown
            > ><t.a.brown@m...> wrote:
            > >
            > >
            > >>Hello,
            > >>
            > >>Are all brands and models of photopolymer platemakers equally
            capable of
            > >>producing excellent plates given proper knowledge and skill, or are
            > >>certain models intrinsically bad and to be avoided?
            > >>
            > >>T. A. Brown
            > >>Franconia, New Hampshire USA
            >
          • Timothy Arthur Brown
            Hi Fritz, The rep kind of admitted that the powder coat was a cost-saving measure on the part of the company so the enhancements must have been some of the
            Message 5 of 7 , Mar 30, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Fritz,

              The rep kind of admitted that the powder coat was a cost-saving measure
              on the part of the company so the "enhancements" must have been some of
              the other unspecified features. I knew I wasn't planning to purchase a
              new unit at this point so I didn't ask him to elaborate what those other
              enhancements were.

              T. A. Brown
              Franconia, New Hampshire USA


              Fritz Klinke wrote:

              >I would agree that a stainless steel cabinet is preferable to powder coat, and
              >wonder why A&V would call the powder coat an enhancement. That is actually a
              >lessening of quality, but may reflect what is happening to steel prices.
              >
              >Fritz
              >
              >----- Original Message -----
              >From: "Timothy Arthur Brown" <t.a.brown@...>
              >To: <PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com>
              >Cc: "J. Bruce Prior" <prior@...>
              >Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 6:35 AM
              >Subject: Re: [PPLetterpress] Re: Difference Among Platemakers?
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >>Thank you John and Gerald,
              >>
              >>John, I am doing book production so I've decided to use the dedicated
              >>machine approach rather than dealing with the variables of a homemade
              >>setup. Having decided this, the only remaining concern was over brand,
              >>model, and price.
              >>
              >>What you say about machines being pretty much the same, Gerald, is
              >>reassuring. By V&A, I'm guessing that you mean Anderson & Vreeland - and
              >>it is an Anderson & Vreeland Orbital VIII A2 Model Platemaker offered on
              >>eBay for which I placed a winning bid yesterday afternoon. Previous to
              >>bidding I had phoned Anderson & Vreeland with some questions and learned
              >>that the Orbital X series has replaced the Orbital VIII series but that
              >>they are essentially the same machines. One obvious difference that was
              >>noted is that the new series has a powder coat finish rather than the
              >>stainless steel finish of the Orbital VIII series. The rep mentioned
              >>that there were a couple of other minor enhancements, but didn't
              >>elaborate. I also discovered that the Orbital X series equivalent of the
              >>used model I was thinking of bidding on retails in excess of $10,000.
              >>Suddenly the pre-owned Orbital VIII looked especially good (and I even
              >>prefered the stainless steel housing of the older series). So I placed
              >>my bid and won the platemaker for about 15% the cost of a new machine.
              >>
              >>T. A. Brown
              >>Franconia, New Hampshire USA
              >>
              >>
              >>Gerald Lange wrote:
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >>>Timothy
              >>>
              >>>I suspect that most machines that incorporate exposure, washout,
              >>>drying, are pretty much the same. Like everything else there are
              >>>cheaper brands and more expensive brands and there are usually reasons
              >>>for the pricing difference. Features also differ a bit as to intended
              >>>use. BASF, for instance, offers a double exposure rack (a
              >>>post-exposure unit on some of their models-useful more for heavy
              >>>commercial work). V&A is made in the US and uses parts that can easily
              >>>be obtained at a hardware store or industrial supplier and provides
              >>>for service and repair (something to consider if you are going to out
              >>>lay the kind of money required for a new machine).
              >>>
              >>>Older technology models are a bit more suspect, i.e., machines
              >>>designed for liguid photopolymer, flexography, chemical-based rather
              >>>than water-based washout, etc.
              >>>
              >>>V&A recently introduced a new line but I am uncertain as to how much
              >>>these differ from the older series. I would think that machines set up
              >>>more for film-less technologies would be the next go around.
              >>>
              >>>Gerald
              >>>
              >>>--- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, Timothy Arthur Brown
              >>><t.a.brown@m...> wrote:
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>>Hello,
              >>>>
              >>>>Are all brands and models of photopolymer platemakers equally capable of
              >>>>producing excellent plates given proper knowledge and skill, or are
              >>>>certain models intrinsically bad and to be avoided?
              >>>>
              >>>>T. A. Brown
              >>>>Franconia, New Hampshire USA
              >>>>
              >>>>
              >>>>
              >>>>
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>Yahoo! Groups Links
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >>Yahoo! Groups Links
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
            • Timothy Arthur Brown
              Gerald, Polyester-backed plates are what I intend to use it for so perhaps it will work as is. As far as the brush pattern goes, I ll have to give a closer
              Message 6 of 7 , Mar 30, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                Gerald,

                Polyester-backed plates are what I intend to use it for so perhaps it
                will work as is. As far as the brush pattern goes, I'll have to give a
                closer look when it arrives and then maybe contact you to find out what
                I should expect to see.

                Since I'm on the east coast, I'm having Pakmail package the unit for me.
                I received your message before talking to the Pakmail people about
                packaging details, so I've given them a "heads up" about the lamp unit
                at your recommendation. Pakmail has been highly praised for the
                soundness of their packaging and I would say that at the $210 minimum
                price they'll be charging me, it certainly had better be well packaged.

                T. A. Brown
                Franconia, New Hampshire USA


                Gerald Lange wrote:

                >
                >Timothy
                >
                >Congratulations. Used A&V's like the one you purchased easily run
                >twice that. I have the same model, bought it new ten years ago, and it
                >has never missed a beat.(yeah, A&V, not V&A, bit tired last night!!!)
                >
                >Two things about that machine, looks like it has a PVC adhesive sheet
                >instead of magback on the platen. If so, you will need to sub that out
                >if you want to process steel-backed photopolymer. Mine has magback and
                >I have a PVC carrier sheet (steel-backed) that I attach when making
                >polyester-backed plates. Also, there is something odd about the brush
                >pattern on the machine, or maybe they just photograph like that?
                >
                >These are usually shipped with the lamp unit pulled by the way, but if
                >not, request that some bubble wrap packing be placed beneath the lamps
                >to prevent them from dislodging and dropping during shippment. And
                >make sure the unit is crated. An institution where I teach received
                >one totally trashed as it had been shipped on a pallet only.
                >
                >This will serve you well for bookwork.
                >
                >Gerald
                >
                >
                >>Thank you John and Gerald,
                >>
                >>John, I am doing book production so I've decided to use the dedicated
                >>machine approach rather than dealing with the variables of a homemade
                >>setup. Having decided this, the only remaining concern was over brand,
                >>model, and price.
                >>
                >>What you say about machines being pretty much the same, Gerald, is
                >>reassuring. By V&A, I'm guessing that you mean Anderson & Vreeland -
                >>
                >>
                >and
                >
                >
                >>it is an Anderson & Vreeland Orbital VIII A2 Model Platemaker
                >>
                >>
                >offered on
                >
                >
                >>eBay for which I placed a winning bid yesterday afternoon. Previous to
                >>bidding I had phoned Anderson & Vreeland with some questions and
                >>
                >>
                >learned
                >
                >
                >>that the Orbital X series has replaced the Orbital VIII series but that
                >>they are essentially the same machines. One obvious difference that was
                >>noted is that the new series has a powder coat finish rather than the
                >>stainless steel finish of the Orbital VIII series. The rep mentioned
                >>that there were a couple of other minor enhancements, but didn't
                >>elaborate. I also discovered that the Orbital X series equivalent of
                >>
                >>
                >the
                >
                >
                >>used model I was thinking of bidding on retails in excess of $10,000.
                >>Suddenly the pre-owned Orbital VIII looked especially good (and I even
                >>prefered the stainless steel housing of the older series). So I placed
                >>my bid and won the platemaker for about 15% the cost of a new machine.
                >>
                >>T. A. Brown
                >>Franconia, New Hampshire USA
                >>
                >>
                >>Gerald Lange wrote:
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>>Timothy
                >>>
                >>>I suspect that most machines that incorporate exposure, washout,
                >>>drying, are pretty much the same. Like everything else there are
                >>>cheaper brands and more expensive brands and there are usually reasons
                >>>for the pricing difference. Features also differ a bit as to intended
                >>>use. BASF, for instance, offers a double exposure rack (a
                >>>post-exposure unit on some of their models—useful more for heavy
                >>>commercial work). V&A is made in the US and uses parts that can easily
                >>>be obtained at a hardware store or industrial supplier and provides
                >>>for service and repair (something to consider if you are going to out
                >>>lay the kind of money required for a new machine).
                >>>
                >>>Older technology models are a bit more suspect, i.e., machines
                >>>designed for liguid photopolymer, flexography, chemical-based rather
                >>>than water-based washout, etc.
                >>>
                >>>V&A recently introduced a new line but I am uncertain as to how much
                >>>these differ from the older series. I would think that machines set up
                >>>more for film-less technologies would be the next go around.
                >>>
                >>>Gerald
                >>>
                >>>--- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, Timothy Arthur Brown
                >>><t.a.brown@m...> wrote:
                >>>
                >>>
                >>>
                >>>
                >>>>Hello,
                >>>>
                >>>>Are all brands and models of photopolymer platemakers equally
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >capable of
                >
                >
                >>>>producing excellent plates given proper knowledge and skill, or are
                >>>>certain models intrinsically bad and to be avoided?
                >>>>
                >>>>T. A. Brown
                >>>>Franconia, New Hampshire USA
                >>>>
                >>>>
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.