Looks like I may have bought the old stuff nearly a year ago. It was
made in Switzerland, with a lot number of 172501. Lot number on the
new is 185462. Aside from the flatness/flexibility issue, they're
identical. I just have to give prints on the new paper a couple more
days after printing before I frame them.
I'm not about to complain, though. The inks are inexpensive, the
paper is dirt cheap, my carts don't leak, my printhead doesn't clog,
my prints are much better than a year ago, and every once in a while I
crank one out that makes me go "Wow." And that wouldn't possible
without what I've learned in this group.
Thanks all
Robert
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com,
"scott_now_coming" <scott_now_coming@y...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
> Hold on a second!
>
> I just checked my supply.
>
> You have the new Kirkland. The lastest (and best) is 68lbs., 255 g/m2,
> and 10 mil.
>
> My supply is about 6 months old and the lot # is: 180673
>
> The "new" boxes you have are fine. I never get any "waviness" and
> people that see the prints rave about the color and overall "look".
>
> VIVA KIRKLAND!
>
> Merry Christmas,
>
> Scott
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "remsleep53"
> <remsleep53@g...> wrote:
> >
> > I finally ran out of the stock of Kirkland glossy that I had bought
> > maybe 6 months ago, and picked up a couple of new boxes. The
> > difference would seem to be trivial. According to the boxes, the new
> > is 68 lb instead of 69, and 255 g/m2 instead of 260 g/m2. But the new
> > stuff seems a lot more flexible, and a lot more prone to getting wavy
> > with even a moderate ink load - enough to make me glad I'm using 8-ply
> > mat. Has anyone else out there noticed this? or maybe its just me
> > being a bit too picky?
> >
> > Robert
> >
>