Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Good metallic gold?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Good metallic gold?

    Is anyone using a good metallic gold that they are happy with?We've been using Wilflex liquid gold and it is 8 or 9 months old and very thick.When mixed up it gets runny and messy and just doesn't lay down or clear the mesh well.I used to use Plastomeric metallics and haven't found one I like since they were bought out.Any suggestions greatly appreciated.
    Joe McNamara
    Absolute Thredz
    615-791-5050

  • #2
    Re: Good metallic gold?

    Have you checked the screens you are using to print the Liquid Gold. If your screens are as old as ink they are probably out of spec and the holes have closed up. Make sure you have spec screens or ink will not pass. We have been using it with good results. We print through a 110 and get a great laydown on a single stroke.

    Oh we have also put a coat of HD Clear over it to give it a wet look if your really looking for it to shine.
    Dustin Reaves
    Apparel FX
    Birmingham, Alabama

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Good metallic gold?

      Wilflex Shimmers work good for us for a straight metallic look. I have silver shimmer and ultra gold on the shelf. The "liquids" are more like a foil type look I thought?

      I'm not sure what's in the liquid metallics as far as particles go but with any of the particle inks you're working with a really basic concept of using a carrier ink (which may be clear or pigmented) to transfer the particles, whether they be 'metallic' flakes or glitters or whatever, through the stencil, onto the substrate and then the carrier ink needs to form a film that's adequate to hold the particles to the substrate.

      The carrier ink can't be too runny or it will sink into the garment leaving the particles on top loose and not affixed to the ink layer. Once washed and worn they'll start to shake loose. (learned this the hard way from a mis-formulated batch of silver metallic once). That carrier can't be too thick either or you'll have a hard time rolling the little particles around and giving them the opportunity to pass through the mesh openings without clinging up to one another and clogging the mesh opening.

      Speaking of the mesh opening, that's your next variable. If your particles are too large to effectively get through the openings with consistency you'll wind up clogging the screen either immediately or over the print run as the carrier ink keeps passing some but not all of the particles. Soon your ink that's loaded in the screen has a much higher concentration of particles than it did when it started out since it lost it's carrier ink and that just leads to more clumping and clogging.

      While the published mesh openings for various meshes are a good reference, they don't really apply in any reliable manner on press as they are often taken before mesh is stretched to tension. Further, your openings might be rectangular, not square and they may be off-kilter to the frame and more of a trapezoid. Now toss in the variable of the particle sizes being inconsistent (if they're flakes for example) in size and shape and it's not too shocking that metallics and other particle carrier inks clog up screens. You can't simply ask what particle size the ink is carrying and then match that to a mesh is what I'm getting at here.

      My solution has always been to use mesh with the biggest opening allowable to still hold the detail needed for that screen. Then, of course, you need to test it at tension and on-press with your ink. Another big help is to remove the ink as your printing the run from the screen and mix back into the bucket then replace, adding a bit of clear base with the appropriate viscosity as needed. But the main test is that your mesh is allowing you to clear the ink in two passes or less. Having extra ink in the well is a big help as it lets those particles roll around more.

      I like to run a 90/71 for the shimmers from Wilflex. As a bonus, this mesh, when coated 2/2 with the round edge of the coater puts a tall deposit of ink down lending opacity and some depth to the print. Metallics should be printable on most substrates with no underbase in my opinion.

      Hope this post didn't amble to much and helped out a little.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Good metallic gold?

        Originally posted by ZooCity View Post
        Wilflex Shimmers work good for us for a straight metallic look. I have silver shimmer and ultra gold on the shelf. The "liquids" are more like a foil type look I thought?

        I'm not sure what's in the liquid metallics as far as particles go but with any of the particle inks you're working with a really basic concept of using a carrier ink (which may be clear or pigmented) to transfer the particles, whether they be 'metallic' flakes or glitters or whatever, through the stencil, onto the substrate and then the carrier ink needs to form a film that's adequate to hold the particles to the substrate.

        The carrier ink can't be too runny or it will sink into the garment leaving the particles on top loose and not affixed to the ink layer. Once washed and worn they'll start to shake loose. (learned this the hard way from a mis-formulated batch of silver metallic once). That carrier can't be too thick either or you'll have a hard time rolling the little particles around and giving them the opportunity to pass through the mesh openings without clinging up to one another and clogging the mesh opening.

        Speaking of the mesh opening, that's your next variable. If your particles are too large to effectively get through the openings with consistency you'll wind up clogging the screen either immediately or over the print run as the carrier ink keeps passing some but not all of the particles. Soon your ink that's loaded in the screen has a much higher concentration of particles than it did when it started out since it lost it's carrier ink and that just leads to more clumping and clogging.

        While the published mesh openings for various meshes are a good reference, they don't really apply in any reliable manner on press as they are often taken before mesh is stretched to tension. Further, your openings might be rectangular, not square and they may be off-kilter to the frame and more of a trapezoid. Now toss in the variable of the particle sizes being inconsistent (if they're flakes for example) in size and shape and it's not too shocking that metallics and other particle carrier inks clog up screens. You can't simply ask what particle size the ink is carrying and then match that to a mesh is what I'm getting at here.

        My solution has always been to use mesh with the biggest opening allowable to still hold the detail needed for that screen. Then, of course, you need to test it at tension and on-press with your ink. Another big help is to remove the ink as your printing the run from the screen and mix back into the bucket then replace, adding a bit of clear base with the appropriate viscosity as needed. But the main test is that your mesh is allowing you to clear the ink in two passes or less. Having extra ink in the well is a big help as it lets those particles roll around more.

        I like to run a 90/71 for the shimmers from Wilflex. As a bonus, this mesh, when coated 2/2 with the round edge of the coater puts a tall deposit of ink down lending opacity and some depth to the print. Metallics should be printable on most substrates with no underbase in my opinion.

        Hope this post didn't amble to much and helped out a little.
        Thank you, very helpful.I have used shimmer in my last shop and I liked it.Here they like that liquid gold look, but i think I may get some shimmer and see if we can convert them.Thanks again for everyone's help.
        Joe McNamara
        Absolute Thredz
        615-791-5050

        Comment

        Working...
        X