>>On Mon, 12 Jan 1998, Sandy King wrote:
> . . .
> unprocessed Fresson paper. As I mentioned, the analysis was made on a piece
> of paper manufactured in the 1940s or early 50s. The information was given
> to me in the early 80s. Based on the stated source of the information and
> . . .
Sandy,
I just re-read the above note. I had thought that the information was
based upon an electron microscopic image that you actually viewed and/or
have in your possession . . . either your prior note inferred this or I
read it with a bias.
Do you have the testing data?
As we have written before, the whole Artigue/Fresson process knowledge
base is riddled with opinion and conjecture which is impossible to discern
from fact. Though I personally want the information you provided to be
true (it seems logical and fits with other aspects of my opinion about
Fresson) my wishes aren't any more powerful than yours.
Sincerely, Art<<
In an attempt to extract my foot from my mouth [as dear Luis put it ] :-)
I have a little present for you I have in my possession a photomichrogragh
of a section of Echague Fresson paper which I'm am sending onto you by
snail mail as a loan could you copy and return to me .This photo-mic
confirms in part Sandys friends observations ,the difference is as
follows--:
>>According to the analysis, the Fresson paper in question consisted of the
following, in this order:
1. a paper base, followed by
2. a thin coating of soft gelatin with a relatively thin black pigment
dispersion, with a slight cool, ultramarine tone, followed by
3. a thicker layer of gelatin, harder than the first, with no pigment,
followed by
4. a powdering of a very fine, dry pigment<<
My paper shows--:
1. a paper base
2. my sample does not show this layer
3. Thick layer of colloid, constitution unknown but presumed to be gelatin
4. a thin layer of tightly packed very fine dry pigment and sitting right
up on the top of the paper surface
>From this evidence we can presume that the coating consists of least two layers
a thick one sunk into the paper base and a thin one containing tightly
packed pigment, riding piggyback on the thicker base base coating, which we
could perhaps see as a rather thick sizing layer? Also the fact that the
pigment layer is perched right up on the surface of the paper provides
significant clues to the manner of coating which I am sure must be
mechanical in nature.
pete