Author Topic: Another question about poly reversibles  (Read 166 times)

Offline Scobey Peterman

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 272
Another question about poly reversibles
« on: November 01, 2009, 05:15:40 PM »
This is for the same order as I have posted before. My next question what mesh count to use. A4 says 86 to 110. I can do either one. What do you suggest on tha automatic??


Thanks again ;D
Quality over Quantity


Offline killergraphics

  • Johnny
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Top Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,182
    • http://www.myTguys.com
  • State: Tennessee
Re: Another question about poly reversibles
« Reply #1 on: November 02, 2009, 06:09:34 AM »
You know on our Browns we do not have the control of the ink like we should, but I would go a double 110 or 158 and adjust the squeegee angle at about 40 or 45 degrees.

If you run into problems with them staying tacked to the table for the double hit. Slow the print stroke down and try a one hit, then you might want to try a 86.

So yes I don't know ;)

Offline SBrem

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Top Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 876
    • http://imprintgraphics.com
  • State: Massachusetts
Re: Another question about poly reversibles
« Reply #2 on: November 02, 2009, 07:58:57 AM »
Sefar has a mesh, 81SDE, that will lay down what you want with one stroke. It's an 81 mesh, but with a fine thread. It kind of simulates the old XX multifiliments, but much tougher. It has a larger percentage open area due to the thinner threads. Murakami makes a 110s, which is a similar idea, higher percentage open area with the same stencil control. It's the only 110 we use, check it out, you may like it. (we've done a zillion of those shirts, I think you'll like the result.)

Steve
Life's a load; you're either pulling it, pushing it, or it.

 

Screen Printers Open Forum all contents copyrighted 2007-2010 Screenprintersopen.com
Show unread posts since last visit
Show new replies to your post
Portal Management Extension PortaMx v0.971 | PortaMx © 2008-2009 by PortaMx corp.