> > I'd be very surprised if the duplexer for the 5200 involved any > > substantial > > engineering changes from the 5100 duplexer. In any case, it's > > rated for a > > max paper weight of 120 g/sq.m., which is equivalent to 32 lb. bond > > or 80 > > lb. offset, so I suspect the 100 lb. offset paper (148 g/sq.m.) > > might be > > problematic. > > Thanks for the info. I forget what the Ricoh duplexer is rated for -- > something similar, IIRC. > > > I assume when you wrote "67 lb. bond" above, you meant 67 lb. > > index, which > > is equivalent to 32 lb. bond (120 g/sq.m). > > No -- although you're right that I didn't mean 67 lb. bond. I'm > talking about letter-size Hammermill Cover Stock, which is advertised > as "67 lb.", but checking the packaging, I see it's 148 g/m2. This is > close to 40 lb. bond and just a bit thicker than the 9x12 100# offset > paper I use for parts.
Ah, that must be 67 lb. Bristol (67 lb. Cover would be much heavier). Ain't non-metric paper weights wonderful? > > FWIW, I've been using 28 lb. bond (105 g/sq.m.) for a number of > > years and > > find it very satisfactory -- no show-through, suitable heft, readily > > available, and easy for printers to handle. > > I used to use something close to that (80# offset) for parts, but my > parts get used a lot and go through a *lot* of wear and tear, so I > decided I wanted something more durable. Also, the 100# paper stands > up better on a wire stand. A lot of NYC copyists use 100# paper -- > but most still do single-side accordion-fold, so they have no need > duplex that size. That is one heavy paper. -Lee _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
