old stock Hahn PR Pearl?

[howardm]

Hi All,

To long time users of Hahn. Photo Rag Pearl paper.........

Did it ever come in 344g weight? 

I see current production is 320g but someone locally is offering a box 13x19 50sht 344g weight
and I wanted to know if the base weight changed 'recently'.

[hugowolf]

There was a B&W darkroom Ilford pearl 190 gsm, but with a 344M in the product code.

Brian A

[howardm]

Well, I bought the box, it is 344 weight, 0.47mm thick.  Substantial sheet of paper

[MHMG]

Well, I bought the box, it is 344 weight, 0.47mm thick.  Substantial sheet of paper

You just might have a very rare box of Hahn PR Pearl!  I have routinely bought HN PRP for the last few years. It's one of my favorite papers, and I've never seen any box marked anything other than 320gsm. I just pulled a sheet from a 320gsm box and measured it with my digital caliper. the result:  0.47mm

So the 344gsm and the 320gsm markings apparently lead to the same thickness paper. Go figure

Maybe a European versus USA product specification anomaly, but again, I've never seen a 344gsm package of HN PR Pearl, only 320gsm.

[howardm]

Googling does seem to indicate that some # of years ago, it was 344gsm.  That's all I know.  I do wonder a bit how they kept the thickness the same but made it less 'dense' unless they maybe did an 'adjustment' to the upper layers.  Perhaps MHMG can explain?

Here are some phone snaps.  Anyone know how to read what may be a date/batch code?

[hugowolf]

Have you tried weighing it and doing the math to see what the g/m² actually is?

Brian A

[howardm]

Honestly?  no.  I don't think Hahn is in error or mis-labeled.  I think it really is 344 but I was more curious as to the paper making/coating technique that would allow them to shave 24gsm off the product while leaving the thickness the same.  They must have manipulated the density *somehow* (possible lightweight 'filler'?  thicker coating and thinner base?).

But now that you mention it, I think I will use my lab balance and see.

<time passes>

very odd.  So the balance says 2 sheets of inked paper (profile charts) weighs 37.62g and is 2x 8.5x11 (=187sq in -> 0.1206 sq m)

If I take off 1.0-1.25g for each sheet's worth of ink (I have no spare <13x19 right now), I get 291gsm (37.62-(2*1.25))/0.1206

Obviously will have to repeat this w/ blank sheets since I'm SWAGing the ink total.

Of course, now the wife thinks I'm more insane than I normally am for weighing paper.

Edit: Even using the RedRiver #s, I can't get it to 'near' 344

[jdoyle1713]

Howard

You have some old stock my friend..That was the original version weight.. I Just checked my archive Thats Pre 2007 stock..Something in my head is telling me when it was originally shipped out it was mislabeled. Back Than hahnemuhle packaged the majority of there materials here in the states..

I am sure it will work just fine..I Still have some stocks That are pre 2000 Like Hahnemule  Arkona!!  Now That was a Thick Beefy stiff sheet.

Cheers
Jim Doyle
Shades Of Paper

[howardm]

Jim,

Thanks much for the 'history' lesson

I wasn't expecting it to be *that* old but I'm letting the profile targets dry and we'll see.  I'm sure it'll be fine and
for $90 for the 50sht box, I'll take it.  I guess that little white sticker is maybe the packaged datestamp of early 2007?

If it is/was truly mis-marked, that also answers the density question.  The paper just doesn't 'feel' like it's 344 weight
relative to other same-class/weight papers I have or swatch samples.