KatLondon wrote:

Repartee, there's already been a discussion up-thread about the relative merits of using a piece of paper vs a proper backing sheet, as per one Spazmelda found. I have to say the sheet of acetate I got is much better than a piece of paper and produces a much better typewritten page.

Ah. I made an attempt to do the right thing by scanning the entire thread before writing, but perhaps my scan was a little spotty! Most of the thread seemed to have drifted to quirky measurement. But I erred in stating my practice as if this were some incredible new insight:

"What did he say?" "He said he just pops in another sheet of paper as a backing sheet". "Why, I never thought of that before! How brilliant! We just have to pop in extra sheets of paper!"  

Paper size is standardised - it's not something manufacturers make up as they go along! Paper sizes have been standardised for centuries, as in octavo, quarto, etc - terms which will be familiar from descriptions of old books. The international standard sizes - eg, A4 A3, etc - were developed almost 100 years ago in Germany and gradually adopted all over the world - except in America! US Letter size is slightly longer and narrower than the standard size in use internationally. Here's a page that explains standard paper sizing. 

I think you misread my point here. It was not the physical paper size I was questioning the consistency of but the "standard ream" used to calculate paper weight given in pounds. My reference said:

Paper is measured in pounds per 500 sheets.  The paper manufacturer will select a standard sheet size for their paper when getting the initial weight on 500 sheets (this standard size varies brand to brand and can be 17” x 22”, 35” x 23”, etc.).  The weight of these 500 sheets determines the paper’s weight.

 http://www.clearprint.com/articles/general/weight-paper-mean

Reading down a little further it seems the standard standard for 8 1/2 x 11" paper is 17 x 22 or 4 reams, so perhaps there really is no variation in the meaning of weight. But what about metric sized paper? The first two hits I get on Amazon for A4 paper are described as "20 lb" paper, which is very amusing. A Japanese import is 64 grams per square meter - so I guess the lb. thing is "metric" paper for the US market.

I surmise it might be the same in England? This might be why you did not know what I was talking about and assumed I was talking about the actual paper size, and not the standard 500 sheets of the standard size for weighing. What a description! The printers of 1798, who could do no better than weighing a standard count of standard paper size, would probably laugh over their pints if they knew we would still be using this description in 2016! The colonies lag behind the mother country.

Spazmelda wrote:

The backing sheet I bought was really my first foray outside of the actual machines.  I've thought about making a small collection of ribbon tins, neatly mounted and displayed in a shadow box sort of thing, but I don't know if I really NEED to go there, lol.

Ohhh Nooooooo! 

I actually do have a small collection of ribbon tins. My excuse is I only buy ones that still have the NOS ribbon in them, which is often usable. So I do not think we need count ko-rec-type or ribbons intended for use as paraphernalia collection. 

As for unusual paper, I did acquire a wonderful full 500 sheet box of 50% cotton content legal size Eaton typing paper. Cheap. I'm not sure what to do with it and maybe I should sell it, since it feels like a fine bound journal to me that is too nice to actually mar with print - and I'm darned if I will "collect" it. At least not if I can help it.
 

I understand what Repartee is saying, I think, and as far as I know it's correct.  The weight ratings of paper are not standardized across types of paper, because the base sizes they use to determine the weight of the paper are different depending on what type of paper it is. Here is one website I found that explains it in a somewhat understandable way: http://www.okidata.com/understanding-paper-weight

 

Spazmelda wrote:

I understand what Repartee is saying, I think, and as far as I know it's correct.  The weight ratings of paper are not standardized across types of paper, because the base sizes they use to determine the weight of the paper are different depending on what type of paper it is... 

Yes that is pretty much it, minus my word amplification and trivia enthusiasm. 

KatLondon wrote:

Thanks for the link Spazmelda. Yes that is what I understood! Sorry, Repartee, I thought you were confusing a ream with a weight value; and I still think the weight of paper doesn't change unpredictably from brand to brand, for the reasons stated. It is certainly a confusing system, but there are charts, so it *is* a system.

Yes, you are right, I was wrong. 

KatLondon wrote:

More to the point, Spazmelda is some kind of genius!

I knew it!!!  Haha, what??

Kat- does the SG1 chew up a regular paper backing sheet without the mylar, or is it just with the addition of the mylar that that happens?

I still have not seen any marks on my mylar sheets.  Hmm, I need to try one out on the Royal Empress.  That lady packs a punch.  I think something needs to be adjusted on it, because it will go so far as to punch out an O completely, it smacks the platen so hard.