I think 3M has done something purposely to cause this.

[gabagoo]

.As discussed in a previous thread I need to print a logo with one line of copy that is very small and more than likely to be a real pain to weed. I want to give my customer a premium vinyl and laminate as they are going on their vehicles. I started printing this morning on 220 white and had to stop everything when I saw the quality of print. I am using a fairly new solvent (Mimaki) printer and I have printed on regular 220 cast material before, so I am not sure if 3M has done something to the material to make printing a problem.
Look at the pic.... looks mottled on every colour....just weird.

I am using 220 cast as even though they may claim to make a printable cast I don't want a 50 yard roll of it so opted to buy 10 yards and go this route.

I ran an entire fleet of wheelchair taxi graphics using 220 yellow and basically only had to print a black checkerboard graphic for them and never saw prints like this over a 4 year period.

 

[iPrintStuff]

Just to confirm, you think 3m purposely made their non-printable vinyl not suitable for printing?

 

[Jester1167]

We used to do the same thing with yellow and silver using Rolands. I would assume it has something to do with the ink loads. We printed black on these colors for aviation placards and I'm guessing the solid black would mask the issues your having.

You could try cleaning it, but your just as likely to introduce foreign debris and wipe marks than actually fix the problem.

 

[WYLDGFI]

We have seen the mottled effect thats in your print there as well on 3m media. Across the board....30, 40 & even 180. I dont think they do it ON PURPOSE but there are bad batches. Your vendor will typically swap out without question and push it up to 3m for a replacement and notification of a bad batch/roll. Most recently a roll of 180 cv3 48 inch had the same mottling effect on it for us. Took a day to replace it but was fine with the new roll thru Grimco.

 

[gabagoo]

Just to confirm, you think 3m purposely made their non-printable vinyl not suitable for printing?

I am not sure, but in the past I have printed on 3M non digital materials with no problems...Maybe this roll is defective...who knows. I now have to think of something else or use a different brandm of 2ml cast.

 

[gabagoo]

We have seen the mottled effect thats in your print there as well on 3m media. Across the board....30, 40 & even 180. I dont think they do it ON PURPOSE but there are bad batches. Your vendor will typically swap out without question and push it up to 3m for a replacement and notification of a bad batch/roll. Most recently a roll of 180 cv3 48 inch had the same mottling effect on it for us. Took a day to replace it but was fine with the new roll thru Grimco.

Yes but this is 220 and not really meant for digital printing one might say.

 

[gabagoo]

I think I will just print on wrap material and then strip in the one line of small copy using a 7725 3M as I have printed on that before with no problems.

 

[WYLDGFI]

Yes but this is 220 and not really meant for digital printing one might say.

I see your point now...I wouldn't say intentional, but the vinyl isn't coated for digital ink acceptance like the print medias.

 

[Gino]

It might do well with thermal, but not inkjet, many times.

 

[Christian @ 2CT Media]

The effect you are looking at looks to be from 1 of 2 things. Plasticizer migration to the surface, try wiping the surface off then printing. Or, the coating on the vinyl can't handle the ink load and the solvent isn't biting or penetrating.

 

[WYLDGFI]

It might do well with thermal, but not inkjet, many times.

UV Curable as well.

 

[Michael-Nola]

Solvent and Latex inks are going to be the most troublesome with any media not rated for it - those vinyls have additional coatings to make them solvent receptive. The PVC by itself is not solvent receptive. If you want to print on non-approved materials, you'll find the most success with UV inks - the better the ink, the higher the success rate. As suggested before, wiping the material with ISO and lowering your ink load will increase your chances of success, but using the wrong tool for the job means you'll likely waste a lot of time only to achieve an unsatisfactory result. Lastly, those Mimaki's don't exactly use an aggressive solvent, so your ability to cheat medias even in the solvent realm is going to be limited. The more industrial or aggressive the solvent is, the more you can get away with (I mean, until you chew through your material LOL). Is there anything preventing you from moving to a colored 180 film? That would be your turnkey easiest solution I would think.

 

[Joseph44708]

I print on General Formulations 220 and that only happened to me once on the first two ft of a new roll. Now I wipe the rolls off before I Untape them

 

[iPrintStuff]

Why not just only buy the printable then use the printable white as a cut vinyl solution?

As mentioned previously, 3M probably need to put a coating on the vinyl to make it printable.

You’re trying to print on a vinyl you know isn’t printable then blaming the manufacturer for “purposely” making their NON PRINTABLE vinyl non printable.. 3M aren’t out to get you. You’re just doing something you know probably won’t work then complaining that it’s not working.

 

[MikePro]

doubt it was intentional. i print on materials not designed for print all the time, and see this effect more often on older media, even printables. could be a batch issue, or conditions such as moisture being trapped between the layers in the roll, or even migrating plasticizers in older stock thats been sitting on a shelf in a warehouse for a long time before finally being sold. uncertain of the differences in manufacturing, but i’m certain the printables recieive a bit more of a “white glove treatment”, and that they word these things carefully amongst product lines to cover themselves for these unexpected results with unusual uses. ...and it would also cost money to “booby trap” their vinyl, or risk ruining product lines to do-so, which would be silly from a business model standpoint.