metallic ink vs foil stamp

Kirs10's picture

I'm working on a business card project. The old card was offset with gold foil and green ink. I'm keeping the basic color scheme but I'd prefer to have it printed in letterpress. I just can't decide between metallic ink or foil stamp. I'm leading toward the metallic ink, the foil seems to shiney and bright but I'm concerned that metallic ink on cotton stock will be too dull. Has anyone used either method recently? What were your pros and cons?

oldnick's picture

If your card has gold foil stamping on it, the stamping was put on with a letterpress; there is no way to apply it with an offset press.

Metallic ink will last longer (foil may flake and wear off over time), but it will be duller than foil.

Corey Holms's picture

Metallic ink on uncoated stock tends to get absorbed by the paper and leaves a dull mottled effect. If you want it to look like metal on the paper, you probably ought to go with metal foil. Or at least that's been my experience with the two processes.

Nick Shinn's picture

Foil stamping is not as sharp as metallic ink.

Metallic ink, especially silver, looks absolutely ghastly on uncoated stock.

If you can, get a sample package from a local printer who specializes in special printing techniques.

maxgraphic's picture

We offer gold and silver metallic inks on my site and I'd agree that it's duller, especially on uncoated stocks. We have a black uncoated paper and gold ink in particular almost disappears on it and really requires bold art.

Metallic raised ink is also interesting. It looks sort of like glitter.

JamesM's picture

> the foil seems too shiney and bright

Matte foils are available.

> concerned that metallic ink on cotton stock will be too dull

Multiple hits (running it through the press two or more times) will give you better coverage (but will cost more).

Syndicate content Syndicate content