@Gear could you discuss the operative difference between unlaminated and laminated labels and whether you would recommend unlaminated? i'm considering a large-ish (1500 chips) set of the new Apache blanks with your custom labels as a gift to a guy who hosts a game and the cost difference is substantial when you get into that number of labels (not saying that to demean the product as not worth the cost, so please don't take offense). they're both vinyl, so what purpose does the lamination serve?
i have very little experience with labels, so i thought you could educate me a bit and provide your opinion. thanks in advance
A good question, thanks for asking it. There are a number of differences and advantages to laminated vs. unlaminated labels.
First, a bit of background on process. In either case, I print on adhesive-backed vinyl with certified inks that are basically waterproof, and reasonably wear-resistant to begin with. My device is a Roland printer/cutter, which means the same machine is doing both the printing and the cutting.
For unlaminated jobs, the cutting is typically done shortly after printing, i.e. before the next print job but after a brief drying time.
For laminated jobs, the printer adds registration marks to the output so that the sheet can be removed from the printer (i.e. cut off the roll) and put back in later for cutting. Thus the job can be printed, removed and laminated, then returned to the printer for cutting. The downside is that more media is consumed per print job because there is a 3-4 inch "header" and "footer" required for the printer to have something to hold onto while cutting near the top or bottom of the sheet.
The lamination film itself is slightly thicker and definitely harder than the vinyl. It's adhesive on one side, and is applied as a surface layer on top of the printed vinyl.
So if the inks are waterproof and wear-resistant, why bother with lamination?
The inks are waterproof -- I printed an unlaminated wine label, stuck it on a bottle and let it soak in soapy dishwater for a couple days with no noticeable effect -- but they are not necessarily alcohol-proof (think beer) or stain-proof (think hot wings.) Also, wear-resistant means wear-
resistant, not invulnerable. For applying printed vinyl to perfectly flat surfaces, or reasonably flat surfaces on objects that aren't getting handled, lamination is probably not necessary. However, surface imperfections under the label can make themselves known as high spots wearing more quickly, especially in areas with lots of ink coverage (e.g. labels with a black background.) For example, I printed a large (unlaminated) logo for Mesnik44's fridge door. It looked great at first but after a couple of months of people sidling past it (it's between the poker table and the garage wall) it started to show small scuffs and scratch marks (mostly due to the textured surface of the fridge door.) We ran it again and laminated it this time, and it's still perfect, months later. Labels on small objects like chips have an advantage in that the thickness of the label relative to its size makes it stiffer and less likely to show high spots - but chips do get handled a fair amount.
The lamination films are pretty tough, and will definitely protect the ink from wear under any kind of normal use. Aside from wear resistance, though, there are several other benefits to lamination:
* Surface finishes. Lamination film comes in a variety of finishes, e.g. smooth matte, textured matte, glossy, and I have one that's almost like chip cross-hatching. Unlaminated labels are limited to either matte or glossy. The surface finish adds to not only the look of the chip, but also the feel.
* Print quality. Printing on glossy media is usually slightly sharper and more vibrant in color than printing on matte media -- and that's with any printer, not just mine. Printing with lamination lets you print on glossy media for maximum quality but still have a surface finish that isn't super-shiny, if that isn't what you want. (Don't get me wrong - print quality and color depth on the matte media is still excellent. It's just a little bit better on glossy media.)
* Metallic ink. My printer can print metallic silver ink, for extra reflectivity in the parts of the design that call for it. (See Quicksilver75's Silver Club labels, for example.) The drawback to the metallic ink is that it is much less wear resistant than the standard CMYK inks. Lamination on poker chip labels with metallic inks is pretty much required in order for the metallic ink not to be a waste of time and money. But with lamination, you can add some really cool effects without worry.
All in all, if your chip has the inlay depth to allow for lamination, I would definitely recommend it. That said, I have printed unlaminated labels for myself and others and they are holding up well. (For example, I printed some Stardust Mansion 25¢ labels as unlaminated matte and put them on the T1000 chips. Very nice result!)
So if lamination is so great why do you offer unlaminated labels at all?
One of the main factors in the decision of laminated-vs-unlaminated is the inlay depth, as implied above. Many (maybe most?) casino chips don't have enough depth in the inlay area for lamination, without removing the existing inlays. For the
CPS chips and other china clays -- and I'm assuming the Majestic chips will be roughly the same -- there is definitely enough depth for lamination. However on chips like casino Paulsons, unlaminated is the way to go, even for brand-new chips in most cases.
How am I supposed to swallow putting 30¢ worth of labels on a 29¢ chip?
I would submit that it's not that the labels are expensive -- it's that the chips are really
inexpensive. (Many thanks to Josh @ Apache for making the Majestic chips possible!) While it's true that the factory labels are much less costly, they also aren't as good (there's no pure white, for one thing) and they are being printed by the million, by a different process (likely offset litho, vs roll-fed inkjet.) Plus my labels can be customized down to a single label, if desired. Good luck with getting the factories in China to print very small custom runs. (I could be wrong about that but I doubt it.)
Whew - a bit of a wall of text, I'm afraid, but I hope that helps explain things!
Cheers,
Gear (Chris)