Milano's or Majestic? (2 Viewers)

[upNdown]

I made no claims about any historical formulations.

Okay, if we’re just talking about their current formulation, I don’t blame you, I think it’s pretty plasticky too, at least compared to past formulations and maybe as compared to what CPC cranks out, too. But flat out calling it plastic or implying it’s just as plasticky as China clay is still off base.
I’ll admit that I haven’t tried the newest China clays, those 43mm from Apache that people seem to like. But of we’re talking about Milanos and majestics, they are not in the same league as current Paulson clay - not even close.

 

[Nogbert]

“Plastic” encompasses literally thousands if not millions of different polymer formulations. China clays and Paulsons are certainly different formulas but that doesn’t mean they aren’t both plastic.

 

[Taghkanic]

Majestic

 

[Taghkanic]

China clays are plastic. Ceramic are plastic. Tina’s are plastic. All slightly different variations on the same material. None are clay.

For that matter, don’t most “true” clays contain some plastic binder (including Paulsons)?

 

[ChippinUp]

I can’t comment on majestics but I had royals. I think the two have the same material/feel? Only differences being base colours, edge spots and size but mold/materials being the same I would expect them to feel very similar.

I also had crazy horse chips which in Canada is the same as a Milano.

As much as I want to say the Royals/Majestic are the best CC I actually preferred the feel of the Crazy Horse/Milano. They felt more like “clay” to me versus the Royals. I also thought they sounded and stacked better. Colours were very dull and edge spots were all the same on the Crazy Horse so the Majestic/Royals were WAY better in that category.

Long story short I say Milanos!

 

[ngmcs8203]

For that matter, don’t most “true” clays contain some plastic binder (including Paulsons)?

Good question. I have no idea.