What paper is best for printing Steiner pages?

I print my Steiner pages on Stapes 67 lb cover stock paper, cream color.  It works fine with my HP inkjet printer and has a nice look and feel.  I have been putting them into a regular 3-ring binder (also from Staples), but recently decided I wanted something better and just ordered several Vario Classic G binders (they are being shipped as we speak!). 

Also (in case anyone is interested), I hinge mount most of my stamps, but for MNH stamps or ones with a higher CV, I used clear Hawid mounts (these are open on three sides).  I like these because they can be trimmed to fit any size stamp, and they still show the box frame around the stamp, which matches the look of the hinged stamps. 

Chris

I would think that as long as you use an acid-free, archival quality paper that should be sufficient. But would a colored paper be a problem if the stamps are hinged and actually in direct contact with the paper?

I have been thinking about my own cinderella collections. I have the album page software. I am thinking of printing on a heavy paper or light card stock (haven't quite figured out what I prefer yet). But rather than punching them I will put the pages into archival quality page protectors. I will put the stamps into mounts (my preference is Hawid, since they are open on here sides and can be trimmed to any size desired - important when dealing with odd-sized cinderellas). I prefer the black mounts - only because I like the look of the contrasting black border that shows off the margins/perfs of the stamp. (although I would probably use clear mounts for stamps with very dark borders).

Ray,

I had never thought about the "color issue" regarding paper I used to print my Steiner pages   However, since the packaging says that it is "acid-free" I assume that that includes the finished product.  Also, if you think about it, most of the preprinted albums are some version of cream colored and not white.

Chris

Fair comment Ray,  even when I do nail down a report on the Aust stuff, I doubt it comes with any guarantees.

Often the "marketing" is done by the producers, and probably China, so take with a little bit of salt.

Plastics are a pertinent area for great speculation,
without causing too much stress, here is an image of branded mounts everyone here is using, you can see some show no apparent reaction
whilst others, well.
Not that this should concern people with good stamp husbandry skills

The items were left 30 days in direct day sunlight.   

What about the archival quality of the ink and/or toner? I don't use genuine Epson ink. I use refilled cartridges. I wonder how they stack up in archival quality...

I have an awkward feeling about ink,  it is very unstable moisture wise,   since going over to toner I feel a lot happier.
My collection doesn't warrant concern regarding ink,  I should imagine the stamps would get remounted within 100 years
and I think toner will last the distance.
I suppose anything could happen really,  toner contains plastic,   and it may break down and migrate.

Ah-Ha! I knew there had to be a reason why I use ink-jet printers for page making, besides cost of course.     

And the ink would have to get past the mount.

It looks like most of the commonly available (at least here in the US) page protectors are now marketed as "acid-free", "archival quality", "PVC-free" or similar phrasing. However, as rod mentioned, these are marketing terms and should be taken with a grain of salt. I looked at the site Zuzu referenced (Australian National Archives) and they suggested avoiding PVC but polyester or polypropylene film is safe. I suspect that Mylar is also safe, and better quality mounts, such as Showgard and Hawid are probably fine.

The Arthur Salm Foundation issued a series of reports some years back, regarding the quality of philatelic supplies. The reports are on the CCC (Collectors Club of Chicago) website, but several of the links to the reports are listed as "under construction". The report on album paper is available, at: www.collectorsclubchicago.org/album-paper.php

Here are three articles about similar subjects:

Temperature, Humidity and Pollutant and their Harmful Effects on Collections of Old Postage Stamps:
www.stampsrart.com/temperature-humidity-preservation-of-stamps-philately-philatelics.html


Paper Album Pages can Cause Harm to Your Stamp Collection:
www.stampsrart.com/paper-philatelic-stamps-preservation-philately.html


Protect Rare and Old Stamps, Philatelics and Art from the Harmful Effects of Plastic:
www.stampsrart.com/plastics-philatelic-stamps-preservation-philately.html

A quick skim of 40 8.5x11" sheet protector products listed on the Avery website showed two vinyl sheet protectors and one recycled polypropylene protector that were identified as being "non-archival-safe."
The remaining 37 products were identified as "archival-safe" and made of polypropylene.
I emailed their customer service and asked the parameters upon which they base their "archival-safe" claim.
If Avery responds I'll post their answer here.

And I shall post Officeworks Aust response if I get one.
Surprised to see "recycled polypropolene" is non archival. I keep all my stamps in polypropolene (ditched my glassines)
and wasn't aware there was such a product as "recycled polypropolene"

If I get really motivated, I'll chase up Australian Archives and post what they have for sale.

Re, the ink vs. laser discussion...

Laser toner is not ink. It's plastic (usually polymer I believe) and iron particles. Like Andy observed, it's behavior depends largely on the temperature and print material used. But bottom line is that it's actually plastic you are using, and it will behave like plastic on the very long run (think no longer than how all the paper printed with toner is handled when recycled). So I would be very cautious when putting it anywhere near my stamps.

As far as inkjet inks go, they're all different. Even big names such as HP use number of different ink compositions on their products. Some are 'generic', whereas some are aimed for specific paper / usage (and these are usually non-bleed/water-resistant/archival quality). Usually the more you pay, the better you get. Personally I'd never ever use or recommend 'el cheapo' DIY refill cartridges for anything.... Some interesting documents to show what I mean... Here's a small broschure from Epson - www.epson.com/pdf/LightfastCPD_15334R2.pdf . It compares light permanence (in years) of different paper & ink combinations. Depending on the combination used, permanency can vary from 5 years to 74 years. HP has got similar studies (that are very much in favor of HP papers - which most are archival quality, and ALL ligning free). And... 

So, the entire question - "What paper is best for printing..." is flawed. It's really about the combination of what brand of paper You use + what brand of ink/toner You use + what type of environment you store the output (heat, humidity etc. all ads up). Instead, I'd start with "I've got printer X with ink/toner Y. What paper does the manufacturer recommend for it?". For example my HP Photosmart uses HP364 color cartridges. From HP webpage, I can find that HP Advanced Photo Papers are guaranteed to produce water-, smudge- and fade-resistant print (tested per ISO 11798 and ISO 18909). How it behaves if printed on something else (non HP paper) is absolute 'guesswork'. 


just my 5 (geeky) cents worth,
-k-

Well, I'm not willing to spend a fortune on my printing needs. I am going to continue to buy el-cheapo refilled ink cartridges, print pages and use mounts. I figure if the stamp is in a mount, I make sure not to print the images that would behind the stamp, and the paper is cotton, I'm good. There is only so much one can do without spending a fortune.