Refill supplier for CL-iPG-i inks?
PHX
MP530, that uses the CLI/PGI cartridges?
I understand that I will need to buy a chip re-setter eventually, but I want
to find the best inks for this type of cartridge.
Thanks
IntergalacticExpandingPanda
Keep in mind that I'm not aware of an archival solution for Canons.
http://www.inksupply.com/cankits.cfm#ip4200
http://www.inksupply.com/html/pdf/can_cli8_pgi5refill.pdf
I last bought their refill kit for the ip4000 which included virgin
cartridges. Those virgin cartridges to be fair took like 3 refills
before they gummed up. OEM cartridges enjoyed more refills. I'm
presently not aware of aftermarket cartridges that are as good as
OEM.
That being said, the old kit contained 5 syringes. These instructions
recommend you hammer the ball into the cartridge. As of late I've
been using a well used hot thumbtack with a bent tip to melt into the
ball, cool, and extract it. I then use #8 (I've upgraded from #6) to
plug the hole area.
If you want to spend extra, you can get branded image-specialist 16
ounce bottles.
Hobbicolor's kit is a little different. No tools are provided AFAIK.
The kit I bought IIRC only had one syringe. They include silicon
plugs which might work as well as a #8 nylon screw but I've not tested
them. Hobbicolor's color is pretty stellar.
measekite
> Can anyone point me to a reputable supplier for a refill kit for a Canon
> MP530, that uses the CLI/PGI cartridges?
There are none. The ink is under patent.
measekite
> On Dec 11, 3:09 pm, "PHX" <nadan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Can anyone point me to a reputable supplier for a refill kit for a Canon
>> MP530, that uses the CLI/PGI cartridges?
>> I understand that I will need to buy a chip re-setter eventually, but I want
>> to find the best inks for this type of cartridge.
>> Thanks
>
> Keep in mind that I'm not aware of an archival solution for Canons.
>
> http://www.inksupply.com/cankits.cfm#ip4200
> http://www.inksupply.com/html/pdf/can_cli8_pgi5refill.pdf
>
> I last bought their refill kit for the ip4000 which included virgin
> cartridges. Those virgin cartridges to be fair took like 3 refills
You mean that you got screwed instead of the cartridge.
IntergalacticExpandingPanda
> > I last bought their refill kit for the ip4000 which included virgin
> > cartridges. Those virgin cartridges to be fair took like 3 refills
>
> You mean that you got screwed instead of the cartridge.
Nope. I'm trying to remember what a set of virgin cartridges cost me
for the ip4000, well actually an mp760. I would guess I spent $22.50,
or $4.50 each. That's what they would cost today in the kit from
inksupply.com, though that includes 5 syringes. I got three refills
each so $1.50 + the ink. At the time it was $2.50/ounce or 29.5735296
0.08c/ml
BCI-3e = $2.00 + $1.50 = $3.50
BCI-6= = $1.04 + $1.50 = $2.54 x 4 = $10.16
= 13.66/set
OEM was about $55 at the time.
$41.34 savings or 75%
Savings from the kit. $124.02
Retrofitting OEM cartridges are a better value.
measekite
There was no savings. Savings will occur when you go to Staples for a set
of Canon carts where the price may be $65.00 and then you buy it as
Costco for $50.00. Then you saved $15.00 since you got the same thing.
I do grant you spent less.
IntergalacticExpandingPanda
> There was no savings. Savings will occur when you go to Staples for a set
> of Canon carts where the price may be $65.00 and then you buy it as
> Costco for $50.00. Then you saved $15.00 since you got the same thing.
> I do grant you spent less.
>
>
>
> > Savings from the kit. $124.02
>
> > Retrofitting OEM cartridges are a better value.
Spending less for the same or similar result IS SAVING. That's the
very definition of saving. If taking the bus to work costs less then
driving your car, then you would be saving money. Unfortunately If I
want to continue to keep insurance on my car, then the bus doesn't
represent a stellar value since the cost of fuel to from work is more
than the bus pass. If I want to keep a car insured, it's cheaper to
use the car.
My main application is disc printing. I've done well over 5000. I
could use
44 cartridges
OEM ink - $12/cartridge (Office Depot CLI-8 multipack)
Aftermarket ink - $1.08/13ml (MIS 4oz bottles)
SAVINGS = $10.92
Let's reverse it
OEM ink - $429 4x 4oz (about 33 cartridges)
Aftermarket $40 4x 4oz (MIS bulk bottles)
SAVINGS = $389/4OZ
I'm not including the black pigment ink as they are not used on
discs.
I've used 4 4 ounce bottles x 4 colors, and dipped into my 5ith.
OEM dye ink = $1638 (about 126 cartridges 31.5 each color)
OEM pigment = $270 (about 18 cartridges twin packs Office Depot)
----------
Subtotal= $1908
TAX= $168
----------
Total= $2076
MIS dye ink = $160 (4x 4oz bottles x 4 colors)
MIS pigment ink = $40 (4x 4oz bottles)
Shipping = $30 (there and abouts)
OEM CLI-8 pack = $102 (box set plus 2 extra)
OEM PGI-5BK = $48 (3 @ $16 each)
Tax= $13 (there and abouts)
#6 & #8 plugs = $2.00
Replacement head = $50 (swapped out after 15x5 cartridge changes)
Spare printer = $150
----------
Grand total $595
TOTAL SAVINGS = $1481
71% savings INCLUDING a replacement printer D00D.
It's true MIS isn't as archival as OEM Canon, but guess what Canon OEM
isn't very archival in the first place.
100 years in an album
30 years under glass
10 years gas fastness.
Canon isn't the "worst" but it's down there with Lexmark as far as
print longevity. For my main application, which is discs and labels,
this is simply NOT an issue. However for prints I want to keep around
for a while, I'm presently getting geared up with Mediastreet ink,
which is archival for about 100 years according to Wilhelm. OEM Epson
1280 ink isn't very archival either.
measekite
> On Dec 12, 11:10 am, measekite <inkysti...@oem.com> wrote:
>
>> There was no savings. Savings will occur when you go to Staples for a set
>> of Canon carts where the price may be $65.00 and then you buy it as
>> Costco for $50.00. Then you saved $15.00 since you got the same thing.
>> I do grant you spent less.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Savings from the kit. $124.02
>>
>> > Retrofitting OEM cartridges are a better value.
>
> Spending less for the same or similar result IS SAVING. That's the
Stop twisting. I do not dance. Spending less when it is like for like is
a savings not similar.
The IRS allows a tax free exchange on like for like. You cannot exchange
income property use for commerical purposes with income property use for
residential. It is not like for like.
You are a rationalizer.
IntergalacticExpandingPanda
> > Spending less for the same or similar result IS SAVING. That's the
>
> Stop twisting. I do not dance. Spending less when it is like for like is
> a savings not similar.
The only person twisting here is you.
I used a lot of ink. If I bought OEM ink 126 CLI cartridges and 18
PGI5 cartilages, it would cost me $2076
I bought MIS ink. It cost me $600 for the same amount of output
including some cartridges to put the ink in, a replacement head, and a
replacement printer.
Given I would have printed about the same amount anyway, I saved
money.
It's the classic choice between two products. One offers a technical
advantage, in this case OEM Canon is more archival. But given my main
application, which is labeling CDs and making covers, for something
that's going to sit on a shelf, not be exposed to direct sunlight,
there is little to no benefit to OEM ink.
I saved money. Period.
For pigment ink, there is little to NO advantage to using OEM canon
ink. OEM does tend to hold up to a highlighter better, but I'm told
KMP ink from Germany does an even better job and is higher contrast.
Still MIS pigment black is MORE than adequate for my needs. There
are NO real archival tests for Canon's pigmented black ink.
> The IRS allows a tax free exchange on like for like. You cannot exchange
> income property use for commerical purposes with income property use for
> residential. It is not like for like.
You're crazy. I'm talking about INK. OEM ink, aftermarket ink. OEM
ink costs 10x as much as aftermarket ink. They are both ink.
> You are a rationalizer.
If you mean I'm using my reasoning skills to make an informed choice,
then sure. If I wanted something to be archival, I would and do buy
OEM ink. They have a side benefit of serving as an extra set of
cartridges for aftermarket ink, which do have a limited life. But
Canon OEM performance SUCKS, which is why I'm evaluating aftermarket
pigmented ink.
LF
I've been using MIS ink, and Alotofthings.com ink for several years.
They both work for me. I mostly print mixed documents, with text,
illustrations, and small portraits. Sometimes I print phototgraphs.
I use the alotoftings.com instructions for refilling the original
cartridges. However, I use a hot glue gun to seal the refill hole in
the cartridge, rather than a ball, or some other strategy. I've got
about 4-5 refills per cartridge, so far.
I read somewhere that you can unclog Canon cartridges (not
printheads!!!) by pouring hot water thru them until the sponge is
white. May try it sometime. My friend, Google, probably has the
reference.
I refill about once a month, and catch the cartridges before they are
empty -- so mostly the cartridges are 1/2 to 3/4 empty before I
refill. I've heard letting the cartridges run dry creates problems.
I'm not a math genius, but I figure it save me money, and is bItetter
for the envrionment, compared with new cartridges. It's fun too, if
you like to tinker with things as I do.
Best,
Larry
Jerry1111
> On Dec 12, 8:43 pm, measekite <inkysti...@oem.com> wrote:
>>> Spending less for the same or similar result IS SAVING. That's the
>> Stop twisting. I do not dance. Spending less when it is like for like is
>> a savings not similar.
>
> The only person twisting here is you.
>
> I used a lot of ink. If I bought OEM ink 126 CLI cartridges and 18
> PGI5 cartilages, it would cost me $2076
Why bother? (I mean with measekite)?
Look at his post - he didn't even cut your calculation (yeah, using
newgroups demands a bit of computer literacy). After all he just made
your calculations why people should refill easier to find in Google ;-)
--
Jerry1111
IntergalacticExpandingPanda
I bother mainly for the benefit of those bystanders who might actually
want accurate data.
I don't think everyone should refill. There are good reasons to use
OEM ink in many cases. But those interested in filling should have
accurate numbers, and it is cheaper to buy printers than OEM ink.
I did some number crunching here
http://igepanda.blogspot.com/2008/12/bulk-pigment-inks-my-main-printer-is.html
Bulk dye, non archival stuff, floats at about 7c/ml or so. Pigment,
about 20c/ml presuming buying 4oz at a time. OEM tends to be closer
to $1.00/ml, though the Canon PGI-5BK is 61c/ml, and MIS's solution is
about 7c/ml.
measekite
> On Dec 12, 8:43 pm, measekite <inkysti...@oem.com> wrote:
>> > Spending less for the same or similar result IS SAVING. That's the
>>
>> Stop twisting. I do not dance. Spending less when it is like for like is
>> a savings not similar.
>
> The only person twisting here is you.
>
> I used a lot of ink. If I bought OEM ink 126 CLI cartridges and 18
> PGI5 cartilages, it would cost me $2076
>
> I bought MIS ink. It cost me $600 for the same amount of output
> including some cartridges to put the ink in, a replacement head, and a
> replacement printer.
>
> Given I would have printed about the same amount anyway, I saved
> money.
No you are rationalizing. You spent less money by purchasing a different
product that was not the same. The fact that you accepted the
differences in the products in exchange for spending less money is your
decision but you did not save anything. You only save when you get the
same thing for less.
>
> It's the classic choice between two products. One offers a technical
> advantage, in this case OEM Canon is more archival. But given my main
So it is not the same.
> application, which is labeling CDs and making covers, for something
> that's going to sit on a shelf, not be exposed to direct sunlight, there
> is little to no benefit to OEM ink.
If that is what you believe then you can spend less money.
>
> I saved money. Period.
You spent less money. You saved nothing.
>
> For pigment ink, there is little to NO advantage to using OEM canon ink.
> OEM does tend to hold up to a highlighter better, but I'm told KMP ink
therefore it is better.
measekite
You saved nothing. You spent less and got less and you also had to deal
with fly by nites who will not properly disclose what they are selling.
>
> Best,
> Larry
IntergalacticExpandingPanda
> No you are rationalizing. You spent less money by purchasing a different
> product that was not the same. The fact that you accepted the
> differences in the products in exchange for spending less money is your
> decision but you did not save anything. You only save when you get the
> same thing for less.
By your logic you own in inferior product. You bought a Canon which
very little gas fastness.
You save money when you make an intelligent purchase. You can buy
Kellogg;s Corn Flakes or Malt-o-meal corn flakes. If you eat corn
flakes you'd save money buying the Malt-o-meal variety. But if you
don't like the Malt-o-meal, buy Kellogs.
> So it is not the same.
This is true, but some people can't tell the difference between the
two products. Kellogg's comes in a box and fits on a shelf better.
Malt-o-meal comes in a bag. IMHO Malt-o-meal tastes better. Even
their Cheerios taste better IMHO.
> > application, which is labeling CDs and making covers, for something
> > that's going to sit on a shelf, not be exposed to direct sunlight, there
> > is little to no benefit to OEM ink.
>
> If that is what you believe then you can spend less money.
I'm more than happy to save money. There is no point spending extra
when there is no technical benefit. True OEM Canon is more archival
than MIS. It's more light fast, and it's more gas fast. It doesn't
make a hill of beans difference to me for a disc that spends most of
it's time in a case. It's a NON ISSUE.
> > I saved money. Period.
>
> You spent less money. You saved nothing.
I got the same result for far less money. I saved money.
> > For pigment ink, there is little to NO advantage to using OEM canon ink.
> > OEM does tend to hold up to a highlighter better, but I'm told KMP ink
>
> therefore it is better.
I've never used KMP ink, I'm more than happy with MIS ink. But if you
say it's better, I'd have no objection to you saying so. I'm told
it's more black and holds up to highlighters better.
But it's good to see you admit that aftermarket ink can be better than
OEM.
IntergalacticExpandingPanda
> You saved nothing. You spent less and got less and you also had to deal
> with fly by nites who will not properly disclose what they are selling.
These "fly by nites" have been around for years. What did you learn
about businesses that stay around for more than 7 years at Stanford?
Image-Specialists, Sensient, OCP, Lyson, Inktec, all are respectable
companies that have been around for years. Pelikan has been around
for decades starting off with pens IIRC.
I'll grant you that MIS doesn't actually "disclose" what they are
selling in their 2oz, 4oz, or 8oz bottles. But if you want "branded"
ink, you can buy "Image-Specialists" in 16 oz bottles, and they are
listed as the official North American distributor.
But if I want name brands, I can buy Media Street or Lyson at a camera
shop or the website. The others, you can find places that will
disclose what they are selling.
Canon does not properly disclose what they are selling. I just looked
at an old CLI-8 box and they didn't include any patent numbers. I
have my doubts whether their PGI5-BK is still under patent. They are
still using the same 30pl nozzles on their current generations of
printers, ml/page hasn't changed, it's about 20p/ml. However we know
Canon offers a semi-decent product, even if it's not very archival in
contrast to HP's or Epson's dye solutions.
Jerry
"IntergalacticExpandingPanda" <intergalactic...@hotmail.com>
wrote in message
news:3d7970da-ee91-42bc...@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 13, 12:31 pm, measekite <inkysti...@oem.com> wrote:
> No you are rationalizing. You spent less money by purchasing a different
> product that was not the same. The fact that you accepted the
> differences in the products in exchange for spending less money is your
> decision but you did not save anything. You only save when you get the
> same thing for less.
By your logic you own in inferior product. You bought a Canon which
very little gas fastness.
You save money when you make an intelligent purchase. You can buy
Kellogg;s Corn Flakes or Malt-o-meal corn flakes. If you eat corn
flakes you'd save money buying the Malt-o-meal variety. But if you
don't like the Malt-o-meal, buy Kellogs.
> So it is not the same.
This is true, but some people can't tell the difference between the
two products. Kellogg's comes in a box and fits on a shelf better.
Malt-o-meal comes in a bag. IMHO Malt-o-meal tastes better. Even
their Cheerios taste better IMHO.
********************************
When it comes to cereals I would have to take the side of the OEM brands.
There is no substitute that even comes close to the taste of Kellogg's Corn
Flakes, General Mills Cheerios and my all time favortie Kellogg's Frosted
Mini Wheats. I've tried all the look a likes but nothing beats the real
thing.
Arthur Entlich
to mention the amount of sugar(s) added. I have to admit, when it comes
to Cheerios (name brand, General Mills) there's nothing that comes close
to the flavor of TSP in food. It's usual use is to prepare walls for
repainting and to strip grease. It gives me such a good feeling to
know they now use it in foods like Cheerios as a source for phosphorus,
I believe. Probably keeps ones stomach walls ready for a paint job.
Art
If you are interested in issues surrounding e-waste,
I invite you to enter the discussion at my blog:
http://e-trashtalk.spaces.live.com/
PHX
"LF" <fie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0816902e-e24a-4a60...@b38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>Best,
>>Larry
Sounds like my situation almost to a "T"
I will check out "alotofthings" and MIS.
Thanks as well to everyone else who replied, I have learned from your posts.
measekite
> On Dec 13, 12:31 pm, measekite <inkysti...@oem.com> wrote:
>
>> No you are rationalizing. You spent less money by purchasing a different
>> product that was not the same. The fact that you accepted the
>> differences in the products in exchange for spending less money is your
>> decision but you did not save anything. You only save when you get the
>> same thing for less.
>
> By your logic you own in inferior product. You bought a Canon which
> very little gas fastness.
>
> You save money when you make an intelligent purchase. You can buy
> Kellogg;s Corn Flakes or Malt-o-meal corn flakes. If you eat corn
> flakes you'd save money buying the Malt-o-meal variety. But if you
> don't like the Malt-o-meal, buy Kellogs.
False. You ONLY save money when you buy Kellogs Corn Flakes at market A
for less than market B is charging.
>
>> So it is not the same.
>
> This is true, but some people can't tell the difference between the two
> products. Kellogg's comes in a box and fits on a shelf better.
> Malt-o-meal comes in a bag. IMHO Malt-o-meal tastes better. Even their
> Cheerios taste better IMHO.
>
>> > application, which is labeling CDs and making covers, for something
>> > that's going to sit on a shelf, not be exposed to direct sunlight,
>> > there is little to no benefit to OEM ink.
>>
>> If that is what you believe then you can spend less money.
>
> I'm more than happy to save money. There is no point spending extra
> when there is no technical benefit. True OEM Canon is more archival
> than MIS. It's more light fast, and it's more gas fast. It doesn't
> make a hill of beans difference to me for a disc that spends most of
> it's time in a case. It's a NON ISSUE.
>
>> > I saved money. Period.
>>
>> You spent less money. You saved nothing.
>
> I got the same result for far less money. I saved money.
You did not get the same result. It fades faster.
>
>> > For pigment ink, there is little to NO advantage to using OEM canon
>> > ink. OEM does tend to hold up to a highlighter better, but I'm told
>> > KMP ink
>>
>> therefore it is better.
>
> I've never used KMP ink, I'm more than happy with MIS ink. But if you
> say it's better, I'd have no objection to you saying so. I'm told it's
> more black and holds up to highlighters better.
>
> But it's good to see you admit that aftermarket ink can be better than
> OEM.
Do you always drink this much.
measekite
> On Dec 13, 12:34 pm, measekite <inkysti...@oem.com> wrote:
>
>> You saved nothing. You spent less and got less and you also had to deal
>> with fly by nites who will not properly disclose what they are selling.
>
> These "fly by nites" have been around for years. What did you learn
> about businesses that stay around for more than 7 years at Stanford?
>
> Image-Specialists, Sensient, OCP, Lyson, Inktec, all are respectable
> companies that have been around for years. Pelikan has been around
> for decades starting off with pens IIRC.
Lyson does not sell in carts for all printers. Sensinent does not sell in
small quantities to the public.
>
> I'll grant you that MIS doesn't actually "disclose" what they are
> selling in their 2oz, 4oz, or 8oz bottles. But if you want "branded"
So you do not know what you are buying.
And if you buy a second time you do not know if it is the same as what you
had on a previous order.
> ink, you can buy "Image-Specialists" in 16 oz bottles, and they are
> listed as the official North American distributor.
>
> But if I want name brands, I can buy Media Street or Lyson at a camera
> shop or the website. The others, you can find places that will
> disclose what they are selling.
Go buy Lyson for a Canon.
>
> Canon does not properly disclose what they are selling. I just looked
> at an old CLI-8 box and they didn't include any patent numbers. I
You are nuts. All Canon inks come in Canon boxes and the actual labels on
the carts say Canon. You are either rationalizing or lying.
measekite
Call them up and ask them to tell you the mfg of what you are buying. Ask
them why this information is not prominently displayed on their website
next to each offering.
IntergalacticExpandingPanda
> > I will check out "alotofthings" and MIS.
> > Thanks as well to everyone else who replied, I have learned from your posts.
>
> Call them up and ask them to tell you the mfg of what you are buying. Ask
> them why this information is not prominently displayed on their website
> next to each offering.
Why this information is not prominently displayed on their website
next to the offering?
Alotofthings
"Ink by Sensient Imaging Technologies, Formulabs Division, distributed
by TrueColor Imaging. Ink "
MIS http://www.inksupply.com/imagespec.cfm
"MIS Associates, Inc. is the North American distributor of Image
Specialists Inks. "
You have to ask why continues to lie about the subject.
IntergalacticExpandingPanda
>
> Lyson does not sell in carts for all printers. Sensinent does not sell in
> small quantities to the public.
I'm sure Lyson doesn't sell in carts for "all" printers. You can't
expect them too. Apparently they do sell a quad black for my 1280 if
I wanted it.
Sensient is a manufacturer. I doubt they sell small quantities to the
public. But as indicated you can buy small quantities from
alotofthings.
> > I'll grant you that MIS doesn't actually "disclose" what they are
> > selling in their 2oz, 4oz, or 8oz bottles. But if you want "branded"
>
> So you do not know what you are buying.
Yes, I do know what I'm buying. It's exactly the same stuff as I've
bought 16 ounces of. It's MIS ink from image-specialists. If I want
Image-Specialists branded bottles, I can buy them 16 oz at a time.
Given it took about 3 years to use 16 oz, there is little point for me
to do this.
> And if you buy a second time you do not know if it is the same as what you
> had on a previous order.
Yes I do, I can look at it. Do a swab of some ink that settled on the
bottom of the bottle, check for color. Put it under the scanner.
> Go buy Lyson for a Canon.
I still have one that uses the bci-6 cartridges so I could.
> You are nuts. All Canon inks come in Canon boxes and the actual labels on
> the carts say Canon. You are either rationalizing or lying.
No, you're rationalizing. You claim you shouldn't by aftermarket ink
because it's not disclosed who makes it. Well, OEM doesn't disclose
and they have even ditched the patent numbers on the bottom of their
boxes. CLI8, I'll grant you that's new and likely patented. PGI5?
There is no reason to believe they even changed this ink in the past
20 years. I have no clue if Canon makes it, if Canon formulated it,
if it had a patent, or if it did if it continues to enjoy patent
protection. I've said many times text hasn't changed on canon in over
10 years. It might be over 20 years for all I know.
IntergalacticExpandingPanda
> False. You ONLY save money when you buy Kellogs Corn Flakes at market A
> for less than market B is charging.
Why should I buy Kellogg's Corn Flakes? I'm pretty happy with Malt-o-
Meal corn flakes.
As you pointed out you only save money so long as you don't give up
features, in this case, taste. I happen to like Malt-o-Meal corn
flakes. IIRC they come in a bag with a Ziplock seal. They don't fit
on a shelf as well as a box, but the bag seals better.
If you eat Corn Flakes anyway, you save money buying Malt-o-meal.
> > I got the same result for far less money. I saved money.
>
> You did not get the same result. It fades faster.
It fades faster sitting on a shell, in a case, not exposed to light?
Factory produced disc labels will fade quickly if exposed to direct
sunlight. SORRY
> >> > For pigment ink, there is little to NO advantage to using OEM canon
> >> > ink. OEM does tend to hold up to a highlighter better, but I'm told
> >> > KMP ink
>
> >> therefore it is better.
>
> > I've never used KMP ink, I'm more than happy with MIS ink. But if you
> > say it's better, I'd have no objection to you saying so. I'm told it's
> > more black and holds up to highlighters better.
>
> > But it's good to see you admit that aftermarket ink can be better than
> > OEM.
>
> Do you always drink this much.
You're the one who said KMP ink is better than OEM.
measekite
> On Dec 14, 11:02 am, measekite <inkysti...@oem.com> wrote:
>> False. You ONLY save money when you buy Kellogs Corn Flakes at market A
>> for less than market B is charging.
>
> Why should I buy Kellogg's Corn Flakes? I'm pretty happy with Malt-o-
> Meal corn flakes.
It is very obvious that you will accept stuff of lower quality so you can
spend less money and fool your brain into thinking you are saving.
You would buy a Yugo instead of a BMW and tell yourself you saved 40 Grand
since they both get you to the movies. And if the second run B movie was
$5.00 cheaper you would see that and tell yourself you saved $5.00.
>
> As you pointed out you only save money so long as you don't give up
> features, in this case, taste. I happen to like Malt-o-Meal corn
> flakes. IIRC they come in a bag with a Ziplock seal. They don't fit on
> a shelf as well as a box, but the bag seals better.
>
> If you eat Corn Flakes anyway, you save money buying Malt-o-meal.
Bullshit!~ You just spent less money.
>
>
>> > I got the same result for far less money. I saved money.
You can eat a hot dog instead of a steak and then go to the bathroom and
then say you got the same result and saved money.
measekite
> On Dec 14, 11:08 am, measekite <inkysti...@oem.com> wrote:
>>
>> Lyson does not sell in carts for all printers. Sensinent does not sell in
>> small quantities to the public.
>
> I'm sure Lyson doesn't sell in carts for "all" printers. You can't
> expect them too. Apparently they do sell a quad black for my 1280 if
> I wanted it.
>
> Sensient is a manufacturer. I doubt they sell small quantities to the
> public. But as indicated you can buy small quantities from
> alotofthings.
When specifically asked they refused to disclose the mfg. Furthermore
they do not prominently display a proper description of who the mfg and
what they sell next to the offering. And they refused to disclose that in
a phone conversation.
>
>> > I'll grant you that MIS doesn't actually "disclose" what they are
>> > selling in their 2oz, 4oz, or 8oz bottles. But if you want "branded"
>>
>> So you do not know what you are buying.
>
> Yes, I do know what I'm buying. It's exactly the same stuff as I've
> bought 16 ounces of. It's MIS ink from image-specialists. If I want
Since they do not disclose you never know if they changes their suppliers.
You do not know.
> Image-Specialists branded bottles, I can buy them 16 oz
at a time.
> Given
> it took about 3 years to use 16 oz, there is little point for me to do
> this.
>
>> And if you buy a second time you do not know if it is the same as what
>> you had on a previous order.
>
> Yes I do, I can look at it. Do a swab of some ink that settled on the
> bottom of the bottle, check for color. Put it under the scanner.
Oh Yeah a Jerk from CSI. You are either a laugh or a joke or both.
IntergalacticExpandingPanda
> When specifically asked they refused to disclose the mfg. Furthermore
> they do not prominently display a proper description of who the mfg and
> what they sell next to the offering. And they refused to disclose that in
> a phone conversation.
This is alotofthings. I've never done business with them.
If you talked to them at all, I doubt you have since you are a known
liar, but if you did it would have been 5 years ago.
http://www.alotofthings.com/viartshop/products.php?category_id=2
"Canon compatible bulk ink sets and individual colors."
"All contain Sensient Imaging Technologies, Formulabs Division Inks"
I call that disclosure. I call you a liar.
Here's MIS (inksupply.com)
http://www.inksupply.com/imagespec.cfm
"MIS Associates, Inc. is the North American distributor of Image
Specialists Inks."
Here's the same information on image-specialists's website
http://www.image-specialists.com/about_us_global_dis.aspx
North American distributor = MIS Associates, Inc
I call that disclosure. I call you a liar.
> > Yes, I do know what I'm buying. It's exactly the same stuff as I've
> > bought 16 ounces of. It's MIS ink from image-specialists. If I want
>
> Since they do not disclose you never know if they changes their suppliers.
> You do not know.
Ok, prove to me that the official North American distributor of
Image_Specialists inks has, with in the past 5 years, changed their
supplier of bulk ink.
> > Yes I do, I can look at it. Do a swab of some ink that settled on the
> > bottom of the bottle, check for color. Put it under the scanner.
>
> Oh Yeah a Jerk from CSI. You are either a laugh or a joke or both.
Well, I have observed on the Epson that there were differences between
the colors of ink on the 1520 whether I bought Made in USA, Japan, or
Mexico. OEM wasn't always consistent, but I always ran OEM in that
printer.
I've bought MIS's product. I have evaluated it. My scanner may not be
calibrated but it would pick up the differences between two inks that
are not "quite" the same color. Out of 4 bottles, the color has not
changed. I must conclude they have NOT changed their supplier.
If you have EVIDENCE to the contrary, feel free to share.
I noticed you snipped my speech about their pigmented black ink.
There is no reason to think they have changed their ink in the past 10
years. It might not even be their ink, it might not have a patent. I
don't know, they won't disclose it.
But what have we learned?
1) Measekite continues to assert that alotofthings doesn't disclose
what they sell. They have been disclosing this information for the
past 5 years. He's a liar.
2) Measekite asserts that MIS, the official distributor of Image-
Specialists inks, have at some point changed their supplier. He has
no evidence to back up this claim.
IntergalacticExpandingPanda
> > Why should I buy Kellogg's Corn Flakes? I'm pretty happy with Malt-o-
> > Meal corn flakes.
>
> It is very obvious that you will accept stuff of lower quality so you can
> spend less money and fool your brain into thinking you are saving.
That's the thing. I actually prefer the Malt-O-Meal over Kellogg's.
Just because something costs less doesn't mean it's lesser quality.
The BIG issue is the box. Malt-O-Meal comes in extra large ziplock
bag.
> You would buy a Yugo instead of a BMW and tell yourself you saved 40 Grand
Good point, though the Yugo was a crap car when it came out. If you
need a car, you would save money buying a Toyota Camey over a 40 grand
BMW. If you want the BMW, by all means spend more, but the Camery
will perform the same basic function getting you from point A to point
B.
> since they both get you to the movies. And if the second run B movie was
> $5.00 cheaper you would see that and tell yourself you saved $5.00.
You're a nut.
>
> > If you eat Corn Flakes anyway, you save money buying Malt-o-meal.
>
> Bullshit!~ You just spent less money.
Spending less money results in substantial savings.
Malt-o-meal tastes better
Malt-o-meal is cheaper
Result = Savings
As in, I was going to buy Corn Flakes anyway. Given the choice
between Kellogg's and Malt-O-Meal, I'd pick Malt-O-Meal. I like Malt-
O-Meal. It happens to be cheaper.
> >> > I got the same result for far less money. I saved money.
>
> You can eat a hot dog instead of a steak and then go to the bathroom and
> then say you got the same result and saved money.
A hotdog is not a steak. It's not even close.
We're comparing ink vs ink
Corn Flakes vs Corn Flakes
I don't care, I don't like steak, not in this country anyway. I like
chicken, and fish.
> >> Do you always drink this much.
>
> > You're the one who said KMP ink is better than OEM.
I'm glad you can admit a non-OEM can make a superior product. I've
never tried KMP ink so I can't say.
measekite
> On Dec 14, 9:00 pm, measekite <inkysti...@oem.com> wrote:
>> > Why should I buy Kellogg's Corn Flakes? I'm pretty happy with Malt-o-
>> > Meal corn flakes.
>>
>> It is very obvious that you will accept stuff of lower quality so you can
>> spend less money and fool your brain into thinking you are saving.
>
> That's the thing. I actually prefer the Malt-O-Meal over Kellogg's.
> Just because something costs less doesn't mean it's lesser quality.
> The BIG issue is the box. Malt-O-Meal comes in extra large ziplock
> bag.
>
>> You would buy a Yugo instead of a BMW and tell yourself you saved 40 Grand
>
> Good point, though the Yugo was a crap car when it came out. If you
> need a car, you would save money buying a Toyota Camey over a 40 grand
> BMW. If you want the BMW, by all means spend more, but the Camery
> will perform the same basic function getting you from point A to point
> B.
Hey numnuts. You saved nothing. You spent less. You got less. You
cannot compare a BMW with a Toyota.
Now lets take someone who buys a stripped Toyota Yaris for $12 grand
instead of a $52 grand BMW. According to your peanut mind he saved
$40,000. So where is his savings? In the bank? In the market? Most
likely he does not even have $25,000 to his name just like you. There is
a difference between spending less and saving money. If you save money
you have it. If you spent less you may or may not have it.
Everytime you make you claims you are sounding like frank.
IntergalacticExpandingPanda
> > Good point, though the Yugo was a crap car when it came out. If you
> > need a car, you would save money buying a Toyota Camey over a 40 grand
> > BMW. If you want the BMW, by all means spend more, but the Camery
> > will perform the same basic function getting you from point A to point
> > B.
>
> Hey numnuts. You saved nothing. You spent less. You got less. You
> cannot compare a BMW with a Toyota.
Sure you can. They are both cars. Obviously someone who wants the
BMW isn't going to settle for a Toyota. But someone who just needs a
basic dependable car, Toyota is a good choice.
> Now lets take someone who buys a stripped Toyota Yaris for $12 grand
> instead of a $52 grand BMW. According to your peanut mind he saved
> $40,000.
If one was going to buy the BMW, and got the Yaris, that person saved
a ton of money.
>So where is his savings? In the bank? In the market?
Odds are it's in the bank as the monthly payments are going to be far
less. Again, if you want the BMW, by all means get it. If you just
want a fucking car get the Yaris.
Cars are not the best example since there is an emotional value to
ownership. I see little benefit to buying a BMW, I'm more than happy
with Toyota, and actually my last purchase was a Nissan. My Nissan
isn't a BMW, not by a long shot, but it's a car that gets me from
point A to Point B. I saved a good deal of money buying a Nissan.
I used 4 bottles of 4oz of MIS ink. I used it to label 5000 CDs as
well as various other projects. Had I not bought aftermarket ink, I
would have bought OEM, and buying OEM would be thousands more. This
savings, money I didn't spend on ink, went into savings, as well as a
spare printer.
Spending less for a product you were going to buy anyway, that costs
less, results in savings. If you need to print 2000 8.5x11 sheets at
10% coverage 4 color,
> Most
> likely he does not even have $25,000 to his name just like you. There is
> a difference between spending less and saving money. If you save money
> you have it. If you spent less you may or may not have it.
What you do with your savings is up to you. You might go to Playa del
Carmon. I personally went to Cancun, Merida, and Playa del Carmon
(I'm not kidding).
> Everytime you make you claims you are sounding like frank.
I thought you were Frank.
Alan Browne
IntergalacticExpandingPanda wrote:
>>> You would buy a Yugo instead of a BMW and tell yourself you saved 40 Grand
>> Good point, though the Yugo was a crap car when it came out. If you
>> need a car, you would save money buying a Toyota Camey over a 40 grand
>> BMW. If you want the BMW, by all means spend more, but the Camery
>> will perform the same basic function getting you from point A to point
>> B.
> Hey numnuts. You saved nothing. You spent less. You got less. You
> cannot compare a BMW with a Toyota.
When you buy a Toyota Camry over a similar sized BMW:
- you spend a lot less on the car - payments or cash that can be used
for house payments, university tuition, investments. Certainly in the
current economic downturn one cannot extract the price premium from the
BMW, and does not need to (since they didn't spend it) with the Camry.
- you (probably) spend less on fuel
- you certainly spend less on insurance
- you definitely save on tires and other routine maintenance
- when something breaks on a BMW it breaks expensive.
I would only buy a luxury car if I had a serious excess of money. Cars
are about the dumbest thing we spend too much money on.
I've had Honda's for the last 3 cars, plus my ex-wife (2) and my GF who
just got her first. Low maintenance, low gas consumption, high
reliability, very good handling, more than enough power, comfortable and
a high resale value. I may indeed switch to Toyota for the next car.
Okay, it's not exciting but then driving is just a useful function,
isn't it?
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
measekite
Yes and now. It depends on how much enjoyment you get from it. The
difference between an Acura TL and a Honda Accord V^ with the same
equipment is about $5,000. When you sell it in five years you may recover
one to two thousand so the difference is not much if you enjoy it.
Now if you did not have much money and had to push for an Accord then one
would be foolish to consider an Acura.
measekite
> On Dec 15, 11:55 am, measekite <inkysti...@oem.com> wrote:
>> > Good point, though the Yugo was a crap car when it came out. If you
>> > need a car, you would save money buying a Toyota Camey over a 40 grand
>> > BMW. If you want the BMW, by all means spend more, but the Camery
>> > will perform the same basic function getting you from point A to point
>> > B.
>>
>> Hey numnuts. You saved nothing. You spent less. You got less. You
>> cannot compare a BMW with a Toyota.
>
> Sure you can. They are both cars. Obviously someone who wants the
> BMW isn't going to settle for a Toyota. But someone who just needs a
> basic dependable car, Toyota is a good choice.
A rich man who just needs a basic dependable car would probably not buy a
Toyota.
>
>> Now lets take someone who buys a stripped Toyota Yaris for $12 grand
>> instead of a $52 grand BMW. According to your peanut mind he saved
>> $40,000.
>
> If one was going to buy the BMW, and got the Yaris, that person saved a
> ton of money.
>
>>So where is his savings? In the bank? In the market?
>
> Odds are it's in the bank as the monthly payments are going to be far
> less. Again, if you want the BMW, by all means get it. If you just
> want a fucking car get the Yaris.
You are a nut case. How do you know there will be monthly payments.
Maybe the guy just went to the BMW dealer and wrote a check. I am sure
you cannot do that but some can.
IntergalacticExpandingPanda
> A rich man who just needs a basic dependable car would probably not buy a
> Toyota.
It depends on the rich man. Really.
Luxury cars are more of a status symbol than anything else. You buy
these things either to impress other people, or because they offer
some comfort feature lesser models lack. Climate controls for
example, reduced noise level, heated seats.
There are good reasons to consider a luxury car. There are good
reasons to consider a performance car. But either one won't get you
from point a to point b much faster if at all, odds are they won't use
less fuel.
> You are a nut case. How do you know there will be monthly payments.
> Maybe the guy just went to the BMW dealer and wrote a check. I am sure
> you cannot do that but some can.
Then buying the yaris would result in more money in the back, since
the guy wrote a check. It would be literally money in the bank.
measekite
> On Dec 16, 7:46 pm, measekite <inkysti...@oem.com> wrote:
>> A rich man who just needs a basic dependable car would probably not buy a
>> Toyota.
>
> It depends on the rich man. Really.
>
> Luxury cars are more of a status symbol than anything else. You buy
> these things either to impress other people, or because they offer
> some comfort feature lesser models lack. Climate controls for
> example, reduced noise level, heated seats.
Available on Honda Accord
>
> There are good reasons to consider a luxury car. There are good
> reasons to consider a performance car. But either one won't get you
> from point a to point b much faster if at all, odds are they won't use
> less fuel.
A car is just not to get from A to B. You can do that with a bus. Or a
bicycle. Or walk.
>
>> You are a nut case. How do you know there will be monthly payments.
>> Maybe the guy just went to the BMW dealer and wrote a check. I am sure
>> you cannot do that but some can.
>
> Then buying the yaris would result in more money in the back, since the
> guy wrote a check. It would be literally money in the bank.
It is difficult to argue with someone who is not willing to reason.
IntergalacticExpandingPanda
> A car is just not to get from A to B. You can do that with a bus. Or a
> bicycle. Or walk.
A car's man function is to get someone from point A, or point B, on
demand.
There are obviously more reasons to buy a car, but that's it's major
function.
You want the BMW? You want to spend over $50k on a car? Feel free.
Personally I think it's foolish since depreciation is a bitch.
> It is difficult to argue with someone who is not willing to reason.
You said it bub.
Spending less on a product you were going to buy anyway results in
savings. This savings is money in the bank if you have a bank
account. It's money in your pocket if have cash in hand.
I use ink. I can buy OEM, or I can buy aftermarket. With
aftermarket, I saved over a grand, which I spent on a modest
vacation.
measekite
> On Dec 18, 9:29 am, measekite <inkysti...@oem.com> wrote:
>
>> A car is just not to get from A to B. You can do that with a bus. Or a
>> bicycle. Or walk.
>
> A car's man function is to get someone from point A, or point B, on
> demand.
And what is the car's woman function?
>
> There are obviously more reasons to buy a car, but that's it's major
> function.
>
> You want the BMW? You want to spend over $50k on a car? Feel free.
> Personally I think it's foolish since depreciation is a bitch.
Hey to Bill Gates buying a BMW is like you buying ketchup for your
hamburger.
>
>> It is difficult to argue with someone who is not willing to reason.
Now you got it.
>
> You said it bub.
> Spending less on a product you were going to buy anyway results in
> savings. This savings is money in the bank if you have a bank account.
I do not think you have a baNK Account
> It's money in your pocket if have cash in hand.
Your life savings is in your pocket
>
> I use ink. I can buy OEM, or I can buy aftermarket. With aftermarket,
> I saved over a grand, which I spent on a modest vacation.
You spent less. Then you took a modest vacation
justme
"measekite" <inkys...@oem.com> wrote in message
news:xCy1l.9165$D32....@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com...
PHX
I am getting a server error. Are they gone?
"IntergalacticExpandingPanda" <intergalactic...@hotmail.com>
wrote in message
news:3ba1c947-8452-4254...@d42g2000prb.googlegroups.com...