Find answers, ask questions, connect with our community.

Activity Feed Forums Sign Discussion General Sign Topics ezytaper owners Reply To: ezytaper owners

  • Shane Drew

    Member
    September 16, 2006 at 10:07 pm

    Peter, I competed with a screen printer on this tender, and I was cheaper … go figure…

    I don’t disagree in theory, if you are going to lease a machine, lease a flat bed printer and print direct..

    The problem is the economics. In my case, this style of work is not the norm. Without an ezy taper I wouldn’t have considered it either. But if you are considering a new market, it makes better fiscal sense to purchase an affordable option to start ‘testing the water’. Here, in oz, the type of machine you are talking about is about $2500 per month on lease ( I have been doing the math ready to upgrade next year) whereas my Roland is about $1500 a month. In a new market, finding the extra $1000 a month would be hard enough.

    Your argument is also flawed, in my opinion, as my comment was about the usefulness of the ezy taper, not about the best machine to use for the job.

    A flat bed printer can not flood coat vinyl onto a substrate. The ezy taper can, as well as laminate and premask. True, a flat bed can flood a colour onto a substrate, but that is not the same as coating a surface with a 10 year vinyl. And yes, I do a lot of that.

    End of the day, my comment stands.

    I used the ezy taper to lay 170 signs of various sizes to various substrates, on my own, in a day – albeit a long day…

    50 quid a week is less than a juniors wage, and if I were to lay 170 prints manually, I would have needed help, and probably still not done it in a day.

    I still had to trim them of course, but I’d have to do that either way.

    A flat bed would have been a good option if I’d have had one.. I don’t.. so my roland and ezy taper made a good combination, and a damn site cheaper….

    Yes, I could have subbied it out, but then I lose control of the quality control, which was an important factor in this contract.

    Consider yourself corrected 😛