Glossy or matte?

[Steve Green]

Just curious.

What drives the choice on how to reproduce reprints?

Most stock these days is glossy, and I really have a preference for matte stock, like the old Titan books - it seems like it would especially suit reprints of strips that were originally printed on the old bog-paper.

Is it a case that colour suits the glossy stock better, or is it just a matter of cost?

I noticed that the Zenith Apex edition was a heavy matte stock, or that the non-Hachette Horned God hardback has matte end papers, but the rest of the content is on glossy stock.

Cheers

Steve

[Woolly]

My personal preferences are...

Matte stock for B+W without a doubt.
old-school 2000AD colour spreads? Matte stock.

Fully painted or digitally coloured? Glossy (but not too glossy!)

[Colin YNWA]

As with paint matte almost everything. As ever there are exceptions, in colour, to prove the rule but glossy just catches the light which detracts for me and involves too much white spirit... oh hold on I'm back to paint.

[sheridan]

My preference: matte, and if it is glossy not so glossy you have to carefully arrange each page so that it doesn't reflect the light from the lightbulb instead of allowing you to read the page...

[Steve Green]

So is it a cost thing, or repro with glossy is more predictable in quality? (Thinking back to the tales of the 90s with full colour on matt paper being referred to as muddy)

[Dash Decent]

Matte Smith does the job best.

[Fungus]

Matte for me every time. When I fumble gigglingly with Rebellion trades in a bookshop, the glossiness is the usual deciding factor against. The smellier the better, for some reason.