Discuss the various aspects of heat press technology. Transfer paper, inks, plastisol transfers, vinyl cutters, printers, commercial usage, durability, suppliers, etc.
i would like to know are their any compatible replacement inks for sublimation inks for a cheaper price but still hold a nice quality ...
bottles etc. that i can buy to refill ...either a refill cartridges or an cis bulk system ?
because i know their are inks that are compatible to pigment inks ...like the HT inks & mis inks etc
Unfortunately Sawgrass holds the patent for sublimation inks. Sublimation ink isn't an inkjet ink as such, but a specialist ink, produced for a specialist purpose.
Unfortunately Sawgrass holds the patent for sublimation inks. Sublimation ink isn't an inkjet ink as such, but a specialist ink, produced for a specialist purpose.
With all due respect to Sawgrass and the money they invested to invent this ink; I almost feel hostage to them just like we are beholden to the oil companies for gas pricing. What Sawgrass did to Texas Original Graphics when the owner of TOG invented a viable alternative to Sawgrass is nothing more than the type of tactic that Microsoft does when someone like Netscape make an alternative product that was just as good, or better than the Internet Explorer that Microsoft had. I bought ink from TOG and it was a very good quality and the price was about half that of Sawgrass. After the court hearing where Sawgrass sued TOG for infrigement on their patents, the judge basically saw that TOG's formula did not violate Sawgrass' patents and instead of fighting on to win the good fight, TOG succombed to Sawgrass' money and allowed them to "acquire" TOG's sublimation ink division for a boat-load of money. It's us little guys that continue to pay $75+ for one sticking ink cartridge for an Epson C-88 (times 4 when you need all colors) that are taking it in the shorts. Sawgrass and their greed is literally forcing small companies like ours to move away from sublimation and over to Vinyl cutting. Another advantage to moving away from the high cost of Sublimation inks is the high cost ($4.78+ for one white T-shirt) and thickness of the special 50% Poly-on-the-outside shirts that you MUST buy in order to use the sublimation process. Can't even use dark colored shirts. Now compare this to vinyl cutting, and T-shirts that cost $1.50.
I'm all for making a buck yet Sawgrass is literally killing the industry through their greed.
Here in Europe we can buy a small Epson printer for around £30 ($60), a CIS for around the same figure, but four small bottles of Sawgrass ink costs about £230 ($460). To put that into perspective, the ink costs seven times that of the printer itself.
With all due respect to Sawgrass and the money they invested to invent this ink; I almost feel hostage to them just like we are beholden to the oil companies for gas pricing. What Sawgrass did to Texas Original Graphics when the owner of TOG invented a viable alternative to Sawgrass is nothing more than the type of tactic that Microsoft does when someone like Netscape make an alternative product that was just as good, or better than the Internet Explorer that Microsoft had. I bought ink from TOG and it was a very good quality and the price was about half that of Sawgrass. After the court hearing where Sawgrass sued TOG for infrigement on their patents, the judge basically saw that TOG's formula did not violate Sawgrass' patents and instead of fighting on to win the good fight, TOG succombed to Sawgrass' money and allowed them to "acquire" TOG's sublimation ink division for a boat-load of money. It's us little guys that continue to pay $75+ for one sticking ink cartridge for an Epson C-88 (times 4 when you need all colors) that are taking it in the shorts. Sawgrass and their greed is literally forcing small companies like ours to move away from sublimation and over to Vinyl cutting. Another advantage to moving away from the high cost of Sublimation inks is the high cost ($4.78+ for one white T-shirt) and thickness of the special 50% Poly-on-the-outside shirts that you MUST buy in order to use the sublimation process. Can't even use dark colored shirts. Now compare this to vinyl cutting, and T-shirts that cost $1.50.
I'm all for making a buck yet Sawgrass is literally killing the industry through their greed.
the process of sublimation has been around much longer than the Sawgrass company. The process was discovered in the 30's, I still don't understand how sawgrass pulled this off. I guess if you fight long enough and have the deepest pockets you can buy the verdict you want. .... JB
Sawgrasss will never have any political or financial clout, in the far eastern countries that are currently flooding the world market with cheap sublimation inks. Basic commercial sense dictates that if you have a product that is perceived as being very expensive, then other businesses (and individuals) will inevitably find alternative solutions.
the process of sublimation has been around much longer than the Sawgrass company. The process was discovered in the 30's, I still don't understand how sawgrass pulled this off. I guess if you fight long enough and have the deepest pockets you can buy the verdict you want. .... JB
I hate to always defend Sawgrass, however while the dye sublimation process was discovered in the 30's inkjet printers did not exist yet. Sawgrass holds the patent on formulating an inkjet ink with the dye sublimation dyes which is not an easy task (they might not have been the first to invent it, however they where the first to file the patent and leglly that is all you need to do). Not to long ago dye sublimation inks would be no better than todays white ink solution on the DTG's. The ink would separate and clog the heads in a matter of days.
I'm not a Sawgrass fan, but my issue with them has more to do with their attitude and outrageous pricing than their right to the patents. I am also not a fan of the negative talk about this issue; BASF one of the largest chemical conglomerates in the world setteled and acquired a license from Sawgrass... they certainly have the resources to squash Sawgrass... but they didn't because legally sawgrass is right.
At the end everybody has a choice... go wide, use a printer that is above 42" and buy ink from a variety of other suppliers at half the price. This is also my advice to the original poster of this thread, good luck.
Sawgrasss will never have any political or financial clout, in the far eastern countries that are currently flooding the world market with cheap sublimation inks.
The far east also floods the market with cheap pirated dvd's.
I don't think that anyone is disputing that Sawgrass have helped to develop the sublimation technology Mike. It is their excessive pricing that is the problem. It does nothing to help promote sublimation as a print method.
Fortunately I was given a couple of wide format printers by someone going over to DTG, so I now buy inks at a much more realistic price. How these printers differ to a smaller inkjet other than their physical size, is not clear to me? I sometimes wonder if it is more to do with businesses that run many of these larger machines, having more financial leverage to successfully challenge Sawgrass in the courts?
It is true that far eastern countries flood the market with copies of everything. I bought a cheap Chinese made swingaway press off EBay, as I wanted something compact, for some of the smaller stuff I sell. It was only some months afterwards, I realised it is a virtual copy of a George Knight machine. To give the Chinese their credit though, they did introduce a semi floating top platen and a more comfortable handle assembly, that did not feature on the original machine.
compatible sublimation ink 
