IC135LFQ ICC's Flourescent Orange, runny as all hell.

[Gilligan]

I've never seen ink that was this runny.  We can literally pour the ink out of the container without even trying.  It seems thinner than what I would think water based inks would be like.

I have to print a job with this and I'm concerned.  We put some in a screen to test it on a white shirt and it definitely pops!  But it ended up with some blobs because my guy flooded WAY too hard given the consistency.  We will play some more as we think just a SUPER light "flood" not any sort of fill might work.  Basically almost STAMPING the shirt vs pushing ink and shearing it off the mesh.  This seems nuts!

Is this typical for this ink?  Should we do anything about it, or should we just print accordingly?

[Binkspot]

Light flood, just drag the squeegee over the screen and fast light push stroke. 200 mesh or above. Runny to the point of pouring it in the screen instead of scooping it in.

[Frog]

What mesh are you using? I gotta second Bink's suggestion.
I've gone to mostly 180-230 on light shirts and (normal thickness)dark inks printing solids, so you should definitely be at the high end as well.
Now, how about a call to IC tech tomorrow as well? 

[Gilligan]

Ok, High Mesh, I was thinking that is what I would need.  Gonna have to burn a second screen vs ink change for sure now.  No sweat.  It's a decent job, and will likely be long time good customers (Pizza shop about a mile from my place). I'm also convincing them to put some shirts behind the bar for sale, that could mean more shirts in the future vs typical employee order of 72 a couple times a year.

I've got some static 200 that I can run it on.  It's gonna be about 40 pcs in orange.

Oh, will this need to be under based on camo (100% cotton Russel Outdoors)?

Andy are you really suggesting I call IC Tech as in it shouldn't be runny?  Not following you.

[Prosperi-Tees]

Underbase for sure. Camo is a PITA bleeder.

[Frog]

Andy are you really suggesting I call IC Tech as in it shouldn't be runny?  Not following you.

This ink was different enough to freak you out, so yeah, I myself wouldn't hesitate to ask a tech what's up. Weird batch? New formulation? Just a characteristic of fluorescent?
I have to say that none of my IC inks are runny, even the flo colors, but they are 7000 series, and maybe even older formulations.
Bottom line is if it's a legitimate question here, who better to add to the answer mix than the guys who actually make the stuff?

btw, you really are adding a new condition when you tell us now that it's going on camo. I hoped  that the test on white was the way you were going for the run.

[Gilligan]

Thanks Frog, I thought you might have just been messing with the new guy for freaking out.   It's not different to other flouro's because I've never used any.  This was our first time cracking the lid on it.

Sorry for the confusion, we are printing 7 camos and 34 whites... and the rest of the other 104 are going to be white on darks (50/50 fun, including heliconia/Pink!)  So slapping an UB on that won't be an issue as I'll have a white low bleed screen already setup.

[Inkworks]

Flouro's tend to be a bit runny and definitely translucent compared to regular spot colours.