[Histonet] RE: glass coverslippers

From:"Osborn, Sharon"

	I have had experience with both the Sakura plastic film coverslipper
and the Leica Glass coverslipper.  Hands down I will go for the Leica
everytime.  Glass does not produce wavy artifact that has to be constantly
adjusted out by the microscopist.  The plastic film can lift over time (even
though that is supposed to be corrected, there is still some occurrence).
When it lifts, the tissue may be on the plastic film rather than on the
glass slide.  For speed, the plastic film is still the faster; however, for
quality, longevity and photo shoots, glass is still superior.  If you do
much photography, glass is definitely better for the camera resolution.
Please compare slides covered with the plastic film and glass coverslips
both grossly and particularly with the microscope.  In using the microscope
you will find yourself contantly making adjustments with the film to get
clear focus.  This can contribute to repetitive motion problems due to the
fine motor skills required in making the microscope adjustments.

sharon osborn
Palo Alto, CA

Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 14:59:19 -0800
From: "Malek, Jack M" 
Subject: [Histonet] Glass Coverslipper
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

Trying to get a feel for how many folks are using glass cover slips and
coverslippers versus plastic film coverslips?  We're deliberating the
purchase of a coupled stainer-coverslipper... Leica versus Sakura. Anyone
have experience with the Leica glass coverslipper?  Cheers, Jack

This message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, disclosure, copying, use or distribution of the information included in this message is prohibited -- Please immediately and permanently delete.

Histonet mailing list

<< Previous Message | Next Message >>