• I want to thank all the members that have upgraded your accounts. I truly appreciate your support of the site monetarily. Supporting the site keeps this site up and running as a lot of work daily goes on behind the scenes. Click to Support Signs101 ...

DIBOND brand ACM supplier

Brandon708

New Member
Hi,

I need to find a supplier for ACM hopefully located in the Chicago area. Does anyone know of a supplier? I am looking for DIBOND not any other brands such as MaxMetal or Alumapanel.
 

JBurton

Signtologist
1693933538425.png
 

Brandon708

New Member
Thanks for the post Jburton. Although those are not accurate as those companies don't stock Dibond. Laird Plastics does but they want over $200 a sheet.
 

Humble PM

If I'm lucky, one day I'll be a Eudyptula minor
Have you called any of them?
Most of my suppliers for DiBond have a list price, but when I speak to someone in sales, 10 sheets drops from £160/sheet for 1250x2500 to £70/sheet (at least, last month, so probably £85 this week). And then that price is there for online orders.
 

JBurton

Signtologist
Yes. I told them I needed 150 sheets. Got a price of $200+ per sheet. :/
Did you spit coffee all over the phone? That's crazy.
At any rate, if you're after 150, you sure don't need to worry about where it's coming from. I'd expand your search area.
 

Brandon708

New Member
Im seeing Wensco a local supplier I buy from has it too. I thought they only had Aluapanel. They are at $216 a sheet and 10+ For $205 ea.

Why is this material so much more expensive than other ACM brands? I used to buy it a very long time ago when they first got to market. I don't remember it being so expensive.
 

Humble PM

If I'm lucky, one day I'll be a Eudyptula minor
It was always a premium product, and a long long time ago, things cost less.
European manufacturer, shipping to the states, fighting far east pricing.
I use and sell it, because it is good, and many of my customers (can and do) buy German or Swedish cameras...

Any particular reason why it has to be DiBond®?
 

Humble PM

If I'm lucky, one day I'll be a Eudyptula minor
I'll step back, and let the grown-ups guide you.

(adhesion promoter, curing temp, mop down with alcohol mix...? Just playing a guessing game; there will be folks here who do know some answers to what sounds like a lame response from HP)
 
Last edited:

unclebun

Active Member
Dibond is heavier and stiffer than garden-variety sign supply copycats. It was developed not for the sign industry but the architectural/construction industry and is used a skin on buildings exterior and interior. It also meets some building and fire code standards that sign board may or may not meet.

Based on my own personal experience with Dibond and current sign supply ACM Dibond is more amenable to being bent and formed.
 

Humble PM

If I'm lucky, one day I'll be a Eudyptula minor
It does have a 300micron skin, and is way more pliant, but sign making DiBond is not for skinning buildings. They do a VERY different version for that.

Grenfell.
 

JBurton

Signtologist
It does have a 300micron skin, and is way more pliant, but sign making DiBond is not for skinning buildings. They do a VERY different version for that.

Grenfell.
I was going to say... Even the UL listed for an electrical enclosure materials are 2x cost of any given acm panel, and they aren't fire retardant, but the core material is documented vs noname brands that are as inconsistent as their surface finish appears.
Grenfell tower's wikipedia page has a whole section on ACM used in structures. Good little read.
To perform the test, the entire planned assembly is constructed on a standardised test rig two storeys tall, with a window opening in the middle, and is continuously ignited with gas burners from two different angles for 30 minutes.[192] The assembly must satisfy numerous performance criteria to pass, including a requirement that flames cannot spread more than 10 ft (3.0 m) vertically from the top of the window opening or 5 ft (1.5 m) horizontally.[190][192]

A single NFPA 285 test can cost over US$30,000, and it certifies only a particular assembly (i.e., a particular combination of parts from specific manufacturers as they are currently fabricated), meaning that any change to any part used for any reason requires a new test.[189][193] As of mid-2017 ACM cladding with a polyethylene core had not been able to pass the NFPA 285 test, and thus had been effectively banned on US high-rise buildings for decades.[190][194] The UK does not mandate the use of such realistic simulations[190][194] and allows its own similar full-scale tests to be bypassed as long as "the wall assembly components, when tested individually, pass small-scale combustibility tests."[195]
 
Top