I saw this review of the DocuColor 12 and wondered is the image quality really that good?

"The prints have a beautiful, crisp, glossy look that no new machine can touch".

There might be an inclination to discount this users opinion, but I am more interested if anyone has similar thinking? There must be something that she finds compelling. Lots of fuser oil?

We outsource through an iGen and 6060 currently, and I would love to see how this fabled DC12 compares.

Doc 12 was one of the best output devices around 2000. It's been out for 6 years plus. It does use a lot of fuser oild, is slow relative to other devices out there, only 12ppm. It lacks any duplex capabilities on heavy stocks, albeit manually through the bypass tray, which has zero registration.

Bottom line, if you can find one really cheap, its not bad, but I would tend to think being 6+ years old, the click price has to be much higher in relation to much cheaper solutions out there.

I sold and supported a ton of these things, they are a great box, but there has to be better devices out there by now.

We have a DC12 that our designers use to check their output. We have a 6060 and iGens that we use for production. If it was up to our creative director the DC12 would be the only machine we use. Unfortunately for all the reasons stated in the previous reply it is not a production machine. If you are looking for something to just do a few projects on here and there or short run jobs with no huge time constraints then it is fine but if you want a machine that going to get you some high volume production don't even think about it.

The DC12 has a nice size color gamut thanks to the speed of the machine and really comes close to matching offset color. It gives you nice vibrant colors with a nice gloss look thanks to the fuser oil. You lose a lot of that when you get to the iGen but you gain the speed needed for good solid production runs. Once again our creative director loves it and thinks it matches the intended color better that the 6060 or iGen sometimes. The 6060 comes close to this same quality and gives you a higer print volume. The iGen uses a lot less fuser oil thus does not look as glossy. Some of our clients like the gloss look but go with the iGen for the pricing and are able to get large runs quicker.

Ad agencies are still snapping these things up; as of right now, the DC12 is exactly 7 years old and it's still sold by Xerox. Go figure. It *is* that strong a machine.

In fact, for a long time I insisted that the DC12 was the best color engine Xerox ever released, period. Better than the DC2000/6060/8000, and better than iGen3.

That being said, the DC250 that Xerox just released within the last year is finally a worthy successor to the DC12. It addresses the paper handling weaknesses of the DC12 yet maintains very high image quality, probably the equal of the DC12.

So that should be your base for determining the value of a DC12. Find out what a DC240 costs, for example, including maintenance, and then figure out what a DC12 should cost you.

I know a shop that used a DC12 as a production machine for 12x18 glossy 12pt stock for 3 years. They loved it--so much so that they kept it when they moved up to a DC2060.