Talk:Rubber cement

US Availability

Is rubber cement being pressured out of the US market for some reason? I haven't seen it in stores for a year or more. I haven't searched incredibly hard, but if hardware stores and Wal-Mart don't carry it, then who does?72.15.79.28 (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a regional thing. Where I live, I can still find it in every Office Depot, Office Max, most drugstores, and craft stores. Just bought some a couple weeks ago. Frzl (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just bought some at WalMart 12 April 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.10.177.139 (talk) 23:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Improper Photo?

The photo in the article is Shoe Goo. I don't think Shoe Goo is rubber cement as discussed in the article. It's hard to imagine artists using it for paste-ups. Lou Sander (talk) 20:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I fixed it. Lou Sander (talk) 02:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ID required?

Here is California, a 60-year-old friend of mine recently was asked to show ID before buying rubber cement. A Google search on "I got carded buying rubber cement" shows a lot of people having the same experience at Target, Walmart, Walgreen's, etc. I was curious as to whether there is a law like the law about drugs used in producing meth, but I could not find anything. If there is a law, it would be a nice thing to add to this article. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They don't want people making Moltov Coctails with this. Flaming, sticky goo is much more devastating than gasoline. If that gets on you, it's game over. 139.138.6.121 (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about methamphetamine, though it is related to intoxicants. It is because rubber cement is a popular source of volatile fumes for 'huffing'. While many 'huffables' are still not covered by this law, the list is constantly being added to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huffing Ernest Ruger (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed?

Why are citations being requested for well known facts? Random citation requests are making Wikipedia look more silly, not more credible. It looks like whoever requested citations in the Usage section just lacked graphic design experience.—Al12si (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Impractical ambiguity "polished surfaces"

"...acetone—a solvent widely used in nail polish removers—does irreparable damage on polished surfaces..." What polished surfaces does this refer to? Certainly not most metals. If it refers to a wax or oil finish, often called 'polish' (like shoes) then it can certainly damage the finish, but these finishes are generally easily restored. Of course it can attack the substrate under that finish, but that's a different thing. Please clarify.Ernest Ruger (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Damages photographs?

The checking up I've done on the internet indicated that rubber cement will fail with time, NOT that it will damage photos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piojo (talk • contribs) 08:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rubber cement damages the backside of photos over time and it stains paper. I've seen horrendous results of rubber cement damaging fine books after five or ten years. This should be mentioned in the article. Glatisant (talk) 07:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Craft Bond" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Craft Bond and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 27#Craft Bond until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 05:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]