So, since no one has offered any other reasoning, I could put this into my 
presentatation:
 
"As long as we don't have any point-haired bosses who like shiny boards and 
we can live with the occasional scuffed board, we can save 3% on our board 
cost and mitigate the formation of solder balls".

We would be foolish not to, unless there is more to the story... 
...and if the entire industry has favored appearance over performance by 
default, I'm quite surprised that there hasn't been more discussion about it. 
 
surfin' the learnin' curve,
Jack


.
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 12:23:30 -0400, Bev Christian <[log in to unmask]> 
wrote:

>Jack,
>Why doesn't EVERYONE use matte masks if it can mitigate a potential problem
>like solderballs?
>Answer: because some point-haired bosses like shiny boards.  Certainly this 
is not the case with RIM bosses, but in some companies...
>
>Secondly:
>Are minor soldermask scratches a rejectable condition? I couldn't find any
>reference to minor scratching in IPC-SM-840, IPC-6012 or IPC-A-600
>Answer: it depends on what you mean by minor.  If it doesn't break through 
the actual solder mask, I would just leave it. If it shows a little copper, 
whether ground plane or trace, we apply a little solder mask from a pen. We 
have first tested and approved the replacement mask first (with regards to 
corrosion).
>
>Bev
>RIM
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jack Olson
>Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 12:12 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: [TN] Matte Mask and SolderBalls
>
>Greetings,
>
>Here's a situation I'm trying to resolve: An assembly partner requests matte
>soldermask to reduce the effect of solderballs. A fabrication partner wants
>an extra 3% for matte, Their default is semi-matte or semi-gloss (are those
>the same?) explaining that matte boards are slipsheeted throughout
>subsequent processes to reduce scratching. I'm tasked with trying to save my
>company the 3% increase on every board order. We have designs with both 
wave
>and reflow soldering passes.
>
>I've searched the last ten years of the Technet Archives for every reference
>to solderballs and matte soldermask. I learned a lot from previous posts
>(THANKS, TECHNET!) and many people have commented on the fact that
>solderballs don't stick to matte masks as much as they do to others.
>
>My first question is:
>Why doesn't EVERYONE use matte masks if it can mitigate a potential problem
>like solderballs?
>
>Secondly:
>Are minor soldermask scratches a rejectable condition? I couldn't find any
>reference to minor scratching in IPC-SM-840, IPC-6012 or IPC-A-600
>
>onward thru the fog,
>Jack

---------------------------------------------------
Technet Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 15.0
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Technet
To temporarily halt or (re-start) delivery of Technet send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet NOMAIL or (MAIL)
To receive ONE mailing per day of all the posts: send e-mail to [log in to unmask]: SET Technet Digest
Search the archives of previous posts at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
-----------------------------------------------------