Printing Checks to Plain Check Stock in Q2017?

[Bear with me ? perhaps a bit wordy]
Does anyone have experience printing checks to plain check stock from Quicken - presumably through a 3rd party application? Example: CHECKMAGIC Software (I guess there?s likely other products).
I accept that Quicken can print checks to formatted stock per FI/Account. I'm not actually doing that but I'll take it on faith that it can be made to work.
I write a small handful of checks each month from 3 different accounts/banks. It would defeat my lazy purposes if I had 3 different forms to switch in a printer to print ~8 checks each month.
I came across the CHECKMAGIC Software that says all of the right things about how it works. I'm sure there must be other similar products but it was as far as I went in my 1st search. So the query is: am I barking up the wrong tree looking to keep check stock in the tray of a printer and envelopes in the feeder?
FWIW, I already keep envelopes in the feeder for those few bills that come without a return envelope so it would be nifty if I could then keep plain check stock in the tray and just do what I do half-a-dozen times a month or so in Quicken and have completed checks come out auto-magically.
The CHECKMAGIC software is inexpensive enough and the check stock is as well so if it can be made to work it seems worth it to me to just make my entries in Quicken and have the checks printed for me. These would be those few checks that I don?t want or can?t be auto-drafted and that I?m not interested having Quicken auto-pay. The bank checks I have on hand have long ago been paid-for so I can ignore that and just destroy a check as each check-number is used.
So ? has anyone traveled down this path before? Does it work? What happens when one check is printed on a stock of three? Is there another software product that could/should be considered? Are there any pitfalls to be aware of? Why don?t pig whistle? Is the market going to go up? Are the Giants or the Knicks ever going to win a game?
Thanks for any thoughts. Geo. Salisbury Long Valley, NJ
Reply to
G. Salisbury

It's very rare that I write checks. Almost the only time I do it is for the very few vendors I can't pay any other way (except for cash, and I hate using cash even more than checks). But those vendors are all vendors I pay in person, so I almost never need to mail a check. And I write those checks by hand; since there are so few of them, it's not a problem.
I don't pay for bank checks. My bank supplies them for free, and a box of them lasts almost forever.
If I were richer (and had a bigger desk), I might have three printers--one for blank paper, one for blank checks, one for envelopes.
Reply to
Ken Blake

They aren't dead yet. Every year I come across 3 or 4 situations where writing a check is the easiest. I've been doing fine using old check stock, but the printed addresses are 2 or 3 moves out of date (same account), so I just broke down and ordered a cheap set of book checks.
Still have a few 3up sheet checks that work fine with Quicken, but getting those out and loading the printer is more work than just hand writing the check.
Reply to
Arthur Conan Doyle

I was doing that as well, but I had one experience where the recipient refused the check because the preprinted address was obscured, so I just decided to order a new book. Wasn't particularly expensive - $12 from an Amazon vendor.
I'm finding the newer peer to peer payment apps useful. Venmo, Zelle, etc. Can usually find one the recipient already has an account on, so they don't have to sign up to receive the funds.
Reply to
Arthur Conan Doyle

with printing checks [from Quicken] onto plain check stock.
FWIW, further googleage sure makes it seem like it'll actually work so, for $35, I'm going to give it a shot. Since I've already allowed as how I'm lazy and, what the hell, it's not even Father Guido Sarducci tips money I might learn something.
Reply to
G. Salisbury

If by plain check stock you mean stock that doesn't have the MICR line preprinted, you may be disappointed. The preprint ink is magnetic - your laser or injet printer ink is not.
Some years ago I experimented with printing my own checks. Still have a box of the check stock. The problem is that while your bank may use optical scanning, the deposit bank may still be using magnetic scanning. If so, your check will get kicked out for manual encoding. Too many of those and your bank may impose fees or reject the check.
Things may have changed now that banking regulations allow truncation, ACH conversion and photos, but I would definitely call your bank and see what they say.
Reply to
Arthur Conan Doyle

I have been using Checkmagic with Quicken for many years and have never had a problem. I only write a dozen or so checks a year now but still use it for those.
Reply to
Hank

Mine is and there are many solutions to that problem.
I use a very elderly and apparently endlessly reparable HP LaserJet 6L with a MICR toner cartridge and blank check stock from VersaCheck. My Software is a VERY old DOS version of VersaCheck which can't be installed in Windows 95 or later but the files can be copied to a flash drive and copied into a directory created in Windows 10 or any other version and will function perfectly.
Again, there are other methods and, as slwsys, YMMV.
--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups 
The Usenet Improvement Project: 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
XS11E

Things may have changed, but the last I heard, banks would try MICR on all the checks that process, and if one fails they take it out of the stack and process it manually.
So the only one to be disappointed not your having magnetic ink is the bank.
Reply to
Ken Blake

Things may have changed now that they can process a photo/scan of a check. When original documents were required to clear the transaction, I know for sure that some banks would balk if you had more than the occasional manual encoding. And by balk, I mean they would either hit your account with a fee or flat out tell you to get new checks.
By the way - here's another recent change. Most banks are now requiring a very specific endorsement on the back of any mobile (i.e. scanned/photo) deposit. Apparently fools could do a mobile deposit, then run to a physical branch and deposit the check again. Now the mobile endorsement has to say mobile, with the account number the check is being deposited into. Use the old "For Deposit Only," signature only or combo thereof and the deposit will get rejected.
formatting link
Reply to
Arthur Conan Doyle

B of A does not as of a few days ago. I've made mobile deposts within the last 3 days with no such requirement.
--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups 
The Usenet Improvement Project: 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
XS11E

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.