1DenimDan
I think I sufficiently derailed the Suntup 1984 thread with a question about the typesetting of that edition to justify a new thread.
I wonder whether people would care to discuss the different methods of typesetting (handset, Monotype, polymers, etc.). It's a particular interest of mine in selecting books to purchase how the type was set. As I mentioned in the now derailed 1984 thread, I prefer handset types, simply because that's an aspect of fine press editions that I especially appreciate (along with paper, page layout/design, faces). However, there are several books I have that I like very much that use Mono- or Linotype. And, it's important to distinguish between typesetting and printing: hand-presses are exceedingly rare, and while books printed this way can be that much more impressive, I don't at all limit myself to this printing method, as that would take many, many books off the table (or shelves) for me.
Do others take these things into consideration when purchasing books? Do you have a particular preference, one way or another?
I wonder whether people would care to discuss the different methods of typesetting (handset, Monotype, polymers, etc.). It's a particular interest of mine in selecting books to purchase how the type was set. As I mentioned in the now derailed 1984 thread, I prefer handset types, simply because that's an aspect of fine press editions that I especially appreciate (along with paper, page layout/design, faces). However, there are several books I have that I like very much that use Mono- or Linotype. And, it's important to distinguish between typesetting and printing: hand-presses are exceedingly rare, and while books printed this way can be that much more impressive, I don't at all limit myself to this printing method, as that would take many, many books off the table (or shelves) for me.
Do others take these things into consideration when purchasing books? Do you have a particular preference, one way or another?
2abysswalker
Separate from the economics of production methods, I see two perspectives on this choice, one for the audience and one for the creator.
Though fine letterpress is distinguishable from even high quality offset printing most of the time, I suspect that it may be difficult or impossible to tell the difference between handset metal and photopolymer letterpress in a properly administered double-blind test. As with fine wines, some of the pleasure is probably in the experiencer's knowledge of the method. Cynically, this is a form of placebo effect, but my interpretation is more charitable; knowledge can be connected to actual pleasure, measured either by self-report or methods such as fMRI in brain region activation. For example, knowledge that a sword was actually held by Napoleon will change your experience of holding or owning the sword, even if the object is sensually indistinguishable from other, similar swords.
Perhaps more interesting, at least to me, is the perspective of the artist or craftsperson, where concrete details and constraints of medium can shape the creative process. I imagine that the materiality and constraints of handset type result in a different creative process, similar to how the sonnet form shapes a poet's creativity.
In terms of my own personal evaluation, I feel subjectively that handset type yields a sense of solidity to the page which is less apparent from other methods, and I appreciate this in some books. I also appreciate the flexibility of modern typesetting in other books (some of which would probably be almost impossible with handset type).
Though fine letterpress is distinguishable from even high quality offset printing most of the time, I suspect that it may be difficult or impossible to tell the difference between handset metal and photopolymer letterpress in a properly administered double-blind test. As with fine wines, some of the pleasure is probably in the experiencer's knowledge of the method. Cynically, this is a form of placebo effect, but my interpretation is more charitable; knowledge can be connected to actual pleasure, measured either by self-report or methods such as fMRI in brain region activation. For example, knowledge that a sword was actually held by Napoleon will change your experience of holding or owning the sword, even if the object is sensually indistinguishable from other, similar swords.
Perhaps more interesting, at least to me, is the perspective of the artist or craftsperson, where concrete details and constraints of medium can shape the creative process. I imagine that the materiality and constraints of handset type result in a different creative process, similar to how the sonnet form shapes a poet's creativity.
In terms of my own personal evaluation, I feel subjectively that handset type yields a sense of solidity to the page which is less apparent from other methods, and I appreciate this in some books. I also appreciate the flexibility of modern typesetting in other books (some of which would probably be almost impossible with handset type).
3Glacierman
>2 abysswalker: Where does the use of machine typesetting (Linotype/Monotype) fit into your scheme? Do you use the term "modern typesetting" to refer to these methods or to digital typesetting? I suspect it is the latter.
4abysswalker
>3 Glacierman: I was thinking about the contemporary landscape, where modern typesetting means digital, but you're right it is probably worth considering earlier machine approaches as well.
Ultimately, I think it depends on the goals of the operators. Initially, both technologies were concerned primarily with efficiency (at base, decreasing cost per word and scalability of distribution), so I suspect that printers trying to express the pinnacle of their art would have been more likely to use other technology. I would be curious if other members know of historical counterexamples.
Compared to foundry type, Monotype is cast from softer metals, designed for fewer impressions, so I imagine the print quality would degrade over time more rapidly for Monotype (or Linotype). Maybe not an issue for small run limitations?
Here's one example I found of a contemporary press that keeps Monotype equipment on hand: Alembic Press (no association; I was just browsing the web because I was curious).
Ultimately, I think it depends on the goals of the operators. Initially, both technologies were concerned primarily with efficiency (at base, decreasing cost per word and scalability of distribution), so I suspect that printers trying to express the pinnacle of their art would have been more likely to use other technology. I would be curious if other members know of historical counterexamples.
Compared to foundry type, Monotype is cast from softer metals, designed for fewer impressions, so I imagine the print quality would degrade over time more rapidly for Monotype (or Linotype). Maybe not an issue for small run limitations?
Here's one example I found of a contemporary press that keeps Monotype equipment on hand: Alembic Press (no association; I was just browsing the web because I was curious).
5kdweber
>5 kdweber: So here's a stupid question, are photo-polymer plates made digitally or analog? If there made the same way as a high resolution digital printer then we've lots of dots making ragged edges.
6mnmcdwl
I am also interested in knowing how a book is set. Somehow, it feels like it is cheating if a publisher creates it entirely using acrylic plates—especially for uncomplicated works. I realize there are cases where acrylic plates are indispensable though, either on an artistic or cost basis. Thornwillow’s edition of Dante’s Inferno or Folio Society’s recent Poetry of Sappho come to mind. Perhaps because I own a technology company and stare at a screen day in and day out, I like to imagine a world where fine press books are handmade without the use of computers—though I realize this preference is entirely subjective and perhaps hypocritical.
7921Jack
>5 kdweber: I believe photopolymer plates can be made by analog, since it is kind of like developing a photo. As long as you have some kind of negative, or something to block the light, you can get a plate made out of it. However, I believe people most printers get those negatives made digitally. I assume when they print them off of the computer, they print them at such a high resolution that you could not see the dots and therefore get clean edges.
8DenimDan
I don't keep up with most contemporary fine presses, so I can't speak to their methods. It's been true for a long time, however, that most fine presses that use metal have it cast by Monotype, and then some of them would re-set that type by hand.
Some near-contemporary, American presses who "did it all by hand" that I collect are those of K.K. Merker and his mentor, Harry Duncan.
Merker ran the (private) Stone Wall Press and the University of Iowa's Windhover Press for several decades. He used very few different faces, which he (or an assistant) handset and printed exclusively by hand on a giant Washington press. He "discovered" many poets who came through the U of Iowa's writing program: Philip Levine, Donald Justice, Mark Strand, and James Tate, among several others.
Duncan was one of the founders of the Cummington Press, most noted for publishing Robert Lowell's first book of poetry, Land of Unlikeness (1944), and Wallace Stevens' Notes Toward a Supreme Fiction (1942). Like his protege Merker, Duncan had very few faces and printed on a Washington. After he left Iowa, he printed for the U of Nebraska-Omaha under the label Abattoir Editions, their most famous work being The Poems of Catullus (1979).
Obviously, there are many, many other presses that made it a point to handset their type, including many who did not use a hand press as Merker and Duncan did. I only mention them because I actively collect them and because they exclusively handset their type. A lot of people are underwhelmed by their aesthetic, though, which is very austere. I can only think of a couple Merker books that used illustrations heavily, and both he and Duncan stuck primarily to van Krimpen faces (of course, there were exceptions).
I guess the more interesting and relevant distinction is between metal type and photopolymer plates. I can opine about that later.
Some near-contemporary, American presses who "did it all by hand" that I collect are those of K.K. Merker and his mentor, Harry Duncan.
Merker ran the (private) Stone Wall Press and the University of Iowa's Windhover Press for several decades. He used very few different faces, which he (or an assistant) handset and printed exclusively by hand on a giant Washington press. He "discovered" many poets who came through the U of Iowa's writing program: Philip Levine, Donald Justice, Mark Strand, and James Tate, among several others.
Duncan was one of the founders of the Cummington Press, most noted for publishing Robert Lowell's first book of poetry, Land of Unlikeness (1944), and Wallace Stevens' Notes Toward a Supreme Fiction (1942). Like his protege Merker, Duncan had very few faces and printed on a Washington. After he left Iowa, he printed for the U of Nebraska-Omaha under the label Abattoir Editions, their most famous work being The Poems of Catullus (1979).
Obviously, there are many, many other presses that made it a point to handset their type, including many who did not use a hand press as Merker and Duncan did. I only mention them because I actively collect them and because they exclusively handset their type. A lot of people are underwhelmed by their aesthetic, though, which is very austere. I can only think of a couple Merker books that used illustrations heavily, and both he and Duncan stuck primarily to van Krimpen faces (of course, there were exceptions).
I guess the more interesting and relevant distinction is between metal type and photopolymer plates. I can opine about that later.
9ubiquitousuk
>5 kdweber: there's a pretty nice explanation of how photopolymer plates work here: https://hobancards.com/photopolymer-letterpress-plates
10NLNils
>9 ubiquitousuk: Very informative!
11astropi
I think hand setting is the crème de la crème... but I'm biased! Back when I was in grad school and needed a break from science, I would head to the Book Shop and produce some letterpress, all done by hand. Ah, it was magnificent :)
Of course, it takes the longest, is the most expensive, so I have no issues with beautiful books using photopolymer plates etc.
Of course, it takes the longest, is the most expensive, so I have no issues with beautiful books using photopolymer plates etc.
12laotzu225
>9 ubiquitousuk: Seconding Nils. Great to learn.
13BlauesPress
Great topic for discussion.
I suggest that it is the result achieved that should matter, not how it was achieved. Old metal type with worn serifs and broken stems set by hand with great attention to detail will still look like tired old type.
Setting by hand certainly offers greater room to finesse aspects like spacing of sorts and words, compared to automated systems like Monotype and Linotype, but that's down to the compositor and, being human, not all are created equal.
Linotype was never intended for finely-tuned setting. Monotype offered a little more control, but was likewise intended for commercial use – less time and less cost. In this day & age, when letterpress really should only be practised in its highest form, using either of these (antiquated) automated systems suggests an incomplete appreciation for the traditions and potential of letterpress.
One of the greatest challenges letterpress publishers face today is access to metal type, especially faces one would want to use. I don't think there's anyone casting foundry type in North America; there might be a couple in Europe, but the cost of shipping metal type in quantity across the ocean would be exorbitant. Most of the few people casting type on a commercial (or semi-) basis use Monotype matrices with Monotype or Thompson casters. Because Monotype was intended for single use, the metal being repeatedly melted down and re-used, it used a softer alloy than that of foundry type – you can feel the weight difference between a Monotype sort and a foundry sort. Softer metal wears faster. Some of the people casting use a harder alloy than the Monotype standard, but it still isn't foundry; they can't change the alloy too much without damaging the matrices and caster.
Printers who really care about setting will sometimes have text set by Monotype, and then "pass it through the stick" to refine the spacing, but it seems just as easy to set by hand in the first place. Monotype is cheaper if one is having text set vs buying founts. One trick the Allen Press used was to order one or two signatures of a book set in Monotype, and then use that type to set the rest of the book (the assumption being they'd get enough of each character from the one or two signatures ordered to set the rest of the book; the problems start when you're running low of one letter and still have half a page to set, but that's always the case with metal).
Given the current issues around access to good castings of good faces, polymer has become an increasingly viable option, although one that has long suffered a bias from people who consider themselves purists. The process really isn't much different than having text set by Monotype or Linotype, and I would argue that digital type can be set with the same care and precision as metal type set by hand, if the compositor chooses to work that way (i.e. by turning off all the automated settings). You have access to essentially all of the classic letterpress faces, plus all the extra characters that metal casters often don't have these days (e.g. old style AND lining figures – too often you only have the one when you want the other). But working that way successfully requires first having experience actually setting type by hand.
Some people claim they can tell the difference between text printed from metal vs polymer, but I haven't met anyone who actually could (maybe Gerald Lange, but I haven't met him). I have, however, met people who assumed something printed from polymer was metal. Unfortunately they always seem disappointed when they find out. If the plates are well made, and carefully inked and printed, the results should be indistinguishable. I think I could tell something had been set by hand if there was obvious custom kerning and fitting, but I couldn't tell if something had been indifferently set by hand vs set with a Monotype keyboard.
One issue with using digital (or photo-comp) faces is that they aren't designed for letterpress the way a metal face is. Faces originally designed for letterpress typically were "thickened up" a little when creating photo-comp or digital versions, to match the result from metal type that has been inked and pressed into a sheet of paper. (If well printed, that thickening should be very subtle, but it's there.) If you use these thickened faces to print letterpress, the result can have a darker, heavier appearance than what was originally intended. There are ways to compensate for this when using polymer, the easiest being to skate as close to the edge of under-inking as possible while printing.
The one problem I have with polymer is people using faces that were created post-letterpress; they weren't designed for it, don't use them.
The October 1992 issue of Bookways (No. 5) had a good article by Tom Taylor on this topic. I think there was an article in Parenthesis about Arion's system to run a Monotype caster with a Mac for setting the Lectern Bible, but can't find a reference for it...
I suggest that it is the result achieved that should matter, not how it was achieved. Old metal type with worn serifs and broken stems set by hand with great attention to detail will still look like tired old type.
Setting by hand certainly offers greater room to finesse aspects like spacing of sorts and words, compared to automated systems like Monotype and Linotype, but that's down to the compositor and, being human, not all are created equal.
Linotype was never intended for finely-tuned setting. Monotype offered a little more control, but was likewise intended for commercial use – less time and less cost. In this day & age, when letterpress really should only be practised in its highest form, using either of these (antiquated) automated systems suggests an incomplete appreciation for the traditions and potential of letterpress.
One of the greatest challenges letterpress publishers face today is access to metal type, especially faces one would want to use. I don't think there's anyone casting foundry type in North America; there might be a couple in Europe, but the cost of shipping metal type in quantity across the ocean would be exorbitant. Most of the few people casting type on a commercial (or semi-) basis use Monotype matrices with Monotype or Thompson casters. Because Monotype was intended for single use, the metal being repeatedly melted down and re-used, it used a softer alloy than that of foundry type – you can feel the weight difference between a Monotype sort and a foundry sort. Softer metal wears faster. Some of the people casting use a harder alloy than the Monotype standard, but it still isn't foundry; they can't change the alloy too much without damaging the matrices and caster.
Printers who really care about setting will sometimes have text set by Monotype, and then "pass it through the stick" to refine the spacing, but it seems just as easy to set by hand in the first place. Monotype is cheaper if one is having text set vs buying founts. One trick the Allen Press used was to order one or two signatures of a book set in Monotype, and then use that type to set the rest of the book (the assumption being they'd get enough of each character from the one or two signatures ordered to set the rest of the book; the problems start when you're running low of one letter and still have half a page to set, but that's always the case with metal).
Given the current issues around access to good castings of good faces, polymer has become an increasingly viable option, although one that has long suffered a bias from people who consider themselves purists. The process really isn't much different than having text set by Monotype or Linotype, and I would argue that digital type can be set with the same care and precision as metal type set by hand, if the compositor chooses to work that way (i.e. by turning off all the automated settings). You have access to essentially all of the classic letterpress faces, plus all the extra characters that metal casters often don't have these days (e.g. old style AND lining figures – too often you only have the one when you want the other). But working that way successfully requires first having experience actually setting type by hand.
Some people claim they can tell the difference between text printed from metal vs polymer, but I haven't met anyone who actually could (maybe Gerald Lange, but I haven't met him). I have, however, met people who assumed something printed from polymer was metal. Unfortunately they always seem disappointed when they find out. If the plates are well made, and carefully inked and printed, the results should be indistinguishable. I think I could tell something had been set by hand if there was obvious custom kerning and fitting, but I couldn't tell if something had been indifferently set by hand vs set with a Monotype keyboard.
One issue with using digital (or photo-comp) faces is that they aren't designed for letterpress the way a metal face is. Faces originally designed for letterpress typically were "thickened up" a little when creating photo-comp or digital versions, to match the result from metal type that has been inked and pressed into a sheet of paper. (If well printed, that thickening should be very subtle, but it's there.) If you use these thickened faces to print letterpress, the result can have a darker, heavier appearance than what was originally intended. There are ways to compensate for this when using polymer, the easiest being to skate as close to the edge of under-inking as possible while printing.
The one problem I have with polymer is people using faces that were created post-letterpress; they weren't designed for it, don't use them.
The October 1992 issue of Bookways (No. 5) had a good article by Tom Taylor on this topic. I think there was an article in Parenthesis about Arion's system to run a Monotype caster with a Mac for setting the Lectern Bible, but can't find a reference for it...
14kdweber
>13 BlauesPress: "I don't think there's anyone casting foundry type in North America"
What is the difference between Monotype and foundry type?
The Arion Press in San Francisco bought M & H Type in 1989. Originally founded by George W. Mackenzie in 1915, they cast the metal type for most (all?) of AP's letterpress books.
What is the difference between Monotype and foundry type?
The Arion Press in San Francisco bought M & H Type in 1989. Originally founded by George W. Mackenzie in 1915, they cast the metal type for most (all?) of AP's letterpress books.
15BlauesPress
Basically it comes down to the hardness of the metal. The type M&H sells (& Arion uses) is Monotype, which is cast from Monotype mats on a Monotype caster. They also have a collection of (foundry) types in cases that they will set for you & proof, from which a plate can be made. But they don't have the mats or casting equipment for those types.
The last real type foundry in North America I know of was Theo Rehak's Dale Guild, and I don't think he's been active for some years.
The last real type foundry in North America I know of was Theo Rehak's Dale Guild, and I don't think he's been active for some years.
16kdweber
>15 BlauesPress: Thanks. So monotype (like linotype) will be cast, used once and then remelted while foundry type is cast from a harder metal and is saved in one of those type cases for many uses until it wears out?
17Glacierman
I would consider checking into Skyline Type Foundry in Arizona. They use Thompson casters, not Monoyype.
From their webpage:
Is it Monotype or “Real Type?”
This question comes our way regularly from customers. The Monotype Company designed and built its machines (Composition Caster and Sorts Caster) to produce type that was intended to be used once, and then remelted, and the specified metal alloy is a softer one than that used for true foundry type. The Thompson Type Casters in service at Skyline were engineered to produce durable type to be laid in cases and used many times. In his book Practical Typecasting (Oak Knoll, 1993) Theo Rehak states, “There are many who consider the Thompson machine a very close second to the foundry automatics.” Mr. Rehak was a casterman at American Type Founders until its end, and subsequently proprietor of The Dale Guild Type Foundry, using former ATF equipment.
From their webpage:
Is it Monotype or “Real Type?”
This question comes our way regularly from customers. The Monotype Company designed and built its machines (Composition Caster and Sorts Caster) to produce type that was intended to be used once, and then remelted, and the specified metal alloy is a softer one than that used for true foundry type. The Thompson Type Casters in service at Skyline were engineered to produce durable type to be laid in cases and used many times. In his book Practical Typecasting (Oak Knoll, 1993) Theo Rehak states, “There are many who consider the Thompson machine a very close second to the foundry automatics.” Mr. Rehak was a casterman at American Type Founders until its end, and subsequently proprietor of The Dale Guild Type Foundry, using former ATF equipment.
18BlauesPress
Skyline - good to know. But looking at the faces they offer, I go back to my "faces one would want to use" comment, particularly for extended text.
(A quote from Carl Rollins I like: "The wise printer does not have a type specimen book open to public inspection.")
Yes, Monotype & Linotype were conceived as use & melt. Which is still fine today, especially if you're set up to do your own casting. It's really only an issue if you're a printer looking at buying enough type for book work (= $$$): you'd rather get foundry, which will last a long time, vs Monotype, which not so much.
(A quote from Carl Rollins I like: "The wise printer does not have a type specimen book open to public inspection.")
Yes, Monotype & Linotype were conceived as use & melt. Which is still fine today, especially if you're set up to do your own casting. It's really only an issue if you're a printer looking at buying enough type for book work (= $$$): you'd rather get foundry, which will last a long time, vs Monotype, which not so much.
19ubiquitousuk
>13 BlauesPress: Great post, thanks!
20Glacierman
>18 BlauesPress: I hadn't looked over their offerings prior to posting my comment above. Now, looking over the faces available, I see very few I would be of a mind to use if I had a press. Based on what I read on on the letterpress list, I suspect that most printers who get type from Skyline are small job shops and the faces offered tend to support that conclusion. So your comment, faces one would want to use is apropos with regards to book work.
21ErikSpiekermann
1. Digital typesetting can do things no metal type could ever do. Monotype had 18 units max for each character, so an M could be 18 units wide and a full point/period just one. Linotype had 54 units, so there could be more subtle differences between characters. Hand-set, i.e. foundry type, had no such restriction. It did, however, only exist in a few sizes. For books that would have been between 9 and 12 point, even 16 for large type on large pages. There were 10, 11, 12, and then 14 and 16 point, but no 13 or 15 or 17. Angloamerican type had 18pt whereas European Didot type went from 16 straight to 20 point. Then 24, 28 (in Didot), 30 in Angloamerican systems, then 36, 48, 60, 72, 84, and perhaps 96. Larger type would be impractical in lead, so it was cut in wood or other materials like plexi, aluminium, etc. Digital type has, by definition, no such restrictions. I can set type at 9.3pt if it suits the purpose. It has a larger character set than metal type, including different figures like Old Style, Tabular etc.
There are many digital revivals of pretty much ever metal face ever produced, and – like everything else – there are good and bad ones. If a font is too thin or too heavy for letterpress via polymer, I can interpolate the data and get it just right. I can kern critical character combinations (typically things like To or Ve), I can track (i.e. increase) the overall spacing, design my own characters, etc. Gutenberg or Bodoni would have killed for digital type.
2. Polymer saved letterpress. The hipster shops in the cities discovered the process and put the plates onto their old Heidelberg platen or cylinder presses. They print with a deep bite because this is what people expect from letterpress these days. I would have been thrown out for that when I was an apprentice compositor, because printing like this from metal type would destroy it.
Most polymer (called Nyloprint in Europe) in the US is exposed via a negative which in turn is made from digital data, i.e. pixels. But those pixels are way smaller than the resolution of paper or the rough edges of metal type. Here in Berlin at my workshop (www.p98a.berlin) we built our own laser setter that sends data straight to a polymer plate. Saves money and chemical for the negative process, increases precision, saves time and money (a full size – 20x28in – negative is ca. $100, the plate another 80 or so) and is produced without chemicals. The laser hardens the polymer and the non-exposed areas are washed out with water. We print on a 1954 Heidelberg with a slight impression (not the hipster bite nor the kiss-impression I was taught in the 60s) and produce books with typography that is (potentially) far superior to anything done with metal type. It does, however, not rival nor intends to replace fully hand-made books. Instead it puts well-made books into the hands of people who are not collectors of fine print.
There is a thread here under the header TOC Berlin where our books are discussed.
I am typedesigner, typesetter and bookdesigner.
Erik Spiekermann
There are many digital revivals of pretty much ever metal face ever produced, and – like everything else – there are good and bad ones. If a font is too thin or too heavy for letterpress via polymer, I can interpolate the data and get it just right. I can kern critical character combinations (typically things like To or Ve), I can track (i.e. increase) the overall spacing, design my own characters, etc. Gutenberg or Bodoni would have killed for digital type.
2. Polymer saved letterpress. The hipster shops in the cities discovered the process and put the plates onto their old Heidelberg platen or cylinder presses. They print with a deep bite because this is what people expect from letterpress these days. I would have been thrown out for that when I was an apprentice compositor, because printing like this from metal type would destroy it.
Most polymer (called Nyloprint in Europe) in the US is exposed via a negative which in turn is made from digital data, i.e. pixels. But those pixels are way smaller than the resolution of paper or the rough edges of metal type. Here in Berlin at my workshop (www.p98a.berlin) we built our own laser setter that sends data straight to a polymer plate. Saves money and chemical for the negative process, increases precision, saves time and money (a full size – 20x28in – negative is ca. $100, the plate another 80 or so) and is produced without chemicals. The laser hardens the polymer and the non-exposed areas are washed out with water. We print on a 1954 Heidelberg with a slight impression (not the hipster bite nor the kiss-impression I was taught in the 60s) and produce books with typography that is (potentially) far superior to anything done with metal type. It does, however, not rival nor intends to replace fully hand-made books. Instead it puts well-made books into the hands of people who are not collectors of fine print.
There is a thread here under the header TOC Berlin where our books are discussed.
I am typedesigner, typesetter and bookdesigner.
Erik Spiekermann
22ErikSpiekermann
>13 BlauesPress:
»The one problem I have with polymer is people using faces that were created post-letterpress; they weren't designed for it, don't use them.«
That problem is not with the typefaces but with the people using them. Digital type can be far superior to any metal type as long as you choose the right version and know how to set type. There are certainly enough choices and many revivals who avoid all the shortcomings of metal type and add the advantages of digital. The biggest being that manuscripts these days all exist in digital form. I don't have to reset a text, saving hundreds of hours setting, correcting and dissing.
»The one problem I have with polymer is people using faces that were created post-letterpress; they weren't designed for it, don't use them.«
That problem is not with the typefaces but with the people using them. Digital type can be far superior to any metal type as long as you choose the right version and know how to set type. There are certainly enough choices and many revivals who avoid all the shortcomings of metal type and add the advantages of digital. The biggest being that manuscripts these days all exist in digital form. I don't have to reset a text, saving hundreds of hours setting, correcting and dissing.
23wcarter
>21 ErikSpiekermann:
Very interesting, thank you.
Very interesting, thank you.
24DenimDan
Resurrecting a favorite topic of mine with another strict hand-set printer: Walter Hamady, proprietor of the Perishable Press. Someday, I'll make a thread devoted to his books, a lot of which are truly unmatched in concept, design, printing, paper, etc. But today, his typesetting (mostly).
Perishable Press produced ~130 books (not including broadsides, of which there were many). Hamady set everything by hand and exclusively printed on an SP-15 with no motor. I cannot imagine his ever letting anyone else set type for him; he would just reset it.
Almost all of his books were printed using foundry type. Almost half those books were printed in Zapf's Palatino (from Stempel, who also made his Smaragd). Another 30 were in Sabon Antiqua, also from Stempel. He even had Bifer custom-cast for him (in the 1980s, I think). He used Gill Sans for a lot of books (many later in his career), which was Monotype, of course. He considered Monotype to be considerably less precise, so he would reset it and paper-space it. I've never seen anyone's use of Gill Sans more beautiful than Hamady's.
One might wonder, why this insistence on foundry type? It is incredibly expensive, after all, and Perishable Press was doing original material in editions of ~125-200. One reason was longevity and strength: his Palatino looked as clean the last time he used it as it had ~35 years before. Some of his really, really impressive books had well over 100 press runs. Another probably had to do with his printing, which was all done dry (with 2 exceptions out of 130 books). I am sure he had other reasons of an artistic / humanistic bent.
Hand-setting was his way of 1) getting it exactly right and 2) injecting yet another human element into the book. Also, there was at least one instance where he was probably writing as he was composing 6-point Clarendon.
Above all else, he was an artist whose predominant medium was books. If you see some of his work online (which you should! it's wonderful!), it might come across as wacky (a lot of it is). But you will not see type mis-set. His justified prose is a sight to behold.
Perishable Press produced ~130 books (not including broadsides, of which there were many). Hamady set everything by hand and exclusively printed on an SP-15 with no motor. I cannot imagine his ever letting anyone else set type for him; he would just reset it.
Almost all of his books were printed using foundry type. Almost half those books were printed in Zapf's Palatino (from Stempel, who also made his Smaragd). Another 30 were in Sabon Antiqua, also from Stempel. He even had Bifer custom-cast for him (in the 1980s, I think). He used Gill Sans for a lot of books (many later in his career), which was Monotype, of course. He considered Monotype to be considerably less precise, so he would reset it and paper-space it. I've never seen anyone's use of Gill Sans more beautiful than Hamady's.
One might wonder, why this insistence on foundry type? It is incredibly expensive, after all, and Perishable Press was doing original material in editions of ~125-200. One reason was longevity and strength: his Palatino looked as clean the last time he used it as it had ~35 years before. Some of his really, really impressive books had well over 100 press runs. Another probably had to do with his printing, which was all done dry (with 2 exceptions out of 130 books). I am sure he had other reasons of an artistic / humanistic bent.
Hand-setting was his way of 1) getting it exactly right and 2) injecting yet another human element into the book. Also, there was at least one instance where he was probably writing as he was composing 6-point Clarendon.
Above all else, he was an artist whose predominant medium was books. If you see some of his work online (which you should! it's wonderful!), it might come across as wacky (a lot of it is). But you will not see type mis-set. His justified prose is a sight to behold.
25Shadekeep
EDIT: Neglected to notice this was thread necromancy, I've now removed my wittering on the original topic. ^_^
26dlphcoracl
>24 DenimDan:
There is, however, one problem with regard to Walter Hamady and his Perishable Press, and it is a BIG problem.........
The literary content and subject matter of much (most?) of the Perishable Press are thoroughly forgettable. Walter Hamady was 'too cute by one half ', fancying himself to be a poet (he was not, certainly not a gifted one), wasting edition after edition on his gammerjabbery, and book after book featuring essays and poems from minor league players. When he did publish a recognizable name, e.g. Loren Eiseley, Allen Ginsberg, it was not their finest work. You will look long and hard to find anything you would actually like to purchase and read. I will save the LibraryThing faithful many hours and list the few titles I did find worthwhile in Hamady's bibliography:
1. Six Prose Pieces by Robert Duncan
2. The Wandering Tattler by Diane Wakoski,
3. Guillem de Poitou (Duke of Aquataine, 1071-1127). His eleven extant poems translated by Paul Blackburn.
4. The Shoes of Wandering by Galway Kinnell. A superior poet.
>24 DenimDan: is correct in identifying Walter Hamady as an exceptionally gifted and meticulous letterpress printer but one can only lament to what ends this talent and effort were applied to.
There is, however, one problem with regard to Walter Hamady and his Perishable Press, and it is a BIG problem.........
The literary content and subject matter of much (most?) of the Perishable Press are thoroughly forgettable. Walter Hamady was 'too cute by one half ', fancying himself to be a poet (he was not, certainly not a gifted one), wasting edition after edition on his gammerjabbery, and book after book featuring essays and poems from minor league players. When he did publish a recognizable name, e.g. Loren Eiseley, Allen Ginsberg, it was not their finest work. You will look long and hard to find anything you would actually like to purchase and read. I will save the LibraryThing faithful many hours and list the few titles I did find worthwhile in Hamady's bibliography:
1. Six Prose Pieces by Robert Duncan
2. The Wandering Tattler by Diane Wakoski,
3. Guillem de Poitou (Duke of Aquataine, 1071-1127). His eleven extant poems translated by Paul Blackburn.
4. The Shoes of Wandering by Galway Kinnell. A superior poet.
>24 DenimDan: is correct in identifying Walter Hamady as an exceptionally gifted and meticulous letterpress printer but one can only lament to what ends this talent and effort were applied to.
27Glacierman
>26 dlphcoracl:, et alia. Well, it was a private press and it reflected the proprietor's tastes and peculiarities as a truly private press is wont to do. He did publish a lot of material that is of little to no interest to many other than those of a similar bent. He printed what gave him a thrill and cared not a whit what others thought, pretty much what you would expect from a private, personal press. As stated in the intro to the exhibition Remembering Walter Hamady: Selections from the Perishable Press, "Hamady created the Perishable Press as a space for experimentation and innovation in the field of book arts." Experimentation and innovation do not always yield exciting results. Some experiments flop. But, if you collect private presses, you need an example or two of Walter's. Choose what strikes your fancy, even a Gabberjabb, but be prepared to part with some serious lettuce for a goodly number of them.
28BusyBodyWilson
>7 921Jack: You are entirely correct about how this works. Give or take the methods to make the negative (there are many) the process is exactly as you describe - what's exposed to light hardens and the rest can be removed. Much like with making a silkscreen.
29dpbbooks
From the University of Wisconsin Special Collections department, who obviously knew him well: "Walter Hamady died on his birthday, September 13, 2019. He was 79 years old. Those who knew him might find it fitting that he came into this world on Friday the 13th and he departed on Friday the 13th; not because he had bad luck, but because of his wily and irascible character."
Another bit of appreciation from Alastair Johnston (perhaps another wily and irascible character, whom I much admire as well): https://fpba.com/parenthesis/selected-articles/p27_hamady_driftless/
Another bit of appreciation from Alastair Johnston (perhaps another wily and irascible character, whom I much admire as well): https://fpba.com/parenthesis/selected-articles/p27_hamady_driftless/
30dlphcoracl
>27 Glacierman:
>29 dpbbooks:
If a gifted letterpress printer and book designer wants to establish his or her own private press as a platform for his/her own personal expression, a platform for his/her poetry (however mediocre it is and, trust me, Hamady's is decidedly mediocre) or innovation - god bless! However, the ultimate and most important goal of setting up a private press and publishing is to create something other folks want to read!! Otherwise, it is little more than an exercise in self-indulgence and narcissism and, worst of all, a waste of considerable time and talent.
As other small 1 or 2 person private presses have demonstrated over the past 125 years, experimentation & innovation needn't be divorced from publishing wonderful and occasionally offbeat books that are appealing. One needn't look any further than Claire Van Vliet and the Janus Press, the Foolscap Press or Jamie Murphy and the Salvage Press to find bold ideas in book design and innovation that are still compelling reads, books that collectors want to acquire. Sadly, when he put his mind to it Hamady could put aside his quirks and his hubris, recruit a world-class poet, e.g., Diane Wakoski, Galway Kinnell, and craft a splendid book. I have listed the few that I found collectable and have acquired. Unfortunately, these were the exception rather than the rule.
If you strenuously disagree with me, tell me what other books in his Perishable Press bibliography you find to be compelling "must haves" for your collection, or anyone else's for that matter. Being 'wily and irascible' and 'not caring a whit what others thought' is one thing but publishing a steady stream of forgettable books is quite another.
>29 dpbbooks:
If a gifted letterpress printer and book designer wants to establish his or her own private press as a platform for his/her own personal expression, a platform for his/her poetry (however mediocre it is and, trust me, Hamady's is decidedly mediocre) or innovation - god bless! However, the ultimate and most important goal of setting up a private press and publishing is to create something other folks want to read!! Otherwise, it is little more than an exercise in self-indulgence and narcissism and, worst of all, a waste of considerable time and talent.
As other small 1 or 2 person private presses have demonstrated over the past 125 years, experimentation & innovation needn't be divorced from publishing wonderful and occasionally offbeat books that are appealing. One needn't look any further than Claire Van Vliet and the Janus Press, the Foolscap Press or Jamie Murphy and the Salvage Press to find bold ideas in book design and innovation that are still compelling reads, books that collectors want to acquire. Sadly, when he put his mind to it Hamady could put aside his quirks and his hubris, recruit a world-class poet, e.g., Diane Wakoski, Galway Kinnell, and craft a splendid book. I have listed the few that I found collectable and have acquired. Unfortunately, these were the exception rather than the rule.
If you strenuously disagree with me, tell me what other books in his Perishable Press bibliography you find to be compelling "must haves" for your collection, or anyone else's for that matter. Being 'wily and irascible' and 'not caring a whit what others thought' is one thing but publishing a steady stream of forgettable books is quite another.
31DenimDan
Preface: Different strokes, etc. All this is in peace and love! Maybe I'll win a convert or two.
Short rejoinder for now, as I'm away from my personal library for at the moment. Basically, if you're looking for another semi-inspired version of Dante or whatever other literary masterpiece that has been worked to death, you're not going to be attracted to Perishable Press works, of which the text was only one of several components by which Hamady judged his books. He himself was an artist (beyond the book itself), primarily working in collage and assemblage boxes. He also worked with some very highly respected artists, most notably John Wilde, Henrik Drescher, and Jack Beal.
As a rule, Hamady did not reprint anything (unless they were poems that had appeared in literary journals). He collaborated with everyone who wrote the works he published. No other successful printer from the last half century had this model, excepting Merker, who was uniquely situated at the most prestigious creative writing workshop in the country.
WH's own poetry was not usually of the caliber of most of his collaborators, it should be noted that Hamady's early poetry was twice selected into the New Directions anthologies. And works like his "Seeds & Chairs" and "Of Boulders & Bolides" are incredibly moving. His collaborators included Paul Blackburn, Joel Oppenheimer, Reeve Lindbergh, Toby Olson, Kenneth Bernard, William Stafford, James Laughlin, among many others, and their work for him is quite respectable. I think there were several less-than-inspired poems, especially before 1975. He did publish 131 books, none of which were reprinted works.
But in truth, Hamady's books are not there to fill the same role as an LEC or other staid fine press literature (Which is no knock on those others; obviously, there's a place for those works and clearly a larger audience!). I consider dozens of The Perishable Press books absolute works of art; they are commentaries on the structure and form of books themselves; they subvert readers' expectations; they are legitimately and intelligently funny. They show what is possible when type and a press and paper are the media for art. Almost every book he published between ~1985 and the end of his press (~2010) is a masterpiece. To say he was an innovator does his legacy a disservice. I see graphic designers using his techniques often, and likely they have no idea who the originator was.
Claire van Vliet is not a good choice to compare Hamady's literary selections to: she republished a whole lot of established literature (like 5 Kafka books, Shakespeare, Ted Hughes far, far from his best, too, and Seamus Heaney, which is notable only for Heaney-completists), and several from a decidedly sub-par poet (W.R. Johnson). Her new niche of authors is eclectic, to put it nicely. She was an absolute innovator in the structure of books, best evinced in The Circus of Dr. Lao. But nothing else she has ever done can hold a candle to Gabberjabbs 1, 5, 6, 7, or 8 or any of the last 6 or so books from PP. When she actually printed, her printing ability was several tiers below Hamady's; she doesn't use letterpress in most of her books in the last 10 years, and as far as I know, she doesn't do the printing herself. She did a nice informative book about Hayle Mill, which was the only book of hers I thought might be worth the money since the Interlocking Book Structures book. I know nothing about James Murphy or the Salvage Press.
On the market for PP books: most of his publications were nearly fully subscribed at the time. He did no self-promotion. He gave about 5 interviews in his lifetime. And each one of the last 3 Gabberjabbs (maybe the pinnacle of his art) go for about 6,000 now, and they are being purchased actively.
Because I think very few people are looking for artist's books on this site (and in general, of course), I don't know that there are any "must-haves." I would advise people interested in Hamady's work either to purchase some of his bargain publications (I'll come up with a list when I can see my books) or to go to a special collections library to view one of his much-acclaimed works (e.g. a Gabberjabb or one of his later collaborations with John Wilde).
More later. Discuss in my absence.
Short rejoinder for now, as I'm away from my personal library for at the moment. Basically, if you're looking for another semi-inspired version of Dante or whatever other literary masterpiece that has been worked to death, you're not going to be attracted to Perishable Press works, of which the text was only one of several components by which Hamady judged his books. He himself was an artist (beyond the book itself), primarily working in collage and assemblage boxes. He also worked with some very highly respected artists, most notably John Wilde, Henrik Drescher, and Jack Beal.
As a rule, Hamady did not reprint anything (unless they were poems that had appeared in literary journals). He collaborated with everyone who wrote the works he published. No other successful printer from the last half century had this model, excepting Merker, who was uniquely situated at the most prestigious creative writing workshop in the country.
WH's own poetry was not usually of the caliber of most of his collaborators, it should be noted that Hamady's early poetry was twice selected into the New Directions anthologies. And works like his "Seeds & Chairs" and "Of Boulders & Bolides" are incredibly moving. His collaborators included Paul Blackburn, Joel Oppenheimer, Reeve Lindbergh, Toby Olson, Kenneth Bernard, William Stafford, James Laughlin, among many others, and their work for him is quite respectable. I think there were several less-than-inspired poems, especially before 1975. He did publish 131 books, none of which were reprinted works.
But in truth, Hamady's books are not there to fill the same role as an LEC or other staid fine press literature (Which is no knock on those others; obviously, there's a place for those works and clearly a larger audience!). I consider dozens of The Perishable Press books absolute works of art; they are commentaries on the structure and form of books themselves; they subvert readers' expectations; they are legitimately and intelligently funny. They show what is possible when type and a press and paper are the media for art. Almost every book he published between ~1985 and the end of his press (~2010) is a masterpiece. To say he was an innovator does his legacy a disservice. I see graphic designers using his techniques often, and likely they have no idea who the originator was.
Claire van Vliet is not a good choice to compare Hamady's literary selections to: she republished a whole lot of established literature (like 5 Kafka books, Shakespeare, Ted Hughes far, far from his best, too, and Seamus Heaney, which is notable only for Heaney-completists), and several from a decidedly sub-par poet (W.R. Johnson). Her new niche of authors is eclectic, to put it nicely. She was an absolute innovator in the structure of books, best evinced in The Circus of Dr. Lao. But nothing else she has ever done can hold a candle to Gabberjabbs 1, 5, 6, 7, or 8 or any of the last 6 or so books from PP. When she actually printed, her printing ability was several tiers below Hamady's; she doesn't use letterpress in most of her books in the last 10 years, and as far as I know, she doesn't do the printing herself. She did a nice informative book about Hayle Mill, which was the only book of hers I thought might be worth the money since the Interlocking Book Structures book. I know nothing about James Murphy or the Salvage Press.
On the market for PP books: most of his publications were nearly fully subscribed at the time. He did no self-promotion. He gave about 5 interviews in his lifetime. And each one of the last 3 Gabberjabbs (maybe the pinnacle of his art) go for about 6,000 now, and they are being purchased actively.
Because I think very few people are looking for artist's books on this site (and in general, of course), I don't know that there are any "must-haves." I would advise people interested in Hamady's work either to purchase some of his bargain publications (I'll come up with a list when I can see my books) or to go to a special collections library to view one of his much-acclaimed works (e.g. a Gabberjabb or one of his later collaborations with John Wilde).
More later. Discuss in my absence.
32Glacierman
>30 dlphcoracl: "However, the ultimate and most important goal of setting up a private press and publishing is to create something other folks want to read!! Otherwise, it is little more than an exercise in self-indulgence and narcissism and, worst of all, a waste of considerable time and talent."
Here, I must disagree. To my mind, the goal of a truly private press is to print what one wants to and not to satisfy an audience. They exist as an extension of the printer's ego. I do not consider "...an exercise in self-indulgence and narcissism" a flaw---if in fact, I would so define such a press, nor are they a waste of considerable time and talent. That is your personal point of view which is not universally shared, but even if that were true, so what? The printer prints to amuse himself and not you nor I. Allow him his quirk and let him print as he desires! That is the essence of freedom.
When a press begins to publish with an eye towards sales, they are no longer a private press, sensu stricto, but have begun to slide into the realm of small publisher. Still privately owned and operated, but with an eye to profit, or at least breaking even, and so they cater to those who buy and thus print what will sell. Such a thing can be called a private press, sensu lato, if you wish, but there are those who would argue against even that. I would say that we tend to use the term "private press" a little too loosely today.
I would recommend to all to read the first chapter of Will Ransom's Private Presses and Their Books. It is titled What is a Private Press?. Consider this quote from that work: The simplest and perhaps the truest type of private press is that maintained by one who is, at least by desire, a craftsman and finds a peculiar joy in handling type, ink, and paper, with sufficient means and leisure to warrant such an avocation. His literary selection may leave something to be desired and art may be disregarded or amazingly interpreted, but he has a good time. And that is why I do not disparage Mr. Hamady for his selections. He obviously had a good time.
I have stated my position as clearly as I can and having writ, move on.
Here, I must disagree. To my mind, the goal of a truly private press is to print what one wants to and not to satisfy an audience. They exist as an extension of the printer's ego. I do not consider "...an exercise in self-indulgence and narcissism" a flaw---if in fact, I would so define such a press, nor are they a waste of considerable time and talent. That is your personal point of view which is not universally shared, but even if that were true, so what? The printer prints to amuse himself and not you nor I. Allow him his quirk and let him print as he desires! That is the essence of freedom.
When a press begins to publish with an eye towards sales, they are no longer a private press, sensu stricto, but have begun to slide into the realm of small publisher. Still privately owned and operated, but with an eye to profit, or at least breaking even, and so they cater to those who buy and thus print what will sell. Such a thing can be called a private press, sensu lato, if you wish, but there are those who would argue against even that. I would say that we tend to use the term "private press" a little too loosely today.
I would recommend to all to read the first chapter of Will Ransom's Private Presses and Their Books. It is titled What is a Private Press?. Consider this quote from that work: The simplest and perhaps the truest type of private press is that maintained by one who is, at least by desire, a craftsman and finds a peculiar joy in handling type, ink, and paper, with sufficient means and leisure to warrant such an avocation. His literary selection may leave something to be desired and art may be disregarded or amazingly interpreted, but he has a good time. And that is why I do not disparage Mr. Hamady for his selections. He obviously had a good time.
I have stated my position as clearly as I can and having writ, move on.
33grifgon
>32 Glacierman: One of the most eloquent posts I've seen yet on this forum!
34Shadekeep
>32 Glacierman: I heartily agree with this sentiment. One of the greatest joys of private press works is the often esoteric peculiarity of their selections. The private presses I treasure the most are those which bring out singular works I would not find anywhere else. As much as I enjoy a letterpress edition of Edgar Allan Poe or Arthur Conan Doyle, and I do, even greater is my enjoyment of discovering something like Per Se Phone or The Seafarer or The Lambton Worm. It is when private presses indulge their penchant for these kinds of works that I find them at their most compelling.
35LBShoreBook
>33 grifgon: "One of the most eloquent posts I've seen yet on this forum!" Elegant (perhaps), but IMO a statement that operating "with eye to profit, or at least breaking even" disqualifies a press from being a "private press" but instead qualifies it as a "small publisher" is unrealistic. Basically you are independently wealthy with money to burn or you cannot be a private press. P&L is a real thing, even in publishing.
36DenimDan
lol Hamady was a wasted talent. I don't know that anyone could seriously believe that, but here are a few factoids re: his failure
- Guggenheim Fellowship in 1969 (when he was 29, reportedly one of the youngest recipients for a long time),
- 16 books included in the AIGA 50 Books, 10 of which were after 1981.
- several NEA grants (I don't know the full number)
- Emeritus Professor of Art at Wisconsin-Madison in 1995.
Look, anyone who knows anything about the Perishable Press understands that it's output is not for everyone, not even many collectors of other fine press. But people should have a right idea of what the PP created. To characterize it as worthy of only 3 titles is misleading -- that's 3 from 131 books. Oracle, people here (including me) really value your opinions and knowledge, so when you tell them "here are the 3 books that this renowned book artist made that are all you need to concern yourselves with," some people are going to see that and actually take it to heart. I'm an avid collector of theirs, and I doubt I've actually read more than 60 of their books (they're sometimes very challenging): did you really read ~65 of their books, or was that more of a guess?
BTW: Hamady's poetry is the text for 12 Perishable Press titles, 9 of which were before the the first in the Gabberjabb series (1971). He published for almost forty years after that.
>35 LBShoreBook: Hamady was an art professor at UW-Madison for his entire professional life, even complaining (in a lengthy and hilarious footnote in Gabberjabb #6) about how little he was paid for "professing." He was not a Lewis or Dorothy Allen, who didn't have to work long. I don't what bearing this has on the whole private press/publisher debate, but it's an interesting factoid about two presses.
- Guggenheim Fellowship in 1969 (when he was 29, reportedly one of the youngest recipients for a long time),
- 16 books included in the AIGA 50 Books, 10 of which were after 1981.
- several NEA grants (I don't know the full number)
- Emeritus Professor of Art at Wisconsin-Madison in 1995.
Look, anyone who knows anything about the Perishable Press understands that it's output is not for everyone, not even many collectors of other fine press. But people should have a right idea of what the PP created. To characterize it as worthy of only 3 titles is misleading -- that's 3 from 131 books. Oracle, people here (including me) really value your opinions and knowledge, so when you tell them "here are the 3 books that this renowned book artist made that are all you need to concern yourselves with," some people are going to see that and actually take it to heart. I'm an avid collector of theirs, and I doubt I've actually read more than 60 of their books (they're sometimes very challenging): did you really read ~65 of their books, or was that more of a guess?
BTW: Hamady's poetry is the text for 12 Perishable Press titles, 9 of which were before the the first in the Gabberjabb series (1971). He published for almost forty years after that.
>35 LBShoreBook: Hamady was an art professor at UW-Madison for his entire professional life, even complaining (in a lengthy and hilarious footnote in Gabberjabb #6) about how little he was paid for "professing." He was not a Lewis or Dorothy Allen, who didn't have to work long. I don't what bearing this has on the whole private press/publisher debate, but it's an interesting factoid about two presses.
38DWPress
I will commence printing only books about trout, the environment and early 20th century printing then to maintain my private press status. No, wait, 2 kids to put through college and a mortgage.
My favorite printing quote: "If you want to make a small fortune in printing, start with a large fortune."
Here at DWP typesetting is done on a book by book basis. Poetry is usually hand set along with anything else smallish. Fire up the Linotype for anything much more ambitious. Polymer plates are used on occasion when the size of the project, expected time the project will be tying up presses or the line length exceeds the 30 pica of the Linotype. All have advantages and disadvantages. I consider Erik a modern master in typography so his posts above say a lot about polymer and proper use.
I'll also note that all my printing is done on cylinder presses, mostly a hand fed and powered Vandercook 219OS. People who can achieve proper consistent inking on a hand press are truly a dying breed and have all my respect.
My favorite printing quote: "If you want to make a small fortune in printing, start with a large fortune."
Here at DWP typesetting is done on a book by book basis. Poetry is usually hand set along with anything else smallish. Fire up the Linotype for anything much more ambitious. Polymer plates are used on occasion when the size of the project, expected time the project will be tying up presses or the line length exceeds the 30 pica of the Linotype. All have advantages and disadvantages. I consider Erik a modern master in typography so his posts above say a lot about polymer and proper use.
I'll also note that all my printing is done on cylinder presses, mostly a hand fed and powered Vandercook 219OS. People who can achieve proper consistent inking on a hand press are truly a dying breed and have all my respect.
39dlphcoracl
>36 DenimDan: We could carry out a tedious internet debate ad nauseum to little effect. Clearly, you value and prize the Perishable Press bibliography more than I. So........ here is a simple exercise for readers of the LT Fine Press Forum to decide for themselves:
1. Go to the viaLibri.net book search engine (see link) and do a search. Put 'Perishable Press' in for Publisher, use the years 1964 to 2010, and make the price range $200 - $10,000 to eliminate non-private press items which the search engine will incorrectly match.
https://www.vialibri.net/?new-search=true&advanced-search=true
2. Filter out the poetry collections by Robert Duncan, Diane Wakoski and Galway Kinnell as well as 'Guillem de Poitou: Eleven Extant Poems' (an offbeat but highly original book reminiscent of the L-D Allen Press). These are all excellent books from outstanding poets, ones that I have collected.
3. You will now have approximately 200 listings from fine & rare booksellers around the world for Perishable Press editions. My question is: Regardless of price, how many of these listings are books are you keen to purchase and add to your collection?
I strongly suspect the Perishable Press books are of much greater interest to and are avidly collected by institutional libraries (college and university rare book collections) that prize Walter Hamady's craftsmanship far more than they are collected by individual collectors.
1. Go to the viaLibri.net book search engine (see link) and do a search. Put 'Perishable Press' in for Publisher, use the years 1964 to 2010, and make the price range $200 - $10,000 to eliminate non-private press items which the search engine will incorrectly match.
https://www.vialibri.net/?new-search=true&advanced-search=true
2. Filter out the poetry collections by Robert Duncan, Diane Wakoski and Galway Kinnell as well as 'Guillem de Poitou: Eleven Extant Poems' (an offbeat but highly original book reminiscent of the L-D Allen Press). These are all excellent books from outstanding poets, ones that I have collected.
3. You will now have approximately 200 listings from fine & rare booksellers around the world for Perishable Press editions. My question is: Regardless of price, how many of these listings are books are you keen to purchase and add to your collection?
I strongly suspect the Perishable Press books are of much greater interest to and are avidly collected by institutional libraries (college and university rare book collections) that prize Walter Hamady's craftsmanship far more than they are collected by individual collectors.
40DenimDan
>39 dlphcoracl: Obviously we will continue to differ in our opinions on this press. As always, to each his own, different strokes, etc. I still very much respect what you know about fine printing presses and your contributions to this forum.
To point 1: there are at least 10 titles from PP that I think are extremely good that went for less than $200 on the market (within the past 5 years or so; I'm guessing his death in 2019 made some of these bargains a little less bargain-y). Just a couple, in case anyone's interested: "Del Quien lo Tomo," "The Selection of Heaven," "Birdsongs," and "Notes Toward a Definition of David."
To point 3: While a lot of the big books (Gabberjabbs, "John's Apples," "Hand-Papermaking/Papermaking by Hand") are in a few dozen libraries, the overwhelming majority went to subscribers/friends, and most of those people have held on to them. But when libraries want them (and when they actually come up for sale), they usually get them. I've been beaten to the punch by institutions on a couple occasions for the ones that almost never come up on the market. Their pockets are deeper than mine!
To point 1: there are at least 10 titles from PP that I think are extremely good that went for less than $200 on the market (within the past 5 years or so; I'm guessing his death in 2019 made some of these bargains a little less bargain-y). Just a couple, in case anyone's interested: "Del Quien lo Tomo," "The Selection of Heaven," "Birdsongs," and "Notes Toward a Definition of David."
To point 3: While a lot of the big books (Gabberjabbs, "John's Apples," "Hand-Papermaking/Papermaking by Hand") are in a few dozen libraries, the overwhelming majority went to subscribers/friends, and most of those people have held on to them. But when libraries want them (and when they actually come up for sale), they usually get them. I've been beaten to the punch by institutions on a couple occasions for the ones that almost never come up on the market. Their pockets are deeper than mine!
41Glacierman
>35 LBShoreBook: "Basically you are independently wealthy with money to burn or you cannot be a private press."
Mostly true, actually. Private presses of the past---and perhaps of the present as well---were the endeavors of persons who earned their living elsewhere, the press being an avocation for them. Arthur Rushmore's Golden Hind Press, for example, was set up primarily as a lab press, as he was in charge of production for Harper & Bros. and he used his press for experimenting with design ideas for Harper books AND he also printed books for his own pleasure. Fred Goudy set up the Village Press with his wife Bertha and Will Ransom in 1903---Ransom later left---and operated it until it burned down in 1939. He was a type designer, teacher and art director for Langston Monotype. The press was not his source of income. The recently discussed Walter Hamady was, among other things, a teacher (University of Wisconsin, Madison). Guess who was his inspiration? Harry Duncan (Cummington Press). Neither of these men relied upon their presses to make a living.
Even William Morris did not rely on the Kelmscott Press to make his living, having been born into a wealthy family. He subsidized his private press. Yes, he sold his books, but did not depend upon them to earn his keep.
The point is, a private press in my definition, is one whose proprietor prints solely because he or she derives great pleasure from the act. Some aspire to high standards, some do not. Some give their books away to friends and family, some sell them at a modest price to at least break even, but PROFIT is not a driving motive.
Printing fine books to be sold at a profit makes you a fine press PUBLISHER, a business endeavor, not a private press. Now, having said that, I will end this FINAL note by quoting Roderick Cave (The Private Press. London: Faber & Faber, 1971, p. 16): 'What is a private press?' is a question which has never been answered altogether satisfactorily. The fact is that no simple or concise definition is possible.... Every writer on private printing has produced his own definition.
I have given my definition. You are free to produce your own.
Mostly true, actually. Private presses of the past---and perhaps of the present as well---were the endeavors of persons who earned their living elsewhere, the press being an avocation for them. Arthur Rushmore's Golden Hind Press, for example, was set up primarily as a lab press, as he was in charge of production for Harper & Bros. and he used his press for experimenting with design ideas for Harper books AND he also printed books for his own pleasure. Fred Goudy set up the Village Press with his wife Bertha and Will Ransom in 1903---Ransom later left---and operated it until it burned down in 1939. He was a type designer, teacher and art director for Langston Monotype. The press was not his source of income. The recently discussed Walter Hamady was, among other things, a teacher (University of Wisconsin, Madison). Guess who was his inspiration? Harry Duncan (Cummington Press). Neither of these men relied upon their presses to make a living.
Even William Morris did not rely on the Kelmscott Press to make his living, having been born into a wealthy family. He subsidized his private press. Yes, he sold his books, but did not depend upon them to earn his keep.
The point is, a private press in my definition, is one whose proprietor prints solely because he or she derives great pleasure from the act. Some aspire to high standards, some do not. Some give their books away to friends and family, some sell them at a modest price to at least break even, but PROFIT is not a driving motive.
Printing fine books to be sold at a profit makes you a fine press PUBLISHER, a business endeavor, not a private press. Now, having said that, I will end this FINAL note by quoting Roderick Cave (The Private Press. London: Faber & Faber, 1971, p. 16): 'What is a private press?' is a question which has never been answered altogether satisfactorily. The fact is that no simple or concise definition is possible.... Every writer on private printing has produced his own definition.
I have given my definition. You are free to produce your own.
42grifgon
>41 Glacierman: My definition differs, but I think Glacierman's is a really useful one, and probably a historically accurate one. I think a private press is an endeavour in which publisher and producer are the same individual. Oftentimes, they are also the artist/author.
