1maisiedotes
Yesterday I was at a bookstore looking at a number of Heritage Press books and found a couple which had smooth and shiny paper, namely The Divine Comedy and The Coverley Papers. I turned those down on the basis of the almost-reflective look and too-slick-for-my-fingers texture. I did buy The Faerie Queene even though the paper was thin.
Paper with a slight roughness appeals to my hand and eye, such as that in Gulliver's Travels and The Warden (my copy of which has wavy pages).
I realize that most devotees have moved onto LECs, but if you remember some HPs that you liked for their paper, please name those titles!
Paper with a slight roughness appeals to my hand and eye, such as that in Gulliver's Travels and The Warden (my copy of which has wavy pages).
I realize that most devotees have moved onto LECs, but if you remember some HPs that you liked for their paper, please name those titles!
2kdweber
>1 maisiedotes: As you're well aware, the first edition of the HP Gulliver's Travels uses a gorgeous paper that's nicer than that found in most LECs. The first HP edition of Romeo and Juliet has nice paper and a incredible binding - hard to believe it's not an LEC. I like the HP Penguin Island with its innovative binding, illustrations by Sylvain Sauvage, and very nice paper. Eugene Onegin is another nicely bound HP edition with fine paper.
3maisiedotes
>2 kdweber: I've never seen Romeo and Juliet or Penguin Island but will keep my eyes open. Aren't they among the almost-like-winning-the-lottery titles?
I have Eugene Onegin and love it!
My Gulliver's Travels looks like the one here: https://www.librarything.com/topic/266944. I didn't like the "hairs" at first, but they've grown on me (get it?).
Gulliver's Travels has 1940 on the title page. The Sandglass says number 10c, but its edge is barely flush with the text block. It seems almost too wide for the book, so I wonder if it's from a different printing. I don't have a source against which to check. I recently wrote to Michael Bussacco asking how I could buy his Sandglass Companion, but haven't heard back.
I have Eugene Onegin and love it!
My Gulliver's Travels looks like the one here: https://www.librarything.com/topic/266944. I didn't like the "hairs" at first, but they've grown on me (get it?).
Gulliver's Travels has 1940 on the title page. The Sandglass says number 10c, but its edge is barely flush with the text block. It seems almost too wide for the book, so I wonder if it's from a different printing. I don't have a source against which to check. I recently wrote to Michael Bussacco asking how I could buy his Sandglass Companion, but haven't heard back.
4kdweber
>3 maisiedotes: That's the one. You'll probably like all of the books mentioned in that thread. I don't remember Penguin Island being difficult to find and it only cost $19 including shipping. Romeo and Juliet was harder to find and cost quite a bit more than most HP editions but at $54 for a beautiful, well designed, letterpress book a veritable bargain.
5maisiedotes
I just finished reading Faust. It uses a full-bodied paper called Basingwerk Parchment, which, according to Sandglass XIII:15, "is made out of pure esparto." I looked up esparto and it is the textile fiber out of which espadrilles are made!
The next paragraph in the Sandglass puzzles me. It says that the boards are covered with linen of a taupe shade, but my book is navy blue!
How do I know if I have the right or wrong Sandglass? Maybe my Faust doesn't have espadrille-paper!
The next paragraph in the Sandglass puzzles me. It says that the boards are covered with linen of a taupe shade, but my book is navy blue!
How do I know if I have the right or wrong Sandglass? Maybe my Faust doesn't have espadrille-paper!
6abysswalker
>5 maisiedotes: there are (at least) two Heritage Press releases of Faust.
I believe the 1932 release is full blue and the 1959 release has taupe boards.
You may be looking at the wrong Sandglass.
Tangentially, does the Heritage Faust contain part 2? I think not, but perhaps you can confirm. (Part 2 has the homunculus, part 1 ends with what’s-her-name ascending.)
I believe the 1932 release is full blue and the 1959 release has taupe boards.
You may be looking at the wrong Sandglass.
Tangentially, does the Heritage Faust contain part 2? I think not, but perhaps you can confirm. (Part 2 has the homunculus, part 1 ends with what’s-her-name ascending.)
7maisiedotes
>6 abysswalker: Thanks for the dates for the blue vs. taupe boards. Though it is not impossible that my book came with the wrong Sandglass, I have to wonder if the publishers ever forgot to update a detail or two in the Sandglasses of subsequent printings. Have you ever noticed this?
No, the HP Faust does not contain part 2. (There's a part 2???? The learning never ends.) The book closes with Scene XXV, "Dungeon," in which a Voice from Above declares that Margarete "is saved."
No, the HP Faust does not contain part 2. (There's a part 2???? The learning never ends.) The book closes with Scene XXV, "Dungeon," in which a Voice from Above declares that Margarete "is saved."
8BuzzBuzzard
There was no Heritage Press in 1932. You are probably looking at the copyright coming from the Limited Editions Club.
9abysswalker
>8 BuzzBuzzard: yes you’re right. Some listings were erroneously using the earlier LEC copyright date.
There are at least two Heritage formats, but from looking at eBay listings this seems to be New York versus Connecticut? I’m not seeing an obvious date difference; solid blue looks like New York, taupe is Connecticut. I’m seeing 1959 dates on both, and both are Heritage Press (no Heritage Club).
There are at least two Heritage formats, but from looking at eBay listings this seems to be New York versus Connecticut? I’m not seeing an obvious date difference; solid blue looks like New York, taupe is Connecticut. I’m seeing 1959 dates on both, and both are Heritage Press (no Heritage Club).
10WildcatJF
Also also, the LEC and Heritage editions are not one and the same. While they share Alice Raphael's translation (thus the copyright to 1932), the LEC had artwork by Rene Clarke, while the later Heritage reprinted Eugene Delacroix's lithographs/paintings.
To my knowledge only the first part was translated for Macy, so no need to try to hunt down the second (unless you want to continue the story, of course).
>7 maisiedotes: Out of curiosity, does your Sandglass say New York, or something else? Your book should say New York on the title page if it's from the Macy era. That being said, sometimes production details change by the time the Sandglass or Letter is printed to the actual publication of the book. It's possible that taupe was the intended fabric but blue was substituted in...all the Heritage Fausts I've seen are blue.
To my knowledge only the first part was translated for Macy, so no need to try to hunt down the second (unless you want to continue the story, of course).
>7 maisiedotes: Out of curiosity, does your Sandglass say New York, or something else? Your book should say New York on the title page if it's from the Macy era. That being said, sometimes production details change by the time the Sandglass or Letter is printed to the actual publication of the book. It's possible that taupe was the intended fabric but blue was substituted in...all the Heritage Fausts I've seen are blue.
11Django6924
>7 maisiedotes:
The taupe boards were used on the first HP issue of Faust in 1938. This edition (according to the colophon in my copy), "was designed by Ernest Ingham, and printed under his direction at the Fanfare Press in London." The illustrations, however, "follow the lithographs created by Eugene Delacroix...and drawn in stone, but in reduction, by Fernand Mourlot in Paris and printed by him there." In reduction because Delacroix's original lithographs measured 15" by 21"--too big for even an LEC edition!
And thereby hangs a tale: in the copy of Faust I received as a Heritage Club member in the early 1960s, with navy blue boards and the title stamped in gold on the front, the illustrations are slightly different. This difference is explained in the Sandglass XIII:15 for the 1951 HP release (which I believe is yours): apparently the HP was criticized by art critics for not reproducing the original Delacroix, but having M. Mourlot redraw them. Thus for the 1951 edition, with taupe boards, and for my 1962 edition, Sandglass X:27, with Navy boards, the illustrations were made from photographic reductions of the Delacroix originals, reproduced in collotype by Arthur Jaffe for the 1951 edition, and offset lithography for my 1962 edition.
I believe your navy Faust is the 1962 edition printed on Curtis paper rather than the Basingwerk Parchment used for the 1951 edition, maisiedotes. I don't have the Sandglass for my 1938 HP Faust, but it also uses a full-bodied smooth paper, and the letterpress is superb. I do have to agree that although they are original art prints, the Mourlot lithographs (so identified in the lower right corner of each illustration) are not as sharp and crisp as the offset reproduction from the Delacroix originals in the later edition.
Incidentally, the Second Part of Faust was composed by Goethe much later, and tends to be digressive and philosophical, where the First Part is concise and dramatic, hence it being the part usually performed on stage in Germany, and is the source for Gounod's opera (and, I believe, Boito's Mefistofele).
Alice Raphael's translation of the First Part (all she did) is good, although in the 1950s she did a complete revision of the 1930 translation used by Macy to improve its accuracy; her rendering, though, is not as good as Louis Macneice's translation (also of Part One only, and an abridged version of that) from the late 1940s. In 2004, the Folio Society did a deluxe edition of the complete Faust, translated by David Luke, with Delacroix's illustrations in Part 1 and loosely associated Old Masters used for Part 2. Luke's translation is perhaps more faithful to Goethe than Miss Raphael's at the expense of readability, and without Macneice's superior versification.
The taupe boards were used on the first HP issue of Faust in 1938. This edition (according to the colophon in my copy), "was designed by Ernest Ingham, and printed under his direction at the Fanfare Press in London." The illustrations, however, "follow the lithographs created by Eugene Delacroix...and drawn in stone, but in reduction, by Fernand Mourlot in Paris and printed by him there." In reduction because Delacroix's original lithographs measured 15" by 21"--too big for even an LEC edition!
And thereby hangs a tale: in the copy of Faust I received as a Heritage Club member in the early 1960s, with navy blue boards and the title stamped in gold on the front, the illustrations are slightly different. This difference is explained in the Sandglass XIII:15 for the 1951 HP release (which I believe is yours): apparently the HP was criticized by art critics for not reproducing the original Delacroix, but having M. Mourlot redraw them. Thus for the 1951 edition, with taupe boards, and for my 1962 edition, Sandglass X:27, with Navy boards, the illustrations were made from photographic reductions of the Delacroix originals, reproduced in collotype by Arthur Jaffe for the 1951 edition, and offset lithography for my 1962 edition.
I believe your navy Faust is the 1962 edition printed on Curtis paper rather than the Basingwerk Parchment used for the 1951 edition, maisiedotes. I don't have the Sandglass for my 1938 HP Faust, but it also uses a full-bodied smooth paper, and the letterpress is superb. I do have to agree that although they are original art prints, the Mourlot lithographs (so identified in the lower right corner of each illustration) are not as sharp and crisp as the offset reproduction from the Delacroix originals in the later edition.
Incidentally, the Second Part of Faust was composed by Goethe much later, and tends to be digressive and philosophical, where the First Part is concise and dramatic, hence it being the part usually performed on stage in Germany, and is the source for Gounod's opera (and, I believe, Boito's Mefistofele).
Alice Raphael's translation of the First Part (all she did) is good, although in the 1950s she did a complete revision of the 1930 translation used by Macy to improve its accuracy; her rendering, though, is not as good as Louis Macneice's translation (also of Part One only, and an abridged version of that) from the late 1940s. In 2004, the Folio Society did a deluxe edition of the complete Faust, translated by David Luke, with Delacroix's illustrations in Part 1 and loosely associated Old Masters used for Part 2. Luke's translation is perhaps more faithful to Goethe than Miss Raphael's at the expense of readability, and without Macneice's superior versification.
12WildcatJF
>11 Django6924: Wow that is so much more history than I knew on the Heritage Faust! Well I know where to turn whenever I find a copy myself haha.
13kdweber
>12 WildcatJF: The Question is which Faust to buy? The 1932 LEC or one of the three different HPs? My 1941 Stratford Press bilingual edition is translated by Macintyre and illustrated by Rockwell Kent. Or how about the 1925 George Harrap (translator - Anster) will illustrations by Harry Clarke. I prefer the Delacroix in the 2005 FS fine edition with its large format over the HP though I only have the EP copy. I also have an 1882 unillustrated edition translated by Swanwick but I don’t recommend it.
14laotzu225
>11 Django6924: The Folio Society edition, which I have, is quite worthwhile seeking out. Beautifully done and, although not a "Limited Edition", deluxe. Though I know the story well mainly from musical portrayals, Berlioz and Schumann and Liszt* as well as the operas, I've never attempted reading it but I've found the Luke accessible.
* How could I have forgotten Part II of Mahler's Eighth Symphony? (edited to add)
* How could I have forgotten Part II of Mahler's Eighth Symphony? (edited to add)
15Django6924
>13 kdweber:
I have the Macintyre bilingual edition in a 50-year old unillustrated paperback which I used as a crip when I was studying German. Of the HP versions, the 1951 version with taupe boards and collotype illustrations would be my preference. If you want an English language of the complete Faust with the Delacroix illustrations, the FS is the only viable option.
If you want an English language Faust (Part 1 only) with Harry Clarke's bizarre Beardsleyesque illustrations, the original was limited to 1000 copies in Great Britain (by George Harrap, I believe) and 1000 in the USA, published by Dingwall: Rock Limited. My copy is the Dingwall edition, number 870, and has Clarke's signature. When I was in college, I found the illustrations very compelling; now they exert a morbid fascination, but I can't say I really like them, and I don't find them appropriate for Goethe. The translation I'm not a fan of. For example, the line I quoted in another thread, "Staub soll er fressen, und mit Lust," Anster renders "dust shall he eat, and eat with pleasure yet" is not only wordy, but misses the connotations of "fressen," used only to describe how animals eat (when humans eat the verb is "essen"), and "mit Lust" which is a stronger noun than "pleasure"--"relish" would be more apt, and "gusto" even more so.
I have the Macintyre bilingual edition in a 50-year old unillustrated paperback which I used as a crip when I was studying German. Of the HP versions, the 1951 version with taupe boards and collotype illustrations would be my preference. If you want an English language of the complete Faust with the Delacroix illustrations, the FS is the only viable option.
If you want an English language Faust (Part 1 only) with Harry Clarke's bizarre Beardsleyesque illustrations, the original was limited to 1000 copies in Great Britain (by George Harrap, I believe) and 1000 in the USA, published by Dingwall: Rock Limited. My copy is the Dingwall edition, number 870, and has Clarke's signature. When I was in college, I found the illustrations very compelling; now they exert a morbid fascination, but I can't say I really like them, and I don't find them appropriate for Goethe. The translation I'm not a fan of. For example, the line I quoted in another thread, "Staub soll er fressen, und mit Lust," Anster renders "dust shall he eat, and eat with pleasure yet" is not only wordy, but misses the connotations of "fressen," used only to describe how animals eat (when humans eat the verb is "essen"), and "mit Lust" which is a stronger noun than "pleasure"--"relish" would be more apt, and "gusto" even more so.
16maisiedotes
>10 WildcatJF: The title page says New York.
"All the Heritage Fausts I've seen are blue."—How many have you seen??!! I've never seen any HPs in a brick-and-mortar store till last week, but I guess that's because I never knew about them!
"All the Heritage Fausts I've seen are blue."—How many have you seen??!! I've never seen any HPs in a brick-and-mortar store till last week, but I guess that's because I never knew about them!
17WildcatJF
>16 maisiedotes: Haha I've been collecting these since 2008, and I've gained quite the eye for spotting a Heritage or LEC title on a crowded shelf over the years. I've probably seen about 3 to 5 in person at various shops, sales and libraries.
18Django6924
In response to the original post about favorite HP papers, in addition to the first Gulliver's Travels with the colored threads, the George Macy-designed The Prince has to have one of the most expensive papers used in an HP: it was ordered to resemble hand-made paper, and though it's not hand-made, you could have fooled me. Very thick with a pronounced rough texture, like mould-made paper.
19BuzzBuzzard
One of my favourite HP paper was used in the early printings of Song of Songs. I have not seen attribution to the exact paper but my guess is that it is Japanese paper similar to the 1935 LEC Rubaiyat. This edition is every bit as good as any hand illuminated job Angelo did for the LEC. Added bonus is if you can find the limited version with the additional signed lithograph by Valenti Angelo.
20maisiedotes
>18 Django6924: Ooh! I'll add The Prince to my wish list.
The letterpress in my Faust is good, but around the middle of the book, it becomes even better!
The letterpress in my Faust is good, but around the middle of the book, it becomes even better!
21Django6924
>14 laotzu225:
How could you? The answer to that, for me at least, is ars longa, vita brevis. The more I read and am exposed to great art and music, the harder time I have remembering specifics.
How could you? The answer to that, for me at least, is ars longa, vita brevis. The more I read and am exposed to great art and music, the harder time I have remembering specifics.
22kermaier
>18 Django6924:
Is the HP “The Prince” on different paper than the LEC?
Is the HP “The Prince” on different paper than the LEC?
23Django6924
>22 kermaier:
Yes, another very fine paper identified as "Della Robbia paper." As is the case with the "Machiavelli Text" paper in the HP version, there is no indication of who the manufacturer is--a curious instance of reticence for Macy, who designed both editions.
Yes, another very fine paper identified as "Della Robbia paper." As is the case with the "Machiavelli Text" paper in the HP version, there is no indication of who the manufacturer is--a curious instance of reticence for Macy, who designed both editions.
24maisiedotes
I'm picking my summer reads based on paper. That's silly, I know, but it is one way to narrow down the choices.
I just finished Green Mansions. That Sandglass describes the paper as white. It seems off-white to me, though brighter than any HP paper I've seen. Was that as white as paper could be made back then?
Miscellaneous thoughts: Two of the color illustrations seem out of focus. The letterpress is uneven, ranging from deep to average to barely noticeable. And there are typos!—"strangly" (strangely, which is spelled correctly a few pages later) and "semed" (seemed). Any etymologists out there want to elucidate if the latter is a variant spelling?
I've always thought the phrase was "to the manor born," as in the British sitcom. Chapter 4, in which the protagonist comments on being an outsider, taught me that it is "to the manner born."
I just finished Green Mansions. That Sandglass describes the paper as white. It seems off-white to me, though brighter than any HP paper I've seen. Was that as white as paper could be made back then?
Miscellaneous thoughts: Two of the color illustrations seem out of focus. The letterpress is uneven, ranging from deep to average to barely noticeable. And there are typos!—"strangly" (strangely, which is spelled correctly a few pages later) and "semed" (seemed). Any etymologists out there want to elucidate if the latter is a variant spelling?
I've always thought the phrase was "to the manor born," as in the British sitcom. Chapter 4, in which the protagonist comments on being an outsider, taught me that it is "to the manner born."
25BuzzBuzzard
>24 maisiedotes: Green Mansions was the first HP from regular subscription. Sandglass 1A reads that the paper by the Worthy Paper Company is made partially of rags. It is slightly tan in color for the purpose of furnishing a fine background to the illustrations. It also claims that the paper was tested by a paper chemist who gave the assurance that it would last at least two hundred years. The printing by The Haddon Craftsmen is superb. One of my favorite HPs. You are likely having one of the later reprints.
26Django6924
>24 maisiedotes:
It's "to the manner born"; the TV show was punning the phrase.
It is from Hamlet: when Hamlet and Horatio hear the cannons fire a salute at night to celebrate the king's drinking of a toast to his queen. Horatio asks if it is the custom in Denmark and Hamlet replies (I'm quoting from memory so I may not be accurate), "Marry, 'tis, and though I am native and to the manner born, it is a custom more honored in the breach than the observance."
It's "to the manner born"; the TV show was punning the phrase.
It is from Hamlet: when Hamlet and Horatio hear the cannons fire a salute at night to celebrate the king's drinking of a toast to his queen. Horatio asks if it is the custom in Denmark and Hamlet replies (I'm quoting from memory so I may not be accurate), "Marry, 'tis, and though I am native and to the manner born, it is a custom more honored in the breach than the observance."
27Django6924
>25 BuzzBuzzard:
Yes, I had a later reprint originally, and about 10 years ago acquired the first issue. Superior in every way with a very fine paper and superb letterpress. It's easy to tell if it's the original release--only the first issue has a colophon.
>24 maisiedotes:
A later HP with really superb laid paper (by the Mead Paper Company) is The Romance of Tristan and Iseult--a great production in every respect and a wonderful tale.
Yes, I had a later reprint originally, and about 10 years ago acquired the first issue. Superior in every way with a very fine paper and superb letterpress. It's easy to tell if it's the original release--only the first issue has a colophon.
>24 maisiedotes:
A later HP with really superb laid paper (by the Mead Paper Company) is The Romance of Tristan and Iseult--a great production in every respect and a wonderful tale.
28Glacierman
>27 Django6924: I have the LEC version of Tristan. It would be interesting to compare the two.
29kermaier
>23 Django6924:
I found a watermark on the Della Robbia paper of the LEC Prince, but can’t quite read the script. I’ll try to photograph it.
I found a watermark on the Della Robbia paper of the LEC Prince, but can’t quite read the script. I’ll try to photograph it.
30maisiedotes
>25 BuzzBuzzard: My Sandglass is XVI:20, so it must be a later printing, and possibly inferior to the first one.
When you order an HP, do you specify the printing by providing the seller with the Sandglass number?
I cannot for the life of me understand the numbering of the Sandglasses. I read an explanation on a different thread but didn't understand it.
When you order an HP, do you specify the printing by providing the seller with the Sandglass number?
I cannot for the life of me understand the numbering of the Sandglasses. I read an explanation on a different thread but didn't understand it.
31maisiedotes
>26 Django6924: That's impressive for quoting from memory. Here's the Shakespeare, which I just looked up:
Ay, marry, is ’t.
But to my mind, though I am native here
And to the manner born, it is a custom
More honored in the breach than the observance.
Ay, marry, is ’t.
But to my mind, though I am native here
And to the manner born, it is a custom
More honored in the breach than the observance.
32maisiedotes
>27 Django6924: Aw, shucks, so my second (?) edition Green Mansions is definitely less of a tactile experience.
Not all first edition HPs have colophons, do they?
I do have The Romance of Tristan and Iseult and it is beautiful. I think I'll (re)read it next! Unfortunately, it came without a Sandglass.
Not all first edition HPs have colophons, do they?
I do have The Romance of Tristan and Iseult and it is beautiful. I think I'll (re)read it next! Unfortunately, it came without a Sandglass.
33Django6924
>30 maisiedotes:
Sandglass numbering would be straightforward if they hadn't changed horses (metaphorically) in midstream. Except for the first 6 books issued (the First Series), the series were identified by a letter of the alphabet, and the position of each book of the 12 books, one a month, in the series by a number. This goal was usually met and so the Sandglass for the first book in the first full series--Series A--Green Mansions, would have the Sandglass 1A, issued in June 1937; the 12th book, The Pickwick Papers, issued in May 1938, would have the Sandglass 12A. Series B started June, 1938, and was led off with The Romance of Leonardo da Vinci ( fascinating read!) with the Sandglass 1B (position in issue by number and Series by letter). The 12th book in Series B is an absolute gem Beowulf, superb paper and outstanding illustrations by Lynd Ward! That has Sandglass 12B.
Simple, no? Mostly, yes; but the Series which started in June, 1950, which alphabetically should be Series O, saw the system changed. Now the position of the book in the series is identified by a Roman numeral, and comes first, before the Series number, which is an Arabic number. In June 1950, you would have received The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes with the Sandglass I:15; the eighth book of that 15th series, Madame Bovary, would have the Sandglass VIII:15.
A little mind-bending compared to the original system, but if you know your Roman numerals, you can cipher it out. Your XVI:20 Sandglass means it was the 16th book issued in the 20th series. (Wait! you say--there aren't 16 months in a year! Well all along, the Heritage Club had the basic 12 books they intended to send to members, but for those who didn't want any of those--or who wanted more than just the 12, say a book issued before they became members, there were additional books, usually reprints of earlier titles, and the Roman numeral indicates the order in which these extras were offered.)
The practice of using colophons on the HP titles stopped in Series F--only the books issued jointly by the HP and the Nonesuch Press had colophons in that series. This was also the time that conditions forced the HP to issuing reprints of Limited Editions Club editions.
Sandglass numbering would be straightforward if they hadn't changed horses (metaphorically) in midstream. Except for the first 6 books issued (the First Series), the series were identified by a letter of the alphabet, and the position of each book of the 12 books, one a month, in the series by a number. This goal was usually met and so the Sandglass for the first book in the first full series--Series A--Green Mansions, would have the Sandglass 1A, issued in June 1937; the 12th book, The Pickwick Papers, issued in May 1938, would have the Sandglass 12A. Series B started June, 1938, and was led off with The Romance of Leonardo da Vinci ( fascinating read!) with the Sandglass 1B (position in issue by number and Series by letter). The 12th book in Series B is an absolute gem Beowulf, superb paper and outstanding illustrations by Lynd Ward! That has Sandglass 12B.
Simple, no? Mostly, yes; but the Series which started in June, 1950, which alphabetically should be Series O, saw the system changed. Now the position of the book in the series is identified by a Roman numeral, and comes first, before the Series number, which is an Arabic number. In June 1950, you would have received The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes with the Sandglass I:15; the eighth book of that 15th series, Madame Bovary, would have the Sandglass VIII:15.
A little mind-bending compared to the original system, but if you know your Roman numerals, you can cipher it out. Your XVI:20 Sandglass means it was the 16th book issued in the 20th series. (Wait! you say--there aren't 16 months in a year! Well all along, the Heritage Club had the basic 12 books they intended to send to members, but for those who didn't want any of those--or who wanted more than just the 12, say a book issued before they became members, there were additional books, usually reprints of earlier titles, and the Roman numeral indicates the order in which these extras were offered.)
The practice of using colophons on the HP titles stopped in Series F--only the books issued jointly by the HP and the Nonesuch Press had colophons in that series. This was also the time that conditions forced the HP to issuing reprints of Limited Editions Club editions.
34maisiedotes
>33 Django6924: Thank you SO much for the detailed explanation of Sandglass numbering. I get it now! I feel like I've been let out of jail!
It doesn't help that each series began in June, but at least I can narrow my calculations to within a year or two.
"The 12th book in Series B is an absolute gem Beowulf, superb paper and outstanding illustrations by Lynd Ward! That has Sandglass 12B." My Beowulf says, "The special contents of this edition are copyright 1939 by The Heritage Press." So . . . after exercising my math skills, I now figure that being the 12th book, Beowulf came out around May 1939.
I bought my Beowulf thirty years ago from a second-hand bookstore. I had never heard of Heritage Press but was attracted to the unusual-looking book. Over three decades, many was the time I was tempted to give away this bulky hardback in order to make room for something more compact. Then last fall when I joined LT, I heard about Heritage Press. I eventually looked at poor Beowulf, which had been sitting on a shelf for lo, these many years. Ding!
It doesn't help that each series began in June, but at least I can narrow my calculations to within a year or two.
"The 12th book in Series B is an absolute gem Beowulf, superb paper and outstanding illustrations by Lynd Ward! That has Sandglass 12B." My Beowulf says, "The special contents of this edition are copyright 1939 by The Heritage Press." So . . . after exercising my math skills, I now figure that being the 12th book, Beowulf came out around May 1939.
I bought my Beowulf thirty years ago from a second-hand bookstore. I had never heard of Heritage Press but was attracted to the unusual-looking book. Over three decades, many was the time I was tempted to give away this bulky hardback in order to make room for something more compact. Then last fall when I joined LT, I heard about Heritage Press. I eventually looked at poor Beowulf, which had been sitting on a shelf for lo, these many years. Ding!
35maisiedotes
Inspired by Lukas1990's longsuffering as he waited for his copy of The Praise of Folly on its four-month journey from Canada (in the Acquisitions thread), I took mine off the shelf and read (rather superficially) through it. I think I got the gist of it.
How can I tell if it is letterpress? The print feels textured, but I'm not sure. Does monotype imply letterpress?
The alabaster white paper has no laid chain but still looks and feels good under the hand.
How can I tell if it is letterpress? The print feels textured, but I'm not sure. Does monotype imply letterpress?
The alabaster white paper has no laid chain but still looks and feels good under the hand.
36Django6924
>35 maisiedotes:
Your Erasmus is printed letterpress. Monotype is a machine used for hot-casting lead type a character at a time, as opposed to Linotype which casts an entire line of type.
Your Erasmus is printed letterpress. Monotype is a machine used for hot-casting lead type a character at a time, as opposed to Linotype which casts an entire line of type.
37maisiedotes
>36 Django6924: Oof! "A character at a time, as opposed to . . . an entire line." Is that as slow as it sounds?
Absent something like a Sandglass, how does one KNOW whether a book is letterpress?
Absent something like a Sandglass, how does one KNOW whether a book is letterpress?
38kermaier
>23 Django6924:
In addition to "DELLA ROBBIA", the LEC edition of The Prince has the following watermark in the paper. Can someone help identify it?
In addition to "DELLA ROBBIA", the LEC edition of The Prince has the following watermark in the paper. Can someone help identify it?
39Django6924
>37 maisiedotes:
Compared to cutting type by hand or casting from molds, it was a great improvement! Here is a Monotype caster at work at the Arion Press oin San Francisco:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjkMW_zgHzo
Compared to cutting type by hand or casting from molds, it was a great improvement! Here is a Monotype caster at work at the Arion Press oin San Francisco:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjkMW_zgHzo
40Django6924
>38 kermaier:
I'd be irritated with you for making me test my aged eyesight in trying to decipher that watermark, except when I went to the book and flipped through pages trying to find a good sample, I was struck again by the astounding quality in every aspect of this book! Thank you for giving me a reason!
Few LECs had this combination of fantastic paper, crisp letterpress with a deep impression that should satisfy even hardcore "bite" enthusiasts, plus genuine goatskin leather binding--and the qualities are so amazing that Macy dared to design it without illustration, or even ornamentation. It is good to be king.
To your point, the Della Robbia paper in this book was made by the Linweave Paper company in Holyoke, MA. Here is a poignant reminder that it is highly unlikely we will ever see affordable books of this quality made in this country again:
https://sophia.smith.edu/~mjacobs/FSPMJH/linweave.htm
I'd be irritated with you for making me test my aged eyesight in trying to decipher that watermark, except when I went to the book and flipped through pages trying to find a good sample, I was struck again by the astounding quality in every aspect of this book! Thank you for giving me a reason!
Few LECs had this combination of fantastic paper, crisp letterpress with a deep impression that should satisfy even hardcore "bite" enthusiasts, plus genuine goatskin leather binding--and the qualities are so amazing that Macy dared to design it without illustration, or even ornamentation. It is good to be king.
To your point, the Della Robbia paper in this book was made by the Linweave Paper company in Holyoke, MA. Here is a poignant reminder that it is highly unlikely we will ever see affordable books of this quality made in this country again:
https://sophia.smith.edu/~mjacobs/FSPMJH/linweave.htm
41AMindForeverVoyaging
>40 Django6924: Now that you mention Linweave, it looks to me that's what the watermark is
42kermaier
>40 Django6924:
Thank you!! I was going nuts trying to think of which Italian paper mill that watermark indicated….
Edit: And, yes — it’s an amazingly well-made book.
Thank you!! I was going nuts trying to think of which Italian paper mill that watermark indicated….
Edit: And, yes — it’s an amazingly well-made book.
43maisiedotes
For devotees who have read The Romance of Tristan and Iseult, what are/were your impressions?
>27 Django6924: Thanks to your comment about the above, I've just finished reading Tristan and Iseult (HP) and—wow, what a pleasure handling that book! I love the thick paper, the large print, and the letterpress.
The story was much more touching than expected, far more so than Wagner's Tristan and Isolde (sorry, Wagnerites!). The only negative to this book is that the pictures seemed out of focus.
>27 Django6924: Thanks to your comment about the above, I've just finished reading Tristan and Iseult (HP) and—wow, what a pleasure handling that book! I love the thick paper, the large print, and the letterpress.
The story was much more touching than expected, far more so than Wagner's Tristan and Isolde (sorry, Wagnerites!). The only negative to this book is that the pictures seemed out of focus.
44maisiedotes
I'm taking advantage of the summer and a lighter work schedule to chip away at my TBR pile. My current book is Chichikov's Journey.
It doesn't qualify for "favorite Heritage Press paper" (far from it), but I wanted to point out that the Sandglass (6H) has the thinnest paper, unlike all other Sandglasses I have ever seen! Does anybody have any insights?
(The Sandglass also has one instance of Gogol spelled as Gogel. How does this happen??!!)
It doesn't qualify for "favorite Heritage Press paper" (far from it), but I wanted to point out that the Sandglass (6H) has the thinnest paper, unlike all other Sandglasses I have ever seen! Does anybody have any insights?
(The Sandglass also has one instance of Gogol spelled as Gogel. How does this happen??!!)
45abysswalker
>44 maisiedotes: “Gogol spelled as Gogel”
The days before spell check!
The choice of title is quite interesting here. Dead Souls is so much more dramatic.
The days before spell check!
The choice of title is quite interesting here. Dead Souls is so much more dramatic.
46Django6924
>44 maisiedotes:
Dead Souls (I refuse to use the other title) is one of the books which suffered due to shortages of high quality paper and highly skilled pressmen during WW II. As far as the typo, it's very likely that this wasn't a book produced directly under Macy's supervision. He severely over-extended himself during the war, trying to run both clubs and dealing with shortages, with declining membership, with producing A Soldier's Reader and A Sailor's Reader for distribution to servicemen, and volunteering with several groups supporting the war effort. This resulted in a physical breakdown and hospitalization for a period.
It is still quite a nicely made book--very nicely by today's standards--and the Limited Editions Club version in 2 volumes also shows the signs of wartime shortcomings.
What a fascinating book it is! I suggested it to the book club I attend as the followup to David Copperfield thinking the members would appreciate something shorter and funnier. Was I wrong! After the first meeting, membership dropped from 14 to 4, and for the third meeting, to three. I'm afraid the risk Gogol took by not letting us in on Chichikov's scheme and his background until the last chapter of Book 1 (I had told everyone going in that there was no real value in reading Book 2), was too sore a trial for today's readers with attention spans conditioned by TV--and now the internet.
I had hoped that it might have encouraged them to pursue other books which feature that unique character who appears in various guises throughout 19th century literature--the con artist or flimflam man. Chichikov is the first time that this figure was used as the "hero" of a novel. Gogol recognized that centuries-old social structures were breaking down, in Russia but in other Western countries as well. Increased social mobility and the growth of the entrepreneur meant that the field was rich for harvest for characters such as Chichikov, for real life individuals such as P.T. Barnum, and for a whole breed of men who counted on the innate desire of people to get something for nothing: hence the real wisdom in the seemingly cynical saying of the period, "you can't cheat an honest man." The ne plus ultra literary treatment in the 19th century is Herman Melville's The Confidence-Man, a novel which richly repays a close reading.
Dead Souls (I refuse to use the other title) is one of the books which suffered due to shortages of high quality paper and highly skilled pressmen during WW II. As far as the typo, it's very likely that this wasn't a book produced directly under Macy's supervision. He severely over-extended himself during the war, trying to run both clubs and dealing with shortages, with declining membership, with producing A Soldier's Reader and A Sailor's Reader for distribution to servicemen, and volunteering with several groups supporting the war effort. This resulted in a physical breakdown and hospitalization for a period.
It is still quite a nicely made book--very nicely by today's standards--and the Limited Editions Club version in 2 volumes also shows the signs of wartime shortcomings.
What a fascinating book it is! I suggested it to the book club I attend as the followup to David Copperfield thinking the members would appreciate something shorter and funnier. Was I wrong! After the first meeting, membership dropped from 14 to 4, and for the third meeting, to three. I'm afraid the risk Gogol took by not letting us in on Chichikov's scheme and his background until the last chapter of Book 1 (I had told everyone going in that there was no real value in reading Book 2), was too sore a trial for today's readers with attention spans conditioned by TV--and now the internet.
I had hoped that it might have encouraged them to pursue other books which feature that unique character who appears in various guises throughout 19th century literature--the con artist or flimflam man. Chichikov is the first time that this figure was used as the "hero" of a novel. Gogol recognized that centuries-old social structures were breaking down, in Russia but in other Western countries as well. Increased social mobility and the growth of the entrepreneur meant that the field was rich for harvest for characters such as Chichikov, for real life individuals such as P.T. Barnum, and for a whole breed of men who counted on the innate desire of people to get something for nothing: hence the real wisdom in the seemingly cynical saying of the period, "you can't cheat an honest man." The ne plus ultra literary treatment in the 19th century is Herman Melville's The Confidence-Man, a novel which richly repays a close reading.
47maisiedotes
>46 Django6924: Some other required reading came up and Gogol has been left untouched for over a week, but I plan to get back to it today. Thanks for your insights, Robert, as I was wondering where the story was going.
Prior to getting sidetracked, I did notice how much I was learning about the life and culture of the times—and I remembered that's exactly what the Sandglass said!
Prior to getting sidetracked, I did notice how much I was learning about the life and culture of the times—and I remembered that's exactly what the Sandglass said!
48maisiedotes
I had the opportunity to pick from 18 crates of HP books over the weekend. As I couldn't possibly buy everything, I chose books based on—best paper!
I narrowed the 18 crates down to 1, and am currently waiting for the seller to price the books.
I narrowed the 18 crates down to 1, and am currently waiting for the seller to price the books.
49Django6924
>48 maisiedotes:
Wow! It appears you struck the Mother Lode! Make sure all the books are from the New York period.
Wow! It appears you struck the Mother Lode! Make sure all the books are from the New York period.
50maisiedotes
>49 Django6924: Yes, my choices were all from the New York period. I've come across a couple of Connecticut editions and see what you mean!
Oh, and after putting my hold on a whole crateful of books, I wandered over to a thrift store and found a copy of Thus Spake Zarathustra for $1! There was no Sandglass or slipcase, but the book was perfectly fine and it passed the—paper test!
This will be my introduction to Nietzsche.
Oh, and after putting my hold on a whole crateful of books, I wandered over to a thrift store and found a copy of Thus Spake Zarathustra for $1! There was no Sandglass or slipcase, but the book was perfectly fine and it passed the—paper test!
This will be my introduction to Nietzsche.
51abysswalker
>50 maisiedotes: while I hesitate to pour cold water on any enthusiasm for Nietzsche, the Thomas Common translation (used by both the LEC and HP editions) has a number of shortcomings, so I would be wary of using it as an introduction, both on stylistic and philosophical grounds. Here’s a brief excerpt from a scholarly article discussing various translations (Whitlock, 2016):
Any of the other major translations are good. I find Kaufmann to be sometimes on the emotional side, but he is not without his strengths, and gets credit for being the first major rehabilitator of Nietzsche following the Second World War. While Hollingdale retains some passion, his rendering seems more precise and I imagine he captures Nietzsche’s complex allusions and double meanings more completely. I quite enjoy the recent Parkes translation, which also has the advantage of an attractive Folio Society edition (unfortunately somewhat expensive on the secondary market at the moment). I tend to reach for Hollingdale first.
(My username here, if it is not obvious, is a nod to Nietzsche.)
References
Whitlock, G. (2016). Translating Nietzsche’s Zarathustra into English. CR: The New Centennial Review, 16(3), 59-82.
But a major problem with the Common translation had been his universal employment of biblical style rather than including it solely where it is found in the original. Zarathustra parodied the Bible in his biblical style in some passages, but otherwise he did not speak in a biblical style. … Walter Kaufmann already narrated the context in 1966.And when we look back today, one of the main reasons {that “Nietzsche’s fate in the English-speaking world has been rather unkind”} must be sought in the inadequacies of some of the early translations, particularly of Zarathustra. For one thing, they completely misrepresent the mood of the original—beginning, but unfortunately not ending, with their many unjustified anachronisms. . . . To be sure, Zarathustra abounds in allusions to the Bible, most of them highly irreverent, but just these have been missed for the most part by Thomas Common. His version, nevertheless, was considered a sufficient improvement over Alexander Tille’s earlier attempt to merit inclusion in the “Authorized English Translation of the Complete Works” . . .
Any of the other major translations are good. I find Kaufmann to be sometimes on the emotional side, but he is not without his strengths, and gets credit for being the first major rehabilitator of Nietzsche following the Second World War. While Hollingdale retains some passion, his rendering seems more precise and I imagine he captures Nietzsche’s complex allusions and double meanings more completely. I quite enjoy the recent Parkes translation, which also has the advantage of an attractive Folio Society edition (unfortunately somewhat expensive on the secondary market at the moment). I tend to reach for Hollingdale first.
(My username here, if it is not obvious, is a nod to Nietzsche.)
References
Whitlock, G. (2016). Translating Nietzsche’s Zarathustra into English. CR: The New Centennial Review, 16(3), 59-82.
52Lukas1990
>48 maisiedotes: Now that's an opportunity! I have never bought a book "live", only online.
53maisiedotes
>51 abysswalker: Thank you for the insights. Now I'll know not to hit my head against the wall trying to read and understand every word. I'll keep my eyes open for the other translators.
The allusion in your username was opaque to me, but now I'm a little bit smarter.
I appreciate the willingness of members of this forum to educate—and kindly—fellow devotees.
The allusion in your username was opaque to me, but now I'm a little bit smarter.
I appreciate the willingness of members of this forum to educate—and kindly—fellow devotees.
54maisiedotes
>46 Django6924: I've read up to the end of Part One of Dead Souls (HP) and think I'll leave it at that. Does this coincide with the end of Book 1 in the LEC? Not much has happened!
Yes, the book was funny, and I did enjoy picking up names of the exotic items. On every other page, there would be at least one noun of which I had never heard: droshky, muzhik, Brabant lace, Holland shirts, Hessian jack boots, faïence dishes.
Up next is The Scarlet Letter, which has nice, thick paper and—OLD BOOK SMELL (mmmmm)!
Yes, the book was funny, and I did enjoy picking up names of the exotic items. On every other page, there would be at least one noun of which I had never heard: droshky, muzhik, Brabant lace, Holland shirts, Hessian jack boots, faïence dishes.
Up next is The Scarlet Letter, which has nice, thick paper and—OLD BOOK SMELL (mmmmm)!
55maisiedotes
Oh, and I keep thinking that those money bags on the cover of Dead Souls are cloves of garlic!
56Django6924
>54 maisiedotes:
Part 2 is basically more of the same and no real conclusion. There is an attack on government corruption, but it comes off as mere didacticism. Part 1 is satisfying on its own and I always recommend stopping after we learn what Chichikov's scheme is and the events in his past that drove him to it.
The funniest section is when the town officials go to the landowners from whom Chichikov bought his dead serfs in the hope of making some sense of it, and how they are either berated or driven into confusion by the testimonies they hear, and come away worse-informed.
Part 2 is basically more of the same and no real conclusion. There is an attack on government corruption, but it comes off as mere didacticism. Part 1 is satisfying on its own and I always recommend stopping after we learn what Chichikov's scheme is and the events in his past that drove him to it.
The funniest section is when the town officials go to the landowners from whom Chichikov bought his dead serfs in the hope of making some sense of it, and how they are either berated or driven into confusion by the testimonies they hear, and come away worse-informed.
57maisiedotes
>56 Django6924: Thanks for taking the time to illuminate. I always learn so much from you.
58maisiedotes
>52 Lukas1990: I didn't know about Heritage Press till a year ago. Since joining GMD during the pandemic, reading copious threads, and seeing dozens of pictures online—and now that stores are open again—I've been able to spot HPs on the shelves!
59maisiedotes
I've just finished The Scarlet Letter and it wasn't what I expected. I hadn't read it up till now because I didn't want to deal with adultery, but I can see why it is still taught in high school. The issues live on and are relevant even to teenagers.
My copy has old-book-smell. It is actually quite pleasant. Does anyone else like old-book-smell and have books with it?
My copy has old-book-smell. It is actually quite pleasant. Does anyone else like old-book-smell and have books with it?
60maisiedotes
>18 Django6924: I took your recommendation and bought a Prince today and have started reading it. I last read it 40 years ago!
The Sandglass is III:19. Were there subsequent printings and is this the first? The paper is deliciously thick and I can feel the letterpress. Well, actually, I don't know how to be sure of letterpress. What might the Sandglass say to indicate such?
Unfortunately, I only discovered upon bringing the book home that the front hinge is cracked 2 inches at the top, so I don't dare open the cover all the way. I glued it, but it is still fragile.
>38 kermaier: Just wondering about the photos. How come you can read both sides of the page? Is it the photo or can you see this with the naked eye?
The Sandglass is III:19. Were there subsequent printings and is this the first? The paper is deliciously thick and I can feel the letterpress. Well, actually, I don't know how to be sure of letterpress. What might the Sandglass say to indicate such?
Unfortunately, I only discovered upon bringing the book home that the front hinge is cracked 2 inches at the top, so I don't dare open the cover all the way. I glued it, but it is still fragile.
>38 kermaier: Just wondering about the photos. How come you can read both sides of the page? Is it the photo or can you see this with the naked eye?
61kermaier
>60 maisiedotes:
That’s just because I backlit the page to make the watermark more visible.
That’s just because I backlit the page to make the watermark more visible.
62maisiedotes
>61 kermaier: Ah. I couldn't imagine a quality book looking like that.
63BionicJim
>60 maisiedotes: I purchased a pristine copy of The Prince last year on EBay and the fist time I opened it all the way the cover “snapped” and separate from the spine, held on only by the endpapers. My thought is the leather used on this book went through a process that makes it very brittle.
I brought mine to a binder and they glued it back together. It’s still visible that spine and cover are separated, but it is now fully readable.
I brought mine to a binder and they glued it back together. It’s still visible that spine and cover are separated, but it is now fully readable.
64maisiedotes
>63 BionicJim: Oh my, that would give me a temporary heart attack. It's good to know that that sort of damage is reparable, though. I guess professional binders can do wonders (although I haven't bought anything expensive enough to find out). Thanks for sharing your experience. It's nice to know I'm not alone.
The Sandglass calls the cover "Florentine leather." The quotation marks make me wonder if the material is leather or "leather." It does have leather-smell, though.
The Sandglass calls the cover "Florentine leather." The quotation marks make me wonder if the material is leather or "leather." It does have leather-smell, though.
65Django6924
>64 maisiedotes:
I think the quote marks are a sample of Macy's humor, emphasizing the book is an "a Bodoni book" production; hence the "Florentine lily" gilt ornaments, Bodoni font, and the "Machiavelli Text" paper (I personally am somewhat suspicious that a paper company would have named its product "Machiavelli Text," but, you never know). Florentine leather is genuine leather, mostly used for shoes and handbags these days.
As for the cracking at the hinge, this is often the case with an older book (and your Sandglass is from the first issue, in August, 1954 so it's pushing 67 years) which has been very little used--as in the case of BionicJim's pristine copy. When the binding is very stiff, as in the case of both the LEC and HP editions of The Prince, unless the book is frequently read, the glue usually becomes very brittle (which it does even on a frequently-read book), and the sudden stress of opening the book will crack the join between the free end papers and the pastedowns. It can happen even with cloth bindings, but is more often associated with leather bindings, which have very little give. This is one reason goatskin is a more desirable binding material for books than leathers such as rawhide, as it tends to be more flexible.
ADDENDUM: The Prince was issued subsequently in Series 44 in the early 1980s, during the Connecticut Captivity. I gave my copy away: no leather, alphacellulose paper, and not letterpress.
I think the quote marks are a sample of Macy's humor, emphasizing the book is an "a Bodoni book" production; hence the "Florentine lily" gilt ornaments, Bodoni font, and the "Machiavelli Text" paper (I personally am somewhat suspicious that a paper company would have named its product "Machiavelli Text," but, you never know). Florentine leather is genuine leather, mostly used for shoes and handbags these days.
As for the cracking at the hinge, this is often the case with an older book (and your Sandglass is from the first issue, in August, 1954 so it's pushing 67 years) which has been very little used--as in the case of BionicJim's pristine copy. When the binding is very stiff, as in the case of both the LEC and HP editions of The Prince, unless the book is frequently read, the glue usually becomes very brittle (which it does even on a frequently-read book), and the sudden stress of opening the book will crack the join between the free end papers and the pastedowns. It can happen even with cloth bindings, but is more often associated with leather bindings, which have very little give. This is one reason goatskin is a more desirable binding material for books than leathers such as rawhide, as it tends to be more flexible.
ADDENDUM: The Prince was issued subsequently in Series 44 in the early 1980s, during the Connecticut Captivity. I gave my copy away: no leather, alphacellulose paper, and not letterpress.
66abysswalker
Regarding brittle leather bindings, I recently acquired some Renapur leather balsam, which I have read is good for restoring leather bindings that have become dry. I don't have a lot of personal experience with it yet, but I applied it to a couple leather bindings and it does seem to help. I won't use it on any of my favorite volumes until I have seen it work well over time on some others, but it seems to be one of those products that some people swear by.
Renapur was mentioned in a 2015 Folio Society Devotees conversation, and I think I read about it in a book about caring for bindings as well, though I can't recall the reference at the moment.
Renapur was mentioned in a 2015 Folio Society Devotees conversation, and I think I read about it in a book about caring for bindings as well, though I can't recall the reference at the moment.
67maisiedotes
How does one identify letterpress? Is it a matter of looking at it, in the same way that you know red is red because when you were little, your mother showed you something in that color and said the word?
How does one identify alpha cellulose paper vs. cotton paper?
I'm starting to think I need a book that teaches this.
>65 Django6924: Thanks for the explanatory note about Macy's humor (!). It brought back memories of a l-o-n-g ago sojourn to Florence, where I encountered innumerable leather products aimed at tourists.
Connecticut Captivity, ha!
>66 abysswalker: Keep us posted on the Renapur leather balsam. Thanks for the link to the Folio thread.
How does one identify alpha cellulose paper vs. cotton paper?
I'm starting to think I need a book that teaches this.
>65 Django6924: Thanks for the explanatory note about Macy's humor (!). It brought back memories of a l-o-n-g ago sojourn to Florence, where I encountered innumerable leather products aimed at tourists.
Connecticut Captivity, ha!
>66 abysswalker: Keep us posted on the Renapur leather balsam. Thanks for the link to the Folio thread.
68kdweber
>66 abysswalker: I've been using Renapur on some older, dry leather bindings for a few years (since the 2015 LT discussion) with good results. The books look better and have not been cracking. I haven't noticed any deleterious effects.
69Django6924
>67 maisiedotes: "How does one identify letterpress?"
If the type on the page is indented, which you can feel by lightly rubbing your fingertip across it, or sometimes see if the light is angled to show is shadowed, or by the impression being so forceful it deforms the reverse side of the page--then you know it is letterpress. But if the pressman used a "kiss" impression rather than a "bite," then none of these characteristics may apply. A clue then is the type of paper it is printed on: if the paper has a texture, again discovered by feel, then it is may be letterpress as offset printing usually requires a smooth-surfaced paper.
"How does one identify alpha cellulose paper vs. cotton paper?"
Again, texture is usually the best guide. Alphacellulose papers have little or no surface texture.
If the type on the page is indented, which you can feel by lightly rubbing your fingertip across it, or sometimes see if the light is angled to show is shadowed, or by the impression being so forceful it deforms the reverse side of the page--then you know it is letterpress. But if the pressman used a "kiss" impression rather than a "bite," then none of these characteristics may apply. A clue then is the type of paper it is printed on: if the paper has a texture, again discovered by feel, then it is may be letterpress as offset printing usually requires a smooth-surfaced paper.
"How does one identify alpha cellulose paper vs. cotton paper?"
Again, texture is usually the best guide. Alphacellulose papers have little or no surface texture.
71maisiedotes
I first saw a book with uncut pages only a few years ago. Yesterday, in chapter 3 of Around the World in Eighty Days, I read for the first time about uncut newspapers!
"A flunkey handed him (Phileas Fogg) an uncut Times, which he proceeded to cut with a skill which betrayed familiarity with this delicate operation."
A quick search yielded very little. Has anybody ever seen uncut newspapers? In a museum?
"A flunkey handed him (Phileas Fogg) an uncut Times, which he proceeded to cut with a skill which betrayed familiarity with this delicate operation."
A quick search yielded very little. Has anybody ever seen uncut newspapers? In a museum?
73maisiedotes
>72 Django6924: Thanks, but isn't it mind-boggling that a google search of "uncut newspapers" yields only advertisements and seller listings? There are no historical articles, no wikipedia pages, etc.
This makes me wonder if all or only a few newspapers were printed uncut.
Similarly, were all or only a few books printed uncut?
This makes me wonder if all or only a few newspapers were printed uncut.
Similarly, were all or only a few books printed uncut?
74Django6924
>73 maisiedotes:
Until the mid-19th century, I believe most large newspapers--as opposed to broadsides--were printed uncut for reasons of economy. (I may be wrong about this, as I'm not a newspaper collector.)
Books are printed on large sheets, and until the late 19th century sold with with the signatures sewn (the "text block") and sometimes a binding--usually a temporary binding as the book buyer would have the books re-bound according to his taste and pocketbook. Until fairly recently, books printed in France and other European countries were sold with paper wrapping instead of a hardcover binding and many of these had uncut pages. Incidentally, the "proper" term for books with the pages still joined at the folds of the original printed sheets is "unopened." In modern book production, the folded edges (except in the gutter), are sheared off to make a squared-off edge.
The best resource I know for this minutiae is John Carter's ABC for Book Collectors. It's a very entertaining read.
Until the mid-19th century, I believe most large newspapers--as opposed to broadsides--were printed uncut for reasons of economy. (I may be wrong about this, as I'm not a newspaper collector.)
Books are printed on large sheets, and until the late 19th century sold with with the signatures sewn (the "text block") and sometimes a binding--usually a temporary binding as the book buyer would have the books re-bound according to his taste and pocketbook. Until fairly recently, books printed in France and other European countries were sold with paper wrapping instead of a hardcover binding and many of these had uncut pages. Incidentally, the "proper" term for books with the pages still joined at the folds of the original printed sheets is "unopened." In modern book production, the folded edges (except in the gutter), are sheared off to make a squared-off edge.
The best resource I know for this minutiae is John Carter's ABC for Book Collectors. It's a very entertaining read.
75maisiedotes
>74 Django6924: Thanks for suggesting ABC for Book Collectors. It's the first I've heard of this resource, but now that I've looked it up, I see that it's
something of a collectors' Bible.
Is the latest edition (9th edition, 2016) the one most strongly recommended, or is this one of those books where an earlier version might actually be preferable?
something of a collectors' Bible.
Is the latest edition (9th edition, 2016) the one most strongly recommended, or is this one of those books where an earlier version might actually be preferable?
76Django6924
>75 maisiedotes:
I don't know if there are major differences in the editions (mine is the 7th), but with reference works later is usually preferable.
I don't know if there are major differences in the editions (mine is the 7th), but with reference works later is usually preferable.
77Glacierman
>75 maisiedotes: Get the most recent edition as it is more comprehensive.
79maisiedotes
I've just finished reading The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. There is much to appreciate about this HP: beautiful blue marbled boards, laid paper with lines, letterpress. The following passages about the printing business, its equipment, and paper jumped out at me:
"This Bookish Inclination at length determin'd my Father to make me a Printer . . . In 1717 my Brother James return'd from England with a Press & Letters to set up a Business in Boston" (page 17).
-- So, a businessman in the Colonies would journey to England to purchase a press and letters in the way that we buy a computer.
A drunken man who had been ducked . . . took "out of his Pocket a Book which he desir'd I would dry for him. It prov'd to be my old favourite Author Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress in Dutch, finely printed on good Paper with copper Cuts, a Dress better than I had ever seen it wear in its own language" (page 31).
-- I noted the comment about good paper. What are copper cuts?
"Keimer's Printing House I found, consisted of an old shatter'd Press" (page 37).
-- I wonder what the shattered press looked like and how it got that way.
Keimer composed poetry "in the Types directly out of his Head; so there being no Copy, but one Pair of Cases, and the Elegy likely to require all the Letter, no one could help him. I endeavour'd to put his Press . . . into Order fit to be work'd with" (page 37-38).
-- Does this mean that instead of writing the poem on paper first, Keimer picked out the letters and set them on the press directly?
Thoughts and insights are appreciated! I'm learning while waiting for The ABC for Book Collectors.
"This Bookish Inclination at length determin'd my Father to make me a Printer . . . In 1717 my Brother James return'd from England with a Press & Letters to set up a Business in Boston" (page 17).
-- So, a businessman in the Colonies would journey to England to purchase a press and letters in the way that we buy a computer.
A drunken man who had been ducked . . . took "out of his Pocket a Book which he desir'd I would dry for him. It prov'd to be my old favourite Author Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress in Dutch, finely printed on good Paper with copper Cuts, a Dress better than I had ever seen it wear in its own language" (page 31).
-- I noted the comment about good paper. What are copper cuts?
"Keimer's Printing House I found, consisted of an old shatter'd Press" (page 37).
-- I wonder what the shattered press looked like and how it got that way.
Keimer composed poetry "in the Types directly out of his Head; so there being no Copy, but one Pair of Cases, and the Elegy likely to require all the Letter, no one could help him. I endeavour'd to put his Press . . . into Order fit to be work'd with" (page 37-38).
-- Does this mean that instead of writing the poem on paper first, Keimer picked out the letters and set them on the press directly?
Thoughts and insights are appreciated! I'm learning while waiting for The ABC for Book Collectors.
80abysswalker
>79 maisiedotes: re: copper cuts: probably copper plate engravings. A technique for illustration.
81maisiedotes
>60 maisiedotes:
>63 BionicJim:
>66 abysswalker:
>68 kdweber:
This is a question about "leather" covers, which I realize is veering away from my original post about favorite paper.
I've just finished reading Ah, Wilderness!, which quotes from The Ballad of Reading Gaol and The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam—and I'd like to follow the bunny trail.
There is a copy of Reading Gaol (HP) in a local store, but the front joint is cracked a couple of inches. Is the leatherlen liable to keep splitting? Should I try finding a different copy or are they all subject to this weakness?
I foresee further cracking happening to my >60 maisiedotes: Prince despite the most careful handling. As the damage has already begun, I haven't tried Renapur.
>63 BionicJim:
>66 abysswalker:
>68 kdweber:
This is a question about "leather" covers, which I realize is veering away from my original post about favorite paper.
I've just finished reading Ah, Wilderness!, which quotes from The Ballad of Reading Gaol and The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam—and I'd like to follow the bunny trail.
There is a copy of Reading Gaol (HP) in a local store, but the front joint is cracked a couple of inches. Is the leatherlen liable to keep splitting? Should I try finding a different copy or are they all subject to this weakness?
I foresee further cracking happening to my >60 maisiedotes: Prince despite the most careful handling. As the damage has already begun, I haven't tried Renapur.
82maisiedotes
>80 abysswalker: Thanks!
83Django6924
>81 maisiedotes:
My HP Reading Gaol exhibits no signs of cracking. This leather/plastic combination seems to susceptible to many factors:
usage-- the more it has been read and the covers frequently opened, the less likely it seems to be prone to cracking. I've read this about every three years since I acquired it in the early 1980s. My HP Proverbs, on the other hand, showed absolutely no signs of having been read when I got it about 20 years ago, and it cracked about the third time I opened it. Perhaps the act of opening the covers frequently keeps them subtle.
climate-- both of the above books were acquired in Southern California, a very dry climate. My HP Man Without a country was a special offer when I renewed my Heritage Club membership in 1959 when I lived in Kansas City, MO, and I have had it ever since. I have perhaps read it twice, but the covers are still pristine with no evidence of cracking. Since it spent the first 20 years of is existence in a very humid climate, it might be that the moisture in the binding was not dried out and prone to cracking if it had been in a very dry climate.
In conclusion, I would say that the leather/plastic combination used in these HP books is more likely to have this flaw than cloth-bound books, but it is possible to find copies that aren't cracked. I would not bother with a copy that is already cracked.
My HP Reading Gaol exhibits no signs of cracking. This leather/plastic combination seems to susceptible to many factors:
usage-- the more it has been read and the covers frequently opened, the less likely it seems to be prone to cracking. I've read this about every three years since I acquired it in the early 1980s. My HP Proverbs, on the other hand, showed absolutely no signs of having been read when I got it about 20 years ago, and it cracked about the third time I opened it. Perhaps the act of opening the covers frequently keeps them subtle.
climate-- both of the above books were acquired in Southern California, a very dry climate. My HP Man Without a country was a special offer when I renewed my Heritage Club membership in 1959 when I lived in Kansas City, MO, and I have had it ever since. I have perhaps read it twice, but the covers are still pristine with no evidence of cracking. Since it spent the first 20 years of is existence in a very humid climate, it might be that the moisture in the binding was not dried out and prone to cracking if it had been in a very dry climate.
In conclusion, I would say that the leather/plastic combination used in these HP books is more likely to have this flaw than cloth-bound books, but it is possible to find copies that aren't cracked. I would not bother with a copy that is already cracked.
84maisiedotes
>83 Django6924: Thanks for the advice to stay away from the already cracked copy.
I guess I'd better read my Proverbs on a regular basis! It'll be good for the book and good for me!
I guess I'd better read my Proverbs on a regular basis! It'll be good for the book and good for me!
85kdweber
>81 maisiedotes:. My only copy of Reading Gaol is the Heritage edition. Now Robert has me worried as I’ve only read my copy once. My $9 copy is in Fine condition with the original glassine, though the slipcase is a bit worn. I’ve never treated the cover with anything. Though not a big fan of faux leather, I’ve always thought this binding worked well for this title. I’d steer away from any cracked binding.
87maisiedotes
>19 BuzzBuzzard: Sorry, somehow I missed this post back in May, but came across it today when I did a search for Rubaiyat.
Re: Song of Songs, I'm not sure what Japanese paper is. I don't have the LEC Rubaiyat but I do have the HP Proverbs. Would you say the paper is similar?
Re: Song of Songs, I'm not sure what Japanese paper is. I don't have the LEC Rubaiyat but I do have the HP Proverbs. Would you say the paper is similar?
88BuzzBuzzard
>87 maisiedotes: I don't know because I do not have the HP Proverbs. If I have to guess I would say no. Sandglass 101 LL (in the Drive) refers to it as "Japanese silk paper". Very nice paper!
89Django6924
>87 maisiedotes: >88 BuzzBuzzard:
The HP Proverbs uses a mostly rag paper made by the Mohawk Paper Mills in New York. It is a very fine paper and though thin, it is very tough.
The paper used for the HP Song of Songs is similar to the Proverbs paper in that is thin and very tough. It was imported from Japan and though it is called "Japanese silk paper," it isn't actually made from silk but rather from the silkworm's favorite diet, kozo, the fibers of the mulberry plant. I have a friend who makes marbled paper and her favorite paper to use is washi, which is 75% mulberry, because of the toughness of the paper and its ability to hold the color swirls without them bleeding into the adjacent fibers. Her washi papers feel very much like the paper in the Song of Songs. (I'm qualifying this to the first pre-war HP issue of Song of Songs with the leather binding; later reissues would have probably used an American-made paper.)
The HP Proverbs uses a mostly rag paper made by the Mohawk Paper Mills in New York. It is a very fine paper and though thin, it is very tough.
The paper used for the HP Song of Songs is similar to the Proverbs paper in that is thin and very tough. It was imported from Japan and though it is called "Japanese silk paper," it isn't actually made from silk but rather from the silkworm's favorite diet, kozo, the fibers of the mulberry plant. I have a friend who makes marbled paper and her favorite paper to use is washi, which is 75% mulberry, because of the toughness of the paper and its ability to hold the color swirls without them bleeding into the adjacent fibers. Her washi papers feel very much like the paper in the Song of Songs. (I'm qualifying this to the first pre-war HP issue of Song of Songs with the leather binding; later reissues would have probably used an American-made paper.)
90maisiedotes
>89 Django6924: Inspired by your posts, I took out Proverbs to read last night. The double fold makes turning pages easy! I'm glad to know that the paper, while "thin," is "very tough," although I don't know how I would test the latter without doing possible damage.
91maisiedotes
I just finished reading Green Mansions. This was the LEC I unwittingly bought from a large batch of HPs (mentioned in the Acquisitions thread).
The features I appreciated most about this:
1. The cover. The green swooshes struck me as finger painting, which is one of the few forms of art I have actually done—before I could read chapter books. I was reluctant to name it as such, but after I finished the book, I read the ML, and it IS finger painting!
2. The paper. Though it feels brittle (ML: "it has a pleasing crackle"), it has texture, personality. The page ends thin out like the edges of a fried egg.
Also per the ML: brown, red, and green dye are in the paper. How many of you would have guessed that?
The features I appreciated most about this:
1. The cover. The green swooshes struck me as finger painting, which is one of the few forms of art I have actually done—before I could read chapter books. I was reluctant to name it as such, but after I finished the book, I read the ML, and it IS finger painting!
2. The paper. Though it feels brittle (ML: "it has a pleasing crackle"), it has texture, personality. The page ends thin out like the edges of a fried egg.
Also per the ML: brown, red, and green dye are in the paper. How many of you would have guessed that?
92maisiedotes
Following up on >60 maisiedotes:
I got halfway through The Prince, opening the pages 3 inches at most—like a young girl who doesn't want to crease the spines of her paperback, and craning my neck this way and that—because I didn't want the front joint to crack further. The separation is now about 5 inches long. Sad to say, the back joint now has a one-inch crack!
My next selection was going to be The Jungle, but as that also has a "leather" cover, and the joints look suspiciously creased, I guess I'll buy some Renapur to preempt any damage.
I got halfway through The Prince, opening the pages 3 inches at most—like a young girl who doesn't want to crease the spines of her paperback, and craning my neck this way and that—because I didn't want the front joint to crack further. The separation is now about 5 inches long. Sad to say, the back joint now has a one-inch crack!
My next selection was going to be The Jungle, but as that also has a "leather" cover, and the joints look suspiciously creased, I guess I'll buy some Renapur to preempt any damage.
93maisiedotes
I've just finished reading the HP Rubaiyat and it passes the paper test (i.e. I like it). The "smooth ivory vellum paper, deeply toned" (Sandglass I:36R) is sturdy, and the double sheets make turning the pages very easy (yes, thicker and even easier to turn than the pages in Proverbs).
My favorite picture is the Muezzin. Could some techy devotee suggest an app that will "read" the Arabic word contained in that picture?
My favorite picture is the Muezzin. Could some techy devotee suggest an app that will "read" the Arabic word contained in that picture?
Únete para publicar
