Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: engraver's test press

Expand Messages
  • Gerald Lange
    Lisa Yes, you are correct in regard to the Vandercook definition. Though Wilson (and others) have suggested the Vandercook as a possible collotype press, it is
    Message 1 of 5 , Aug 3, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Lisa

      Yes, you are correct in regard to the Vandercook definition.

      Though Wilson (and others) have suggested the Vandercook as a possible
      collotype press, it is not. The better choice is an actual collotype
      press or an iron hand press. Extreme control over ink viscosity and
      roller technique is crucial for the production of collotypes and the
      Vandercook just isn't up for it.

      Gerald


      >
      >
      > In a book about collotype (Wilson), I just read that an engraver's
      proof press is ideal for
      > collotype if you don't have the rubber-blanket type of press. I see
      that Vandercook calls its
      > offerings "engravers' test presses," but I think they probably mean
      presses for photo-
      > engravers, not hand engravers. Because for hand engraving I think
      you would need far
      > more pressure than a V. could give. Am I right about this? But
      then Wilson wrote his book
      > well into the Vandercook era, and he must have known what they
      called themselves, so I
      > can't tell.
      > Thank you,
      > Lisa
      >
    • Lisa Davidson
      Hi, Gerald, Interesting -- so the hand inking required for an iron hand press is actually more exact and reliable than Vandercook mechanical inking . . . .
      Message 2 of 5 , Aug 3, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi, Gerald,

        Interesting -- so the hand inking required for an iron hand press is
        actually more exact and reliable than Vandercook mechanical
        inking . . . . surprising. The Kent Kirby book is very much about
        hand inking too.

        Thanks,

        Lisa


        On Aug 3, 2008, at 9:25 PM, Gerald Lange wrote:

        > Lisa
        >
        > Yes, you are correct in regard to the Vandercook definition.
        >
        > Though Wilson (and others) have suggested the Vandercook as a possible
        > collotype press, it is not. The better choice is an actual collotype
        > press or an iron hand press. Extreme control over ink viscosity and
        > roller technique is crucial for the production of collotypes and the
        > Vandercook just isn't up for it.
        >
        > Gerald
        >
        > >
        > >
        > > In a book about collotype (Wilson), I just read that an engraver's
        > proof press is ideal for
        > > collotype if you don't have the rubber-blanket type of press. I see
        > that Vandercook calls its
        > > offerings "engravers' test presses," but I think they probably mean
        > presses for photo-
        > > engravers, not hand engravers. Because for hand engraving I think
        > you would need far
        > > more pressure than a V. could give. Am I right about this? But
        > then Wilson wrote his book
        > > well into the Vandercook era, and he must have known what they
        > called themselves, so I
        > > can't tell.
        > > Thank you,
        > > Lisa
        > >
        >
        >
        >



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Gerald Lange
        Lisa Well, yes, that has been my experience. You can t be switching out multiple sets of rollers and multiple inks on a Vandercook for one print. Simple as
        Message 3 of 5 , Aug 3, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Lisa

          Well, yes, that has been my experience. You can't be switching out
          multiple sets of rollers and multiple inks on a Vandercook for one
          print. Simple as that. And that is what is required. You would have to
          dispense with the press's roller system altogether. A bit cumbersome to
          adequately hand ink on a Vandercook. Which is not a problem so much as
          the cylinder pressure is. Essentially, its single line pressure is
          inadequate and its singular direction force will tend to rip the
          collotype matrix off of its base. Not so good. You simply can't get the
          kind of uniform pressure required as from an iron hand platen press.

          The Kirby book basically sucks. Or blows. You pick. I can't image how
          you would be able to produce a collotype based solely on that book. Or
          trust the information given in it. We came to the conclusion that Kirby
          had not done multiples and was basically one of those grant track folks.
          There has been previous information posted here regarding the better
          bibliographic sources.

          This is a very difficult process. I have done it (as part of the
          editioning of a book), and am very appreciative of the experience (there
          is none better for informing one about the variances of the printing
          process), but I can state with some certainty, I would never ever do it
          again.

          Gerald
          http://BielerPress.blogspot.com

          Lisa Davidson wrote:
          > Hi, Gerald,
          >
          > Interesting -- so the hand inking required for an iron hand press is
          > actually more exact and reliable than Vandercook mechanical
          > inking . . . . surprising. The Kent Kirby book is very much about
          > hand inking too.
          >
          > Thanks,
          >
          > Lisa
          >
          >
          > On Aug 3, 2008, at 9:25 PM, Gerald Lange wrote:
          >
          >
          >> Lisa
          >>
          >> Yes, you are correct in regard to the Vandercook definition.
          >>
          >> Though Wilson (and others) have suggested the Vandercook as a possible
          >> collotype press, it is not. The better choice is an actual collotype
          >> press or an iron hand press. Extreme control over ink viscosity and
          >> roller technique is crucial for the production of collotypes and the
          >> Vandercook just isn't up for it.
          >>
          >> Gerald
          >>
          >>
          >>> In a book about collotype (Wilson), I just read that an engraver's
          >>>
          >> proof press is ideal for
          >>
          >>> collotype if you don't have the rubber-blanket type of press. I see
          >>>
          >> that Vandercook calls its
          >>
          >>> offerings "engravers' test presses," but I think they probably mean
          >>>
          >> presses for photo-
          >>
          >>> engravers, not hand engravers. Because for hand engraving I think
          >>>
          >> you would need far
          >>
          >>> more pressure than a V. could give. Am I right about this? But
          >>>
          >> then Wilson wrote his book
          >>
          >>> well into the Vandercook era, and he must have known what they
          >>>
          >> called themselves, so I
          >>
          >>> can't tell.
          >>> Thank you,
          >>> Lisa
          >>>
          >>>
          >>
        • Robert Tauber
          Gerald, Lisa, et al. - I learned how to print collotypes from Kent Kirby and have done numerous editions of books and broadsides with many collotypes numbering
          Message 4 of 5 , Aug 4, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Gerald, Lisa, et al. -

            I learned how to print collotypes from Kent Kirby and have done numerous editions of books and broadsides with many collotypes numbering from twenty or so copies to well over one hundred copies using a Vandercook, all with excellent results --- one broadside was a true duotone, utilizing two different hand rollers (soft and hard) with two different viscosity inks (loose and stiff).

            Collotypes are tricky; printing them is much like blowing bubble gum bubbles all day long.

            Bob Tauber
            Logan Elm Press
            614-688-3973
            tauber.1@...


            From: Gerald Lange
            To: PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 2:01 AM
            Subject: Re: [PPLetterpress] Re: engraver's test press


            Lisa

            Well, yes, that has been my experience. You can't be switching out
            multiple sets of rollers and multiple inks on a Vandercook for one
            print. Simple as that. And that is what is required. You would have to
            dispense with the press's roller system altogether. A bit cumbersome to
            adequately hand ink on a Vandercook. Which is not a problem so much as
            the cylinder pressure is. Essentially, its single line pressure is
            inadequate and its singular direction force will tend to rip the
            collotype matrix off of its base. Not so good. You simply can't get the
            kind of uniform pressure required as from an iron hand platen press.

            The Kirby book basically sucks. Or blows. You pick. I can't image how
            you would be able to produce a collotype based solely on that book. Or
            trust the information given in it. We came to the conclusion that Kirby
            had not done multiples and was basically one of those grant track folks.
            There has been previous information posted here regarding the better
            bibliographic sources.

            This is a very difficult process. I have done it (as part of the
            editioning of a book), and am very appreciative of the experience (there
            is none better for informing one about the variances of the printing
            process), but I can state with some certainty, I would never ever do it
            again.

            Gerald
            http://BielerPress.blogspot.com

            Lisa Davidson wrote:
            > Hi, Gerald,
            >
            > Interesting -- so the hand inking required for an iron hand press is
            > actually more exact and reliable than Vandercook mechanical
            > inking . . . . surprising. The Kent Kirby book is very much about
            > hand inking too.
            >
            > Thanks,
            >
            > Lisa
            >
            >
            > On Aug 3, 2008, at 9:25 PM, Gerald Lange wrote:
            >
            >
            >> Lisa
            >>
            >> Yes, you are correct in regard to the Vandercook definition.
            >>
            >> Though Wilson (and others) have suggested the Vandercook as a possible
            >> collotype press, it is not. The better choice is an actual collotype
            >> press or an iron hand press. Extreme control over ink viscosity and
            >> roller technique is crucial for the production of collotypes and the
            >> Vandercook just isn't up for it.
            >>
            >> Gerald
            >>
            >>
            >>> In a book about collotype (Wilson), I just read that an engraver's
            >>>
            >> proof press is ideal for
            >>
            >>> collotype if you don't have the rubber-blanket type of press. I see
            >>>
            >> that Vandercook calls its
            >>
            >>> offerings "engravers' test presses," but I think they probably mean
            >>>
            >> presses for photo-
            >>
            >>> engravers, not hand engravers. Because for hand engraving I think
            >>>
            >> you would need far
            >>
            >>> more pressure than a V. could give. Am I right about this? But
            >>>
            >> then Wilson wrote his book
            >>
            >>> well into the Vandercook era, and he must have known what they
            >>>
            >> called themselves, so I
            >>
            >>> can't tell.
            >>> Thank you,
            >>> Lisa
            >>>
            >>>
            >>





            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.