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

Re: StormType: Letterpress printed specimen

Expand Messages
  • dewalden05
    It is a shame to see type and paper so abused. J ... anc-mod-amp-re http://www.stormtype.com/typefaces-fonts-shop/books-3- antique-anc-mod-amp-re
    Message 1 of 20 , Sep 20, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      It is a shame to see type and paper so abused.
      J
      ---
      In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, john cornelisse <enkidu@...> wrote:
      >
      > At 12:23 20/09/2006, you wrote:
      >
      > >Did you see this?
      > >
      > ><http://www.stormtype.com/typefaces-fonts-shop/books-3-antique-
      anc-mod-amp-re>http://www.stormtype.com/typefaces-fonts-shop/books-3-
      antique-anc-mod-amp-re
      > >g
      >
      > L.S.
      >
      > It is printed with so much pressure, that the character almost
      > pierced the paper.
      > Just in an attempt to emphasize that it is letterpress.
      >
      > Some 50 years ago, this would be called: 'bad printing'
      >
      > at present days not that much people know a lot of letterpress
      > anymore, so it will do for now.
      >
      > best wishes
      >
      > John Cornelisse
      > John
      >
    • Bill Denham
      John Passage of time does not change standards of excellence, does it? Bill ... L.S. It is printed with so much pressure, that the character almost pierced the
      Message 2 of 20 , Sep 20, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        John

        Passage of time does not change standards of excellence, does it?

        Bill

        john cornelisse <enkidu@...> wrote: At 12:23 20/09/2006, you wrote:

        >Did you see this?
        >
        ><http://www.stormtype.com/typefaces-fonts-shop/books-3-antique-anc-mod-amp-re>http://www.stormtype.com/typefaces-fonts-shop/books-3-antique-anc-mod-amp-re
        >g

        L.S.

        It is printed with so much pressure, that the character almost
        pierced the paper.
        Just in an attempt to emphasize that it is letterpress.

        Some 50 years ago, this would be called: 'bad printing'

        at present days not that much people know a lot of letterpress
        anymore, so it will do for now.

        best wishes

        John Cornelisse
        John






        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Ludwig M. Solzen
        John The specimen shows three baroque types that were digitally revived by Mr Storm, and it was printed, as far as I know, from photopolymer plates. I that
        Message 3 of 20 , Sep 20, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          John



          The specimen shows three baroque types that were digitally revived by Mr
          Storm, and it was printed, as far as I know, from photopolymer plates. I
          that sense, I guess, we should welcome Mr Storm's initiative, if only
          because of his interest in the process we are practicing. Digital foundries
          with an actual concern with letterpress are highly uncommon. Perhaps Mr
          Storm might get even that interested as to pay attention to out needs
          regarding letterpress optimised digital type (thinned stems, ink traps,
          etc.).



          I agree that 50 year ago, at the summit of letterpress, it was unusual to
          print with such pressure. Printed specimens from the Baroque, however, show
          similarly firm impressions; it was this "vintage" or historically authentic
          letterpress look, Mr Storm appropriately tried to achieve with his specimen,
          I grant. However, the copy I received has a rather gentle impression, almost
          "kiss", compared with the showings in his website. I'm afraid to say that it
          has not the same charm.



          Ludwig



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • adstump@comcast.net
          John et List Today, I still call it bad printing . In the day - printers that didn t take the time to do a proper makeready and just added soft packing to
          Message 4 of 20 , Sep 20, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            John et List

            Today, I still call it 'bad printing'.

            In the day - printers that didn't take the time to do a proper makeready and just added soft packing to get the job done were called 'blacksmiths'.

            Regards,

            Allen

            > Some 50 years ago, this would be called: 'bad printing'
            >
            > at present days not that much people know a lot of letterpress
            > anymore, so it will do for now.
            >
            > best wishes
            >
            > John Cornelisse
            > John
            >
            >





            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Jonathan Selikoff
            That looks really nice, and I ll probably buy one, but I just KNOW that Gerald is going to have a fit with all the super deep impression and show-through.
            Message 5 of 20 , Sep 20, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              That looks really nice, and I'll probably buy one, but I just KNOW that
              Gerald is going to have a fit with all the super deep impression and
              show-through. Frankly, it looks a bit much to me too, and I like that
              kind of thing (philistine designer that I am).

              Jon


              Selikoff+Company
              ยป designed to communicate
              201 874 9223
              jon@...
              www.selikoffco.com
            • Scott Rubel
              It is true that many of the older books I own, especially from the 18th century, have deeper impressions than most from the 19th, but I believe that this does
              Message 6 of 20 , Sep 20, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                It is true that many of the older books I own, especially from the 18th
                century, have deeper impressions than most from the 19th, but I believe
                that this does not mean it was considered "good." Even back then it was
                probably a gauche to make two pages fight with each other by printing
                two sides of a sheet so deeply. It was just what was possible/expedient,
                until higher-tech machines made finesse in mass-production more possible.

                I am glad to hear that the actual book is not as distressed as the
                photographs indicate. I even wondered if it could have been simply the
                photography or lighting that gave the effect. If you've ever tried to
                photograph letterpress work, you know even this takes its own type of
                finesse.

                --Scott

                Ludwig M. Solzen wrote:

                >John
                >
                >The specimen shows three baroque types that were digitally revived by Mr
                >Storm, and it was printed, as far as I know, from photopolymer plates. I
                >that sense, I guess, we should welcome Mr Storm's initiative, if only
                >because of his interest in the process we are practicing. Digital foundries
                >with an actual concern with letterpress are highly uncommon. Perhaps Mr
                >Storm might get even that interested as to pay attention to out needs
                >regarding letterpress optimised digital type (thinned stems, ink traps,
                >etc.).
                >
                >I agree that 50 year ago, at the summit of letterpress, it was unusual to
                >print with such pressure. Printed specimens from the Baroque, however, show
                >similarly firm impressions; it was this "vintage" or historically authentic
                >letterpress look, Mr Storm appropriately tried to achieve with his specimen,
                >I grant. However, the copy I received has a rather gentle impression, almost
                >"kiss", compared with the showings in his website. I'm afraid to say that it
                >has not the same charm.
                >
                >Ludwig
                >
              • amyarmato
                Though it doesn t carry through to the rest of the pages displayed, the first image (1 of 5) shown actually uses the impression from the next page as a design
                Message 7 of 20 , Sep 20, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Though it doesn't carry through to the rest of the pages displayed,
                  the first image (1 of 5) shown actually uses the impression from the
                  next page as a design element which I think is quite a nice approach
                  to modern letterpress. Unfortunately based on the rest of the images
                  shown it seems as though it was a happy accident rather than a
                  purposeful choice. Nonetheless it gives me ideas...

                  Amy Armato
                  Armato Design & Press
                  armatodesign.com

                  --- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, Scott Rubel <scott@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > It is true that many of the older books I own, especially from the 18th
                  > century, have deeper impressions than most from the 19th, but I believe
                  > that this does not mean it was considered "good." Even back then it was
                  > probably a gauche to make two pages fight with each other by printing
                  > two sides of a sheet so deeply. It was just what was
                  possible/expedient,
                  > until higher-tech machines made finesse in mass-production more
                  possible.
                  >
                  > I am glad to hear that the actual book is not as distressed as the
                  > photographs indicate. I even wondered if it could have been simply the
                  > photography or lighting that gave the effect. If you've ever tried to
                  > photograph letterpress work, you know even this takes its own type of
                  > finesse.
                  >
                  > --Scott
                  >
                  > Ludwig M. Solzen wrote:
                  >
                  > >John
                  > >
                  > >The specimen shows three baroque types that were digitally revived
                  by Mr
                  > >Storm, and it was printed, as far as I know, from photopolymer
                  plates. I
                  > >that sense, I guess, we should welcome Mr Storm's initiative, if only
                  > >because of his interest in the process we are practicing. Digital
                  foundries
                  > >with an actual concern with letterpress are highly uncommon. Perhaps Mr
                  > >Storm might get even that interested as to pay attention to out needs
                  > >regarding letterpress optimised digital type (thinned stems, ink traps,
                  > >etc.).
                  > >
                  > >I agree that 50 year ago, at the summit of letterpress, it was
                  unusual to
                  > >print with such pressure. Printed specimens from the Baroque,
                  however, show
                  > >similarly firm impressions; it was this "vintage" or historically
                  authentic
                  > >letterpress look, Mr Storm appropriately tried to achieve with his
                  specimen,
                  > >I grant. However, the copy I received has a rather gentle
                  impression, almost
                  > >"kiss", compared with the showings in his website. I'm afraid to
                  say that it
                  > >has not the same charm.
                  > >
                  > >Ludwig
                  > >
                  >
                • Richard Kegler
                  I have heard and tend to believe that the idea of the kiss impression was a later affectation of letterpress trying pass itself off as something as good as
                  Message 8 of 20 , Sep 20, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I have heard and tend to believe that the idea of the "kiss" impression was
                    a later affectation of letterpress trying pass itself off as something as
                    good as (imitative of) the newer offset lithography as if to prove its
                    viability through mechanical precision.

                    I look at a the 1920s handmade paper editions of the Fleuron and see and
                    "feel" Bruce Rogers' ornament impressions in this showcase of fine
                    typography and printing, I would not call it bad printing, but some purists
                    obviously would.

                    No impression into the paper is a technical marvel... but ultimately rather
                    boring. Too heavy can damage type, paper and a good idea. Something in
                    between, to suit the intention of the printer and the reader who likes to
                    feel and smell as well as read his books, should probably be the goal.

                    RK


                    >
                    > Today, I still call it 'bad printing'.
                    >
                    >> Some 50 years ago, this would be called: 'bad printing'
                    >>
                  • Warren Gailbreath, Jr.
                    In looking at the pictures presented I have to practice tolerance for those that wish to express themselves in a different way such as this. Each person that
                    Message 9 of 20 , Sep 20, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      In looking at the pictures presented I have to
                      practice tolerance for those that wish to express
                      themselves in a different way such as this.

                      Each person that views the piece will certainly have
                      varying perspectives on what the designer/printer is
                      trying to express or convey, and that is how it should
                      be.

                      When I see the smashed paper, cracked paper texture
                      from opposing impressions and shadows intermixing with
                      text I think of a person that has been mislead in what
                      I CONSIDER, a well balanced, printed and executed
                      printing of what a letterpress piece should show.

                      I do not know or criticize the people involved in
                      printing this piece but only offer my perspective on
                      what I see and how I interpret it personally.

                      And that is how it should be.

                      Respectfully


                      Warren Gailbreath,Jr.
                      Southwest Finishing, Inc.
                      Ft.Worth, Texas
                    • parallel_imp
                      ... impression was ... something as ... Affectation? That strikes me as as totally absurd. Kiss impression resulted from increasing precision of machinery and
                      Message 10 of 20 , Sep 20, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, Richard Kegler <richard@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > I have heard and tend to believe that the idea of the "kiss"
                        impression was
                        > a later affectation of letterpress trying pass itself off as
                        something as
                        > good as (imitative of) the newer offset lithography as if to prove its
                        > viability through mechanical precision.

                        Affectation? That strikes me as as totally absurd. Kiss impression
                        resulted from increasing precision of machinery and paper,
                        standardized training and--as much as anything else--increasing length
                        of run, but not to imitate offset work. Heavy impression just wears
                        everything out, from plates (long runs were printed from plate not
                        type) to makeready to the presses themselves.
                        Contemporary taste for punch may be acceptable in work with no
                        back-up, like broadsides or greeting cards, but to treat a book-page
                        that way just strains the struggling reader. But then most designers
                        aren't concerned with legibility these days, just in standing out
                        amidst all the other crap fighting for our shortening attention-spans.
                        --Eric Holub, SF
                      • Fritz Klinke
                        I d agree totally with Eric s appraisal. Examples of excellent presswork abound in surviving books and periodicals, like the Inland Printer, that were produced
                        Message 11 of 20 , Sep 20, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I'd agree totally with Eric's appraisal. Examples of excellent presswork abound in surviving books and periodicals, like the Inland Printer, that were produced well before the first commercial offset press ever saw the light of day in about 1906. Any foundry specimen book shows the exquisite work that was considered routine after the advent of better equipment, especially cylinder presses, from the 1880s on. Offset had barely made a dent in printing output by the 1920s, and advances in letterpress continued well into the 1950s. Plate wear and increasing speed of presses dictated that over impression killed press packing and was thus to be avoided, and careful makereadies, often taking hours, were required. When I worked in commercial letterpress in the 1960s, we never considered offset as being a worthy goal to imitate--we just knew we were beaten when it came to color work and speed of sheet fed equipment. We often printed from standing type forms and the longevity of that type was critical--setting type is expensive, why beat it to death?

                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: parallel_imp
                          To: PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com
                          Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 8:13 PM
                          Subject: [PPLetterpress] Re: StormType: Letterpress printed specimen


                          --- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, Richard Kegler <richard@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > I have heard and tend to believe that the idea of the "kiss"
                          impression was
                          > a later affectation of letterpress trying pass itself off as
                          something as
                          > good as (imitative of) the newer offset lithography as if to prove its
                          > viability through mechanical precision.

                          Affectation? That strikes me as as totally absurd. Kiss impression
                          resulted from increasing precision of machinery and paper,
                          standardized training and--as much as anything else--increasing length
                          of run, but not to imitate offset work. Heavy impression just wears
                          everything out, from plates (long runs were printed from plate not
                          type) to makeready to the presses themselves.
                          Contemporary taste for punch may be acceptable in work with no
                          back-up, like broadsides or greeting cards, but to treat a book-page
                          that way just strains the struggling reader. But then most designers
                          aren't concerned with legibility these days, just in standing out
                          amidst all the other crap fighting for our shortening attention-spans.
                          --Eric Holub, SF





                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Gerald Lange
                          Hi All one has to do is look at early twentieth century type specimen books and marvel at not only the precision and clarity of the printing but also the
                          Message 12 of 20 , Sep 20, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hi

                            All one has to do is look at early twentieth century type specimen books
                            and marvel at not only the precision and clarity of the printing but
                            also the relative lack of impression to understand that Eric is right
                            about this. In books of this nature or in any book for that matter the
                            intrusion of an overly developed impression denigrates the printing of
                            the backside page.

                            While it is true that printing on wooden common presses with soft
                            packing required a deeper impression I would suggest that imitating this
                            in an allusive manner (trying to capture the look of "Baroque" printing)
                            somewhat misses the point. When speaking of Baroque one is referring to
                            the typography not the manner in which it was executed. If that is
                            indeed what is going on in the Storm book. While I found the typography
                            and design of the book appealing the brutal impression seemed either
                            amateurish (in terms of bookmaking practice) or was done for effect, to
                            please those for whom impression (and impression alone) conveys the bare
                            essence of letterpress.

                            There is a technical rationale for impression, properly adjusted it
                            facilities exacting ink film lay and pick up. A kiss impression does
                            require all that Eric portrayed. Without these a kiss impression will
                            simply give you a gray color to the page. To increase the color the
                            press operator ends up over inking. In the Storm book it I'd suspect
                            that the paper wasn't dampened and the operator, in an attempt to get
                            proper coverage of the larger letterforms (which was accomplished) on a
                            resistant paper, simply forced the impression to the point where it
                            actually counters the beauty of the type and typography.

                            Impression was seen, historically, as an inescapable problem in the
                            letterpress process, and several notable printers did as much as they
                            could to eliminate the look of it. That today it is the effect is a
                            fashionable choice and one that appeals to clients who see in it, dare I
                            say craft, well, that is what it is. Not all follow this path, not
                            because they do not want to be fashionable or are not willing to submit
                            to the demands of well-healed and uninformed clients but because their
                            concerns ARE based on craft practices and techniques (and those entail
                            far more than impression).

                            Gerald
                            http://BielerPress.blogspot.com
                            > --- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, Richard Kegler <richard@...> wrote:
                            >
                            >> I have heard and tend to believe that the idea of the "kiss"
                            >>
                            > impression was
                            >
                            >> a later affectation of letterpress trying pass itself off as
                            >>
                            > something as
                            >
                            >> good as (imitative of) the newer offset lithography as if to prove its
                            >> viability through mechanical precision.
                            >>
                            >
                            > Affectation? That strikes me as as totally absurd. Kiss impression
                            > resulted from increasing precision of machinery and paper,
                            > standardized training and--as much as anything else--increasing length
                            > of run, but not to imitate offset work. Heavy impression just wears
                            > everything out, from plates (long runs were printed from plate not
                            > type) to makeready to the presses themselves.
                            > Contemporary taste for punch may be acceptable in work with no
                            > back-up, like broadsides or greeting cards, but to treat a book-page
                            > that way just strains the struggling reader. But then most designers
                            > aren't concerned with legibility these days, just in standing out
                            > amidst all the other crap fighting for our shortening attention-spans.
                            > --Eric Holub, SF
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                          • Peter Fraterdeus
                            Depth of impression should be related to the surface being imprinted. The more smooth the surface, reasonably, the lighter the impression. Any other
                            Message 13 of 20 , Sep 21, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Depth of impression should be related to the surface being imprinted.
                              The more smooth the surface, reasonably, the lighter the impression.
                              Any other generalization is akin, is it not?, to clueless
                              pontification. (Of which, one might note, there's been some in the
                              news lately ;-)

                              Thus John Baskerville's fine calendared stocks enabled him to lay the
                              ink on the page overall with a very light touch.

                              However, when working with heavier, rougher stock, then clearly
                              there's a need to increase the maximum depth of the impression.
                              However, as noted here previously, this is done simply to assure that
                              the ink actually reaches the fibers.

                              Or do I detect some sentiment that only the sentimental or amateurish
                              would use such a hearty stock that one would need more than a kiss to
                              send it on its way? Of course, the printer of a lengthy tome would
                              more likely choose a smoother, thinner sheet, but again, it's a
                              question of appropriateness.

                              The embossing in Storm's piece is clearly excessive, but perhaps this
                              is simply marketing. If the book in hand is less banged-up, it may be
                              that, yes, the web photos were designed to emphasize the
                              'impression'... leaving those of us wincing who know what this
                              actually means!

                              Personally, there's nothing I love more than a deep
                              impression...which doesn't emboss the other side of the page. This
                              being done with good paper, proper dampening of the fibers, and a
                              good hard makeready.

                              "Kiss", in my experience is as often the result of haste*, the end,
                              poor coverage and readability, as it is a desirable quality of the
                              end product. While type is expensive, of course, this is a relief
                              printing process, and the honest craft, in my book, any way, doesn't
                              seek to hide this fact by excessive modesty.

                              * Not of those fine printers who desire it, but of the less
                              experienced who don't care to work on the makeready. This is less
                              found these days, obviously, with excessive impression the amateur
                              norm.

                              Most telling, of course, is whether the impression is inked only at
                              the bottom of the well!
                              cf Walter Hamady and similar work

                              PF

                              --
                              AzByCx DwEvFu GtHsIr JqKpLo MnNmOl PkQjRi ShTgUf VeWdXc YbZa&@
                              ARTQ: Help stop in-box bloat! Always Remember to Trim the Quote!

                              Semiotx Inc. http://typeandmeaning.com
                              Web Strategy Consulting Communication Design Typography

                              Peter Fraterdeus http://www.fraterdeus.com http://www.galenaphotos.com
                              Galena, Illinois http://www.alphabets.com
                              Photography Irish Fiddle Political Observation
                              Philosophy Fonts Lettering
                            • Paul Romaine
                              ... letterpress process, and several notable printers did as much as they could to eliminate the look of it.
                              Message 14 of 20 , Sep 21, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                >Impression was seen, historically, as an inescapable problem in the
                                letterpress process, and several notable printers did as much as they
                                could to eliminate the look of it.<

                                I agree with Eric, Fritz and Gerald. I'm not sure when kiss impression
                                became the goal in Anglo-American printing (I'm remembering plenty of
                                examples of 18th C printing with deep impression, especially in the
                                colonies), but I do recall in the two volume Typophiles Chapbook on
                                Theodore Low De Vinne (ed. by C. P. Rollins, 1968), there's an
                                interview with TLD reprinted from Scientific American in which the old
                                man remembers as an apprentice in Newburgh, NY (ca 1850?) running
                                printed sheets through rollers *after* printing to lessen the
                                impression. He does not say if the calendaring was done for bookwork
                                but I'd imagine it was. Lighter impression with better machinery
                                certainly was a goal. By the time of the interview, such machines existed.

                                I also have my suspicions that dislike of Baskerville's printed pages
                                had more to do than just with his calendaring the paper or using types
                                significantly different from Caslon's or Dutch foundries. I wonder if
                                impression might have been at issue too--but this is speculation on my
                                part. (Franklin's letter to Baskerville in the Library of America
                                edition of his writings quotes a critic, but I don't have it handy and
                                it had more to do with appearance.)

                                -Paul
                              • parallel_imp
                                ... [. . .] ... Paul, I got the idea somewhere that Baskerville s shocking method included placing the printed sheets between heated plates to smooth them even
                                Message 15 of 20 , Sep 21, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Romaine" <romaine@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  [. . .]
                                  >I'm not sure when kiss impression
                                  > became the goal in Anglo-American printing (I'm remembering plenty
                                  > of examples of 18th C printing with deep impression, especially in
                                  > the colonies), but I do recall in the two volume Typophiles
                                  > Chapbook on Theodore Low De Vinne (ed. by C. P. Rollins, 1968),
                                  > there's an interview with TLD reprinted from Scientific American in
                                  > which the old man remembers as an apprentice in Newburgh, NY (ca
                                  > 1850?) running printed sheets through rollers *after* printing to
                                  > lessen the impression. He does not say if the calendaring was done
                                  > for bookwork but I'd imagine it was. Lighter impression with better
                                  > machinery certainly was a goal. By the time of the interview, such
                                  > machines existed.
                                  >
                                  > I also have my suspicions that dislike of Baskerville's printed
                                  > pages had more to do than just with his calendaring the paper or
                                  > using types significantly different from Caslon's or Dutch
                                  > foundries.

                                  Paul, I got the idea somewhere that Baskerville's shocking method
                                  included placing the printed sheets between heated plates to smooth
                                  them even more. Or am I just pontificating out of my ***?
                                  Eric Holub, SF
                                • mike day
                                  Eric, You are right. In a book I recently read about the Masters of Letterpress, sorry but I can t remember the title, it stated that Baskerville did just
                                  Message 16 of 20 , Sep 21, 2006
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Eric,

                                    You are right. In a book I recently read about the Masters of Letterpress,
                                    sorry but I can't remember the title, it stated that Baskerville did just
                                    that. As this discussion goes, William Morris started his printing and
                                    publishing business because of his low opinion of the book printing being
                                    done in the late 1800s. I can imagine that depth of impression had something
                                    to do with his reaction.

                                    Mike

                                    On 9/21/06, parallel_imp <Megalonyx@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > --- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com <PPLetterpress%40yahoogroups.com>,
                                    > "Paul Romaine" <romaine@...> wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > [. . .]
                                    > >I'm not sure when kiss impression
                                    > > became the goal in Anglo-American printing (I'm remembering plenty
                                    > > of examples of 18th C printing with deep impression, especially in
                                    > > the colonies), but I do recall in the two volume Typophiles
                                    > > Chapbook on Theodore Low De Vinne (ed. by C. P. Rollins, 1968),
                                    > > there's an interview with TLD reprinted from Scientific American in
                                    > > which the old man remembers as an apprentice in Newburgh, NY (ca
                                    > > 1850?) running printed sheets through rollers *after* printing to
                                    > > lessen the impression. He does not say if the calendaring was done
                                    > > for bookwork but I'd imagine it was. Lighter impression with better
                                    > > machinery certainly was a goal. By the time of the interview, such
                                    > > machines existed.
                                    > >
                                    > > I also have my suspicions that dislike of Baskerville's printed
                                    > > pages had more to do than just with his calendaring the paper or
                                    > > using types significantly different from Caslon's or Dutch
                                    > > foundries.
                                    >
                                    > Paul, I got the idea somewhere that Baskerville's shocking method
                                    > included placing the printed sheets between heated plates to smooth
                                    > them even more. Or am I just pontificating out of my ***?
                                    > Eric Holub, SF
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >



                                    --
                                    Mike Day
                                    Long Day Press
                                    Sunnyvale CA


                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • Peter Fraterdeus
                                    Mike, et al Baskerville is generally credited (although every time I begin a statement like that, some wise academic will set me in my place with more recent
                                    Message 17 of 20 , Sep 21, 2006
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Mike, et al

                                      Baskerville is generally credited (although every time I begin a statement like that, some wise academic will set me in my place with more recent scholarship uncovering letters in the Tzar's library, or some such) with the invention and development of the calendaring process. Which, it seems to me, and after many other disclaimers, is the process of rolling sheets between highly polished rollers... I do seem to recall that he allegedly did so after printing, but from the look of the type on the pages I'd say he may well have rolled 'em twice.

                                      As far as Sir William of Kelmscott, I don't know that he was a fan of kiss impression, so much as of horror vacuii, and also a horror, rightly place of wimpy, awful, spindly pug-ugly type faces made by "designers" who had (ahem) not seen a broad edged pen in seven generations. Baskerville's type is not one of these, but the 19th C was filled with bad knockoffs and worse originals.

                                      In my humble opinion, of course
                                      ;-)

                                      P

                                      At 10:01 AM -0700 21 09 06, mike day wrote:
                                      >Eric,
                                      >
                                      >You are right. In a book I recently read about the Masters of Letterpress,
                                      >sorry but I can't remember the title, it stated that Baskerville did just
                                      >that. As this discussion goes, William Morris started his printing and
                                      >publishing business because of his low opinion of the book printing being
                                      >done in the late 1800s. I can imagine that depth of impression had something
                                      >to do with his reaction.
                                      >
                                      >Mike


                                      AzByCx DwEvFu GtHsIr JqKpLo MnNmOl PkQjRi ShTgUf VeWdXc YbZa&@
                                      ARTQ: Help stop in-box bloat! Always Remember to Trim the Quote!

                                      Semiotx Inc. http://typeandmeaning.com
                                      Web Strategy Consulting Communication Design Typography

                                      Peter Fraterdeus http://www.fraterdeus.com http://www.galenaphotos.com
                                      Galena, Illinois http://www.alphabets.com
                                      --
                                    • wa0dfw@copper.net
                                      As a trained blacksmith, I find the term insulting . (grin) ... From: adstump@comcast.net To: PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [PPLetterpress]
                                      Message 18 of 20 , Sep 21, 2006
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        As a trained blacksmith, I find the term 'insulting'.

                                        (grin)



                                        ---- Original Message ----
                                        From: adstump@...
                                        To: PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com
                                        Subject: Re: [PPLetterpress] StormType: Letterpress printed specimen
                                        Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 19:47:18 +0000

                                        >John et List
                                        >
                                        >Today, I still call it 'bad printing'.
                                        >
                                        >In the day - printers that didn't take the time to do a proper
                                        >makeready and just added soft packing to get the job done were
                                        >called 'blacksmiths'.
                                        >
                                        >Regards,
                                        >
                                        >Allen
                                        >
                                        >> Some 50 years ago, this would be called: 'bad printing'
                                        >>
                                        >> at present days not that much people know a lot of letterpress
                                        >> anymore, so it will do for now.
                                        >>
                                        >> best wishes
                                        >>
                                        >> John Cornelisse
                                        >> John
                                        >>
                                        >>
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        >
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.