From: claude@nickel.laurentian.ca Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Printing press, period or not. Date: 25 Nov 97 12:56:52 -0500 Organization: Laurentian University Lines: 17 Message-ID: <1997Nov25.125652@nickel.laurentian.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: nickel.laurentian.ca Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!news.wildstar.net!newsfeed.inetnebr.com!news.enteract.com!newsfeed.enteract.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!globalcenter1!news.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!torn!penage.cs.laurentian.ca!nickel.laurentian.ca!claude Good day ladies and gents... I am a medieval enthousiast and I enjoy building things of that era. I am presently looking at building a cork-screw type printing press or at least a small version of one. My questions are: 1) Would this type of press be of period ? 2) If so, does anyone know were I could get pictures and/ or diagrams of one ? Thanks in advance for the info. Claude. ###### From: Christian Joachim Hartmann To: claude@nickel.laurentian.ca,lukian@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Printing press, period or not. Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 10:03:13 -0600 Reply-To: lukian@Null.net Message-ID: <880554158.29925@dejanews.com> Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Organization: Deja News Posting Service References: <1997Nov25.125652@nickel.laurentian.ca> X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Nov 26 14:22:40 1997 GMT X-Authenticated-Sender: Christian Joachim Hartmann X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/3.03Gold (Win95; I) X-Originating-IP-Addr: 134.99.128.5 (selene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de) Lines: 57 Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!csulb.edu!news.sgi.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!204.238.120.130!jump.net!grunt.dejanews.com!not-for-mail In article <1997Nov25.125652@nickel.laurentian.ca>, claude@nickel.laurentian.ca wrote: > > Good day ladies and gents... > > I am a medieval enthousiast and I enjoy building things of that era. > > I am presently looking at building a cork-screw type printing press or at > least a small version of one. > > My questions are: 1) Would this type of press be of period ? > > 2) If so, does anyone know were I could get pictures and/ > or diagrams of one ? > > Thanks in advance for the info. > > Claude. Hello Claude, One doesn't know how Gutenberg's printing press or any of the old printing presses looked like. The oldest surviving examples of actual printing presses are about two hundred years later. The same with pictures of printing presses: The first illustrations of printing presses are about hundred years later (approx.). But two considerations convince my that Gutenbergs printing press must have looked like a "cork screw" press you think about: Firstly: As far as we know, there was not important change in any of the printing techniques or tools from the first known samples to well into the 18th century. One has to trust that the genius of Gutenberg had it all worked out so perfectly that his trade or invention wasn't to change until the industrial revolution! Secondly, the simple wood-made printing press you are asking about would have been a pretty natural choice for Gutenberg to take for his new process. It is virtual identical to the wine-presses that were used around Mainz by the wine-farmers. He seems to have adapted the basic design and construction to his special need. -- I would look for a diagram of a printing press in the "Encyclopédie" by Diderot and D'Alembert. They have a section on printing, with the usual copious illustrations. There you can find information that is (a.) pre-modern, i.e. pre-industrial and (b.) very reliable and exact. Christian -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====----------------------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet ###### From: graubart@pacbell.net Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Printing press, period or not. Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 12:34:04 +0000 Organization: Pacific Bell Internet Services Lines: 50 Message-ID: <347C173C.34C2@pacbell.net> References: <1997Nov25.125652@nickel.laurentian.ca> <880554158.29925@dejanews.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-207-214-179-190.irvn11.pacbell.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E-PBME (Macintosh; U; PPC) To: lukian@Null.net Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!news.onenet.net!news.oru.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!4.1.16.34!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news.pbi.net!news.pacbell.net!not-for-mail Greetings good gentles, Christian wrote: >One doesn't know how Gutenberg's printing press or any of the old >printing presses looked like. The oldest surviving examples of actual >printing presses are about two hundred years later. > >The same with pictures of printing presses: The first illustrations >of printing presses are about hundred years later (approx.). > >But two considerations convince my that Gutenbergs printing press >must have looked like a "cork screw" press you think about: > >Firstly: As far as we know, there was not important change in any of >the printing techniques or tools from the first known samples to well >into the 18th century. One has to trust that the genius of Gutenberg >had it all worked out so perfectly that his trade or invention wasn't >to change until the industrial revolution! This sounds like faulty logic to me. We can't know that there were no important changes if we don't know what they looked like. It's extremely unlikely that "Gutenberg had it all worked out perfectly". As we know technology changes at an alarming rate. The printing press shouldn't be any different. Lack of evidence doesn't pass for proof. (Unless you're discussing 'creation science') >Secondly, the simple wood-made printing press you are asking about >would have been a pretty natural choice for Gutenberg to take for his >new process. It is virtual identical to the wine-presses that were >used around Mainz by the wine-farmers. He seems to have adapted the >basic design and construction to his special need. > >I would look for a diagram of a printing press in the "Encyclopédie" >by Diderot and D'Alembert. They have a section on printing, with the >usual copious illustrations. There you can find information that is >(a.) pre-modern, i.e. pre-industrial and (b.) very reliable and >exact. Jost Amman's "Sta:ndebuch" or "Book of Trades" was first published in 1568. (Dover ISBN 0-486-22886-X) It shows a book printer at his press. The press does not look anything like a corkscrew press and the text that goes with the illustration bears this out: The book printer applies the ink, his aide pulls the lever and a sheet is printed; thus many arts become readily accessible; books used to be written by hand; printing was first practiced in Mainz. Dietmar "Victory or Defeat lies in God's hands; over Honor, we ourselves are Lord and Master." ###### From: Marnen Laibow-Koser Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Printing press, period or not. Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 22:15:05 -0500 Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com Lines: 51 Message-ID: <347CE5B4.B74A2247@bigfoot.com> References: <1997Nov25.125652@nickel.laurentian.ca> <880554158.29925@dejanews.com> <347C173C.34C2@pacbell.net> Reply-To: bkoser@bestweb.net NNTP-Posting-Host: 19767@209.94.102.132 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 (Macintosh; U; PPC) Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!news.nodak.edu!netnews3.nwnet.net!netnews.nwnet.net!seatimes.seatimes.com!news.sea.pnap.net!news-ana-24.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!news.rain.org!out1.nntp.min.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!Supernews73!supernews.com!Supernews69!not-for-mail graubart@pacbell.net wrote: [...] > Jost Amman's "Sta:ndebuch" or "Book of Trades" was first published in > 1568. (Dover ISBN 0-486-22886-X) It shows a book printer at his > press. The press does not look anything like a corkscrew press and > the text that goes with the illustration bears this out: > > The book printer applies the ink, his aide pulls the lever and a > sheet is printed; thus many arts become readily accessible; books used > to be written by hand; printing was first practiced in Mainz. That's actually a *summary* of the German text, not an exact translation. The Dover edition of the _Ständebuch_ does not include translations of the German verses. For the record, the original is: Ich bin geschicket mit der preß So ich aufftrag den Firniß reß/ So bald mein dienr den bengel zuckt/ So ist ein bogn papyrs gedruckt. Da durch kombt manche Kunst an tag/ Die man leichtlich bekommen mag. Vor zeiten hat man die bücher gschribn/ Zu Meintz die Kunst ward erstlich triebn. This translates into English approximately as follows: I am the one who works the press To which I apply the varnish [i.e. ink?]; When my assistant pulls the lever, A sheet of paper is printed. Thus many arts come to light And may easily be acquired. Books used to be written [by hand]; The art was first practised in Mainz. > Dietmar > > "Victory or Defeat lies in God's hands; > over Honor, we ourselves are Lord and Master." Just my 2 kreutzer, -- Ze'ev ben-someone-or-other Northpass, Østgardhr, The East mka Marnen Laibow-Koser marnen@bigfoot.com Peekskill, NY, USA ###### From: Christian Joachim Hartmann To: graubart@pacbell.net,lukian@hotmail.com,claude@nickel.laurentian.ca Subject: Re: Printing press, period or not. Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 04:51:19 -0600 Reply-To: lukian@Null.net Message-ID: <880713218.2472@dejanews.com> Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Organization: Deja News Posting Service References: <1997Nov25.125652@nickel.laurentian.ca> <880554158.29925@dejanews.com> <347C173C.34C2@pacbell.net> X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Nov 28 10:33:38 1997 GMT X-Authenticated-Sender: Christian Joachim Hartmann X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/3.03Gold (Win95; I) X-Originating-IP-Addr: 134.99.128.5 (selene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de) Lines: 110 Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!europa.clark.net!208.134.241.18!newsfeed.internetmci.com!204.238.120.130!jump.net!grunt.dejanews.com!not-for-mail In article <347C173C.34C2@pacbell.net>, graubart@pacbell.net wrote: > > Greetings good gentles, > > Christian wrote: > >One doesn't know how Gutenberg's printing press or any of the old > >printing presses looked like. The oldest surviving examples of actual > >printing presses are about two hundred years later. I checked: The two oldest surviving examples are of the 16th century and are to be found in the Plantijn-Moretus-Museum in Antwerp. Well worth a visit! > >The same with pictures of printing presses: The first illustrations > >of printing presses are about hundred years later (approx.). > > > >But two considerations convince my that Gutenbergs printing press > >must have looked like a "cork screw" press you think about: > > > >Firstly: As far as we know, there was not important change in any of > >the printing techniques or tools from the first known samples to well > >into the 18th century. One has to trust that the genius of Gutenberg > >had it all worked out so perfectly that his trade or invention wasn't > >to change until the industrial revolution! > > This sounds like faulty logic to me. We can't know that there were no > important changes if we don't know what they looked like. It's > extremely unlikely that "Gutenberg had it all worked out perfectly". > As we know technology changes at an alarming rate. The printing press > shouldn't be any different. Lack of evidence doesn't pass for proof. > (Unless you're discussing 'creation science') Your right, this is somehow "faulty logic", but it's the only way to do it. I made some research and I found out that things are not as unclear as I thought them to be: The earlies illustration of a printing press is to be found in a "death's dance" cycle made in Lyon in the 1490's. So, there is only a gap of about 40 years to fill. If one compares the printing press illustrated with presses used for similar purposes in different crafs, e.g. presses for fruit, for wine, for paper production, one can get a pretty definite picture of the original type of printing press. Anyway, with the illustration of ca. 1490, we posses a clear proof for a medieval printing press, be it Gutenberg's or not. To a non-specialist like me, it looks just as all the wooden printing presses of the later centuries. > >Secondly, the simple wood-made printing press you are asking about > >would have been a pretty natural choice for Gutenberg to take for his > >new process. It is virtual identical to the wine-presses that were > >used around Mainz by the wine-farmers. He seems to have adapted the > >basic design and construction to his special need. > > > >I would look for a diagram of a printing press in the "Encyclopédie" > >by Diderot and D'Alembert. They have a section on printing, with the > >usual copious illustrations. There you can find information that is > >(a.) pre-modern, i.e. pre-industrial and (b.) very reliable and >exact. > > Jost Amman's "Ständebuch" or "Book of Trades" was first published in > 1568. (Dover ISBN 0-486-22886-X) It shows a book printer at his > press. The press does not look anything like a corkscrew press and > the text that goes with the illustration bears this out: > > The book printer applies the ink, his aide pulls the lever and a > sheet is printed; thus many arts become readily accessible; books used > to be written by hand; printing was first practiced in Mainz. Yes, that's exactly it! The main principle is that the pressure is generated by turning a screw (I have read that this type is called a worm-screw) with a lever. The screw is turned but for about only 90 degrees. The plate, that applies the pressure to the typecast, moves for only about an inch up and down, but that is enough for pressing the paper onto the type. And I confirm: The illustrations in the "Encyclopédie" represent a type of printing press sufficiently close to those of the previous centuries while having a technical exactness that would enable using them for reconstruction. Another advantage is that the illustrations of the "Encyclopéie" are available in a number of reprints. But there are other near-to-exact illustrations: What I didn't know before, Leonardo da Vinci made some designs for an improved printing press, though it isn't sure whether they were ever executed. He focused of the ergonimical and economical aspects by putting the typecast on an inclined platform, so that the printer would be enabled to put another sheet of paper on the type in less time than before. Christian > Dietmar > > "Victory or Defeat lies in God's hands; > over Honor, we ourselves are Lord and Master." -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====----------------------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet ###### From: seaanmcay@aol.com (SeaanMcAy) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Printing press, period or not. Date: 1 Dec 1997 19:22:10 GMT Lines: 14 Message-ID: <19971201192201.OAA15385@ladder01.news.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com References: <347CE5B4.B74A2247@bigfoot.com> Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!news.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!152.163.199.19!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail I'm slowly learning more about paper and printing, mainly due to my interest in playing-cards. This should be an obvious question, but I'll ask it anyway. I hear Gutenberg's name mentioned all the time, but my understanding is that he was known for movable type (therefore making it much easier to print books), and that the printing press itself was well established by that time. Is there any information that contradicts this statement? I'd also like to know a bit more about the plates. For instance I know that copper plates were used to print cards by the mid 1400s. But when were copper plates first used, and were other types of metals used as well? How many printings could you get from a copper plate, and how hard was it to fix "errors"? Anybody have suggested reading? Seaan McAy Caer Darth; Darkwood; Mists; West (Santa Cruz, CA) mckay_michael@tandem.com or seaanmcay@aol.com ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Printing press, period or not. Date: 02 Dec 1997 03:37:40 +0100 Lines: 99 Message-ID: <7m9oqxl7.fsf@chonsp.franklin.lugs.ch> References: <347CE5B4.B74A2247@bigfoot.com> <19971201192201.OAA15385@ladder01.news.aol.com> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Seaan> This should be an obvious question, but I'll ask it anyway. I hear Gutenberg's name mentioned all the time, but my understanding is that he was known for movable type That is also what I had heard (in shool, about 20 years ago, so consider this mail at best a tertiary (quaternary, ...) source). Seaan> (therefore making it much easier to print books) Printing text pre-Gutenberg required doing wood-cuts. That is using a wood plate per page and cutting out every single letter by hand. This was only marginally cheaper that handwriting (and lower quality). Therefore restricted to "handout" sheets. Gutenbergs cast metal types replaced the plate. They were "mass produced" (one copper tool per letter needed). This had multiple advantages: - all letters of the same tape (a, b, c) look the same. This makes reading easier. - wood cuts become fuzzy at about 50 copies, useless at 150..200. Modern wood cut artists number their copies, price drops above copy 20! Metal types (mainly lead, but Gutenberg used gold) last 1000+ copies. - text consists of stringing letters, this is faster than cutting. Even if you count casting time (don't forget reuse of types). - spelling errors can be corrected, simply replace a type. Try correcting cut wood (make a hole, insert a peg, cut that). Seaan> and that the printing press itself was well established by that time. Is there any information that contradicts this statement? I can't speak from historical information. But my mundane printing experience (at shool, doing wood cuts (actually linoleum cuts)) shows that no printing press is needed at all for them! Just press the plate (with body weight) onto paper/cloth. Or press paper/cloth (via a piece of wood for even force distribution) onto plate. Or roll paper/cloth onto plate with rolling pin (as used in a kitchen for rolling pastry). So the "Gutenberg printed, so he had a press" formula can't be upheld. Note that he may have had one, but he does not need to have had one. Seaan> I'd also like to know a bit more about the plates. For instance I know that copper plates were used to print cards by the mid 1400s. Copper printing is totally different to wood cut or Gutenberg printing. In wood/Gutenberg you cut away the "white" parts, leaving those to be coloured. This gives the "chunky" appearence of such prints. In copper plate you engrave the plate where there is to be a line. Then apply colour and wipe it back from non-engraved areas (it stays in the "scratches". This gives the "only lines, no solids, they must be hashed" apperance of such prints. Then the paper is applied and pressed (this pushes it into the "scratches", where it sucks out the colour. This printing requires an press, body weight won't do it. Playing card are all lines. And they are pictures, not text. And they are mass produced. So this method would have been used for them as soon as available (they are ideal for it). IMHO this would allow a "copper print cards, so they had press" formula. Seaan> But when were copper plates first used I don't know, my experience is purely mundane printing (and limited and old at that). Anyone else know? > and were other types of metals used as well? Todays artists (such as a shool friends father I visited 15 years ago) use copper or zinc. I assume it to be a price issue, but am not sure. Zinc is (according to a chemistry book I have here) "known in Europe sind the end of the middle ages, in the orient earlier". Can any of the metallurgists give us a better dating? Also relative price Cu <-> Zn? Seaan> How many printings could you get from a copper plate I would assume also 1000+, the same as metal types. There is no real wear and tear involved. Seaan> and how hard was it to fix "errors"? Try to polisch out a scratch from a plate:-) Even if you can I would expect irregular pressure to drop the print quality. I have never tried it, I would leave small errors, and scrap the plate on large ones. So far I know, modern artists sketch first with felt pen. But felt pens are OOP, and I don't know any period substitute. Seaan> Anybody have suggested reading? Sorry, no. -- Neil.Franklin@ccw.ch, http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ for Geek Code, Papernet, Voicenet, PGP public key see http: Any computer, that is running optimally, is outdated; including my 486 ###### From: "Morgan E. Smith" Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Printing press, period or not. Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 08:15:47 -0700 Organization: Calgary Free-Net Lines: 14 Message-ID: <6618op$ah2@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca> References: <347CE5B4.B74A2247@bigfoot.com> <19971201192201.OAA15385@ladder01.news.aol.com> <7m9oqxl7.fsf@chonsp.franklin.lugs.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: mesmith@srv1.freenet.calgary.ab.ca Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII In-Reply-To: <7m9oqxl7.fsf@chonsp.franklin.lugs.ch> Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!News.Vancouver.iSTAR.net!news.istar.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!logbridge.uoregon.edu!scanner.worldgate.com!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!news.ucalgary.ca!srv1.freenet.calgary.ab.ca!mesmith Just as a side-note: Metal wears down a great deal more quickly than wood. The point about cast type is that it can be made fast, cheap and in large quantity. Even centuries after cast-metal movable type had been introduced, the texts were ornamented and bordered by wooden blocks carved with pictorial designs, called "printers flowers", that were made type-height to fit the same press. I don't have my documentation handy, but I have seen screw-type presses in woodcuts dating well before the intro of movable type. Yes, you can hand-press a woodcut, but etching had been in use for some time before Gutenberg, and etching DOES require a press. Morgan the Unknown aka Morgan Smith (print-goddess of the Alberta College of Art and Design) ###### From: Christian Joachim Hartmann To: Neil Franklin ,lukian@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Printing press, period or not. Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 08:44:02 -0600 Reply-To: lukian@Null.net Message-ID: <881072814.31411@dejanews.com> Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Organization: Deja News Posting Service References: <347CE5B4.B74A2247@bigfoot.com> <19971201192201.OAA15385@ladder01.news.aol.com> <7m9oqxl7.fsf@chonsp.franklin.lugs.ch> X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Dec 02 14:26:55 1997 GMT X-Authenticated-Sender: Christian Joachim Hartmann X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/3.03Gold (Win95; I) X-Originating-IP-Addr: 134.99.128.5 (selene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de) Lines: 58 Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!204.238.120.130!jump.net!grunt.dejanews.com!not-for-mail In article <7m9oqxl7.fsf@chonsp.franklin.lugs.ch>, Neil Franklin wrote: > Seaan> and that the printing press itself was well established by that > time. Is there any information that contradicts this statement? > > I can't speak from historical information. But my mundane printing > experience (at shool, doing wood cuts (actually linoleum cuts)) shows > that no printing press is needed at all for them! > > Just press the plate (with body weight) onto paper/cloth. Or press > paper/cloth (via a piece of wood for even force distribution) onto > plate. Or roll paper/cloth onto plate with rolling pin (as used in a > kitchen for rolling pastry). > > So the "Gutenberg printed, so he had a press" formula can't be upheld. > Note that he may have had one, but he does not need to have had one. When printing from woodcuts, be they pictures or 'carven texts' i.e. blockbooks, you don't have to use a press. You are right at that. The easiest method to apply sufficient pressure on the paper is to put the paper onto the inked plate and to rub the back of the paper with, well, a spoon would be enough. But you can't do books like with that 'rubbing printing', for two reasons. First, the ink for printing woodcuts is different from that used and at least developed and perfected by Gutenberg and his followers. When printing from woodcuts - i.e. a wooden surface - you may use water based inks, you may even wet the paper before putting it on the cut. When printing from lead letters - i.e. a metal surface - you use oil based inks. To ensure that this ink sticks on the paper, you really have to press it! Secondly, in European book printing (not in East-Asian one) the paper (rather thick and sturdy) is printed from BOTH sides. You rarely make a woodcut print on both sides of a sheet of paper! If you would print a book by rubbing, you would ruin the front page while printing the back one by rubbing the page just printed! Speaking of historical evidence, the proof of the early printers using presses is the same as if today you would try to distinguish between an older book done by high-relief printing - let's say in the 1960's - and a later impression of that same book done by offset printing: If the single letters have been pressed into the paper they leave a relief on the back. The form of the letter is on a deeper level than the untouched parts of the paper around it. You can see this on all old books, even better on the older for them using thicker paper. > -- > Neil.Franklin@ccw.ch, http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ > for Geek Code, Papernet, Voicenet, PGP public key see http: > Any computer, that is running optimally, is outdated; including my 486 -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====----------------------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet ###### From: caxv@storm.ca (Rick Cavasin) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Printing press, period or not. Date: 2 Dec 1997 13:40:04 GMT Organization: Handmade Parchment and Vellum Lines: 52 Distribution: world Message-ID: <66133k$spt@bmerhc5e.bnr.ca> References: <347CE5B4.B74A2247@bigfoot.com> <19971201192201.OAA15385@ladder01.news.aol.com> <7m9oqxl7.fsf@chonsp.franklin.lugs.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: bmerh905.bnr.ca Originator: cav@bmerh905 Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!ais.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!199.117.161.1!csn!nntp-xfer-1.csn.net!news.acsu.buffalo.edu!srv1.drenet.dnd.ca!crc-news.doc.ca!nott!bcarh189.bnr.ca!bmerhc5e.bnr.ca!cav |> Printing text pre-Gutenberg required doing wood-cuts. That is using a |> wood plate per page and cutting out every single letter by hand. This |> was only marginally cheaper that handwriting (and lower quality). |> Therefore restricted to "handout" sheets. |> I think I've heard of whole books having been printed this way. There would not have been alot of text, mostly illustrations. The type of book actually has a name 'block books' or 'woodblock books', something like that. |> Gutenbergs cast metal types replaced the plate. They were "mass |> produced" (one copper tool per letter needed). This had multiple |> advantages: |> Actually, he would have had to cut/engrave one steel tool per letter, which he could use to stamp multiple copper matrices (if needed). The copper matrices were then fitted to a mold for casting the type out of lead alloy. |> - all letters of the same tape (a, b, c) look the same. |> This makes reading easier. |> - wood cuts become fuzzy at about 50 copies, useless at 150..200. |> Modern wood cut artists number their copies, price drops above copy 20! |> Metal types (mainly lead, but Gutenberg used gold) last 1000+ copies. I recently read a book on Gutenberg (citation is at home), and it says nothing about Gutenberg having used gold type. The book gets into alot of technical detail about the technology he would have used, and I was paying specific attention to details about the type. Given the way that the Gutenberg bible was printed, he would never have been able to afford to cast the type in gold. There was just too much of it. |> |> So the "Gutenberg printed, so he had a press" formula can't be upheld. |> Note that he may have had one, but he does not need to have had one. |> Given the size of the folios, and the quality of the prints obtained (the Gutenberg bible remains one of technically finest books ever printed), I don't think you can make this argument. Even if you could get that quality of print without a press, consistently for so many pages, on both paper and vellum (a number of the bibles were printed on vellum), I believe there is other documentary evidence for Gutenberg having used a press. I'll have to recheck the book. Cheers, Rick/Balderik email address in header contains a spurious X, included in a futile attempt to foil spammers ###### From: cperry9286@aol.com (CPerry9286) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Printing press, period or not. Date: 2 Dec 1997 14:31:45 GMT Lines: 19 Message-ID: <19971202143100.JAA21282@ladder01.news.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com References: <7m9oqxl7.fsf@chonsp.franklin.lugs.ch> Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!152.163.199.19!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Greatings, The first image of a screw-type printing press is dated 1499 - Artist unknown. About 40 pre-1600 A.D. images exist of these presses, but is apparent that some images are adaptions of prior images. Print evidence shows that the basic form of the screw-type press was set and functional at the begining of the 16th C. and that there were few changes untill the start of the 17th C. In 1507 Jodicus Badius Ascensius (of Paris) produced a print showing the model as used throughout the 16th C. this was a wooden screw driven printing press. In 1511 Albrecht Durer sketched a printer using the "wooden screw type" printing press. It is thought that his sketch is of the press used in the printing office of his godfather Anton Koberger. A print dated 1520 (artist unknown - cannot find the artist's mark) shows a fine example of this press with miscelanious press tools - bodkin, scissors, paste brushes, and the frisket frame. There is a fine example of a period press, in use, at the Scarborough Renfair outside of Dallas, Texas. Scarborough is in May of each year. Thanks, Ld Flavin Memmingen, OS ###### From: t5nf@aol.com (T5NF) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Printing press, period or not. Date: 2 Dec 1997 18:58:54 GMT Lines: 21 Message-ID: <19971202185800.NAA10729@ladder01.news.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com References: <6618op$ah2@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca> Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!newsxfer3.itd.umich.edu!portc01.blue.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail From the book entitled "Writing: The Story of Alphabets and Scripts" ISBN 0-8109-2893-0 by Georges Jean, Harry N.Abrams, Inc., Publishers, NY ( Abrams Discoveries series) Page 93: "The Chinese had been using movable characters since the 11th century A.D. The screw press had also been known for centuries and had been used before Gutenberg's time--for pressing grapes, "surfacing" paper, and impressing patterns on textiles. At the beginning of the 15th century words carved on wooden blocks were being printed on paper to accompany pictures of saints or biblical scenes. But these prints were obtained by placing the sheet on the block of wood and rubbing. Johann Gutenberg of Mainz was the first to mechanize printing in about 1440, and Peter Schoeffer, a friend of Gutenberg's, discovered a method for casting letters, especially those with asymetrical shapes, by using an alloy of lead and antimony." This book has wonderful illustrations as well as a list of books for further reading on the subject. I picked my copy up at Rizzoli in NYC--no this isn't a plug--but I would think that it's available elsewhere. Mine was printed in 1992. ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Printing press, period or not. Date: 03 Dec 1997 02:49:18 +0100 Lines: 50 Message-ID: References: <347CE5B4.B74A2247@bigfoot.com> <19971201192201.OAA15385@ladder01.news.aol.com> <7m9oqxl7.fsf@chonsp.franklin.lugs.ch> <66133k$spt@bmerhc5e.bnr.ca> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 franklin> Gutenbergs cast metal types replaced the plate. They were "mass produced" (one copper tool per letter needed). This had multiple advantages: cavasin> Actually, he would have had to cut/engrave one steel tool per letter, which he could use to stamp multiple copper matrices (if needed). The copper matrices were then fitted to a mold for casting the type out of lead alloy. I did what I should had done yesterday. I have just dug out my old shool history book (Zeiten Menschen Kulturen, II Mittelalter, Lehrmittelverlag Kt ZH, 1976). On page 72 it shows _exactly_ the process as described by you. franklin> Metal types (mainly lead, but Gutenberg used gold) last 1000+ copies. cavasin> and it says nothing about Gutenberg having used gold type. Given the way that the Gutenberg bible was printed, he would never have been able to afford to cast the type in gold. There was just too much of it. I can't find any reference to gold in that book, nor my personal notes. So I assume this was a verbal remark by the teacher, so it may be wrong. The reason given for gold was (if I remember right) that the holy book should only be printed using the most noble materials. Interestingly the above book refers to Gutenberg becoming financially broke in the 1450s due to the "costs of paper and metal". But that could also have happened with lead. Also it says that he was working with loaned money, interestingly from gold (!) smith Johann Fust of Mainz who wanted it back). franklin> the "Gutenberg printed, so he had a press" formula can't be upheld. cavasin> Given the size of the folios, and the quality of the prints obtained (the Gutenberg bible remains one of technically finest books ever printed), I don't think you can make this argument. Even if you could get that quality of print without a press, consistently for so many pages There is a reprint of a page in above book. It is even printed in 2 colour text (needs 2 seperate prints). Super quality. That suggests that he had some form of mechanical help in alligning types and paper. The only picture in the book of a press (screw type, with type setters working in background) is from 1568 from the "Staendebuch des Jost Ammann" already mentioned in this thread (Gutenberg lived 1397-1468). -- Neil.Franklin@ccw.ch, http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ for Geek Code, Papernet, Voicenet, PGP public key see http: Any computer, that is running optimally, is outdated; including my 486 ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Printing press, period or not. Date: 03 Dec 1997 03:04:23 +0100 Lines: 53 Message-ID: References: <347CE5B4.B74A2247@bigfoot.com> <19971201192201.OAA15385@ladder01.news.aol.com> <7m9oqxl7.fsf@chonsp.franklin.lugs.ch> <881072814.31411@dejanews.com> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 franklin> I can't speak from historical information. But my mundane printing experience (at shool, doing wood cuts (actually linoleum cuts)) shows that no printing press is needed at all for them! hartmann> When printing from woodcuts, be they pictures or 'carven texts' i.e. blockbooks, you don't have to use a press. But you can't do books like with that 'rubbing printing', for two reasons. When printing from lead letters - i.e. a metal surface - you use oil based inks. To ensure that this ink sticks on the paper, you really have to press it! Hmm. If I remember right (this was 20..25 years ago) the paint hat a fairly oily texture (it was a modern artists paint, came from a tube). Does water based paint also look oily, or was this oil based? We had no problems with paint transfer. But we were printing from linoleum onto cloth (slightly silky looking), would this change the situation? Also we first did proof prints onto a thin matte rough type of paper, they were also good. franklin> Just press the plate (with body weight) onto paper/cloth. Or press paper/cloth (via a piece of wood for even force distribution) onto plate. Or roll paper/cloth onto plate with rolling pin (as used in a kitchen for rolling pastry). hartmann> You rarely make a woodcut print on both sides of a sheet of paper! If you would print a book by rubbing, you would ruin the front page while printing the back one by rubbing the page just printed! Those prints were all single sided. You refer to rubbing off the 1st side print. Would the plate/roller I suggested for even force distribution not prevent this? Or would it attract paint from one print and super-impose that onto the next print (that would make it useless)? hartmann> Speaking of historical evidence, the proof of the early printers using presses is the same as if today you would try to distinguish between an older book done by high-relief printing That pretty well makes a press mandatory for period type print. Thanks to all who answered (and will still be answering). Also thanks to the (unknown to me) starter of this thread. I think my nascent persona may have just found himself a profession. Neil Franklin, not-yet-SCAdian -- Neil.Franklin@ccw.ch, http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ for Geek Code, Papernet, Voicenet, PGP public key see http: Any computer, that is running optimally, is outdated; including my 486 ###### From: Christian Joachim Hartmann To: Neil Franklin ,lukian@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Printing press, period or not. Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 06:11:49 -0600 Reply-To: lukian@Null.net Message-ID: <881150847.16306@dejanews.com> Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Organization: Deja News Posting Service References: <347CE5B4.B74A2247@bigfoot.com> <19971201192201.OAA15385@ladder01.news.aol.com> <7m9oqxl7.fsf@chonsp.franklin.lugs.ch> <881072814.31411@dejanews.com> X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Dec 03 12:07:28 1997 GMT X-Authenticated-Sender: Christian Joachim Hartmann X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/3.03Gold (Win95; I) X-Originating-IP-Addr: 134.99.128.5 (selene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de) Lines: 68 Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!news-xfer.siscom.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!newsfeed.internetmci.com!204.238.120.130!jump.net!grunt.dejanews.com!not-for-mail In article , Neil Franklin wrote: > franklin> Just press the plate (with body weight) onto paper/cloth. Or press > paper/cloth (via a piece of wood for even force distribution) onto > plate. Or roll paper/cloth onto plate with rolling pin (as used in a > kitchen for rolling pastry). > hartmann> You rarely make a > woodcut print on both sides of a sheet of paper! If you would print a > book by rubbing, you would ruin the front page while printing the back > one by rubbing the page just printed! > > Those prints were all single sided. > > You refer to rubbing off the 1st side print. Would the plate/roller I > suggested for even force distribution not prevent this? Or would it > attract paint from one print and super-impose that onto the next > print (that would make it useless)? I think both - plate and roller - would prevent ruining the first side print. As to the historical context: Using a plate was exactly how those old printer presses worked. If you call them "screw-presses" you are thinking of the method of generating pressure. But these presses are also called "platen-presses", referring to the plate used in contrast to the roller of the rotation presses. Early books weren't printed with the pressure generated by a roller. This is the standard method for copperplates, but I don't know when it was developped. I think, if one tried to press a roll onto a set of type with the pressure needed, the type-set would split into the single letters. > Also thanks to the (unknown to me) starter of this thread. I think my > nascent persona may have just found himself a profession. Try DejaNews to dig him up: or or Reference.com Christian > Neil Franklin, not-yet-SCAdian > > -- > Neil.Franklin@ccw.ch, http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ > for Geek Code, Papernet, Voicenet, PGP public key see http: > Any computer, that is running optimally, is outdated; including my 486 -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====----------------------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet ###### From: "Morgan E. Smith" Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Printing press, period or not. Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 07:54:06 -0700 Organization: Calgary Free-Net Lines: 25 Message-ID: <666g8g$89c@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca> References: <347CE5B4.B74A2247@bigfoot.com> <19971201192201.OAA15385@ladder01.news.aol.com> <7m9oqxl7.fsf@chonsp.franklin.lugs.ch> <881072814.31411@dejanews.com> <881150847.16306@dejanews.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: mesmith@srv1.freenet.calgary.ab.ca Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII In-Reply-To: <881150847.16306@dejanews.com> Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!newsfeed.usit.net!news.he.net!metro.atlanta.com!cssun.mathcs.emory.edu!andromeda.vec.net!news.gs.net!nntp.flash.net!scanner.worldgate.com!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!news.ucalgary.ca!srv1.freenet.calgary.ab.ca!mesmith On Wed, 3 Dec 1997, Christian Joachim Hartmann wrote: > > You refer to rubbing off the 1st side print. Would the plate/roller I > > suggested for even force distribution not prevent this? Or would it > > attract paint from one print and super-impose that onto the next > > print (that would make it useless)? Rolling the ink onto the plate is a fairly recent development in printing. The ink was, for lo these many centuries, put on with a leather/cloth pad in a dabbing method. The point about "platen" presses is well taken. It is true that rolling bed-style presses are also a later development. Flat beds with some form of pressure from the top were still very much in use until the end of the nineteenth century (woodcuts still being used as illustrations in newspapers into the twentieth century would have necessitated this style of press for many printers, although woodcuts and similar printing methods can be adapted for rolling bed presses). At college, we still used a flat-bed press (pressure provided by hydraulics) for woodcuts, linocuts, etc. although we had (count 'em) seven rolling-bed presses for approximately sixty students. Morgan the Unknown ###### From: "david hughes" Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Printing press, period or not. Date: 16 Dec 1997 19:52:23 GMT Organization: Shell Oil Company Lines: 19 Message-ID: <01bd0a5c$6099c0c0$fac4368a@whc2312dh.shell.com> References: <347CE5B4.B74A2247@bigfoot.com> <7m9oqxl7.fsf@chonsp.franklin.lugs.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: 138.54.196.250 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1161 Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!204.71.91.4!snews.shell.com!newsadmin Neil Franklin wrote in article <7m9oqxl7.fsf@chonsp.franklin.lugs.ch>... > > Zinc is (according to a chemistry book I have here) "known in Europe > sind the end of the middle ages, in the orient earlier". Can any of the > metallurgists give us a better dating? Also relative price Cu <-> Zn? > While zinc ores were known in antiquity, used in making brass, metallic brass is usually credited to India in the 13th century, and the first formal write-up of the technique to Marggraf, 1746, as the initial European source. (Hand book of Chemistry and Physics, 55th edition, page B-38). This would suggest that Zinc in sheet form was probably not common in Europe before the 18th century, and would have been much more expensive than copper if encountered. David Gallowglass