Setting Roller Height

Since the gen­er­al pur­pose of a press is to ink a print­ing sur­face and impress paper against it, roller height has a big part to play in qual­i­ty print­ing. For the small­est print­ers there are the small print­er” approach­es of set­ting large cap­i­tal let­ters in the chase; ink­ing those let­ters and then inspect­ing to see whether the face is inked, and whether ink has been trans­ferred to the beard of the type. The ide­al is to have ful­ly inked the sur­face with a min­i­mum of ink being applied to the beard of the type.

The next stage is to use a roller set­ting gauge. These come in var­i­ous shapes and sizes. We’ll look here are the basic type that most small com­mer­cial print­ers would have. Flat gauges are typ­i­cal­ly a block of met­al machined to 0.918” high with a long han­dle: and have the advan­tage that they tend not to tilt and so skew the results. The aim here is to see a thin film of ink over the sur­face. No ink indi­cates rollers are too high; and ink that has been smeared or left on the sides indi­cates rollers are too low.

Cylin­dri­cal gauges are more com­mon but can tilt when used. The aim here is to see a thin strip of around ⅛th of an inch of ink on the top of the cylin­der.

A fur­ther step to pre­ci­sion was to use a spring-loaded set­ting gauge that includ­ed a dial or mark­er to show how low the rollers were on the machine. I am yet to see one in use!

The Nether­lands Graph­ic Arts Research Insti­tute worked on estab­lish­ing real­is­tic tol­er­ances for let­ter­press mate­ri­als. They sug­gest­ed that type would still print per­fect­ly if it was with­in 0.0008” of 0.918”, and so any efforts to be more pre­cise than that would be a waste.

F C Wal­ter, writ­ing in Print in Britain repeat­ed that he had heard a lec­tur­er stress­ing the need to be with­in an over­all lim­it of 0.0015”, and com­ment­ed that it would work pre­ci­sion and the print­er to death”. He fore­saw that a “…print­er, who has top­pled, drunk with fas­ci­na­tion into pre­ci­sion-land where every­thing is beau­ti­ful but use­less.” He pro­posed an over­all lim­it of 0.0030”. The rea­son­ing was that 0.0015” could be so eas­i­ly dis­rupt­ed by stan­dard print­ing process­es (like plan­ing) that it could not be achieved. In con­text 0.0015” is around ¾ of the thick­ness of a cig­a­rette paper.