Tag: Precision

  • Positioning Paper on the Platen

    Positioning Paper on the Platen

    Bob Richardson's Platen Grid
    Bob Richard­son’s Plat­en Grid

    Bob Richard­son’s approach to trou­ble-free posi­tion­ing of stock on your plat­en

    Fol­low­ing on from recent post­ings about lin­ing up items on the plat­en of a press [on the LETPRESS dis­cus­sion list], I thought I’d share my solu­tion. For the last 15 years or so I have used a sheet of ani­ma­tion acetate as a top sheet on the plat­en of my Adana press. It’s obtain­able from art stores, or you can use a sheet of mylar which is more expen­sive.

    Beneath the top sheet is a sim­ple grid, print­ed land­scape’ on my com­put­er. The grid has let­ters along the top and num­bers down the left and right sides. This pro­vides a fool­proof guide to whether the item is straight on the plat­en and also allows me to gauge how far left or right (or up and down) I need to repo­si­tion the item when I’m lin­ing up. The acetate means I can take a pull on the top sheet and posi­tion the card/paper, then wipe off the print with a rag moist­ened with white spir­it. This avoids any set-off on the back of the items when the print run begins. It’s very easy to do and quick to replace.
  • Efficiency and the Small Printer

    Efficiency and the Small Printer

    There are famil­iar themes run­ning through the British Print­er and oth­er con­tem­po­rary mag­a­zines from the last hun­dred or so years of let­ter­press. There are two that intrigue me: pre­ci­sion and effi­cien­cy. This arti­cle looks at effi­cien­cy.

    Background

    It’s easy to dis­miss the large-scale effi­cien­cy dri­ves that the indus­try employed: the Let­ter­press Pro­duc­tiv­i­ty Team Report from an Amer­i­can study trip in the late 1940s advo­cates bet­ter use of line-cast­ing machin­ery; bet­ter indus­tri­al rela­tions; and spe­cial­is­ing in a few small areas rather than be spread too thin­ly as a firm.

    Well before this, the British Print­er ran an arti­cle in 1901 called How to Keep an Ide­al Print­ing Office that cov­ered the use of account­ing sys­tems and some gen­er­al busi­ness advice: again stress­ing the need to do few­er things bet­ter. This was eas­i­er said than done for the small-town job­bing office that might print every­thing from the small­est gents busi­ness card to the local news­pa­per and posters.

    As mod­ern let­ter­press print­ers we can only mar­vel at the efforts that went into lin­ing-up tables’ that were used to posi­tion formes to print tens of pages; or the work involved in elim­i­nat­ing sta­t­ic so that paper would feed bet­ter in to press­es. These all seem to be on an indus­tri­al scale while we work on a craft scale.

    I also won­dered about what a brand-new let­ter­press-only print­ing works would look like: would we take the equip­ment and meth­ods from the past or do more mod­ern tech­niques like lean pro­duc­tion have a role to play? I hope to show the larg­er prin­ci­ples at play and the specifics that we small­er print­ers can use.

    I should add that effi­cien­cy is typ­i­cal­ly a dri­ver to earn more mon­ey. For those of us print­ing for plea­sure, effi­cien­cy is no less impor­tant. My time is lim­it­ed and I val­ue every moment I spend print­ing, so time wast­ed is no less impor­tant to me than the Mas­ter Print­er’ over­see­ing a large firm.

    Identify What Your Customers Want

    It’s easy to say that peo­ple come to us for print­ed arti­cles: it’s more dif­fi­cult to say what makes cus­tomers come to you for them. Using a PC or a web pub­lish­ing house to pro­duce a doc­u­ment is with­in almost every­one’s reach. What are the specifics of my work that are unusu­al? My basic state­ment is this

    My cus­tomers want job­bing work using imag­i­na­tive, unique typog­ra­phy, repro­duced in small runs using a tra­di­tion­al process.

    The impli­ca­tions are clear, but not obvi­ous: I don’t like pro­duc­ing books or mul­ti-paged works; I like to use met­al types; and I like a free rein in terms of design. I should con­cern myself with this pur­pose. Your pur­pose might be dif­fer­ent: you might enjoy work­ing with just a cou­ple of faces; or minia­ture books; or rail­way print­ing.

    This echoes the Pro­duc­tiv­i­ty Team Report that rec­om­mend­ed that UK print­ers should spe­cialise in small­er areas – their expe­ri­ence of US print­ers was that a nar­row field of work led to effi­cien­cy gains.

    It fol­lows from this that any­thing that does not work towards this pur­pose is waste, and the name of the game is to reduce and elim­i­nate waste.

    Waste

    Waste comes in many forms, and the clever peo­ple behind lean pro­duc­tion have iden­ti­fied a num­ber of types of waste to help us look at this. Some are more cru­cial than oth­ers in our let­ter­press world, so I will cov­er those where we can get most ben­e­fit.

    Note: Lean Pro­duc­tion is a devel­op­ment of the Toy­ota Pro­duc­tion Sys­tem that allowed Toy­ota to become the world’s largest car man­u­fac­tur­er while con­strained by resources. It’s been adopt­ed by many indus­tries and is applied in many fields out­side man­u­fac­tur­ing.

    Our usu­al view of waste is a broad and amor­phous idea, but to illus­trate the degree of exam­i­na­tion we should go to, Shi­geo Shin­go point­ed out that only the last turn of a bolt tight­ens it: the oth­er effort is sim­ply move­ment. We need to focus on our pur­pose and look care­ful­ly at each oper­a­tion to see where we can elim­i­nate waste.

    Planning

    The Lean peo­ple call this Muri: the re-work and prob­lems that come from poor plan­ning in the set-up of your print­ing oper­a­tion. Our best exam­ple is the capa­bil­i­ty of our equip­ment. Adana were keen to adver­tise that their press­es (espe­cial­ly the QH) were capa­ble of print­ing every­thing from a chemist­s’s label’ to a poster or mag­a­zine. In real­i­ty these machines are best suit­ed to work of one sheet around 8” x 5” and in small runs. Every print­er has an exam­ple of tak­ing on work that’s just out­side the capa­bil­i­ty of the shop whether that’s in terms of skill, size or vol­ume.

    The advice from 1901 remains:

    …if you can do the busi­ness of your local­i­ty in a cred­itable and sat­is­fac­to­ry man­ner , … you have reached the lit­tle ide­al.”

    Suggestions

    • Have a look at your equip­ment: what are the lim­its on size, impres­sion, feed­ing, ink­ing and so on that should lead you to avoid cer­tain jobs? Draw up a list of lim­its so you don’t accept work in future that will cause you prob­lems
    • Con­sid­er your own skills: cus­tomers might like you to bind their work, but can you real­ly do it? Will you be able to hand-set six pages of 6pt type? At what point will you have to defer to anoth­er expert?

    Think care­ful­ly about mak­ing some per­son­al stan­dards to make work more effi­cient. In larg­er firms it’s pos­si­ble to doc­u­ment detailed process flows and work instruc­tions so that every­one works in the best way pos­si­ble. For the one-man print­er, stan­dard­i­s­a­tion might come in dif­fer­ent guis­es. Recog­nis­ing that let­ter­press print­ing is almost whol­ly non-stan­dard means that these would be guides rather than pre­scrip­tions.

    Suggestions

    • Can you set­tle on a sin­gle paper size or series? The A‑series of papers has the broad­est pos­si­ble appli­ca­tion, but can lead to mod­ern and ano­dyne look­ing work. I’ve been exper­i­ment­ing with a stan­dard 10” x 15” sheet (Crown), and work­ing on mul­ti­ples of that
    • What stock must you car­ry? Will a small­er range of papers in dif­fer­ent weights be suit­able? Must you have many shades?
    • Avoid stan­dar­d­is­ing on types and ink: these are some of the most pre­cious ele­ments of the let­ter­press process and turn­ing out each job in black, Times, A5 will be lit­tle bet­ter than using a PC to do the print­ing!
    • I have thought about set­ting my lay gauges in one place, and using cor­re­spond­ing fur­ni­ture in the chase so that each job starts at a datum: much like the Hei­del­berg. It would mean each job from A6 to A4 always had a top left-hand cor­ner about 6ems from the bot­tom left of the chase.

    Scheduling

    This is about the pipeline of work or flow’. Con­sid­er­ing most print­ers work on many jobs at once, it’s dif­fi­cult to imag­ine a world where each job is com­plet­ed before the next is start­ed, but con­sid­er the advan­tages –

    • The whole capa­bil­i­ty of the works is avail­able to every job: type is not tied up in stand­ing formes; a press is not left with half the run com­plete, block­ing oth­er work; you can con­cen­trate on just one thing
    • You’ll know when some­thing goes wrong: let’s say we leave four jobs stacked up for cor­ner round­ing – then we find the blade needs sharp­en­ing. With those jobs stacked up we are delay­ing four jobs; with a sin­gle stream of work on we are delay­ing one and we know about the prob­lem imme­di­ate­ly.
    • Less space and mon­ey for stock it tied up in jobs that have start­ed but are not yet with the cus­tomer.
    • You can give the cus­tomer your full atten­tion at an agreed point in the future: no more dis­cus­sions about being too busy – you can say they will have your com­plete focus from next Wednes­day and they can expect the com­plet­ed job two days lat­er.
    • You can look at your order book to see to the day when you need more work or when you are tied up: no over­lap­ping of tens of jobs

    Nat­u­ral­ly, there will always be some delay in a sin­gle stream of let­ter­press work. Cus­tomers will want to see proofs of fin­ished arti­cles before a run. Per­haps you could oper­ate a sin­gle flow of work with a sin­gle item out for approval. In terms of waste, our cus­tomer wants to see the proof so this is not wast­ed effort.

    Suggestions

    • Think about the prac­ti­cal­i­ties of one piece flow’. How would your work be affect­ed if you worked on one thing at once? How much space and equip­ment would be freed up?
    • If there are oper­a­tions that you batch up (like num­ber­ing or creas­ing) what can you do to cut the set-up time so that they can be per­formed as part of your work on the job?
    • Is there a rea­son­able num­ber of jobs you could run: per­haps one main job and anoth­er wait­ing for cus­tomer approval? If the cus­tomer delays their approval what can you do to reduce that time: agree a slot for approval? Prepa­ra­tion work for the run while wait­ing for the approval?

    Eliminating Waste: Transport

    While com­plet­ed jobs are in the office, they run the risk of being dam­aged and it delays the cus­tomer get­ting what they want. Estab­lish a rou­tine for despatch­ing fin­ished jobs

    Eliminating Waste: Inventory

    Keep­ing hold of stock is a waste because it ties up space but also mon­ey in some­thing the cus­tomer has not yet paid for. The ide­al is to order stock to meet demand, but no more than that. While it might be real­is­tic for the large print­er with paper mer­chan­t’s accounts and dai­ly deliv­er­ies, the real­i­ty for small­er print­ers means we have to find a hap­py medi­um.

    Take an inven­to­ry of what you have on hand and see whether that can be used for upcom­ing jobs. Run your stocks down to a lim­it­ed lev­el (say to cov­er the next four jobs) and order as lit­tle as pos­si­ble. Main­tain low stock lev­els by keep­ing a record of what has been used; and what will be used for future jobs.

    It’s true that order­ing in bulk will offer dis­counts, but this has to be bal­anced against the cost of stor­age, risk of dam­age and the mon­ey tied up in larg­er stocks.

    Eliminating Waste: Waiting

    Wait­ing is one of the major areas for a small print­er to attack. Run­ning mul­ti­ple jobs at once means jobs often com­pet­ing to use a machine that’s already tied up, or has to bat­tle for space. Con­cen­trat­ing on one job at a time will cut wait­ing dra­mat­i­cal­ly. I’ve men­tioned else­where approach­es to get cus­tomer sign-off on proofs in a rea­son­able time.

    Eliminating Waste: Over-Processing

    I spend a great deal of time adjust­ing my formes once they are on the press. It’s dis­ap­point­ing because this is the worst time to make adjust­ments! I have been exper­i­ment­ing with more pre­cise approach­es to avoid hav­ing to tin­ker at the lat­est stage of the process. Here’s what I’ve learned so far:

    • Using set­ting rules and spe­cial gal­leys to ensure lines are a con­sis­tent length dra­mat­i­cal­ly reduces prob­lems in lock-up. At the very least you should set the mea­sure in the stick and not adjust it while assem­bling the job
    • Set­ting the whole job at once allows me to see that I have enough type and also to send a full proof to the cus­tomer. This does need more type, though, than set­ting a page at a time
    • Using dupli­cate chas­es and fur­ni­ture I’ve been able to set the press once to print on an A5 sheet and then used the same set-up in the dupli­cate chase to avoid hav­ing to re-adjust the press

    Eliminating Waste: Over-Production

    Print­ers’ terms were typ­i­cal­ly geared to a tol­er­ance of 10% in quan­ti­ty, and guid­ance was that around 20% run-on should be added to jobs for the first colour in a two colour run for small­er runs. Think about where you might over pro­duce, and how this can be lim­it­ed. Do you always use that mar­gin when print­ing? If you do, what oth­er steps can you take (see above) to get it right first time?

    Eliminating Waste: Defects

    Final­ly, we might pro­duce work that our cus­tomers sim­ply do not want! How often have you pre­sent­ed a job to the cus­tomer to find they are unhap­py with the colour, types used or approach to the work? Defects like these cause us to repeat our­selves and that is sim­ply waste. Find ways of elim­i­nat­ing defects at each stage of the process: can you send com­put­er proofs of work to them for ear­ly approval; refer to colour charts or prop­er proofs before com­mit­ting to the final job?

    Alter­na­tive­ly we cause defects our­selves when we don’t care for our machines: we might over or under-ink because of bad set­ting; use poor rollers; set the impres­sion incor­rect­ly. It’s pos­si­ble to reduce these by hav­ing some stan­dards, or rules of thumb, to work to.

    The Work Environment

    Quite aside from the wastes above, the small print­ers’ work envi­ron­ment is per­haps the biggest area for improve­ment. I’ve seen print­ers oper­ate in the most oppres­sive of con­di­tions, in one York­shire print works I saw the roof open to the ele­ments (and birds) with some equip­ment cov­ered in plas­tic, no lights in the upper storeys as the wiring had failed, lit­tle or no work­ing space, and hav­ing to use an out­side toi­let. (This, by the way was in 2006, so cer­tain­ly some­thing of a cur­rent phe­nom­e­na.)

    Lean gives us the 5S’s as a way of tack­ling work­place organ­i­sa­tion, and since it’s such a big area I’ll tack­le each one in turn. The cru­cial thing here is that it must be ongo­ing:

    Pos­sess­ing an ide­al [print­ing] office is one thing, and keep­ing it so is anoth­er and far more dif­fi­cult.

    Sort

    With­out excep­tion, each print­ing office I have seen includes some­thing that is bro­ken or oth­er­wise unus­able. It’s easy for onlook­ers to sug­gest every­thing con­nect­ed with let­ter­press is obso­lete or has no place; but even as experts we still have to look crit­i­cal­ly at what we have in our print­ing works.

    Using again our pur­pose, we have to ask whether the things we have direct­ly con­tribute to pro­duc­ing what our cus­tomers want. My list here is of obvi­ous and less obvi­ous things to look at in your office:

    • Bro­ken equip­ment
      There are some things we keep so we have spares that are oth­er­wise unob­tain­able. Keep these if you must but try to do this in an organ­ised way. There’s lit­tle point in keep­ing a full machine, but can you remove and store spares in a tidy and clean way?
    • Unsuit­ed equip­ment
      Con­sid­er­ing the plan­ning of the oper­a­tion, does all your equip­ment flow? Can your stitch­er accom­mo­date the max­i­mum paper size of your press? Can your guil­lo­tine accom­mo­date the sheet size for the press? Think care­ful­ly about which bits of equip­ment are need­ed to pro­duce the work you want: is a cor­ner-round­ing machine use­ful if you only pro­duce books?
    • Incom­plete Founts
      In my sort­ing’, I found that some of the cas­es of type I had trea­sured and used were wor­ry­ing­ly short of some char­ac­ters (low­er case p’, curi­ous­ly). Know­ing I could not use or sal­vage them, I had to melt them down. Have a check of the founts you have and see that they are use­ful. This will avoid say­ing yes to a cus­tomer on look­ing at the case front; but find­ing no way to set the type!

    Straighten

    This is about get­ting every­thing in the right order to help with the move­ment of work in your print­ing office. We think about group­ing (all paper cutting/warehousing etc. togeth­er), but look­ing at the flow, we usu­al­ly need to cut paper at the start of the process and wrap the fin­ished arti­cle at the end. Ide­al­ly, these two activ­i­ties should be at oppo­site ends of the works!

    Sweep and Shine

    The old max­im of a place for every­thing and every­thing in it’s place” is some­thing that eludes most print­ers. I’ve seen seem­ing­ly-pro­duc­tive work­shops in a state of near-chaos but can’t help but think that peo­ple would more enjoy work­ing in tidy con­di­tions. The best work­shops I’ve seen have adopt­ed this prin­ci­ple, and I can sum­marise the approach:

    • All fur­ni­ture either treat­ed (with oil and white spir­it) or paint­ed (black). It might sound oppres­sive, but there’s lit­tle worse than the hor­ri­ble olive green/battleship grey com­bi­na­tions of most met­al cab­i­nets
    • White or light walls and good light­ing
    • Wall boards with nails, so that quoin keys, rulers, rollers etc. can all be stored at eye lev­el on the wall
    • Open spaces (like stones and cab­i­net tops) kept clear

    It’s hard to get to this point, and a lot will depend on hav­ing the space to keep the things you need. Remem­ber that this is achiev­able for most peo­ple but that the dif­fi­cul­ty is in keep­ing this stan­dard up. Make tidy­ing and clean­ing a reg­u­lar part of your rou­tine.

    Standardise

    In some respects, print­ers have always adopt­ed and use stan­dards, like the height-to-paper of 0.918”. In oth­ers, they have allowed mul­ti­ple vari­ants to grow, like case sizes or lay­out, and stor­age. These are pos­si­ble areas for stan­dard­i­s­a­tion:

    • Stor­age
      Con­sid­er adopt­ing just one or two ways of stor­ing type and spac­ing, per­haps one large and one small. Don’t use home-made cas­es. Use a sin­gle size and style of gal­ley
    • Case Lays
      The sheer num­ber of ways of lay­ing type in the case is stag­ger­ing. Think about adopt­ing one lay; and work your way slow­ly through your exist­ing cas­es. This will save time and con­fu­sion when you come to hand-set
    • Paper Size, Posi­tion in the Press
      As men­tioned above, per­haps use a stan­dard paper size and have the press set up so you can work from a known point in the chase and in the press
    • Process­es
      It’s overkill for us to doc­u­ment our process­es in detail, but why not have a list of the sequence of oper­a­tions you’ll use. This will help you keep work­ing on one thing at once; and any improve­ments you make will be record­ed

    Sustain

    This is about keep­ing on top of the oth­er four Ss. It’s not a mat­ter of a spring clean’ to do this: it needs to be con­tin­u­al.

    Summary

    I’ve tried here to sum­marise the 1900s advice; the 1950s research and mod­ern-day man­u­fac­tur­ing prac­tice to help the mod­ern, small, let­ter­press print­er. The the­o­ry of one piece flow, or the 5Ss seems eso­teric; but I hope I have sug­gest­ed actions that will help improve your effi­cien­cy as a print­er, and bring you more plea­sure from the process.

    The advice here dif­fers from the ear­li­er views of the indus­try: we haven’t spo­ken about machine util­i­sa­tion, for exam­ple.

    I’d like to say that my print­ing works is a mod­el made in the mould of effi­cien­cy. It isn’t. But I am work­ing at this, and will update this arti­cle as I learn more. The small steps on the 5Ss, for exam­ple, have giv­en me new pride in the space.

    I hope you can apply some of these things in your let­ter­press enter­prise.

  • Setting Roller Height

    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.

     

  • Applying Precision Techniques

    Applying Precision Techniques

    Pre­ci­sion begins in the com­pos­ing room” was the stan­dard cry from the mak­ers of com­pos­ing room equip­ment. They claimed that with­out this foun­da­tion oth­er work on pre­ci­sion would be wast­ed. A speak­er at a BPMF con­fer­ence – Mr. Philip J Wright of Bris­tol – expressed a slight­ly dif­fer­ent view and I’ll sum­marise it here.

    We do need to be pre­cise in the com­pos­ing room; but this will come to noth­ing if our let­ter­press machines are poor­ly-kept. It takes a lot of repeat­ed effort to get each forme accu­rate for print­ing; but less time to get a press real­ly accu­rate. Mr Wright sug­gest­ed start­ing with the press­es – and not the com­pos­ing room – to get imme­di­ate results. The test was to take an expert­ly pre­cise forme from anoth­er print­er and use your own machine: any ben­e­fits from this effort will be lost with a poor­ly main­tained machine, regard­less of the effort invest­ed in the forme.

    So, get your machine ship-shape first.

    Turn­ing then to the com­pos­ing room, we need to take a sys­tem­at­ic approach to pre­ci­sion – again to secure the great­est imme­di­ate ben­e­fit.

    • Height of Mate­ri­als
      While type high’ means 0.918”, dif­fer­ent ele­ments of a forme will have slight­ly dif­fer­ent heights: type in cas­es; type cast in-house; blocks; mount­ings etc. The first step here is to be able to accu­rate­ly mea­sure the heights of these things and work out the tol­er­ances that you can work with. This might need a com­bi­na­tion of dif­fer­ent approach­es to mak­eready
    • Hor­i­zon­tal Rela­tion­ships between Mate­ri­als
      This is about get­ting every­thing in the right place across the forme. Jack Deller not­ed that wood­en reglet in a 3” square might change shape by any­thing up to 6pts under pres­sure. Lin­ing up tables or draw­ing boards can be used to assure accu­rate posi­tion­ing; but more sim­ple approach­es can give ben­e­fits: using met­al or formi­ca fur­ni­ture in places of wood, for exam­ple.

    Over­all the approach needs to be defined by the type of work. For those using plates a great deal, bet­ter bases might be a quick and effec­tive improve­ment. For those doing mul­ti-colour work, lin­ing up would be crit­i­cal.

    The over­all scheme, though, must be get imme­di­ate improve­ments of one sort or anoth­er and use mul­ti­ple, small steps to get bet­ter results.

  • Full Colour Letterpress Printing

    Full Colour Letterpress Printing

    While most small job­bing print­ers worked in sin­gle- or two-colour work, the pub­lic was keen to see full colour. And although let­ter­press was not the only process that could deliv­er high-qual­i­ty colour work, it was with­in the reach of the medi­um- and larg­er-scale print­ers. The process is the same as mod­ern-day colour print­ing: the orig­i­nal is divid­ed into a num­ber of colours and each colour is print­ed with a dif­fer­ent ink. Just as your mod­ern desk­top com­put­er print­er uses cyan, magen­ta, yel­low and black (CKMY) to cre­ate any giv­en colour; the print­er had to use this approach to get full-colour let­ter­press work. It’s the prac­ti­cal­i­ties of doing this, though, which makes full-colour let­ter­press a dif­fi­cult under­tak­ing: every­thing must be pre­cise and of the best qual­i­ty, for a sin­gle error in one colour can spoil the whole set of print­ed sheets. The advice below is sum­marised from The Art of Let­ter­press Machin­ing by Jack Deller and gives a pic­ture of the state of the art in the late 1950s.

    Colour Blocks – the Engraver’s Art

    The full colour orig­i­nal must be made in to a series of blocks to print each colour sequen­tial­ly. This was a task del­e­gat­ed to the colour engraver, a very spe­cial­ist trade sup­ply­ing the print­ing indus­try. The orig­i­nal would be pho­tographed through a series of coloured fil­ters on to a sen­si­tised sur­face and this would be used as the basis for pro­duc­ing a plate with the rel­e­vant high and low sur­faces for let­ter­press print­ing. The screen would define the res­o­lu­tion’ of the fin­ished image and was orig­i­nal­ly just that: a screen through which the image would be pho­tographed. The finest let­ter­press screens had some­thing like 175 lines to the inch, but this chal­lenged even the best print­ers. Fine work was typ­i­cal­ly run on spe­cial­ist paper at 150 lines to the inch. Each colour plate was pro­duced using a screen at a dif­fer­ent angle so that the dot of ink sat next to each oth­er rather than on top of one anoth­er. The engraver would sup­ply the blocks along with pro­gres­sive proofs, show­ing how the colour image would be built up colour by colour. The colour of each block was typ­i­cal­ly marked on the flange of the met­al plate. If you have full colour blocks to print but no mark­ings then these tips might help: yel­low will be the dens­est of the blocks; black will be the light­est; blue will look like the near­ly fin­ished image and red will be the remain­ing block.

    Preparation: Makeready and Printing Sequence

    Mak­eready is the process of elim­i­nat­ing inequal­i­ties in the forme: this is impor­tant so that the whole forme prints with even pres­sure and so pro­duces the best result. It’s an impor­tant step in all let­ter­press print­ing, but becomes cru­cial when using halftones and even more so when work­ing in colour. As a gen­er­al prin­ci­ple the least pos­si­ble impres­sion should be used and the thinnest film of ink deliv­ered to the plate for print­ing. To achieve this you should use an inter­lay— a series of thin paper sheets between the plate itself and the mount­ing. Use inter­lay for heavy areas but make sure that this does not bring any light areas so high that they will print. To avoid the plate mov­ing around dur­ing print­ing it should be tacked in place with the pins fac­ing towards the cen­tre of the plate. Look­ing at the lock­up, avoid using wood­en fur­ni­ture (which can warp and bend) and lock the block using two quoins on each side (eight in total). This will allow for minute adjust­ments to be made to the posi­tion of the block with­out unlock­ing the whole forme.

    Materials

    The very best papers and ink should be used. Paper should be kept in the press room for a peri­od before print­ing so that the paper is unlike­ly to stretch dur­ing the print­ing process which would dis­tort the sub­se­quent colours. Paper should be trimmed on two edges to the fin­ished size so that reg­is­ter is accu­rate for each sheet. On inks, it is wise to take the man­u­fac­tur­er’s advice based on the paper and screen used. No dri­ers should be used because this would reduce the abil­i­ty of sub­se­quent lay­ers of ink to stick’ to low­er lay­ers. The machine and inks should be fair­ly warm (clos­er to the room tem­per­a­ture) so that it does not cause pick— the tack of the ink pulling the sur­face of the paper away.

    Printing

    The tra­di­tion­al sequence for print­ing in colour was: yel­low, red, blue and black. Exper­i­ments were con­duct­ed in the 1950s to work on a bet­ter sequence and it was found that the best approach was: black, red, blue and yel­low. The rea­sons were: (i) the first colour is dark­er and so can show that the posi­tion of the block is cor­rect, (ii) red shows bet­ter that the film of ink is of the cor­rect thick­ness, and (iii) the key colours are print­ed ear­li­er. Pro­gres­sive proofs should be exam­ined under day­light, rather than flu­o­res­cent or oth­er arti­fi­cial light. Rollers need to be of the best qual­i­ty. Final­ly the dif­fer­ent colours should be print­ed in quick suc­ces­sion so that sub­se­quent colours can take’ on top of the colours under­neath. A gap of three hours is prob­a­bly a good guide. Longer gaps may lead to crys­talli­sa­tion where the vehi­cle or var­nish of the ink is absorbed to the paper, but the pig­ment remains on the sur­face of the paper and can be rubbed off.

  • The Point System

    The Point System

    We use the term point’ today with­out wor­ry­ing just how big it is. We all know that a point is rough­ly 1/72nd of an inch, but at the turn of the cen­tu­ry the point was any­thing but stan­dard. I look here at just how big a point is and how we arrived at this fig­ure. When type­founders were small and spread over the UK it was nat­ur­al that print­ers would use a local foundry. Founders used their own names — and not point sizes — to describe how big their type was. Names like Bre­vi­er (c. 8pt), Eng­lish (c. 14pt) or Great Primer (c. 18pt) were used but the sizes were not stan­dard­ised between founders. You might buy 40lbs of Bre­vi­er type from Miller and Richards in Edin­burgh and find that it would not be the same size as Bre­vi­er type from Stephen­son, Blake in Sheffield. While print­ers used local founders this did not mat­ter too much, but at the turn of the cen­tu­ry when print­ers want­ed to use Amer­i­can types or con­ti­nen­tal types dif­fi­cul­ties arose. At the same time the Met­ric sys­tem was tak­ing hold in con­ti­nen­tal Europe: British founders had to do some­thing. The British Print­er from 1901 ran a series of arti­cles cov­er­ing the dis­cus­sion; and it gives a good insight into the atti­tudes of the dif­fer­ent foundries. The ques­tion was sim­ple: why do British founders not stan­dard­ise on the Amer­i­can Point? The Amer­i­can Point had come into being because the Mackel­lar, Smiths and Jor­dan foundry in the US had joined the Amer­i­can Type­founders Com­pa­ny and they had the largest stock of type and matri­ces. Their point was adopt­ed by the whole group and was embod­ied by a piece of steel with a flat, over­hang­ing strip bolt­ed to the top and bot­tom. This piece of steel was 288pt at 62° and the gap between the two over­hangs meant that the base piece would not wear. The size of one point was defined as 0.01387” or 0.035146cm. The man­ag­er, Mr. Ben­ton, made the remark that the British Stan­dard Point (remem­ber that type was sold by name and not point size) at 1/72nd of an inch was so close to the Amer­i­can Stan­dard that a lit­tle accu­mu­la­tion of dirt would bring the two sizes togeth­er. The feel­ing of the British Print­er was that we should all use the Amer­i­can point. This would mean type, mate­ri­als and oth­er print­ers’ req­ui­sites could all be used inter­change­ably: no doubt that this would be good for the print­er in the long-run. The British Print­er can­vassed opin­ion from the UK founders, and their respons­es illus­trate the per­spec­tives of those firms –

    • Messrs. V & J Fig­gins said: ‘…in our opin­ion there is no prospect of the print­ers adopt­ing any point sys­tem what­ev­er, and those doing so will only add to their dif­fi­cul­ties.’ The BP com­ment­ed only that this quote served a pur­pose by ‘…shew­ing the atti­tude of the foundry’.
    • Stephen­son, Blake said that they were mov­ing to the Amer­i­can Point sys­tem and would — for a time — be run­ning both named sizes and the point sys­tem
    • H. W. Caslon were not­ed as a pro­gres­sive firm’, and said that adopt­ing the sys­tem would be a ‘…great advan­tage’, and they had got this in hand in 1886

    The gen­er­al view was that most UK foundries had adopt­ed a point sys­tem; and most used the Amer­i­can Point. Once all founders moved to the sys­tem, Caslon had said they would ‘…rejoice to know that a great reform has been accom­plished.’

  • Squeeze

    Squeeze

    The word squeeze’ sounds like one of those pass­words that are used by the print­ing world sim­ply to add to the mys­tique of let­ter­press.  It’s true that it has been used in the past by some print­ers to jus­ti­fy some very impre­cise prac­tices.  That said, squeeze is some­thing for print­ers to think about, espe­cial­ly those con­cerned with pre­ci­sion.

    After World War II the gen­er­al dri­ve for greater pro­duc­tiv­i­ty and qual­i­ty meant print­ers need­ed to adopt ever more pre­cise ways of work­ing to avoid prob­lems dur­ing print­ing and also increase the pro­duc­tive hours of each machine.  Where once objects like fur­ni­ture and blocks could be points adrift from their stat­ed size, they now had to be cor­rect.

    Squeeze’ is the term to describe the dif­fer­ence between the length of a line of type as sat in the com­pos­ing stick; and the same line when locked up in a chase ready to print.  The accept­ed view was that a com­pos­i­tor should set type a lit­tle longer than the mea­sure (line length) but the forces of quoins would squeeze the type togeth­er and bring it back to the intend­ed size.

    Know­ing that type met­al itself can­not usu­al­ly be com­pressed, we have to look at what else could cause this phe­nom­e­na –

    • Dirt and oth­er deposits on the walls of type might be com­press­ible
    • Bent spaces might be brought back in to true
    • Type that is not straight in the stick (‘off its feet’) may be cor­rect­ed to an upright posi­tion
    • Basic equip­ment, like the com­pos­ing stick, might be inac­cu­rate

    It fol­lows, then, that if clean new type is used in an accu­rate­ly made and set com­pos­ing stick and the line is prop­er­ly jus­ti­fied then there is no room at all for com­pres­sion and so squeeze is elim­i­nat­ed.  Remem­ber that the pres­sure of the quoins on the spe­cif­ic lines will be around the same as the pres­sure of the com­pos­ing stick ends.

    The prob­lem then becomes how can the line be accu­rate­ly filled’, for the end­less com­bi­na­tions of char­ac­ter widths and stan­dard spaces will always leave some room at the end of a line.  As an exam­ple, a line of 14pt type is set and a gap at the end of the line is too small to be filled with a thick space, and too big to be filled with a mid­dle space.  The dif­fer­ence between the two is 1 and 1/6 of one point.

    Nat­u­ral­ly spaces can­not be made in each pos­si­ble size, so if we are using the pre­ci­sion approach above every line will be short because an irreg­u­lar space will exist at the end of each line.  Our answer now is to make sure that, on aver­age, each line is cor­rect.

    To do this we have to estab­lish a com­mon space: what is the aver­age dif­fer­ence between any two stan­dard sizes of space.  Just how big is the jump between mid and thick; or thin to mid; or mid + thin to nut?

    Sav­ing you the maths, the answer is 7/120ths of an em, and con­vert­ing this to points the aver­age is 7/12th of a point.  That is to say that any giv­en com­bi­na­tion of type and stan­dard spac­ing will be between 7/24th over line length and 7/24th under line length.  We have to fur­ther round this to a usable unit, and the key point is to set your com­pos­ing stick to ½pt over the desired line length.

    To make the best of this, the fol­low­ing points should be observed –

    • Com­pos­ing sticks should be peri­od­i­cal­ly checked for accu­ra­cy
    • Pre­ci­sion, milled, em gauges should be used to set the stick along with a half-point gauge.  All sticks should be set from the same gauges
    • When using type over 14pt, use half-point hair’ spaces
    • Leads should be cut to the line length minus one point
    • Reglet should be used down the sides to pages to take any remain­ing irreg­u­lar­i­ty in jus­ti­fi­ca­tion

    None of these prin­ci­ples apply to Mono­type mat­ter (unless being cor­rect­ed) or Lud­low or Intertype/Linotype slugs as these are cast to pre-defined lengths exact­ly.