Tag Archives: bookbinding equipment

A Mysterious Press

Jennifer Evers sent me this description and images of a mysterious press.  I’m baffled. At first glance it appeared to be some type of foreedge painting jig, but this doesn’t seem right. It also looked a bit like a double fan adhesive press, but not quite. Possibly some type of tooling jig?  The metal edge on the top platen might be for cutting against? The whole press looks owner made.  NB: I would like to buy some handles like these:  they seem great for applying a lot of pressure with one hand, look easy to spin with one finger, and have an attached freely rotating collar to protect the platen surface. Reward offered.

Jennifer writes:

“I recently acquired an unknown piece of bookbinding equipment, and am trying to determine a) what it is, and b) how to use it.  The piece consists of a stationary wooden base with footings on each side. Two long threaded rods are counter-sunk into the base just inside the footings. Each of these rods has a handle that can be cranked down to apply pressure on the platens.

The interior platen is the same size as the base. A small rectangular piece of wood is hinged to the underside on both sides. These hinged pieces can either be flipped down to allow the platen to rest a set distance from the base, or flipped up, to serve an as yet unknown purpose. Two small pieces of wood are adhered to the top of this platen and run parallel to its shorter edge, possibly to serve as jigs.

The exterior platen is the same length as both the interior platen and the base, but only half the width. It is angled at approximately 70 degrees on both of the shorter edges, and has a metal edge recessed into the middle of one of the longer edges. This metal edge does not extend down over the edge of the platen like the edge on a brass-edged board, but lies flush with the board edge.”

***

Mystery Solved!:  This is an early version of the “Digby Stuart Press”.  New versions are still available from Russels. “This is an ideal piece of equipment for the student bookbinder or a person working at home. The Digby Stuart has two main functions:
1. As a nipping press: when the folding flaps are turned down onto the base the lower platen is supported, leaving both hands free to arrange the material to be pressed.
2. Thin books and boards can be trimmed by running a sharp blade along the built-in metal straight edge on the upper platen. A metal plate should be placed beneath the work to protect the surface of the Digby Stuart Press.” Page 10 of their catalogue.

Thanks to Keith Stuckless for this info. Unfortunately, the new handles are much more pedestrian looking….

.

.

A Test of a Book Conservator’s Mechanical Aptitude

This test was taken from Popular Science, December 1942.  There were many puzzles like this one during 1940’s when mechanical aptitude was considered key in winning World War Two.  Because this one features something that looks a lot like a book press, I thought some might be interested.  You might have to turn your monitor upside down to read the answers. 

 

New Stool

Last weekend I purchased a new stool for my studio.  I find stools without wheels much more comfortable than ones with wheels, because they can be used for leaning against while you are working, as well as sitting on.  But except for sewing, some paper repairs and headbanding I tend to stand.  

The stool looks industrial, possibly from the 1920’s and should last at least another century.  The remains of a label are difficult to make out,  “xxxx/ Steel/ Furniture/ Toledo/ USA”  in a center circle, surrounded by “Metal / Furniture/ Quality/ Strength”.  I paid way too much for it, especially since the wood seat was refinished, but admired the graceful curves of its riveted construction, and hadn’t seen one like it before.  The seat is quite comfortable, in part because it is much wider than most modern wooden stools and not as dished out in the center.  It is adjustable by using the lever under it and ball bearings allow it to spin freely.  The foot ring is most likely the most comfortable aspect, since it protrudes outward far enough from the stools legs to allow space for a shoe or to just catch your heal on.

Board Shear Blade: Up or Down

Perhaps on of the most ingrained and contentious habits of bookbinders and conservators is if the leave the blade of the board shear up or down.  Once you are in the habit of leaving it one way of the other, it is virtually impossible to change.  So if you use a board shear please take a second to fill out the poll below and the results will be immediately calculated.  I realize this is perhaps not the most important topic I could be thinking about, but the new poll option was introduced this week on wordpress, so I guess this is a good example of how technology drives and influences content.

THE ARGUMENT FOR LEAVING THE BLADE UP

I confess I fall into this camp.  I find it much faster, when approaching the board shear to be able to immediately able place the material to be cut under the fence, and slide it into place without having to lift the blade first.  Also, when the blade is up, it sticks out less, so there is less of a chance of running into the handle or counterweight, which is a more common injury than cutting yourself on the blade.

THE ARGUMENT FOR LEAVING THE BLADE DOWN

It is dangerous to leave the blade up for two reasons. First, although the blade has a fairly obtuse angle, it is still possible to cut yourself on it, and it just looks dangerous, this long blade sticking up in the air. Second it is more likely that the counterweight could slide off the end (especially if you haven’t drilled through the bar and inserted a bolt) and the weight of the blade would come crashing down on whatever happens to be under it.

18th C. French Folding Sticks

In 18th C. France, what we now call a “bone” or “bone folder”, was called a “folding stick”.  The main purpose was to fold the printed sheets before collating, beating, saw-cutting and sewing.  Folding sticks are also mentioned a few other times for various purposes, including forming the headcap during covering.  Dudin devotes seven plates  and nine text pages describing the folding of everything from a folio to a 128mo. I haven’t had the patience to attempt to follow his written directions for folding, which could well serve as an application to MENSA.  It seems folding and headbanding are the two most difficult binding operations to communicate through writing and drawing. Below is an excerpted sample concerning the folding of a twenty-fourmo:

“The numbers 22 and 23  are carefully aligned with 11 and 14. This section is cut and folded separately; first along the line cd with 19 falling on 18 and 22 on 23, then 20 on 21 , thereby making up the lesser signature of the sheet. The larger signatures are folded like octavo; that is to say, along the line ux with 6 falling on 7 and 3 on 2, then along line yz, with 5 on 4 and 12 on 13 and finally, by following the line ab and matching 8 with 9, the signature A is complete as represented in FIg. 12″ (Dudin 1977, 8)

Later he notes that women either fold the sheets while sitting, with a card board on their knees, or on a table. This is interesting–it is the women, who work while seated, and use their knees, similar to the process of holding a book between their knees for headbanding. Elsewhere he mentions holding the headbanding press in one’s lap as well. These are the only references to using your knees that I can recall in bookbinding literature. I can’t think of any bookbinding procedures or conservation treatments where I use my knees today, except for kneeling to retrieve a book from a bottom shelf.  

This illustration is a detail from Diderot, Plate I. The rule at the bottom is marked “Pieds”  (literally feet), so these folders are gargantuan, the smaller one roughly 16 inches long, and the larger one roughly 22 inches.  This seems a little difficult to believe, especially because they were used for general bookbinding operations as well as folding. The notes just describes them as “Grande & petit plioir.” (Big and little folding stick).    Elsewhere in this illustration a sewing table is pictured, so I think the scale refers to it, not the folding sticks.  If the illustration is to be believed, the big folding stick would be as tall as the uprights on the sewing table.  NB: The piece of wood under the folders is a spacer that fits into the slot on the sewing table to keep the cords from moving around in the large slot.

The folder Dudin pictures, in plate IX, is more like we are accustomed to, smaller in overall length (about 5 inches?), and I believe pointed on one end and rounded on the other.  In the text he describes it as 6-10 inches long, one and a half inches wide, tapered at both ends, one-sixth of an inch thick in the center and one-twelfth of an inch at the ends.  French folding sticks were made from “ordinary wood, ivory, yew, or tortoise-shell” (Dudin 1977, 4) 

I knew who to call to make a reproduction of this– Jim Croft.  He is perhaps the most experienced folder maker in the universe, loves yew, and is a fantastic craftsman.  He sells elk, bison and deer folders direct, and also through TALAS.  

 

Jim made me this beautiful yew wood folder, faithfully following the contemporary descriptions provided by Dudin and Diderot. Idaho has some slow growing trees, and this was no exception.  Each growth ring is less than a millimeter.  I counted between 45-50 in the center section.  Jim also air dries all his wood, so it is more dimensionally stable than kiln dried wood.  The oldest tree is Europe is the Fortingall Yew in Scotland, and the oldest known wooden implement is a yew spear, about 50,000 years old.  Traditionally bows were made from yew.

At first I was worried that the color of the wood might somehow transfer to what I was folding, but that didn’t happen.  I like the lightness and the softness of the wood as compared to bone for some applications– it seems less likely to damage soft paper, for example.  The symmetrical shape makes it easy to pick up and use without having to check which end is which.  It is slightly wider than most bone folders, which makes it more comfortable when folding for extended time periods. The cross-section is symmetrical and fairly flat, again, I found it useful for general smoothing as well as folding. 

When making historical models, I always find it interesting, if possible, to also use actual or reproduction tools from the time period.  It brings us one step closer to recreating not only the book, but the experience of making the book.  Tools have a direct impact in determining the final form that the book takes, and also influence us in the crafting of that book.

 

REFERENCES

Dudin, M. 1977. The Art of the Bookbinder and Gilder. Trans. R. Atkinson.  Leeds, England:The Elmente Press.

Diderot, Denis and Jean le Rond d’Alembert. 1751. Encylopedie ou dictionnaire raisonne des sciences, des arts et des métiers, par une societe de gens de letters.  Paris, David l’aine, le Breton, Durand

An Unusual 18th C. French Headband Press?

I’m very interested in 18th C. French bookbinding structures, techniques and tools. Pictured below is a French headbanding press taken from M. Dudin’s “The Art of the Bookbinder and Guilder”, Plate IX. If anyone has ever seen one of these, please let me know. It is a bit difficult to discern the dimensions, but I would estimate is it around 15 inches long, and the cheeks about 2-3 inches thick.  I have never seen a press like this—the handles are placed somewhat like a wood clamp, so that one end can accommodate the book while it hangs off the table.  Wood clamps, however, thread from either side of the press so they can be grasped by both hands and spun in a circle to rapidly tighten or loosen. The description of the plate states: “Figure 13, the book in position in the headbanding press; C  D, side-pieces of the press;  EE  FF, the screws which tighten it; o, the core of the headband…”  (Dudin 1977, 112)

It is the only traditional press I have seen that clamps the book outside of the screws, and it puts the book in a somewhat precarious position hanging off the edge of the table.  In this illustration, the angle of the press cheeks doesn’t make sense to me- if it is accurate, press cheek D would only make contact with the book around the spine, and the foreedge would gape.  If anything, it would make more sense to clamp the foreedge tightly, and the spine loosely to facilitate passing the needle and sewing thread.  Given the careful attention to detail prevalent in the rest of the illustrations, I am hesitant to dismiss it as a mistake, however.

Since I couldn’t find an example to experiment with, I decided to make a replica.  I purchased a Beale Wood threader kit (available from Lee Valley), and made the press below out of some quarter sawn cherry from upstate NY.  The handles were turned on a small Jet wood lathe, and the cherry cheeks were hand planed with a Stanley #6 with a Hock A2 plane blade.  The press with finished with two coats of boiled linseed oil and lightly sanded with a 320 grit sanding sponge.  A coat of Renaissance wax was then applied. Too thick of a finish on book-presses can interfere with the friction necessary to hold the book steady, and necessitate extreme clamping pressure, especially with this style of press.

The cheeks are 15 inches long, and  2 x 2 3/8″ wide, but they seem quite large in comparison to the engraving. As I was making this, it seemed absurd to make the cheeks smaller– they might deflect when tightened, their small surface area might mark the boards, they might tip side to side or the press could fall off the table. The book in the photo, already headbanded and covered, is about 6″ tall and bound in 18th C. French style.  

The Press is a bit awkward in use, because it is impossible to turn the book around without loosening the press.  And if you lean a hand on the book or end of the press it can start to tip. In the text, Dudin offhandedly mentions that for a single headband the book “…is placed between the knees, or better in a small press… called a headbanding press” (Dudin 1977, 42)  This seems to imply headbands were sewn seated, perhaps while seated at the sewing table? It is the only chair in any of Dudin’s illustrations of the bindery’s interior.  Perhaps this press is intended for larger books, which would be difficult to headband if standing on the table. Or maybe the press gave some support to the book while the bottom rested between the headbanders knees?  If the book were larger and heavier, however, I would really worry that it might tip it off the table. But having the headband at a lower height might explain the unusual method of clamping the book off the edge of the worktable. 

Dudin’s illustration, however, shows the book on a fairly narrow table which is not pictured in the interior of the bindery.   Diderot’s illustrations do not depict a press like this.  All of the other presses pictured, and in Dudin as well, have small handles, scarcely larger than the screw threads, unadorned and unshaped for hand use: a press-pin is used to tighten them.  Small, hand tightened presses for benchtop use are the norm now, a common one being the Dryad Model 1430B  amateur book press, which was sold in the US by Craftool in NY. Could this French headbanding press be a link to our modern, bench top (not tub-based), hand tightened presses? 

So much of craft knowledge has been lost– we are lucky to have Diderot and Dudin’s recording of the 18th C. structures, techniques and tools.  If only I could spend a day in an 18th C. bindery and see for myself!

_

Dudin, M. 1977. The Art of the Bookbinder and Gilder. Trans. R. Atkinson.  Leeds, England:The Elmente Press.

Diderot, Denis and Jean le Rond d’Alembert. 1751. Encylopedie ou dictionnaire raisonne des sciences, des arts et des métiers, par une societe de gens de letters.  Paris, David l’aine, le Breton, Durand.  

 

On April 28, 2008 Richard Minsky added:

 “I have several headbanding presses, including ones

purchased from Rougier & Plé in 1971. They all look like the one in

the drawing, but have the screws closer to the end of the press. I

have never seen one built like the drawing, or used that way.  It

makes no sense.  If the book is clamped as shown how can you put

the needle into the section? I think the drawing is wrong. As you

point out, it can’t really be as shown, with the press closed so

much at the far end and the jaws in contact all along the book.

Unless the book is wedge-shaped.


The press as I was taught to use it is while seated with one end of

the press in the lap and the other on the table, tilting the book

toward you, with the tail of the foredge clamped between the screws

of the press, at an angle. The spine is totally out of the press.”

 

And on April 28, 2008 James Reid-Cunningham added:

“The French finishing press is really rather common over there. Frank Lehman

sells one made by Frank Wiesner in Australia. It is listed on Lehman’s

website as “Peller Finishing Press Inspired by Swiss Master Bookbinder Hugo

Peller, the two press cheeks are extended on one end to hold the book

upright when sewing head-bands.” Hugo really didn’t invent this press, just

popularized it when he was here teaching in the 1980s.”

 

And on April 30, 2008 Frank Lehmann added:

“I use the headbanding press that Hugo Peller/Frank Wiesner developed 

together.  It’s basically a light weight finishing press that has one 

end extended a few extra inches beyond the screw.  

 

It is used just the way that the illustration from Dudin 

shows.  The book is clamped between the outer edges and hangs over the 

bench.  If the book is a heavy one, then all you need to do is put a 

weight on the other end to prevent it from tipping over.  You can 

easily position the book to do the headbanding while seated.  The 

innovation that Peller/Wiesner came up with was to round the cheeks of 

the extension.  This makes it easier to work on small books and 

prevents the silk thread from snagging on the cheeks.

 

I think the error in the illustration is one of visual perspective.  In 

use, the cheeks of the press are pretty close to being parallel.  I 

think the artist got a little bit carried away, trying to make the 

press recede into the background – although he forgot to make the 

cheeks diminish in size.

 

My guess would be that in the 18th Century, French binderies simply 

used finishing presses that had one end slightly extended beyond the 

screw.  That’s one of the nice things about this press – it makes 

headbanding much easier and doubles as a perfectly good finishing 

press.  The English used to use old ploughs to hold the book while 

headbanding.” 

NOTE: The Hugo Peller/Frank Wiesner headbanding press can be purchased from Frank Lehmann:

 

And on May 6, 2008 Tom Conroy added:

“On Dudin’s drawing of the headbanding press, I think

that the closeness of the cheeks at the far end is

perfectly well observed, and indicates the internal

structure of the press.


In the 18th century, a few wooden-screw presses,

vises, etc. had pegs, “garters”, or other keys to make

the near cheek follow the handles when the press was

opened; but most did not. When the screw was run-out

with a non-keyed press, the handles would simply move

out of the near cheek; for the cheeks to separate you

had to push them apart with your hand. If you look at

Dudin’s exploded drawings of presses, ploughs, etc.,

you will (if I remember correctly) see that some of

them show the peg key but most do not. Landis’

“Workbench Book” has information on early French vises

and screws that indicates the same thing, with the

place of the peg taken by a similar scructure called a

“garter”. As late as the end of the 19th century many

wooden-screw woodworkers’ vises were unkeyed.

 

With a non-keyed press, when you place an object

between the jaws but outside the screws, and tighten

the press, the near screw will be active and bear on

the object. However, as you close the far screw it

will have nothing to pull against, and in consequence

the cheeks will skew inward just as is shown in the

drawing; in fact this skewing inward will happen even

if the far screw is not tightened. For comparison, the

two screws in a traditional all-wooden handscrew for

woodworking are superficially very similar to this

press; but one of them pulls on the cheeks to close

the handscrew, while the other pushes on the cheeks to

close it.


It seems to me that the angling-in of the headbanding

press shown by Dudin shows that this was an unkeyed

tool; more, it seems to me that the tool was at this

point in process of evolution from  an unusual use of

a press that coincidentally had extra length beyond

the screws into a special-purpose adaptation.”

 

 

The above comments got me looking again at Plate X from Dudin. (Dudin 1977, 115)   This clearly shows the peg “l” on the standing press at the top middle piece marked “H”. As Conroy mentioned, this would fit into the groove  marked “m” on the  standing press screw at the left.  It also shows that in the small press in Fig. 25, identified in the text as a headbanding press, and it does not have a key.  “Figure 25, headbanding press seen assembled at S and and in detail in the illustration above; TT tt, the sidepieces; vv the two screws; x book.” (Dudin 1977, 114)

The book is inserted in the press as Minsky mentioned in his comments above, but it is unclear if the spine is completely out of the press or not.  The book is positioned outside of the press screws, not between them as is usual. Was the earlier depiction of the book hanging off the table just for the purposes of showing the headband, or like most tools is this press designed to be used in various ways by different workers?  

Again the engraving is confusing- the spacing of the screws on the cheek closest to the viewer appear equidistant from each end, while on the farther cheek they look much more like the headband press pictured previously.   The cheeks are unmistakably parallel, however they seem to be positioned much further apart than the thickness of the book.  The book, in fact, seems to be canted at a strange angle within the press. This would only be possible with some kind of shim in the press, which would be strange to say the least. The left screw does not seem to match up properly with it’s handle. The perspective in most of these engravings is very accurate– consider the standing press in the bottom left corner.  

It almost looks like, if the book is sewn on five cords, and the bottom support is hidden, that the edge of the book rests on the screw of the press and the corner of the book on the table.  Dudin, when describing the spacing and number of sewing stations states “…octavo, twelvemo, and smaller volumes with five bands.” (Dudin 1977, 17) But the height to width ratio of the 18th C. French books of I have seen makes me think the boards of this book must end about at the front cheek, so it would only be sewn on four cords.

The book also seems to be covered, which might suggest that that it was staged for purposes of illustration rather than depicted as it was used.

 

On May 8, 2008, Tom Conroy added:

“Looking at Dudin’s headbanding press images, I’m going

to offer my own odd-perspective notion. In the use

picture [ ed. The first picture in this post], I think that the area beyond the far screw

looks long; possibly not as long as the area holding

the book, but still not just a stubbed-off length like

a modern finishing press. This would be in accord with

the square views; and the extra length on the right

(far) end would help to counterbalance the book and

the part hanging off the edge of the bench. Worth

considering, anyway.”