Category Archives: book repair

Bill Minter on Cobden-Sanderson’s Bindings and the Taste of Leather. Additional Comments by Marianne Tidcombe

Bill Minter sent me some recollections about Cobden-Sanderson’s bindings, which raise several interesting questions.  Are bookbinders and book conservators—especially those in private practice—skewed in their appraisal of bindings since they generally deal with books that need to be fixed?  Could Cobden-Sanderson actually taste the quality of leather? Does Bill have a second wind since he took a straight job with a regular paycheck?

Before accepting the newly created position of Senior Book Conservator at The Pennsylvania State University Libraries (aka: Penn State), Bill was in private practice. While some may know of him as the developer of the ultrasonic welder for polyester film encapsulation, he has also dabbled with other ideas in book conservation. His email is: wdm14<at>psu<dot>edu

Bill is far too modest in this brief bio. Some of his “other ideas” include intact washing of water damaged books, a velcro based tying-up press, a video of how to maintain and adjust a board shear, the use of aluminum to lighten and make more rigid oversize drop spine boxes, and tips on how to quickly flatten rolled documents for digitizing. Most recently he has attempted to quantify some of the properties of teflon and bone folders. His poster should be in the poster area of the AIC website soon.

 

***

 

Bill writes (1):

I recently saw your blogpost about Cobden_Sanderson.

You wrote:  “…but his bindings are really beautiful. I’ve had the opportunity to see many of them and to work on a couple of them as well. They are quite refreshing from much of the trade work of the day. Unfortunately, many of the materials he used are often poor quality. The books I’ve been able to see the structure of have common late nineteenth century structural weaknesses: very thin slips, tissue thin leather jointed endsheets, and overly pared covering leather. Ironically…”

I would suggest that when you are in Chicago the next time that you try to see his bindings at the various libraries.

Many years ago, Marianne Tidcombe was to speak to The Caxton Club. She arrived days early to see C-S’s bindings, as well as research her next book on woman binders. I insisted that she stay with my family, so that I could be her chauffeur.

When she arrived on Saturday afternoon, I told her about my 3-volume set of signed C-S bindings in brown leather and blind tooled. After much discussion, she had me (almost) convinced that my books were not C-S, because “he never bound in brown leather”.  Upon going to my shop, indeed they were C-S. Until then, she had only seen rubbings of that particular binding.

(Teaser — the boards were detached as you might assume, but read on.)

Well, for two days we went to numerous libraries and, as I recall, every C-S binding was in excellent condition with the boards intact! AND, as I recall, there were no ‘brown’ leather bindings; most were either red, blue, green or other. After seeing maybe a dozen or more (20?) books, I asked the question, “you said that he did not bind in brown leather”. She explained that C-S knew that brown was not a good leather, for three specific reasons:  1) from working with the leather, 2) XXX?? (I do not recall the reason), and 3) (the best part) — that he could TASTE that the leather was TOO ACIDIC.

[Marianne Tidcombe writes:, “What I said in 1992 was not that C-S did not use brown leather for binding, but that he rarely used dyed pigskin – brown or any other colour – because it was acidic.  He had an instinct for judging leather, and could tell by handling, smelling, and (yes) tasting, if it was acid.  He chose goatskin, sealskin, and alum-tawed pigskin, all of exceptional quality, which is why his bindings have held up so remarkably well compared to many others bound in the same period. Your blind-tooled ‘Golden Legend’ bound at the Doves Bindery in about 1904(?) in brown dyed pigskin is an exception.  I suspect he risked using it in this case because it took the blind impressions rather better.”] (2)

Aside from him tasting that the leather was too acidic, how would he have known that that was a problem? At the same time: how did they test for acidity during that time — litmus paper?
ANYWAY:   To further enhance this story, the last stop was at the U Illinois — Chicago campus where there are approximately 19 bindings by Ellen Gates Starr of Hull House. Starr studied with C-S in the early 1900s. Her collection of bindings include, from my perspective:  one binding using C-S leather and tooled by C-S; one binding tooled by EGS on leather supplied by C-S, and the remainder were (shall I suggest) other leathers that have not survived as well as the C-S type —– again, from my perspective. The bindings using C-S leather were, as I recall, in much better condition than the others. At the same time, one would assume that all of the books have been held in the same, Chicago environment all these years.

I wish there were a way to determine whose leather C-S used and how that leather was tanned, especially compared to other tanners. AND, why is it that he rarely used brown leather? Perhaps a world-wide survey of the condition of all C-S bindings would be helpful? This story (information) is from the 1990s, though I did see the Starr bindings again in 2003.

Hope this raises some questions about the condition of Cobden-Sanderson bindings.

One other comment:   While you have done far more research than me, I would suggest that as conservators in private practice, we only see the failures and rarely get a chance to tour the stacks to examine a large number of bindings.

[Marianne Tidcombe writes: Re: Jeff Peachy, Cobden-Sanderson and leather, etc.  Some of what he says is of course true, but I’m afraid he generalizes, based on a couple of books bound at the Doves Bindery, which is rather unfair.  C-S had only a short period of training (with a trade binder), and his forwarder at the Doves Bindery was a tradesman.  However, C-S was a trailblazer in advocating sound methods and materials, and passed his ideas on to Douglas Cockerell, who in turn promoted conservation binding.  C-S had to find solutions to problems himself, and work out better methods as he went along.  See, for example, the structurally sound Kelmscott Chaucers he bound at the Doves Bindery, and the concertina sewing he devised for Doves Press books printed on vellum.”] (3)

 

***

 

Peachey responds: First, let me acknowledge I am basing my original observations on a handful of bindings brought to me for conservation work, so this may well be a self-selecting sample.  Secondly, Marianne Tidcombe, who is the world’s foremost expert on Cobden-Sanderson, and I am honored to have her comment here. She has written books on the The Doves Bindery, Cobden-Sanderson, and knows his bindings better than anyone. So in terms of the relative durability of his bindings to the general trade work of the day, I stand corrected. And I should have made it clear that I was only considering the books I have worked on, which were his tight-back tanned leather bindings.

However, another aspect to consider is the use or abuse that a book may have during its life. A high end signed Cobden-Sanderson binding likely was expensive, collected, used less, and therefore preserved better? Isn’t this also a self-selecting sample? And I would bet good money that any late nineteenth century tight-back tanned leather bindings (Cobden-Sanderson’s included) will not prove to be as durable as many other earlier bindings — both materially and structurally — though would like to learn what specifically Cobden-Sanderson did differently.

Are turn of the 20th century tight-back tanned leather bindings due a reappraisal?

 

NOTES:
__________________________________________________

  1. Email to Jeff Peachey from Bill Minter, 18 June 2016, 12:57 PM.
  2. Email to Bill Minter from Marianne Tidcombe, 22 June 2016, 2:05 PM.
  3. Email to Bill Minter from Marianne Tidcomve, 22 June 2016, 2:05 PM.

Upcoming Workshop. Cloth Case Bindings: Their History and Repair. October 24-28, 2016. Georgia Archives, Morrow, Georgia

CLOTH CASE BINDINGS: THEIR HISTORY AND REPAIR

October 24-28, 2016

Instructor: Jeff Peachey

Georgia Archives, Morrow, Georgia.

For almost 200 years, the cloth case binding has been the standard way publishers issue books. Throughout the nineteenth century, and even into the twentieth, it was often derided by bibliophiles as a temporary structure, not a ‘real’ book. However, it has proved to be a remarkably durable structure, now commonly used by conservators when rebinding books, by fine small press publications, and in library binding.  Quite likely, there are more cloth cased books than any other rigid board book structure on earth. 

This 5-day workshop will investigate the history of the cloth case binding, concentrating on the early years, 1825-1850. We will parse historic texts that describe this structure, while paying close attention to the introduction of four key pieces of machinery: the rolling press, the board shear, the guillotine, and the stamping press. Boards bindings will be considered as an industrial precursor to the cloth case, and we will make a structural model following a technical description from Cowie’s 1828 The Bookbinder’s Manual. By focusing on historic techniques, this workshop will also serve as introduction or refresher to the essential bookbinding hand-skills. Additionally, we will explore options for conserving and repairing cloth cased books by working on actual books provided by participants. Treatment options presented will include recasing, cloth rebacking, tissue repairs, hinge repairs, and boxing. Basic paper repairs, techniques of toning tissue and cloth, spine lining considerations, and the lifting of fragile material will be addressed. Discussions will include treatment decision making in relationship to specific institutional needs or the desires of private clients.

This workshop is open to all levels of experience: pre-program students, technicians, and mid-career conservators who desire a full time week at the bench. Ideally, a variety of participant experience levels will result in an invigorating exchange of information on binding techniques, institutional protocols, and treatment approaches.  Students should bring 5-10 non-valuable cloth cased books that can be sacrificed or repaired, and basic bookbinding tools.

Students should submit a resume and a brief one paragraph application statement, reviewing their background in bookbinding, book conservation, or other crafts, and stating what they hope to learn.

Workshop Fee: $650 which includes materials.

Application deadline: July 15, 2016.

The application, or questions about the facilities/ housing options/ transportation (Morrow is close to Atlanta) should be sent to Kim Norman: Kim <dot> Norman <at> usg <dot> edu

Other questions about the class should be sent to me.

Books as Tools and Owner Repairs

book repair

Machinery’s Handbook.  My Collection.

This is not the way I would ever repair a book. On the other hand, this is my book, and I bought it because of this repair; the massive amount of masking tape. I can appreciate that the owner—likely a machinist—did anything possible to keep this book functioning. This book was as important to a working machinist in pre-internet days as any of his other tools.

Machinery’s Handbook contains charts, reference information and formulas, and was so useful that Gerstner, a wood machinist chests manufacturer,  incorporated a special drawer in some of their machinist’s chest to store this book.

Screen Shot 2015-12-21 at 4.18.58 PM

The book fits into the middle drawer, spine up. Source: http://gerstnerusa.com/restoration-and-repair

All books are tools for reading, but in many ways this book is even more of a tool than other books. So should it be repaired, conserved or restored differently? Nineteenth century owner repairs, which are often sewn, are becoming increasingly valued as part of the history of a book’s circulation, value, and usage. Could a masking tape repair be similarly prized a hundred years from now? But what would be left? Could the “patina” of cross-linked deteriorating adhesives someday be valued?

Mindy Dubansky recently posted other cool examples of owner repairs at ” It Seemed like a Good Idea at the Time: Crazy Book Repairs, Part One” In general, I don’t consider these types of repairs crazy, though. They are expedient. practical and reflective of the bookbinding knowledge of the owner, which is understandably low. Just don’t expect them to last too long.

Specifications for Library and School Book Binding

Dear Chairman of the A.L.A. Committee on Bookbinding,

For the next version of  General Specifications for Library and School Book Binding  I propose mentioning that when binding pamphlets, do not to cover the text with Gaylord pamphlet binder tape. If it is necessary to use an adhesive pamphlet binder, I also feel it might be a good idea to recommend using one that is the proper size, to avoid excessive trimming to the margins.  And if the margins must be trimmed, I suggest including a bit of practical advice in how to cut a straight line with a pair of scissors. I am more than willing to discuss these matters in greater depth, at your convenience, and apologize for this very belated response, but books last a very long time even if mistreated, so I trust this information may still be pertinant.

Warmest Regards,

Jeff Peachey

The Price of the Freak

Bindery Talk, Vol. 1, No. 1, May 1912  [p. 2]

Razor Blade Planes: An Overview

INTRODUCTION

There are three fundamental techniques of paring leather in bookbinding: using a paring knife, using a modified spokeshave and using a paring machine, such as the Fortuna, Schar-Fix or Brockman. Often various combinations of these methods are used. Learning how to pare leather not only requires learning the technique of using a knife or spokeshave, but also the skills of how to keep the knife or blade sharp. The Brockman or Scharf-Fix alleviates the need to learn how to sharpen, although some thrifty bookbinders do resharpen their double edge blades. These paring machines are best suited for making small, thin flat pieces of leather — generally for onlays, labels, quarter bindings — rather than achieving a long, gradual bevel necessary for rebacking or English style full leather bindings.

There is a fourth, somewhat obscure method of paring leather which uses a razor blade plane.  There are numerous types of these planes, dating from at least the 1950’s until today. Originally, they seemed marketed to the home handyman, now most are marketed to model makers.  But at some point in time, bookbinders discovered these planes.

I’ve found little information about the history of using these planes on leather. Jim Craven, a bookbinder in Ann Arbor, Michigan, reports he recieved a Little Giant in the 1960’s, and is not sure when he started to use it on leather.  Judith Ivry, bookbinder and conservator, says they were somewhat of a craze in the 1980’s in New York City.  Occasionally I meet a bookbinder who uses, or has used them.

This post contains observations about these planes. American, German, Dutch and English versions are represented. Next week, in part two, guest blogger Eric Alstrom, Head of Conservation at Michigan State University, will present some tips for using razor planers on bookbinding leather.

.

LITTLE GIANT

 Popular Mechanics, Sept 1956. p. 78

This is one of the most common, and better made than most. As far as I have discovered, this is the first oxymoronically named tool. The logo is well done, consisting of a curious kneeling ‘little giant’ supporting its own name that is shaped reminiscent of a dumbbell. This logo is a registered trademark, and the plane I have has patent pending cast on it. The instruction sheet lists it registered with  patent number  2,781,804, which was filed in 1955 and granted in 1957. I’ve seen at least two versions of the instruction sheet.

The two planes come neatly boxed, one for curved surfaces and one for flat.  The version with the flat sole is most suited to paring leather. If you are curious about using a razor blade plane, the Little Giant would be my first choice. Mine functions reasonably well with no alterations. The Little Giant is manufactured to a higher quality, with a more precisely ground sole and overall more solid feel than other planes I have tried. The flat model has a unique recessed finger area for positioning the angle and depth of the blade, while preventing fingers from making contact with the blade when planing. The curved model has two angles, one quite sharp, one more gradual, so the two planes can be used in three different planing configurations.

The box is printed, “Uses old razor blades” and the instructional sheet includes directions on how to resharpen double edge razor blades, although it is a bit difficult to understand how these very basic instructions could be of much help to a novice sharpener, especially one who had purchased a razor blade plane possibly in an attempt to avoid having to learn how to sharpen a blade in the first place. The finger position holding the blade looks frighteningly dangerous and seems to be putting a 45 degree bevel on the blade.

These sharpening instructions, from the late 1950’s,  which accompany the Little Giant are perhaps the earliest illustration of the  Scary Sharp sharpening method. They repeatedly mention using emory paper to resharpen double edge razor blades. But is Scary Sharp just using abrasives mounted on a paper of film substrate, or is it using a progression of these?

The informational sheet included with Little Giant planes shows three vignettes of the plane in use: a man trimming a door, a woman shaving down a drawer, and a boy making a model airplane. This is a tool not only for the man of the house, but the entire family. Note that it is advertised as being “sharp as a razor”. Yes,well, it is a razor.

Roughly 75% of the razor blade planes I have found appear unused, in the original box. The presence of so many “NIB” razor planes also suggests that they were likely used, or attempted to be used once or twice, then returned to the box. Perhaps the few beat up ones without boxes — a rarity — will prove desirable to collectors. The Little Giant is the only plane that I have seen that was painted; there is a light green, a darker green, a blue, and some are natural aluminum or pot metal.

.

WIL-KRO RAZOR PLANER

Billboard, Oct 22 1955

The Wil-Kro (sometimes spelled Wilkro, even on the original box) is the most commonly found razor blade plane, in my experience.  It also works well in leather with little or no tuning. While some users may be content with the three blade configurations of a Little Giant, a Wil-Kro owner gets four:  a  flat sole, a bull nose, a chisel and a curved sole plane. It is one of the smaller razor blade planes, the most innovative in design, and quite comfortable to use. The blade depth is a slightly difficult to adjust on my examples, since the blade cap is actually part of the plane. A $2.50 price sheet is boxed with the model I have, although perhaps many enterprising home handymen took advantage of the discounted price of $72.00 for a gross! The small piece labeled “Fig. 8” below is often missing on planes I have seen for sale — examine the contents of the box carefully. This piece is used in the plane configuration Figure 4 on the instruction sheet below, useful for wood, but not really for leather.

The Wilkro patent  #2289504

Granted in 1942, the patent emphasizes many of the clever design features of the multipurpose handle which also secures the blade. This is the only razor blade plane I have that has the patent number stamped on the plane body, and it is the most innovative design. The patent application later notes that the blades are similar to the blades used in safety razors, but slightly different. In the instructions provided with the plane, however, ordinary double edge razor blades are recommended. The tightening knob evidently underwent some refinements during production, and has a much more elegant, almost horn like shape which is easier to align and tighten than the wing nut on all other planes. Since the body of these planes are essentially in two pieces, some users feel they are not as rigid as one piece models, though this does not seem to be an issue when using them on leather. The patent application describes this as a woodworking tool, which is perhaps its most ill suited use.

The Wilkro came with fairly detailed instructions.  The necessity for written instructions seems to indicate either a new or complex tool, or marketing to a realtively amateur market. Like the Little Giant, use in homes, possibly as a one plane fits all, seems to be the main focus for sales. Unlike the Little Giant, users of the Wilkro are advised to replace dull blades rather than resharpen them. Since the advertising I have found for both of these are roughly contemporaneous, I wonder if there was stiff competition between the two in the mid 1950’s?

.

The plane also came with this Certificate of Assurance.  It certifies that the Wil-Kro is percision made and will give many years of service.  It then guarantees this performance for exactly fifteen days from the date of purchase.  The overall size of this cerificate (152 x 71 mm) is almost exactly the same as a dollar bill (157 x 66mm) and the green ink and boarder decoration also seem to visually imply paper currency. Most Wil-Kro boxes list “Craft Master Tool Co.” as the manufacturer and the contact for the warranty. One box I have, however, does not include a warranty and lists “Winston Sales Co.” as the manufacturer on the outside. Otherwise the boxes are identical.

.

SELECT PLANER

The Select seems to have undergone at least three packaging styles, and one major redesign.  I think the version pictured above is earlier than the ones below.  The packaging is similar to the Wilkro: the company information on one end of the box is almost identical in layout, the “horn” tightening nut is similar, and even the complex shape to the blade holder all recall the Wilkro. In this version, the chisel blade position at the front is functional, later it is abandoned.  The complex flat blade holder design is also simplified in the versions below. The distinctive outward flair to the sides of the plane remain constant, however.

This is a somewhat interesting tool, the example I have has two different blade configurations, a flat and curved located at the back of the plane.   The instructions, located on the side of a bag containing blade caps and wing nuts, show two different types of assembling the plane. The box states the plane is for “Tradesmen, handymen, hobbyists, housewives.” Like the Little Giant, somewhat early marketing towards women. This plane feels distinctly larger than the previous two, and doesn’t seem to work quite as well on leather.

On one end of the exterior box the plane is shown operated a third way, like a scraper or chisel plane. The plane itself seems to have a vestigial place for a stud. But is it broken, did someone removed it, or were there manufacturing difficulties?  Made in USA, no patent. There is a nice slideshow of this plane on Howies Antiques, showing the same lack of a front scraper attachment. The packaging advertises it it useful in wood, plastic, leather, rubber tile, linoleum and pressed wood.  To me, this one looks later than the Wilkro or Little Giant, perhaps even 1970’s? Another version of the Select, with ribbed finger grips on the side and a fancier knob was also made.

http://www.petermcbride.com/magnum09/img/magnum_058.jpg

.

RAZA-PLANE

http://www.flickr.com/photos/galoot_frank/1624654074/

This is the earliest razor plane (if it uses a disposable razor blade) I have seen. Also the only one made from cast iron, the owner reports 3 5/8″ long, 2″ wide.  This is a very common size for most razor blade planes.  I’m unclear how the blade clamping mechanism might work. There is a general thread about razor blade planes in the Old Tools Archive.

.

ZIP PLANE

Modelflight

Made in England.The blade looks pretty easy to adjust from the sides. Marked Patent Pending. Like the Wil-Kro, the proper direction for planing is cast into the plane, which to me indicates a very low expected competence from users.

.

DAVID (COMBI) PLANE

Dutch. Often regarded as one of the better old razor planes by model airplane makers. Three blade positions, and uses a wing screw rather than a wing nut. The 45 degree chamfer at the end, when the blade is in a chisel position,  let the blade be used as a knife. The sole may have too much surface area to work well on leather. Reportedly there is a plastic piece that deteriorates relatively quickly. The David is for sale at sky king rc products.

 Modelflight

.

FIX PLANE (?)

German? This tentatively identified plane is perhaps the most elegant and ergonomic in form, to my eye.  It functions as a flat and chisel plane. It looks quite comfortable to grasp, and the blade is accessible from three sides for adjustment.

.

SOLLINGEN BALSA PLANER

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=183330

German. I’ve also seen this called the “Amati model ship planking razor plane“. Geometric styling.  The blade cap appears to rest on a cast stand, possibly concentrating pressure on the front edge, similar to ‘real’ planes.  The description claims this makes the blade rigid enough to plane across the grain, as well as with it. This raised area at the end of the blade cap may protect the users hand from jamming into the wing nut. The mouth on this one looks rather large for use on leather. Available from  A2Z Corp.

.

MASTER AIRSCREW 4100 RAZOR PLANE 

Perhaps the most basic design imaginable. These are available from many retailers and seem to be the preferred new model among model makers. Simply designed. They use a proprietary double edge blade which is very thick at .017″ — most double edge razor blades are .oo4″-.008″. The two screws behind the blade seem to adjust depth and angle, which would make replacing the blade to the exact cut as the previous one much easier, though I wonder if the screws might damage the blade edge? The mouth looks too big to work well on leather.

Eric Alstrom adds that these are made of plastic, and “I never put it in the same class as the Little Giant.  Both for how it works and how it is made.  I’ve used it now and again for touch up, but the angle of the blade isn’t low enough to pare very effectively.  Mine came with a half dozen blades or so and I’ve only marked about half of them as used, so I haven’t used it that much.  You mention the “proprietary double edge blade” which is true they are proprietary, but my blades are only single edge.  The adjustment screws push against a flat edge.  I got mine about 20 years ago, so maybe they have changed since then.”

.

LEE VALLEY RAZOR BLADE BLOCK PLANE

The Lee Valley is made in Germany, and has a rear handle that doubles for planing curved surfaces which is perpundicular to the usual planing position. The wingnut to tighten the blade is visible on the back of the handle.  The consensus among woodworkers is that  the plane is useful for basa wood, and maybe other some very soft woods, but not as a general use plane. It features three variable positions, normal use, as pictured below, as a chisel plane with the blade at the front, and curved at the heal.  Having a blade potentially positioned right on your hand seems like a poor design choice. Lee Valley advertises it as a plane to use when you don’t want to use your good plane, like on paint. The sole may have too much surface area to work well on leather.

Lee Valley, Razor block plane

.

ARTU PLANE

FROM ARTU

The swiss army knife of razor blade planes with six functions. No image found, but looks the same as the plane Lee Valley is selling.  According to the manufacturer, uses special ice hardened blades at a bed angle of 27 degrees.  Some discussion about it from the Hip Pocket  Aeronautics Builders Forum.

CONCLUSION

The promise of not having to sharpen or resharpen these razor blade planes may account for their continuing appeal, as does their simple, unthreatening and lightweight nature.  Most of the packaging emphasizes their easy multi-functionality, appealing to a home repair/ hobbyist crowd. In fact, the packaging is possibly as interesting as the planes are. Even though the general consensus among users is that they don’t work nearly as well as their advertised purposes, there have been many variations of these planes over the past 50+ years and several are still in production.

Although these planes barely function on most types of wood, they are much more functional in soft materials, including leather. The combination of their curved blade bed, very low effective blade angle, the off the shelf sharpness of razor blades and small sole area prevent excessive stretching of  leather that can occur with more standard block planes.There are also many types of small planes with normal blades: block planes, miniature planes, musical instrument planes and spokeshaves, toy planes, Stanley 12-101 trim plane, Lie-Neilson model makers plane and 102 block plane, Veritas Apron plane, etc…. None that I have tried work very well on leather, primarily, I think, due to inappropriate effective blade/ bed angles, excessive friction from the soles that causes the leather to stretch, buckle or tear, and clogging of the mouth.

I find razor blade planes interesting not so much because they are exemplars of the toolmakers art, but because they are emblematic of the post-WW2 home handyman boom, the creation of suburbia, 1950’s advertising and other societal aspects. The packaging also reflects a change in tool marketing from primarily a male activity, to a family one. Tool snobs may consider these types of planes closer to toys than tools – and they may be right – but they are all tiny pieces of the total picture that inform our understanding of tool use as a fundamental human activity.

Next week : Razor Blade Planes: Tips on Using Them to Pare Leather.

Book Jack

Many forms of book wedges are available for the reading room, ranging from the familiar Clarkson foam, wood ones, as well as some newer ideas from the At the Bench blog.  There are also many options for the safe display of books.  A third need — to secure books partially open while undergoing treatment and examination — seems to have been ignored, or commonly jerry rigged with weights and pressing boards as the need arises.

I developed the in-situ book conservation fixture to securely hold a textblock open while performing page repairs, working under magnification, media consolidation, etc. It is large and heavy, and can easily accommodate parchment textblocks.

The book jack is small, lightweight, and designed for use on the workbench. It quickly and easily adjusts from 15 to 60 degrees, locks securely into place by a built in handle, and provides a more rigid support than foam. This fixture that holds the book, or boards, open in a wide variety of positions to reduce strain while performing treatments.   The small size permits it to be used inside a book to work on board edges and corners. It can also be used to support a textblock upright when rebacking or humidifying warped vellum boards, although additional weights may be necessary to stabilize it.  I use this fixture constantly, from initial examination throughout the treatment.

The natural, translucent .25 inch thick polypropylene platens are lined with an easily replaceable .0625 inch thick closed cell polyethylene foam ( aka. Volara). The adjustment mechanism is 6061 T6 aluminum and a comfort grip handle, which has a lower profile than the platens at any angle, so that relatively large books can be supported.

Item#  BJ-1 $125.00 for one, or $225.00 pair

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.