Category: historic bookbinding equipment

Posted on

Millboard Shears

Three years ago, I wrote a post about board shears and their relationship to boarded and early case binding.  But before the board shear (aka. board chopper, table shears), which likely entered bookbinderies in the 1830’s, millboard shears were used for trimming book boards square.  They are essentially large tin shears, bench shears, or tin snips as they are commonly referred to. I had never seen a pair of these, except in early manuals and in a great photo from Middleton’s Recollections on page 37.  The caption for the photo, taken in 1999, notes that this was the first time he had used them since 1960.

But a couple of weeks age, I found something very similar in an antique store…

Fig. 1. Large tin snips with a 12 inch ruler on the bottom.

Although I think these are actually large tin snips, but I doubt that there is much difference if they were made for metal or binders board. The Peck, Stow & Wilcox Co. lists an almost identical bench shears, availiable in a variety of sizes. Likely, earlier ones were a bit larger than my example, but this size works quite well. They will be interesting to use in the workshop I teach on early 19th century bookbinding –bringing us one more step closer to using tools appropriate to the time period of the binding.    This shear has a 6″ cut, and is stamped “Roys & Wilcox Co. / East Berlin Ct. / Cast Steel / 5 ”  The slight bend to the end on the top handle on the upper arm, is very important, because it keeps the heavy arm from pinching your hand as you operate the shears.  The other handle was bent, I believe, to insert into an anvil for the smith to secure it while cutting.  The shear is quite stable when clamped in a lying press.

Fig. 2.  Mill board shears in action.

The Whole Art of Bookbinding, 1811, simply mentions cutting out of boards with “the large shears” (p. 8)  Martin, in 1823, states that “The pasteboards being roughly cut with shears to something like the size (p. 14). Cowie, in 1828, interestingly mentions a “press-shears” for squaring the boards after lacing on, which must refer to these types of what later became know as millboard shears (p. 19).  Middleton notes that millboards were availiable to binders as early as 1711, and the last hand-made millboards maker ceased production in 1939.  Did the name, millboard shears stick, perhaps because paste boards were soft enough to be cut with a smaller shears or knife?  French bookbinders, from around this time, used a large pointe to cut their boards.

Fig. 3. Nicholson’s table-shears. Observe the lack of gauges for cutting-there is only an outer gauge, the foot clamp, and the graceful positioning of the worker’s left hand and feet.

Nicholson, in 1865, makes no mention of the millboard shears, but does refer to board shears as “table or patent shears” (p. 65), suggesting this was still a somewhat new machine, at least in the US?  One can almost imagine the evolution from a millboard shear, somewhat difficult to use because of its short cutting length, being reconfigured with larger blades, one fixed, like clamping the bottom blade in a press, and a handle, added for leverage on the other.  The table also prevents flexing of the board, which improves accuracy in cutting. Note that the table shears In the 1920’s or 30’s, Hickock, in catalog #88, subtitled their board shear as a “Gauge Table Shears”, on page 10.

Fig. 4. Image from 1892 Harrild and Sons catalog of millboard shears.

The Harrild and Sons catalog has a picture of their ‘millboard squaring shears”, stamped with their logo– note the the market was large enough for them to carry three different sizes, a 7″, 8″ and 9″.

Fig. 5.  Crane’s illustration of how to lay out mill board for cutting with the millboard shears. This is very similar to how French boards were cut 100 years earlier.

Crane, in 1885, somewhat oddly, provides the above illustration for the marking of millboard for cutting with a millboard shears but does not include an image of the shears.  First the boards are divided with a large compass, marked off with a bodkin, then the cutting lines drawn using a straightedge. He does include instructions on how to use the millboard shears. “The Boards are generally cut up with the millboard shears. These are screwed up in the end of the laying-press nearest to the operator, and, the millboard being placed between the jaws, the dege of the upper jaw coenciding with the mark upon the board, the upper handle is worked by the right hand, and the board is readily and quickly cut. The millboard is held in the left hand during the operation.  In most regular establishments of any pretensions, the shears are now almost superseded by the board-cutting machine… (p. 67)”

Fig.6.  Image of Mill board shears from Zanesdorf.

Zaehnsdorf, 1903,  also provides some instruction on how to use mill board shears. “To use the shears, screw up [!] one arm in the laying press, hold the board by the left hand, using the right to work the upper arm, the left hand meanwhile guiding the board. Some little tact is required to cut heavy boards.  It will be found that it is necessary to press the lower arm away with the thigh, and bring the upper arm towards the operator whilst cutting. (pp. 52-53)” The photograph of Middleton, in Recollections, shows this exact method of holding the board. (p. 37)

Fig. 7. Cockerell’s improved millboard shear attachment.

Cockerell notes that if “The straight arm of the shears is the one to fin in the press, for if the bent arm be undermost, the knuckles are apt to be severely bruised against the end. Any blacksmith will bend the arm of the shears and make the necessary clips.  This method saves considerable wear and tear to the ‘lying’ press. Where a great many boards are needed, they may be quickly cut in a board machine, but for ‘extra’ work they should be further trimmed in the plough, in the same way as those cut by the shears. (pp. 126-127)”  I’d be curious if anyone has a lying press with some telltale indentations at the ends? I wonder if board shears of the time gave a slightly rough, crude cut, or was it just tradition to later plough the edges?  Ellen Gates Starr, an American who spent 15 months studying bookbinding with Cockerell, seems to mention this method of attaching the shear in the 1915  Industrial-Arts Magazine. “The boards are roughly cut to approximate size (We do it with a huge pair of shears of which one handle is made fast. I have never seen a pair except for my own in this country) (p. 104).”  Were millboard shears that uncommon in the US?  It seems that by the 1920’s, millboard shears had gone out of fashion.  Thomas Harrison remarks in 1926, that, “…millboard cutters are now used instead of the shears…” (p. 65)  But he includes an image of the Cockerell type attachment, although given the similarities of the renderings, I’m tempted to speculate that Harrison was at the least highly influenced by Cockerell’s drawing, or it may be a copy with slightly altered perspective.

Fig. 8. Harrison’s version of Cockerell’s attachment.

In my own experiments, these shears cut binders board quite well.  They are obviously slower to use than a board shear and take more skill to operate. With a fairly large sheet, it is difficult to rejig it with the blade for each cut, so a little longer blade would be advantageous.  The reason the shears are often positioned about 45 degrees to the press, is so that they are roughly in line with the eye of the user.  The thickness of the blade requires that the board be parted during the cuts. It is difficult to realign a cut when in the middle of it, so it the cut strays from the line, it tends to be for the length of the blades, which may a clue to identify how 19 century boards have been cut and what size millboard shears were used to make the cut.  I’ve tried it on both Davey and Eterno board, .080 and .098 thickness, and I imagine, although haven’t tried, that large tin snips might do a decent job of rough cutting of sheets to size, before trimming with a straight edge and knife– easier for those who don’t have a board shears.

Even today, one of the most common difficulties, for those who lack a Kuttrimmer or Board shear, is trimming binders board to size.  Cutting through a wide section of binders board is very difficult with an Olfa type knife and a straight edge– the board tends to pinch and squeeze the blade.  Cutting a narrow strip (1/2″ or so)off the edge of a board is much easier, since the board can be pealed of pulled away, making room for the thickness of the knife blade.  This is also why I prefer thinner knife blades.  Millboard shears could be useful for binders who mainly do fine binding, and don’t make boxes, or for those who have a smaller Kuttrimmer, incapable of cutting a full sheet of board.  Perhaps there is still a use for this almost obsolete bookbinding tool?

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Tom Conroy for information on early board shears,the Middleton, and Peck, Stowe & Wilcox references.

______________________________________________

[NA] The Whole Art of Bookbinding. Owestry: N. Minshall, 1811.

Cockerell, Douglas.  Bookbinding and the Care of Books.  New York: D.Appleton And Co., 1902.

Cowie, George. The Bookbinders Manuel. London: Cowie and Strange, [1828].

Crane, W.J. E. Bookbinding for Amateurs. London: L. L. Upcott Gill, 1885.

[G. Martin] The Bookbinder’s Complete Instructor. Peterhead: P. Buchan, 1823.

Harrison, Thomas.  The Bookbinding Craft and Industry. Garland Publishing, Inc: New York & London, 1989. [1926]

Middleton, Bernard C. A History of English Craft Bookbinding Technique. New York & London: Hafner Pub. Co., 1963.

Middleton, Bernard C. Recollections: A Life in Bookbinding. New Castle and London: Oak Knoll Press and The British Library, 2000.

Nicholson, James B. A Manual of the Art of Bookbinding. Philadelphia: Henry Carey Baird, 1865.

Zaehnsdorf, Joseph.  The Art of Bookbinding. London: George Bell And Sons, 1903.

Posted on

A Weird Plough

This has to be one of the weirdest ploughs ever invented.  It was made by Dryad, who called it a ‘junior plough’.  All ploughs are essentially a jigged knife blade held at 90 degrees to the clamped textblock, and trim the page edges. Dryad is known for making amateur bookbinding equipment; some of it works pretty well– I love my my 12 inch finishing press– and some of it, like this plough,may or may not work.  I would think just holding a round, swiss style knife flat on the press might work better.

The overall shape and staining of the wood reminds me of a 50’s shoe brush, or a telephone receiver. But when picking it up, your thumbs naturally fit into the grooves and it seems obvious how to use it. The condition of the label, and the fact that the blade still has the factory grind on it suggest this plough was never used.  If it was used, I doubt the ploughing was successful. Any information about J. M Nevins would be much appreciated.

.

According to the Dryad catalog from 1950, the junior plough is supposed to be used with this press.  The little foot on the press would help keep the press from sliding around when cutting. The image at the bottom right, shows the bottom of the plough. The blade can be screwed into the base, and advanced a couple of notches in the unlikely event you used this plough a lot, and wore the blade down by resharpening.

Tim Moore makes a modern interpretation of this press, sans bench hook, which he calls a ‘repair press’.

Dryad also made a more typical looking plough that is cheaply made and very difficult to tune and use– if you have one, be prepared to spend some time regrinding the bevel on the blade, a couple I’ve seen have about a 40 degree angle.  Their normal plough sold for pounds 1  9  6 (pounds sterling),  a 15″ lying press for  2  19  6.

They also invented the “plouplane”, which was “Specifically designed to meet children’s requirements”.  It sold for 2  16  6, and the Louet vertical plough plane is a modern interpretation of it.  The one I’ve seen worked pretty well, and it was convenient to clamp on a workbench when needed.

Hats off to Mindy Dubansky for donating this to my bookbinding tools and equipment collection. Donations are encouraged and gratefully received!

Posted on

Beating Hammers

The hammer pictured below is a beating hammer, and it was made  for beating paper and book board.  At first glance, it  seems to resemble a judge’s gavel, but the head is made of iron, not wood. It is slightly unnerving, yet distinctly pleasurable– an ‘anti-conservation’ experience– to repeatedly beat a textblock with a large hammer.

In late 18th century France, for example, the sheets and books were possibly beaten eight different times.  In England, the beaters, a semi-skilled subset of bookbinders, were replaced by what is considered the first bookbinding machine, the rolling machine, in the 1820’s.  Beating, or not beating, was also an important in distinguishing between ‘temporary’ structures, and more permanent ones.

Currently, beating hammers are notoriously difficult to find– I have been looking for over a decade.  Since the practice of beating has gradually declined throughout the 19th and  20th centuries, many of these hammers must have made some kind of gradual evolution from working tool, to doorstop, to the bottom of the closet,  then sold for scrap, or left to rust. Thanks to a hot tip from the anonymous bookbinder, I managed to purchase not one, but two last week.

The first one is a Hickock judging from the overall shape, even though it is not labeled. It is possibly a bit later than the one pictured in the illustration below, which came from Palmer’s A Course in Bookbinding (1927).  The shape of the handle is very similar, but a bit simpler than the beaded handle pictured below, and the head is almost exactly the same, note the polished  faces, edges of the faces, and the little rim.

The faces are about 3 inches in diameter and it weighs just under 5 lbs– fairly light by beating hammer standards.  The Hoole catalogue No. 79 (1911) lists their selection from 5 to 14 lbs.  Middleton, in A History of English Craft Bookbinding Technique,  reports seeing reference to 16-18 lb. hammers (p.7)

I’m a little unclear if this second hammer is actually a beating hammer, it could also be a gold beaters hammer, which often have a similar weight and face shape. This one weighs about 6 lbs. The handle it came with was very weak and deteriorated, so I carved a new handle in order to use the hammer, as well as polished the faces.

Traditional beating hammers had a bell shape, like the one pictured in Jost Amman’s bookbinder print (1568). This shape continued into the 19th century, like this Harrild & Sons beauty from 1892. I need a bell shaped beating hammer!

If you haven’t tried hand beating, it is instructive for appreciating why older books look, feel and function the way they do.  Softer mouldmade and handmade papers can compress up to half the thickness, resulting in a solid, yet light book. The surface of the paper changes.  Softer types of book board, such as paste or waterleaf, also compress.  Some traditions even lightly beat the leather after covering. The  unforgiving hardness of modern book papers and book boards is a modern affliction.

Beating hammers were used with a stone to beat on, although some sources report the iron was also used after 1800.  Given the numerous dings and dents on the hammers I purchased have, I suspect they were used on iron.  The surface of my Jacques board shear seems to have been used for beating, or perhaps rounding, at some point in its life, given its numerous dings and dents.

Contemporary reports that the stone, or iron, gives such a bounce to the hammer that most of the effort is stopping its rebound, not hammering downward.  Middleton, summarizing some of J. C. Huttner’s Englische Miscellen (Band 6, 1802), states:

…the English beat their books harder than do the Germans (though not so keenly), due to the iron block and the standing position of the workman, but especially to the method of holding the hammer.  German binders hold the handle so that the tips of the fingers meet underneath, whereas the English have their fingertips meeting on top, so that the back of the hand is underneath, and they strike the book slightly sideways.  The hammer bounces back level with the ear from the iron block, and workmen can do it for days on end without complaint. On the Continent books are beaten twice, before folding, and before sewing, but in England, due to the efficiency of the standing presses [ wood frame with an iron screw-jp] it is necessary to beat before sewing only. (p. 253-4)

When making a historical model, using the proper tools adds to the authenticity of the fabrication experience.  They certainly make it more fun. And I believe that they subtly, perhaps invisibly, influence perception of the completed model.

Beating hammers are rarely, if ever used for book conservation, so I suspect this one will primarly  function as a weight, much like  Nicasius Florer used his for in this painting from 1614.