Is it a ‘press’ if it doesn’t print?
ConversazioniFine Press Forum
Iscriviti a LibraryThing per pubblicare un messaggio.
1anonymously
There is a crop of letterpress publishing companies that have named themselves presses. Pennyroyal Press, Nawakum Press, and No Reply Press, to name a few. I submit that they have misappropriated the term. These are publishers or imprints, not presses.
A publisher coordinates the design, illustration, translation, introductory material, printing, and binding of a book and markets and sells it to the public. Folio Society, the Limited Editions Club, the Book Club of California, Suntup. They may use the same printer for each edition or they may move between printers but they do not own letterpress machines and they are not printers.
Meanwhile, a press coordinates the above functions for its own publications but the distinction is that the press also performs the printing in-house. Thornwillow, Arion, Allen, Whittington, Foolscap.
Nawakum Press publishes very fine books and this is not an attempt to disparage the company or the other “non-press presses” discussed herein. David Pascoe engages excellent printers to print his books. His designs are inspired and his text selections faultless. He commissions illustrations from masterful illustrators. But designing and coordinating and contracting and selling a book does not equate to being a press. A press must print.
No Reply Press also doesn’t have employees who print its books. It hires other printers - Letterpress PDX, Hand & Eye - to print them. But No Reply strongly protests to being called a publisher. Nevertheless, the public issuance of any book is a publication; whether the text has been published before or not is immaterial.
Then there are illustrators’ imprints, such as Pennyroyal. Perhaps these are a slightly different case because they have the cohesiveness of one illustrator for all their books but in the end, Pennyroyal Press is the imprint of Barry Moser. It also is not a press.
Others seem to have been careful to avoid the misnomer. “Lyra’s Books” is not masquerading as “Lyra’s Press.” “Suntup Editions” neither.
Is the distinction pedantic? Perhaps so but the lines have been blurred. Does it matter? Probably. It sows confusion and it downplays the true press.
Thoughts?
A publisher coordinates the design, illustration, translation, introductory material, printing, and binding of a book and markets and sells it to the public. Folio Society, the Limited Editions Club, the Book Club of California, Suntup. They may use the same printer for each edition or they may move between printers but they do not own letterpress machines and they are not printers.
Meanwhile, a press coordinates the above functions for its own publications but the distinction is that the press also performs the printing in-house. Thornwillow, Arion, Allen, Whittington, Foolscap.
Nawakum Press publishes very fine books and this is not an attempt to disparage the company or the other “non-press presses” discussed herein. David Pascoe engages excellent printers to print his books. His designs are inspired and his text selections faultless. He commissions illustrations from masterful illustrators. But designing and coordinating and contracting and selling a book does not equate to being a press. A press must print.
No Reply Press also doesn’t have employees who print its books. It hires other printers - Letterpress PDX, Hand & Eye - to print them. But No Reply strongly protests to being called a publisher. Nevertheless, the public issuance of any book is a publication; whether the text has been published before or not is immaterial.
Then there are illustrators’ imprints, such as Pennyroyal. Perhaps these are a slightly different case because they have the cohesiveness of one illustrator for all their books but in the end, Pennyroyal Press is the imprint of Barry Moser. It also is not a press.
Others seem to have been careful to avoid the misnomer. “Lyra’s Books” is not masquerading as “Lyra’s Press.” “Suntup Editions” neither.
Is the distinction pedantic? Perhaps so but the lines have been blurred. Does it matter? Probably. It sows confusion and it downplays the true press.
Thoughts?
2mnmcdwl
I don't think that the distinction is particularly pedantic, though I believe that No Reply Press, having both a Vandercook and platen press, would quality as a press. I know they have outsourced some of their printing, but that they still do quite a bit in-house as well.
3const-char-star
Lyra’s Books is in fact using the Lyra’s Press imprint for all their modern fiction publishing efforts
4Levin40
>1 anonymously: I suppose that the term 'press' originated during the days when all publishers were also printers. But it seems more loosely used these days: the relevant dictionary definition I found was 'a business that prints or publishes books'. Though it is nice to know where publishers do print if they don't do it in-house.
And I'm not sure you're quite correct about those who 'have been careful to avoid the misnomer' :-) Suntup's website is 'suntup.press' and if you click 'about' it takes you to 'About the Press'. As for Lyra's, the two new imprints are Lyra's Classics and Lyra's Press.
And I'm not sure you're quite correct about those who 'have been careful to avoid the misnomer' :-) Suntup's website is 'suntup.press' and if you click 'about' it takes you to 'About the Press'. As for Lyra's, the two new imprints are Lyra's Classics and Lyra's Press.
5ubiquitousuk
Just to note that this isn't a modern phenomenon. From around 1933, one of the early pioneer private presses, the Golden Cockerel Press, relocated its printing to the Chiswick Press and continued thenceforth to handle only the publishing (although they obviously did start out as a press in the strictest sense). The Wikipedia Article for GCP even says
"Newbery was the manager of the Chiswick Press, where production was to be moved. The Golden Cockerel Press ceased to be a private press at this point, and became a publishing house."
So I wouldn't say the distinction is idiosyncratic or pedantic.
"Newbery was the manager of the Chiswick Press, where production was to be moved. The Golden Cockerel Press ceased to be a private press at this point, and became a publishing house."
So I wouldn't say the distinction is idiosyncratic or pedantic.
6grifgon
An interesting topic. The designation of "Press" has never been consistently applied to a universal standard by any means (just as there is plenty of disagreement about what "fine press" means). There are plenty of trade publishers that use "Press" though they have no connection to the manufacturing process, including most university, er, presses. For example, Harvard University Press, Johns Hopkins University Press, or Cambridge University Press.
I can confirm >2 mnmcdwl:'s comment that the statement about No Reply (my press) is incorrect. We operate an 8" by 10" platen and a Vandercook Universal I. Some books have been printed by me and others by others, but it is always a close collaboration and the printer's name is always proudly displayed and undersigned. Not, in other words, a hired manufacturer. Further, there has never been any strenuous objection to being called a "publisher" – in the "about" section of the No Reply website the first sentence reads: "NO REPLY PRESS IS A PUBLISHER OF HANDMADE LIMITED EDITION BOOKS."
Also, while this has been noted in the context of printing (naturally, due to "the printing press") the binding of a book is a co-equal part of bookmaking (and whose key tool is "the book press").
Ultimately, I think it's a wee bit pedantic in that the designation of "Press" has simply come to represent something different than its original (and even then disputable) meaning. I agree that it is wonderful to know where fine press books are printed, but this is the job of the colophon, not the press name. I don't think Lyra's Press is an inaccurate name just because Rich doesn't print the books himself, no more than because Lyra the cat is not in fact the press' owner. Further, Midnight Paper Sales or Tallone Editore and many others are certainly presses, despite the lack of the destination.
>4 Levin40: "a business that prints or publishes books" seems straightforward and accurate.
I can confirm >2 mnmcdwl:'s comment that the statement about No Reply (my press) is incorrect. We operate an 8" by 10" platen and a Vandercook Universal I. Some books have been printed by me and others by others, but it is always a close collaboration and the printer's name is always proudly displayed and undersigned. Not, in other words, a hired manufacturer. Further, there has never been any strenuous objection to being called a "publisher" – in the "about" section of the No Reply website the first sentence reads: "NO REPLY PRESS IS A PUBLISHER OF HANDMADE LIMITED EDITION BOOKS."
Also, while this has been noted in the context of printing (naturally, due to "the printing press") the binding of a book is a co-equal part of bookmaking (and whose key tool is "the book press").
Ultimately, I think it's a wee bit pedantic in that the designation of "Press" has simply come to represent something different than its original (and even then disputable) meaning. I agree that it is wonderful to know where fine press books are printed, but this is the job of the colophon, not the press name. I don't think Lyra's Press is an inaccurate name just because Rich doesn't print the books himself, no more than because Lyra the cat is not in fact the press' owner. Further, Midnight Paper Sales or Tallone Editore and many others are certainly presses, despite the lack of the destination.
>4 Levin40: "a business that prints or publishes books" seems straightforward and accurate.
7What_What
>1 anonymously: How would the Barbarian Press be classified? I believe they do all the printing, but none of the binding.
I think focusing on the printing in isolation weakens the argument, as the design and binding are all equally important.
I think focusing on the printing in isolation weakens the argument, as the design and binding are all equally important.
8dlphcoracl
>1 anonymously:
"Is this distinction pedantic?" Yes.
"Does it matter?" No.
This nonsense has nothing to do with acquiring beautiful, well-designed letterpress books and creating an enjoyable library.
"Is this distinction pedantic?" Yes.
"Does it matter?" No.
This nonsense has nothing to do with acquiring beautiful, well-designed letterpress books and creating an enjoyable library.
9abysswalker
>7 What_What: I'm just one guy online, but my collection spreadsheet has the following columns (among others): publication info, press, printer, bindery, and binder.
Publisher and press are more commonly conflated in meaning (and collocated in organization) than publisher and bindery, but of course there's a big overlap between publisher and bindery too.
(Nerdy note, the "publication info" column is not just "publisher" only because I want it to match the LibraryThing expected import format. "Imprint" and "distributor" are other columns I might add if I was trying to create an even more thorough descriptive ontology, but those attributes are more about commercial organization than craft.)
I disagree about craft priority. Print has precedence over binding. One can rebind a text block, but taking a binding and putting new pages in it is a much more fraught endeavor and certainly less common.
Also paper quality is more important and fundamental than binding material.
Obviously this is all opinion, but it's opinion based on some principles, not arbitrary opinion. Thanks for coming to my TED talk.
Publisher and press are more commonly conflated in meaning (and collocated in organization) than publisher and bindery, but of course there's a big overlap between publisher and bindery too.
(Nerdy note, the "publication info" column is not just "publisher" only because I want it to match the LibraryThing expected import format. "Imprint" and "distributor" are other columns I might add if I was trying to create an even more thorough descriptive ontology, but those attributes are more about commercial organization than craft.)
I disagree about craft priority. Print has precedence over binding. One can rebind a text block, but taking a binding and putting new pages in it is a much more fraught endeavor and certainly less common.
Also paper quality is more important and fundamental than binding material.
Obviously this is all opinion, but it's opinion based on some principles, not arbitrary opinion. Thanks for coming to my TED talk.
10DWPress
I think the distinction has blurred enough now that people buy typefaces from digital "foundries" and use them to make polymer plates for a process that has been around for 500+ years that we can be happy getting fine books at all in the 21st century.
>7 What_What: There are very few of us who do everything "in house" from design to bindery. There are advantages and disadvantages to this. Total control over every single element during all stages is a tremendous luxury - say I want to move that illustration over a few mm or a cover element just isn't right to the eye, it can be fixed or adjusted. On the other hand as my books become increasingly more structurally detailed (and often bigger format) I find myself being a binder almost more than a printer or artist anymore.
Most presses delegate some of the work to other entities especially the bindings or platemaking. This keeps one focused on one aspect of the amalgamation of craft processes that goes into making a book and the time saving allows one to move onto the next project more quickly. It is certainly helpful to understand at least the basics of all the different parts involved to make a pleasing final product but there are binders out there who work with fine press owners very closely to guide them through that stage. Not to mention the space involved, bindery and finishing equipment take up more space than a press room.
Making books is an incredible experience. I call it alchemy - turning lead to gold. And the world of the book arts is so vast that it would take multiple lifetimes to truly become proficient and learn all the various aspects of the processes involved. Humbling and exciting, onward.
>7 What_What: There are very few of us who do everything "in house" from design to bindery. There are advantages and disadvantages to this. Total control over every single element during all stages is a tremendous luxury - say I want to move that illustration over a few mm or a cover element just isn't right to the eye, it can be fixed or adjusted. On the other hand as my books become increasingly more structurally detailed (and often bigger format) I find myself being a binder almost more than a printer or artist anymore.
Most presses delegate some of the work to other entities especially the bindings or platemaking. This keeps one focused on one aspect of the amalgamation of craft processes that goes into making a book and the time saving allows one to move onto the next project more quickly. It is certainly helpful to understand at least the basics of all the different parts involved to make a pleasing final product but there are binders out there who work with fine press owners very closely to guide them through that stage. Not to mention the space involved, bindery and finishing equipment take up more space than a press room.
Making books is an incredible experience. I call it alchemy - turning lead to gold. And the world of the book arts is so vast that it would take multiple lifetimes to truly become proficient and learn all the various aspects of the processes involved. Humbling and exciting, onward.
11FvS
To call oneself a press and not have a press is simply wrong.
Oxford University Press at one time had presses (I don't think they do anymore) so in this case, there's an argument to be made that their name is somehow grandfathered.
George Macy often reprinted Limited Editions Club books under the Heritage Press imprint... but, to my knowledge, Heritage Press never had a press. So that was bogus.
IMHO, for a new enterprise to use press in its name and not have a press is simply wrong. It implies they are practitioners of a craft that they don't practice.
The next question for the thought police is... who is allowed to call themselves a "Fine Press" and when are you a "Private Press"??
For Easton Press to call itself a press is ludicrous. The Easton Press is not a fine press, a private press... or even a press at all. They have a bunch of employees who sit in an office and a warehouse fulfillment center in Connecticut.
Oxford University Press at one time had presses (I don't think they do anymore) so in this case, there's an argument to be made that their name is somehow grandfathered.
George Macy often reprinted Limited Editions Club books under the Heritage Press imprint... but, to my knowledge, Heritage Press never had a press. So that was bogus.
IMHO, for a new enterprise to use press in its name and not have a press is simply wrong. It implies they are practitioners of a craft that they don't practice.
The next question for the thought police is... who is allowed to call themselves a "Fine Press" and when are you a "Private Press"??
For Easton Press to call itself a press is ludicrous. The Easton Press is not a fine press, a private press... or even a press at all. They have a bunch of employees who sit in an office and a warehouse fulfillment center in Connecticut.
12punkzip
>11 FvS: So it's technically wrong, but why does it matter? As long as the colophon says what was done by whom, it's irrelevant what the name is.
13NathanOv
>11 FvS: I think that all your examples serve to accomplish is that your very limited definition of "press" does not fit the types of business that the word is actually used to describe.
If we're being that pedantic, the dictionary definition of press is "a printing or publishing business."
If we're being that pedantic, the dictionary definition of press is "a printing or publishing business."
14Glacierman
I, for one, don't give a rip what the heck name is used.
But my favorite is "At the Sign of the Blue-Behinded Ape."
But my favorite is "At the Sign of the Blue-Behinded Ape."
15BuzzBuzzard
>11 FvS: Around 1936 the Directors of the LEC purchased a printing shop for the use of the Club alone. This shop was in Westport, Connecticut; it had been owned by Richard Ellis, and conducted as the Georgian Press. The Holy Bible went through the presses of the Club’s own shop. That edition was also designed by George Macy. I believe some latter editions were also printed at the Club’s press. So there is that.
16Lukas1990
>15 BuzzBuzzard:: "I believe some latter editions were also printed at the Club’s press".
Even their famous 'Ulysses' was printed there. They called it a printing-office.
Even their famous 'Ulysses' was printed there. They called it a printing-office.
17ultrarightist
>12 punkzip: Exactly
This thread seems to be a tempest in a teapot and contains some refuted, counterfactual assertions in support of the original postulate.
This thread seems to be a tempest in a teapot and contains some refuted, counterfactual assertions in support of the original postulate.
18GusLogan
>15 BuzzBuzzard:
>16 Lukas1990:
But since it isn’t (wasn’t) called The Limited Editions Club Press, what we really need to know is if any Heritage Press book was printed there (is a single book enough?)… Because surely it isn’t enough per >11 FvS: to have a press if one never uses it!
; )
>16 Lukas1990:
But since it isn’t (wasn’t) called The Limited Editions Club Press, what we really need to know is if any Heritage Press book was printed there (is a single book enough?)… Because surely it isn’t enough per >11 FvS: to have a press if one never uses it!
; )
19Shadekeep
>17 ultrarightist: I concur. While I'm typically in favor of accurate naming (so, for example, a "cafe" should ideally serve coffee among their offerings), I recognise that language adapts and mutates over time. While it would certainly be handy for us if, say, only publishers who did their own printing on hand letterpress could use Press in their name, that's simply not practical or reasonable to expect. There are mechanical presses and digital presses which have equal claim to the name, after all. And insisting on such rigid naming practices would quickly degenerate into a purity war - is it a Press if they don't bind their own books? make their own papers? brew their own inks?
So yes, I think it's a plus when a named Press actually incorporates a press. But I agree with grifgon that the devil is in the colophon, not in the naming.
So yes, I think it's a plus when a named Press actually incorporates a press. But I agree with grifgon that the devil is in the colophon, not in the naming.
20filox
In addition to what was already said in the thread, coming back to the original claim about Pennyroyal. Pennyroyal books were printed by Harold McGrath, whose title was "master printer at Pennyroyal Press". I do not know the details of whether Mr. McGrath had his own company registered or if he was officially employed by Pennyroyal, or what other kind of contract he might have had with Pennyroyal, but I have to wonder what difference does this make in the end. The type of business arrangements between Moser and McGrath do not interest me in the least. I know that Pennyroyal Press books were printed by Mr. McGrath, one of the finest printers of his age, and it's clearly stated so on the colophon. How he got paid (employed by Pennyroyal, contracted through a limited liability corporation, claimed the law of surprises and got stuck with Moser's child...) I don't give a damn. I also don't care if he worked in the same building as Moser or if he had his own place. Ok, maybe I care as a historical tidbit, but not enough to claim that Pennyroyal Press should not have called themselves a press.
As an aside, I do feel that OP is trolling.
As an aside, I do feel that OP is trolling.
21AndyEngraver
I wasn't going to get mixed up in this but here I am, and just possibly we are tilting at windmills here. The word press has many meanings. It has been used as a noun for hundreds of years to describe a publishing business which may or may not have a printing shop on the premises. It is used separately as a noun to describe a printing machine. You do not have to possess and use the latter to be described accurately as the former. OK I am going to shut up and go spend quality time with my only Kelmscott book, which needs to be handled and admired once in a while.
22NathanOv
>20 filox: "As an aside, I do feel that OP is trolling."
It's quite odd, since they're clearly a frequent user of this forum, yet felt their own opinion "controversial" enough, if that word can be used for something so tame, to use a throwaway account when half the people on here are anonymous anyway.
It's quite odd, since they're clearly a frequent user of this forum, yet felt their own opinion "controversial" enough, if that word can be used for something so tame, to use a throwaway account when half the people on here are anonymous anyway.
23grifgon
I don't think our anonymous friend is trolling – the question seems perfectly legitimate.
And >11 FvS:, whose fine press knowledge and opinions I greatly admire, has basically agreed.
I certainly agree with the underlying notion: Where and by whom a fine/private press book is printed is essential information. It should be included in the colophon. Many presses collaborate with others. The early Thornwillow books were all printed in borrowed or rented spaces, for example, and this information is readily available in the colophons. But I don't think it made Thornwillow Press less of a press than it is now, with its on-site Heidelbergs and Vandercooks.
And >11 FvS:, whose fine press knowledge and opinions I greatly admire, has basically agreed.
I certainly agree with the underlying notion: Where and by whom a fine/private press book is printed is essential information. It should be included in the colophon. Many presses collaborate with others. The early Thornwillow books were all printed in borrowed or rented spaces, for example, and this information is readily available in the colophons. But I don't think it made Thornwillow Press less of a press than it is now, with its on-site Heidelbergs and Vandercooks.
24FvS
>15 BuzzBuzzard: BuzzBuzzard Thank you for letting me know about the Westport shop. I never knew about that. Really interesting, I look forward to learning more.
I did not mean to sound pedantic with my earlier comment... my point wasn't about the semantics of the definition of the word press, but rather about my personal feeling about the incongruity of the idea... and for a new press that doesnt have and never intends to have a press calling themselves a press feels wrong to me. I know I can get a bit hyperbolic. Sorry.
>20 filox: filox Who's OP...
I did not mean to sound pedantic with my earlier comment... my point wasn't about the semantics of the definition of the word press, but rather about my personal feeling about the incongruity of the idea... and for a new press that doesnt have and never intends to have a press calling themselves a press feels wrong to me. I know I can get a bit hyperbolic. Sorry.
>20 filox: filox Who's OP...
25abysswalker
>24 FvS: "OP" generally means original post or original poster. So in this case that would be "anonymous" or their post.
26grifgon
>24 FvS: "Original poster"!
While I don't necessarily agree with your position, I thought it was very well-put!
While I don't necessarily agree with your position, I thought it was very well-put!
27FvS
>25 abysswalker: Thank you. I see.
28FvS
>26 grifgon: It is really my personal reaction (which I expressed with too much relish)... I was not trying to make an argument about definitions or facts. It's just my feeling. If you don't have a press, don't call your enterprise a press. To me, personally, it makes you a poseur. It's like Pepperidge Farm calling they're enterprise a farm as opposed to the Pepperidge Bakery... or Häagen-Dazs suggesting that they're some kind of Euro delight when it's actually made in New Jersey. The brand identity in both cases is dishonest. The marketing ploys work and the products are good... i genuinely like the cookies... but it feels wrong... to me.
And it begs the question: Is Colonel Sanders a Colonel?
And it begs the question: Is Colonel Sanders a Colonel?
29jroger1
>28 FvS: “Is Colonel Sanders a Colonel?”
“The title ‘colonel’ is an honorific title, the highest awarded by the Commonwealth of Kentucky, the Kentucky Colonel, and is not a military rank.” — Wikipedia.
Something like the “honorary doctorate” bestowed by many universities, I suppose.
“The title ‘colonel’ is an honorific title, the highest awarded by the Commonwealth of Kentucky, the Kentucky Colonel, and is not a military rank.” — Wikipedia.
Something like the “honorary doctorate” bestowed by many universities, I suppose.
30FvS
>29 jroger1: Does/Did Colonel Sanders exist?
33CTPress-Tony
>28 FvS: Now I’ll never enjoy their ice cream again, thanks.
From Wikipedia: Reuben Mattus invented the phrase "Häagen-Dazs" in a quest for a brand name that he claimed was Danish-sounding; however, the company's pronunciation of the name ignores the letters "ä" and "z" and letters like "ä" or digraphs like "zs" do not exist in Danish.
Wow.
From Wikipedia: Reuben Mattus invented the phrase "Häagen-Dazs" in a quest for a brand name that he claimed was Danish-sounding; however, the company's pronunciation of the name ignores the letters "ä" and "z" and letters like "ä" or digraphs like "zs" do not exist in Danish.
Wow.
36grifgon
>29 jroger1: Luke Pontifell, the publisher of Thornwillow Press, is a Kentucky Colonel. Fun fact!
37kermaier
In explaining the difference between synecdoche and metonymy, the online Merriam-Webster dictionary provided the following example of metonymy:
Some examples are so common as to become a regular part of the lexicon. For example, the use of "press" to mean “journalists” dates to the 17th century and occurs in the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”). This use, of course, attributes journalists with the name of the device used for printing newspapers and other circulations.
I would say that the use of "press" to mean "publishing house" is very similar menonymy and, just I wouldn't exclude an exclusively online source of journalism from the protections of freedom of the press, I wouldn't require that a publishing house actually have a printing press in order to call themselves a press.
Some examples are so common as to become a regular part of the lexicon. For example, the use of "press" to mean “journalists” dates to the 17th century and occurs in the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”). This use, of course, attributes journalists with the name of the device used for printing newspapers and other circulations.
I would say that the use of "press" to mean "publishing house" is very similar menonymy and, just I wouldn't exclude an exclusively online source of journalism from the protections of freedom of the press, I wouldn't require that a publishing house actually have a printing press in order to call themselves a press.
38jroger1
>37 kermaier:
And in ordinary parlance a “press conference” wouldn’t refer to several remote printing presses zooming one another other over the Internet.
And in ordinary parlance a “press conference” wouldn’t refer to several remote printing presses zooming one another other over the Internet.
39Shadekeep
>36 grifgon: So is Thornwillow's paper made with 11 secret herbs and spices?
And does being press-ganged mean one is forcibly dragooned into setting type?
And does being press-ganged mean one is forcibly dragooned into setting type?
40grifgon
>39 Shadekeep: 12, actually. This is fine press after all.
41Shadekeep
I swear, every time I read this thread topic, I hear Inspector Clouseau asking, "Does your dog bite?"
42LBShoreBook
Somewhat of a tangent but looping in a book recommendation to those who might be interested. St. James Park Press in 2018 published a 1940 report by Eric Gill on The Birmingham School of Art. While rather niche and esoteric as a general topic, the report lays out Gill's philosophy on the tension between arts and crafts and consumer demand for cheaply made items in the context of industrialization of processes. He basically looks at the purpose of the school (Birmingham training artisans and craftsman to increase the quality of craftsmanship of machine-made goods) and calls it delusional. I find this interesting in the context of this thread as it evolved into polymer plates versus metal type, etc. The book itself was printed on an Albion with bamboo boards and leather spine. It is a beautiful book and a fun read. Also relatively cheap. Sharing for anyone interested in this technology versus craft debate as a potential addition to your library.
https://www.stjamesparkpress.com/ericgill
https://www.stjamesparkpress.com/ericgill
