Fine Press Forum wiki

The Fine Press Forum wiki is now up and running with information about this forum and fine book publishing in general.
It can be found at:-
https://wiki.librarything.com/index.php/Groups:Fine_Press_Forum#Fine_Press_Forum...
Comments and recommendations for additions or alterations are welcome. Please make your suggestions in this thread.
I am sure the wiki site is not perfect, and all suggestions for amendments will be taken seriously.
Hopefully the founder of this forum, jveezer, will add a link from the front page of FPF to the wiki in the near future.

Looks like you've left off one of my favorite defunct presses, the Allen Press.

>1 wcarter:, excellent!

>2 kdweber:
Fixed!

You also left off Pegana Press (which is amazing, so please add :)
https://www.peganapress.com/

ps Their new Lovecraft letterpress edition is fabulous!

Also, it is possible to put an (L) next to presses which are letterpress? Don't get me wrong, I love the Centipede Press, but they are not letterpress, which is the traditional definition of a "fine press". Thanks.

>5 astropi:
Pegana Press added.
As for identifying letterpress publishers, that would be quite a challenge. Some publishers mix letterpress and offset printed titles.
If you want to supply me with a list of pure letterpress publishers, I will modify the list appropriately.

6: Chris is the better person to give you the list, but quite a few of those presses are entirely or mostly letterpress. I'd love to see an (L) listed if say the press is primarily letterpress (such as Chester River, etc).

>7 astropi: While the Chester River Heart of Darkness is letterpress, their Iliad & Odyssey are not.

8: True, but other books such as their recent "Moon As Bright As Water" is letterpress. Therefore I would designate them as "L" and you could also give them a "M" for mixed. Look, I can't, nor am I trying to, tell you what to do but I think such designations would be helpful :)

>1 wcarter:
You did a huge work there! Thank you! Very informative page!

>1 wcarter:

Superb design and organization, Warrick. This page transforms budding fine and private press book collectors into "instant experts" .

Some omissions in your list of publishers that should be added are:

1. Bremer Presse
2. Ernst Ludwig Presse
3. Officina Bodoni
4. Halcyon Press
5. Officina Serpentis
6. Shakespeare Head Press
7. Dolmen Press
8. Cuala Press
9. Gregynog Press - note that this press is separate and distinct from Gwasg Gregynog.
10. Faber & Faber
11. Cranbrook Press
12. Elston Press
13. Roycrofters Press (not Roycroft Press)
14. David Godine

>11 dlphcoracl:
Thanks for all these. It is a pity that most of them are not now actively publishing.
According to Wikipedia, Gregynog Press is the same as Gwasg Gregynog.
See:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregynog_Press
Cranbrook Press seem to be commercial printers. Were they fine book publishers in the past?
See:-
http://www.cranbrookpress.com.au/
The Roycrofters were a group that appreciated the Roycroft Press. Was there an actual separate publisher by this name?
See:-
http://www.roycrofter.com/
Further enlightenment on these points welcomed.
All others now included in the master list.

>12 wcarter:

1. The Cranbrook Press I am referring to was American, not Australian. It was founded by George Booth in Detroit and operated from 1900 to 1903. They were one of the first modern private presses in the U.S. to bring Wm. Morris' letterpress work and standards Across the Pond.

2. Gregynog and Gwasg Gregynog are different entities, related only by being in Wales. The Gregynog Press was founded and operated by the Davies sisters from 1922 to 1936. Gwasg Gregynog was an attempt to revive the private printing tradition by the University of Wales in 1978 and the name was taken as an homage to the earlier Gregynog Press. They are distinctly different entities, however with respect to both the design and quality of their work. More importantly, they are treated as different entities by serious collectors. The best work of the Gregynog Press is of a much higher standard and their wood-engraved illustrations were crafted by some of the most famous 20th century artists. In brief, Gregynog Press and Gwasg Gregynog are NOT the same, despite what Wikipedia says.

3. Elbert Hubbard's private press is referred to in equal measure as "the Roycroft Shop" or as "the Roycrofters". Both names are in common usage and both should be used in any listing.

Additional private press names that should be added:

1. George D. Sproul
2. Fanfrolico Press - this is probably the most famous of the 20th century private presses in Australia !!
3. Ascensius Press
4. Philip Lee Warner for the Medici Society
5. Hacon & Ricketts (also known as the Vale Press)
6. Curwen Press
7. Cresset Press
8. Corvinus Press
9. Gogmagog Press
10. Mountain House Press
11. Grolier Club
12. Roxburghe Club
13. John Henry Nash
14. Joh. Enschede en Zonen (Jan van Krimpen)
15. John Lane, the Bodley Head
16. Harrison of Paris
17. Officina Athelstane - a new private press by one of your countrymen Down Under
18. St. Teresa's Press
19. Trianon Press
20. Black Sun Press
21. Elfriede Abbe
22. Charles Carrington
23. George G. Harrap & Co.
24. Anvil Press
25. Thomas Y. Crowell & Co.
26. Thomas B. Mosher

>13 dlphcoracl:
Good grief! The list is growing exponentially.
I will look at all this tomorrow.
Are there some we should remove from the list?

>14 wcarter:

I have done the heavy lifting for you in that regard. Perhaps no. 16 and 21 can be omitted - they are a bit "off of the beaten path". The remaining listed are or were all major players in the 20th century and should be included in any serious, comprehensive list.

That said, there are numerous presses in your current list that I have never heard of. I would certainly start deleting there as many are not known to serious collectors.

>14 wcarter:

I have reviewed your initial list of Fine and Private Press Publishers on your Fine Press Forum Wiki page and many of the listings are:

1. Quite obscure (minor press) or publishers of very obscure titles.
2. Limited in scope to a niche interest or field of knowledge.
3. Not really fine or private press.

I realize this may "offend" some followers of this forum, but, since you have asked, these are the listings I recommend deleting from your initial list:

Addison Publications, ADEVA, Alteco Historical Editions, Atlas Press, Atlantic Limited Editions, Avenue Press, Berlinn, Blue Hand Press, Bridge Press, Cabbagehead Press, Classic of Medicine Library, Colony Press, De Walden Press, Everyman's Library (an important press, but NOT a fine or private press), Exisle, Extraordinary Editions, Frog Hollow Press, Green Cat Press, Horse and Buggy, Hoxton Mini Press, Interrobang, Interrogo, Jerusalem Press, Konemann, Levenger Press, Longueville Publications, Malakoff Fine Art Press, Memory Press, Middlearth Editions, Millennium Liber, New York Review (again, an important press but NOT fine/private press), Persephone Books, Porter Press, Rattis Press, Slightly Foxed, Small Beer Press, Stone Street Press, Three Hands Press (too narrow in its publishing focus), Troy Books (again, too narrow), VdH, Viking Press (important publisher, but NOT fine or private press), Walking Bird Press and Walking Tree Press (both obscure and minor presses), Zagava (obscure & minor).

Eliminating these publishers will go a long way toward separating the wheat from the chaff and making the list of Fine and Private Press Publishers more focused and manageable.

dlphcoracl

Thanks to diphcoraci, busywine and astropi I have modified the Fine Press Forum wiki (http://www.librarything.com/wiki/index.php/Groups:Fine_Press_Forum#Quality.2C_Fine_and_Private_Press_Publishers) as best I can to hopefully be fair to the curious, general readers, afficianados, publishers and fine book lovers. Comprehensive, but I trust, not overwhelming, and divided into current and historic publishers.
I have also included a link to the Fine Press Book Association list of members.

>1 wcarter: Thanks. It is very useful!

Though not traditionally "fine" as defined by astropi above, I believe you could consider adding the following, certainly "quality" production private presses:

Side Real Press: http://www.siderealpress.co.uk/

Egaeus Press: http://www.egaeuspress.com/

Strange Attractor: http://strangeattractor.co.uk/

Fulgur: https://fulgur.co.uk/

Sarob Press: http://sarobpress.blogspot.com/

Swan River Press: https://swanriverpress.wordpress.com/

>19 vaniamk13:
Thank you.

> Warwick
1 Richard W Ellis's Georgian Press? Chris reviewed its "wonderful 1931 edition of The Georgics of Virgil, from Cheshire House" with enthusiasm back in 2012, and Ellis was one of the most respected printers of his era. He founded the press in 1924 and operated it until 1933.
2 The Bentleys' Archetype Press? (motto: The fine printer begins where the careful printer leaves off) Active from 1934 to the outbreak of war, and again from 1973 to 1985). But maybe it belongs to a sub-category of individualistic (i.e. mildly eccentric) hand-press artisanal printshops?

>23 featherwate:
Thanks for the suggestions. I am currently travelling and currently on the most remote inhabited place on the planet, Easter Island, so will investigate your ideas further on my return in a few weeks.

>22 wcarter:
"the most remote inhabited place on the planet"
I grew up believing that was Alice Springs...

22: I'm so jealous! What are you doing there? Can you share pics please? And, you still get internet. Are you sure it's less inhabited than Maine?

>24 astropi:
We are exploring the island and its moai, only 5000 people (so fewer than Maine), no television, no radio, but slow flaky internet - not good enough to send pictures. The island is triangular, 24 x 18 x 17 km., and the nearest habitation is Tahiti 3100 km. Northwest, or Chile 3700 km. to the East. Fascinating, and rather sad history - worth checking it out on Wikipedia.

25: You may be interested to know (I looked this up):

Maine: 41.3 people per square mile
Easter Island: 60 people per sq. mile

Share pics when you get back :)

I just visited the FPF wiki and found out that the link to Oak Knolls “Printing and Publishing Terms” is not working any more.

>27 c_schelle:
Seems to be out of print.
Pity.
Link removed.

Unbelievable effort again on your part wcarter to provide us all with good, solid information which can be found in one place. I don’t know where you find the time or the energy, but I’m thankful. Enjoy Easter Island (Did you bring your appropriate Jared Diamond with you?)!🗿🗿🗿

>29 NLNils: I can concur. >1 wcarter: does an awesome job with the wiki. It's such a great resource to discover new presses. Thank you!

After Ed Grabhorn died and the Grabhorn Press closed, his brother Robert partnered with Andrew Hoyem as the Grabhorn-Hoyem Press for a while (1965-1973). After Robert Grabhorn passed away (1973), Andrew Hoyem continued on as the Arion Press (1974 - ), which you have on your list. I suggest you add Grabhorn-Hoyem to your historical list, as it was a separate imprint and operation.

>31 Glacierman:
Thanks, added.

>29 NLNils: Adding my voice to NLNils and c_schelle's: the wiki is an incredible and vital resource. I use it all the time. My thanks as well!

Let me suggest another addition to the historical section: The Spiral Press (1926-1971) of Joseph Blumenthal and George Hoffman, both formerly of the Marchbanks Press. Fairly early on, Hoffman left the press when it had to close during the depression, and Blumenthal became the sole proprietor.

The Spiral Press not only did commissioned work for others, but published many a work under their own imprint. They did 12 titles for the Limited Editions Club, one for the Imprint Society (The Brick Moon) as well as work for major publishers such as Random House and Henry Holt. They also did work for the Grolier Club, Pierpont Morgan Library, and other institutions. They were well-known as fine printers in their time and their reputation stands today.

For a full accounting of the work they did, see The Spiral Press (1926-1971): a bibliographical checklist compiled by Philip N. Cronenwett (2002).

>34 Glacierman:
Thank you - added.

>34 Glacierman: Thank you for the information. Is there a particular book that they published under their own imprint that you think is particularly noteworthy?

>36 ultrarightist: I can point out titles from the bibliography that might fit the bill, but lack sufficient familiarity with their body of work to make authoritative judgement calls on their titles.

1. Poems of Edgar Allen Poe (1929). 585 copies; handset in Lutetia; French hand made paper; black paper over boards with red leather spine. The book was published by the Spiral Press and distributed to the trade by Random House. (copies on ABE for $57.00 and under)

2. Emerson, Ralph Waldo. Nature. (1932). 100 copies, handset in Spiral (their proprietary font); Maidstone paper; bound in cloth by Peter Franck in a brown paper slipcase; printed on a hand press. One of the AIGA 50 for 1933. (one copy on ABE for $457 and it is in Munich, Germany)

3. Ecclesiastes, or The Preacher, in the King James Translation of the Bible. (1965). 285 copies; handset in Emerson; Rives mouldmade heavyweight paper; black cloth over boards with a vellum spine and a black slipcase by Russell-Rutter. Drawings by Ben Shahn engraved in wood by Stefan Martin and printed from the original blocks; calligraphy by David Soshensky. (copies on ABE for $250 and under)

Robert Frost and Joseph Blumenthal were life long friends, and not only did he print Frosts' works for his publishers, but for every year from 1934 to 1962, Blumenthal printed a Christmas greeting for friends and associates featuring a Frost poem. Frost's Collected Poems (1930, Random House) was issued in a limited edition of 1000 copies printed by the Spiral Press and a trade edition not printed by the Press.

By the bye, I'm no Spiral Press expert, but owning a copy of the Press bibliography makes me sound like one. *grin*

>37 Glacierman: Thanks!

Just a reminder that this page still exists.
The link on the front page of the FPF has disappeared but the wiki can still be found at:-
https://wiki.librarything.com/index.php/Groups:Fine_Press_Forum#Fine_Press_Forum...

I really like the fine press wiki, but there's one (extremely common) mistake in the definitions section. The definition of "font" is given as "the style of type used (eg. Helvetica, Times)"

This is closer to the definition of "typeface" than "font". Helvetica and Times are typefaces, not fonts. A font is a particular set of glyphs within a typeface. For example, italic or 12pt.

Of course 99.999% of people today would use "typeface" and "font" interchangeably, but I imagine a significant share of the remaining 0.001% are here on the Fine Press Forum :-)

Not sure who edits the wiki, and I'm sure somebody out there would be better suited to giving a concise definition of "typeface" versus "font," but thought it might be worth mentioning.

>40 grifgon:
From OED:-
Font: A set of type of one particular face and size.
Typeface: A particular design of type
Type: Characters or letters that are printed
Are you happy with these definitions, or can you enhance the definitions further?

Language is a living thing, so OED is correct in a contemporary sense, but not entirely in an historical sense. A "fount" was a specific quantity of a particular (metal) face in a particular size (similar to grifon's "a particular set of glyphs within a typeface"), viz.

"Of the Pica and English, Roman and Italica, Eight, Nine hundred, or a Thousand Pounds weight; when as of other Founts Three of Four Hundred Pounds weight is accounted a good Fount." Moxon, p. 17 (1896 ed.)

When discussing books printed letterpress, a solution might be to use the word "face," & avoid font altogether.

>37 Glacierman:
Glacierman, you brought new information to us. Thank you.
Blumenthal's name often appears in many writings on 20th century fine printing although I'm not familiar with his own press work (something I am now going to try to remedy). He was also a renowned historian. One of my happiest book acquisitions (book in like-new condition, low price paid, subject, beautiful printing)was Bruce Rogers: A Life In Letters by Blumenthal written near the end of his long life (with an introduction by John Dreyfus: can one imagine three more distinguished names in 20th century bibliophilia?).
There is a good Wikipedia article on Blumenthal for those not familiar with him.

>1 wcarter: the Whittington Press link on the wiki page is dead now.

It seems like the current site is here:

https://whittingtonpressshop.com/

>44 abysswalker:
Thanks, fixed.

>1 wcarter: The brief background on The Golden Cockerel Press says "It was one of the most highly regarded English private presses until it ceased production in 1961 after publishing 122 books, all in very limited numbers."

I think 122 was the number of books published under Sandford's stewardship. The fourth and final GCP bibliography, Cock-a-Hoop, counts up to 214 books published by the press (the 214th being Cock-a-Hoop itself). Depending on the level of pedantry we wanted to engage in, we could argue that it is 213 since Cock-a-Hoop was "published by The Private Libraries Association for the Golden Cockerel Press".

>46 ubiquitousuk:
Thanks, corrected.

>46 ubiquitousuk: I just bought the last book The Famous Tragedy of the Rich Jew Of Malta published by the Golden Hours Press just before they purchased the Golden Cockerel Press.

>48 kdweber: I have not read "The Jew of Malta" but I understand it is one of the most popular antisemitic works in the world...
https://www.lagrange.edu/academics/undergraduate/undergraduate-research/citation...
The idea of anti-Semitism is nothing new in literature, and Christopher Marlowe’s The Jew of
Malta and William Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice are plays that do not escape this notion.
Although the views of Judaism by Shakespeare and Marlowe appear to be predominately prejudiced
in both plays, both authors also appear to question their trust in the hypocrisies of Christianity as
well. While the playwrights differ from each other in some respects, Shakespeare and Marlowe both
employ the popular negative Jewish stereotype that they may, or may not have, agreed with to
criticize the hypocrisy of Jews, Christians, and orthodoxy as a whole.

>49 astropi:
Interesting that Shakespeare’s is a comedy, while Marlowe’s is a tragedy.
I haven’t read “The Rich Jew of Malta” yet — but I have the same Golden Hours Press edition, so I’ll get around to it eventually.

>48 kdweber:
The Golden Hours Press “Doctor Faustus” is also a gem, with wonderful engravings by Blair Hughes-Staunton.

>48 kdweber: >50 kermaier: Yes, both The Rich Jew and Doctor Faustus are on my "to buy" list. Both look very nice indeed.

Hey guys, it would be appreciated if you would restrict comments on this thread to updates for the Fine Pres wiki.
If you want to discuss books, please start a new thread.
Thanks.

>52 wcarter: Oops -- I didn't notice what thread this came up in. Sorry.

I clicked through the Quality, Fine and Private Press Publishers block of links this morning and a number of them seem obsolete. Some are just dead pages on active sites, others are completely down sites. I didn't want to mod the wiki myself, in case those more knowledgeable about the presses wish to update it themselves. Great resource overall, found some new stuff to acquire!

Thanks for pointing out the dead links.
I will attend to these as time allows over the next week.

I would like to offer Ethereal Visions Publishing as a possible inclusion on the list. While they are not fine press in the strictest sense (they don't offer letterpress editions, for example), their books do have a number of characteristics in common with fine press. I defer to the judgement of the group, of course, but thought I'd put them out there.

I have their Poe, Dracula, and Frankenstein volumes, and even if not fine press, they are very lovely books.

>56 Shadekeep:
Probably more a high quality trade publisher than fine press, but my attitude is to be inclusive rather than exclusive, so has been added to the wiki.

>56 Shadekeep: Just a caution that there seems to be some negativity against Ethereal Visions Publishing for their recent tarot deck kickstarter. I wasn't following from the beginning, but note the comments (criticism) made by people with cancelled pledges had the pledge cancelled by the creator, as backers cannot cancel pledges after the campaign ends: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/evpublishing/the-luna-tarot-deck/comments

>57 wcarter: I wonder, though, if in so doing, are we not diluting the concept of "fine press?" I consider Folio Society to be a high-end trade publisher and cannot bring myself to include them under the fine press umbrella, so to me, Ethereal is no different.

But, you are the keeper of the list, so if you wish to include them, you can do so. I see why you might wish to err on the side of inclusiveness, however.

>57 wcarter: Thanks, and I hope it's not too divisive an inclusion. Do feel free to take it back off if the majority feels strongly otherwise.

>58 kvnchn: I wasn't aware of that, that's really unfortunate. It sounds like the problem may have been with securing shipment, but it also sounds like the publishers could have handled it better. They seem to be changing their direction a bit as well, so I don't know if the previous kind of books will be a big part of their future going forward. Curious as well that the URL I used has gone down and they are now at https://evpub.info/ . I wonder if they are retooling the old one, or maybe lost it in a domain renewal.

>59 Glacierman: Agreed, and I wouldn't have suggested them if vendors like the Folio Society weren't already on the list. It's difficult to know where to draw the line, and sometimes it seems useful to create more finely grained categories. But then one has to decide the boundaries of those, and the problem isn't solved so much as deferred. That's why I think the consensus of the group is the best arbiter.

>57 wcarter:

I will take the other side of this debate and state that publishers such as Folio Society, Taschen, Ethereal Visions, Easton Press, etc., are NOT presses that should be equated and discussed in the same breath as serious private presses such as Barbarian Press, Salvage Press, Gregynog, etc. These presses may produce books that are pleasing to read and many are imaginative, but they do not combine imagination and book design with the craftsmanship, attention to detail, and quality of materials we expect from great private presses. Although a few of these editions are standouts the vast majority are glorified trade books.

I would strongly suggest making a very simple and fundamental distinction in the Fine Press Forum Wiki. Divide the publishers into those that use letterpress printing from those that do not and make this essential differentiation easy to recognize and access. When then are lumped and listed together the Fine Press Forum Wiki becomes useless to serious collectors, who must then separate the wheat from the chaff. There are plenty of other LibraryThing forums that passionately discuss the merits of these books but this forum, first and foremost, should focus on the handful of private presses who strive to advance the Arts of the Book or, at the very least, maintain the aesthetic values of the modern private press tradition which began with William Morris and the Kelmscott Press.

>61 dlphcoracl: "...but they do not combine imagination and book design with the craftsmanship, attention to detail, and quality of materials we expect from great private presses. Although a few of these editions are standouts the vast majority are glorified trade books." (Emphasis added).

AND

"...but this forum, first and foremost, should focus on the handful of private presses who strive to advance the Arts of the Book or, at the very least, maintain the aesthetic values of the modern private press tradition which began with William Morris and the Kelmscott Press."

I wholeheartedly concur!

"Divide the publishers into those that use letterpress printing from those that do not and make this essential differentiation easy to recognize and access."

An excellent solution to the problem. Two thumbs up!

>61 dlphcoracl: I think that's fair. While I am leery of creating too many demarcations, I think a single clean split would be beneficial. Your suggestion of dividing along letterpress-or-not is the most logical to me, since many other book traits may be found in both categories. I would certainly welcome a free-standing list of purely letterpress publishers, with the others in their own category.

Most of the other traits that might define fine press, such as the quality of the paper or bindings or endpapers, are usually part-and-parcel of the letterpress houses' work anyway, so I don't think there needs to be further subcategorisation beyond this one. Though if folks want to get really fine-grained in their searches, one could probably create a metadata list of the publishers with their various characteristics tagged (do they do sewn bindings? offer slipcases? have lettered editions?). But honestly it's a small enough pool at the moment that such a thing is likely overkill. Two clear, clean blocks of "Fine Press" and, um, "Noteworthy Press?", would be a great next step.

>63 Shadekeep:

The division can be easily done as follows:

Letterpress printing = private press
Non-letterpress printing = fine press

....and with reference to the Folio Society, which has done superb letterpress books such as the Letterpress Shakespeare and some of their other limited and "fine" editions, where do you categorise them?

Many other publishers are the same, producing a mixture of letterpress and non-letterpress editions, sometimes of the same title at the same time (eg. Suntup).

If someone here is happy to divide the lists of presses into Fine, Private and Quality, OR Letterpress and Quality, please do so, but I found drawing the line so difficult and subjective that I gave up and included all publishers who may have been of interest to members of the forum.

>65 wcarter: It is nigh unto impossible to say that the FS Letterpress Shakespeare is not fine press. A limited edition with hand set letterpress on great paper bound in leather and hand marbled paper.

>65 wcarter: Sorry for opening Pandora's Box on this. I could debate taxonomy all day, but such debate is of scant use when concrete results are needed. Ultimately this is your list and you should curate it as you see fit. I enjoy browsing the links in it, and spending time with folks here has been the most instructive when it comes to focusing on presses of personal interest. Whatever you decide, I find it a useful resource and thank you for maintaining it.

>65 wcarter:

Another simple solution:

1. Categorize each publisher into private press vs. fine press based upon the majority of their published editions. Since only about 5% of Folio Society are letterpress editions, they are clearly fine press.

2. In cases where the division between letterpress and non-letterpress is not as wide, classify these publishers as fine press and place an asterisk next to those that occasionally publish letterpress editions.

My point - and I believe it is an important one - is that there must be ONE forum on LibraryThing devoted to identifying and separating the true private presses which exclusively publish letterpress editions from all others presses.

>68 dlphcoracl:
Unfortunately, I do not think it is simple.

If you wish to undertake this categorisation please proceed and I will post the result on the wiki. I found the task overwhelming and effectively impossible, which is why I gave up after spending many hours changing and re-changing my mind about different publishers, when I first wrote the wiki.

Another point is where to draw the line between private and fine press. It really is very difficult, and extremely subjective.

>69 wcarter:

I will do this over the weekend and I will divide all of the publishers listed in the FPF Wiki into one of three groups:

1. Private press (exclusively letterpress)
2. Fine press (predominantly standard printing methods)
3. Fine press with asterisk - a mixture of letterpress and standard printing.

It will not be perfect but it will clearly make the Wiki far more useful.

>70 dlphcoracl:
Excellent!

Another thought - virtually all books published before 1970, and all Folio Society books before 1980, were printed letterpress. Does that make them all fine editions?
Just further demonstrating the difficulties of categorisation.

>70 dlphcoracl: Suggestion: instead of Fine Press asterisk, name the category Fine Press Plus or something similar.

Or perhaps it is simpler and less ambiguous to create a "primarily letterpress" category rather than attaching some other evaluative label (maybe even use an objective threshold, say 90% or greater of publications). I suspect this would capture all or almost all the variance that people care about practically, and it would neatly sidestep the issue of continually contested definition (see also: What is true punk? What is true pornography?).

>74 abysswalker: Where would FS land under that taxonomy? FS is not primarily letterpress, but has produced some outstanding letterpress volumes.

I think the letterpress / non-letterpress distinction is pretty important. However, we're at risk of a slipshod application of terms.

"Private press" and "Fine press" are terms with long histories and curatorial usage. I don't really think redefining them as meaning "letterpress versus non-letterpress" is very useful.

To be honest, Wikipedia does a pretty good job of clarifying these terms:

Fine press = "Fine press printing and publishing comprises historical and contemporary printers and publishers publishing books and other printed matter of exceptional intrinsic quality and artistic taste, including both commercial and private presses. Their dedication to fine printing distinguishes them from other small presses. Fine press publications are often published in limited editions, etc."

Private Press = "Private press publishing, with respect to books, is an endeavor performed by craft-based expert or aspiring artisans, either amateur or professional, who, among other things, print and build books, typically by hand, with emphasis on design, graphics, layout, fine printing, binding, covers, paper, stitching, and the like."

In other words, "Private Press" does not refer to letterpress publishers, but rather a craftsman/publisher. The key here is that the publisher is directly involved in the manufacture of the books themselves. I think this is a pretty meaningful distinction, and it would be a shame to redefine it as meaning "Letterpress Publisher" when simply saying "Letterpress Publisher" would do fine!

Not that I necessarily advocate using this for the Fine Press Forum Wiki, but here's how I categorize presses in my own head:

Private Press = Letterpress limited editions made by publisher/craftsman = e.g. Greenboathouse, Foolscap
Fine Press = Letterpress limited editions made by a company or partnership = e.g. Thornwillow, Arion
Small Press = Limited editions made by a company or partnership = e.g. Suntup, Folio Society

I also think the root of the difficulty in creating categories is that there's a tendency to hierarchize them. It might feel like a demotion to consider Folio Society as "small press" rather than "fine press," but I think that's wrong. If we don't apply an assumption of quality to each category, but instead categorize based on a press' methods of publishing and manufacturing (as the curators of special collections do) then I think categorizing becomes relatively easy.

>76 grifgon: agree entirely.

We can debate this and classify this and reclassify this until the next millennium. No classification will satisfy everyone and, frankly, I don't care. This is a classic example of paralysis by analysis and, as a result, the Fine Press Forum Wiki is near-useless for serious collectors who want to acquire truly distinctive, hand-crafted books.

I will now do the simplest thing possible by posting photos of the Wiki lists with the letter "P" (for private press) next to the publishers who strive to produce editions of the highest standard. How you classify the others publishers is an individual matter and it is much less relevant. Again, the goal is to produce a Wiki that is informative and useful for serious collectors, not individuals who want "pretty" books. If anyone finds this offensive or opinionated, simply ignore it and use the Wiki as it currently exists.

>75 ultrarightist: I think you answered your own question, as modern FS (even in the era of their greatest letterpress limited editions) was not primarily a letterpress publisher. The exception volumes are notable though; if I was writing a research article on the topic I would probably give it a footnote so readers could make up their own minds.

For the practical purposes of a collector using the forum wiki, I might separate FS pre-1980 and post-1980 (approximate date; I am sure wcarter or someone else can provide a more exact date threshold).

>80 dlphcoracl: the goal is to produce a Wiki that is informative and useful for serious collectors

I mean, wouldn't "serious collectors" already know the distinction between FS and Barbarian Press? I'm not sure I understand who is the audience for this new Wiki. It seems to be more collectors who are just starting out and I don't think they care that much about the fine-grained distinctions discussed here. Probably adding a (L) next to a publisher to mean they produce letterpress books and (O) for offset, and (L, O) for publishers like Suntup would convey pretty much all the information necessary for such users. In my mind, book collecting is a hobby, and the point of a hobby is that one spends time to learn more about it. Thus, trying to cram all the information possible into a single Wiki that can be digested quickly kind of defeats the purpose IMO.

Tallone Editore should be added to the list. I believe they are in the upper echelon of private presses.

>77 grifgon: I like these three categories a lot, it seems pretty clear and easy to bucket publishers into for the most part. But I also think it's possible to keep everything in one table and do metadata tagging - L for Letterpress, S for Slipcase, B for Sewn Bindings, etc. - you could make as much alphabet soup as you like. And I also see the merits in both a very restricted list and a very generous list. As a Gemini I tend to see every side of an argument.

If I myself were creating the table I would try to create single table that can be filtered by options. So for example someone could choose "letterpress" from a dropdown and only those entries tagged as letterpress publishers would show. I know this is available in some wiki extensions, but don't know if it's on LT. I'll have a shufty.

EDIT: Well, a simple sorting table is possible. It's not the most elegant thing, but you could add multiple sorting columns for the highest priorities. You could even do something more visually pleasing like replacing the word labels I used with things like gold/silver/bronze stars. Again, just a possibility, not saying it's the solution. I made a demo here with some publishers and arbitrary categorisation.

https://wiki.librarything.com/index.php/User:Shadekeep

>84 Shadekeep: that's nice functionality in that table.

Regarding sewn bindings, I'm not familiar with all the publishers listed in the wiki, but as far as I know even the edge cases often singled out as potentially not "fine press" enough for whatever reason (such as Folio Society, Easton Press, or Centipede Press), put out only sewn bindings. So I don't think we need to worry about that info. Unless anyone has contrary info to report.

>85 abysswalker: Thanks! And I mentioned sewn bindings because I was asked about it in another thread. I don't know how prevalent it is among publishers, but if it's more often the rule than the exception, then I agree with you that it doesn't need to be a demarcator. Such things could be handled outside the table with specific notes about individual publishers where they deviate from the norm.

One thing I do like to know is when a press offers slipcases, but as those can often be tied to an edition rather than the publisher as a whole, it may not be a useful column either.

I would like to suggest Rooksmoor Press as an addition to the Fine and Private Press list. While there are only a few titles out from them at the moment, there are some promising projects in the works, both directly from the press itself and in collaboration with The History Press. And the press is a member of the forum here.

I second the motion!

>87 Shadekeep:
Done!

>89 wcarter: Thanks kindly! Just a quick note, it should be spelled Rooksmoor. And from what I can tell they look like a Fine Private Press, but you may be seeing things that categorise them otherwise.

For the historic presses section, I would like to draw your attention to Paul Elder & Co. which owned the Tomoye Press. The press was operated/managed by John Henry Nash from 1903 to 1911, when Elder & Nash had a falling out and went their separate ways. Not every book published by Elder qualify as fine printing, but many Tomoye Press books from the Nash period certainly do. After Nash left, however, the Press' output is somewhat shaky in regards to "fine press" work.

I have a copy of a Nash period book, Tennessee's Partner by Bret Harte (1907) that I consider fine press.

Still, Elder's Tomoye Press is certainly collectible, if overlooked, primarily during the Nash period.

For the curious, I recommend this website devoted to Paul Elder & Co. and its history. It is very thorough.

>91 Glacierman:
Done!

Rick Ardinger's Limberlost Press in Boise, Idaho, publishes a nice series of letterpress chapbooks. Rick apprenticed under Tom & Barb Rea of Dooryard Press (defunct). His raison d'ètre is stated thus: "Dedicated to publishing finely printed books of poetry, fiction and non-fiction by both established and emerging writers."

Rick's URL: https://www.limberlostpress.com

Rick also publishes books in offset.

Dooryard should be added to the historic section. A brief look at this press can be found here: https://www.librarything.com/topic/316478

For the historic section, add Toothpaste Press/Coffeehouse Press. Their books are not only collectible, but some fetch a pretty price. The press was established in Iowa City, Iowa, ca. 1972

Allen Kornblum was a student of Harry Duncan and together with his wife, Cinda, published 70 books by 1984.

>93 Glacierman: >94 Glacierman:
Also done.

Here's two more for the wiki.

Another of Harry Duncan's students, Denise Brady, established her own press, bradypress (no cap!) in 1984, but the first two books were not for sale. The first published book was issued in 1988.

The remaining stock of bradypress books and broadsides can be purchased directly from Denise at the above link and at the original published price.

One of the currently available books, Blown Roses, poems by Nancy McCleery, was published in 2001 at $35 and is available still at that price. I happen to have the prospectus for that book in my ephemera collection.

In 2015, she partnered with Guy Duncan, Harry Duncan's son, to found Gibraltar Editions, and all her work since then has been issued under that imprint. This press is still active.

While we're updating the list, I'd recommend Bonnefant Press, which is still active. Some of their work is available in English, and Hans is pleasant to correspond with.

If you're considering presses which are entirely not in English, I'd highly recommend including our friend Geert's press Factotum Pers. His work is technically masterful and truly lovely.

>97 Shadekeep: and if including the fine presses of the Nethlarlands, three historic presses really need to be added (in my humble opinion):

1. Bram de Does’s Spectatorpers, which produced some seriously beautiful and impeccable work.

2. Sem Hartz’s Tuinwijkpers. Sem was an exceptional typographer and a fine pressman

3. Cees van Dijk’s Carlinapers. A fine pressman who used to be partners with Sem Hartz at Tuinwijkpers

If all three is too many to consider then the best of them is hands down Spectatorpers!

>98 ChestnutPress:
Spectatorpers added.

>99 wcarter: Cheers!

Peter Beilenson is most commonly associated with his main imprint, Peter Pauper Press and his printery, the Walpole Printing Office.

There is, however, a lesser known imprint he used from time to time: At the Sign of the Blue-Behinded Ape. Works under this imprint were printed at Walpole.

Two titles with that imprint are (1) A Letter By Dr. Franklin to the Royal Academy of Brussels...on Perfumes which deals with how to make farts smell better, and (2) Cupid's Horn-book; Songs And Ballads Of Marriage And Of Cuckoldry which is self-explanatory.

Quite collectible. Happy hunting!.

>101 Glacierman: An additional title in similar vein from At the Sign of the Blue-Behinded Ape is An Immoral Anthology, a collection of bawdy poetry from 1933 illustrated by Andre Durenceau.

>102 dpbbooks: Yes, Beilenson used the Ape imprint for off-color works. They appealed to his sense of humor, methinks.

Oh, and the Walpole Printing Office should not be confused with the Walpole Press, which was the private press of Martin Kinder and was based in Old Costessey, Norwich, England, and was active from the late 1920s until at least 1945 which is the year my sole Walpole Press book (The Book of Tobit) was printed/published. Books from this press can be had for well under $100, but most copies---not surprisingly---seem to be located in the UK.

There is also a Walpole Press located in Walpole, Mass, founded in the mid-1980s, but it is of no concern to us, nor is the Walpole Press located in London which was active in the 1890s - 1900s and published deluxe editions by subscription.

Collectors might wish to take note of the Georgian Press, the private press of Richard W. Ellis, which was active in the 1920s-1940s. Mr. Ellis was a noted typographer of his time and his books are very collectable. He also designed and printed books for others. One notable work was an edition of the four gospels + Acts that he did for the Samuel H. Kress Foundation in 1959. A large quarto, it is illustrated with full color reproductions of paintings by various masters from the Kress collection.

There were/are a slew of publishers using the Georgian Press name, so searches will turn up all sorts of things. Adding Ellis' name to the search criteria might help.

Add Rose Valley Press to your list of defunct private presses. It was the private press of Walter Kahoe, who was, among other things, a VP at J. P. Lippincott. He got his apprenticeship in printing at Wm. Rudge while Bruce Rogers was there. Rose Valley Press was his hobby press. The Press was active from about 1940 until the 1970s. Upon retirement in 1971, he started another pp imprint, the Whimsie Press which he used for, well, whimsical items.

Kahoe's Rose Valley Press should not be confused with an earlier press of the same name established by Horace Traubel and which was active in the early 1900s in Philadelphia.

>106 Glacierman:
Your wish is my command!

Arif Press (Wesley B. Tanner). Historical
Passim Press (Wesley B. Tanner). Historical.

Wes' website (wbtanner.com) seems to be inactive. The copyright is 2018 and the buttons are dead, other than the contact. Maybe an enquiry would elicit a response, I don't know.

Wes also printed things under his own name. He did lots of broadsides and work for others. He's also a designer of dustjackets for trade publishers.

Would you be happy to add my http://www.finepresspoetry.com efforts to the list? With thanks.

>109 AJMoorhouse:
Delighted to do so.

>110 wcarter: thank you

Add to historical quality book pubs: Private Press of C. F. Braun.

I would also add Press On Scroll Road (https://www.thepressonscrollroad.com/) as an active (I believe) fine press.
They print their books off handset type using a handpress onto handmade paper. The books are pretty wonderful if you get a chance to check them out at an institutional collection or book shop.

>113 921Jack: I second this. Bob Baris is an exceptional printer!

>112 Glacierman: >113 921Jack:
Added as requested.

>113 921Jack: Oh nice! The very first title in the catalogue that catches my eye is Culinary Herbs, and it has an engraving by Abigail Rorer. Sounds a fine press indeed!