Why a Limited Edition? (Roy Squires)

As a new member to LT, I've spent some time scrolling through a number of this group's recent threads. Noting the particularly long one focused on Suntup Press, I thought this two-page letter (c. 1971) from Roy A. Squires might add to the conversation.

I'm surprised not to have found any mention of RAS's publications in this group's history, given what appears to be a shared interest in the kinds of authors he liked, and he being ahead of his time in offering them a "fine press" treatment. Perhaps this is because RAS was never considered part of the California fine press community that was so vibrant during his lifetime. I don't think there's one mention of him in the all the issues of the BCC quarterly newsletter. He settled on a format that he liked, and which allowed him to play with different types and paper, and he was really hitting his stride by the time he got to Bradbury's The Aqueduct – and then stopped (except for his bibliography). No idea why he ran out of steam.

The topics and presses discussed in this group have been eye-opening for me. I have been in & of fine press books for about 25 years, and am well acquainted with the American & UK booksellers who claim a particular interest in fine press work. Publishers like the Folio Society or Easton Press would never be included in their listings under the category "fine press" (if at all). Even the LEC is somewhat dismissed, aside from a few high spots. Likewise I have not encountered among the old guard of fine press booksellers imprints like Suntup, Centipede, or any of their peers, all of whom seem to be focused on works very different from traditional fine press fare. I intend for that statement to be as objective as possible, and not judgemental.

All this has made me wonder if Suntup and the others might be a new kind of fine press, a 21st century fine press, different from the 20th century model. Certainly many of the traditional fine press materials (papers, foundry type, even good inks!) are much harder to source than they were just a few decades ago, which means publishers must come up with alternatives. The kinds of traditional printmaking that often embellished fine press books are likewise less commonly encountered, and more costly (if we're paying fairly) than they were. This, and what seems a popular taste for more dramatic, or colorful, illustration styles make offset a good solution. And the focus on established popular works, issued in a deluxe format, with a direct connection to the author, through a signature, seems more akin to modern first collecting. Almost like an updating of the LEC concept and program. The difference is that Macy was inspired by the early years of the (English) fine presses; I'm not sure what is inspiring Suntup et al. Maybe it's the same but with a hundred years' distance? The descriptions of their publications in this group remind me of the specialty publishers that flourished in the '80s (e.g. Scream, Ziesing, Underwood/Miller, Dark Harvest), but with some fine press trappings added.

It's in that context that I thought Roy's comments about limited edition books might be of interest. I don't have any of his publications, but I've always admired his work and spirit. He took the work seriously, but not himself.

p.s. Semi-related, I'm surprised Charnel House books don't seem to get mentioned in this group. I don't believe any were printed letterpress, but that doesn't seem to be a criteria here (even though fine press is by historical custom about letterpress printing, with all it entails in the broadest sense). Charnel certainly invested in some elaborate publications and had an appreciation for methods and materials. Like Roy's books, not my scene, but I've enjoyed looking through some of Charnel's editions.

I am surprised there hasn't been a response to this honest but scathing observation, which made for very interesting reading. Genuine critique is the toughest test for any view point. I hope bumping this thread up the ladder will attract frank commentary from the FPF elite - including a certain OrAcLE who surfaces every now and then!

>2 mr.philistine: Well, (and I mean this with no criticism,) I am not particularly sure what your commentary on Mr. Squires piece has to do with the question of limitation. It's certainly a lot to read through without having one specific question to discuss, but I'll offer a few thoughts:

1) I think one thing you've noticed is the difference between fine press and the private press tradition. It sounds to me that the old-guard booksellers you are familiar with might be more focused on the private press movements, and it's not at all surprising to me that they would be slow to adopt brand-new presses like Lyra's or No Reply, or even ones that've been around for a few years like Suntup. I would not take that as a mark of what's generally considered "Fine Press" within the community.

2) I think it's fairly obvious why private press books are so limited, and Mr. Squires noted many of these reasons, when it's often a single proprietor doing just about every aspect of the production. Presses that are not quite as driven by those time constraints and the overhead costs like Thornwillow or Arion are quite generous with their limitations.

3) In regards to "Suntup and the others," (others you mentioned being "Centipede and their peers,") well both of those presses are in a different position where not everything they publish is actually fine press, but they absolutely do produce some high quality fine press works. Even those two are not quite in the same boat where the majority of Suntup publications now have at least one letterpress printed, fine-press-bound state, but I'm struggling to think of another "peer" apart from perhaps Amaranthine that would warrant a whole new category when it's easier to think of them as simply having multiple lines of business.

I read the piece when originally published but find it best to keep my mouth shut.

Perhaps it is as simple as the approach coming from a fine art degree verses a business degree. Some of us are thrilled to make money when we do. Others expect to.

I'm curious whether anyone here has any expertise or knowledge about the durability of resin vs lino vs wood when it comes to engraved blocks? Mr. Squires says the wood block loses definition after as few as 100 prints are pulled. I believe resin lasts longer than linoleum but don't know much more than that. How many prints could you make before lino or resin blocks lose definition?

>5 ChampagneSVP: Wood engravings last the longest followed by wood cuts, lino cuts then resin (if we're talking modern polymer plates). Any of these could be made into a copper or magnesium die (formerly zinc) which have impression lives of hundreds of thousands.

All this depends on the practice of printing also - a deep impression with a soft packing on the press will destroy the matrix quickly; a kiss impression with hard packing and proper makeready will extend the edition considerably. The surface one is printing on also makes a big difference and weather it is printed damp or dry.

* You can get a hundred thousand impressions off polymer plates but they tend to be useless within a year (depending on your geographic location and storage habits) because they remain sensitive to moisture and UV. My above assessment is based on archival use and re-use.

>6 DWPress: Thanks for the response. I’m fascinated by the process. I assume metal die casts are how “repeats” are done then - a la DePol’s patterned papers?

>7 ChampagneSVP: John's original pattern papers were done with his type ornaments hand set into multiple type forms for each color. The subsequent reproductions are from plates I'm sure as that would be the most economical for the purpose and storage needs.

BTW the plates are etched, not cast. Check out Owosso Graphic Arts, Inc - they are the countries largest remaining photoengraver and offer all kinds of interesting services now beyond their humble printing roots.

>7 ChampagneSVP: Minor aside, but metal plates are also sometimes used when modern presses want to reproduce engravings that are too old and fragile to be run through a press. You can hear Pat Randle talking about doing this for the Bewick engravings in 2020 Vision between 4:35 and 8:00 here: https://youtu.be/v_sDpFkhqOI