[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Paper grain
- To: BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
- Subject: Re: Paper grain
- From: Terry Belanger <belanger@VIRGINIA.EDU>
- Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1998 17:45:26 -0400
- In-Reply-To: <199806132145.RAA81934@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU>
- Message-Id: <199806132218.PAA18232@SUL-Server-2.Stanford.edu>
- Sender: "Book_Arts-L: On the web at http://www.dreamscape.com/pdverhey" <BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
My own experience confirms that of Sam Lanham. A great many handmade and
(and especially) moldmade papers have a pronounced grain--perhaps nowhere
more so than in post-World War 2 production papers, but also in many papers
right back to the pre-1800 handpress period.
In a different connection, Tim Barrett once observed that handmade junk is
still junk. I'm not sure that the presence of grain in a handmade paper
reduces its utility for most of the uses to which it likely to be be
put--still, one wishes that there were a better standard literature on this
aspect of the history of the book.
At 05:45 PM 6/13/98 -0400, you wrote:
>At 07:24 AM 6/13/98 -0700, Betty wrote:
>>Hand- or mould-made papers have little or no discernable grain because the
>>moulds are jiggled as they are are lifted, causing the fibers to lie in
>I've seen this statement elsewhere and it puzzles me because it does not
>comport with my experience. I work almost entirely with handmade and
>mouldmade (=eastern "semi-handmade) papers, eastern and western. The ones
>I use are laid papers and have a very definite grain which must be taken
>into account. Is the quoted statement perhaps only true of wove papers?
>I'll be happy to be straightened out and educated on this matter.
>Sam Lanham (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Terry Belanger : University Professor : University of Virginia
Book Arts Press : 114 Alderman Library : Charlottesville, VA 22903
Tel: 804/924-8851 FAX: 804/924-8824 email: email@example.com