PRINTING HISTORY

GERALD GIAMPA

---

I THE FOUNT I GERALD GIAMPA I

---

The Journal of American Printing History Association; No 37, page 17, fig. 6.

---

BARKER ALIGNMENT THEORY

---

¶ PRINTING HISTORY, issue 37, page 16, first column, Nicolas Barker.

---

NOW, REPEAT AFTER ME?

---

---

TAKE A LOOK!

---

¶ IF YOU TURN TO page 17, fig. 6 maybe Mr. Barker could tell us which is badly aligned?

This type pattern was made by 'a late in the day' pattern production method used at Lanston. It is manufactured using yellow brass. This is consistent with Mike Parker's theory.

This lowercase "f pattern" certainly has nothing that illustrates gross misalignment in either of the striking sequences of the figures.

These figures were stamped into the pattern base with hand held punches, (See first illustration, right hand column.) struck one after the other, do not expect mechanical perfection. I am sure that is not of which he speaks.

In this example neither the "54" or the "12–362 E" deserve ridicule.

---

OUT OF ALIGNMENT?

---

¶ BUT IF YOU WANT out of alignment look at the pattern that is obvious which is the "B-pattern" on the right.

If alignment is to be the judge?

---

NOW TAKE A GANDER AT THIS!

---

¶ IT IS PATENTLY OBVIOUS to the most casual observer that the numbers "54" were struck first, the "12–362 E" later.

What I see is a worker striking the "12–362 E" combination with an immediate incline upwards in order to overshoot the previously struck "54". An angle even begins with the initial figure "anticipating" avoidance of the previously struck "54".

The worker does not quite succeed with the angle. On the last figure you can see the purposeful lifting of the number "2" in order to clear the previously struck "4" in the "54" striking. The worker then levels off with a somewhat lowered "E" after the worker has found more comfort room on the striking surface.

In other words the "striking motions" follow around the figures "54" below.

If you focus on the numeral "2" of "36(2) E" you will clearly see the bottom of the "6" to the left is noticeably lower than the bottom of the "2". The numeral "2" has not only been lifted up but is slightly wider spaced moving it over, barely missing the numeral "4" struck below.

So just who is squeezing what?

Here is Mike Parker's theory. The 54 was a very early code number allocated for a private Lanston type face. (He would be right, 54 is smaller number than 362.) This face was never completed for the original customer. Years later it was re-numbered and released as No. 362.

Illustrated by the pattern above, Mike Parker seems to be correct in his assumption. The 54 struck first means the 362 has to be worked around the existing 54. Nicolas Barker mistaken conclusion brings attention to Mike Parker's scintillating observation skills.

Once again, these are Nicolas Barker's words.

The "54," struck with thinner figures, badly aligned, appears irregularly, usually (or so it appears) squeezed in above or below the "12–362 E" - -."

It would be difficult to be more wrong than that!

NOTE; This pattern was manufactured by a method using red brass, which is consistent with very early pattern manufacturing methods.

---

DEFIES GRAVITY

---

¶ PLAYING THIS IN REVERSE defies gravity. It makes little sense for the man with the "4" to lift the character up almost cutting into the "2". We are talking about avoidance, not collision.

And as you see there is room below. He has plenty of room, and importantly, no reason to be careful!

Because . . .

He is striking first.

---

BARKER BULGE THEORY

---

"- - the "12–362 E"; the bulge has not been rubbed down. The "12–362 E," if struck later, could not have been rubbed down without removing the bulge raised by striking the "54," had it been already there.

---

ADD INSTANT EXPERT, STIR

---

¶ NICOLAS BARKER is speaking of the uppercase "B pattern" on the right hand of fig. 6, page 17, Printing History 37.

Pattern "B pattern" shows no evidence of anything particularly unusual. For some reason it does to him.

He speaks nothing of general wear and tear factors. Nothing of the work-a-day conditions and has no knowledge of storage container design. He does not factor in the individual history of that particular pattern.

Thankfully he speaks nothing because he knows nothing. Sadly he has failed to account for his own limitations. Without factoring he has drawn conclusions anyway.

I suppose thas is a nice way of saying he has a pension for confusing assumptions with knowledge.

These materials have been shipped eight thousand miles by train, a further two thousand by truck. So far I have no record of miles or shipping conditions in their journey to New Jersey from Philadelphia or from American Typefounders in New Jersey to Hartzell Machine Works.

Things wear where things are rubbed.

Also I see no mention that metal under tension wears quicker than metals compressed. Compressed metals are harder, sharper on the immediate edge not to mention brittle.

The "54" predictably will damage brass differently, it is both narrower and sharper in angle than the punches used for striking the "12–362 E". The latter, with wider measure and blunter angle naturally will display different metal activity when struck.

Particularly impossible to calculate would be the damage around the "4" of the "54". You would be stressing experts who reconstruct weakness in metal involved in aircraft disasters.

All these factors must be taken into account first. It simply is not possible for me to arrive at conclusions vaguely resembling those of Mr. Barker.

Typography attracts many instant "never-did" anything experts who herd like sheep those that prefer the opinions of "the washed".

Count me as not one of them.

I fail to believe Nicolas Barker is qualified to speak of that kind of bulge.

I do not wish to participate in what I know is the futility of computing eternity.

I, unlike others, know my limitations.

Why toil our already far too heavy hearts with discussions about the effects of striking blows, angle of punch surface, angel of punch surface vs. angle of striking blows. Weight and hardness of hammer, slippage, handle length, tapping vs. hammering?

If we are going to spend time trying to answer the unanswerable let us begin with worthiness of question.

Otherwise our time is better spent listening to the birds, walking the shores of the earth or spending time with children that are not over fifty years of age.

I think you get the point which is that I don't get Nicolas Barker's.

Gobbly gook!

---

Read right hand column: Furthermore this is Jim Rimmer's comments on the patterns. Keep in mind, 'Printing History' seems to have "distorted" Jim Rimmer's reflections on this matter.

---

NOW GET A LOAD OF THIS!

---

¶ IF NICOLAS BARKER'S theory is right his choice of pattern is wrong. Using elements of his theory it clearly illustrates "54" was struck first on the right hand lowercase "f pattern".

This "f pattern" is shown on left, fig. 6, page 17, Printing History 37.

---

SMOOTHOSITY FACTOR

---

¶ TAKE A LOOK at the lowercase "f pattern" on the left. Clearly the "54" shows no evidence of any bulge, got that, none!

I present my hypothesis applying Nicolas Barker's own theory, somewhat.

It would appear the pattern maker has smoothed the surface preparing it for mounting the upper portion of the "two-part pattern f". You follow?

What do you mean you don't? Illustration right. Famous Two Part Type Pattern.

We are talking about the work of a machinist.

In fact it appears that the "54" was stamped before the "f part of the pattern" was even attached.

That would not have been unusual.

You will see a substantial bulge of the lower "12–362 E" striking.

Using Barker's convoluted theory this means that "12–362 E" was struck after, not before the "54" stamping.

If Nicolas Barker's method of determination is correct, his conclusions are wrong. I find this to be a striking (pardon the pun) oversight.

---

Nicolas Barker has weakened his position with his boldly illustrated argument.

"Each has the series numbers struck on it. The "new" figures "12–362 E" are placed variably but on the whole neatly, usually in the bottom left-hand corner of the face of the pattern - -."

The body of patterns in question carriage very little freight of Nicolas Barker's observations. I have checked the bill of lading.

---

MIKE PARKER PULLS AHEAD

• THE "f PATTERN" indicates that "54" was stamped previous to "12–362 E" using the "Barker bulge theory".
• THE "B PATTERN" indicates that "54" was stamped previous to "12–362 E" using the "Barker alignment theory".

NICOLAS BARKER for some reason seems to be making Mike Parker's case easy. I am not sure that is what he intended. But, Mike Parker pulls ahead!

---

HELPFUL HINTS

---

• Don't believe what you think you see.
• Believe what you think you see.
• Get your eyes examined

THE GLOVE FITS MR. BARKER

¶ THIS IS THE FIGURE 5 PUNCH used for stamping the patterns. I took this punch, slid it into the existing impression of the 5 on the face of the pattern, gave it a slight tap, it fit snugly, stood upright from the pattern. "The glove fits Mr. Simpson."

DON'T PUSH, TAKE A NUMBER

¶ ALL WRITERS IN ISSUE 37 OF PRINITING HISTORY re-butting Mike Parker's simple question are deeply coloured by "personalities".

The writings are of men, in the delirium of their autumn, raining torrential downpours of distortionistic cross examinations upon bad ol' Mikey boy.

I'll just bet they struck him from their tea party list. Poor old Mike!

Isn't this exciting, a regular typographical Perry Mason Melodrama, torqued by accelerated engines under the hood of neurotic vindictiveness. Cranky old men, all of us.

My advice: Don't push, take a number.

---

BURGESS ITALIC, PAGE 20

¶ I CAN ATTEST TO THE FACT that the italic shown on page 20 was indeed designed by Rimmer. Thankfully Jim mentioned the wrong font.

---

PATTERN PUNCH SCARE

¶ MY FIRST READING OF JIM RIMMER'S article ending on page 21, top right hand column caused me much worry. "Mr. Giampa gave me a set of punches for use in numbering my own matrices. The design of these numerals is identical to those used to stamp "54" on the patterns reproduced on the cover of printing History 31/32 and in fig. 15 of Mr. Parker's articles."

NOTE: See illustration of punches above.

I was worried that Jim had, as the snippet implies, stamped 54 into the brass patterns himself. He certainly would have had lots of opportunity. Overexposed by Jim Rimmer's anger towards Mike Parker it occurred to me that Jim was playing a silly little trick on ol' Mikey boy. This would have been very embarrassing for Lanston, and for Mike Parker, not to mention some questions certainly would have been attributed to Jim Rimmer himself. I am happy to report that my fears are over. I am happy to report that my unwavering faith in Jim Rimmer has not been unjustified.

Jim writes: "Mr. Giampa gave (read loaned, and returned) me a set of punches for use in numbering my own matrices."

I loaned the punches to Jim Rimmer, otherwise I would not have been able to take the photograph above. But that is a simple matter of linguistics. Also I would never have given such items as they are expensive and comprised of a marking system for the Lanston Punchcutting Department which was active.

---

JOHN DREYFUS DIGEST

¶ I HAD THE GREATEST admiration for John Dreyfus, one time friend. Later I have news for him, good news unfortunately he will never get to hear. I am saddened deeply that this silly dispute came between us.

I am saddened that all of this became very personal.

However I must continue.

John Dreyfus tagged on the end of his digest of Jim's letter's the comments on page 21, top right hand column. This would indicate that for John 'they' had implied significance.

Had I discovered that Jim Rimmer had punched the 54 himself, or had I found the 54 had been punched very recently, It would not have altered my convictions.

My opinions are based on other materials.

---

© MMII Copyright: Gerald Giampa

FAMOUS TWO PART TYPE PATTERN

¶ NOTE: The pattern consists of layers. This is clearly shown in the picture.

The bottom sheet is laying on top of the bench. The letter, or in this case a 'figure 1' is mounted on top. This two part pattern, a cut-a-way reveals the layers.

The upper patter of the Stone Serif 'S' designed by Sumner Stone is shown below.

---

TOP LAYER OF A TWO PART PATTERN

© MMII Copyright: Gerald Giampa

THE FOUNT ™

BURGESS SETTING