To 190.39.198.96. Your addition (reposted below) to Typography lies outside the scope of the section, A brief description of the type casting process, the text of which is concerned with type casting, but not punchcutting or compositing. That stuff belongs in Typesetting, Sort (typesetting), and punchcutting.
The first step is to convey the inner spaces of the letter (known as the counters) by means of engraving tools, onto one end of a rectangular steel bar, which is then hardened by tempering. This bar is the counterpunch, which is used to strike a similar rectangular steel bar to produce the punch. Once the inner spaces have been transferred onto the punch, the rest of the characters features are completed, again by the use of engraving tools. Smoke proofs (made by depositing carbon onto the punch using a candle flame) are used to verify the progress of the engraving process.
This punch is then used to strike a blank die of a softer metal, such as copper or bronze to make a negative letter mould, called a matrix.
Thus, one counterpunch, one punch and one or more matrices are produced for every letter or glyph in the fount or font.
The matrix is then inserted into the bottom of the hand mould, which is then clamped shut and molten type metal alloy (consisting of basically of lead, tin and antimony) is poured into a cavity from the top.
When the type metal has cooled somewhat, the hand mould is opened and the cast rectangular block, approximately 4 centimeters long, consisting of the tang and the sort, extracted.
The tang is later removed so the character makes type height and remelted. The different sorts can then be assembled into words and lines of text in a composing stick and tightly bound together to make up a page image called a forme, where all the letter faces exactly are type high (the same height, approximately 0.918 inches) to form an even printable surface of type. The forme is mounted on a press, inked and impressions made on paper to form the basis of letterpress printing.
I've snipped the text out and preserved it here, and reverted the article text back to the previous version
Please excuse my momentary surge of enthusiasm, but I did read the section title properly, thus believe that your reason to reverse edit the changes I volunteered, highlights the very inconsistency that motivated these changes in the first place.
I would suggest that you consider that the actual type casting process does not start with the production of counterpunches, punches and matrixes, but with the configuration of the mould itself, basically because very different types of personnel would be involved.
The earliest work (in English), that I am aware of, that refers to this process is Moxon's Mechanick Exercises, whose descriptions, despite allusions to the contrary, point in this direction.
Perhaps you might like to divide this section into two separate ones covering type design and type casting and then flesh them out accordingly to bypass the aforementioned inconsistency. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.39.198.96 Please sign your comments on talk pages by typing four tildes. For a registered user this will automatically print your user name and the date.
...believe that your reason to reverse edit the changes I volunteered, highlights the very inconsistency that motivated these changes in the first place...
I've removed the info on compositing from the restored original draft. Your edit exacerbated that problem by introducing info on the of production of counterpunches, punches, matrices.
...I would suggest that you consider that the actual type casting process does not start with the production of counterpunches, punches and matrixes...
It was you who added info on the production of counterpunches, punches and matrices. (plural of matrix is "matrices"). That's why I removed that info. The section originally opened with a brief intro to Gutenberg and his familiarity with letter punches and casting from matrices, included only to make the description of typecasting comprehensible..
..Perhaps you might like to divide this section into two separate ones covering type design and type casting and then flesh them out accordingly to bypass the aforementioned inconsistency...
The complete Typography article is now larger than WP recommended maximum size, and as per another editor's suggestion the whole history section is about to be broken out into a new article, the History of typography.
Please do not twist reality, and please sign your comments on talk pages.
By the way, I do value your contribution(s). They're easily worth a Gentium Pilcrow Award. So thanks! We just have to put your work into the right articles. Don't be discouraged by bold editorial descision (mine).
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Dear 66.82.9.83, your addition (reposted below) to Typography lies outside the scope of the section, Gutenberg's hand mould, the text of which is concerned with the signifigance of Gutenberg's invention and the hand mould itself—but not punchcutting, or a critique of Gutenberg's invention, or the history of early printing in Europe. That stuff belongs in Johannes Gutenberg, punchcutting, or the history of printing.
Gutenburg's key invention, the custom metal font, was the first practical means of making cheap copies of documents in small quantities needed to print a single book. The essential pieces of hardware and techniques that make a punch matrix process viable and profitable, the hand mold, fully hardened steel punches,matrices and type have been found later in the Low Countries, but no hand mold, punches, type or matrices have ever been found that was associated positively with Gutenberg. It was when the materials were all robust enough, that European typography broke away from its Eastern forebearers with a letter-casting process that needed no post-processing touch-up for each letter, as both Gutenberg and the Koreans are documented to have required. With the more robust process, huge printing runs were possible with modest investme, and paper became the bottleneck.
I've snipped the text out and preserved it here, and reverted the article text back to the previous version
And I am a little puzzled by some of the interchange above--regardless of where it goes, should not the description of all of the stages of preparing type go together, and is this article not the place? More details can go in separate articles.
To the non-expert, the need to distinguish the different stages --and their proper names--cannot be assumed. S/he will learn it from this aticle. DGG00:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
The complete description of all the stages should go together—in a separate article on its own. The history is better off without it because by the time I've finished writing it there won't be room for any description of type founding.
You mean the section headings should be there, or shouldn't be there? Put the headings in to make it clear.
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
McKerrow has black and red, in the 15th=16th c. with red dying out in later ceturies as too complicated; I have never heard of blue from pre=20th. Is there red in the Gut. Bible? I know most copies have hand coloring. Source?DGG05:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your vigilance. Alexander Nebitt reckons the Fust and Shoeffer Psalter was printed in three colors "...throughout --- blue, red and black, A complicated method of inking the form[e]s made it possible to produce a two- or three-color job in one impression." And we both know the Psalter is not the same thing as the 42 line bible.
Three colors sounds elaborate and a tad improbable, until you consider that Gutenberg and Shoeffer were aiming to do nothing less than improve on the work of scribes, and the best Medieval bookwork work of scribes had more than three colors...more like five or six ink colors for text, plus illustrations with many more colors than that.
John Man says the blue inks were made with Lapis Lazuli. From my own knowledge of art history; Blue paint and ink made with Lapis Lazuli has been used by painters and scribes since at least classical antiquity, but it was rare and expensive, and used sparingly, only for paying comissioned works. Only in the 20th century did industrial methods produce cheap artificial blue pigments.
Most sources say the 42 line bibles had red letters added after printing. I've taken out "His 42 line Bible was printed with three ink colors: black, red and blue." Stand by while I check more sources to see where that came from, if anywhere.
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
"Combining multiple types in a single punch-like device seems to have first occurred around 1700 BC. The mysterious Phaistos Disc found in Crete in 1908 may have been an early writing machine. 241 tokens, comprising 45 unique glyphs, are molded in relief on the face of the 15 centimeter ceramic disc. The true purpose of the Phaistos disc is unknown, but comparisons can be made with disc-based writing machines such as the Blickensderfer typewriter, and Dymo labeling machine."
Checked the excellent article on it in WP. The article states "The inscription was made by pressing pre-formed hieroglyphic "seals" into the soft clay, in a clockwise sequence spiralling towards the disc's center. It was then baked at high temperature." and look at the illustration-- it could not have been a writing machine--it might be an example of more or less mechanical impression, but I think it should go out altogether. Incredible object, tho--indicates an entire literate civilization phase otherwise not known. DGG05:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
I think 'comparisons can be made' could be clarified somewhat but I'm okay with it's inclusion. I'll do some inquiries/research and see if I can contribute some useful info. -- User:RyanFreisling@05:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
This thing has a misleading name. So-called "disc". It's a while since I read that article but I remember now, thanks for reminding, it is actually dish-shaped. "Italian archaeologist Luigi Pernier recovered this remarkably intact "dish"...". The real thing was a dish, but it's known as the "disc" and the first thing you see in that article is the flattened disc-shaped replica.
And John Man calls it a clay "disc", never even mentioning the real object is a dish. :-)
The WP account says the symbols have been allotted unicode positions for any future digital font versions, but that doesn't make the original object a font.
Right...I just downloaded the font from here. Install the font Everson Mono Phaistos on your computer and you can type with the symbols by copying them to the clipboard from the private use area of Windows character map. Kids! Make your own Phaistos disc at home. ;-)
Rewrite
Printing with multiple types seems to have first occurred around 1700 BC. The mysterious Phaistos Disc—a 15 centimeter ceramicdish-shaped object with 241 tokens printed into the surface—may have been an early form of "page" typography. The true purpose of the so-called "disc" is unknown. See also: Blickensderfer typewriter.
Combining multiple types in a single punch-like device seems to have first occurred around 1700 BC. The mysterious Phaistos "dish"—a 15 centimeter ceramic dish-shaped device with 241 tokens molded in relief (comprising 45 unique glyphs)—is probably an early Dymo labelling machine. Sure, put money on it. The true purpose of the so-called Phaistos "dish" is anybody's guess, but my friend Amanda heard that many believe it really is a primitive computer "floppy" disc. Also try: Chickenbacher typewriter.
Combining multiple fish in a single fish-like device seems to have first occurred in the fish century BC. The mysterious Phaistos "fish"—a 15 meter ceramic fish-shaped device with 241 tokens molded in scales (comprising 45 unique fish glyphs)—is obviously a fish labelling machine. Sure, put money on it. The true purpose of the so-called Phaistos "fish" is anybody's guess, but my friend Amanda heard that many believe it really is a primitive computer "floppy" fish.
Also try: Hackenbacher Nightrider.
1. Move prototypography to a separate articles.
2. Move China and Korea into a separate article to be developed further. (title??)
3. Woodblock printing, merge with existing woodblock printing article, and merge in bock printing as suggested there.
4. Refer to the paleography article, a very sparse article, because a great deal more is needed here,
5. remove general cultural material as in "Birth of modernism" & 19th c.
6. make 1800+ a separate article.
now you'll be left with only 90% as much.
other comments: *there has to be some place to use "surrealist version,"
I do not call copies made 1 at a time "printing" & I see no evidence for exactly how the disk was made, except the calligrapher must have planned ahead if it goes from the outside in.
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The History of typography in East Asia page has been started, and some initial content copied there. I'll be adding to it, and then its a job for the more expert.
meanwhile, since it is not reasonable for the lead paragraph to start with a declared revisionist view but this paragraph especially must recognize consensus, the alternate positions have been specified. I hope they can be worded better, but its a start. DGG05:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, excellent. I'm with you on every edit so far.
I'm about to add material on the 17th & 18th centuries. Planning to stop the western narrative at Bodoni (soon, tomorrow hopefully). Then I have to hunt up some samples to illustrate Italic to Modern. For practical reasons, because so many developments took place in the 19th & 20th, a whole separate article is definitely the answer.
The mysterious phaistos dish can go :-) I'm happy with that. Thansk for all your suggestions and I'm glad you like the Phaistos fish!
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
The following material is expurgated stop-gap sections, now suitable for expansion into a History of typography 1800 – 21st century. Arbotalk13:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
The 19th century saw a full-scale decorative revival in which type began to be used increasingly for display and advertising work. Display fonts and typographic art from this period mirrored the explosion of fancy and elaborate designs elsewhere, drawing from all previous eras: Rococo, Baroque, Gothic, Classical & Neo-classical. Using machine tools the first industrial designers were able to accurately copy any design and reproduce it ad infinitum. For the first time the middle classes and people of moderate means could afford facsimilies of art objects previously attainable only by the very wealthy. Visual arts throughout the "century of progress" were also characterized by an exuberant romantic sentiment inspired by antiquarianism and the general expectation that life would be better tomorrow than it was today, in contrast to some of the harsh realities of the industrial human condition.
State-of-the-art digital typographic systems have solved virtually all the demands of traditional typography and have expanded the possibilities with many new capabilities. The matrix system of Gutenberg lends itself well to a soft approach.
material added to the historical narrative must be citable and verifiable
this article uses advanced text typography and large pictures to illustrate its visual subject. Contributors are asked to preserve these features to keep Wikipedia's typography and related articles at the cutting edge of wikitypography. The text includes typographic devices like ampersands and emdashes—where appropriate and effective. Please do not over-use them. See: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and Wikipedia:Use common sense.
Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
I don't see how an article called "History of Typography" can be the
"History of Typography in Europe" (quoting from the opening line of this article), while the world's first typography inventions are in "History of Typography in East Asia". Can someone explain if Wikipedia is focused primarily on Europe and not the whole World? Mukerjee11:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
I don't think Wikipedia is supposed to be focused primarily on Europe and not the whole world. But this is the english language Wikipedia, written largely by english-speakers and western Europeans writing in english. I haven't read many of the other language WP versions, but I'll bet the Japanese WP, for example, has a Japan-centric bias.
If the english WP has a Western-centric bias it stems from the language its written in and the english-speaking cultures who write it. Try posting your query at the village pump for a better answer.
I wish the article on moveable type in China and Korea was as long and comprehensive as this article. The problem is it only lasted a few hundred years in the East and did not succeed as it did in the west—as explained in this history—so there is not a long history of type in the East to write about. And much less material has been published about Eastern typography. Keep in mind WP is still in its infancy.
When the section on proto-typography, woodblock and movable type in China and Korea are broken out to dedicated articles, History of typography will only cover typography in Europe and the west.
We could move (rename) this article to "History of typography in Europe", but that's a long and cumbersome title. "History of western typography" might be okay. Or maybe we should turn this article into a disambiguation page with links to the three separate history pages?
Arbo,I like your idea for using this as a disambig page, linking to the 3 regional/temporal history of typog pages, with some appropriate see alsos. It will certainly solve the problem of what to put here. But perhaps then there should be 4:, EA, Eur Incunabla, Eur 16 17 18, Eur/Am/Intl 19 20. With refs, to block printing, prototypography, stamping, coining, etc .
Perhaps a scope note that discussion of the economic, labor relaions, & business aspects of printing is in printing--that's most of the unique content there now -- there's also a good deal which is dup. elsewhere and can be removed. DGG00:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Sounds good. I'll get some time to conference with you later today.
The questions discussed above and thought to be resolved have been brought up again on the Village Pump (Policy), three days ago, but not seen till now. I've commented there, although it does not seem the right place.DGG05:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Systemic bias of English/Indo-Germanic European language WP
When I created the History article from Typography I was following WP's in-built linguistic systemic bias, not by choice but by perforce of pre-existing linguistic bias.
Now, do we move [[Typography]] and [[Font]] > [[Western typography]] and [[Western font]]?
Western typography sounds okay. Western font is starting to sound silly.
We don't have an articles on Arabic typography, Eastern typography or Cyrillic typography yet. We've got Yiddish typography, but no history of that. Editors with the requisite knowledge of these missing typo articles are at liberty to start writing them.
WP is still in its infancy, and editors who think the English WP has systemic Euro-centric bias should examine the other language WPs, which are far behind us.
The French, German, Spanish and Italian language WPs all have their own typography articles, their titles being the Latin-derrived word for "typography" in each language. All of them discuss European typography and its history only, making little or no mention of typography of other civilizations. They aren't far along enough yet to have split their histories into separate articles either, eg: Histoire de Typographie does not exist yet in the French WP.
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
In the circumstances, I support the rapid change to History of western typography, but isn't it usual to discuss such a change on the _article's_ talk page first? We might have found a better, such as History of typography in Europe or History of European typography might have been better--I think the use of eastern and western in this general sense is geographical bias. To me, western typography is typography in California.
DGG05:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
I considered all the useful alternatives before chosing "western". "european" does not cover all western Latin typography, and "Latin" does not cover all western typography and indo-germanic languages. "western" covers most indo-germanic and Latin alphabets/scripts/languages.
First people complain about systemic bias in the english WP—of course it's biased, it's an english language encyclopedia, what do you expect? I expressed that answer softly when the question was first raised. Now we're complaining about the bias of "Western" v.s "Eastern". Of course it's biased—the bias is built into global geography. And typography really is divided into eastern and western. It's not a biased view, but a polarized reality. A title like "Western typography" or "History of western typography" is a reflection of reality. Either learn to live with that, or ignore it.
All possible choices of title are biased in some way, whether linguistic, geographical or something else. Physicist Werner Heisenberg proved we cannot observe a phenomenon without changing it, that is: the act of observation alters the appearance or behaviour of the phenomenon in some way, so a truely objective view is not possible. James Burke's conception is that all ways of looking at the world are subjective—and relative—but not neccessarily equivalent or equal.
Latin typography is the only other usable title. It covers most western Latin type scripts and alphabets.
This whole issue is playing out like a pointless linguistic/semantic/systemic bias quibbling. Changing the article title for the sake of NPOV has opened another can of worms. Who seriously thinks we should change Typography to "Western typography"? (keep in mind Typography and its largely western content is not yet finished, and other editors have asked me to include islamic typography but I'm not qualified to write on that subject).
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
James - thanks! But perhaps moving the present article is too drastic. Clearly, most of what is typography today did happen in Europe, esp if we are talking English typography - so just a subsection or two on the antecedents in the main article would be all that is needed. That would be better than having a separate article on Western typography, and leaving some impoverished content for the global one, etc. But we can discuss this on the topic pages.
DGG, immediately after posting this comment here I had posted a note on James' talk page, who was the lead architect of the History of Typography article. Indeed, it is he who told me that such matters could be discussed on the village pump.
Thanks to the pointers to systemic bias. This bias may pervade many articles related to printing, where the Chinese/ Korean discoveries appear to be downplayed. For example, the lead sentence in the article on Johannes Gutenberg says
Johannes Gutenberg... invented the European technology of printing with movable type in 1447.
which gives the impression that the technology of printing with movable type is European, or that it was completely different from any other, earlier, technology. But these things are better handled in the relevant pages. mukerjee (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
As I said on the Gutenberg talk page a few minutes ago, and now copy here, "I think the first sentence is exact: there is a European technology of printing from movable type, it differs from the Asian technogy for doing this, and Gutenberg did invent it. He obviously did not invent all the components, for example paper, or the use of engraving tools. Bias would be if the sentence read, Gutenberg was the inventor of printing from movable type." For further discussion, I refer to my comments there.
And for those who haven't been there to see it, the Gutenberg article has long had--and still does have--a rather longish section on "Was Gutenberg influenced by East Asian printing?" But, as Mukerjee says, we can continue there--perhaps we've done enough over here.DGG05:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
History of western typography is focussed almost exclusively on typographic style and practice as an art and craft, with almost no info on technical developments. That's what Typography, for the most part, is—an art & craft, involving type style and design. Perfect.
Typefounding are dearly written-about in as a separate subject in Movable type (thanks for your additions guys!) It covers the pre-history of typefounding and technical developments in the East, but has little on developments in typographic style as an art and craft—as you would expect. Perfect.
History of typography in East Asia is much the same scope as Movable type but with far less content. It's purely technical and has next-to-nothing on developments in typographic style as an art and craft, use, page effect etc, no names of typefaces or designers. Not so perfect. There is a whole new project for editors interested in filling in this gap in History of typography in East Asia. Thanks!
Remember too that it doesn't have to be perfect, and you're encouraged to ignore all rules and use common sense if it results in a better encyclopedia :) Arbotalk12:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
I appreciate Arbo's work in this. I might have organized it a little differently (in a way not at all related to recent discussions), & probably every would also have some personal preference, but I am reluctant to even mention how, because, as said, the important work before us is to add more & perhaps better content. I'll work where I know best (bibliographic & institutional & economic & general cultural aspects) and I very much agree with the priority mentioned for material on the design aspects in East Asia. But I think only those who know the relevant scripts can help much there.
I do have a strong preference for one manner of work: that the really detailed content, & especially paragraph-length quotations, should be written about in only one page, and only summarized elsewhere. Not that it wastes disk space, but it wastes time in editing it more than once, & I'd rather learn about and use new material. DGG20:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Thanks David. All of your work and suggestions on this material, Movable type and Printing press have been excellent and well-received. Now that some fundamental issues have been discussed and decided, I think we are making progress toward a common goal – The spirit of the rules is more important than the letter.
The penultimate official policy is: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. We are encouraged to do it if it helps create a better encyclopedia. Wikipedia:Use common sense: "The spirit of the rules is more important than the letter...Invoking the principle of "Ignore all rules" on its own will not convince anyone that you were right, so you will need to persuade the rest of the community that your actions improved the encyclopedia. A skilled application of this concept should ideally fly under the radar, and not be noticed at all." Arbotalk04:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
I've gone ahead and performed the merge. There's definitely room for improvement as to how to integrate the information more seamlessly into the article, which will likely require some further research, but at least everything is in the same article now. signed, Rosguilltalk22:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
