OT: Peter Pauper Press Limited Editions

Does anyone know a good reference source (other than the AIGA web site) for Peter Pauper Press LE of the 1930's and 1940's. I have the 1947 Four Gospels which is every bit as good as an LECs. It is limited to 985 copies and is signed by Hans Alexander Mueller. I ordered the PPP Imitation of Christ, which I don't think is a limited editions, but is handsomely designed and illustrated book. The 1947 Tales from Boccaccio, illustrated by Richard Floethe is also on its way. This might also not be a limited edition but it uses a specially made and watermarked paper. The press work is first rate. Floethe's line drawings are definitely more delightful that his work for the LEC Pinocchio. I am aware of the PPP LE Leaves of Grass, The Clouds by Aristophanes set by hand in Dwiggin's Metro type, two different limited editions of Psalms of David decorated by Valenti Angelo, 1936 Sonnets of Shakespeare and a few more. The founder of PPP Peter Beilenson printed the LEC Batouala. He was highly regarded by Bruce Rogers and Carl Purington Rollins among others as one of the top four American printers of his time. For some time G. Macy printed his MLs, catalogs and other promotional materials at Beilenson's Walpole Printing Office. So no surprise that PPP was able to produce a number of handsome limited editions. What I am surprised is that they can still be had for a song.

I had a few PPP books some time ago. the books you are referencing are probably Fine Press Editions. One thing we should be careful of is making Limited Editions synonomous with Fine Press Editions. Most Folio Society and Easton Press books term their publications Limited Editions. However they are not Fine Press editions. Some of the characteristics of Fine Press work include letterpress printing, illustrations printed from lithographic stones or woodcuts or some other method close to what the artist provided, and binding of goatskin leather from skins, not from machine made leather. A limitation number or a signature does not mean the book was produced to the exacting procedures of Fine Press books.

>2 leccol: I wholeheartedly agree! Signature and a limitation number alone does not make of a Fine Press book. I think the PPP LE of the 1930's and 1940's were all printed letterpress on a specially made paper. Not all have signatures, which is fine by me. The binding also are not as sumptuous as Macy's bindings. Unfortunately some have paper spine labels, which as we all know is frowned upon. Let's look at the aforementioned Clouds by Aristophanes. It is designed by Peter Beilenson. Illustrated with line engravings by Andre Durenceau. Typeface Metrothin handset by Edna Beilenson. Printing method letterpress. Paper: Worthy speacially made. Binder: Russell-Rutter. Binding: Smythe sewn, Rhododendron Pompeian Red (impressive name, looks orange) paper board printed in gold (sides), cloth back bone in Bancroft Lynnene, printed paper label. This was limited to 895 copies and in 1942 sold for $3.50. So clearly the PPP LE aimed cheaper than the LEC but still produced to a very high standard.

>2 leccol: I'd call the FS Letterpress Shakespeare fine press.

>1 BuzzBuzzard:
You need to make friends with the one LT member who has the following!

Sean Donnelly and J. B. Dobkin: The Peter Pauper Press of Peter and Edna Beilenson: 1928-1979. A Bibliography and History
Published by the University of Tampa Press (2013)
ISBN 10: 1597320978 ISBN 13: 9781597320979

>5 featherwate: or alternatively spend $45 on this. Hm what will be easier...

I have the PPP Aristophanes and it definitely is a fine press edition--and limited to a much smaller limitation than the majority of LEC editions.

The PPP Leaves of Grass with Boyd Hanna's wood engravings and John Steuart Curry's drawings is definitely their most sought-after edition. Limited to 1100, I believe, it isn't easy to find in Fine Condition, and somewhat expensive.

In addition to the Thomas a Kempis, and Aristophanes volumes, I also have and recommend the PPP Voltaire with characteristically delightful illustration by Fritz Kredel. I don't prefer it to my Nonesuch Candide with Sauvage's illustrations, but it is a pleasing volume nonetheless.

KD Weber

I've never seen a folio Shakespeare printed letter press. They may well be a Fine Press book, but they may not be bound using goatskin skins. Some Folios used machine made leather which would take them out of the Fine Press category.

I bought one Folio LE, Boccaccio's Decameron, which I was very disappointed in. It was printed offset and definitely not a Fine Press work.

Many times I see posted here that the poster is not concerned with letterpress printing. that's fine; if you don't wish to pay for a Fine Press book, don't. As long as you're getting what you want, but don't deceive yourself that you're getting more than what you're paying for.

>8 leccol: Hand set letterpress printed on Zerkall mould-made paper, bound by hand at the craft bindery of G. Lachenmaier, Reutlingen (Germany) in Nigerian Goatskin leather and hand marbled paper by Ann Muir. It doesn't get much finer than that.

Don, I saw some of jveezer's FS Letterpress Shakespeare volumes, and I can assure you they were up to the highest standards of Fine Press printing--superb letterpress typography, pure rag paper, Nigerian goat leather quarter binding, and Ann Muir marbled paper.

Of course at almost $400 US per play, they were way outside my financial capabilities (besides, I still love the LEC Shakespeare for its illustrations and superb design (though goatskin leather spines would have probably held up better than the linen spines on the majority of copies I've seen for sale).

>8 leccol:
Perhaps I should already know this, but why is goatskin (most Folio LEs) better than cowhide (most Easton DLEs)? They both look and feel luxurious to me.

Goatskin has a texture that is much admired over cowhide. It is argumentative that they look and feel the same. Cowhide generally must have a coating of some wax or preservative applied to it. Goatskin is polished by heat as the binder works with it, leaving a sheen on the leather which can't be duplicated with polish. After binding, the goatskin can wiped with a damp rag and doesn't need polished. Goatskin will also last much longer, perhaps 2 or 3 centuries.

Easton books hardly qualify as Fine Press Editions. A few Folio books are Fine Press, but some Folio books are not Fine Press such as their Decameron which was not printed letterpress although bound in goatskin.

>12 leccol: "Goatskin will also last much longer, perhaps 2 or 3 centuries."

Thanks, that's valuable information, but 2 or 3 decades will suffice for me. :-) I have more than 100 cowhide Franklins and Eastons, some of them dating back 40 years and they all still look new, but I only have 2 goatskins that are of very recent vintage to compare them to.

I'm much more interested in the bindings than in the printing process. As long as the text is crisp and easy to read, I don't much care whether it was created by letterpress, offset, or crayon, but I want to be sure I don't overpay.

You don't post as if you are candidate for Fine press work. Continue what you're doing and post on the Easton Press Group. Most people here are interested in Fine Press books as typified by the early LECs or the Shiff era books. Most here feel that Easton Press is an anathema.

>14 leccol: anathema

>13 jroger1: I doubt you have so many cowhide Eastons. Whilst it's true that most EP DLE's are bound with cowhide, the typical EP edition is bound in textured Sadera (R) pigskin. There is an enormous difference in the feel, look, smell and endurance of goatskin and EP's heavily processed pigskin. I speak with experience as I own around 200 EP editions.

EP does not typeset its editions. It photographs an existing edition and then uses modern high speed photo offset printing to print the edition. This results in inferior print legibility which is considerably less sharp than typeset printing (whatever the process used). This also results in relatively grey type. Compare a letterpress book to any EP edition (DLE or standard) and you will notice an enormous difference in both the blackness off the ink and the sharpness of the text. No EP volume that I have ever seen has crisp text or black type. The Folio Society has not used letterpress printing for many years yet its books have crisp text because they typeset their work.

Ken, an obvious typo which I have corrected. A good explanation of Easton quality. I have a friend who has all of the 100 greatest books of which he is quite proud. I never mention Easton quality to him since I know he wouldn't understand, or care.

There are quite a few here who started with Easton, including Chris Adamson. After we realized the poor quality of Easton, most went on to Fine Press Books. Even the Heritage Press books are a step upward from Easton. Although some Easton books, such as the first six Tarzan books, are not available in other editions unless you go for a first Tarzan edition
and pay a lot for it. I saw a Tarzan of the Apes listed by a Boston book seller at $50,000. But that's a whole other subject. I don't know why a collector would pay thousands of dollars for a first editions of Huckleberry Finn which wasn't very nice when it was first published.

At a recent Swann auction, they sold almost every one of early detective books at prices in excess of $1000. Many had torn dust covers. You figure it out! I can't. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy an audio book by certain authors such as Raymond Chandler, but I wouldn't pay a fortune for a Chandler or a Dashiel Hammett.

>16 kdweber:

Ken, I have seen EP books with crisp, black text: the text in their reprint of the LEC Shakespeare is very comparable to the LEC. I can post a picture to illustrate this if any are interested. Now I'm not saying this is typical of all the EP reprints: the LEC Shakespeare had very large type which reproduced well, and in this particular edition whoever did the photolithography seemed to have taken extra pains as the reproduction of the illustrations is also extremely good--better than most of the other EP reprints I have seen. Where the favorable comparison fails is in the quality of the paper--the EP is archival alpha cellulose and therefore devoid of that wonderful rag paper texture that fine press aficionados love, and the fact that the illustrations are printed on coated stock--something Macy fought to avoid using in the LEC Shakespeare.

Django - My Easton reprint of the LEC Shakespeare is more like that described by Ken. The quality probably varies from press to press run. I don't understand what you mean by illustrations printed on coated stock. I take it you are not referring to the LEC Shakespeare reprints. I don't object to certain LEC illustrations being tipped in on coated stock. My newly-bound The Wind in the Willows has the illustrations tipped in on coated stock.

What I have learned since becoming a member of this group is that Finely Printed and Bound books are an art form much like prints that are printed in an atelier whether they are lithographs, etchings, engravings, linoleum cuts etc. People pay to own a print signed by the artist and numbered, just as in certain books. The printing is supervised by the artist at an atelier of his choice. No one questions whether a Picasso or a Chagall should be reproduced in a cheaper manner. In fact, prints by famous artists can run into thousands of dollars.

So when a newbie collects Easton Press books and asks questions, I try to answer him, but when he says I don't care about printing letterpress or using bindings of goatskin, I just flatly tell him (or her) that this group is primarily interested in Fine Press books. If you aren't interested in Finely Printed and bound books and do not care to learn, your time would be better spent on the Easton Press Group where you can discuss topics which relate to your collection. There is nothing wrong with having a collection which doesn't encompass Fine Press books, but I don't wish to argue with someone who can't understand or have the affordability to collect Fine Press editions.

Don, to the best of my admittedly unreliable memory, the illustrations in the Easton Press reprint of the LEC Shakespeare were printed on coated stock (I haven't looked at them for over 6 years and they are in storage at present, waiting for someone to buy them--sound familiar?). If I am mistaken, thank you for the correction.

The LEC Shakespeare did not use coated stock for illustrations--per the commentary to the LEC A Midsummer Night's Dream:

Mr. Rackham has illustrated dozens upon dozens of books; and has usually insisted that his illustrations should be reproduced by the photoengraving process, by half-tone process blocks. Such a process gives a facsimile reproduction of his drawings; but the fine dots require that they be printed on coated paper; and we refused to permit the inclusion of coated paper in our Shakespeare.

The Commentary goes on to describe the elaborate process used--four-color lithographic stones copied from the Rackham originals by Mourlot, then these pulls hand-colored via the pochoir process by Beaufumé. (Incidentally, this Commentary describes how most of the Shakespeare illustrations were done using art print processes--wood-engraving, lithography from illustrations drawn directly on the stones, etchings and the like--but when the artist made water colors or painting, the LEC set up a special office in Paris to handle these reproductions using the pochoir and collotype processes, at which the French excelled (and which gave Macy, a well-known gourmand and wine connoisseur, frequent opportunities to indulge in these extra-curricular activities!)

Incidentally, I hope jroger1 doesn't mistake our enthusiasm for our own Fine Press Hobby Horse (rag paper, art print illustrations, letterpress printing) as hostility. This site welcomes all lovers of books and good literature. I have never objected to Easton Press collectors describing their enthusiasm for what are essentially reproductions of the Macy Companies originals. I happen to have reproductions of Franz Marc's art on my walls because looking at them makes me feel good, and because they are beautiful. I wish I had the affordability to own the originals, but since I haven't, I refuse to deprive myself of the pleasure of having the reproductions.

>19 leccol:
>20 Django6924:
I'm responsible for the misunderstanding, because my attempt at humor with the "crayon" remark did not come across as intended. I am a frequent and sometimes vehement critic on the Easton site about the reproduction quality of their standard editions, but I own perhaps 15 or 20 of the deluxe limited editions, most of which are fabulously done - not letterpress certainly but very, very good.

I posted this message on the Folio site just this morning that will help to explain my collecting philosophy:

"My practice is to select the title I want to read and then find the very best copy that I can reasonably afford. My idea of 'best' includes outward appearance and print quality, as well as several other factors, and this practice has resulted in an eclectic collection of Folios, Eastons, Franklins, Heritage, and LECs, all of which I value highly. Each has its flaws, but they are enormously outweighed by their strengths."

>21 jroger1:

Our philosophies are very similar! I have at least as many Folio Society books as LECs, as well as a substantial collection of Heritage Press titles. I also have a number of EP and Franklin Library books--since these offer better editions of many of my favorite works not otherwise available in Fine Press editions, and also a number of First Edition Library reproductions of many of my favorite mysteries (being a huge mystery fan). I'm with Don that I won't buy an expensive first edition of a Raymond Chandler novel, but I'm fan enough to own the multi-volume Folio Society edition of the Marlowe novels, and think that the illustrations in them are the best illustrations I've seen for noir mysteries. Although I am a love of Fine Press, I'm principally an avid reader who prefers to read my books in the nicest editions of them I can find (and afford).

My heart melts at the outpour of comments about Peter Pauper Press. Thanks guys you are amazing!

>21 jroger1:
>22 Django6924:
That is my reading/buying practice (philosophy) as well.

>21 jroger1:,22,24

Same for me, which is why I still buy FS on occasion (next month's Dune, for example, will be ordered immediately).

That said, I will still often buy books just for the production - my Allen Press Genesis certainly wasn't the first copy of Genesis I have around, but that didn't make me hesitate very long.

Here is the PPP Imitation of Christ and a handsome book it is.

vdanchev, your copy is beautiful! Mine is pristine inside but a very darkened spine.

>27 Django6924: And it set me back $18 only.

It's wonderful. Love the illustrations; who is it by?

>29 ironjaw:

Valenti Angelo.

Just bought the $45 The Peter Pauper Press of Peter and Edna Beilenson: 1928-1979. A Bibliography and History
Published by the University of Tampa Press (2013)

Can't wait to get this from the US. These are wonderful books.

>31 ironjaw: I guess this will prove an essential book, like Michael Bussacco's Heritage Press collection, and for much the same reasons: the variations between different editions of the same book and the fact that the copyright date is not a reliable guide to the date of publication. (Sometimes there isn't any date at all!)
For instance I was looking last year at various editions of Cyrano de Bergerac, and found two published by PPP. Both had the same copyright date (1941), both were “newly translated” by Humbert Wolfe but one was a limited edition (1850 copies) “newly decorated” by puppeteer and PPP regular Paul McPharlin and the other was just “illustrated” by Simon Greco. Since they could hardly both have been issued in the same year, newly decorated suggested the McPharlin was the earlier edition and it wasn't hard to find confirmation of that: it was mentioned at the time in an NYT review and was a winner in the book design category of AIGA's Fifty Books of the Year 1942.
I find the Greco re-issue more attractive, but I still have no idea when it came out! But I suspect the persistent 1941 date is there because December 1 1941 was date of the American copyright of Wolfe's translation (originally dashed off in 3 weeks for an Alexander Korda/Charles Laughton film which never made it through development hell).
Another PPP puzzle is the Uncensored Anthology which appears variously subtitled as Written by Divers Hands, Written by Divers Gay Hands, Gathered from Many Questionable Sources and simply By Edith Goodkind Rosenwald (who seems to have some connection with Charlotte's Web.)
If the bibliography can shed some light on conundrums like these it will be well worth the money!

>31 ironjaw: You're quite right about that Jack! I've used some time searching for PPP and have been perplexed by the different editions. One has to be careful when ordering as you rightly say the info is lacking. So like you I do hope the bibliography sheds light on this before I go ahead an order a volume.

The Imitation of Christ is beautiful and it just hurts how cheap they are and how expensive shipping is and then there is the 25% VAT plus a surcharge from the post company.

RANT START: The UK, Norway has 0% VAT, Sweden 3% and Germany 7% and from recent discussion from an earlier Danish Culture Minister some time ago it seems the removing VAT from books (even though recent studies shows that it would cause more people, especially the young, to read) is not going to be an option. He argued that by removing 25% VAT from books would cause a loss of 300 Million DKK (£30 mil.) from the state piggy bank and would cause a riot by the lower classes in the society (who are poorer) to advocate removing 25% VAT on food and vegetables. I'm dumfounded. RANT END.

Sometimes it seems that the US has all the fun when it comes to books.

>31 ironjaw: >32 featherwate: Collecting PPP would indeed be a journey very similar to collecting HP. One thing I do not get is how in a country that is obsessed (generally) with over regulation, publishing a book without referencing the printing year is okay.

>34 BuzzBuzzard:
Particularly considering both the HP and Peter Pauper were East Coast presses. I'd expect such rugged disregard of conformist expectations to be the hallmark of the feisty band of Californian printers such as the Grabhorns and Ward Richie.
Searching the net for PPP items is a bit of a nightmare even without dating problems. It has changed radically from its quirky roots in which classic and religious works rubbed shoulders with mild rudery (slightly less mild in its short-lived subsidiary imprint "At the Sign of the Blue-Behinded Ape"). Nowadays it seems to be a purveyor of luxury stationery, coloring books and kitsch. So when you follow up on a title such as "Smitten with Kittens" you don't know whether its going to be a witty Peter-Arno-style 1930s' tribute to young society ladies or the photographic horror that it actually is: 80 pages of "Purrfectly pictured kittens with cattitude offer[ing] up their own irreverent wit and wisdom in a whimsical volume of musings from the litterbox of life"...

>35 featherwate: I would not have been worried had the Grabhorns had no printing year. They were not in the business of reprinting as far as I know. It feels like there is room for new legislation that could spare us from running those nightmarish web searches.

On eBay there is a copy of the PPP Limited Edition Aristophanes' The Clouds, an altogether wonderful edition that makes a fitting companion to the LEC's The Frogs and The Birds--and certainly, in many ways, superior to the LEC Lysistrata, which in addition to Picasso's overrated illustrations, features a namely-pamby translation that strips the uproarious fun from the bawdy original. Under $30 US.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/191112561389

>37 Django6924:
There was a copy!

>38 featherwate:

I didn't think it would last for long. Hopefully a collector and not a dealer got it.

>36 BuzzBuzzard:
I suppose that collectors apart, few people are interested in whether or not the books they buy are first editions or reprints. It could therefore be argued that a law requiring all publishers always to include the date when a book is printed or reprinted would be opposed on the grounds of disproportion; it would impose a burden of compliance on all publishers while serving only the interests of a few specialist readers. “De paucis lectoribus divitibus non curat lex!” would be the cry of the mob.

> 40
I am quite sure the mob would NEVER be crying anything in Latin!

> 41
Sorry, Sean, that was a typo. It was a reference to the powerful publishing mafia one so often reads about and should therefore have read 'the Mob'. :)
(Although of course any mob will shout anything if paid enough...)

>42 featherwate:

"Give us Barabbas!"

>40 featherwate: I do not care about first editions. What I do care though is to be able to distinguish between editions that have different production values but similar appearance.

>37 Django6924: Robert, you're right. After your post, I picked up a copy of The Clouds off of Abe for around the same price. It does indeed go well with the LEC The Frogs and The Birds. In fact, the receipt from the bookstore labeled the book as an LEC (but not on the Abe listing). I don't think it's quite as nice as those editions but it does come close.

Pictures from the Peter Pauper Press edition of The Compleat Angler. Wood engravings by Boyd Hanna the illustrator of the HP/LEC Poems of Longfellow; he also illustrated Leaves of Grass for PPP (and several other of their books).
The book carries no copyright or publication date but the earliest reference to it I've traced is in a 1947 issue of the Saturday Review of Literature (Volume 30, advert on page 7). I've no idea whether my copy is from then or later, but it's satisfyingly well-made and comfortable to hold (size: 6.5in by10.5in). The paper is creamier and the text blacker than the photos might suggest:






The Milk Maids Sing Kit Marlowe:



That Famous English Weather:


This looks like Guy Fawkes practising to blow up Parliament:




Macy commissioned Hanna for the Longfellow on the basis of "his ability to make beautiful pictures of nature" but was less taken by his engravings of people, which he found "unpleasantly wooden"; the book's editor said that on the contrary he found they had "a quality of static decoration which pleased him immensely" and they stayed in. In this book Hanna is freer to indulge his sense of humour and achieves a nice balance between the relaxed and the formal. I think this suits the author and his subject very well, and I'm happy to make it my sixth Compleat Angler (I also have an Incompleat one and a Complete one!).

>47 EclecticIndulgence:
Yes, given that so many of them are pictorial slipcases it's a shame that they weren't as resilient as their owners were (PPP readers seem to have been a particularly rumbustical or poorly house-trained bunch).
I suppose if as a collector one really wants to protect the book the answer is to have a new slipcase made either with the original illustration transferred to it or with a high-res scanned copy.

OK, so now I'll have 4 editions of The Compleat Angler!

>49 Django6924: what are the other three?

>50 ultrarightist:

HP (illustrated by Robert Ball), HP (illustrated by David Gorsline), Weathervane Books, a cheap reprint, (illustrated by Arthur Rackham). The Rackham illustrations were a disappointment and I've only kept it due to sloth.