Must a fine press book be printed letterpress?

The question of whether a "fine press" book must *definitionally* be printed letterpress (as opposed to offset or inkjet) is a perennial debate. I'm curious to hear more about what people think, and actually do a little poll (see below).

The definition of a "fine press" has traditionally meant letterpress. If people take the colloquial definition of "fine" which they mean to be "high quality" then the answer is no. BUT, it still does not change what has been the definition for literally decades if not longer. If you go to people that work in the book field and tell them about your offset printed Folio Society book, or Easton Press, or Suntup... they'll tell you it's not fine press.

I rather suspect that many people who think "fine" does NOT need to be letterpress are youngish book collectors. I know I was like that once... before I knew better :)

I've taken to calling letterpress books, and especially from the presses that ONLY do letterpress, private press and using a looser definition of fine press to be that fuzzy middle between trade editions and private press.

I do not think a book must be printed letterpress to be fine. If all or most the other elements are present: paper, binding materials and quality, limited number of copies (due to the care needed to produce, not due to an artificial limit), best reproduction of illustrations or images, care taken in layout (as Bruce Rogers was noted for).
Facsimiles of course cannot be letterpress and yet be meticulously produced. Books with a great deal of reproduced art and limited text can qualify in my view.

Limiting “fine press” to a single facet of bookmaking is like voting for a candidate based on a single issue. Politics and bookmaking are more complex than that. And I’m not youngish :-)

In a 1988 article in the Washington Post entitled "Printer's Progress The Fine Press Tradition", the founder of The Arion Press wrote:

"How do we make these editions of one or a few hundred, rather than the tens of thousands manufactured of a trade title? A team of craftsmen (we now number eight), designs, prints and binds (and then markets), using both hand methods that date back 500 years and the electronic technology of modern industry. We do not perform all the tasks for every book. Other specialists sometimes collaborate with us to provide materials and services, such as paper and offset printing (letterpress printing is done in-house)." (emphasis added)

>6 cpg: Arion Press never does offset printing. The only offset that is done with Arion Press is when another publisher such as University of California Press reprints an Arion Press edition, such as Moby Dick, using offset. The difference in quality (and price) is of course like night and day.

Here is a lovely short documentary on letterpress printing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iv69kB_e9KY
The guy in the video notes that he is not going to argue with anyone that does not think letterpress printing is better than other methods, and I'm not really interested in doing so too... although obviously I think you can't compare anything to letterpress! And you know what, talk to people who work at Folio Society and other presses, and they will say the same thing. But of course, that is a bit of a tangent from the OP's question.

>5 jroger1: yeah. There’s plenty of garbage letterpress work out there, or letterpress printed on garbage paper, especially if you look before 1950.

That said, there’s a high correlation between truly fine work and letterpress, especially when letterpress is used as a selling point by current publishers.

Also, I don’t think there’s much of a language to discuss the differences between high quality offset printing and low quality offset printing, not to mention other printing technologies.

I agree with >4 laotzu225: and also don’t think that fine press books are by definition letterpress, though most probably are. Paper quality, binding, and layout are probably more important for me. I’ve see even recently published letterpress books that were called by their publishers fine, but that lacked the above and felt poorly made. It’s definitely the whole package.

No expert by any means, but wonder what expert opinion has been? Has letterpress really been synonymous with fine press for decades? And if so, why bother saying “fine” instead of “letterpress”?

>10 RRCBS: letterpress was once the only way to print a book (other than by hand) and the term "fine press" arguably originated with William Morris and others in the late 19th century as an artistic movement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Morris
When other cheaper printing techniques took over, "fine press" became synonymous with letterpress.

>4 laotzu225:. >5 jroger1:
Agree with both of you, particularly with regard to superb facsimiles done by the likes of Moleiro and Faksimile Verlag.

Include me with >4 laotzu225: and>5 jroger1: above, for I am of the opinion that "fine press" is a matter of quality; quality of materials, design and execution. The precise medium is irrelevant. This is especially true in livres d'artiste (artist's books). Since the focus is on the art, the text can and has been printed variously by letterpress, inkjet and digital printers. Letterpress is, in my mind, included within the larger category of "fine press," but the category is not limited to it. Providing that the result is of high quality in all respects, any printing method may yield a fine press book.

Having said that, I myself do prefer letterpress, BUT that is strictly a personal preference.

This thread possibly started because of my comment on the favourite fine press books? As I asked it I thought it would be debatable.

But nevertheless, I think it’s an interesting conversation. Personally I feel there’s a high correlation, but letterpress isn’t a prerequisite for a press to be considered fine.

Perhaps there is a certain romance to the idea of the manual process of how books were printed in the past, in tune with the idea that the good old days were all good. But as others have said, there was bad letterpress and bad paper in use as well.

A finely crafted book could be offset, provided the other features are exemplary.

>1 grifgon: Like many others, I don't think a fine press book has to be letterpress but most are. I hope the No Reply Press is planning to stay letterpress.

No, but in 2021 it's a useful heuristic.

My thoughts mirror >3 jveezer: in this regard. A true private press book is printed letterpress.

Fine press = Folio Society, Taschen, Centipede, etc.

Private Press = Arion Press, Barbarian Press, Foolscap Press, Salvage Press, etc.

>17 dlphcoracl: I think that “private press” makes more sense as a descriptor of business organization and editorial decision-making, much like “indie” (independent) in music labels. A press is “private” because the primary influence over press decision-making is the idiosyncratic and individual taste of the owner, and distribution generally relies less on mass industry channels. I know a number of people that operate arguably private presses in a hobby space, and none of them print letterpress. (In fact, some of them print entirely using digital print on demand services that also handle fulfillment.) Another way of characterizing this in marketing speak would be to say that the four elements of the marketing mix (product, price, promotion, and distribution) are less beholden to the market (which is the “public” square).

At some level this talk of definitions is an exercise in heuristic categorization, and so only useful or meaningful at the aggregate level for such vague concepts, but there are enough exception cases that it seems useful to distinguish between the terms. For example, the Folio Society Letterpress Shakespeare seems arguably to be fine press to me but just as arguably NOT to be private press. (And many Folio Society standard editions are neither fine nor private.)

There is obviously an artistic tradition or movement starting with Daniel, Kelmscott, etc., of private presses focusing primarily on fine presswork, so it makes sense that the terms get conflated.

Edit: to further belabor the point, “fine” seems ultimately to be a quality of a book, while “private” is a quality of an organization.

>11 astropi:
With all due respect to the great writer and editor William Morris, I think he would be shocked to learn that his equivalence of fine press with letterpress printing was still being accepted 150 years later in this age of digital art, digital music, digital movies, and, yes, digital printing. We differ in our preferences for art, music, and movies, so why not books? We find it difficult to say why we prefer certain artists or musicians or actors or authors.

A “fine book“ means different things to different people, and that’s what a discussion forum is all about. I put a high premium on pleasing-to-me illustrations and so I don’t consider the Letterpress Shakespeare series to be fine, but many (probably most) readers would disagree. Others carefully examine the paper or the bindings, whether leather or not, or the textual content or the printing technique. All of these opinions are legitimate and deserve to be discussed and respected in a forum like this one.

Interesting discussion. I am a fan of quality letterpress printing, and tend to correlate it with fine press. It seems that there are at least three broad categories that need to be considered, each with its own set of criteria for fineness (although some of the criteria likely overlap): text-oriented books, art/photography oriented books, and facsimiles. I think letterpress is one of the hallmarks of the first category, but not of the second or third.

>19 jroger1:

1. "With all due respect to the great writer and editor William Morris, I think he would be shocked to learn that his equivalence of fine press with letterpress printing was still being accepted 150 years later in this age of digital art, etc.... ".

If you believe this, then you truly do not understand what William Morris, the Kelmscott Press and the modern private press movement are about.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/morris/works/1893/printing.htm

I also suggest you give his final work 'A Note by William Morris on His Aims in Founding the Kelmscott Press', Kelmscott Press (1898) a careful reading.

2. "All of these opinions are legitimate....... ".

Uh, no, they are not. Sort of like Alternative Truth on Fox News.

>11 astropi: wouldn’t it make sense just to say letterpress books then if the terms are synonymous and one is clearer? Or are some letterpress books not fine press?

>22 RRCBS: today letterpress and fine presses are synonymous (more or less), but before Morris et al. letterpress which was the default printing technique was NOT necessarily the quality and artistic value you would expect. Of course there are numerous books printed before Morris et al. that are brilliant works of art, but most books were for lack of a better word "generic" (printing like most things does generally follow the laws of economics).

>19 jroger1: Have to agree with dlphcoracl here, you can't simply change the definition of something because you want it to.
I put a high premium on pleasing-to-me illustrations
Same here, but just having pleasing illustrations in no way makes a book "fine press". Are you really going to go around saying the Dr. Seuss books are fine press? :)

>23 astropi: “Are you really going to go around saying the Dr. Seuss books are fine press?”

Not likely any more than you would be to claim a book of child pornography is fine press just because it is letterpress and nicely bound. Somehow we have to account for the content of a book as well as its physical form.

>23 astropi: So not all letterpress books are fine press, but a prerequisite to a book being considered fine press is that it must be letterpress?

>25 RRCBS: Yes. The definition has changed. Printing has been around for hundreds of years, and for the most part it was letterpress. During that period some books were beautiful works of art, but many were what you might call "just a book" (which of course were often still pricey). The Arts and Crafts movement really put into the lexicon the term "fine press". However, as letterpress printing died out, the term "fine press" became synonymous with letterpress. Of course very high quality facsimiles, and limited editions (Easton Press, Folio Society, etc) are usually not letterpress but as noted are of high quality. However, I would argue that nevertheless a fine press book is letterpress.

>4 laotzu225:
>5 jroger1:
>12 wcarter:

I would actually respectfully disagree here. I think facsimile work is more on the conservation, scholarship, and book binding side. It would be difficult for me to call Moleiro a fine press as it's usually understood. They're not doing any original printing or typographical work and they aren't commissioning any illustrators. Their book binding is superb but you don't have to be a printer of any kind to be a book binder.

There are some borderline cases, for example the smith and press nuremberg chornicle English Translation "facsimile" and the Karger English translated de humani corporis fabrica (Vesalius), both being a combination of facsimile and original English translation with new language appropriate typography/layout.

Interesting, and potentially endless, discussion with many strong and various opinions…
I invite everyone to look back at basic definitions:
1) Fine printing is defined by materials and processes used and the care it takes to create printed pages. (Megan L. Benton: “Beauty and the Book”) Fine printing does not necessarily imply a certain level of skills; however, it does imply a careful printing method.
2) Fine book is a book well made with fine paper and biding materials with all elements working well together. (Jane Greenfield) A fine book may or may not be printed by a letterpress method.
3) Some meanings of the word “fine” that can relate to books: of high quality, well conceived or expressed, of handsome appearance, ornate, of high standard, etc. (Oxford Encyclopedic Dictionary)
Definitions of various “presses” from ABE website:
SMALL PRESS: A small press is any publishing house that publishes a small number of titles annually and operates on a small annual budget. The exact number of books and exact budget that make up the word ‘small’ is often a matter of personal preference but a good rule of thumb is if you can count their annual titles on two hands and the press itself is not funded by a larger parent company then you are probably looking at a small press.
Small presses often work in distinct literary niches that are neglected by major publishing houses such as poetry, genre fiction or specialized non-fiction areas. Small presses are famous for providing avant-garde authors with exposure and gambling on ‘alternative’ writers that would not appeal to a mainstream audience. Examples of small press include Arkham House, Melville House Publishing and Copper Canyon Press.
FINE PRESS: A fine press is a type of publisher that produces books of a high intrinsic and artistic quality. A fine press will often publish books in limited edition, include additional illustrations from a famous artist, use higher quality paper, or employ a famous bookbinder for their volumes. The distinguishing difference between a fine press and a small press is the fine presses’ commitment to fine printing and superior quality. Examples of fine presses include the Folio Society, Gregynog Press and Arion Press.
PRIVATE PRESS: This is type of small press that is most often operated as an artistic or craft-based venture rather than a purely commercial business. Private press is often a term used to describe the English Arts and Crafts movement of the 19th and 20th centuries under the influence of William Morris whose Kelmscott Press aimed to return publishing to its medieval roots and away from the cheap mechanization of the Industrial Revolution. Examples of private presses include Roycroft Press and Nonesuch Press.

IN CONCLUSION: as much as I personally love reading letterpress books, a fine book does not immediately imply letterpress method, but “fine press” seems to imply “fine printing” in its definition. I know that this goes against what a lot of us feel based on our collecting and reading experience or against what we wish was the case, but c'est la vie.

>28 booksforreading: also from Greenfield:

The choice of paper — weight or stiffness in relation to the size of the page, durability, and permanence — is the most important factor determining the quality of the book.

(Greenfield, 1983, p. 16)

Arguably, as the head of a university library, she may come from a more antiquarian perspective, but from other writings she seems to be in tune with modern fine press priorities as well.

>29 abysswalker:
"Fine books...well printed on high quality paper and handsomely bound so that the mechanical components of the book work well together..." (Jane Greenfield: The Care of Fine Books, Skyhorse Publishing, 2007, p. 7)

As you see, this is Greenfield's latest opinion, as the book quoted above was published much later than "Books: Their Care & Repair" from 1983 that you quote. I have the 1983 book, too.

A curator at the Houghton Library who specializes in fine press shared his heuristic with me:

First, a fine press book must have a known limitation (which is usually, but not always, stated in the book's colophon).

Second, a fine press book must meet at least 2 out of 3 production conditions:

Hand binding

Handmade paper (used for covers and/or text and/or ends)

Relief printing (of which letterpress is by far the most common form)

I think his heuristic emphasizes the role of human hands and limitation, as opposed to the wishy-washier idea of something being "fine" or "beautiful" or "high quality". I think it's a decent heuristic, but the thing I like most is that it emphasizes books and not publishers. That is, any publisher *can* produce a fine press book, and some publishers *only* produce fine press books.

(He also said he has colleagues who just follow the pornography rule: "I know it when I see it.")

>3 jveezer: >17 dlphcoracl: This instinctively seems right to me as well.

>31 grifgon:
I like this approach.

>31 grifgon:
I see the appeal of such a formula, but I’m not sure you can account for all fine books that way. For instance, it makes no allowance for fine illustrations — no extra points even for original art by famous artists. Also, I’m not sure what a stated limitation has to do with a book being “fine.” I guess I’m more of an “I know it when I see it” kind of collector.

>31 grifgon:
I agree with jroger1 in that I do not see what limitation has to do with a book being qualified as fine. It is true that most fine presses must limit the number of copies of their editions, for various reasons, but limitations are not exclusive to just fine presses, as we all know too well.
Also, someone might do everything by hand: printing, binding, use hand-made paper, and, on top of it, limit the production to only 2 copies of each edition, and, yet, the final product might still be VERY far from what most of us would consider a fine book.
I do not think that a high quality, beautiful, well-made book is a "wishy-washier idea" - high quality in every detail is what will in fact separate a truly artistically-designed professionally-made book from an amateur production.
Otherwise, I can see some logic in your curator's personal method.

Still, I will refer you back to my post 28 above.

>33 jroger1: >34 booksforreading: I think in the Houghton curator's case, there's a need for a formula to catalogue and do bibliographic work. The Houghton is primarily a research library, so when somebody comes asking to see fine press books, he can't very well say, "Come on in, you'll know them when you see them!"

While I don't treat his heuristic as law, I think that 99% of the time it correctly identifies what I'd consider a "fine press book". But of course I can come up with exceptions as well as the next guy.

In both of your comments I couldn't help but notice you write about "fine books" rather than "fine press books". Perhaps this is an important difference in how people in the community think differently about definitions? In my mind, these are different categories. The books in my collection which I consider "fine books" and those which I consider "fine press books" overlap a lot, but they're by no means the same.

Ultimately I'm increasingly inclined toward using the Oraco-Jveezerian fine/private press categories in my own thinking.

It's been very interesting to see the roughly 1:2 response to this poll. Thanks everybody for voting! I'm continually reminded how different communities that interact with "fine press books" (whatever they are) think about them differently.

>35 grifgon:
Thanks for starting the thread and the survey. I don’t know if we could ever arrive at a consensus, but it has been both interesting and useful to see the different viewpoints on the subject.

>35 grifgon:
Thank you for initiating this discussion and for creating the poll! By the way, my response to it is "yes", which is based on the information in my previous post. Without expressing my personal opinion, the data there underlines the difference between just a fine book and that made by a fine press.

Interesting discussion. My adage is, not all letterpress is fine press, but all fine press is letterpress. An example is the FS LE Door in the Wall: for me a very fine facsimile of a fine press book, but not a fine press book in itself (same goes for the Gill LE’s). Perhaps it’s as simple as the word ‘press’, to be fine press the text needs to be pressed onto (into) the page as opposed to offset.
Other factors matter too of course. For me the FS letterpress Shakespeare is at risk of not being fine press, simply because of the ultra high limitation. My opinion is of course authoritative…

>38 stopsurfing: The one thing that I don't mind is high limitation number. If a book is a beautiful letterpress why would it matter if it had a high limitation number? Also, while it took a long time, I think the FS letterpress Shakespeare is all but sold out, so even though it did have an abnormally high limitation number enough people were eager to purchase it - I actually did not purchase any of them, but they did look beautiful although sans illustrations.

>38 stopsurfing: The only issue there is the word "press" is defined as a business that prints or publishes books. That it is called press is perhaps an anachronism - hopefully I'm using the term correctly? Perhaps I am not.

But the word has outgrown its usage from the time when you had to actually press something to create printed material, to now any business that does so.

Interesting question and I'm glad it came up, I had assumed that fine press and letterpress were basically synonymous, but seeing the vote here I guess there's a lot of fine press out there that I haven't yet seen. Does anybody have any examples of exceptional fine press books which aren't letterpress that I could look into buying?

>41 punkrocker924: A lot of collectors seem to love the Suntup books, some of which aren't letterpress! Hard to acquire, though.

>41 punkrocker924:
I own a lot of facsimiles that I consider fine press.
For example :-
Des Schwarzes Stundenbuch (Black Hours) MS M.493 - FAKSIMILE VERLAG LUCERNE LIMITED EDITION.
Surinam Album.
Lutteral Psalter.
Vallard Atlas.
Rotz Atlas by the Roxburghe Club.

.... and some high quality non-letterpress books.
For example:-
Kafka on the Shore.
Candide.
Fashion Designers.
Battle of Waterloo.
Dracula.

Etc, etc, etc.........

>43 wcarter: And it should be noted that @wcarter's ongoing series is one of the best resources online for fine press collecting.

A thousand thanks, and more!

Centipede Press' Something Wicked This Way Comes was also an exceptional production, which happened to have full-page letterpress two-colour engravings by Vladimir Zimakov.

Someone also mentioned The Door in the Wall LE from the FS, which was a facsimile.

What about books printed lithographically? Not industrial offset lithography but printing directly from a metal or stone (as the name of the process indicates) plate?

Or by silkscreen, as in this one.

>43 wcarter: That Candide is pretty snazzy.

>45 U_238: That The Door in the Wall from Folio is one of my most-prized books and, as far as I'm concerned, is "fine press". i know I've given my opinion already in this thread but this example just seemed to call me forth again!

>41 punkrocker924: fine press and letterpress are synonymous. Just because people misconstrue the meaning and "really really want their snazzy (and likely expensive) book to be a fine press" does not make it so. Just like you could argue all day long "how a motorcycle is really an automobile" - but it's not. Of course I think there are numerous non-fine press publishers that are great - Centipede, Easton, Folio, Suntup, etc. but that doesn't make them a fine press.

Also note that Folio and Suntup have produced truly fine press at times such as Folio's lovely edition of Sappho which I would argue is the best edition of her poems ever published.

>50 astropi: And I respectfully disagree. Letterpress is a subset of fine press, IMHO. And the argument goes on and on...I doubt it will be resolved in my lifetime.

>50 astropi: again, feel free to argue that a motorcycle is an automobile, but it doesn't make it so. The word "fine" means high quality, so people look at their Folio books and say "oh well, gee, that seems like high quality to me!" so it must be fine press! but "fine press" is not the same as "fine". People misconstrue meanings all the time, and I've said what I wanted to, I'm not going to try and change people's minds.

>52 astropi: my opinion on this matter of definition is not particularly strong, and I use the term in both ways depending on context. But it is perhaps worth acknowledging that the vote above disagrees with you 18 to 33, at the time I write this comment. I don’t know exactly what population this sample represents, but I suspect the regular posters to this board are among the more knowledgeable and tuned in collectors of fine press books.

Empirically speaking, it does not seem like there is a consensually established meaning of “fine press” to the degree that people understand each other when using the word motorcycle.

>53 abysswalker: it would be interesting to see some statistics on the two groups. Regardless, what people "believe" does not change the actual definition. Also, I suspect that many people who voted "no" don't own many (if it all) fine press books but rather want to believe their Folio Society etc. books are "fine press" - so clearly there's a bias here. Myself, I own both fine press and non-fine press books. Both can be absolutely wonderful, but that doesn't change the meaning of "fine press" no matter how much one wants to believe.

I can assure you that both camps have their ardent supporters!

I cannot understand a slavish adherence to an antiquated technology. While I do appreciate the qualities of letterpress and recognize that superb letterpress work has a beauty of its own that cannot be replicated with modern printing technology, that is not to say that excellent work cannot be achieved with other methods.

It all comes down to whether or not one wishes to say that letterpress is, de facto, "fine printing" and all other technologies are excluded OR to take a broader view and include newer technologies within that definition. I take the latter view, Astropi the former. To take the stand that one of those is "right" and the other "wrong" is, I think, somewhat myopic and unfair to those alternative technologies which are equally capable of producing superb work.

Consequently, I suggest that the view espoused by Astropi, et alia be considered fine printing, sensu stricto (in the narrow sense) and the view which I hold in company with many others as fine printing, sensu lato (in the broad sense). And with that, I conclude my part in this discussion.

>54 astropi:
I voted "no" and own over 200 letterpress "Fine press" books.
I actually like the explanation in the last paragraph of >55 Glacierman:

>53 abysswalker: >54 astropi: For what its worth, I get the sense that the LibraryThing / online community represent a particular subset of the fine press community at large. The discussion usually centers around different presses and projects than what I usually hear about offline. Which is the reason why I love checking in daily!

The collector I've met with the greatest collection (all of Thornwillow, all of Arion, all of Tallone, all of Golden Cockerel, all of Rampant Lions — and I do mean ALL) has likely never heard of Suntup or Centipede Press. In my opinion, his loss! But clearly, a very different world than the online one.

It strikes me especially that, for example, many on this forum are probably not very familiar with Tallone's work, when Tallone is treated almost fetishistically by fine press proprietors, dealers, and "brick and mortor" collectors. Alex Goren's recent donation of 400 Tallone books to Columbia University made international headlines!

Another example, along similar lines: One of the most highly admired fine press organizations in the world is the Cento Amici del Libro (Hundred Friends of the Book), which is an Italian club that publishes one fine press book every year. Their books are highly prized, always stunning, and in many ways help to set trends in bookmaking which others follow often religiously. Yet, I don't think I've heard mention of CAL even once on this forum. At the very least, they occupy a vastly smaller portion of the online chatter than the offline chatter.

For anybody interested, here's a catalogue of all CAL books. It's worth scrolling through. A lot of stunning work.

https://www.centoamicidellibro.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/ParoleFigurate100A...

>57 grifgon: I would love to have a Tallone in my library but unfortunately they don't print much in English. What do they have in English besides Hamlet?

>58 kdweber: They've published quite a few English editions over the years, but you're right that the majority of their output is in Italian, Latin, and French. Hamlet, Emily Dickinson, Ezra Pound, and Pablo Neruda are probably the English titles of most interest.

>57 grifgon: re: the Goren donation: there is a lengthy interview with Goren that I found to be a good read. He touches on Thornwillow (... I have a young friend, Luke Ives Pontifell, who is a printer of fine books and limited editions here in the United States ...), among many other topics likely to be of interest to folks here.

>58 kdweber: at one point I think I put together a list of the Tallone books in English before I picked up a copy of the Hamlet; let me see if I can find it. (Edit: can't find it at the moment.)

There are many here far more expert and with much larger collections than myself, but having read through this thread I'm inclined to agree with >54 astropi:. Either there is a strict definition of 'fine press' or the term is essentially meaningless. If one removes letterpress from the definition then it seems difficult to come up with one. Reading above, there are various attempts but (summarizing) they all seem to fall into the categories of 'it's whatever I think is fine', 'it uses nice materials' or 'anything above a trade-hardback'. So, coming from a scientist/engineer perspective I would say either have a strict definition or don't use the term. But I fully accept that others are willing to accept looser definitions.

From a personal perspective I will say that good letterpress is like many other luxuries: until one has experienced it, one doesn't know what one is missing. To paraphrase the James song 'If I hadn't seen such riches, I could live with being poor' :-) Taking the example of the Folio Society, owning both the Sappho and one of the War Poets, I REALLY noticed the lack of letterpress in the new Hardy (even though I still like the book very much). If I didn't own the former two I doubt I would have noticed.

>45 U_238: CP's Something Wicked is a great example of the benefits letterpress can bring. Those illustrations were SOOO much nicer than if they'd been printed offset.

ETA: I'm aware that it's not the final authority on the subject but the list on Wikipedia seems firmly geared towards letterpress printers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_press

Just another thought—letterpress is, by and large, more applicable to western languages than to say, Japanese, Chinese, or Arabic. Yes, moveable type existed in these countries, but for Japan at least (where I live) woodblock printing was the standard choice until the modern period. Indeed, there are still woodblock print publishers working today, using the traditional methods, creating and selling works that are just as labor intensive (and expensive) as the works coming out of western letterpress firms. One of the reasons I like >31 grifgon:’s definition is that it is open to non-western languages that a strict must-be-letterpress definition isn’t. Japanese bookmaking has some amazing examples of craftsmanship, and to exclude them from the fine press canon because they aren’t letterpress doesn’t feel right.

To give an example, here is one publisher in Kyoto still making woodblock books by hand. (Pardon the terrible website, but I think it’s more common than not for fine press publishers to have bad websites, regardless of country).

https://www.hanga.co.jp/shopdetail/003005000001/003/X/page1/order/

I tend to think of Fine Press as a term for any business that prints or publishes books of exceptional quality (with no particular constraints based on printing method etc.).

Whatever definition is used it is always going to be subjective, not every letterpress book is fine press. There always need to be some judgement on what the overall quality is of the book - so I don't see the harm in allowing the flexibility to include non-letterpress books which have other exceptional features.

In practice I think the majority of books achieving fine press standards are letterpress. However, if a non-letterpress book of truly exceptional quality is released, I would hope people would think to raise it on this forum (if not then I need to browse more forums!).

>64 EdmundRodriguez: With all due respect, you're missing the point a number of us are trying to make, including a well written response by >61 Levin40:
Your argument, and that of some others, is basically "well, I really like this book, I think it's really well made, so I'm going to call it a fine press book" which is basically usurping what "fine press" means. A beautiful book does not have to be letterpress, but a "fine press" book has to be letterpress. A letterpress book does not automatically make it better than a non-letterpress book. However, to call a book "fine press" does indeed imply letterpress.

>63 mnmcdwl: Letterpress involves a printing press, those books you showed are gorgeous, but I'm not sure if it technically falls under "fine press" if you do it by hand... regardless those are magnificent books. Honestly, I would happily own such a book and it wouldn't bother me if it wasn't technically called "fine press"
And yes, many excellent small presses have terrible websites... maybe that's part of the mystique?

>65 astropi:
Is there a term which covers exceptional quality books (both letterpress and not)? I can’t immediately think of one, in which context I am not surprised “Fine Press” is commonly being misused.

I don’t really mind, but it would be more convenient for me if the language evolved and the term Fine Press became more inclusive (I just want to describe the “best” or “highest quality” books, if I want to find letterpress I’ll search letterpress). I can offer you “Fine Letterpress” to replace the old "Fine Press" descriptor which I am trying to steal, if that helps?

>65 astropi: I would be curious what your technical definition is. Presumably it involves some attributes or criteria in addition to being printed letterpress?

A definition of "fine printing" practically always includes letterpress method in it. The definition of "fine press" includes fine printing in it.
The definition of "fine book" does not have to include fine printing.
Please see my earlier post.

Otherwise, I really love reading various opinions in this discussion, and I agree with majority of them - even if they are completely opposite to each other. :)

So, to clarify matters, if you mean letterpress only, say "fine letterpress" and make that distinction. No one can argue with that. If you intend to include excellent work via other printing technologies, use "fine printing." That should reduce the contention.

I can't help but noticing that "Yes" is increasing as a percentage of the poll (though "No" still has a sizable lead).

Has anybody changed their mind (either way) and, if so, would be willing to share *what* changed their mind?

>70 grifgon:
I haven't voted, but after reading this whole thread I remain "undecided".

Some of the questions buzzing around in my head (I know, I know, the post that raised the question also answers it - to the satisfaction of the poster, at least!)

- Is it just a three-way fight between letterpress, offset litho, and inkjet, as the initial message states? we've since brought other print methods and technologies into consideration.

- Should the "press" in "fine press book" refer to a printing press or a printing business/concern?

- Does a definition that uses methods and materials (letterpress, handmade paper, etc) really have no room for questions of aesthetics, and/or skill in execution? If so, it means that amateurish efforts are included in the definition, but commercially-produced examples of "the book beautiful" are ruled out? This seems especially perverse when 100 years ago letterpress was the norm, and many a small print firm would be producing inferior product that might well be classed as "fine" now, by that yardstick.

- I was expecting (or hoping for fireworks, perhaps!) that someone would argue for foundry type only, and reject mechanical typesetting by Monotype and Linotype machines (and what about typesetting on computer and then printing to polymer plates?). On similar lines, I saw someone somewhere (not here, I think) being dismissive of printers using proof presses.

>71 housefulofpaper: fine press always refers to the printing press - the traditional method of printing where the ink is pressed into the paper.

So, again, all books used to be printed letterpress. That did not make them beautiful works of art. William Morris wanted to make books beautiful works of art. Does that mean that today a book has to be printed letterpress in order to be a beautiful work of art - of course not. BUT, if you want to call your book "fine press" then yes, it must be letterpress. That does not mean a book has to be handset or anything of that nature nor that fine press is exclusive to lead or wood type - polymer plates are perfectly fine :)

>72 astropi:

Nov 5, 2020: We all have favorites in our lives - so to get to the point, what are your favorite (fine press) books in your collection?
May 21, 2021: I was originally thinking letterpress. You're right though, a few have posted non-letterpress editions and I did not specify letterpress, so it wouldn't be fair to do so now.
Jun 4, 2021: BUT, if you want to call your book "fine press" then yes, it must be letterpress.

>70 grifgon: I am one "No" who has not changed his mind.
Fine press may (often) be letterpress; but need not be.

>74 laotzu225:
Ditto

>70 grifgon: Actually I missed this thread entirely until it was crossposted just now, so I've taken the time to vote. My vote is Yes, but it's an equivocal yes. For example, I don't automatically exclude polymer plate from the definition if other factors are in place. I do generally consider other factors to be crucial as well (handmade or mouldmade papers, hand binding, limitations, etc). But I'm coming from a background where "fine press" always meant these things, and can see how others came to the term from different spheres. I concur that it's now a somewhat nebulous term because of that, and unlikely to ever regain a rigid definition going forward.

Personally, everything I list in my Fine Press collection is letterpress, but I don't expect that to be the case for everyone, nor do I balk when it isn't. I'm more likely to cavil when the term is applied to something that very clearly shouldn't be classed as such on multiple grounds.

EDIT: Corrected my neurological tendency for case inversion (i.e., changed a "should" to the intended "shouldn't").

>70 grifgon: I'm little surprised to see "no" still in the lead. While in theory letterpress printing is not essential to the definition of "Fine Press", there are very, very few presses in my opinion that do not print letterpress but maintain the quality, attention to detail and overall artistry that I believe is essential to that definition.

In my experience, the majority of presses that go the offset or digital route are not giving their printing a fine press level of attention. Though, the same can be said of some letterpress publishers as well.

>77 NathanOv: I agree, but I think part of the issue is in the phrasing of the prompt. Any "for all" claim is very difficult to defend strictly, as it is voided by a single counterexample.

For example, while most of the books in my collection that I have the highest opinion of were printed letterpress, there are a few notable counterexamples, such as the Folio Society LE of The Poems of Thomas Gray, which is a facsimile of the William Blake illuminated prints. Not printed letterpress, but absolutely stunning in all regards (and in fact would be impossible to print using any relief printing method).

So while I think I voted "yes" to the poll above because I was answering what I saw as the intent of the question rather than the literal wording, I do not actually think that a letterpress requirement makes sense as a formal definition.

I suspect that if the question was phrased with more nuance, the result would be more meaningful. I do survey research professionally as part of my job, and if I wanted to get good data around consumer opinion in this regard, I would ask something like:

How important are the following attributes to you when deciding if a book counts as fine press:

Printed using a relief method (letterpress)

1 = Not important at all ... 4 = Neutral ... 7 = Very important

I would probably ask about a collection of different relevant attributes, so that the results could be looked at comparatively as well as absolutely. I am not sure what the full list would be, but at the very least I'd probably ask about image reproduction methods, paper quality, hand binding, hand press versus mechanical letterpress (such as a Heidelberg), and so forth.

Categorical or binary judgments throw away a lot of information and so rarely capture either beliefs or aspects of reality accurately.

>77 NathanOv: Not all Fleece press productions are Letterpress but I certainly consider them to be a fine press

>79 DMulvee: Like >78 abysswalker: pointed out, I think it's faulty to force a definition based on possible exceptions. Facsimiles are certainly a notable area where relief printing might be inappropriate, as well as perhaps in some fine press art books. And there are gifted printers such as Mindy Belloff who use offset or digital printing (usually in conjunction with letterpress) when it better suits the project.

I'm not terribly up on Fleece Press and wonder if their non-letterpress books fall into one of the above categories, as well as if they maintain the same overall quality as the letterpress books?

The original question was definitely phrased around whether individual books can be considered "fine press," and there are plenty of "hybrid" publishers who publish both fine press and non-fine press works, though I'm not sure if that applies to Fleece.

>78 abysswalker: I agree that the question doesn't allow for nuance, but that's the point. Everybody would agree that most fine press books are printed letterpress, and that craft methods of printing are important to fine press to some extent. That's all consensus. The point of this question was literally to toss out equivocation: Must a fine press book be printed letterpress? In my experience, the online community mostly says "No" (and here enters all the aforementioned nuance) but the offline community largely says "Yes". It gets to whether "fine press" has an objective craft/historic definition, or whether it's a subjective catch-all term.

>81 grifgon: Hm. I think most definitions have exceptions and that the nuances to those are important. I think it would be faulty to take the results of a poll like this and say "See! Fine press doesn't need to be printed letterpress."

You wouldn't poll fine diners on whether or not meat needs to be cooked, and then give any broader credence to the fact that, well technically, it doesn't. That answer only applies to the exceptions, and not to the broader category.

For the record, these are the definitions which are top of mind to me:

Fine Press: A publisher working in the tradition of the Fine Press Movement.

Fine Press Movement: A movement which sought to resist industrialization and mass-publication by turning to craft methods of printing and bookmaking.

Private Press: In which the publisher and maker are the same person or persons.

>82 NathanOv: I never said this poll was definitive! I was simply curious what the contributors here thought. I can't imagine any serious person taking the results of this poll of under 100 people online and making a case about what defines a century-old tradition.

>82 NathanOv: Oh, I wouldn't expect it to be. I just imagine you're getting a lot of reluctant "no"s based on the phrasing.

>83 grifgon: "A movement which sought to resist industrialization and mass-publication by turning to craft methods of printing and bookmaking."

I think "craft methods" is the critical piece that's somewhat buried in your definitions. Most non-relief printing fails to meet that criteria in my opinion, except in special cases.

>84 grifgon: Well that's the question, isn't it! What constitutes a craft method?

The presses we use today in Fine Press would have been considered commercial technology to the Roycrofters. Our proof presses are the auxiliaries to mass-production machines.

In my opinion, the definition of "craft methods" changes, but the definition of "Fine Press" does not.

>86 grifgon: Well, I think you can apply the same definition of the Roycrofter's work being in contrast to the commercial methods of the time to today's letterpress printing being in contrast to general commercial printing methods.

My main point though is that most non-relief printing does not beg the same attention as contemporary letterpress, and therefore quite often fails to rise to the same level. I posted a comment on a comparison of the two recent Dorian editions that even if Lyra's was the offset edition, I would still prefer it based on the beautiful typography and design I'd seen in photos.

The reality is though, that much of that beauty and intentionality rises from the "craft" of letterpress, and not enough publishers make that effort for non-relief printing, at least in my opinion.

>83 grifgon: I think that's a fine set of working definitions. Where does the occasional term "small press" come in? Is it essentially synonymous with a private press? Or is it more of a reference to studio size, with small presses not necessarily being fine presses?

>87 NathanOv: I agree completely, and I think this is very much the point. Mass-production methods can become craft methods over time.

Interestingly, W. A. Dwiggins, widely considered one of the "fathers" of the Fine Press Movement, actually wanted nothing to do with it! He thought it was snoody outdated craft for its own sake. Therefore, he worked for Knopf to bring excellent design and typography to a mass audience. It's too bad that more offset printers and trade publishers don't value design more. There's absolutely no reason not to. To borrow your example of the Dorians (which I haven't seen!), I believe (could be wrong) the Lyra Dorian was printed on polymer. If so, then it was laid out with the exact same method as the other one, maybe even in the same program (like InDesign). There's nothing about letterpress which demands better design than digital printing; it's just that the same people who love letterpress tend to love design. Exactly as you say Nathan, "not enough publishers make that effort for non-relief printing". And it's a shame!

>88 Shadekeep: I think small press is a huge catch-all term that doesn't have a lot of meaning. It includes everything from zine publishers to high school literary mags to local imprints to genre presses and private and fine presses.

I think "private press" is often misused to mean "REALLY REALLY GOOD BOOKS!" I think there's an impulse to hierarchize these terms from lowest quality to highest quality output, when it would be better to stick to their operational / technical / craft meanings.

>89 grifgon: Great points, and Dwiggins is an interesting example!

As far as "the letterpress edition was laid out with the exact same method as theoffset edition, maybe even in the same program (like InDesign)," that part of the process may be the same, but there's still a big difference between preparing layout files and sending them to a printer vs. running print tests specifically for letterpress, comparing type side-by-side and seeing it on paper, and refining throughout the whole process while designing for the specific medium. If not "demanding" more intentional design, it at least lends itself to it.

Not that that's accurate for all letterpress printing processes, or couldn't be / isn't also done for some offset editions - we're probably saying the same thing in that regard!

I'm just not sure about boiling the definitions down to be largely meaningless when there are very common distinguishing traits of fine press / private press / "small press" (meaning genre presses) etc. books.

I originally voted no, but would now consider switching to "yes".

My original aversion to the definition being so prescriptive is likely due to my own preconception that saying something is not "fine press" implies it is less good. It therefore felt like a criticism of non-letterpress books (some of which I think are fantastic).

I now view fine press as more of a label of method of creation, rather than a gold star.

It does however feel like the lines are blurring more (at least for novels) as various publishers seem to be migrating more to letterpress (e.g. Suntup and Amaranthine) without any other obvious change in their approach (not intended as a criticism).

I feel some books are printed letterpress purely to tick that box and cater to people that want that label. However, I do not believe they are always creating a "better" object/reading experience than if it had been offset printed (for me at least).

However, when letterpress is done really well, it blows other books out of the water for me. For example, reading Tallone's Hamlet, on handmade paper, feels like a pure and distilled book experience, the craft is self-evident, it is a joy to handle.

>90 NathanOv: Agreed!!! Definitions are essential. Otherwise it's all just gobbledygook.

>91 EdmundRodriguez: Terrific comments. You're right on the money.

I am less interested in the "can you have fine press without handcraft methods?" end of the blurring spectrum than in "can you have handcraft methods without being fine press?" end--to which I think everyone would agree the answer is yes, but agreeing on precisely where the line is may be difficult. I also collect zines, many of which are the very definition of handcraft (and make use of silkscreening, risograph, or, yes, even sometimes handset letterpress). No one is going to mistake them for fine press books, but I'm not always sure I could articulate the difference between them and some of the paperbound chapbooks small fine presses sometimes put out.

>91 EdmundRodriguez: that was well said.
In the vernacular we say "fine" meaning "very good or excellent" but "fine press" has for over a hundred years meant high-quality letterpress printing. I'm really happy seeing publishers such as Suntup produce more beautiful letterpress books that are also very affordable. When I started collecting, my go-to publisher was Easton Press. I still have some of their books, and some of them are truly wonderful. However, they are not fine press and I can absolutely tell the difference in quality. Again, nothing wrong with Easton and I will continue to support presses that print offset such as Centipede - they produce beautiful books that are worth every penny!