[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Help with a multiple signature binding?
- To: BOOK_ARTS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: Help with a multiple signature binding?
- From: Eric Alstrom <alstrom@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 11:34:42 -0400
- In-reply-to: <199809151452.KAA12711@redbud.cats.ohiou.edu>
- Message-id: <199809151538.IAA18306@SUL-Server-2.stanford.edu>
- Sender: "Book_Arts-L: READ THE FAQ at http://www.dreamscape.com/pdverhey" <BOOK_ARTS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
The books we make in my workshop are about 3/8" to 1/2" thick. Rounding and
backing isn't necessary for a book of that thickness, although it can be
done and quite often is.
>I know that a rounded spine adds additional strength and integrity to the
>book as opposed to not rounding the spine ( at least I think I remember
>reading that somewhere)...what is the delineation of thickness where
>rounding is not necessary?
There is a movement for not rounding and backing any book. Some library
binders are not doing this for adhesive bound volumes. And James Brockman
has developed a "concave rigid spine" structure and he argues that a convex
structure is actually unnatural. (See J. Hewit's "Skin Deep" online
publication, volume 2 for details http://www.hewit.com/skindeep.htm ).
As for the thickness of the spine stiffner, I use a bristol board or folder
stock, about .020" thick. Using the same thickness of spine stiffner as
the boards makes the spine too thick and maybe contributing to the tearing
of the hand made paper.
So, I would say try the bradel binding on your flat back books. And also
try using a thinner stiffner for the spine. This might solve your
problems. And don't be afraid to experiment. A couple of "dummy" books
using different techniques will lead to what works best in your situation!
I am, above all, an artist. I use everything in relation to it.
Art should flavor everything in your life. It should be your
definition of why you are living.
Murray Louis, Dancer/Choreographer