[Table of Contents] [Search]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Standing presses

Umm...while technically "unnecessary" with the advent of hydrolic presses
and as you say modern adhesives we still use standing presses every day
here.  We have 5 large (approx. 8 feet tall) cast iron standing presses
that we use on a daily basis and in total have about a dozen of various
sizes.  While we don't fill all presses every day, on average we press 2500
books a month.  Some days 300-500 and some days with 0-50.

I can tell you that compaired to the hydrolic press the standing press
delivers a much nicer product.  Specifically in the joint area.   A
hydrolic press just can't get teh same effect, especially with books that
have been oversewn (vs. fanbinding.)

Personally, I can't see myself loading and unloading a small press for
hours on end (those 500 days) or using a noisy hydrolic press every day,
all day; which could break down.

Maybe I'll change my ways some day but right now I wouldn't give up my
standing presses for anything.

>    I believe the standing press is both unnecessary for high volume work =
>and, given modern PVA adhesives, is a relic of the past.   Whereas starch =
>pastes and traditional hide glues may have required a stay in the press of =
>up to 24 hours, repairs made with modern PVAs can set in a matter of =
>minutes.   I have both a standing press and 2 smaller, stacking glue =
>presses.  These three presses have collected dust for the last ten years =
>as they have been replaced by one smaller, benchtop press that does one =
>book at at time.   The average dwell time for each book in the press is =
>probably somewhere between 3 and 10 minutes and is determined by the time =
>it takes to have the next book ready to put in the press.  I have done =
>runs where we have glued and pressed a 100 books in a day with no =
>problems.   The small benchtop press (I must admit a bias - this press is =
>the Casing Press , a press I designed, manufactured and sell, both =
>directly and through Gaylord) is more efficient to use and takes up =
>considerably less shop space.  Once books are removed from the press I =
>simply stack them and place an unweighted board on top of the stack.  I =
>have had no problems with either adhesion or warping.
>    Though not a historian of binding, I conjecture that  the standing =
>press was important in times of yore for two reasons.  As stated earlier, =
>traditional adhesives are relatively slow to set and simply needed more =
>press time.  The other reason, and one that would still be valid today, is =
>the need to press signatures prior to sewing.  Whereas, modern adhesives =
>substantially shorten the dwell time needed for pressing a glued up book, =
>pressing a group of signatures is not something that can be hurried.   In =
>this case, where an overnight dwell time is necessary, the efficiencies of =
>a standing press are obvious as a single-book press would limit ones =
>sewing production to a single book a day.  It is also my guess, however, =
>that the modern library repair operation is not handsewing books in volume =
>and could probably get on quite well without a standing press.
>Pete Jermann
>Preservation Officer/Bookbinder
>Friedsam Memorial Library
>St. Bonaventure University
>St. Bonaventure, NY 14778
>Tel. (716) 375-2324


Happiness bought and paid for
is happiness none the less.



[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents] [Search]