Edo G. Loeber: Criteria Affecting the Identity of Watermarks

Our starting-point is the manufacture of hand-made paper, moulded sheet after sheet, couched, pressed, dried, possibly sized and glazed, and maybe printed.
In this connection the following principle is basic: no action ever repeats itself under exactly identical conditions. This implies that theoretically the result differs from one case to the next. These differences may be minimal, but we cannot ignore them. Let us examine the causes of these differences between sheets of hand-made paper coming from one and the same mould (not from a pair of moulds).

A. The stuff

1. After each dipping the fibre content in the vat not only diminishes, but
2. the proportion of long and short fibres changes, leaving more short than long fibres.
3. Adding stuff to the vat alters the fibre content and the proportion of long and short fibres once again.
4. The fibre content therefore changes constantly during the moulding of a whole post; in the end this results in a predominance of short fibres. R6my Green (Maidstone) questions this. In his opinion it could be true for Richard de Bas (Ambert), but unlikely to be perceptible – even under a microscope – at a mill like Hayle MW, with constant addition of stuff.
5. With each moulding the fibres settle themselves differently along the laid, chain, and profile wires, on account of the shaking of the mould and the closing of the sheet, whereas
6. in each sheet of paper the proportion of the fibres lying in the length and in the breadth show slight varieties, the more so with semi-skilled vatmen.
7. When the composition of the stuff (linen, hemp, or cotton) is altered, considerable differences in lookthrough occur, just as later in the shrinking of the paper when dried.
8. The degree of retting and beating also has its influence. This becomes apparent in differences of visibility of the watermark and in the final size of the sheet.

B. The mould.

1. The object of our discussion is a single mould (i.e. one of a pair) since even moulds that form a pair never are completely identical in details of the facing, or in the situation of the wire profile.
2. During the course of the work this (single) mould is subject to changes, mainly during the couching when it is pressed upon the felt in the post.
3. Through the repeated strain on facing and wire profile metal fatigue will set in.
4. This occurs at first in the sewing and binding wires, but in the long run also affects the twists, the laid, and the profile wires.
5. When sewing wires loosen or break the wire profile may start to slide from left to right or in the opposite direction, but never up or down along the chain wires, whereas
6. the distance between the wires of the facing may also change.
7. In this way distortions of the wire profile may appear and finally
8. little bits of wire get detached or break off. Repairs consist of
9. mending the sewing wires,
10. the renewed sewing-on of the whole wire profile, or even
11. the sewing-on of a new wire profile (of a similar design) in either the same spot, or possibly one or two laid wires higher or lower.
12. Occasionally an old wire profile (still in good repair) was sewn upon a new mould when the old mould (its wooden frame or metal facing) had been worn out.
13. Cases as mentioned under 12 almost resemble the differences between twin moulds, provided they were not executed differently on purpose.

C. The couching.

1. When the coucher presses the mould upon the felt too firmly he may ‘crush‘ the wet pulp, thereby spoiling the lookthrough and often seriously deforming the pattern of laid and chain limes, as well as the watermark.
2. When the mould slid slightly during couching the watermark became unclear and differences in size might occur.
3. Careless couching harms both facing and wire profile and produces changes in the mould surface, as explained above in B, items 3-8.
4. The water absorbtion of the felt also has an influence on the lookthrough of the paper.
5. Places where the felt has been mended are often visible in the paper and may blur the design of the laid limes or the watermark.

// p. 76 //

D. Pressing.

1. The extent of pressing influences the consistency of the paper as well as its structure or even
2. the size of the sheet.
3. Rash and hard pressing may crush the paper to such an extent that laid and watermark design are hardly discernible.
4. Another effect of strong pressing may be that large-meshed felts cause their imprint in the surface of the paper and even show in its lookthrough.
5. Heavy pressing of paper at Dutch (and other) paper-mills sometimes caused the imprint of the watermark in the left sheet-half to appear in the right one.

E. Drying.

1. As a rule the shrinking of the sheets of paper is proportionally different in length and breadth; for hand-made paper we nowadays calculate four to four-and-a-half per cent of the long, and two to two-and-a-half per cent of the short sides.
2. The proportion between these figures can be seriously influenced by Ute length of the fibres and their main orientation.
3. Moreover, all sheets do not shrink in Ute same degree. Quick drying causes greater shrinkage, e.g.
4. sheets hanging near the shutters or louvre boards in the drying loft – as also those forming the outsides of each bundle – dry quickest and therefore shrink more than Ute rest.
5. Finally, the weather conditions – changing from hour to hour or day to day – influence Ute drying and shrinking of the paper.
6. Alterations in the composition of the pulp (see above under A, item 7), or modified methods of retting or beating (see A, item 8) have a pronounced influence on Ute shrinkage of Ute sheets.

F. Sizing.

1. Treatment of the paper with size and alum water and Ute subsequent drying may cause similar differences to those mentioned under E, items 1-6.
2. The degree of influence upon Ute sheet of the thin layer of animal size covering the paper is unknown. After sizing the paper will at any rate have a better rattle and
3. the acceptance of the writing-ink will differ considerably according to the quality and strength of the sizing ingredients.

G. Glazing.

1. Though stone burnishing may produce considerable differences in the surface, we do not assume that it causes great changes in the dimensions of Ute watermark, except in Ute case of
2. hammer glazing, where the sheet may stretch in both directions.
3. This may also be the case with calendering, though the ancient calenders did not exercise Ute same amount of pressure that the modern ones do.

H. Workmen.

1. In some cases a change of vatman, coucher, layer, presser, etc., is clearly reflected in the quality of the paper since each worker has his own habits and characteristics.
2. In this respect the employment of an apprentice may leave clear traces.

I. Planishing.*

1. As is generally known, early printers had to use sized writing paper which they moistened before passing it through Ute press.
2. In the seventeenth century unsized or slack-sized printings were made to order for printers. They were easier to moisten, but had to be sized after printing.
3. In both cases the actual planishing consisted of hammering and flattening the dent of the letterpress, after which the ready sheets were hung to dry.
4. Moistening, sizing, and drying caused differences, as explained above (see E, items 1-6 and F, items 1-3), whereas
5. The planishing proper – performed with a heavy hammer – had the same effect as that of the afore-mentioned hammer-glazing (G, item 2).

J. Reproduction.

1. We should keep in mind that the dimensions of copies made on tracing paper, as a rule very sensitive to humidity, may alter due to this fact.
2. Since reproductions of watermarks in books were as a rule copied photographically before having been transferred in letterpress or offset, small differences in size will occur in comparison with Ute original.
3. It is a well-known fact that all copies made by means of Xerox or similar methods show minor distortions of one kind or another.

// p. 77 //

Evidently many of the above-mentioned reasons do not cause differences that can be easily ascertained, or even established at all. Nevertheless, the study of paper from the beginning to the end of a make may reveal many more differences than expected, apart from the ones that appear in subsequent makes, even though produced on one and the same mould. Anyhow, one conclusion cannot be denied: no sheet of paper made by hand is identical to the one before or the one after! If we nevertheless want to speak of identical watermarks we have to make up our minds about the differences that count and those that can be neglected. We leave this question to be answered by professional filigranologists.

* G. Piccard kindly drew our attention to these facts.

Source: Loeber, Edo G.: Paper mould and mouldmaker / E. G. Loeber. - Amsterdam : Paper Publ. Soc., 1982. - pp. 75-77 (Appendix VII). Originally published in German language: Kriterien der Gleichheit von Wasserzeichen / E. Loeber. - In: Papiergeschichte. - Darmstadt 21 (1971) 1/3. - pp. 15-17.

-- FriederSchmidt - 22 Nov 2006

Edo G. Loeber: Experiences of an Inexperienced Filigranologist

1. One does not need to be a Rembrandt to make a watermark tracing. The only things required are good eyes, a steady hand to hold a well-sharpened pencil, and – above all – patience and love for the work.
2. This love will grow the more one penetrates into the world of imagination and artistry that this wonderland of watermarks represents.
3. Watermarks are as a rule copied in pencil and this copy is again copied in ink. However meticulously the work may be done, deviations inevitably occur. This is impossible to avoid, even when working with a large magnifying glass resting upon the chest.
4. Copying watermarks with a pencil has the advantage that one studies them more closely and thereby learns how the wire profile was constructed. Moreover, watermarks can be compared by putting one tracing over another.
5. The pencil has to be well sharpened, but preferably not of too hard a quality since this may leave a mark in the paper. One should try to follow the watermark line in the middle. For this a strong magnifying glass and good light are, however, required.
6. Drawings of watermarks should not show sharp turns since a wire profile never has sharp bends. This is also the reason why one should draw the pencil or pen around a corner before lifting it from the paper and putting it down again.
7. Normal tracing paper is very sensitive to humidity and heat. When working on a light-box with electric bulbs one should be prepared for changes in the size of the paper. Fluorescent tubes are far better since they do not develop a great heat even when used for hours on end.
8. Even when well glazed, tracing paper shows unevennesses that may impede the pen. Synthetic foil has a more even surface, but is more expensive. In most cases tracing paper has a smoother and a rougher side.
9. Really complicated watermarks should be copied on transparent plastic foil (e.g. Kodatrace) and not on tracing paper. The foil has a more even translucency and is more stable and transparent than tracing paper.
10. As a rule the results are more promising when one can continue the copying over a number of hours or even days. One acquires more skill, even though the accuracy may on the other hand suffer through flagging attention.
11. When a pen-and-ink copy is required it will be a great help to put the pencil copy on a background of graph paper. This helps to get the chain lines in position and the lettering more regular.
12. For tracings in ink a Redis-pen is recommended, or Rotring pens of 0.3 to 0.4 millimetre; in very complicated cases one should use a finer pen of 0.2 millimetre.
13. When copying watermarks in ink one may be inclined to make one‘s drawings more elegant than the original, especially by making curved lines more streamlined. This should, of course, be avoided.
14. When a watermark has to be done in ink from a pencil copy it is convenient to have a photocopy of the original sheet by its side. This is very useful for verifying whether anything has been overlooked or faultily copied.
15. After having worked on the light-box for several hours one seems to see watermarks that are not there at all. This is another case where a photocopy may be of great help in checking the tracing one is doing.
16. For an aesthetic appreciation of a watermark or the look-through of a paper a pencil or a pen-drawing are of no use: the lines are much too sharp and the contrast between light and dark too great. Photography, beta-radiography, electronic radiography, or Ozalids give a more faithful picture of the watermark and of the surrounding paper‘s structure. A reasonable result can also be obtained by making a rubbing from the wire side of the paper.
17. A photocopied watermark on e.g. Océ/Ozalid paper is obtained through direct contact. Since during the process this copying paper is but superficially moistened to a very low degree, the size of the reproduction is practically the same as the original.
18. Not a single line in a watermark – not even a laid or a chain line – is absolutely straight and no circle is completely round, except in imitation watermarks produced by plate-pressing into ready-made paper.
19. Hardly any chain line is parallel to the next. Moreover the distance between them varies, so that the fields differ in width. In addition, the ‘watermark field‘ may be wider or narrower, e.g. when divided by a specially added chain wire.
20. Chain lines should be indicated at top and bottom of the pencil tracing and again somewhere near the watermark. When they are more or less straight they may be drawn along a ruler; when bent, crooked, or even interrupted (broken), they have to be drawn by hand.
21. Even though it is impossible to indicate the exact gauge of the chain wire, it is recommended to make a note of whether the chain line is thick or thin since this may be typical for a certain paper.
22. The ordinary chain line consists of a series of somewhat obliquely orientated small oval dots, brought about by the crossings of the chain wires (twists) between the pairs of laid wires, and the crossings over each wire in the pair. Indications of various chain-wire constructions were found in very old Italian papers, as also in more recent Spanish cigarette papers made upon laid facings bound by a single chain wire instead of by pairs of twists.
23. When carefully copying the laid lines one may find that a greater spacing occurs every tenth or eleventh line at presumably the place where the binding wire crosses over a chain wire and a rib, attaching the one to the other. // p. 79//
24. Measurements on 20 laid limes are not sufficiently precise for comparing identical papers. Here one will have to follow Th. Gerardy‘s method of counting the laid limes contained over 100 millimetres, preferably in the centre of the sheet.
25. Even when the number of laid wires per 20 millimetres is the same, the laid design in the paper may turn out to be quite different due to variations in wire type, wire gauge, and wire spacing. Ozalid, beta-radiographic, or electronic radiographic copies will reveal this quite accurately; copies in ink or pencil do not.
26. Laid lines and watermarks in Fourdrinier paper appear about 1840-50; they always occur on the felt side. Paper made on a cylinder mould machine has its laid limes and watermark on the wire side, and therefore resembles handmade paper.
27. A laid mould cover made on a loom is much more uniform than one made by hand.
28. It would be useful to start a collection of photocopies of laid papers typical for certain mills or mouldmakers. This might be important in view of Prof. J. Irigoin‘s studies (Irigoin, ‘La datation‘) on early unwatermarked papers which he found to be datable by a combination of the width of their fields and the density of the laid lines.
29. In many watermarks one can determine in which way the mouldmaker guided the profile wire, i.e. where he began and where he ended and how the wires were crossed over. In copying watermarks it is exceedingly useful to pay attention to these factors.
30. In places where the profile wire crosses over, the watermark will show a small oval light spot, with its longest axis pointing in the direction of the uppermost wire.
31. Sometimes it is rather difficult to find out where a profile wire starts and where it ends. Sewing dots may prove to be a help: as a rule the mouldmaker fastened the ends of his profile wire by sewing several stitches tightly together, thereby securing this vulnerable spot of the wire profile more firmly.
32. A more complicated tracing can, unfortunately, not be relied upon in all its details. The most experienced filigranologist‘s eye can err and even old hands in the trade are liable to it. Moreover, watermarks from one and the same mould may show certain deviations owing to deterioration of the wire profile.
33. Watermarks in thin paper as a rule appear as very sharp limes. In bower quality paper, on the other hand, their outline is usually rather vague and a pencil or ink copy may therefore turn out to be somewhat inaccurate.
34. Many eighteenth and nineteenth-century papers are very cloudy and dirty in look-through. One gets the impression that the papermakers did not bother about the visibility of the watermark and often used moulds with a damaged facing and wire profile. In these cases it is very difficult to make an accurate tracing of the laid and the watermark and we may therefore expect serious errors.
35. The mouldmaker as a rule tried to avoid the use of short bits of wire in his wire profiles since those made in a single piece proved to be Ute soundest as each wire-end is liable to loosen and cause a hole in the sheet. Letters are therefore as a rube also made up of one single wire.
36. A watermark that consists of two parts can never originate from a wire profile made of a single bit of wire and vice versa. Genuine variants can thereby be distinguished from spurious ones.
37. In some cases a wire profile that obviously could have been made out of a single bit of wire was made of two because, (a) the wire broke during the work or (b) the wire proved to be too short and a supplementary bit had to be added.
38. It is often difficult to distinguish the watermark proper from a loosened end of sewing wire or from a laid wire that got raised because the wire profile had been attached to it too tightly.
39. Watermarks in paper from deteriorating moulds often inform us about the build-up and construction of the wire profile. They are extremely useful for studying the technique of the wire profile.
40. It was not unusual for the mouldmaker to use various gauges of wire in one and the same wire profile. This is confirmed by a small booklet, now owned by the Stichting Erven Honig(h), Zaandijk (NL), written and drawn about 1790-95 by one of the ancestors of the Honig family, an expert papermaker.
41. Occasionally the mouldmaker bundled (two or three) thin wires together instead of using one single profile wire. In these cases it is quite impossible to tell by the watermark how the wire profile was constructed.
42. The facing (and backing) of a mould often went to pieces through corrosion or as a result of rough handling when it was cleaned with a brush; most often, however, the underlying cause was metal fatigue, due to stress during dipping and couching.
43. Among the equipment of various mouldmakers a simple wire-draw was found upon which – if required – they could alter the gauge of the copper wire they had bought (Lessebo and Tumba (S); Eikers Bruk (N); Ambert (F); Fabriano (I), etc.).
44. Some mouldmakers had an outspoken preference for fixing the wire profile symmetrically over a chain wire. Others chose to put their wire profile between the chain wires – or over a certain number of chain wires when the profile was a large one. Still others do not seem to have bothered about the chain wires at all. They possibly used old moulds (bought at an auction) and replaced the wire profiles.
45. Apart from the palaeographical side, watermark lettering and its wire guiding are of great interest. The shapes were derived from written or engraved lettering. Technically, however, the bending of the wire bits exercised a great influence on the shape of these letters.
46. We still have not found a satisfactory explanation as to why some mouldmakers put their lettering ‘readable‘ and // p. 80 // others ‘in mirror fashion‘ on their moulds. It may be in connection with the readability of the watermark in the paper, but nothing can be said about it with certainty.
47. One explanation of why a wire profile should be put upon the mould cover mirror-fashion is, however, given in the case of the first postal stamps in the Netherlands (1852): the plate printing had to be done on the wire side of the paper and the text of the border watermark should be readable from the printed side of the paper.
48. Sometimes the wire profile would slide along the laid wires, especially when the mould was brush-cleaned. Another cause may have been the repeated pressure during the couching. Allan H. Stevenson already advanced the theory that watermarks move from right to left, wire side up, a statement based on his studies of a great number of watermarks. It has, however, not yet been possible to find a plausible reason or explanation for the phenomenon (Stevenson, Missale, pp. 248-52). When a watermark appears higher or lower, this indicates that another mould was used or that the wire profile was resewn upon the old mould.
49. Apart from twin marks from twin moulds there are also twin watermarks from two-sheet moulds. In the latter case one will find two pairs of twins (or sets of quadruplets) since the papermaker works with two two-sheet moulds alternately.
50. In early wove paper the watermark was as a rule placed along the lower border of the sheet. The watermark would thus interfere with the printing as little as possible. In writing or note paper the reason may possibly have lain in that the newly introduced steel pen would not catch when it passed over the watermark.
51. In order to indicate how a watermark was copied the following lettering is used (see Pls 124-5): ‘L‘ for ‘left-hand‘ and ‘R‘ for ‘right-hand‘ half-sheet; ‘C‘ for ‘in fold‘; ‘A‘ to indicate that the wire side lay downward and ‘Z‘ upturned during the copying on the light-box; ‘a‘ and ‘i‘ are added when the watermark was traced from the outside or the inside of the folded sheet. Whether one follows the above-mentioned method or chooses another (individually more convenient) one, it is recommended always to adopt a system of tracings and indication of details that will help others to make use of it.
52. In order to determine whether a (wire side) watermark is ‘Z‘ (turned towards) or ‘A‘ (averted, turned away), like. Th. Gerardy proposes, one should look at the laid and chain lines in a raking light. When a watermark has been copied with a hard pencil we may, however, be misled by the grooves left by the pencil.
53. Shadow zones as a rule appear on both sides of the chain lines, though they may also occur on one side only or even in between the chain limes. In the latter case we may discover a very faint, light line dividing the shadow zone lengthwise, the rib mark.
54. Is it possible that ‘shadow zones‘ (in laid as well as in wove paper) only appear when moulds with a single facing have been used? Moulds with a backing seem to have originated after 1750 in either England, France or Holland; yet there are early Italian papers without shadow zones. The makers of these papers possibly tried out some form of double facing or perhaps just fixed a thick wire zig-zag under it in order to obtain an easier de-watering of the mould.
55. A British papermaker told mc that moulds with a double facing work quicker than moulds with a single one, due to easier de-watering. Over and over again one bits upon the problem of the de-watering of the mould. Who amongst the hydraulic engineers will once and for all tackle the problem of the de-watering of the mould?
56. Most early cylinder-mould machine papers show less tearing-strength with than across the grain. This fact helps to distinguish them from hand-made paper which never shows this great difference in tear. Apart from this, every paper expert can tell the difference from the deckle-edge, particularly at the corners.
57. We should always keep in mind that watermark reproductions in books (whether letterpress or offset) may show considerable deviations in size when compared with the original, owing to the photographic reproduction methods used when the blocks are made or the plates prepared.
58. When trying to date a document we are in fact looking for a certain paper mould and compare the imprints of a mould in paper. The moulds themselves have long since disappeared.
59. If the opportunity of making a rubbing of a mould cover should present itself, do make one. Use a strong, thin, manifold paper or wrapping (not over 30g/m²), a soft carpenter‘s lead-pencil, or a stick of brass rubbing war (obtainable from Philips & Page Ltd., London). Rub lightly so as to avoid damage and complete your copy by indicating details about wire guiding, wire ends, and laid design.
60. A final piece of good advice: after having made your tracing of a watermark against the light or on a light-box it is absolutely necessary to re-examine the correctness of the drawing. Put it beside the original and compare the two meticulously for a second time.

Source: Loeber, Edo G.: Paper mould and mouldmaker / E. G. Loeber. - Amsterdam : Paper Publ. Soc., 1982. - pp. 78-80 (Appendix VIII); Originally published in German language: Erfahrungen eines unerfahrenen Filigranologen. - In: IPH-Information. - Hannover N.F. 10 (1976) 4. - pp. 94-99.

-- FriederSchmidt - 22 Nov 2006

Von E. Loeber

Wir gehen von der Verfertigung des handgeschöpften Papiers aus, das Bogen für Bogen geschöpft, gegautscht, gepreßt, getrocknet und eventuell noch geleimt und geglättet wird. Dabei gilt der Grundsatz: Kein Vorgang wiederholt sich jemals unter völlig gleichen Verhältnissen. Dies impliziert, daß auch das Resultat prinzipiell sich stets vom vorigen und nächsten unterscheidet. Die Unterschiede mögen noch so geringfügig sein, sie sind trotzdem nicht zu leugnen. Fragen wir jetzt, woraus entstehen die Unterschiede zwischen den Bögen des handgeschöpften Papiers, so sind folgende Gründe aufzuführen:

A — Der Stoff

1. Nach jedem Schöpfvorgang wird der Fasergehalt in der Bütte nicht nur geringer, auch
   
2. das Verhältnis zwischen langen und kurzen Fasern ändert sich zuungunsten der erstgenannten.
   
3. Ein Beifüllen der Bütte ändert abermals den Fasergehalt, jetzt aber zugunsten der längeren Fasern und Höhe des Fasergehaltes.
   
4. Der jeweils aus der Bütte geschöpfte Stoff ändert sich also fortwährend, was seine Konsistenz und Zusammensetzung betrifft (an langen und kurzen Fasern).
   
5. Auch legen sich diese Fasern, durch das Schwenken der Form beim Schöpfen und dem sogenannten Schließen des Bogens, jedes Mal anders auf das Sieb und um die Drahtform, und
   
6. wird bei jedem Bogen das Verhältnis zwischen Fasern in Quer- und Längsrichtung Unterschiede aufweisen.
   
7. Ändert man die Stoffzusammensetzung (Leinen, Hanf bzw. Baumwolle), so muß man mit ziemlich großen Unterschieden in der Durchsicht des Papiers rechnen (und später auch bei der Schrumpfung während des Trocknens).
   
8. Auch der Grad der Fäulung und Mahlung sind hier jeweils von Bedeutung und rufen Unterschiede hervor, die sich in der Klarheit des Wasserzeichens und in dessen Größe auswirken.
   

B — Die Schöpfform

1. Ausgangspunkt bildet hierbei eine der beiden Schöpfformen eines Formenpaares, da niemals zwei Schöpfformen in ihren Bodendrähten und Drahtfiguren und deren gegenseitige Lage völlig gleich sind.
   
2. Diese eine Schöpfform ist aber im Laufe der Arbeit Änderungen ausgesetzt, und zwar am stärksten während des Gautschens, wobei die Form auf den Filz gedrückt wird.
   
3. Dabei ermüdet das Metall des Siebes und der Drahtfigur durch die fortwährende Beanspruchung.
   
4. Dies wirkt sich am ersten auf die Näh- und Bindedrähte aus, auf die Dauer aber auch auf die Rippungsdrähte und Drahtfigur.
   
5. Wenn erstgenannte sich lockern oder lösen, kann die Drahtfigur sich nach links oder rechts verschieben (eher als auf- und abwärts), während
   
6. der Abstand zwischen den Bodendrähten Änderungen erfährt.
   
7. Dann treten an der Drahtfigur Verbiegungen auf,
   
8. und endlich lösen sich Teile derselben und brechen ab.
   
9. Notwendige Reparaturen werden ausgeführt, indem man
   
10. Nähstellen ausbessert,
    
11. die ganze Drahtfigur neu aufnäht, oder sogar
    
12. eine neue Drahtfigur ähnlicher Ausführung anbringt, sei es an gleicher Stelle oder um einige Bodendrähte höher oder tiefer.
    
13. Auch mag es vorkommen, daß man die Drahtfigur auf eine andere Form aufnäht, falls die Boden- und Bindedrähte zu sehr gelitten haben, die Drahtfigur aber noch verwendbar ist. Die dabei entstehenden Unterschiede sind aber schon mit denen der Zwillingsform vergleichbar, falls diese nicht vorsätzlich anders angefertigt wurde.
    

C — Das Gautschen

1. Drückt der Gautscher die Form stärker auf den Filz als gebräuchlich, so „zerquetscht“ er den nassen Stoff und beeinträchtigt damit die Siebmarkierung.
   
2. Verschiebt sich die Form beim Gautschen, so wird nicht nur das Wasserzeichen unklar, es entstehen auch Größenabweichungen.
   
3. Fahrlässiges Gautschen beansprucht Bodendraht und Drahtfigur übermäßig und ruft dann Änderungen an der Schöpfform hervor, wie in B 3—8 beschrieben.
4. Auch die Saugfähigkeit der Filze übt hier ihren Einfluß auf die Durchsicht des Papierbogens aus.
5. Ausbesserungen an den Filzen sind öfters in Papierbogen erkennbar, indem sie die Zeichnung der Rippung oder des Wasserzeichens zerstören.

D — Das Pressen

1. Stärkeres oder schwächeres Pressen beeinflußt die Konsistenz, aber auch die Struktur des Papiers, vielleicht sogar
   
2. die Größe der Bögen.
   
3. Zu schnelles und zu starkes Pressen kann das Papier völlig zerquetschen, so daß Rippung und Wasserzeichen kaum noch sichtbar sind.
   

E — Das Trocknen

1. Normalerweise ist die Schrumpfung der Papierbögen beim Trocknen prozentual ungleich in der Längen- bzw. Querrichtung; man rechnet heute bei handgeschöpftem Papier gewöhnlich mit vier bis viereinhalb Prozent in der Längsrichtung und zwei bis zweieinhalb Prozent in der Querrichtung des Bogens.
   
2. Das Verhältnis zwischen diesen beiden Zahlen wird aber von der Faserlänge und vorherrschenden Faserrichtung ziemlich stark beeinflußt.
   
3. Außerdem schrumpfen die Papierbögen nicht alle in gleichem Maße; schnelleres Trocknen ruft stärkere Schrumpfung hervor.
   
4. Die bei den Dachluken aufgehängten Bögen oder die äußeren, falls in Lagen zum Trocknen gehängt wird, trocknen am schnellsten und werden daher am stärksten schrumpfen.
   
5. Und schließlich wirken sich die von einem Tag auf den andern geänderten Witterungsverhältnisse verschieden auf Trocknung und Schrumpfung aus.
   
6. Andere Stoffzusammensetzung (A—7) oder andere Mahlung und Fäulung (A—8) wirken sich ebenfalls deutlich in der Schrumpfung aus.
   

F — Die Leimung

1. Das Anfeuchten mit Leim- und Alaunwasser und das abermalige Trocknen der Papierbögen dürften eine ähnliche Auswirkung auf das Papier haben wie unter Trocknen (E 1—6) erwähnt.
   
2. Inwiefern die den Papierbogen überziehende Leimschicht irgendeinen Einfluß ausübt, ist mir nicht bekannt.
   

G — Das Glätten

1. Obgleich beim Glätten Oberflächenunterschiede ziemlich bedeutend sein können, bin ich nicht der Meinung, daß dieser Arbeitsvorgang andere Änderungen am Papierzeichen hervorrufen könnte als sehr geringe Größenunterschiede.
   

H — Arbeiter

1. Unter Umständen mag ein Wechsel der Arbeiter zu Unterschieden beim Schöpfen, Gautschen, Pressen usw. führen, welche sich im Papier auswirken. Hat doch jeder Arbeiter seine Eigenart.
   
2. Das Einsetzen eines Lehrlings dürfte in dieser Hinsicht deutlichere Spuren hinterlassen.
   

Zweifelsohne sind manche der hier angeführten Gründe nicht die Ursache zu Unterschieden, welche von Bogen zu Bogen festzustellen wären. Trotzdem aber dürften sie ersichtlich werden, wenn man Papier aus dem Anfang und dem Ende einer Anfertigung oder aus mehreren Anfertigungen mit derselben Schöpfform vor sich hat. Immerhin ist aber der Schluß unumgänglich, daß kein handgeschöpfter Papierbogen mit einem anderen identisch ist.

Wenn wir trotzdem vom gleichen oder identischen Wasserzeichen reden wollen, so heißt es also zu bestimmen, welche Unterschiede wir übergehen sollen und welche als ausschlaggebend in der Filigranologie gelten sollen.

* In Papiergeschichte XX, 3/4, Oktober 1970, erörtert die Redaktion die Frage: Welche Verschiedenheiter können bei gleichen Sieben und Wasserzeichen auftreten, in welcher Größenordnung und worauf beruhen sie? — Zwar wendet sich die Redaktion mit ihrer Frage an qualifizierte Wasserzeichenforscher mit großer praktischer Erfahrung; eine Qualifikation welche ich keineswegs beanspruchen möchte. Trotzdem hoffe ich, durch diesen Beitrag wenigstens die Diskussion in Gang zu bringen.

Loeber, Edo G.: Kriterien der Gleichheit von Wasserzeichen / E. Loeber. - In: Papiergeschichte. - Darmstadt 21 (1971) 1/3. - pp. 15-17

-- FriederSchmidt - 05 Dec 2006

Glossary

See the multilingual glossary by Denis Muzerelle for further terms and illustrations.

Cannelure

laid-lines show a specific rhythm

Chain-lines

vertical lines within a sheet of paper caused by the wires which hold the laid wires in place

Coucher

one of the traditional team of papermakers who has to couch a newly formed sheet of paper on a felt

Couching

pressing a mould upon the felt

Deckle

a fence to keep the newly formed paper within bounds

Felt side

that part of a sheet which has been couched upon a felt

Laid-lines

ribbed lines within a sheet of paper caused by a laid mould

Layer

one of the traditional team of papermakers who has to remove wet sheets from a felt

Pair of moulds

two moulds and one deckle

Post

a pile of wet sheets alternated with felts

Ribs

wedgeshaped wooden elements which support the sieve

Vatman

one of the traditional team of papermakers who has to scoop pulp from the vat to form a sheet of paper

Wire side

that part of a sheet which has come in contact with the wire of the mould

-- FriederSchmidt - 22 Nov 2006

Paper Reproduction Methods - Pros and Cons

-- FriederSchmidt - 22 Nov 2006

Bibliography

1. Elements of paper history

Asunción, Josep: Das Papierhandwerk : Tradition, Techniken und Projekte / [Text: Josep Asunción. Fotogr.: Nos & Soto. Aus dem Span. übers. von Fabiana Baettig. Red. der dt. Ausg.: Thomas Heider]. - Bern ; Stuttgart ; Wien : Haupt, 2003. - 160 pp. : ill.
EST: El papel <dt.>
ISBN 3-258-06495-4

Asunción, Josep: The complete book of papermaking / Josep Asunción. - New York : Lark Books, 2003. - 160 pp. : ill.
EST: El papel <engl.>
ISBN 1579904564

Bloom, Jonathan M: Paper before print : the history and impact of paper in the Islamic world. - New Haven ; London : Yale Univ. Press, 2001. - XIII, 270 pp. ; ill., maps
ISBN 0-300-08955-4
- Bibliography. S. 249-261

La carta occidentale nel tardo medioevo / Istituto Centrale per la Patologia del Libro. Ezio Ornato ... Prefazione di Carlo Federici.
- ISBN 88-88298-00-2
(Addenda ; 4)
Tomo 1. Problemi metodologici e aspetti qualitativi. - 2001. - XIX, 418 pp. : ill.
Tomo 2. Misure strumentali tipologia e struttura delle forme. - 2001. - 492 pp. : ill. - Bibliography. S. [469]-479

Doizy, Marie-Ange: Papiers et moulins : des origines à nos jours / Marie-Ange Doizy ; Pascal Fulacher. - [2.] éd. - Paris : Technorama, 1997. - 277 S. : ill.
ISBN 2-911071-03-4
- Glossary pp. 266-268, bibliography pp. 270-274

Hunter, Dard <sen.>: Papermaking : the history and technique of an ancient craft / Dard Hunter. - 2. ed., rev. and enlarged. - New York : Knopf, 1947. - XXIV, 611, XXXVI pp. : ill., maps
- Chronology pp. 463-584. - Bibliography pp. 585-602
- Reprint: Dover Publications (June 1978), ISBN 0-486-23619-6 , still available

Polastron, Lucien X.: Le papier : 2000 ans d'histoire et de savoir-faire / Lucien X. Polastron. - Paris : Imprimerie nationale Éditions, 1999. - 221 S. : ill.
ISBN 2-7433-0316-6

Rudin, Bo: Making paper : a look into the history of an ancient craft. - Vällingby : Rudins, 1990. - 278 S. : ill., maps.
EST: Papperets historia <engl.>
ISBN 91-970-8882-X
- Bibliography pp. 266-268

Tschudin, Peter F.: Grundzüge der Papiergeschichte. - Stuttgart : Hiersemann, 2002. - XII, 395 S. : ill.
(Bibliothek des Buchwesens ; 12)
ISBN 3-7772-0208-8
- Bibliography pp. 239-249

-- FriederSchmidt - 22 Nov 2006

Links

Software

AD751 - a tool for laid lines density measurements from paper structure reporduction by Vlad Atanasiu
BlueNile - image filtering frequency domain by Vlad Atanasiu

-- FriederSchmidt - 22 Nov 2006

Results from Handbook web retrieved at 15:11 (GMT)

• See 100, 200, 400, 800 most recent changes
• See all changes

Contents

This lists this website's contents by topic. The same webpage can belong to several topics (so this is not a hierarchical structure).

This page will be created when there is more content to be classified. For now use the navigation bar at left.

-- VladAtanasiu - 11 Sep 2006

Create a New Topic in the Codev Web

Please use one of the forms below to create a new topic in this, the Codev web.

If you want to ask a support question then please go to the Support^? web and follow the instructions there.

Please make sure you are not duplicating already existing topics. Use WebSearch or use the GatewayTopics^? to find topics that cover the same ground. There are also links under each heading to existing topics of that type that are under active development.

Please note that the feature and bug forms are for the ProposedNewFormsInCodev^? using the new ChangeProposalForm^? and are still being finalised, feedback is welcome. See ChangeProposal^? for a short overview of the new workflow.

You will also not find forms here for creating topics with WebForm^? as it is soon to be depreciated.

Create a basic topic

-- GuenterHof - 20 Aug 2006

The Handbook of Visual Paper Studies

A Step-by-Step Guide to the Reproduction, Cataloguing, Expertise and History of Papers based on Images of Paper Structures

An Educational Product of the Bernstein Consortium

Note: The focus of this handbook are the images of the paper structure and the information that can be extracted. In other words the core of the databases and tools. Other aspects of paper studies are not treated here - such as physical characteristics of chemical composition of the papers if not deductible from the available images.

1. Introduction

1. What you can learn from this Handbook
2. Intended audience for this Handbook
3. Elements of paper history
4. The paper production chain

2. Reproduction of papers

1. Techniques: an overview
2. Hand drawing
3. Rubbing
4. Backlight
5. Backlight-frontlight substraction
6. Ultraviolet, indirect ultraviolet (Dylux)
7. Infrared
8. X-Ray
9. Betaradiography
10. Surface laser scan
11. Other
12. Table of Pros and Cons

3. Cataloguing and Descripton

1. Types of paper-bearing objects
2. Paper sequences in manuscripts and printed books
3. Choosing the papers to be reproduced
4. Describing visual properties of papers
   1. Sieve elements (watermarks, countermarks, laid lines, chain lines, knots, shadow zones...)
   2. Frame elements (wood beams, paper size, paper's felt and wire side, deckle edge...)
   3. Paper characteristics (paste homogeneity; thickness from radiographic reproductions...)
   4. Object life (state of preservation, evidence of restoration/repair, trimming, fragmentation...)
5. Database installation, interconnectivity and use
   1. Installation
   2. Interconnectivity (with paper databases, databses about paper documents (typography, philology, economics... ; authority files), data processing tools (image processing, cartography...)
   3. Use cases

4. Expertise

1. Comparison of watermarks
2. Dating of paper-based objects
3. Authentication
4. Other measurements

5. History

1. Statistics
2. Cartography
3. Integrating historical sciences

6. Glossary

7. Bibliographical and web resources

1. Bibliography
2. Links

8. Appendix - a Reader

1. Theo Gerardy: Die Techniken der Wasserzeichenuntersuchung
2. Theo Gerardy: Die Ursache der sogenannten Kannelierung des handgeschöpften Papiers
3. Theo Gerardy: Die Erschließung einer Wasserzeichensammlung mit Hilfe der elektronischen Datenverarbeitung
4. Edo G. Loeber: Kriterien der Gleichheit von Wasserzeichen
5. Edo G. Loeber: Criteria Affecting the Identity of Watermarks
6. Edo G. Loeber: Experiences of an Inexperienced Filigranologist

Results from Handbook web retrieved at 15:11 (GMT)

See also the faster WebTopicList

• Introduction^?
• Reproduction^?
• Cataloguing^?
• Expertise^?
• History^?
• Glossary
• Bibliography^?
• Annex^?

PERSONAL

TOOLS

• Create topic
• Latest changes
• Index
• Search
• Notifications
• Statistics

SITE INFO

• Development
• Documentation
• Users
• Groups
• Preferences
• Registration
• Sandbox
• Site issues

Web Notify

This is a subscription service to be automatically notified by e-mail when topics change in this Handbook web. This is a convenient service, so you do not have to come back and check all the time if something has changed. To subscribe, please add a bullet with your WikiName in alphabetical order to this list:

• BobAllison
• VladAtanasiu
• ChristianBalluch: Main*
• MariaBalk
• MariekeVanDelft
• GeorgDietz
• LeonidDimitrov
• ChristinaDondi
• CarloFederici
• ThomasFricke
• RobertGiel
• JeannetteGodau
• JohnGoldfinch
• JohnHarrison
• JamesHart
• XavierHermand
• SandraHodecek
• GuenterHof
• WolfgangHohensee
• RaymondHudson
• KristianJensen
• CarmenKaemmerer
• IstvanKecskemeti
• WernerKlarkowski
• HelmutLeitner
• KarinLeitnerRuhe
• VictorKarnaukhov
• MartinKluge
• FranzLackner
• ClareLlewellyn
• AndreaLothe
• JanVanDerLubbe
• GeraldMaier
• MathiasManecke
• ChiaraMerlino
• PaolaMunafo
• EzioOrnato
• GiorgioPellegrini
• ClairePriol
• PeterRuckert
• ChiaraRuzzier
• RobSanderson
• WalterSchinnerl
• FriederSchmidt
• ManfredSchreiner
• MariaStieglecker
• NinonSuckow
• GerardVanThienen
• AnneTournieroux
• PeterTschudin
• PaulWatry
• EmanuelWenger
• AloisHaidinger

Web Changes Notification Service

Each TWiki web has an automatic e-mail notification service that sends you an e-mail with links to all of the topics modified since the last alert.

Subscribers are listed in WebNotify following one of these bullet list formats:

three spaces * [ webname . ] wikiName - SMTP mail address
three spaces * [ webName . ] wikiName
three spaces * SMTP mail address
three spaces * SMTP mail address : topics
three spaces * [ webname . ] wikiName : topics

where topics is a space-separated list of topic names.

• Specify topics without a Web. prefix
• Topics must exist in this web.
• Topics may be specified using * wildcards
• Each topic may optionally be followed by an integer in parentheses, indicating the depth of the tree of children below that topic. Changes in all these children will be detected and reported along with changes to the topic itself. Note This uses the TWiki "Topic parent" feature.
• Each topic may optionally be preceded by a '+' or '-' sign. The '+' sign means "subscribe to this topic" (the same as not putting anything). The '-' sign means "don't send notifications regarding this topic". This allows users to elect to filter out changes to certain topics (and their children, to an arbitrary depth). Topic filters ('-') take precedence over topic includes ('+').

For example:

   * daisy@flowers.com
   * daisy@flowers.com: Web*
   * TWiki.DaisyCutter: Petal* (1) TWiki.WeedKillers (3) Red*Phlox
   * TWiki.StarTrekFan: * - *Wars - *sInTheirEyes - *shipTroopers

If a TWiki group is listed for notification, the group will be recursively expanded to the e-mail addresses of all members.

Tip: List names in alphabetical order to make it easier to find the names.

Note for System Administrators: Notification is supported by an add-on to the TWiki kernel called the MailerContrib. See the MailerContrib topic for details of how to set up this service.

Note: If you prefer a news feed, point your reader to WebRss (for RSS 1.0 feeds) or WebAtom (for ATOM 1.0 feeds). Learn more at WebRssBase and WebAtomBase, respectively.

Related topics: WebChangesAlert, TWikiUsers, TWikiRegistration

Handbook Web Preferences

The following settings are web preferences of the Handbook web. These preferences overwrite the site-level preferences in TWiki.TWikiPreferences and Main.TWikiPreferences, and can be overwritten by user preferences (your personal topic, eg: TWikiGuest in the Main web).

Web Preferences Settings

These settings override the defaults for this web only. See full list of defaults with explanation.

• Web settings:
  • Set WEBTOPICLIST = Users^?  |  Groups^?  |  Changes  |  Index  |  Search  |  Go
  • Set WEBBGCOLOR = #D0D0D0
  • Set SITEMAPWHAT = Step-by-step Handbook for Paper Studies (Reproduction, Cataloguing, Expertise and History)
  • Set SITEMAPUSETO = ...an educational material by the Bernstein Consortium
  • Set SITEMAPLIST = on

• Default template for new topics for this web:
  • WebTopicEditTemplate^?: Default template for new topics in this web. (Site-level is used if topic does not exist)
  • TWiki.WebTopicEditTemplate: Site-level default topic template

• Comma separated list of forms that can be attached to topics in this web. See TWikiForms for more information.
  • Set WEBFORMS = UserForm^?

• Users or groups who are not / are allowed to view / change / rename topics in the Handbook web: (See TWikiAccessControl). Remove the # to enable any of these settings. Remember that an empty setting is a valid setting; setting DENYWEBVIEW to nothing means that anyone can view the web.
  • #Set DENYWEBVIEW =
  • Set ALLOWWEBVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, TWikiUserGroup, TWikiGuest
  • #Set DENYWEBCHANGE = TWikiGuest
  • Set ALLOWWEBCHANGE = TWikiAdminGroup, TWikiUserGroup
  • #Set DENYWEBRENAME =
  • #Set ALLOWWEBRENAME = TWikiAdminGroup

• Users or groups allowed to change or rename this WebPreferences topic: (e.g., TWikiAdminGroup)
  • #Set ALLOWTOPICCHANGE = TWikiAdminGroup
  • Set ALLOWTOPICRENAME = TWikiAdminGroup

• Web preferences that are not allowed to be overridden by user or topic preferences:
  • Set FINALPREFERENCES = NOSEARCHALL, ATTACHFILESIZELIMIT, WIKIWEBMASTER, WEBCOPYRIGHT, WEBTOPICLIST, DENYWEBVIEW, ALLOWWEBVIEW, DENYWEBCHANGE, ALLOWWEBCHANGE, DENYWEBRENAME, ALLOWWEBRENAME

Help on Preferences

• A preference setting is defined by:
  3 or 6 spaces * Set NAME = value
  Example:
  • Set WEBBGCOLOR = #FFFFC0
• A preferences setting can be disabled with a # sign. Remove the # sign to enable a local customisation. Example:
  
  • #Set DENYWEBCHANGE = UnknownUser
• Preferences are used as TWikiVariables by enclosing the name in percent signs. Example:
  • When you write variable %WEBBGCOLOR% , it gets expanded to #D0D0D0
• The sequential order of the preference settings is significant. Define preferences that use other preferences first, i.e. set WEBCOPYRIGHT before WIKIWEBMASTER since %WEBCOPYRIGHT% uses the %WIKIWEBMASTER% variable.
• You can introduce your own preferences variables and use them in your topics and templates.

Related Topics

• TWiki.TWikiPreferences, Main.TWikiPreferences - site-level preferences
• TWikiUsers - list of user topics. User topics can have optional user preferences
• TWikiVariables - list of common %VARIABLES%
• TWikiAccessControl - explains how to restrict access by users or groups

Tools

• Rename, move or delete this web:
  • Rename/move/delete web..., looking for references in all public webs - See also: ManagingWebs

Web Search

Searched: \.*

Warning

Can't INCLUDE TWiki.WebSearchAdvanced repeatedly, topic is already included.

Statistics for Handbook Web

Notes:

• This topic is updated by the statistics script. (You can also force an update)
• TWikiDocumentation tells you how to enable the automatic updates of the statistics.
• Suggestion: You could archive this topic once a year and delete the previous year's statistics from the table.

Index of topics

• HandbookAppendixLoeberCriteria
• HandbookAppendixLoeberExperiences
• HandbookAppendixLoeberKriterien
• HandbookGlossary
• HandbookReproProsCons
• HandbookResourcesBibl
• HandbookResourcesLinks
• WebAtom
• WebChanges
• WebContents
• WebCreateNewTopic
• WebHome
• WebIndex
• WebLeftBar
• WebNotify
• WebPreferences
• WebRss
• WebSearch
• WebSearchAdvanced
• WebStatistics
• WebTopicList
• WebTopicMake

See also the verbose WebIndex.

Create New Topic in Handbook Web

Once you have created the topic, consider adding links in related topics to the new topic so that there are more ways people can discover it.

-- GuenterHof - 22 Aug 2006