|
== Pine Ledge ==
{{WikiProject Graphic design}}
Pine Ledge is a remote section of Cockaponset State Forest located about a half mile west of Deep River, Connecticut. This area gets it's name from a dramatic ledge of rocks along it's eastern edge.
==Moveable type was invented in China. Printing press was invented by Gutenberg==
Movable type, which allowed individual characters to be arranged to form words and which is a separate invention from the printing press, was invented in China by Bi Sheng between 1041 to 1048.
'''Recreation'''
added this part. -intranetusa
It is recommended to have a high-clearance vehicle when visiting this area; the access roads are very rugged and may become thick with mud after a heavy rain or during the spring melt. Even though the use of all-terrain-vehicles has not been officially designated, the Pine Ledge area has become very popular among local riders. Jeeps and 4X4 off-road vehicles have also utilized some of the old abandoned access roads as trails. There are some hiking trails used primarily by the locals and a popular rock climbing destination along the rocks at Pine Ledge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
== References ==
: Connecticut Explorer's Guide [http://www.ctxguide.com/ctxguide_044.htm Pine Ledge Climbing Map]
The "disk of Phaistos" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phaistos_disk] of Minoan Crete 1700 BC is relevant if one can form a concept of a moveable-type method of printing before the development of modern paper, inks and presses. It has been, and is likely in the future to remain, a very strong candidate for the first moveable-type printing system.<br />
::Unfortunately it is not, see the article on it--it was produced by stamping symbols onto clay. [[User:DGG|DGG]] 18:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
...<br />
Other notable contributions just before Gutenberg's were<br />
- King Htai Tjong (Korea, cast bronze type, around 1403 AD)<br />
- Laurens Janszoon Koster (Holland, wooden type with hand carved letters, around 1430 AD).<br />
...<br />
It would seem that Gutenberg is remembered above others of around the same time for his novel use of the press, a technique for mass-producing durable metal letters, the development of new metal alloys for the type, use of an oil-based ink and several other small incremental refinements. In part, though, the association of movable type printing with Gutenberg is the result of his "being in the right place at the right time" (for the technology to have very great impact), as the movable type printing concept is not a tremendously difficult one ... since it seems to have been independently re-invented, in one form or another, repeatedly through history.<br />
[comments by donb - 12 July 2006]<br /><br />
----
"Some theorists, such as McLuhan, Eisenstein, Kittler, and Giesecke, see an "alphabetic monopoly" as having developed from printing, removing the role of the image from society."
Eisenstein doesn't believe that the printing press removed the role of the image from the society. She strongly claims that that didn't happen and everything that has to do with the shift from scripts to print is more complex than that.
----
I've often heard that Gutenberg's contribution to the printing press was the development of movable type. As opposed to unique fixed blocks of text, Gutenberg used letters which could be rearranged for each page. I'm posting this on the Talk page since I don't know for sure that this is correct.
----
To my knowledge, your understanding is correct.
I think it is alluded to in this article by the statement:
:''Used Printing Presses are of definite need. Quality presses are always found at usedpressdepot.com. ''
:''Gutenberg refined the technique by inventing an oil-based ink and [metal type], ''
----
I added your Ass to the page as I also believe that the above statements are correct -- [[User:Mike Dill|mike dill]]
----
"He is also credited with the first use of an oil-based ink, and using "rag" paper introduced into Europe from China by way of Muslims."
Odd way to say this - can anybody narrow down a little more specifically who these "Muslims" actually were?
==Gutenberg invented the first printing press==
The article is a complete mess, because nobody knows what he is actually talking about. Johannes Gutenberg was the first, I repeat, the VERY FIRST all over the globe, who used a press for printing. That is, in other words, he and nobody else invented the printing press. Specifically, neither Bi Sheng nor any other East Asian inventor, be him Chinese, Korean or Japanese, invented the printing press, for the simple reason that the device of a press was unknown then in East Asia. Why? Because the concept of a continuous screw remained unknown in China at least until 1500 (see Donald Lach: Asia in the Making of Europe, Chapter on Technology).
In Europe, on the other hand, the screw was known to the Greeks since about the third century BC and the press had been invented as early as the second or first century BC and was used for pressing olives by the Romans. Gutenberg then made use of this well known agricultural device, which never ceased to be used in the middle ages, to use it FOR THE FIRST TIME for printing purposes.
Since all the other folks, Bi Sheng etc., have had nothing to do with the printing press and actually had no idea know how one would even look like, I propose to delete all references to them and concentrate on
1. Invention of the printing press for agricultural purposes (invention of the screw)
2. Adaption by Gutenberg for printing purposes
==Exactly what did Gutenburg invent?==
Who really invented the first printing press?
I was positive it was Gutenberg until i read this...
----
:Largely a misconception. Gutenberg ''perfected'' movable type -- the printing press idea had existed for some centuries before but never really perfected, ie—''successful''. There is a proverb about genius and invention:
::''"Genius is only recognized in people who succeed"''
:The Chinese invented the original printing press in around 868 AD( the earliest book printed with a printing press. They did not succeed
:Most Wikipedia articles dealing with Gutenberg miss the essential point of his "invention". This Printing article amost hits the nail right on the head. ''almost''—but not quite. It helps to distinguish between a ''printing press'' (which might use non-moveable type, woodblocks, engraved plates, etchings etc) and ''the techniques of printing with moveable type''. "moveable type" implies Gutenburg's system of casting type from matrices: Gutenburg's significant contribution was the device called the '''hand mould'''. It allowed printing sorts (letters, punctuation, numerals, etc) to be cast in large numbers. A letter matrice was slid into the hand mould at the bottom, the device was clamped shut, and molten type metal poured in from the top. The product was called a ''sort'', and the average printer tradesman could make about one sort per minute.
:The hand mold is Gutenburg's key invention & contribution to printing Everything else required for printing with moveable type: paper, ink and a press, existed for 1000 years or more before the 1450's.
:The idea of Gutenburg being unique by printing with oil-based inks sounds a bit overrated. Anyone else attempting to make the same invention would have to develop oil-based ink. Water-based inks made with 15th century chemistry were impractical for printing with metal type. This is a POV issue.
:Undisputed historical fact: Gutenburg invented his hand mould, and that hand mould that was the first practical means of making sorts in large quantities. The one statement that can be made about Gutenburg with certainty: '''He perfected the hand mould in Europe, and was first to perfect a metal moveable type system in Europe based on casting sorts from matrices (using his hand mould).'''
:The Chinese developed several kinds of printing press prior to Gutenburg, one that used wooden blocks which were moveable, and another one using ceramic sorts that was not successful; the ceramic pieces were fragile and broke easily. The basic problem with Chinese printing—the reason it never took off—was not due to technical limitation. It has to do with the Chinese language needing between 400,000 and 50,000 ideograms (similar to pictograms), posing a logistics nightmare.
:The Koreans came up with their own moveable metal type system separate from European and Chinese efforts, circa 1313. My reference ''The Day the Universe Changed'' does not describe the technique used to cast sorts, but notes that letter moulds were made the same way as Europeans later made them—by striking a letter punch (die) into a softer metal which was then hardened to take repeated castings. The technique ''"...was well known at the time, as it had been in common use since the early twelfth century by coiners and casters of brass-ware and bronze."''
:The Korean moveable type system did not catch on due to a Confucian prohibition on the commercialization of printing. The technique was also restricted to use by the royal foundry for official state material only. In the early 15th century King Sajong of Korea invented a simplified alphabet of 24 characters for use by common people; ''may'' have made large-scale typecasting feasible, ''"...but did not have the impact it deserved. It may be that the Korean typecasting technique then spread to Europe with the Arab traders. Korean typecasting methods were almost identical to those introduced by Gutenburg, whose father was a member of the Mainz fellowship of coiners."'' Gutenburg was a silversmith/goldsmith and knew the same techniques of cutting dies and punches for making coins from master moulds as the Koreans adapted to their system.
:All Wikipedia articles that discuss Gutenburg need to be updated with the above info and POV-aligned for consistency. [[Johann Gutenberg]] article
:[[User:James Arboghast|Arbo]] 17:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
==Soy-based ink??==
The article states that Gutenberg used ''soy-based ink''. Is this correct? It seems quite unlikely and contradicts the [[Printing]] article. --[[User:Myroblyte|NBR]] 21:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
: I think this must be vandalism? According to the Encyclopedia Britannica:
::Johann Gensfleisch zur Laden zum Gutenberg German craftsman and inventor who originated a method of printing from movable type that was used without important change until the 20th century. The unique elements of his invention consisted of a mold, with punch-stamped matrices (metal prisms used to mold the face of the type) with which type could be cast precisely and in large quantities; a type-metal alloy; a new press, derived from those used in wine making, papermaking, and bookbinding; and an oil-based printing ink. None of these features existed in Chinese or Korean printing, or in the existing European technique of stamping letters on various surfaces, or in woodblock printing.
: So I'm thinking SOY-BASED should be OIL-BASED? I've gone ahead and changed this - please change back with an explanation if soy-based ink was in fact part of Gutenberg's invention.... [[User:Lijil|Lijil]] 17:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
----
I've tried downloading this picture, resizing it and re-uploading it, but for some reason, it isn't working. Can somebody fix the size, please? -- [[User:Zoe|Zoe]]
Is that my fault because I am the one who put the initial big picture. Is uppercase extension problem? Anyway, I resized the picture. -- [[User:TakuyaMurata|Taku]] 01:10 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)
----
What do each of the numbers in the diagram refer to?
: [[User:Noldoaran|Noldoaran]] 23:45, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)
----
== China & printing == the first printing press:
The paragraph which follows seems a bit wobbly:
"In China, there were no texts similar to the Bible which could guarantee a printer return on the high capital investment of a printing press, and so the primary form of printing was wood block printing which was more suited for short runs of texts for which the return was uncertain."
:I know nothing about the market for books in tenth century China, but the claim that block printing is more suited to short run work than metal type is not explainable by the economic argument used. The reason that Gutenberg's development took root so quickly is that it SAVED money as against the more expensive/time consuming method of block carving.
::Not exactly. The success of Gutenburg's method had much more to his key invention, the hand mould, as I have described in detail further up this discussion page.
::[[User:James Arboghast|Arbo]] 17:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Setting a page of type was much quicker/cheaper than carving a large wood block. The shorter the run the more "damaging to the bottom line" this difference becomes. If it costs $2000 to originate a book by carving wood blocks and $1000 to do it by type setting, the cost pricture for editions of different lengths will be (assuming the cost of machining is the same for both methods -- let's say $1 --, and ignoring the capital cost -- which IS the real explanation)
Letterpress<br>
100 @ $1 = $100 + $1000 = $1100, or $11 each<br>
500 @ $1 = $500 + $1000 = $1500, or $3 each <br>
1000 @ $1 = $1000 + $1000 = $2000, or $2 each<br>
Wood Block<br>
100 @ $1 = $100 + $2000 = $2100, or $21 each<br>
500 @ $1 = $500 + $2000 = $2500, or $5 each<br>
1000 @ $1 = $1000 + $2000 = $3000, or $3 each.<br>
The point here is not wether these costs are correct: it's the relationship between the unit costs for the different quantities that's the point. The claim that "wood block printing was more suited for short runs" is exactly the opposite of the facts. At 100 copies wood block is 90% more expensive, while at 1000 it's only 50% more expensive.
:Now it's true that you couldn't run millions of copies from a wood block, but neither was Gutenberg running that many copies. The big reason why letterpress printing was not developed in the Far East is to do with the investment of capital: for whatever reasons (and no doubt the re are many) China was not a place where specualitve investments could be made, and their inventions were developed by others.
::Not exactly. The success of Gutenburg's method had much more to his key invention, the hand mould, as I have described in detail further up this discussion page. The advantage of Gutenburg's method was a matter of economic scale in being able to make vast quantities letters to print with very cheaply.
::[[User:James Arboghast|Arbo]] 17:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
:: Except that the explanation, explicit includes capital costs (i.e. the cost of the press). Once you include that then the cost becomes uncompetitive unless you are going to use the press a lot. [[User:Roadrunner|Roadrunner]] 21:18, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
: Removed this. First of all, we do have a very good idea of the comparative literacy levels between China and Europe. Second, I'd like a reference for the second statement since it appears a bit odd. [[User:Roadrunner|Roadrunner]] 21:18, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
== Translation from German ==
*'''Article''': [[:de:Buchdruck]] (and some of the linked-to pages!)
*'''Corresponding English-language article''': [[printing]]
*'''Worth doing because''': German version is much more complete than English, english one is quite poor, doesn't cover topic adequately
* '''Originally Requested by''': [[User:Lady Tenar|Lady Tenar]] 00:21, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
*'''Status''': Got tired of this sitting here. I added most of the information from the German into [[printing press]] and some of it into [[printing]]. A few bits I left out as well. Maybe someone could take a look. I did a lot of Internet verification of details, but maybe this should be looked at more closely. [[User:Mpolo|Mpolo]] 18:54, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
*'''Other notes''': May be this should be done by someone who knows a bit about the topic, i'm not doing it myself because i can't translate most of the words specific to printing
<br>
== Ancient history section removed ==
I have removed the section below. The relationship of the Phaitos Disc to moveable type is a misconception. Some of this info is relevant to the history of punch cutting and could go into history of typography, but I dont think it needs to be here. Maybe there should be something on early development of presses, eg olive oil / wine presses whhich were adapted by Gutenberg, otherwise this Ancient history seems irrelevant.
::==Ancient history==
::The oldest use of moveable type comes from about 1500 BC. The [[Phaistos Disc]] is the oldest example of a printed work produced with moveable type (Bossert, 1931).
::Seals and signet rings also preceded printing. Nobles would carve a seal or a ring to press onto documents as official verification. This technique dates back to ancient times.
--[[User:Mervyn|mervyn]] 18:21, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::Correct. The statement "...oldest use of moveable type comes from about 1500 BC. The [[Phaistos Disc]] is the oldest example of a printed work produced with moveable type..." is incorrect, because the Phaistos disc was not printing with moveable type, but more akin to printing with a daisy wheel printer or a Dymo labelling machine. Do we call either of those two ''printing with moveable type''? Nope, because they're not.
:::[[User:James Arboghast|Arbo]] 18:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
You say it 'is a misconception'. What is your source for that? The bit you removed had a bibl. reference. I think you should at least match that with one of your own. [[User:Prater|Prater]] 18:46, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::It's a misconception because the Phaistos Disc does not print by means of "moveable type".
:::[[User:James Arboghast|Arbo]] 18:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
:I strongly maintain that "movable type" is totally out of context with regard to the Phaistos Disc. Movable type is cast in quantity from matrices, which in turn are made from engraved punches. AFAIK there is no evidence for movable type before the 1400s. I suspect it originated as a misconception from engraved letter/ideogram punches - of which, indeed, the Phaistos Disc is an early example. Unless you can advise me better, I think wikipedia should not connect the Phaistos disc with "movable type". Any standard work on printing history eg Lucien Febvre "The Coming of the Book" will give the background information.
--[[User:Mervyn|mervyn]] 06:36, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The title of that book suggests it is not a history of printing so it is no surprise it doesn't mention the fact we are discussing. Bossert and Chadwick say it's printed text, who supports your view? [[User:Prater|Prater]] 09:08, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::The book does not have to be a dedicated history of printing to contain relevant information. As long as the information is accurate and relevant, it is applicable to this article on the printing press. And, there is a difference between ''"printed text"'' and printing with moveable type. The process of printing with the Phaistos Disc is not the same as the process of printing with moveable type. In other words, there are different ways and methods of printing.
:::[[User:James Arboghast|Arbo]] 18:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
:this is not about finding a counter source, it is about rejecting a statement made by a source in 1931 that contradicts accepted understanding of the term movable type. The technique of impressing characters into clay from a seal or punch is not what is meant by the term "movable type". In any case, my other argument still stands that the "Ancient History" section is not relevant to the Printing Press article so I think it best to leave it removed. --[[User:Mervyn|mervyn]] 10:45, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::Right on [[User:James Arboghast|Arbo]] 18:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Further to my above comment, you have amended the ref to movable type on the Phaistos Disc page, thanks. --[[User:Mervyn|mervyn]] 10:45, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Glad to oblige. And I do in fact agree with the removal of that section from [[printing press]] (if only because non of it involved any presses!). [[User:Prater|Prater]] 11:49, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
==Improvement drive==
The article on [[Johann Gutenberg]] has been nominated to be improved on [[WP:IDRIVE]]. Come and support it with your vote!--[[User:Fenice|Fenice]] 21:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Gutenberg or the Chinese
Many people say it was the chinese who invented the first printing press, many people say it was Johannes Gutenberg. But who is correct? I do not know and i would like to know. Thankyou
==Revolution==
Burke in ''Day the Universe Changed'' suggests it started a revolution, making memory & eyewitnesses less important than documents... [[User:Trekphiler|Trekphiler]] 08:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
== Movable Type ==
Does anyone else find it inappropriate that a link to Movable Type - the blogging software - appears on this page even when someone comes to it from direct links to "Printing press"? It has no place on the "Printing press" page. I'll remove it in a week if there are no objections.
THE CHINESE INVENTED THE PRINTING PRESS
:As the notice says, "Movable type" redirects there. In such circumstances, the notice is shown unconditionally. This is common practice; compare, for instance, [[Central Intelligence Agency]]. --[[User:Sneftel|Sneftel]] 04:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
== Something I would like to see added to this article... ==
I think this article could use a section on the status of the printing press today; specifically, in the face of newer, more modern techniques, why is it's use still so wide-spread in industries such as the newspaper printing industry or the book printing industry?
My husband works in newspapers, and his paper got a new press, and I asked him why newspapers are still using that sort of technology instead of, say, laser printing directly from computer. He's a reporter, not a press operator, so didn't know. However, for a document that is only intended to have one run (like a newspaper), albeit a large run, what advantages are offered by a press rather then more modern (and one would think faster and more efficent) printing technology?
As it stands the pages are sent by computer to the press operator, and then metal plates must be made for each page each day. Why can't they adapt the same technology that allows computer printers, fax machines, and photocopiers to print without plates? What modern advantages to presses have?
Obviously, not knowing the awnsers I can't add the section, but maybe someone who does know could?
:Flexographic and offset litho web printing may seem out of date or outmoded, but the latest presses of that kind are in fact fully up to date with digital technology, and still offer the most economical means of printing newspapers. The advantage is a matter of economics and scale of production. The technologies inside your "...computer printers, fax machines, and photocopiers [that] print without plates..." are practical for a small office or home, but not practical for large-scale print operations producing tens or hundreds of thousands of copies. Laser printing directly from a computer would be too costly per imprint, and laser toner doesn't stick very well to newspaper. Contrary to what you might think, laser and bubble-jet printing are far slower than a flexographic press, which runs off huindreds of copies per minute. Printing from flexographic metal plates is still the cheapest and fastest method for printing newspapers. Offset presses offer the same advantages for book printing.
:The main change in the digital era is the way plates are made---with a digital imagesetter instead of the older photo-bromide process.
:I am more than happy to add this perspective once we sort out which of the articles on printing and publishing will be merged.
:Best regards, [[User:James Arboghast|Arbo]] 18:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
== Merge with printing? ==
What do people think about merging these two articles? It seems to me that some of the information is duplicative and Wikipedia could maybe get by with one article and a redirect from Printing press to printing. The printing article is, I think, a better article, but the printing press article has lots of information the printing article doesn't. What do others think? Good idea? Bad idea? [[User:ONUnicorn|ONUnicorn]] 17:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
:Good idea. Definitely. I've left a message of support on the talk page for Printing. The best strategy would be to merge Printing Press with Printing and put in a redirect for "printing press". Unicorn—do you know how to do a merge? [[User:James Arboghast|Arbo]] 16:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
::[[Movable Type]] already redirects here, and this trend to merge every article under the sun is rather scaring me. [[Printing]] is a generic process, but the [[Printing Press]] is a specific type of process with specific and significant roots in history. Rather than hacking up the article to make it fit into Printing, I wish it were expanded upon. Some things I feel are missing are historic events that included the destruction of printing presses in an attempt to oppress freedom of press, how the printing press brought about printed news, and how news media became known as the 'press' because of this. "Stop The Presses" also needs to be mentioned.
::If you must merge Printing Press with Printing, then please merge Printing with Writing, and Writing with Words, and Words with Letters, and Letters with Drawing. - Eric 04:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
==Year of invention of rotary press==
Just been reading the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on the rotary press, and it says:
:In 1844 Richard Hoe in the United States patented his type revolving press, the first rotary to be based on this principle. It consisted of a cylinder of large diameter, bearing columns of type bracketed together on its outer surface; pressure was provided by several small cylinders, each of which was fed sheets of paper by hand. This system gave speeds of more than 8,000 copies per hour; its only drawback was its fragility; faulty locking up of the forms caused the type to fall out of the cylinder. ("Printing." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 19 Sept. 2006 <http://search.eb.com/eb/article-36841>.)
Our article says
:Later on in the middle of the 19th century the rotary press (invented in 1833 in the United States by Richard M. Hoe) allowed millions of copies of a page in a single day. Mass production of printed works flourished after the transition to rolled paper, as continuous feed allowed the presses to run at a much faster pace.
Can anyone check the year the rotary press was invented? Either it was invented in 1833 and not patented till 1844 - or else either we or the Encyclopedia Britannica is wrong. [[User:Lijil|Lijil]] 17:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
==movable type and other things==
*I agree completely with that [[movable type]] should not redirect here, especially since this article defines it as a separate invention. There is a article on typography, which has a very brief discussion of the technology of movable type, and I suggest that additional material could be put in there; (I know enough to add based on the standard books on the subject) and the redirect changed. Perhaps this will solve some of the problems referred to above.
*A composing stick is an early improvement, not a later invention in the sense of the other see alsos
*A good deal more is needed about the later technologies, but I am not really competent for this one. [[User:DGG|DGG]] 04:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
==NPOV==
Since neither we nor anyone apparently knows whether or not the inventions were independent, we might as well simply present them both, along with the appropriate references that had previously been added. The important thing is to present both.
*I still search for a better place to redirect "movable type". This one isn't sensible, because we do all seem to agree that they were independent inventions, whether in Europe the same man made both of them, or combined them in a novel way. [[User:DGG|DGG]] 06:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
**Upon further thought, I have decided to move it to Typography if nobody has a better suggestion. [[User:DGG|DGG]] 18:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
== Phaistos disk ==
As it is concluded in this article not to be true movable type, what is the point of a 75 year old quote that it is? [[User:DGG|DGG]] 03:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
But what do you want? A black and white article? Obviously the Phaistos disc is a border case, therefore I am also giving room to views which support the notion of it being movable type.
[[User:Gun Powder Ma|Gun Powder Ma]] 04:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
::OK. It's more a matter of space. but it can't really be discussed in less, & the remedy is to add more material on the later printing press that is so badly needed. I am not going to argue about this too much, when we basically agree about so much of the controversy on this and related pages. I'd rather deal with the POV there.
::I don't see your sentence "The Phaistos Disc clearly shows an understanding of the concept of printing, that is to reproduce a body of text non-manually with reusable characters." I hope I did not accidentally edit over it, or deleted anything else by mistake.
That doesn't mean you've convinced me, for
#the very learned people fighting on the disk page have none of them thought to mention it.
#Can you cite any modern ref. that treats it as a serious precurson? By your chosen definition in the page it is not printing. (Equally, I would have to look for something modern that says it isn't.)
#It would only resemble printing if the characters were impressed at the same time, or in a mechanical fashion. Since according to the article on it the characters overstruck each other, & are found on both sides, and go from the edges in, it doesn't seem it's very close.
#I'm not sure what you mean by non-manually? I don't think you mean a machine, but rather a character-shaped device rather than a stylus or brush or pen.
Anyway, I've added your new sentence to the disc page, because it is certainly at any rate worth mentioning there, adjust it if preferred.
And perhaps this should go on the printing page instead, because it did not use a press? (see #3, above)
[[User:DGG|DGG]] 06:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Deleted the 'non-manually', added a quotation and rephrased parts off the text. [[User:Gun Powder Ma|Gun Powder Ma]] 10:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
| 