Sorry, what you are saying is all nonsense. Measurement is in Picas, thickness is in points. You have no idea how to use the composing stick. I was a compositor for some 30 years. Try to find someone like me to talk to before you do any more damage!
I do not entirely agree with your criticism here. A pica contains 12 points. Points commonly refer to the size of type and spacing while pica most often refers to column width. You can also convert from one to the other and which you use is a matter of shop preference. Thus, when you say "measurement is in picas, thickness in points" I think it is unclear to what you are referring (measurement and thickness of what?). Suggestion: damage is done in criticism without correction, so possibly give correction on how, for instance, to use the composing stick correctly.
@@professorlegacy Sorry Jack, I've been in the printing industry in the U.K. since 1951. Having done 30 years as a compositor it upsets me when I see "experts" show the wrong way it should be done. Measurement of width of type page etc. is in 12pt picas. Thickness of leads, rules clumps and type size etc. is in points (approx 72points to the inch). Wood letter is in "lines" or picas i.e. 12 line wood letter is two inches high. The composing stick is held in the left hand (even if you are left handed) and the type is held against the adjustable side of the stick with the left thumb. You read the type as it is set i.e. mirror image. You don't turn. the stick around! You always work with the "head" of the type towards you, still in mirror image and read left to right. There were brass rules known as setting rules to use between lines in the stick. These were easy to slip out if leading was not required. I just think is a great pity to state this is how a process is done without making sure you really know. Sorry, I'm getting old.
@@headleycaryer3795 Thank you for clarifying, Headley. I appreciate your more comprehensive response. Composing type has always fascinated me and I find a detailed criticism with sensible correction to be much more fruitful than the contrary, so your addition explanation is very much welcome! I could honestly re-read your reply here repeatedly and get something from it each time, and I mean that with all sincerity. Cheers :)
Very helpful. Thanks!!!!!
Sorry, what you are saying is all nonsense. Measurement is in Picas, thickness is in points. You have no idea how to use the composing stick. I was a compositor for some 30 years. Try to find someone like me to talk to before you do any more damage!
I do not entirely agree with your criticism here. A pica contains 12 points. Points commonly refer to the size of type and spacing while pica most often refers to column width. You can also convert from one to the other and which you use is a matter of shop preference. Thus, when you say "measurement is in picas, thickness in points" I think it is unclear to what you are referring (measurement and thickness of what?). Suggestion: damage is done in criticism without correction, so possibly give correction on how, for instance, to use the composing stick correctly.
@@professorlegacy Sorry Jack, I've been in the printing industry in the U.K. since 1951. Having done 30 years as a compositor it upsets me when I see "experts" show the wrong way it should be done. Measurement of width of type page etc. is in 12pt picas. Thickness of leads, rules clumps and type size etc. is in points (approx 72points to the inch). Wood letter is in "lines" or picas i.e. 12 line wood letter is two inches high.
The composing stick is held in the left hand (even if you are left handed) and the type is held against the adjustable side of the stick with the left thumb. You read the type as it is set i.e. mirror image. You don't turn. the stick around! You always work with the "head" of the type towards you, still in mirror image and read left to right. There were brass rules known as setting rules to use between lines in the stick. These were easy to slip out if leading was not required. I just think is a great pity to state this is how a process is done without making sure you really know. Sorry, I'm getting old.
@@headleycaryer3795 Thank you for clarifying, Headley. I appreciate your more comprehensive response. Composing type has always fascinated me and I find a detailed criticism with sensible correction to be much more fruitful than the contrary, so your addition explanation is very much welcome! I could honestly re-read your reply here repeatedly and get something from it each time, and I mean that with all sincerity. Cheers :)