Patricia Cornwall said...

[Lechmere]

A ream is 500 here now. Apart from in Essex where I live.

[MrBarnett]

Lechmere,

First loan for lone and now ream for reem, you'll be spelling your name C R O S S
next.

MrB

[Lechmere]

It all sounds the same

[RivkahChaya]

"Ream" as in paper is spelled that way in the US.

Paper is made in large sheets and cut. I'm actually not sure if it's made in rolls and cut now, or still in large sheets, but that is the reason for a number divisible by 4. Since paper was cut in different sizes, and you wanted the watermark to appear on each sheet, no matter what size the sheet was eventually cut into, so the watermark would be in different places on each page of the same sheet, but the same place on page from sheets of the same run, if the page was from the same cut position-- you know, if a sheet was cut into 24 pages, and 200 sheets were manufactured in a run, to make a ream, then page 3 of each sheet would have matching (or close to it) watermarks, but pages 3 & 4 from the same sheet wouldn't have them in the same place.

[Bridewell]

BTW: Is paper still sold in reams of 480 in the UK?

Shouldn't be now but was then. 480 sheets is now apparently known as a 'short ream' - for obvious reasons.

[MrBarnett]

Hi Rika,

Lechmere and I are both Essex boys and the point was about the spelling of the dialect word 'reem'. (Don't ask me what it means, because I have no bloomin' idea.)

MrB

[GUT]

G'Day Rivka

if a sheet was cut into 24 pages, and 200 sheets were manufactured in a run, to make a ream, then page 3 of each sheet would have matching (or close to it) watermarks, but pages 3 & 4 from the same sheet wouldn't have them in the same place.

Which seems to be what has happened in the batch I have, they probably cut 20 sheets down and then stacked them on top of each other to make the packet of 100, by the way this paper made early 1900's or so it seems.

[RivkahChaya]

G'Day Rivka



Which seems to be what has happened in the batch I have, they probably cut 20 sheets down and then stacked them on top of each other to make the packet of 100, by the way this paper made early 1900's or so it seems.

So either I don't understand Cornwell's point, or she didn't think it through, and it's worthless.

[TomTomKent]

Hi Rika,

Lechmere and I are both Essex boys and the point was about the spelling of the dialect word 'reem'. (Don't ask me what it means, because I have no bloomin' idea.)

MrB

It means a standard packet of fresh paper. Usually five to a box I think....

[John Savage]

Hi All

In response to earlier posters I hope my following comments may help.

REAM, spelt correctly with an ”a” contains a set number of sheets which in Victorian times would have been 480 sheets per ream. Most types of paper began to be counted in 500 sheets per ream sometime in the twentieth century, however wrapping papers continued to be counted in 480’s well into the latter decades, about 1970-1980. It was also possible to have a “printers ream” containing an extra sixteen sheets, i.e. 496 or 516, although this practise was probably defunct by the 1960’s. A quire is, for all practical purposes, one twentieth of a ream, either 24 or 25 sheets depending on the number of sheets in a ream.

The idea that three separate sheets of paper can be identified as coming from one single quire is something I find difficult to believe. It may, perhaps, be possible with handmade paper; however Miss Cornwell clearly states that the samples she has which carry the A Pirie & sons watermark are made by machine. Now a paper making machine makes one long continuous sheet [or web] which stars at the wet end of the machine as a mixture of 99% water and 1% pulp, and by a series of processes including suction, rotary presses, and rotary heated drums remove the water and deliver a dry finished sheet at the dry end. Such a machine may have been about fifty foot long and eight foot wide and probably capable of making a ton of paper in an hour or two. Depending on the thickness of the paper one ton would equate to 426 reams [500’s] of 8 x 10 inch 85 gsm paper or 496 reams of 73 gsm paper. Because paper making is a continuous process and altering the type or thickness of the sheet is time consuming the paper is made in large batches depending on demand, but probably a minimum of 1 ton would have to be required to make the process economical.

So this would leave us with enough paper to make approximately 8,500 quires all pretty well identical. How then to identify just one quire. In my opinion almost impossible, Miss Cornwell however, believes that size is important; but having read and re-read her comments on the size of the various papers she has discovered I am afraid that I remain more confused than enlightened. The work carried out by her expert Peter Bower in examining the chain lines in the paper and its fibre content is a good idea, unfortunately we are not given the results to evaluate this work.
It is quite possible for the paper mill to make a sheet of paper with a watermark that will appear in the centre of the sheet, to put it simply all that is needed is to ensure the correct positioning of the watermark on a revolving drum at the wet end of the paper making machine and to ensure precise cutting when the dry paper reaches the end of the machine. The paper mill would usually make a large sheet which would then be cut by guillotine to a smaller size, for instance a common size for a sheet of paper which was called Large Post measured 16.5 x 21 inches, this would have a watermark in each of its four quarters, when trimmed down to a size of 8 x 10 inches [commonly referred to as quarto] a watermark will appear in the centre of every sheet. When this sheet is folded in half to 8 x 5 inches the fold will go through the centre of the watermark just like those pictured in Miss Cornwell’s book.

It is interesting that the watermarks illustrated in the book carry a year of manufacture, not all watermarks did so. The reason for putting the year on the watermark was done for security, for instance a will dated 1887 would become suspicious if written on a paper watermarked 1888. Such papers were made for use by lawyers, accountants and others who needed such security. As watermarks would have to be changed yearly this would no doubt have made the paper more expensive than undated paper. It would also become pretty well worthless on January 1st and any paper merchant or stationer left with redundant stocks would have to get rid of them as best he could; what better than to turn the stock into notepaper for those who wanted a quality product but to whom the watermark was of little importance?

Sorry for rambling on, I’ll get my coat!

[GUT]

A good explanation thank you.

[Cogidubnus]

Yes thanks John...that was most helpful!

All the best

Dave

[pinkmoon]

I think the whole problem with this is that miss cornwell decided that old wally was jtr before she started investigating him.I think she has fallen into the same trap that Mr Feldman fell into with the maybrick diary by wanting it to be true it has to be true an open mind is required when trying to research jtr.Any way we all know beyond any doubt that my favourite suspect druitt was jack the ripper so there.

[GUT]

G'Day Pinkmoon

A suspect author finding a suspect them trying to make the evidence fit who's a thunk it?

[pinkmoon]

We need a new suspect it's all getting a bit boring.