A different kind of frustration characterizes the reliance upon
ornamental stock as a means of identifying printers and detecting shared
printing. Despite the fact that ornamental stock has long served as the
primary evidence of a printer's work, a comprehensive catalogue has yet
to be published and probably never will be. Hence, scanning the standard
references to identify the owner of a particular ornament frequently (or
usually, in my experience) ends in failure.[10] This seems to have happened to
STC researchers as well since, in some instances, a printer
has
not been supplied for books in which ornamental stock appears. Likewise,
shared printing has been overlooked when the stock of a second printer
appears along with that of the printer given in the imprint. Furthermore, the
reliability of ornamental stock as evidence of printer identity is somewhat
lessened by the common practice of borrowing and the existence of
duplicate castings and
copies. The printer assignments in new STC that are based
upon
the identification of ornamental stock are thus considered tentative and are
cited in brackets; these must eventually be verified by font
identification.
Oversights of shared printing and incorrect identification of printers
in the new STC seems reason enough to discuss in detail the
difficulties associated with the reliance upon ornamental stock. The basic
flaw in previous printer-research has been the sole reliance
upon
ornamental stock.[11] However,
a more accurate and trustworthy conclusion both about the sharing issue and
the identity of a sharing printer can result if the appearance of ornamental
stock is understood as an initial clue to the possibility of shared printing
that must be followed up by font analysis and identification. A discussion
of the various patterns of ornamental appearances seen in shared books will
contribute to a more effective use of this kind of evidence.
