[LMB] OT: (very) Why has saddle stitching gone away?

Raye Johnsen raye_j at yahoo.com
Fri Nov 23 01:11:01 GMT 2018


On Friday, November 23, 2018, 7:14:52 AM GMT+11, Harvey Fishman <fishman at panix.com> wrote:
> The particular ones that I am
> immediately thinking of were _Scientific American_ and _The New Yorker_. Recently (past five
> years or so) both magazines have discarded saddle stitching for what is close to perfect
> binding. WHY???
I just googled 'saddle stitching vs perfect binding' and found out the following facts:- saddle stitching requires multiples of four pages (8, 12, 16, 20, 24, etc)- saddle stitching has a maximum limit (the binder I looked at has a limit of 68 pages, I wouldn't expect it to go much bigger)
Perfect binding, however, only requires multiples of 2 in its page count and has an upward limit of 1000 pages (which is why perfect binding is used for most paperbacks).  
I think, knowing these particular magazines, that what's likely to have happened is that their page counts have expanded past the saddle stitching page count limit, so they've been forced to go to perfect binding.
Raye 
raye_j at yahoo.com
I believe in dragons, unicorns, good men and other mythical creatures.


More information about the Lois-Bujold mailing list