The Definitive Dwiggins no. 3 addendum to an addendum continued—The Significance of the “Memento of a Catalogue Clinic”
“A Memento of a Catalogue Clinic” is more than an amusing illustration by W.A. Dwiggins. It is a key document in understanding the transformation of American printing in the first two decades of the 20th century as well as the growth of Dwiggins himself from a commercial artist to a graphic designer.
The catalogue clinic was sponsored by The Society of Printers, an organization founded in 1905 as part of the spread of the English Arts & Crafts movement. It was dedicated to the study and advancement of the art of printing. Among its founders were Henry Lewis Johnson, editor of The Printing Art, and D.B. Updike of the Merrymount Press, both instrumental in the creation of the Society of Arts and Crafts, Boston in 1897, an organization modeled on the Society of Arts and Crafts in England. The Society of Printers was positioned between the SACB and the Boston Typothetae (founded in 1887 as the Master Printers’ Club, an employers organization concerned mainly with business.  In this it was usually pitted against the Boston Typographical Union No. 13 in determining wages, hours and working conditions within the printing industry. It also ran the School of Printing at the North End Union after 1911. 
Printing Course, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard College
The Society of Printers’ educational endeavor was more grandiose. In 1910 it gave Harvard College $7,000 to establish a course in printing within the new Graduate School of Business Administration. This was part of a new business-oriented era in the printing industry as there was a dawning realization that many printing companies were not the quaint print shops of Arts & Crafts fantasy, but in reality large industrial concerns.
J. Horace McFarland, a printer in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, suggested the course at Harvard at the 4 January 1910 meeting of The Society of Printers. He summarized his idea in an article in the May 1910 issue of The Printing Art entitled “University Training for Printers” which urged the creation of a “West Point for Printers”. The course was intended for “the master printers, the employers, the superintendents, the designers, the cost experts” rather than for the the compositors or pressmen. The goal was to advance the standards of work, practice and profits within a printing plant. The main “divisions” that he proposed for a university printing course were: history, materials, design and practice. All became part of the actual course that began in Fall 1910. 
The Printing Course at Harvard began with a series of lectures on “An Introduction to the Technique of Printing” in the academic year 1910–1911. The Printing Trade News summarized the contents of the course:
The course includes instruction in the history of the printed book, in which the work of the early printers, is studied from the historical and artistic viewpoint; a course in the technique of printing, consisting of a series of practical lectures by various specialists, and courses in accounting, industrial organizations, commercial resources and commercial law. There is given an advanced course in the technique of printing, in which a number of practical problems are worked out under close supervision. The instruction is largely of the nature of laboratory work. The student is given practice in preparing copy for the printer, and through various experiments has a chance to work out for himself some of the underlying principles of design and harmony in type forms. He is then required to follow several jobs through the press, determining the format, planning the work in the composing room, preparing the specifications for paper and ink, estimating on the cost of various kinds of illustrations, and making a thorough study of all the manufacturing problems involved. Later in the year he is asked to lay out the work for a specific plant, after being supplied with the necessary information as to the number of employees, the number of machines and the amount of work to be handled. Special attention is devoted to printing office organization and to cost accounting as applied to the printing office. Advance courses in cost accounting, industrial organization and commercial policy are emphasized. 
“Commercial typography as a business is established upon and grows with the increasing appreciation of effective printing as a prime factor in selling merchandise,” Henry Lewis Bullen wrote in “Keeping the Printing Plant Young: A Discussion of the Success of Permanency and Profit-Making Conditions” for The Printing Art vol. XIV, no. 2 (October 1909). “The old-time appropriately named ‘job printer’ was a mere furnisher of printed paraphernalia for other businesses. The term ‘job printer’ has served well enough in its day and may well be retired with ‘steam printer’ and ‘artistic printer’ in favor of ‘commercial printer’.” His essay, reprinted in book form the following year, insisted that printers needed “new, well lighted, clean, sanitary, economically arranged shops, equipped with sufficient machinery and furnishings”  Bullen, the Manager of the Efficiency Department at the American Type Founders Company, also promoted the acceptance of cost systems as a means of guaranteeing printers “exact profitable prices” so that they could be on a surer financial footing. 
Bullen was a lecturer in the 1912–1913 Course on Printing at Harvard, but his topic was Job Printing Machinery rather than the business of printing. That was handled by McFarland (Printing Office Management) and his colleague C.W. Davis (Cost Accounting).
The notion of “cost systems” for printers required that the methods for figuring out costs be standardized and that a uniform system be adopted throughout the industry. To this end the International Cost Congress of Employing Printers of America met annually from 1909 to 1911 and the Cost Congress of New England Printers and Allied Trades was held from 1913 to 1914.  Within a few years the movement had become so widespread that The Inland Printer could chide printers for not following the cost systems they had installed in their plants.  It got a big boost when the Federal Trade Commission endorsed the Standard Cost-Finding System of the United Typothetae and Franklin Clubs of America in 1917. Following the FTC announcement, The American Printer enthusiastically encouraged printers to adopt a uniform system.
Those seeking to “modernize” the printing industry did not stop with the push to introduce cost systems. They latched on to the work of Frederick W. Taylor, the influential proselytizer of the application of “scientific management” to business and industry. An editorial in The Printing Art in 1911 urged printers to consider the concept, arguing that it seemed possible for a savings of up to 50% to be made.  Further discussion ensued in other issues of both The Printing Art and The Inland Printer over whether or not printing was too unruly a business to adopt the time-work principles of Taylor. Henry P. Porter of Oxford Print in Boston—and a leading force behind the creation of the Boston Typothetae Board of Trade—was not wholly in favor of Taylorism, but thought that “time wastefulness” could be reduced or eliminated through more cooperation between workers and management. He was in favor of standardizing operations. An indication of the widespread interest in improving printing plant efficiency was the establishment in 1912 of a special committee by the Government Printing Office to investigate “the Taylor and other systems of shop management”. 
In July 1915, The Printing Art instituted a new column entitled Business Administration Department to be written by Daniel Baker, manager of the Graphic Arts Board of Trade of Toronto. It was introduced with these words, “This is the age of efficiency. Rule-of-thumb methods are as obsolete as the eight-ox plough of the Romans. The man who makes money is the man who keeps every unit in his shop running at maximum efficiency.” 
The mark of a “progressive printer” in the 1910s was not only his adoption of cost systems and scientific management but of new ways of preparing printed material, specifically the use of layouts and dummies. It is hard for anyone involved in graphic design today to believe that there was ever a time when layouts and dummies were not used as the first stages in the development of anything to be printed. But that was the case a hundred years ago.
In the March 1910 issue of The Printing Art, S. Roland Hall wrote “The Day of the Layout” by S. Roland Hall as a plea for both advertising agencies and printers to accept the layout as an essential aid to the production of printed designs. The standard practice of the time was for a copywriter to simply give text to a printer and to leave the appearance of it up to the compositor. Hall deplored this both on aesthetic grounds and those of efficiency.  A year earlier, George French (1853–1935), one of the founders of The Society of Printers but later editor of Advertising & Selling and a key figure in the nascent world of advertising, complained, “The trouble is that the printers of the day are not trained to set type properly. They are trained to operate machines, to make up forms, to run presses, etc., but they know little or nothing about type harmony, proportion, balance, tone, and the other artistic qualities of a strong and handsome piece of typography.” Printers had no notion of how to layout designs. 
Everett R. Currier (b. 1877), in charge of the Job Printing Department at The Curtis Publishing Co. (and a member of The Society of Printers), claimed, in a paper read before the Philadelphia Typothetae and Printers Board of Trade in March 1, 1911, that the layout was a product of the past decade, an accompaniment to the “enormous development of promotive ‘literature’” during that time. His talk was an attempt to explain to printers the value of a layout:
The layout serves two purposes. It concerns both the promotive or selling, and the routine or manufacturing sides of the industry. In the first it shows the prospective customer what the finished result is intended to be, and in the second it serves as a guide in the manufacture. In the first it is a valuable accessory to salesmanship, and in the second it is an indispensable factory economy. 
He urged his audience to have a “layout man” on staff, someone with knowledge of both the composing room and of art. At the same time he told them that “the layout man should take his rough ideas to a good professional designer,” a nod to the fast-developing profession of the typographer or typographic consultant such as Benjamin Sherbow or Gilbert P. Farrar. 
The idea of the “layout man”—“a compositor who has advanced himself by the study of art and advertising or an advertising man who has studied typography and art”—was a new one to the printing industry. A letter to the editor of The American Printer in 1915, asked, “how to learn to be a layout man.”  The reply was that there were no schools in New York (where The American Printer was based) that teach the subject, but recommended that the writer take courses in advertising offered by George French at New York University and read books written by Sherbow. 
The typographer was also a new position within the professions of advertising and printing. “The day of the compositor is the day of long ago. The compositor’s all-absorbing idea is to make every job look different, and gingerbready—regardless of cost or purpose to be accomplished by the man who is spending the money,” declared Barnard J. Lewis of the Stetson Press, Boston in a talk at the Toronto Convention of the Associated Advertising Clubs of the World in 1914. “The day of typographical designers—who at the same time have keen merchandising instincts—is rapidly approaching, and in some cases has arrived.” 
One of the jobs of the layout man within the print shop as well as the independent typographer or designer was to make a dummy. Surprisingly, the idea of the dummy was controversial among printers. There was a debate on the subject at the Seventh Annual Convention of the Associated Advertising Clubs of America (1912) between a “Mr. Redfield” and a “Mr. Lewis”. Lewis described the dummy process his company used:
We have had experience in dummies, and have worked in competition with various printers in Boston, the best-known concerns, and it has worked this way: We go to a man and find out what he wants to spend. We find out, and then we tell him we can give him a dummy at almost any price. We have done enough work to know after sizing it up if the proposition is right, but at no time do we go to great expense to show him dummies, but work on faith and confidence, and we rarely lose a job that we go after, for we almost always find satisfaction working on faith. I believe it is the best principle to work on and bound to win out in the long run; if you work properly and have no desire to deceive you are bound to win out.
Redfield responded that, “… It has always seemed to me that it was fairly a scandal, this dummy business, and the better the dummy, the more chance of losing the job. I don’t know why unless it is that there hides a foolish man behind a beautiful dummy. And it is a foolish man that doesn’t get the business. He doesn’t inspire confidence in his work with a busy manager.” 
Henry Lewis Johnson, editor of The Graphic Arts, clearly believed in the value of the dummy. In “Better Craftsmanship in 1914” an unsigned article in the December 1913 issue of the journal he set forth a “First Group of Practical Topics”, a list of skills and knowledge that “progressive printers” were expected to master: “Using Scissors and Paste; Type Faces; Papers; Inks; Engraving, Electrotyping and Binding.” Printers were urged to try out “sizes of types, illustrations, margins and color schemes, to be used when approved as exact working models”—a clear reference to dummies—and to establish “layout departments” in their plants.  Johnson’s commitment to dummies was reinforced a year later in another issue of The Graphic Arts. Under the heading, “Is it Worth While to Make Dummies?” he wrote, “The preparation of dummies is ordinarily associated with elaborate or luxurious undertakings, but anyone seeking to give the highest value to his work can accomplish this end only by building and working over a dummy.… The parallel is so clear in all other lines of engineering, architectural and industrial arts that it is a wonder that more printing is not handled in the same manner.”  He offered the services of The Graphic Arts to help any printers who needed to help in learning how to prepare dummies.
One of the principal uses of dummies was to plan out catalogues. Articles on catalogue making and samples of exemplary catalogues appeared frequently in The Printing Art and The Graphic Arts in the mid-1910s. In a two-part article, Percy Jacques urged printers to make catalogues for themselves as printing guides for their clients. Harry Lyman Koopman (1860–1937), librarian at Brown University and a regular contributor to The Printing Art, wrote about designing library catalogues. And J. Gilray Cannom of the Magill-Weinsheimer Company, a Chicago offset printer, wrote about commercial catalogues. But the most important text about catalogue design was a six-part series by Adrian J. Iorio (1879–1957), a Boston designer, entitled “Making the Catalogue” that ran in The Graphic Arts for the first half of 1914.
In order, the six articles covered the dummy, illustration and decoration (with some notes on lettering), engraving and platemaking, types and typography, paper, and ink.  “The dummy is to the book what the architect’s plans are to the building,” Iorio proclaimed in his first article, echoing Johnson. He discussed how to organize pages, determine margins, position images, determine paper size, arrange type blocks and design title pages, front matter and covers. From our present perspective, Iorio’s commentary is astonishingly rudimentary. Here is his explanation as how to make a dummy:
Cut out blank pieces of paper the approximate size of these plates and label them. This material will gauge the proportion in width and height and the number of pages your catalogue will assume, bearing in mind that the cuts govern the size of the page to a great extent since the plates must be of sufficient size to show clearly any details of importance. It is well as this point to make up several rough dummies, cheap white paper folded once, with a pin or two through the back, will answer. The size in inches or the number of pages need not matter. 
Iorio advised his audience to fit the design of the catalogue to “the trade you wish to reach” but to also make it conform to a company’s overall “office style” for all printed matter.
In the January 1914 issue of The Graphic Arts Iorio ran an advertisement for his services as a catalogue designer. It is notable that he offered not only to design the catalogue but to also oversee all aspects of its manufacture. With this level of involvement Iorio had transcended the role of the commercial artist and become a graphic designer. I have not seen any examples of Iorio’s catalogue interiors, only a few covers such as the one reproduced below, which makes it hard to evaluate his work in this area.
The Society of Printers Catalogue Clinic
As is evident from the above, the Catalogue Clinic that Dwiggins conducted in November 1917 did not occur in a vacuum. Dwiggins himself had, like Iorio, been moving away from the simple activities of the commercial artist toward the more complex ones of the graphic designer. Since the beginning of 1914 he had been closely working on a variety of projects with the Heintzemann Press and Brad Stephens & Co., most of them for the paper industry, that involved not only illustration, decoration and lettering, but also layout and typography. One of the jobs was “How to Build a Catalog” (April 1914) for C.H Dexter & Sons, Inc., a paper company in Windsor Locks, Connecticut. 
Not only did Dwiggins have practical experience in designing catalogues and other publications by 1917, but he also had teaching experience. He had joined the faculty for the Printing Course at the Harvard Business School in 1914. And in 1915/1916 and 1916/1917 he had become, in Max Hall’s view, “the kingpin of the course” as he delivered eighteen lectures each academic year. 
But what did Dwiggins talk about at the Catalogue Clinic? Unfortunately, there are no contemporary accounts of the event, which is astonishing considering how many inconsequential activities—e.g. “Mr. and Mrs. E.P. Brandao and family, of the Brandao Printing company, New Orleans, are back in the city after a two weeks vacation spent in Brownswells, Miss. [sic]”—of those in the printing industry were recorded by the trade press of the day. It is even more surprising given that members of both The Printing Art and The Graphic Arts were in attendance. All that I can assume is that Dwiggins discussed many of the same things that Iorio did in the first two of his articles on making a catalogue, those covering dummies (actually design), illustration and decoration.
Presumably Dwiggins got the idea for basing “Memento of a Catalogue Clinic” on The Agnew Clinic by Thomas Eakins from the word “clinic” that both share. But the connection is more than a minor joke. By linking the Society of Printers event to a medical demonstration, Dwiggins emphasized the new scientific approach to design that was in vogue.
Although I have described the Clinic as if it was led by Dwiggins, in reality he was only one of three “doctors” present, the other two being Robert Seaver and Henry Lewis Johnson. Seaver, wielding a large pair of scissors—one of the essential tools of the layout man—is clearly in charge.  Johnson, holding the “guts” of the catalogue, and Dwiggins are merely assisting him in his “dissection”. John Bianchi and T.B. Hapgood (second row at right)—garbed in lab coats—are the other doctors in attendance. What is unclear is why George Heintzemann and Walt Harris (both smoking at far left) are within the operating theater since they are dressed in business suits, indicating that they are “students” like those behind the railing.
That Seaver and Johnson are the lead “doctors” is not surprising. The latter’s enthusiasm for dummies and scientific management in printing has already been noted. The former was not only a partner in the Seaver-Howland Press, but a contributor to The Printing Art as an editorialist and columnist. At nearly the same time that the Catalogue Clinic was being held, he was replacing Thomas Dreier as the author of the Printed Salesmanship column. The presence of Bianchi, partner in the Merrymount Press, and Hapgood, a leading Boston-area designer (on a par with Iorio and Dwiggins) is logical, though it seems odd Iorio is absent.
The 1917 Catalogue Clinic was the first design “workshop” held by The Society of Printers but not the last. A year later they sponsored a Printing Clinic, lead (indisputably) by Dwiggins, to answer the question “How Would You Lay Out this Job?”  But most of the time the Society addressed design issues through talks, most memorably in 1924 when it held a series of nine lectures on Book and Advertising Typography, four of which dealt explicitly with layout: “Layout of Book and Booklet Pages” by Carl Purington Rollins, Printer to Yale University; “Layout of Magazine and Other Illustrated Pages” by Heyworth Campbell (1886–1953), art director for Condé Nast; “Layout of Space Advertising” by J.O. Smith, a member of the production department of George Batten Co. (a predecessor of Batten, Barton, Durstine & Osborne); and “Layout of Announcements, Stationery and Small Forms” by Everett Currier.
Dwiggins’ participation in the Catalogue Clinic indicated his growing stature within the printing/advertising/design world of Boston. It was also a forerunner to Layout in Advertising (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1928), the book he wrote summarizing what he had learned over the course of nearly two decades in that world.
NOTE: It is puzzling that no one remarked in 1917 on the fact that the “Memento of a Catalogue Clinic” is signed by H. Püterschein. The reproduction of the drawing in The Printing Art was simply credited to Dwiggins. Püterschein had appeared in The Printing Art a year earlier as the author of “Drawings that Sell Goods,” a short survey of contemporary commercial illustration which included work by Dwiggins.  Is it possible that Dwiggins signed the “Memento” as Püterschein in order to prove that the latter was real and thus deflect any criticism that he had engaged in self-praise in the “Drawings that Sell Goods” article?
 The Boston Typothetae was renamed the Boston Typothetae Board of Trade in 1911 when it expanded to become an alliance of printers, electrotypers, photoengravers, binders and paper jobbers. The school, based on a system of indentured apprenticeship, became the Wentworth Institute of School of Printing and the Graphic Arts in 1916.
 “University Training for Printers” by J. Horace McFarland in The Printing Art vol. XV, no. 3 (May 1910), pp. 181–186. For a summary of the course within the development of the Harvard Business School itself see A Delicate Experiment: The Harvard Business School, 1908–1945 by Jeffrey L. Cruikshank (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1987), pp. 78–83. For detailed contemporary accounts of the establishment of the course see The Harvard Graduates’ Magazine vol. 18 (June 1910), p. 665 and Printing Trade News vol. XL, no. 24 (August 24, 1911), p. 13. The former emphasizes that the course was intended “to enable men to meet scientifically the broad problems of the printing trade”.
 Printing Trade News vol. XL, no. 24 August 24, 1911, p. 13.
 Keeping the Printing Plant Young: A Discussion of the Success of Permanency and Profit-Making Conditions by Henry Lewis Bullen (Boston: The Printing Art, 1910), pp. 9 and 11.
 Today Bullen is better known as the founder of the famous Typographical Library of the American Type Founders Company that is now housed in the Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Columbia University.
 George Heintzemann spoke on “How to Estimate” at the Second Cost Congress of New England Printers & Allied Trades, held in Boston, January 27–28, 1914. Many of Dwiggins’ clients in the 1910s were present: Louis Braverman, F.B. Estabrook, Lewis C. Gandy, Henry L. Johnson, Austin S. Kilburn, William B. C. Chester Lane, Henry P. Porter, Margaret Rollins (but not her husband Carl Purington Rollins), Robert Seaver, Edgar B. Sherrell, Kilby P. Smith, Brad Stephens, C.F. Whitmarsh as well as representatives from the American Writing Paper Company, Griffith-Stillings Press, Howard Print, McGrath-Woodley Press, Stone & Andrew, and Walker-Longfellow.
 The Inland Printer vol. 55, no. 4 (July 1915), p. 519.
 “Scientific Management—Can it be Applied to the Printing Industry?” editorial in The Printing Art vol. XVII, no. 3 (May 1911), pp. 223–226.
 “Observations on Scientific Management” by H.P. Porter in The Printing Art vol. XVIII, no. 1 (September 1911), pp. 17–20. Also see “Applying the Principles of Scientific Management to the Printing Business” by A.K. Taylor in The Inland Printer vol. 48, no. 3 (December 1911), pp. 373–375.
 Business Administration Department by Daniel Baker in The Printing Art vol. XXV, no. 5 (July 1915), p. 403.
 “The Day of the Layout” by S. Roland Hall in The Printing Art vol. XV, no. 1 (March 1910), pp. 30–32.
 George French in The Art and Science of Advertising by George French (Boston: Sherman, French & Company, 1909), p. 146. Frank Presbey in The History and Development of Advertising (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, Doran & Company, Inc., 1929), 472 says that a real layout man was a rarity prior to 1900, a statement accepted by Stephen Fox, author of The Mirror Makers: A History of American Advertising and Its Creators (New York: William Morrow & Company, Inc., 1984), p. 40. But it seems from discussions in trade journals that the idea of a layout man was still controversial as late as the mid-1920s. See The Advertising Handbook: A Reference Work Covering the Principles and Practice of Advertising by S. Roland Hall (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1921), pp. 235–236. In 1925 the Boston Club of Printing House Craftsmen, the Boston Typothetae Board of Trade and The Society of Printers co-sponsored a meeting at Boston University on “The Layout Man. Creating and Designing. Working Hand in Hand with the Compositor.”
 Currier’s talk was reprinted a month later as “The Value of the Layout” in The Master Printer vol. VIII, no. 4 (April 1911), p. 199. The editor of The Master Printer was Daniel Baker.
 “The Value of the Layout,” p. 202. “As to how much of the type layout ought to be left to the compositor, I should say in general, as much as possible,” wrote Currier, p. 200. This statement upset Farrar who wrote a rebuttal, “More about the Layout Man,” in The Master Printer vol. VIII, no. 5 (May 1911), pp. 259–260 arguing for the value of the typographer to handle the type layout.
 The American Printer vol. 61, no. 6 (December 20, 1915), p. 582.
 The talk was reprinted as How to Make Type Talk: The Relation of Typography to Voice Modulation by Barnard J. Lewis (Boston: The Stetson Press, Inc., 1914), p. 30.
 Annual Convention of the Associated Advertising Clubs of America vol. 8 (Boston: Pilgrim Publicity Association, 1912), p. 294. Lewis was probably Barnard J. Lewis, though the transcript identifies him as being associated with the Heintzemann Press rather than the Stetson Press. Redfield was most likely a partner in Redfield-Kendrick-Odell, a well-known New York printing firm.
 “Better Craftsmanship in 1914” in The Graphic Arts vol. V, no. 6 (December 1913), p. 354.
 “Is it Worth While to Make Dummies?” in The Graphic Arts vol. VIII, no. 1 (January 1915), p. 5.
 “Selling by Catalogue” by Percy Jacques in The Printing Art vol. XXIV, no. 6 (February 1915), pp. 473–475 and in The Printing Art vol. XXV, no. 1 (March 1915), pp. 21–24; “The Problem of the Catalogue Page” by Harry Lyman Koopman vol. XXV, no. 3 (May 1915), pp. 196–199; and “How to Build and Buy a Catalogue” by J. Gilray Cannom in The Graphic Arts vol. VI, no. 6 (June 1914), p. 277. Catalogues from American Wood Working Machinery Company, Continental Linter, Diesel Engine and Winton Six were all profiled.
 “Making the Catalogue no. 1: The First Dummy” by Adrian J. Iorio in The Graphic Arts vol. VI, no. 1 (January 1914), pp. 19–24; “Making the Catalogue no. 2: Illustration and Decoration“ by Adrian J. Iorio in The Graphic Arts vol. VI, no. 2 (February 1914), pp. 83–88; “Making the Catalogue no. 3: Engraving and Platemaking” by Adrian J. Iorio in The Graphic Arts vol. VI, no. 3 (March 1914), pp. 143–148; “Making the Catalogue no. 4: About Types and Typography” by Adrian J. Iorio in The Graphic Arts vol. VI, no. 4 (April 1914), pp. 199–203; “Making the Catalogue no. 5: Paper—A Vital Factor in Printed Salesmanship” by Adrian J. Iorio in The Graphic Arts vol. VI, no. 5 (May 1914), pp. 247–250; and “Making the Catalogue no. 6: Ink—Its Qualities and Specifications” by Adrian J. Iorio in The Graphic Arts vol. VI, no. 6 (June 1914), pp. 296–300.
 “Making the Catalogue no. 1: The First Dummy” by Adrian J. Iorio in The Printing Art vol. VI, no. 1 (January 1914), p. 19.
 It seems that “catalogue” was used in a broad sense by Iorio, Dwiggins and others to include booklets and other small commercial publications beyond those that displayed a company’s products.
 “West Point for Printers” by Max Hall in Harvard Business School Bulletin vol. 55, no. 1 (February 1979), p. 14. Despite Hall’s assertion, the real “kingpin” of the Course of Printing was D.B. Updike whose lectures on the history of printing became the basis for his celebrated book Printing Types: Their History, Forms and Use; A Study in Survivals (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1922).
 There is no description of the Catalogue Clinic in the Minute Book of The Society of Printers. See Boston Public Library, Society of Printers Archives, Box 2 Minute Books 10 November 1908–5 May 1942.
 The Printing Clinic was held 19 February 1918. See Boston Public Library, Society of Printers Archives, Box 2 Minute Books 10 November 1908–5 May 1942.
 “Drawings that Sell Goods” by Hermann Püterschein in The Printing Art vol. XXVIII, no. 2 (October 1916), pp. 97–101. The article showcased Frederic W. Goudy, T.M. Cleland, William Dorwin Teague and Dwiggins. The latter’s contribution is a fictitious advertisement for Nemesis Cigarettes.