The watermark pair is named using a dual classification system. For ease of comparison with Greg’s watermark drawings I have retained and extended Greg's system of numbering. In the heading I first give Greg's number, followed by my own reference. Where two of Greg’s drawings turn out to be twins, I indicate the pair with a backslash between the numbers: 1\14, etc. Where a single Greg drawing or pair of drawings actually represents multiple pairs with similar designs I add .1, .2, etc. to the number(s). Numbers higher than 27 indicate marks not found by Greg. The only significance to the numbers themselves is that they indicate, for the most part, the sequence in which the watermarks were encountered. I follow the Greg/Hailey number with a form of reference notation that names the watermark pair. I developed the system essentially to serve as a shorthand mnemonic for categorizing the large number of watermarks that are encountered in books like the Pavier quartos which are printed on heavily mixed paper stocks. A sample reference, in this case for Greg's mark 2, would read: BPOT: R/LM. The initial superscript indicates whether the watermark is centered on (O) or between (B) chainlines (in the Pavier quartos all but Greg's 15\16 are centered between chainlines). The second element identifies the basic design of the watermark, following which I add particular distinguishing features like the initials R over LM which appear on the belly of this POT. If the initials are uncertain, I follow them with a question mark. Sometime there are what appear to be initials, but they are so indistinct as to be unidentifiable. Here I simply substitute a question mark for the (presumed) letters. In other cases, especially when no initials are present, I may add several word of description; for example one of the new marks I encountered is dubbed "BPOT: neck w/ vertical stripes." Some of Greg's drawings actually represent more than one pair in circumstances where the manufacturer has repeated a design in a second (or more) set of moulds. In this situation I mimic software manufacturers by adding a .1, .2, etc. to the descriptor; for example, Greg's mark 6 turns out actually to be two pairs bearing a similar design: BPOT: GL.1 and BPOT: GL.2. If I need to refer specifically to one or the other twin rather than the pair as a whole, a final superscript "a" or "b" distinguishes the twins that make up the watermark pair, e.g. BPOT: R/LMa and BPOT: R/LMb. Since the default for watermark pairs is to have one twin's mark centered in the right half of the sheet and the other in the left, in the absence of a following discriminator the "a" twin may be assumed to be a right-centered mark and the "b" twin left centered, as viewed from the felt side of the sheet. In cases where both marks are centered in the same half of the mould I add an [L] or [R] to the twin which does not match this default: i.e., in a pair with both twins centered to the left I add an [L] to the reference for the "a" twin: BPOT: BLa [L]; in a pair with both twins centered to the right I add a [R] to the reference for the "b" twin: BSHIELD: RGb [R]. Of the thirty-five watermark pairs for which both twins have been identified, twenty-three are [R]/[L], eight are [R]/[R], and four are [L]/[L].




Each watermark is represented by a careful hand drawing as viewed from the felt side of the sheet, which I reproduce as closely as I can to its original scale. Each individual of the watermark pair is headed by its reference notation, beneath which I provide measurements of the approximate height of the watermark and the space between its attendant chainlines in the form: “ca. 72 x 21.5 mm”. The height measurement is “circa” because watermarks in quarto are divided by the gutter, with inevitable loss of some portion of the middle of the watermark. In making my drawings I estimate the missing bit, leaving a space between the top and bottom portions. But the estimation may be more or less than the actual gap. It is a time-honored but dangerous practice to attempt to identify watermarks by measuring them; the measurements that count, as I argue in the article, are the chainspace measurements. And in combination with the chainspace model, even a drawing with a bare midriff is perfectly adequate for positive identification.

Beneath the drawing I identify the work, library, copy, and page(s) from which the drawing was made, in the following form:

F(8) gathering Z: 2r/3v

Here the top of the drawing came from 2r, the bottom from 3v.




The data is displayed in the following form:


BPOT: R/LMa 12 exemplars; average chainspace 21.20; wirelines 33

%10 | 15.5 | 23 | 20.5 | 20.5 | 19.5 | 23.5 | 22.5 | 22 | 19 | 9}
                                                          {11.5 | 21 | 23 | 20 | 19.5 | 22.5 | 20.5 | 20 | 23 | 13.5 | 13%

BPOT: R/LMb 12 exemplars; average chainspace 21.16; wirelines 34

%12 | 14 | 22.5 | 21 | 20.5 | 23.5 | 20.5 | 21 | 21.5 | 21 | 14}
                                                              {13 | 18 | 22.5 | 20.5 | 21.5 | 22 | 21.5 | 21.5 | 21 | 16 | 9

Each of the twins is named using its reference notation followed by the number of exemplars whose chainlines have been measured, the average width of its chainspaces, and a measure of the mould’s wireline density per 3 cm. (For a brief period I failed to record wireline densities for some papers; in these cases a "?" will replace the number. I will supply the missing densities as I am able.) Whenever possible I gather chainspace data from 7-10 examples of a given mark and transfer the measurements to an EXCEL spreadsheet which I use to produce a composite model by averaging the measurements for each individual space. While a model made up from 7-8 exemplars will be somewhat more accurate than one with only 2-3, even a model built with only a few exemplars will usually permit certainty of recognition.

Having formed the composite model, I then establish the average width of all full non-tranchefile chainspaces. (Tranchefiles, which appear fairly often in papers from this period, are extra chainlines between the last regular chainline and the side or the mould. Unlike regular chainlines, tranchefiles are not anchored to a supporting wooden rib.) The average chainspace width for a pair of moulds is generally exceptionally close, in the present example, BPOT: R/LM, a difference of only .04 mm. (See pp. 159-160 of the article for my arguments about the evidentiary value of average chainspace widths.)

In displaying the composite chainspace model I use the following conventions. The chainlines are indicated with vertical strokes, the numbers between them are the chainspace measurements; I indicate the position of the watermark in the sequence by bolding and italicizing the measurement of the space between its attendant chainlines. If the mark is centered between chainlines, as are nearly all of the Pavier examples, a typical sequence will appear like this:

5.5 | 20 | 23.5 | 22.5 | 21.5 | 19.5 | 21 | 21.5 | 21 | 14}
                                                               {17.5 |20 | 22.5 | 21 | 20 | 21 | 20 | 20.5 | 20

When a watermark is centered between chainlines, the typical sequence will appear like this:

19 | 18.5 | 18.5 | 20 | 18 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 20.5 | 17}
                                                         {18.5 | 18.5 | 20 | 20 | 19.5 | 20 | 19 | 20 | 18 |17

Curly braces indicate a gap or gaps in the model. In quarto, the gap in the middle of the model represents the slight loss occasioned by the opening and trimming of the top edge during binding. (Very occasionally the combination of copies allow for a quarto model with no center gap.) The measurements before and after the gap are the widest encountered, the measurements at either end of the model are from the largest copy examined; if a deckle edge is present in any copy, it is indicated with a percent sign (%).




The descriptions of the unwatermarked stock differ only in that they are identified only by number--no reference notation being possible--and, rather obviously, there are no drawings.




The Studies in Bibliography article contains the following sequence and summary tables that show the distribution of paperstocks by forme in the Pavier quartos:

  1. Sequence tables: Watermarks by gathering in the plays
  2. Summary tables: Watermarks in individual plays
  3. Summary table: Watermarks in all plays




I have chosen to identify the copies using STC library symbols simply for their brevity. To facilitate comparison with Greg’s chart the first four copies listed for each title are those examined by Greg, who used the following symbols: "C = Capell copy at Trinity Cambridge; G = Garrick copy at the British Museum [now British Library]; M = Malone copy at the Bodleian; H = the copy in possession of Mr. Huth [now at the Elizabethan Club]." In cases where a library holds more than one copy of a title, I have added a parenthetical number following the library code: i.e. F(1), F(2), F(3), etc.

Trinity Cambridge
British Library
Elizabethan Club, Yale
Folger Shakespeare Library
Houghton Library, Harvard
Beinecke Library, Yale
New York Public Library
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newberry Library
Huntington Library
Victoria and Albert Museum
National Library of Scotland
Edinburgh University Library