Ivan Orloff and His Press

Four-color wet-printing was an important innovation in the development of commercial color printing. The printing industry in the late 19^th century had yet to develop a solution for wet-ink trapping (the printing of successive layers of wet ink on top of wet ink). Standard practice for three- and four-color printing was to let the ink dry between the printing of successive separations. Attempts at printing wet-on-wet using available inks resulted in incomplete ink transfer and the dirtying of color via back transfer of ink from one plate to another.

The invention of four-color wet-printing ink technology, which made possible high-speed four-color production in the magazine industry, is commonly attributed to the  Eagle Printing Ink Company.^​2,3​ Their Eagle “Quad Inks” were likely first put into commercial use in 1908 when the Cottrell Multi-color Rotary Press was used to print the first appearance of the Lettie Lane paper dolls in the October 1908 issue of the Ladies’ Home Journal. However, wet-printing inks were regularly used for securities printing more than a decade before Cottrell introduced the Multi-color Rotary Press.^​*​ Below is the story of the original wet-printing ink technology, the man who invented it, and the man who tried unsuccessfully to market it as the next revolution in multi-color process printing. 

Ivan Ivanovich Orloff (also written as “Orlov” or “Orlof” in English) was the Chief Engineer and Manager of the Russian Government Printing Works in St. Petersburg. He applied for a United States patent on June 3, 1897 for a “Multicolor Printing Press,” which he began working on in 1890 and put into production in 1892. The patent, granted in 1899, describes a machine in which wet ink from several different printing plates was sequentially applied to an offset printing cylinder. The image from the offset cylinder, which contained multiple superimposed wet inks, was transferred at once to the paper.^​4​ An account of the press from 1899 is given below:

As appears from examination, the Orloff machine represents an undoubtedly successful attempt to print in several colours at one impression—a project heretofore regarded as utterly impossible by practical printers. The machine on exhibit is built on the rotary principle, [and] possesses two large cylinders (for forme and impression respectively) and one small cylinder. Over the forme cylinder is a series of ink ducts, and almost at the foot of the same cylinder are substantial composition rollers for transfer purposes. A pneumatic arrangement of novel and ingenious construction replaces the usual gripper arrangement to feed the paper, and tape carriers deposit the printed product on to a delivery board fitted with [a] knocking-up apparatus. The feeding and delivery boards are at the same end of the machine, the one above the other.

The forme cylinder [has] a grooved surface arranged to allow [for] locking on plates, and adjusting the same in any position, with absolute accuracy. At the time of our examination the cylinder bore a set of seven blocks arranged about the cylinder face, and all curved so as to be parallel with the cylinder surface. At one revolution of the forme cylinder each forme or block receives [its] requisite supply of ink from its own rollers. The various printing surfaces then transfer their designs to the composition rollers—from which the complete series is transferred to the final block, or forme, as it may be called, and from this the full design in all its colours is transferred at one action to paper.^​5​

Initially designed for securities printing (currency, checks, etc.) with intaglio plates, the press was adapted in Western Europe for relief (letterpress) plates for three- and four-color applications. Special care had to be taken to ensure precise mounting and make-ready of each plate on the form cylinder, with the thinnest of materials used to fine tune the packing.

In addition to the press, Orloff also patented a “Process of superimposing printing-inks” (applied for on August 19, 1899 and granted on April 24, 1900), which describes the problem of wet-printing inks as one of ink strength, or tack.^​6​ Below is a description of the problem from Orloff’s 1899 patent:

In multicolor-printing…it has been hitherto impossible to imprint fresh colors upon each other, and thereby obtain an unvaried clean color tone throughout the copies of one impression, as, first, when imprinting the second color upon the first one the former is not fully transferred to the latter, and, second, the first color will be partially transferred back to the second color-plate, this twofold defect occurring on the impression of each following color. In consequence thereof the surface to be printed upon does not receive the due quantity of each color to give the proper color tone required, while at the same time the colors of the several color-forms are soiled and clouded by the retrogressive transfer of colors, so as to more and more change their proper color tone and for their part transfer clouded colors to the impression-surface instead of the proper clean colors they should transfer. Thus the several copies of one impression will successively change the color tone, which finally degenerates into a uniformly-smurched gray tint.^​6​

Orloff found that the ink sequence had to be constructed such that a weaker ink, one of less tack, was printed on a stronger ink. The order of inks laid down would always be from strongest to weakest. Ink strength was varied using different concentrations of varnish in the ink. Orloff continued:

Now I have discovered that by the contact of two fresh colored or inked surfaces a mutual transfer of the colors from and to either surface does not take place, excepting in the case of both colors or inks being of the same “strength,” this word being understood by the craft to designate that quality of colors which results from the respective proportions of their viscosity, consistence, and adhesive power, but that by the contact of two surfaces provided with colors or inks or different strength the color of less strength passes over to that of greater strength.

My invention is not limited to any mode of preparing colors or inks of different degrees of strength. As to the common printing inks and colors this object will be generally and preferably attained by conveniently regulating the proportion of varnish contained therein, and under same conditions in other respects the strength of a color or ink decreases in the measure as the proportion of varnish. However, the degree of strength is not throughout the same for any colors which may contain the same percentage of varnish; but it will easily be possible by experience to find for any color the proportion of varnish needed to give it a predetermined degree of strength, and thus arrange any number of colors in a given succession of strength.^​6​

Orloff implemented this technology using an offset printing composition cylinder to avoid warping of the substrate as it became diluted with varnish between the printing of each separation. The rubber composition cylinder would hold the ink in a precise position. By transferring all colors at one time the paper would not warp and would hold the precise registration required for securities printing, the intended end-use of the press.

By 1897, the Russian Government had deployed 32 of Orloff’s presses at the Imperial Printing Works, producing Russian currency bank notes and securities for the Chinese Government and other countries.^​7,8​ The Russian currency contained “elaborate interlaced designs made up of fine lines which have the most intricate variations of color.”^​9​ These intricate variations in color transitioning through detailed line work were only possible using the exacting registration of the Orloff press. Many images of Rubles from the Russian Empire that bear these intricate designs can be found online. One such example is shown below.

Satisfied with Orloff’s work, the Russian Government allowed Orloff to license his patents internationally. The Orloff printing process was used to print Russian and Soviet securities well into the 20^th century.

Orloff, originally an engineer in the textile industry before transitioning to printing, did not appear to take an active role in the marketing of his press in the West. That venture was taken up by William Hardcastle Ward, born in 1842, proprietor of the printing company, W.H. Ward and Co. William Ward formed Printing Arts Co., Ltd. in 1899 to take over the property of W.H. Ward and Co. and to acquire international rights to the Orloff patents.^​10​ A second U.S. patent for the “Multicolor-printing machine” was filed by Orloff on April 10, 1899 and assigned to the Printing Arts Co., Ltd.^​11​ This patent was given priority over the original “Multicolor Printing Press” patent, granted in September of 1899, and marks the beginning of William’s marketing campaign for the Orloff Press. Interestingly, it doesn’t appear Orloff licensed his ink patent, for which he applied on April 19, 1899, only 9 days after the application filing date for the second Multicolor-Printing machine patent. 

It’s unclear how William first became aware of the Orloff press, or why he, of all the printers working at the time, was the one to bring the press on its global tour. However, his ambition was undeniable, evident from years of struggle to break from the family business, Marcus Ward & Co., Ltd.,^​†​ which his grandfather started in the early 1800s in Belfast, Ireland, and of which he was a director. Marcus Ward & Co. was well regarded for it’s chromo-lithography, which it employed for the production of stationery, Christmas cards, and the like, although they sold other publishing services as well.^​12​

By 1874, Marcus Ward & Co. had expanded and operated in a plant of 1.5 million cubic feet and covering 4.5 acres, known as Royal Ulster Works, in Bankmore. The facility contained everything needed for a rapidly globalizing business, including offices, a paper store, large letterpress and lithographic machine rooms, a composing room next to the letterpress room, and storage for “thousands of lithographic stones vertically arranged in wooden racks, numbered and registered to ensure ready access.”^​12​

It is around this time that we see growing friction between William Ward and his half-brother and business partner, Francis Ward, President of Marcus Ward & Co. William pushed for the creation of a New York branch, which opened in 1876. He was already splitting his time between Great Britain and the U.S., having married his wife, Emma Ireland in Philadelphia in 1874.^​13​ William placed his brother-in-law, Alfred Ireland, then working in the paper business in Philadelphia, at the helm of the New York branch on 734 Broadway.^​14​ The relationship between William and Francis dissolved over the next 10 years. William contributed much effort to the growth of Marcus Ward & Co., the only one of the partners to frequently travel and marketed the company outside Ireland.^​15​

Since its opening, the lease on 734 Broadway had been renewed several times. In 1887, Francis ordered a long-time employee, John Glenn, to assume control of the New York branch from Alfred Ireland. The specific events that transpired thereafter are not entirely clear, but it seems that William and Alfred had planned to relocate the office and did not renew the lease. Francis and Marcus Ward & Co. planned to take out a new lease on 734 Broadway, with John Glenn installed as manager. This move by Francis alarmed William. In haste, William directed Alfred to renew the lease in their names (William Ward and Alfred Ireland), not in the name of Marcus Ward and Co. As would be discovered by Francis, William was producing his own print products (stationery and the like) in Ireland with markings that resembled those of Marcus Ward and Co., and selling them in America, as products of W.H. Ward & Co. He was operating his own business out of a space leased by Marcus Ward & Co., selling products under the guise of Marcus Ward & Co., while continuing to serve as a major shareholder and director of Marcus Ward & Co.^​16,17​ Thus, the battle lines were drawn.

The first battle was fought at the store itself. The act of William taking out the lease in his and Alfred’s name “was interpreted by Mr. Glenn as an attempt to prevent him from taking charge on May 1 [1888], and acting under the advice of counsel he discharged all of the employees and with the aid of a posse of detectives took possession of the premises and held the fort against the enemy. “^​14​ William was now shut out of the building and Glenn continued to run the store as an operation of Marcus Ward & Co. even though the lease was in the name of William and Alfred.

The case of “Marcus Ward & Co. (Limited) vs. W.H. Ward & Co.” came up in the New York Supreme Court in 1889, in which Marcus Ward & Co. argued that W.H. Ward & Co. should not be able to sell goods with the markings “Marcus Ward’s Son” or “late of the firm of Marcus Ward & Co.”^​18​ The judge ruled in favor of W.H. Ward & Co., arguing that, while it would be unlawful for W.H. Ward & Co. to sell products using the Marcus Ward & Co. trademark, it was not unlawful for them to state that the fact that Ward was formerly of that firm.^​15​

One article discussing the legal details of the case mentioned that Marcus Ward & Co. got an injunction to stop W.H. Ward & Co. from using anything related or proprietary to Marcus Ward & Co. However, Marcus Ward & Co. got the injunction exparte (“without party”),^​‡​ meaning the injunction was granted without notifying or receiving input from W.H. Ward & Co., as per proper legal procedures. In addition to the reasoning mentioned above, the New York Supreme Court judge also found the reasoning behind the granting of the exparte injunction insufficient, which didn’t help Marcus Ward & Co.’s case either. In the end, no damages were awarded, and W.H. Ward & Co. was allowed to carry on with their business.

At some point in the late 1880s, or early 1890s, W.H. Ward & Co. partnered with the Swan Electric Engraving Company, located in London on Charing Cross Road. The firm’s founder, Sir Joseph Swan, invented and manufactured photographic dry plates and other photographic materials.^​19​ He also invented and manufactured his own electric light bulbs in a company that later merged with Thomas Edison’s. Swan formed the the Swan Electric Engraving Company in 1885, producing high quality photomechanical halftones, such as those for the 1883 book, ‘The Poetry of Architecture’ by John Ruskin,^​20​ and a reproduction of J. H. Lorimer’s ‘Ordination of Elders in a Scottish Kirk.’^​21​ It is unclear how W. H. Ward & Co. became attached to Swan. We know Ward traveled frequently throughout Great Britain in the 1880s, so it is likely that he was aware of Swan through his reputation, and perhaps sought him out as a partner when Swan was forming the Electric Engraving Company. Swan’s son, Donald Cameron Swan was also a partner in the firm. The partnership between William and the Swan Electric Engraving Company dissolved in 1894.^​22​ Frederick Ives, the renowned innovator of many photomechanical processes, became a consultant for Swan in that same year.

Now operating W.H. Ward & Co. independently, William pursued his next business venture, the Orloff Press. William brought the press to London and invested heavily in its marketing, as evidenced by numerous accounts of the technology published between 1899 and 1900. The original London demonstration contained two different layouts in the one impression. One half of the art contained a floral design of four colors without overlying colors, perhaps not unlike the example below:

The floral design was used to demonstrate the press’s precise registration and fitness for printing maps and similar graphic work. The other half of the art was a three-color print with overlays, although it was evidently not a great demonstration of three-color printing. William promised more three-color specimens would be produced to prove its viability for broader markets. 

It is unclear whether William did in fact produce better examples of three-color printing. The Orloff press initially inspired much fanfare, but printing industry writers did not buy-in so easily.^{​23–25​} A writer in the July 1899 edition of The Process Photogram stated that “in spite of Mr. Ward’s authority we must admit to feeling slightly skeptical especially in view of the fact that even Mr. Ward himself has not tested the printing of what can be called an ordinary three-color subject.”^​7​ Ward had yet to prove he could produce three-color work that delivered the same quality as the common wet-on-dry printing method.

The Printing Arts Co. showed the Orloff Press at the 1900 Paris Exposition. One writer in The American Printer described how the Orloff printing process would ensure precise registration over an entire job since it prevented the paper from deforming between the printing of each color block: “This, at all events, is what the promoters claim.” He then stated (suggesting live demos were not actually performed), “if the machine fulfills its promise it will enormously extend the use of color printing in books and magazines without lowering the quality and with considerable diminution in the cost of the work.”^​26​ The Printing Arts Co. took an ad out in the 1902-1903 edition of Penrose’s Pictorial Annual. While this ad demonstrates the fine registration the Orloff press was capable of producing, it does not demonstrate the production of three- or four-color overprints.

The only example I could find of (what appears to be) multi-color process printing by Printing Arts Co. were a few plates containing images of painted stones from a 1902 publication called Rariora.^​28​ However, it is unclear whether the Orloff Press was used to produce these plates.

Enthusiasm for the Orloff Press in the U.S. seems to have died down by 1903. William found himself in London Bankruptcy Court after a lawsuit suite was brought by shareholders in the Printing Arts Co. This may have been a personal bankruptcy. According to an attorney I consulted:

The clipping^​29​ talks about the “failure” of the debtor and asserts his personal residence as an asset. It lists up his assets, former business shares, claimed monies and debts to be accounted for by the receiver/trustee and to be used to pay off the creditors. A personal bankruptcy is like a liquidation bankruptcy and gives the heavily indebted individual a “clean slate” to start again & build a new business, so it’s a favorable option if he didn’t have any money left…If this was about the company’s bankruptcy, Ward wouldn’t have been liable for its payments to the creditors – unless he had put his own personal assets as collateral to the company’s loans or signed himself personally to the company’s debts.

Personnel Correspondence, July 2020

By 1904, Printing Arts Co. was under a receivership managed by a W.B. Peat, of London.^​30​

William Gamble, recounting the history of “Modern Colour Processes” in 1910, discussed the early promise of the Orloff Press and the later realization that the press was only suited for the printing of light tones required for securities printing: “The Orloff press, which was an elaborately constructed machine for four or five colours, seemed at first promising…It was found that this machine. was only adapted for light tinted blocks, such as are used for bank note and cheque printing, and to this class of work the machine has now been consigned.”^​31​ Of course, securities printing was the original intent of the press, and it continued to be used for that purpose for the next 100 years. The Orloff process (printing multiple colors upon a single composition cylinder then transferring thereafter onto the substrate) is now commonly used for intaglio securities printing by countries all over the world, including the United States and Russia.^{​32–34​}

William’s failure to market the Orloff Press for three-color printing is no mark on Orloff, but perhaps was a misapplication of the technology and/or a result of the printing technology coming to market before the invention of suitable inks and substrates for process work. The Orloff Press was designed to print intricate line work with gradual color transitions. Orloff may have envisioned other countries implementing his technology for securities printing when he began licensing his patents. A Belgian, Henri Diez, acquired the Belgian rights to Orloff’s patents in 1897.^​35​ Shares for La Gutenberg, containing an intricate, multi-color floral pattern, were printed in 1898 under the name of Diez’s firm. However, the printing itself was carried out by the Russian State Security House for whom Orloff worked.^​§​

That Orloff’s press and process became so widely used in the securities printing industry is a testament to the validity and staying power of his invention. A strong argument can be made for Orloff as the inventor, and the first to successfully commercialize “wet-printing” inks and the techniques for printing them.

Three-color printing requires the printing of shadows with a considerable density. Ink must be efficiently transferred from the press to the substrate. Orloff’s thinking about wet-printing inks, reducing the strength (the tack) of each subsequent ink layer,^​6​ was correct. Managing the transfer of inks from one surface to another is challenging enough, but doing this twice, as in Orloff’s process, likely reduced the maximum printable density to a point where shadows could not be printed with enough coverage for three-color work. The process of manufacturing and making-ready letterpress plates was difficult and may also have contributed to the poor performance of the press for process printing. Techniques for making-ready electrotype letterpress plates for presses using a common impression cylinder were not invented until the McKee Process and the release of the Cottrell Multicolor Rotary Press around 1908.^​36​

As trends in England and the United States were leaning toward multi-color printing, it’s no surprise that William sought to capitalize on a new, innovative technology, and nobody can fault him for that. Nevertheless, it’s probably safe to say that the origination of four-color wet-ink printing, or at least the first commercially successful implementation, was by McKee and the Eagle Printing Ink Company between 1905 and 1908.

William’s life following his bankruptcy is still a mystery. I do remember reading that he made his way to San Francisco, although I cannot find that reference. However, it’s clear the reputation of Ivan Orloff has lived on. His name is imprinted on a prominent intaglio printing press and Goznack, the Russian securities printing company, released a commemorative banknote with Orloff’s likeness on one side, and an illustration of his press on the reverse, for the 159th anniversary of his birth.