Talk:Flong

Significant update in April 2026

I've been researching this topic for several years for online articles and books, and reworked this entry substantially to incorporate more primary references that are newly online, or were and were unlinked. For instance, the Genoux patent can be viewed at French archives, and what was previously unknown to me, a flong predecessors called flanc, I have found primary citations for. For those interested in the topic, I know there are significant changes, and I would be happy to discuss here anything that you believe is now represented incorrectly or that you believe needs more citation.

I removed a reference or two to me from the previous version, as I don't think it was a strong citation--I've included one reference to my name, as my conclusion is backed up both in a book I published (Andrews McMeel Publishing) and by an authoritative source (the Billy Ireland Cartoon Library and Museum) GlennFleishman (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Hoax?

Invented by Claude Knees indeed. Nice word though. Henrietta Street (talk) 10:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• No, it's real, see here. Hoax tag removed. JohnCD (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that this article be merged into Stereotype (printing). A flong is a key part of stereotyping, is marginally mentioned in that article, and is not found outside of the stereotype process. All the information on this page would go very well there. Further, at the present, for a topic talked quite a bit about in the letterpress printing literature, the stereotyping article is rather short. I'm not usually a merge-ist, but with all these aspects considered, this article has trouble standing outside of it and on its own. In the worst case, it can always be spun out again if need be. Morgan Riley (talk) 05:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. Flongs and stereotypes are part of the same process, but they are clearly distinct parts of it. I'm also not sure if all stereotypes require a flong, or if there are other, flongless, processes possible.

The idea that a minor, but fuller, article should be merged into the main, but weaker, article to "beef it up" isn't a good one IMHO. It might work the other way, if flong was too minor or too weak to stand alone, but putting it into stereotype as it is looks too much like WP:UNDUE and then it's just an opportunity for deletionist pruning of it on no basis whatsoever.

The best reason for merging would be that the overall article would thus end up as more readable overall for the student of printing. That's the only one that could justify it, IMHO. Do either of these topics fail to make sense out of context otherwise? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

We may be talking past each other, as I thought the later argument was the one I was making, but here's a proposal that might satisfy the concerns you expressed. I'm preparing to undertake an expansion of the stereotype article. How about a summary-style summary and hatnote linking to this article under its relevant section in the stereotype article, and leaving this one free-standing for the full history, development, and technical aspects of flongs? Cheers. Morgan Riley (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

This discussion seems to been left some time ago. As the final view was not to merge, but rather to improve each page; and as I note that flong is linked in the first sentence of Stereotype (printing), I'll remove the merge template. Klbrain (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Clarification needed

The Types of Flong - Clay paragraph includes this: "Hoe & Company included a range of plant for use with the process in their 1881 catalogue." It's not clear what "a range of plant" is supposed to mean. The text before it doesn't mention plant(s). Should this be "plates"? Those aren't mentioned in the description of the clay type of moulds either though, so it's not clear how this sentence might be helpful. I had a quick look at the sterotype section of the catalogue cited and couldn't see anything obvious that would make sense in this sentence. AKiwiDeerPin (talk) 03:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

No, it's correct as is. "Plant" is also a general term for large/heavy items of machinery. For example a printing press or a Linotype machine. See wiktionary, noun meaning #10. 82.24.247.127 (talk) 23:21, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Clarification requested

The casual reader (or at least me) would be mystified by one seemingly obvious problem. If flong is typically a form of papier mache, how could it be used as a mold for molten metal without instantly burning up? I don't see this question addressed in the article for flong or stereotypes. AustiKnight (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

The material came broadly in two forms, neither of which was papier-mâché despite many contemporary writers referring to it this way. The wet flong method from the 1850s to at least the 1910s involved sheets of tissue paper interleaved with paste and backed with blotter paper. This wet combination was dried over flames before casting and was resistant to burning up in contact with liquid lead alloy. The later form, dry flong, from roughly the 1900s onward, was formulated to be burn resistant in the combination of wood pulp and filler. The ingnition temperature was higher than that of lead particularly with such brief exposure and with lead cooling so quickly in contact with air. Semi-cylindrical casters at newspapers were further water cooled. GlennFleishman (talk) 04:11, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, that's enlightening. AustiKnight (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2026 (UTC)