An ex-forewoman in bookbinding, who knew the London trade well, stated that much less trouble is taken with learners now than formerly. In her own case she was apprenticed without indentures for two years, and learned "all the branches right through," old work included. Another forewoman in work stated she was in training for four years: two years at bookbinding, one year at vellum work, and one year at stationery.] Of the firms about which we have information for bookwork and printers' folding, seven require a three years' training; twenty, two years; thirty-three, one and a half years; nineteen, one year; two, fifteen months; and seven, periods under a year. Eleven firms have no settled apprenticeship time, advancement depending entirely on the quickness of the learner. In places where gold laying-on is done the same time is usually served as for the other branches, _i.e._, from a few weeks to three years. In the case of vellum work, seven firms require three years; eight, two years; three, one and a half years; one, one and a half to two years; two, six months; and eight, no settled time. In some of these firms, however, a genuine attempt to teach apprentices is made;[56] and in at least one large and well-known London house the system of indenture has been revived, owing to the difficulty which was experienced in retaining girls after they became competent. On the other hand, several well-known firms have ceased to employ learners because they are too troublesome, and depend upon women trained elsewhere. But we have found that in only a very few cases is the beginner, whether an apprentice or not, thoroughly taught every process of her trade. She is generally put to one process and kept at it, so that the mechanical dexterity she may acquire is in no sense genuine trade skill.[57] This distinction between trade skill and mechanical dexterity in one process must be kept in mind as a fundamental consideration in every problem concerning the woman wage-earner.