Blue Pencil no. 48—One Hundred Books Famous in Typography, Part 9 [Fifty Typefaces Famous in Typography]

Note: When I began this dissection it was intended as a single post—even as it grew much longer than expected. However, I was forced to break it up into smaller chunks when I ran into an unexplained “failure error” when trying to save the draft one day. Rather than try to break up the dissection into equally sized posts based on word counts, I decided instead to make separate posts based on the divisions used in the Grolier Club exhibition for the one hundred books entries; and on divisions in the catalogue for the material that was not part of the exhibition (e.g. foreword, introduction, Fifty Typefaces Famous in Typography, bibliography, etc.). Note that the divisions used in the exhibition itself (e.g. “The Golden Age” or Looking Back”) were abandoned for the catalogue.

---

pp. 263–314
Fifty Typefaces Famous in Typography

This 51-page section of One Hundred Books Famous in Typography is a puzzle. Although it is listed in the table of contents, it seems to appear out of nowhere. It was not part of the exhibition installed at the Grolier Club and it is missing from the online exhibition. Furthermore, there is no mention of it in the Introduction and no separate note explaining its presence at the beginning of the section. Why is it here? And why is it here in this particular form?

I cannot pretend to know what Kelly was thinking, but I can speculate. This section was surely a post-exhibition idea, a realization that there was room in the catalogue for material that could not be displayed at the Grolier Club. Given that many of the books that comprise One Hundred Books Famous in Typography were chosen for their typefaces rather than for their content or their typography, it would be logical to include additional information about them. But instead of showing enlarged details from the one hundred books of the exhibition, Kelly has inexplicably chosen to display—with seven exceptions—digital “interpretations” of historic metal typefaces. This decision is not explained. Here is the entirety of Kelly’s introductory text for the Fifty Typefaces Famous in Typography:

“Marconi, Lucida, Minion, Meta and Trajan are ‘born’ digital fonts. All of the other types displayed on the following pages were originally produced in metal, but are shown in their digital renderings (except for the Gutenberg Bible and Theuerdank typefaces, which are photographically reproduced from printed pages). The original designers for the digital interpretations are given, along with the type company that issued the interpretation.” p. 263

This text leaves much to be desired. Many crucial points about the intrinsic nature of metal types as well as about the process and decisions underlying revivals of them—whether metal, film, or digital—are completely sidestepped. The choice of the word “interpretation” rather than the more common “revival” deserves an explanation. Punchcutters such as Garamont, Caslon, and Bodoni carved many typefaces in their careers, each of them being size dependent and sometimes more than one at a specific size and in a specific style such as roman, italic, or blackletter. Thus, the first question to be asked of a digital font is exactly which type (style, version, and size) by an individual is being interpreted. Secondly, what is the source material for the interpretation? Is it a proof from surviving punches, a sample of the type in a book or other printed item, or, in the case of most 20th century type designers, original drawings? In the case of sources printed by letterpress, has the effect of ink squash been taken into account? Thirdly, does the original source provide a complete character set necessary for the interpretation to be functional today? Have missing characters such as w or lining figures; or modern characters such as @ or the Euro currency symbol had to be invented? Finally, how faithful is the digital typeface to its source—and is absolute fidelity the proper goal? All of these questions are bound up in any digital interpretation of a typeface originally created in a different medium, whether metal wood, or even film. These are important issues that Kelly needed to at least raise, if not discuss at some length. (See the Introduction to my Revival Type: Digital Typefaces Inspired by the Past [New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017].)

There is no background information provided for any of Kelly’s Fifty Typefaces Famous in Typography so none of the points I have outlined above are even touched on in specific instances. The only information about each typeface is a sidebar caption indicating its name, designer and date, interpreter, digital foundry, and a link to one of the books in the main part of the catalogue (e.g. “Garamond Roman / Claude Garamond c.1540 / Interpreted by Robert Slimbach / Adobe / See no. 16″ p. 270). Nearly all of these elements is incomplete (or flat-out wrong) for nearly all fifty typefaces. For instance, in this example the correct information, following Kelly’s formulation, is: Adobe Garamond Premier Pro Display / Claude Garamont Gros canon 1548 / Interpreted by Robert Slimbach / Adobe 2006”. However, it would be better in this manner: “Adobe Garamond Premier Pro Display / based on Gros canon 1548 / by Claude Garamont / Interpreted by Robert Slimbach / Adobe 2006”. There is no direct link since no. 16 was printed with a different type by Garamont. Furthermore, for several typefaces, there are multiple possible digital interpretations and Kelly has not indicated why his choice is the best of them.

Kelly’s captions, despite their brevity (or maybe because of it), are so garbled that this section of One Hundred Books Famous in Typography has seriously worsened the already muddled identification of the lineage of digital typefaces and their forebears. In what follows I have tried my best—without engaging in a series of mini-essays—to correct his unequivocal errors and to clarify his tangled information.

Why Kelly chose to profile only fifty typefaces rather than one hundred is unexplained. Certainly, not all of the books in One Hundred Books Famous in Typography have an important typeface associated with them. But thirty-five of them are closely linked to either a specific typeface, punchcutter, or type designer; and another thirty-four could be easily tied to an individual digital typeface or, in the case of a few books such as Twentieth-Century Type Designers by Sebastian Carter (no. 86), more than one.

The order of the typefaces is as confusing as the order of the books. It is not stylistic and only partially chronological.

---

p. 265 42-Line Bible Type [B-42 Type] / Peter Schöffer & Johann Gutenberg c.1440 / Interpreted by Alan C. Waring and Theo Rehak at the Dale Guild 2000 / See no. 1

• Russell Maret says that, “When it was formed in the 1970s, the Dale Guild was intended to be a wide-ranging organization that covered everything from women’s rights and secession from the Union to bell founding and mosaic making.”

• There are two online articles about the making of the B-42 Type, as the Dale Guild refers to the design: “A Serious Attempt at Reproducing Gutenberg’s B-42 Types Part One: The Commission” 
by Alan C. Waring and “A Serious Attempt at Reproducing Gutenberg’s B-42 Types Part Two: Seizing Ordered Chaos” by Theo Rehak. Waring candidly points out that, “the typeface that Theo and I have seized in metal is close to Gutenberg’s B-42 types, but they are not his types. Without the original punches or matrices, no one can cast the types seen in the 42-line Bible.” They based their design on the Idion/Verlag facsimile collotype reproduction (Munich 1977–1978) of a copy of the Gutenberg Bible.

• The B-2 Type has only 211 characters in the showing on this page. Kelly, in his text for the Gutenberg Bible (no. 1) says that Gutenberg cast “about 250 sorts”. Russell Maret, in his article about The Dale Guild for Parenthesis 40, says there were 292 characters. My counting of the characters in the Gottfried Zedler image totals 299.

• A fairly faithful digital version of Gutenberg’s textura (other than the addition of characters such as roman numerals, currency signs, etc.) is ALOT Gutenberg B.

---

p. 266 Centaur / Nicolas Jenson 1470 /Interpreted by Bruce Rogers 1914 / Monotype Corporation 1929 / See nos. 3 and 51 [and no. 69]

• Bruce Rogers’ Centaur may have been derived from Jenson’s roman of 1470, but it is not as accurate a rendition as Adobe Jenson by Robert Slimbach (1996).

---

p. 267 Bembo Pro / Francesco Griffo & Aldus Manutius 1495 / Interpreted by Stanley Morison 1929 / Monotype Corporation 1929 / See no. 6 [and no. 69]

• Why does Aldus get partial credit when Griffo was the punchcutter?

---

p. 268 Cloister Italic (with roman capitals in Aldine style) / Francesco Griffo & Aldus Manutius 1500 / Interpreted by Morris Fuller Benton / ATF [American Type Founders] 1914 / See no. 7 [and no. 55]

• The “roman capitals in Aldine style” are actually small capitals taken from Cloister Oldstyle. Mac McGrew says, “Cloister Oldstyle… follows quite closely the noted roman face used by Nicolas Jenson in 1470, but is slightly heavier to compensate for the improved printing conditions and smoother papers of the present time. Cloister Italic… is based on an italic cast by Aldus Manutius in 1501, but does not follow this as closely as the roman does its source.” (American Metal Typefaces of the Twentieth Century by Mac McGrew [New Castle, Delaware: Oak Knoll Books, 1993], p. 95.) One key difference between Griffo’s italic and Benton’s design is the plethora of ligatures in the former (see the above images).

• The digital versions of Cloister Oldstyle and Cloister Italic shown here were designed by Phil Martin in 1975 as Cloister and are currently marketed by URW Font Foundry.

---

p. 269 Epigrammata / Peter Schöffer the Younger 1510 [sic] / Interpreted by Jerry Kelly / Nonpareil Typefoundry 2007 / See no. 25 [p. 83]

The typeface’s longevity is accentuated by the fact that it appears not only on the title page of the quarto edition of Medailles du Roi (1702) but also in its text. Vervliet says that the earliest datable appearance of Peter II Schoeffer’s Two-line English (Lettres du deux points de Saint-augustin) [R 8.3] was in 1517 and that it was used by small printing shops up to the eighteenth century. However, he does not mention it being used by the Imprimerie Royale. (See The Palaeotypography of the French Renaissance: Selected Papers on Sixteenth-century Typefaces by Hendrik D.L. Vervliet (Leiden: Brill, 2008), vol. 1, p. 150.)

---

p. 270 Garamond Roman / Claude Garamond c.1540 / Interpreted by Robert Slimbach / Adobe 2006 / See no. 16 [and nos. 84 and 97]

• The digital version of Garamond [sic] shown here is Adobe Garamond Premier Pro Display by Robert Slimbach (2006). It is based on Claude Garamont’s Gros Canon, dated 1548 in The Palaeotypography of the French Renaissance: Selected Papers on Sixteenth-century Typefaces by Hendrik D.L. Vervliet (Leiden: Brill, 2008), vol. 1, p. 155; and 1549 in French Renaissance Printing Types: A Conspectus by Hendrik D.L. Vervliet (London: The Bibliographical Society and The Printing Historical Society; New Castle, Delaware: Oak Knoll Press, 2010), p. 229 where it is called Two-line Double Pica Roman. Slimbach had previously designed Adobe Garamond where the roman was based on Garamont’s 1557 Paragon type. That typeface later became the basis for the Adobe Garamond Premier Pro Subhead roman.

---

p. 271 Garamond Italic / Claude Garamond c.1540 / Interpreted by Robert Slimbach / Adobe 2006 / See no. 17 [nos. 84 and 97]

• The digital version of Garamond Italic shown here is Adobe Garamond Premier Pro Display Italic by Robert Slimbach (2006). It is based on Robert Granjon’s 1554 Paragon (Petit-parangon) Italic (Vervliet 2008, vol. 1, p. 324), but Slimbach has significantly altered a number of characters (e.g. Y, Q, v, w, and z).

---

p. 272 Garamond Greek / Claude Garamond c.1550 / Interpreted by Robert Slimbach / Adobe / See no. 14 [and no. 97]

• The digital version shown here is Adobe Garamond Premier Pro Greek designed by Robert Slimbach (2006) with advice from Gerry Leonidas. It is not closely based on any of the three sizes of Garamont’s grecs du roi. Konstantinos Siskakis has designed KS Grecque, an OpenType compatible version of the Grecs du Roi, complete with the complicated ligatures that distinguish that typeface.

---

p. 273 Lucida Greek / Kris Holmes & Chuck Bigelow 1985 / Bigelow & Holme / See no. 89

• It is unclear what typeface is shown here as there is no Lucida Greek. Bigelow and Holmes designed Lucida, the first member of the Lucida family, in 1983 using Ikarus software (hence the link to no. 89). They subsequently created Lucida Sans Greek (Sun Microsystems 1994), Lucida Console Greek (Microsoft 1993), and Lucida Grande Greek (Apple Computer, 2001). I suspect this is the latter.

---

p. 274 Civilité / Robert Granjon 1557 / Interpreted by Jonathan Hoefler / Hoefler Typefoundry [sic] 1992 / See no. 15 [and no. 97]

• The digital civilité shown here is St. Augustin Civilité by Jonathan Hoefler, part of a set of types known as Historical Allsorts which he released in 1992. It is based on Robert Granjon’s English-sized (St. Augustin) Civilité (c.1562) and supplemented with numbers and punctuation derived from his Great Primer (Courante) Civilité (1567). (See Robert Granjon, letter-cutter, 1513–1590: an oeuvre catalogue by Hendrik D.L. Vervliet (New Castle, Delaware: Oak Knoll Press, 2018), pp. 60–61, 107–108, 110.)
• “Hoefler Typefoundry” should be “Hoefler Type Foundry”

---

p. 275 Theuerdank / Johann Schönsperger 1517 / See no. 9

• The character set shown is taken from Treasury of Alphabets and Lettering: A Source Book of the Best Letter Forms of Past and Present for Sign Painters, Graphic Artists, Commercial Artists, Typographers, Printers, Sculptors, Architects and Schools of Art and Design by Jan Tschichold; translated by Wolf von Eckardt (New York: Reinhold Publishing Corporation, 1966), p. 109. Kelly has rearranged the letters and, in doing so, has left out the alternate bowed r. However, Tschichold’s character set does not completely represent the type cut by Johannes Schoensperger. Wikimedia Commons has a far larger character set, supposedly taken from Kaiser Maximilian und die Medien seiner Zeit. Der Theuerdank von 1517: eine kulturhistorische Einführung by Stephan Füssel (Köln: Taschen GmbH, 2003). This book is in Kelly’s bibliography (p. 315).

---

p. 276 Arrighi Italic / Ludovico Arrighi 1527 / Interpreted by Frederic Warde / Monotype 1929 / See no. 11 [and nos. 69 and 91]

• Arrighi designed his second chancery italic in 1526. Frederic Warde used it as the basis for his second and third types inspired by Arrighi’s model: Vicenza (1926) and Arrighi (1929). The latter was marketed as a companion to Bruce Rogers’ Centaur roman. Unfortunately, that led to the digital version being renamed Centaur Italic.
• No. 11 shows Arrighi’s first (1524) italic with the special characters designed for Gian Giorgio Trissino.

---

p. 277 Blado Italic / Ludovico Arrighi 1529 / Interpreted by Stanley Morison / Monotype Corporation 1923 / See no. 11 [and no. 69]

• Arrighi designed his second chancery italic in 1526. It was subsequently used by Antonio Blado, a Roman printer. Under Stanley Morison’s direction, the Monotype Corporation cut a version of the type for its composing machines in 1923 as a companion to Poliphilus, a roman typeface based on the 1499 roman cut by Francesco Griffo for Aldus Manutius.

---

p. 278 Galliard Italic / Robert Granjon c.1560 / Interpreted by Matthew Carter / ITC [International Typeface Corporation] 1978 / See no. 17 [and nos. 82, 86 and 91]

• Matthew Carter’s Galliard Italic was based on Robert Granjon’s 1570/1571 Ascendonica Italic (also known as Double-Pica [Gros-parangon] Italic). (See The Palaeotypography of the French Renaissance: Selected Papers on Sixteenth-century Typefaces by Hendrik D.L. Vervliet (Leiden: Brill, 2008), vol. 1, p. 356 where Vervliet gives the date as 1571 in his header but 1570 in his text.) Carter increased the x-height in keeping with the design trends of the 1970s (see no. 82).
• Granjon cut two forms of g. Carter copied both, but he preferred this chancery model to the more familiar double-story form.

---

p. 279 Galliard Roman / Robert Granjon c.1560 / Interpreted by Matthew Carter / ITC [International Typeface Corporation] 1978 / See no. 17 [and nos. 82, 86, and 91]

• Matthew Carter’s Galliard was based on Robert Granjon’s 1570 Ascendonica (also known as Double-Pica [Gros-parangon] Italic). (See The Palaeotypography of the French Renaissance: Selected Papers on Sixteenth-century Typefaces by Hendrik D.L. Vervliet (Leiden: Brill, 2008), vol. 1, p. 230 and Printing & Graphic Arts (PaGA III [3 September 1955], p. 57.)

---

p. 280 Garamond Roman / Jean Jannon c.1621 / Interpreted by Morris Fuller Benton / ATF [American Type Founders] 1919 / See no. 24 [and nos. 55, 56, 91 and 97]

• The typeface shown here is Garamond no. 3 from Mergenthaler Linotype, not ATF Garamond. Morris Fuller Benton mistakenly based his Garamond [sic] typeface on the work of Jean Jannon. Nevertheless, his design was popular and in 1936 it was licensed to Mergenthaler Linotype as the basis for their Garamond no. 3. There is a good digital version of ATF Garamond from Mark van Bronkhorst (2015); and there is also Jannon Antiqua Pro by Frantisek Storm (2010) that is based directly on Jannon’s types.

---

p. 281 Garamond Italic / Jean Jannon c.1621 / Interpreted by Morris Fuller Benton and Thomas Maitland Cleland / ATF [American Type Founders] 1919–1922 / See no. 24 [and nos. 55 and 91]

• The typeface shown here is Garamond no. 3 Italic from Mergenthaler Linotype, not ATF Garamond Italic. Morris Fuller Benton mistakenly based his Garamond [sic] typeface on the work of Jean Jannon. (Cleland was responsible for the swash characters, designed in 1922, which are not shown here.) The design was popular and in 1936 it was licensed to Mergenthaler Linotype as the basis for their Garamond no. 3 italic. There is a good digital version of ATF Garamond Italic from Mark van Bronkhorst (2015); and there is also Jannon Antiqua Pro Italic by Frantisek Storm (2010) that is based directly on Jannon’s types.

---

p. 282 Fournier Italic / Pierre-Simon Fournier c.1760 / Interpreted by Stanley Morison / Monotype Corporation 1925 / See no. 26 [and no. 69]

• This typeface is the digital version of Monotype Fournier Italic cut in 1925 based on Fournier’s St. Augustin Ordinaire Italique (shown as No. XLVII in Fournier’s Manuel Typographique [1768], vol. II, p. 45). It also appears in Fournier’s 1742 specimen, indicating it was cut before then.
• A better digital version of Fournier’s italic is PS Fournier Pro Italic by Stéphane Elbaz (2016).

---

p. 283 Fournier Roman / Pierre-Simon Fournier c.1760 / Interpreted by Stanley Morison / Monotype Corporation 1925 / See no. 26 [and no. 69]

• This typeface is the digital version of Monotype Fournier cut in 1925 based on Fournier’s St. Augustin Ordinaire (shown as No. XLVI in Fournier’s Manuel Typographique [1768], vol. II, p. 44). It also appears in Fournier’s 1742 specimen, indicating it was cut before then.
• A Tally of Types (no. 69) tells the story (pp. 79–80) of how Monotype Fournier Series 185 was mistakenly cut instead of Monotype Barbou Series 178, also based on Fournier’s types.
• A better digital version of Fournier’s roman is PS Fournier Pro Regular by Stéphane Elbaz (2016).

---

p. 284 Caslon / William Caslon c.1725 / Interpreted by Matthew Carter / Carter & Cone 1994 / See no. 30 [and no. 30A]

• Matthew Carter’s Big Caslon is an interpretation of the largest sizes of William Caslon’s types, notably his Fives Lines Pica and Four Lines Pica (see no. 30A). Their earliest appearance is in the c.1728 version of Caslon’s broadside specimen sheet.

---

p. 285 Caslon c.1725 / Interpreted by Justin Howes / ITC [International Typeface Corporation] 1998 / See no. 30 [and no. 30A]

• ITC issued four different designs under the ITC Founder’s Caslon name, each based on a different size of foundry type. The one shown here is ITC Founder’s Caslon 42 Italic. Kelly could have shown Big Caslon Italic (2003) as a match to Big Caslon on p. 284.

---

p. 286 Baskerville Roman / John Baskerville c.1764 / Interpreted by Tony Stan / ITC [International Typeface Corporation] 1982 / See no. 23 [and nos. 82 and 91]

• The typeface shown here is ITC New Baskerville designed by John Quaranta (not Tony Stan) for Mergenthaler Linotype in 1978, but released by ITC four years later. (See U&lc vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 30–35 which erroneously gives the date of Baskerville’s original roman as 1762). The ITC version is notable for having a larger x-height than Baskerville’s original, in accordance with ITC’s design philosophy at the time. A better digital version of Baskerville’s types is Baskerville 10 Pro by Frantisek Storm (2010).
• John Baskerville’s types were cut by John Handy. They first appeared in a 1754 specimen sheet.

---

p. 287 Baskerville Italic / John Baskerville c.1764 [sic] / Interpreted by Stanley Morison / Monotype Corporation 1923 / See no. 23 [and no. 69]

• Why pair ITC New Baskerville with Monotype Baskerville Italic? A better digital version of Baskerville’s types is Baskerville 10 Pro by Frantisek Storm (2010).
• John Baskerville’s types were cut by John Handy. The first sizes of the roman and the italic first appeared in a 1754 specimen sheet.

---

p. 288 Bodoni Italic / Giambattista Bodoni c.1790 / Interpreted by Janice Prescott Fishman, Holly Goldsmith, Sumner Stone, and Jim Parkinson / ITC [International Typeface Corporation] 1994 / See no. 35

• The typeface shown here is ITC Bodoni 72 Italic by Janice Prescott Fishman and Holly Goldsmith. It is based on Giambattista Bodoni’s Imperiale Corsivo as it appears in his Manuale Tipografico of 1818. Sumner Stone, who oversaw the whole ITC Bodoni project and designed ITC Bodoni 12, later created swash capitals to accompany ITC Bodoni 72 Italic. Jim Parkinson was responsible for ITC Bodoni 6.
• Kelly’s date of c.1790 seems to be a wild guess. Bodoni’s Imperiale Corsivo, as shown in his 1788 type specimen, is slightly different from the type of the same name that appears in the 1818 specimen, but no one—as far as I know—has been able to pin down the year in which the change occurred.

---

p. 289 Bodoni Roman / Giambattista Bodoni c.1790 / Interpreted by Heinrich Jost / Bauer 1926 / See no. 35 [and no. 91]

• Kelly’s 1790 date is even more problematic for Bodoni’s type that served as the model for Bauer Bodoni since it likely there was no single source. Several possibilities are Canone 2, Sopracanoncino 2, Canoncino 2, Filosofia 10, and Testo 6 as shown in the 1818 Manuale Tipografico.

---

p. 290 Scotch Roman / Richard Austin c.1760 / Alexander Wilson / See no. 38 [and no. 91]

• Richard Austin was born in 1756 and thus cannot be credited with having designed Scotch Roman c.1760. “Even if he may have had some involvement with one or both of the Scotch typefoundries, it seems unlikely that he would have had the time to cut many of their punches if he was also making types at the same time for his own foundry,” writes James Mosley who assigns credit for the design of the type that became known as Scotch Roman to William Miller (of Miller & Richard in Edinburgh) c.1813. (See Mosley’s Typefoundry blogspot.)
• This digital version of Scotch Roman is probably from Adobe/Linotype. For a digital typeface based on a 1760 type by Wilson see Foundry Wilson by Freda Sack and David Quay.

---

p. 291 Miller / Alexander Wilson c.1760 / Interpreted by Matthew Carter / Carter & Cone 1997 / See no. 38 [and no. 91]

• In “Reviving the Classics: Matthew Carter and the Interpretation of Historical Models” in Typographically Speaking: The Art of Matthew Carter by Margaret Re (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2002), James Mosley says that Matthew Carter’s Miller typeface is inspired by, but not copied from, the types of William Miller c.1810 (p. 16). There is no connection to Alexander Wilson (1714–1786) or to any typefaces from c.1760.

---

p. 292 Rosewood (Adobe Wood Type) c. 1860 / Adobe 1994 / See no. 42 [and no. 84]

• Rosewood, part of Adobe Wood Type 3, was designed by Carol Twombly in collaboration with Kim Buker Chansler and Carl Crossgrove in 1994. It was based on Clarendon Ornamented, a chromatic wood type design by William Page that was first shown by him in 1859. Kelly’s showing in black ruins the concept of a two-color chromatic type.

---

p. 293 Golden / William Morris 1891 / Kelmscott Press / ITC [International Typeface Corporation] 1989 / See no. 43

• William Morris’ Golden type was cut by Edward Prince (1846–1923). The digital version shown here is ITC Golden Type designed by Sigrid Engelmann, Helga Jörgenson, and Andrew Newton in 1989.

---

p. 294 Akzidenz Grotesk / Berthold 1898 / H. Berthold AG / See no. 59

• This digital specimen is Akzidenz Grotesk Regular. The history of Akzidenz-Grotesk is extremely muddy and it is unclear which typeface the widely quoted date of 1898 refers to. Indra Kupferschmid who has deeply researched Akzidenz Grotesk (referred to as AG by many) has this to say, “AG has never been a coherent type family but a collection of fonts from different sources and foundries bought over the years. Berthold, supposedly for marketing reasons, was not so keen on displaying that fact everywhere, though. They stated that the typeface was a ‘house cut’ from 1898 in all of their material…” Günter Gerhard Lange, longtime artistic director at H. Berthold AG, believed the type was originally designed by Ferdinand Theinhardt’s Foundry as Royal-Grotesk in 1898 and acquired later by Berthold. E.H. SchumacherGebler has disputed that. The earliest showing of Accidenz-Grotesk (the original spelling) by Berthold was in 1909—but that showing does not match this digital version. The same specimen has a showing of Royal Grotesk that is closer, though both are lighter in weight. (Also see “Footnotes C: Retracing the origins of Akzidenz-Grotesk” by Dan Reynolds [2019].)

---

p. 295 News Gothic / Morris Fuller Benton 1908 / ATF [American Type Founders] / See no. 55 [and nos. 86 and 91]

---

p. 296 Weiss Italic / E.R. Weiss 1927 / Bauersche Gießerei/FontShop / See no. 56 [and nos. 86 and 91]

• This is the only time that Kelly lists both the original foundry and a current digital source. However, I am not sure where Kelly acquired this digital version of Weiss Italic. The commonly available version from Adobe and Linotype—sold via MyFonts, FontShop, and others—is different. The ascenders are taller, the bowls of p and q are wider, and the s is more upright.
• The commonly accepted date for the Bauersche Gießerei original is 1928.

---

p. 297 Goudy Old Style [sic] / Frederic W. Goudy 1915 / ATF [American Type Founders] / See no. 58 [and nos. 55, 86, and 91]

• The proper name is Goudy Oldstyle.
• The typeface was designed in 1915, but not released until 1916. This is where dates assigned to typefaces can become confusing as different sources choose different criteria. My preference, as stated elsewhere, is to use the release date (or first known instance of use) whenever possible.

---

p. 298 Gill Sans / Eric Gill 1927 / Monotype Corporation / See no. 67 [and nos. 86 and 91]

• This is another instance of design date (1927) versus release date (1928). Gill Sans is a notoriously slippery typeface when it comes to establishing its definitive appearance, even for a specific weight. (See the differences from size to size of Monotype’s Gill Sans 262; and my review for Design Observer of the Gill Sans Nova release in 2015.)
• The digital specimen shown here looks like the regular weight of Gill Sans as sold by Adobe and Linotype, though it could also be Monotype’s revised Gill Sans Nova Medium in the default mode.
• It should be noted that An Essay about Typography by Eric Gill (no. 67) was set in Joanna not Gill Sans.

---

p. 299 Futura / Paul Renner 1927 / Bauersche Gießerei / See no. 62 [and nos. 86 and 91]

• This digital version of Futura is Futura Book sold by Adobe and Linotype. Identifont dates it to 1987. Futura ND (1999) from Bauer Types is generally considered to be the best available digital version, though I have not compared it to Futura Now (2020), a variable type version.

---

p. 300 Palatino Italic / Hermann Zapf 1951 / Stempel/Linotype [sic] / See no. 71 [and nos. 71A, 86, and 91]

• Linotype Palatino Italic was cut in 1950 and the Stempel foundry version of Palatino Italic was cut in 1951. (See Palatino: The Natural History of a Typeface by Robert Bringhurst [Boston: David R. Godine, Publisher, 2016] for the complete details, though Bringhurst does not say when Zapf began the original italic design.)
• The digital version of Palatino Italic shown here is Palatino nova Italic designed by Zapf in collaboration with Akira Kobayashi (2005). It does not include swash capitals.
• “Linotype” is shorthand for a company that went through many name changes since its founding in 1899 as Mergenthaler Setzmaschinen-Fabrik Gesellschaft. Sometime in the early 1930s it became Linotype GmbH. It was reorganized as Linotype AG in 1987 and then, following a merger with Hell GmbH in 1990, became Linotype-Hell. In 1997 the company became Linotype Library GmbH and returned to Linotype GmbH sometime in 2005. A year later it was acquired by Monotype Imaging. Linotype remains as a sub-brand today, not a stand-alone company. Which “Linotype” Kelly means in his caption is unclear.

---

p. 301 Palatino Roman / Hermann Zapf 1949 / Stempel/Linotype [sic] / See no. 71 [and nos. 71A, 86, and 91]

• If there ever was a typeface with a complicated and confusing history it is Palatino. The initial design (called Medici) was begun in 1948, the first trial cuts by Stempel were made in 1949, and the foundry version was released in 1951; the Linotype composing machine version was first cut in 1950 and released in 1951 as well. (See Palatino: The Natural History of a Typeface by Robert Bringhurst [Boston: David R. Godine, Publisher, 2016] for the complete details, though Bringhurst provides no timeline to make it easy to quickly grasp the history of Palatino’s many iterations.)
• The digital version of Palatino Roman shown here is Palatino nova designed by Zapf in collaboration with Akira Kobayashi (2005). Bringhurst says, “This original Palatino was produced between 1949 and 1953 in eighteen variations, some of them strikingly different from anything now to be found in digital form.” (p. 31) This last part of his sentence gets at the heart of what is wrong with Kelly’s notion of representing Fifty Typefaces Famous In Typography via digital incarnations. It is the Stempel version of Palatino that is famous, not Palatino nova!
• “Linotype” is shorthand for a company that went through many name changes since its founding in 1899 as Mergenthaler Setzmaschinen-Fabrik Gesellschaft. Sometime in the early 1930s it became Linotype GmbH. It was reorganized as Linotype AG in 1987 and then, following a merger with Hell GmbH in 1990, became Linotype-Hell. In 1997 the company became Linotype Library GmbH and returned to Linotype GmbH in 2005. A year later it was acquired by Monotype Imaging. Linotype remains as a sub-brand today, not a stand-alone company. Which “Linotype” Kelly means in his caption is unclear.

---

p. 302 Palatino nova Cyrillic / Hermann Zapf 1998 / Stempel/Linotype [sic] / See no. 71A

• “The Greek and Cyrillic [members of the Palatino nova family] are revised from Palatino Linotype…” according to Robert Bringhurst who also says that the latter design was done in 1997. (See Bringhurst, p. 210; and pp. 189–207.)
• The link to no. 71A is puzzling since there is no Cyrillic type in any of the three images (pp. 197–199).
• “Linotype” is shorthand for a company that went through many name changes since its founding in 1899 as Mergenthaler Setzmaschinen-Fabrik Gesellschaft. Sometime in the early 1930s it became Linotype GmbH. It was reorganized as Linotype AG in 1987 and then, following a merger with Hell GmbH in 1990, became Linotype-Hell. In 1997 the company became Linotype Library GmbH and returned to Linotype GmbH sometime in 2005. A year later it was acquired by Monotype Imaging. Linotype remains as a sub-brand today, not a stand-alone company. Which “Linotype” Kelly means in his caption is unclear.

---

p. 303 Palatino nova Greek / Hermann Zapf 1998 / Stempel/Linotype [sic] / See no. 71

• “The Greek and Cyrillic [members of the Palatino nova family] are revised from Palatino Linotype…”  according to Robert Bringhurst who also says that the latter design was done in 1997. (See Bringhurst, p. 210; and pp. 189–207.)
• The link to no. 71 is strange since there is no Greek type in either of the two images (p. 195).
• “Linotype” is shorthand for a company that went through many name changes since its founding in 1899 as Mergenthaler Setzmaschinen-Fabrik Gesellschaft. Sometime in the early 1930s it became Linotype GmbH. It was reorganized as Linotype AG in 1987 and then, following a merger with Hell GmbH in 1990, became Linotype-Hell. In 1997 the company became Linotype Library GmbH and returned to Linotype GmbH sometime in 2005. A year later it was acquired by Monotype Imaging. Linotype remains as a sub-brand today, not a stand-alone company. Which “Linotype” Kelly means in his caption is unclear.

---

p. 304 Helvetica / Max Miedinger and Eduard Hoffmann 1956 / Haas/Linotype / See no. 86 [and no. 91]

• Neue Haas Grotesk, the original Haas foundry name for Helvetica, was released in 1957. Its design has long been attributed solely to Max Miedinger, but since the publication of Helvetica Forever in 2008, it has been clear that Eduard Hoffmann, the foundry’s owner, deserves equal billing since he conceived the idea of making a regularized version of Berthold’s Akzidenz Grotesk (p. 294) and closely art directed the development of the new design. (See the pages of Hoffmann’s notebook reproduced in Helvetica Forever: Story of a Typeface edited by Lars Müller and Victor Malsy (Zurich: Lars Müller 2008.) Neue Haas Grotesk was renamed Helvetica when Stempel gained the right to adapt the typeface to the linotype in 1960.
• Haas should be Haas’sche Schriftgiesserei; and Linotype should be German Linotype whose full name was Mergenthaler Setzmaschinen-Fabrik GmbH.
• I am not sure which digital version of Helvetica is shown here. It is not Neue Helvetica 55 (1983), Neue Haas Grotesk 55 (2011), nor Helvetica Now (2019).
• “Linotype” is shorthand for a company that went through many name changes since its founding in 1899 as Mergenthaler Setzmaschinen-Fabrik Gesellschaft. Sometime in the early 1930s it became Linotype GmbH. Linotype GmbH was reorganized as Linotype AG in 1987 and then, following a merger with Hell GmbH in 1990, became Linotype-Hell. In 1997 the company became Linotype Library GmbH and returned to Linotype GmbH sometime in 2005. A year later it was acquired by Monotype Imaging. Linotype remains as a sub-brand today, not a stand-alone company. Which “Linotype” Kelly means in his caption is unclear.

---

p. 305 Univers / Adrian Frutiger 1957 / Deberny & Peignot/Monotype [Corporation] 1963 / See no. 86 [and nos. 91 and 95]

• 1957 is the release date of Univers by the Deberny & Peignot foundry. Monotype adapted the design of four members of the Univers family for machine composition in 1963 with additional members released in 1964. (See Adrian Frutiger—Typefaces: The Complete Works edited by Heidrun Osterer and Philipp Stamm [Basel, Boston and Berlin: Birkhauser Verlag, 2012], p. 97; but see p. 23 says that Monotype Univers was used to set Typographische Monatsblätter in 1961.) Adrian Frutiger initially planned Univers for the Lumitype machine. (See Osterer and Stamm, p. 95.)
• This is the Adobe/Linotype digital version of Univers 55. (Linotype acquired Univers when it took over Haas’che in 1989 which had bought Deberny & Peignot in 1972.) Univers adherents such as Willi Kunz believe that Berthold’s digital version of Univers, overseen by Gunter Gerhard Lange, is a superior interpretation. It has the original ampersand as well as better outlines and letterfit.

---

p. 306 Sabon / Claude Garamond [sic] c.1560 / Interpreted by Jan Tschichold / Stempel/Linotype/Monotype 1967 / See no. 91 [and nos. 16, 59, 70, 86, and 97]

• Jan Tschichold’s Sabon typefaces is considered a milestone in the history of type design since it was created simultaneously for hand composition (D. Stempel AG), linecasting (German Linotype), and single-type machine composition (Monotype Corporation). Work on the typeface supposedly began in 1964 and was completed in 1967. (There are newly digitized Sabon documents online at the Deutsche National Bibliothek website dated as early as 1960.) Although the design has always been seen as an interpretation of Garamont’s types shown in the Egenolff-Berner specimen (1592), there is no doubt that Tschichold was also influenced by the types of Guillaume Le Bé, especially his Five-line Pica Roman (c.1598). (See French Renaissance Printing Types: A Conspectus by Hendrik D.L. Vervliet (London: The Bibliographical Society and The Printing Historical Society; New Castle, Delaware: Oak Knoll Press, 2010), pp. 230–231.)
• This digital showing of Sabon is the Adobe/Linotype version adapted from the hot metal German Linotype version. (The ornament is from another source.) There is another newer digital version called Sabon Next designed by Jean-François Porchez (2001) which elicited much criticism when it was released, but since then seems to have gathered many adherents. It is explicitly influenced by types by Garamont and Le Bé.

---

p. 307 Trump Mediäval / Georg Trump 1954 / C.E. Weber/Linotype / See no. 77 [and no. 86]

• Trump Mediäval (known in the English-speaking world as Trump Mediaeval) was released by Schriftgießerei C.E. Weber in 1954. The German Linotype version was released in 1956 (see Gutenberg Jahrbuch 31 [1956]). Trump Mediaeval: The Story of its Creation by Norbert Krausz provides a detailed look at the typeface’s evolution.
• This digital version of Trump Medieval is from Adobe/Linotype. Although not perfect, it is better than Trump Medieval Office by Akira Kobayashi (2006). The ornament is composed of two ys from Trump’s Delphin typeface (1951).
• Linotype GmbH, via Stempel, acquired the Weber typefoundry in 1970.

---

p. 308 Marconi / Hermann Zapf 1970 / Hell / See no. 89

• Hermann Zapf began work on Marconi in 1973. The typeface, designed for the Hell Digiset, was released by Dr.-Ing. Rudolf Hell GmbH in 1976. It is the first typeface in this list of Fifty Famous Typefaces that was “born” digital and it is one of the few digital designs that is not derived from a metal predecessor. (See Hermann Zapf and the World He Designed: A Biography by Jerry Kelly [n.p.: The Kelly-Winterton Press, 2019], p. 233.)
• The specimen shown here is probably from Linotype but it could be an older digital version from Elsner + Flake.

---

p. 309 FF Meta / Erik Spiekermann 1991 / Fontshop [sic] / See no. 93

• In 1984 the Deutsche Bundespost (West German post office) commissioned a custom typeface from Sedley Place Design as part of an identity system. When the typeface was rejected, its designer Erik Spiekermann released it in 1991 through FontShop International (a digital typeface foundry and distributor which he had cofounded two years earlier).
• There should be a link to Helvetica (p. 304) since FF Meta was intended to be a “complete antithesis of Helvetica” which Spiekermann considered “boring and bland.”
• FF Meta is not used for the main text or sidebars of Stop Stealing Sheep (no. 93).

---

p. 310 Minion Italic / Robert Slimbach 1989 / Adobe / See no. 84

• The specimen here (with the swash A) is probably Minion Pro Italic (2000). The original Minion Italic font was supplemented by additional fonts (on separate diskettes) for display, swash letters, and expert sets.

---

p. 311 Minion Roman / Robert Slimbach 1989 / Adobe / See no. 84

---

p. 312 Minion Cyrillic / Robert Slimbach 1989 [sic] / Adobe / See no. 84

• Minion Cyrillic was released in 1992. (For more on the evolution of Minion over a quarter of a century see the 2016 interview between Robert Bringhurst and Robert Slimbach.)

---

p. 313 Minion Greek / Robert Slimbach 1989 [sic] / Adobe / See no. 84

• This specimen is Minion Pro Greek which was released in 2000. A “prototype version” of it was shown in the second, revised and enlarged edition (1999) of The Elements of Typographic Style by Robert Bringhurst (p. 107). This Greek is marked by a Western stress in the distribution of thicks and thins in letters. Minion 3 (2018) includes redesigned Greek characters with a reversed stress which Greek typography specialists have warmly welcomed.

---

p. 314 Trajan / Carol Twombly 114 A.D. / Adobe 1989 / See no. 84

• The inscription at the base of the Trajan Column in Rome is usually dated either 113 or 114 AD. The typeface designed by Carol Twombly, based on rubbings and photographs of the inscription made by Father Edward M. Catich, was released in 1989.

---

Kelly’s list of fifty typefaces is clearly not a list of the fifty most famous typefaces. Among those missing are types by Joan Michael Fleischman, William Martin, Firmin Didot, W.A. Dwiggins, Jan van Krimpen, Gerard Unger, Jonathan Hoefler, and Bram de Does. Surprisingly, neither Times Roman or Optima is included.