I hesitate to chime in here, because I almost feel as if this is a discussion among scholars. I’m a simple maker of pages. I tend to use typefaces that I already have; I haven’t gotten anything new in some time. Generally, I do much more layout than design. And my layout clients tend to be repeaters. So the types their books use tend to be the same—especially when they belong to series.

So when I took on a design and layout project last spring, I looked at types in my library that I really hadn’t any familiarity with. And Adobe’s OpenType Bembo—while I take everyone’s word is nothing when compared to metal Bembo—is something I took an immediate liking to. The book I used it for looks nice; and the client for whom I did the book was very pleased.

So I wonder, do we design pages and set type for the people who pay us and the people who read them? It sounds sometimes as if all this is really supposed to be some higher calling in the service of the Lord. Or something.

16 years ago I did a side by side setting of 54pt foundry Palatino and Adobe’s cut from around 1990. The difference to my eye were vast. The subtle turns in the lower case m, the radical differences in the figures. Let’s not forget the limitation to the character set that saw the swash caps fall away from the Italic character set.

I don’t believe that any “foundry’s” cut of Weiss Italic contains the alternate swash caps that would have been part of the font available from Bauer when one was investing in type. There are certainly none of the interesting refinements available from any “foundry” that ATF issued for Garamond Italic. Well, except from the Dale Guild casting from mats Dan Carr rescued at the ATF auction.

And that’s simply not right. So yes, “Bembo” continues to suck. But does anyone beyond you or I really care?

I asked Matthew Carter about this last year at an SP meeting, as I was wondering about the interim technology between hot metal and the florescence of digital type (such as it is).

He had mentioned that Linotype had initially looked at digitizing from 3 sizes of the master drawings (now in the collection of the Museum of Printing in North Andover, MA) and attempted to market that “breadth” of optical sizing, the belief being that traditional typesetters would demand materials up to prior standards.

“Build it and they will come”.

No one came. The middling sizes were what commercial typesetters were willing to spend money on. Remember, the “democratization of typesetting” is a recent phenomenon. Up until the recent advent of thoughtless and effortless piratization of digital type, it actually was a capital investment to purchase a library of type from any of the remaining foundries. ATF failed miserably in making the transition. Linotype and Monotype were more successful at releasing product that was passable, but just so. Competition was fierce. There were actually Monotype electronic cuts of Palatino, and cellular mats for Helvetica to cast on a Monotype comp caster. Cats and dogs sleeping together even then in the early 90’s. Who would have thought…

In any event… Follow the money. No one was willing to pay for MM fonts, and so, despite the concept behind them being superior, and no one but a trained typographer might be able to recognize that the counter of the 6pt lowercase “a” was more open then the 72pt “a”.

And so the niceties fell away.

That’s my understanding of the situation anyway.

mjb

Now let me preface this with the fact that I’m a coffee junky. I know exactly what “hints of mocha” should taste like, and what too many “slight notes of green” does to an otherwise perfectly french roasted unbleached-filtered fine-ground cup of Mocha Java. I can also smell an extra bold roasted Tanzanian Peaberry a mile away. I even know what the beans look like compared to others! That said, I love instant coffee. I drink it nearly as much as the best coffee I routinely buy ($16 a pound, yikes…)

Instant coffee is not Tanzanian Peaberry. Sometimes I just call it a “coffee beverage”.

I collect old books once in a while. I have some early 19th century books here done in various typefaces. Nothing, nothing compares to the feel of the paper, the subtle undulances in the depression made in the paper by the sharp-edged metal font face. It’s a very different experience to reading on flat paper. It’s almost musical. It’s like the difference between decent mp3 quality recordings of a live performance, and a live performance in your living room. Or the difference on a steel string guitar that has a European Englemann Spruce AAA top vs one with spruce plywood top. Yet one of my favorite guitarists, Phil Keaggy, records one of my favorite songs of his “Sign came through a window” on a kids junk guitar. But he also plays is 10K Olson on his instrumental pieces. Same guitarist, different kinds of music, great results either way. In the hands of a master, anything can become a masterpiece.

I love instant coffee (for what it is) I love expensive coffee (for everything it is).

Same goes for typography and the current state of digital technology. That said, it would be great to have some options in the digital age for great type and a great experience with paper and all that it could be. However, I like Bembo, as I have it, for what it is. And Aksidenz Grotesk Light, too.

Blame it on Aldus Manutius and that Griffo chap ;)

Also Monotype’s Bembo Book includes a short-tailed R.