LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 15.5

Help for TYPO-L Archives

TYPO-L Archives

TYPO-L Archives


Next Message | Previous Message
Next in Topic | Previous in Topic
Next by Same Author | Previous by Same Author
Chronologically | Most Recent First
Proportional Font | Monospaced Font


Join or Leave TYPO-L
Reply | Post New Message
Search Archives


Re: Times and Times New Roman (was Re: first core fonts)


Rodger Whitlock <[log in to unmask]>


TYPO-L Discussion of Type and Typographic Design <[log in to unmask]>


Sat, 21 Nov 1998 18:22:59 +0000





text/plain (57 lines)

On 21 Nov 98 at 6:00, Don Hosek <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> OK first off, the name of Times New Roman is confusing to some
> people because they figure that it must be a newer version of Times
> Roman.
> No.

I won't dispute anything you say!

But, aha!, I found the damned book (and read half the chapter on
infinite series _ interesting to see how advanced my freshman math
curriculum was) and verified that the colophon indeed referred to
Times New Roman _ but not as simply as I thought. Let me just quote
the salient bits, using = = to bracket text set in small caps:

"The text of this book is set in a monotype face called =Times New
Roman=. Particularly suited to science and mathematics, this precise,
handsome type is the American version of =Times Roman=, the face
designed by Stanley Morison for _The Times_ of London, and introduced
by that newspaper in 1932.

Shortly thereafter, =Times Roman= was made available throughout the
English-speaking world and it became one of the most popular modern
book faces.

[snip quote of Morison's statement of intent in designing Times]

The book was composed by =Westcott & Thomson, Inc.=, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, the first compositors in the U.S. to have the face cut
for American matrices and alignment on American monotype machines..."

I suppose that the last bit is in reference to the Lanston monotype
machines Don mentioned, and this colophon perhaps narrows slightly
the date range "late fifties to early sixties."

Anyway, I think it's interesting that the use of TNR was considered
so noteworthy at the time this book was published. It's a pretty
nicely laid out book, and quite readable. The type is definitely
the servant of the content. And boy! some of those equations must
have driven the typesetters around the bend. Nice crisp, heavy,
smooth paper, too, that hasn't aged a bit in nearly forty years.

Something else, btw. We recently had a thread on whether math
characters should be obliqued in italic faces. In "Calculus," one
observes that italic characters are used for variables, but Roman is
used across the board for functions such as cos, sin, etc and the
digits, parentheses, plus signs, equal signs, etc.

Probably since it's pretty basic math, there are none of the odder
versions of letters found in some advanced math texts -- no
blackletter, no script letters, no double-stroked stuff.

Hoping this is of some interest to typo-l...

Rodger Whitlock

Back to: Top of Message | Previous Page | Main TYPO-L Page



CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager