I believe H is for headlines and B is for body copy, while SH & SB are the same faces from Scangraphic. Someone else will need to confirm.

From Scangraphic's blurb at FontShop.com:

"Scangraphic offers an extensive range of fonts, all available in two special Scangraphic design formats called “Bodytext” and “Headline”.

Scangraphic Bodytext (“SB”) faces are ideal for text in small point sizes. The hairlines and serifs of the Bodytext faces are thicker than normal hairlines and serifs to make them more legible in fine print. In addition to this, they have a special ink-traps incorporated in the font design to prevent blurring and loss of print quality.

The Scangraphic Headline (“SH”) faces are made for text in large point sizes. Scangraphic optimized the Headline fonts specifically for this purpose, for example, by narrowing the spacing of the fonts and re-designing the umlauts in order to make them work better aesthetically with the overall design."

The number of typefaces Scangraphic offers in body and headline cuts is pretty special. They certainly aren't completely redrawn Adobe-style optical cuts by any measure, but it's great to have the option for nearly every face in their library.

The Headline version is spaced considerably tighter than the Bodytext version. The Bodytext version has ink traps, and the brochure says that its "terminal strokes have been slightly accentuated". I'm not sure it this is still so, the big Scangraphic type overview shows differently positioned/sized guillemets, !?¡¿, parentheses, brackets, percent & perthousand signs for Bodytext and Headline (earlier called "Bodytype" and "Supertype").
The typeface was digitized with Ikarus, was drawn before, and is based on writing.
(The ultra/ultra italic is one of the funniest fat faces I know.)

Stephen, would you say that all versions have minute differences at least? Besides just tighter spacing I mean.

The body/headline versions differ only in spacing but then there's two different digital releases: from E+F and from Scangraphic. Both versions come from the same Ikarus data but were converted into PostScript using different tools, and have received different spacing and kerning. I have recently checked both versions -- IMO, the kerning of the E+F versions is better than that from Scangraphic.

A.

Thanks, Adam.

I forgot to mention that both the E+F version and the Scangraphic version has been mastered in OpenType PS format by Elsner+Flake. I have no idea what the royalties distribution looks like but I imagine that either version you buy, E+F, Scangraphic and Volker Küster get their due percentages.

I'd be thrilled to see E+F prepare a "Pro" version of Today Sans. In fact, I recently turned two styles of Today Sans into a "Pro" font for my own purpose and used it to typeset a little document in Polish. I paired it with Matthew Carter's Fenway. The document is nothing spectacular, really, but I think both typefaces works quite well together:
http://www.twardoch.com/download/edupl_pierwszekrokitypetool.pdf

A.

That's nice Adam, the x-height of the two faces are a good match. Did you make any adjustments or are they both at the same point size?

In my document, Fenway is set at 10 pt and Today is set at 10.5 pt.

Thanks everyone. Typophile forums are awesome.

Stephen, you mentioned Adobe: They certainly aren’t completely redrawn Adobe-style optical cuts by any measure[....]

In researching the aforementioned versions of Today, I also came across the Today Sans - Adobe Cronos story. I don't have any of these faces to experiment with (and examples online don't help), so I can't decide on much, but the Adobe faces I own have served me well. I'm faced with the ethical question of whether or not to use Cronos. Should I buy from a company whose type I trust to be complete, or should I expend more effort (and pester more typophiles for answers) to research slightly different versions of Today from unfamiliar foundries?

I think it would be an injustice to dishonor Küster by purchasing Cronos, but I have reason to assume that Cronos would be a wiser investment. A good part of the project I would purchase for deals with on-screen use, and the Adobe faces I've dealt with have worked very well on-screen.

Does anyone have an opinion about the on-screen anti-aliasing of Today (any version) or Cronos?

Adam, you mentioned that: [...] the kerning of the E+F versions is better than that from Scangraphic, and [...] both the E+F version and the Scangraphic version has been mastered in OpenType PS format by Elsner+Flake. Do you have any experience with Adobe Cronos? If so, how does it compare?

... certainly aren’t completely redrawn Adobe-style optical cuts by any measure ...

Whatever this means. And whether this were required for a sans like Today. As said, at least in earlier text and headline versions, there *were* differences, like ink traps. (I forgot to mention that the text version's italic was wider than the headline version's.) Whether these have been polished away in more recent versions however, I don't know.

If you are used to OT font, then maybe you'll feel more comfortable with Cronos. But still I'd like to see a Today Sans Pro.

Karsten

I must say, I tried pairing Fenway with Cronos originally since there way no "Pro" Today. But it instantly turned out that it does not work at all -- Cronos and Today have a completely different flavor. I sent my homemade Today Sans to E+F, perhaps they'll find some use for it.

Best,
Adam

Today Sans and Cronos have very similar proportions and basic lettershapes, such that a page of Today Sans and a page of Cronos will have the same overall colour and typographic texture. But the treatment of the detailing is very different, and the larger the type size the more obvious the difference in flavour this produces. Cronos is softer, Today Sans is more formal. Together, they present an interesting example of the degree to which detail treatment contributes to the individual character of two typefaces whose basic structure is almost identical.

> of two typefaces whose basic structure is almost identical

You mean, an "H" has two vertical bars and one horizontal one that connects them? ;)

Pages set in Today and Cronos look seriously different, have a different flair. Sure, there are common features between those typefaces from the skeleton point of view but subjectively, I think these typefaces are as different as Bauer Bodoni and Bethold Walbaum.

A.

Pages set in Today and Cronos look seriously different, have a different flair

And often identical linebreaks :)

As I wrote, the 'different flair' becomes more evident as the type size (and resolution) increases, because it is primarily in the details of the stroke terminals. Bauer Bodoni and Berthold Walbaum? Not that different, I think. How about Helvetica and Arial? :)