It’s just the wrong one.

Take this one > ’

Oh, you want it reversed?
Maybe something more round - like Clarendon.

i don't need it reversed - is the regular apostrophe the correct usage in this case?

I’d say so.

is the regular apostrophe the correct usage in this case?

Yes! What you've got in your sample is a single left quote mark, not an apostrophe. An apostrophe is the same as a single right quote mark.

Unfortunately, we see this mistake frequently due to the simplemindedness of desktop publishing software, which can't tell the difference between the beginning of a quoted passage and a contraction. So much for "smart" quotes.

thanks a million!

Traditionally, what you want is a "turned comma." An apostrophe is a "raised comma." The "reversed apostrophe" or "reversed quote" is yet a different character -- see the Unicode General punctuation range, I forget the Unicode number. The Lakeside Press use to use reversed quotes & double quotes in a series they published -- Tom Horn used them for sure.

Traditionally, what you want is a “turned comma.”

You do? On a numerical contraction like ’70?

No, Mark, for publications in North America you are correct, not only in your assessment of what is the current state and what the appropriate replacement should be, but also in how it got there.

"is the regular apostrophe the correct usage in this case?"

Yes, and here's why: because in this case, the apostrophe indicates an omission. Which is why the apostrophe is in "here's", which is a truncated version of "here is" which omits the space and i.

In your case, the apostrophe indicates the omitted 20.

Mark, you're right. I got so caught up in the naming convention, I forgot the original problem.

I do think the naming conventions have some importance, perhaps less so in this instance, but rather more when the marks are used in phonetics . . .esp. since some web sites use the 'straight-up-and-down" mark for an 'apostrophe,' which leads to yet more confusion.