Do you not like the way a # is looking in a font you are using?

I often see the # all shrunken and superscripted, but I don't like it so much when that's forced upon me.

Not a terribly useful opinion, but an opinion none the less.

I like to set it with the bottom on the baseline, although I've seen it set (and well) with the bottom horizontal line set on the baseline: certainly all shrunken and superscripted wouldn't be an option I'd choose....

Thinking aboyt your question some more I would have to say no - there isn't just one best way to set it or to design it. The # varies quite a bit from font to font. Some of the best designed ones vary a great deal from each other & make sense in the context of the font they are in. But that also brings me back to my earlier question. Some fonts don't have such a wonderful # sign. And if you are using one you might be tempted to poke at it. But In general I would suggest using a font whose glyph set works, even the #. Then you don't have to muck around... Does this make sense to you?

it should be as large as any monetary symbol since it's a Roman Libra, // two shillings with a cross which is equal to a 'pound' of weight or money.

Some fonts don’t have such a wonderful # sign.

Some fonts don't have "wonderful" anything, Eben. ;-)

Could you post an example of what you consider to be a "great" font with a "not great" octothorp? I admit that it's not the first character I look at in a specimen, but I have yet to find a stinker in any font that I would use otherwise....

While we've got the topic open, how does one distinguish between this symbol and a musical sharp (within the same, nonmusical font)? Should they be the same, or skewed differently, or whatnot?

Nice Question Jason.

Some fonts don’t have “wonderful” anything, Eben. ;-)

True. true. But sometimes you can a have a lovley font but you just don't love one of the glyphs too... Which ones? I don't recall - but I can look at them & let you know. I don't expect everybody to agree. But it will be interesting to see if they do or not & why.

Thanks Vince!

Funny - when I think of a number sign in use for display type - shrunken and superscript is all I can think of.

I think of #1 BESTSELLER for say, a Tom Clancy book - and it is always prominent on the cover, uptop and center. Then the words like The New York Time s Bestseller - normally in all caps is divided among the oversized 1

I can't begin to tell you how many times as a typesetter it was set that way....

In text, I just go with the # sign of the font I'm in, however, trouble in today's type - the number sign is made as a full character, and we are getting very use to seeing it as #1 and don't think twice about it -- and so many think inch marks are quote marks and foot marks are apostrophies....

Don't get me started...

In the 'NUMBER SIGN' (U+0023, #), the "horizontal" lines are usually perfectly or nearly-perfectly horizontal while the "vertical" lines are slightly slanted forwards. The symbol is usually as wide as the figures or the currency symbols, and the lines are typically of equal thickness even in a typeface that has a modulated stroke:

http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0000.pdf

In the 'MUSIC SHARP SIGN' (U+266F, ♯), the "vertical" lines are usually perfectly vertical and the "horizontal" lines are slanted upwards. The symbol is often narrower than the number sign, and the horizontal lines are usually thicker than the verticals.

http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U2600.pdf

A.

Adam, that's interesting. I've just checked contemporary faces like Garamond Premier Pro, Stag, Meta Serif, Karmina and found thick horizontals on the octothorp. Do you think this trend has perhaps come about through conflating the # and the ♯, or do typographers these days prefer a contrasted octothorp?