Univers Ultra Condensed in a custom weight that is bolder than the available weights, would be my guess.

This is one of those cases where it probably doesn't matter much to get the exact font, because Xerox's name is their trademark, and anything close will probably not be double-checked for absolute accuracy.

I know this seems heretical in this group, but I have said it before, sometimes close is all that matters. How many people could tell these letters apart from any of half dozen similar typefaces? Be realistic.

@ Mike Yanega: thank you, for your help, yet again. :-) However, I guess a bit of misunderstanding may have been caused by the particular word in my sample (which by the way is from 1990), which casually happens to be "XEROX", but it is just that, a casual word, it is no logo neither it has anything to do nor is in any way connected with Xerox, as in the printers/copiers manufacturer and etc. :-)

Also, I do not look to reproduce my sample (not this one neither any of those I have asked about before), perhaps this may have been the impression given by my questioning? (I say it, from your comments above...) But actually no, it is not that my purpose, find which font was originally used in a sample or then any similar one in alternative for reproducing/recreating it for myself, no, it is not that what I intend, my objective is solely to try to indeed identify each of the fonts in question, for my own reference, that's all. :-)

Then, and to the font itself, well, noticing the "X", and the fact that its "arms" and "legs" (sorry for using these terms, "arms" and "legs", but I don't know the proper way to refer to the upper and lower strokes of the "X", still I hope you may understand what I'm meaning?) aren't symmetric (I mean, the lower and upper strokes' length isn't equal), would Univers still be a possibility?... The "X"s in the Univers family look to be symmetric, or, perhaps I'm missing something?...

Once more, thank you, greatly, for your help.

SM, I think you can see why I thought you were just trying to match a logo when you use a word that is only known as a logo. It would be helpful for you to explain your purpose better when you use such a word for a sample ;-)

I am not sure I agree about the X in Univers being symmetrical. To me the lower 'legs' look longer than the upper 'arms', but I agree that they are close to the same length.

I claimed that there would probably be other fonts that would be very close in appearance. For example Agfa's "Aura", Red Rooster's "Block Gothic Bold Extra Condensed", Font Bureau's "Garage Gothic Bold", M0notype's "Placard", Font Bureau's "Rhode Condensed Semibold", ITC "Roswell Four", and Agfa's "CG Triumverate Inserat" or "CG Triumverate Compressed".

My feeling is that with only those 4 letters there are too many fonts that might look so close that only detailed side-by-side comparison with your sample could tell which was right. To me, all of them create the same impression and have the R which is almost the only defining characteristic of these four letters.

Mike, it seems like you're overlooking one of the most obvious possibilities: Helvetica Inserat, which, incidentally is what CG Trimverate Inserat is a knock-off of.

SM, it's normal for the top arms of an X to be shorter than the bottom ones. It's not usually obvious, though. The reason this is done is to compensate for an optical illusion. If you draw them exactly the same length, the top arms will appear to be slightly longer. When they are drawn slightly shorter, they appear to be the same length. If you don't believe it, find an X in a font which appears to be perfectly symmetrical and turn it upside down.

Mark, I did look at that and I thought the R looked a bit too flared at the bottom. I see that the Triumverate Inserat is just about identical, so I guess my "Helvetica-aversion" must have just kicked in ;-)

@ Mike Yanega: yes, I understood, from your comments, that the particular word in my sample had misled you to that assumption. :-) Thus why I thought I'd clear my purpose. :-) And so it is, the one motive bringing me here to ask about fonts is indeed the simplest of all, the sole wish to know. :-) See, there's these few particular fonts which I'm wishing to identify, for my own reference, as I mentioned above, and, well, most times I have been succeeding in identifying them on my own, either using IdentiFont or hopping around between other various fonts sites, but, sometimes I really don't manage to come to a successful identification... and then come in to "bother" you... :-P But as a "last resort" only. :-P As in fact, I do feel somewhat uncomfortable, for always coming to bothering you, I mean... it's hard to keep from feeling that I am abusing of your help, each time I come to start a new thread to ask about a new font... For what I would wish to, yet again, remark my gratitude for your precious help all the time, by curious coincidence particularly you, and Mark Simonson, you both, and also Yves Peters, everytime you have been of most help, and I am most thankful to you for it. :-) And, again too, I am only sorry, to bother you all all this much... :-P I mean, yes, I know this is the whole purpose behind such a forum as this, but... :-)

And as to the "X" in Univers, yes, I see that it is not exactly symmetric, rather its "arms" are slightly shorter than its "legs", yes, absolutely, my mistake, should have looked more carefully at a bigger sample at MyFonts. (Still, that in the sample I posted is a bit more asymmetric, though. ;-)) And yes, I do notice this in other fonts which look to have symmetric "X"s, indeed. Wasn't aware of the reason for it to be so, though, thus thank you, Mark Simonson, also for the enlightenment.

And once more, as never enough, thank you greatly, for your kindest help, each and every time, thank you indeed. :-)