Scotch Modern is a close revival of a "Modern" (Didone) face of the 19th century.
Such faces never had oldstyle figures, then or until now, AFAIK.
Therefore it is anachronistic, not to mention ironic, to include oldstyle figures in a modern face!

However, Adobe made me do it.
By including "Proportional Oldstyle" and "Tabular Oldstyle" as non-bracketed options in the InDesign OpenType menu, it appears that there is an error in OpenType fonts that don't have oldstyle figures. (This is strange, not to mention ironic, as Adobe's own Trajan is without OSF.)
Therefore, to avoid looking like there is a mistake in the typeface, I decided to produce oldstyle modern figures for Scotch Modern. Or perhaps they are modern oldstyle figures. Other than massaging the proportions, the only structural change from the lining figures is the removal of the foot serifs on 4.

At any rate, they work surprisingly well, and are quite interesting. In fact, Michaël Amzalag uses them pointedly, and copiously, in his Interview redesign, e.g.--

Very nice.

>>Such faces never had oldstyle figures, then or until now, AFAIK.

Frutiger's Didot has them, ditto ITC Bodoni.

Maybe they are anachronisms also?

Right. The first modern faces, by Didot and Bodoni, had oldstyle figures. But the subsequent evolution, the Scotch Modern, did not.

Ah. They were a skoosh earlier. Your specimens came from ca. 1830s?

My Scotch Modern is based on an American type of the 1860s.

John Bell was showing lining figures in the 1780s.

I haven't made a thorough study of this, but from the early 19th century periodicals, books, and specimens that I have seen, it looks like oldstyle figures became extinct in the UK by 1830 or earlier, but lasted longer on the continent.

ok, so to be honest, when i first saw Scotch Mondern it did nothing for me. yes it was nice looking, but for some reason i've never been attracted to the didones or bononi's and related types.

but, i'm thinking i might have to give this typeface a try and it's looks just wonderful!

i think the thing about these fonts that scares me is the extreme contrast, i have serious boubts about my ability to use them well.

i guess the only way to learn if to just jump in...

thanks nick for these beautiful faces!

:-)

Simon, when did Australian printing kick up in earnest? I'm guessing that it must have been somewhere in the mid-1800s, right? With imported type? Depending on the dates, you might be able to find plenty of neat locals things printed in faces like this. Perhaps that might give you a hint as to how you might use fonts inspired by it today…

i think the thing about these fonts that scares me is the extreme contrast, i have serious boubts about my ability to use them well.

Don’t let the rubbish from type textbooks scare you away from using high-contrast types. As Nick likes to point out, such types were the most popular types in use during the time when widespread literacy came into being, and they don’t seem to have held readers back. And back then they were being printed at smaller sizes, on crap paper, and often read under lighting conditions we would consider abominable. There’s no reason that a well-used transitional or modern face cannot be every bit as readable as an aldine, and the pedants who insist otherwise should be treated with suspicion. A few days ago I examined one of Baskerville’s original printings of Paradise Lost, and I assure you it is more readable (long s usage aside) than some of the best versions being printed today!

>they don’t seem to have held readers back. And back then they were being printed at smaller sizes, on crap paper, and often read under lighting conditions we would consider abominable

Well… back then, there was ink spread, since the pages were still being printed from metal type. Nick's fonts asde, many digital Didones are not optimised successfully for text. And it does not matter what your abilities as a type setter are… if the font isn't going to cut it, you aren't going to be able to pull off legible text with it. Every typeface has to be judged on its own merits. Styles are genres are only going to help you so far along when it comes to knowing what to do with a font.

Thanks guys!

@dan - i think you're right about the printing, but i haven't seen a lot of these types from that era, most stuff i've seen is from early 1900's.

@james - thanks for encouragement!

Since we don't live in the 19th Century anymore, I see no reason to rigorously abide by the traditions of that time (unless you are the kind who MUST). Go ahead and make oldstyle figures as part of any typeface that you feel would benefit from it. Until recently, sans were not accompanied by true italics but now it is the norm. Fire away and check your targets later--you may find you have hit a few bulls-eyes there :-)

ChrisL

ok, i bit the bullet and have purchased a license for the roman and italic of scotch modern. now to see if i'm man enough to handle it...

"You can Handle, the truth" :-)

ChrisL

:-) thanks chris!

Go ahead and make oldstyle figures as part of any typeface that you feel would benefit from it.

That’s certainly not a bad idea, but people should also be very careful about considering whether or not the proportions of a typeface lend themselves to old style figures—some of them just don’t.

...some of them just don’t.

Examples please.

i showed a teacher at uni my new purchase and he mentioned ITC Century which i had not heard of, is that a scotch modern also? sorry if i'm missing the obvious.

http://new.myfonts.com/fonts/ef/itc-century/

Century evidently has some Scotch ancestry, but it is lower contrast.

I disagree with you, James, that high contrast is equally readable in text. I really think it is objectively a problem. I can't prove it, but that's what my eyes have told me all my life.

I do agree, though, about the old style numerals. Nick, in the discussion about ITC Franklin, James argued that old style numerals won't work well with faces with very short extenders, including ITC Franklin.

Anything from ITC in the 80s had short decencders and acsenders. It was their xheight über ales era.
What I said was, "any typeface that you feel would benefit from it." Conversly...

ChrisL

"xheight über alles"

LOL chris :-) that would make a great t-shirt!

cheerio Queneau

Thanks, Queneau!

ChrisL

...objectively a problem...what my eyes have told me all my life.

You're contradicting yourself.

However, I have had the same view of high contrast faces, having tried various fonts in text settings from the 1970s on (for offset printed work), and always been disappointed with the results, in comparison with letterpress examples.

I surmised that the genre is not ideally suited to offset, and also that the phototype and digital fonts available were lacking.
So I thought I'd have a go, hence Scotch Modern. Even if I have been successful, it is still a difficult genre to use for typographers, as optical size, paper stock and ink gain are so critical. Added to which is the prejudice which exists against it.

Nick I don't think I'm contradicting myself. My eyes say that high contrast is a problem. I can't prove it, but I think it's objective, in the sense that it's a problem for our visual apparatus to read high contrast text at small sizes.

Letter press has a built-in minimum for thins, and so has a kind of built-in optical adjustment, so you may be right that they worked significantly better as letter press.

My prejudice against them for text arose when I was a student in high school and college in the early '60s, when almost all science books were in high contrast modern faces, on slick paper. [They had bigger character sets for math, I'm guessing.]

They have a lot of flavor in display, and yours captures that well.

With less contrast, they can work in text, though they are still not my favorite, though that, I admit, is subjective.

Well… back then, there was ink spread, since the pages were still being printed from metal type.

I’ve got old textbooks with hairlines that compete with contemporary display type. If anything, we’re better off with some of the current designs, which probably get far more testing and revision than was possible with metal.

Nick is right, though, that stock and ink gain are critical. But I think that these things are critical for most projects anyway, so with some testing, it should be possible to make a modern face work—or find out that it won’t, before going to press.

> probably get far more testing and revision than was possible with metal.

I kind of doubt that. I don't know how foundries worked in the 19th century, but in the 20th you had huge drawing offices, proofing in print, and masters like Chauncy Griffith vetting everything.

I don’t think I’m contradicting myself.

Bill, you offered your own experience, which is by definition subjective, as an argument against the idea that high contrast types are in general "equally readable".

The problem with high contrast types is not the contrast per se, but rather it's the too slight image of fine details, in particular serifs, in offset printing. So one might say that the difficulty in offset is actually the low contrast between paper and fine details. This is not an issue in letterpress, because even the slightest of serifs are substantial enough: on uncoated stock there is sufficient press gain, and on coated stock there is the bite of type into the paper, creating a crisp dimensional image.

I always thought that one of the major issues with modern style type was the stress axis. I know it's the first thing I notice when I look at a page set in Bodoni, for instance. The high contrast certainly highlights that axis as well.

The stress axis bothers you less if you see it more.

ChrisL

On axis, I do think that higher contrast is less of a problem in old style type, such as Times New Roman, where the thins are more on the diagonal.

On objectivity, I am not basing myself only on my eyes, but also history. The high contrast types of the 19th century went into eclipse. I believe that almost all popular text faces now have lower contrast than things like Bodoni, Didot, and the 19th century Scotch romans. I haven't studied the 19th century stuff in letter press, so I may be wrong, but my impression is that things like Century, Miller Text, and Chronicle all have lower contrast than the 19th century stuff. I suspect that this history indicates an underlying reality about the physiology and psychology of how we read. So I don't think the "prejudice" is just prejudice, but rather a well founded belief that such high contrast, vertical stress stuff is a problem for the eye in extended text.

Bill: I suspect that this history indicates an underlying reality about the physiology and psychology of how we read.

People generally acknowledge high heels are bad for the health of women's feet and harder to walk in. Do you deny that as well? All shoes are equally good for every purpose? If a woman wants to go on a 20 mile hike, those high heels you show are just as good as hiking boots? The same shoe design for the ball and for the hike?

On objectivity, I am not basing myself only on my eyes, but also history. The high contrast types of the 19th century went into eclipse.

Suppose you lived during the height of high-contrast didones. Wouldn't you then be able to make the argument that history has proven their superiority, since the low contrast types of the 17th-18th centuries have gone into eclipse?

Yes you would, but should you?

BIll, you argued that the the latest and most popular version of a cultural artefact, book type, is therefore better fitted to human physiology. Would you argue that for another cultural artefact, shoes?

Flawed, dysfunctional products can become well entrenched for all kinds of reason. Success is no measure of virtue.

And as Craig notes, if time and progress improve type, how come the preferred book type went from garalde to didone and then back again to garalde?

>how come the preferred book type went from garalde to didone and then back again to garalde?

Because fashion ruled for a time, but practicality--in this case readability--won out in the longer run.

And mass literacy emerged and people lapped up Dickens in spite of the high contrast type in which it was set?
Not to mention the lack of leading: didn't anybody figure out that was bad for readability?

Aren't you dismissing something that doesn't fit your prejudices of readability as mere fashion?
It's hard to believe that something so supposedly impractical could be so predominant for so long, around the world (and in Cyrillic too).

Nick, those aren't bad. In your blow up of the pica, most of the thins are ok, so the overall contrast I wouldn't complain about so much. I have, however, seen others from the 19th century are much worse. As I said my complaint is high contrast with vertical stress, and this, as printed isn't such high contrast.

As to the tight leading, I think that people today have a fashion of thinking that huge leading contributes to readability, less so than it actually does.

So you see my views aren't just a matter of going along with what's happening today.

>Aren’t you dismissing something that doesn’t fit your prejudices of readability as mere fashion?

No, I'm not dismissing anything. I'm expressing a well considered opinion, which may none the less be wrong, that vertical stress with high contrast is less readable in extended text. And judging by what most folks have done in designing fonts and setting text for over a hundred years, most agree with me.

Feel free to refer me to the ID section, but since it was raised here: does anyone know what Michaël Amzalag is using in Interview for body copy?

Nick, one of the results of having an interest in the English Catholic revival is that I've read quite a few books in 19th century editions set in Scotch types, often at ludicrously small sizes, and with little leading, and with huge gaping spaces at the end of every sentence. Are they hard to read? Well, no, not really, once you get into them, but on the other hand I don't think they're as easy to read as most 20th century publishing using lower contrast types based on renaissance models.

And judging by what most folks have done in designing fonts and setting text for over a hundred years, most agree with me.

I don't think that's true.
Sure, there was a revival of old-style types starting in the 1890s, but it took a long time for the Modern faces to be eclipsed.

I just had a look at a couple of Linotype catalogs, 1923 and 1958, and most of the typefaces in them are high contrast with vertical stress -- including those named Old Style!

Pick any year in the 1950s or 60s and check the text type of the large circulation American magazines--you'll have a hard job finding anything that isn't high contrast and vertically stressed.

Even in news type, following the introduction of the Legibility Series in the 1920s, one still finds the old numbered Moderns being well used in the 1950s and 60s.

There was a revival of oldstyles, but it when was it really that there were any decent ones in general use? The Doves press was nice, I guess, but very low in use. Caslon never really disappeared, but the others didn't come into use until almost the Depression

Goudy's Garamont ~ 1920
Bembo ~ 1929
Centaur ~ 1914/1929

Unless I'm way off base on my history, of course

IMO, the "killer" oldstyle was Goudy's Kennerley of 1911, which was instantly huge, and widely used for at least 20 years.
To be followed by many other Goudy oldstyles.

From ATF and Benton, as Dan says, Centaur, but also Garamond (1919)
From Monotype: Imprint, Plantin, Caslon (recut) in the 'teens.

I don't know about continental European types.

Cheltenham was extremely popular in many countries--would that be classified as an old style?!

Which came 1st? the readability or the popularity? (chicken egg).

ChrisL

What is the saying? What is read most is read best? Or something like that? Blackletter was "readable", but not anymore. Perhaps Moderns were perfectly readable too.

Perhaps it is that oldstyles just happen to be among the first of typefaces, read by everyone first and thus readable by everyone first.

Caslon was first revived in 1844 with "Lady Willoughby's Diary", with the original matrices, I think. It caused something of a stir because it was so much more readable than the 'Moderns' that were then fashionable :) Updike, who admittedly was a Caslon fanatic, said the revival was "The typographic event of the mid-nineteenth century".

Following this, foundries gradually issued a lot of typefaces called 'old style' based on Caslon, but with larger x-heights and I believe also less contrast. According to Mac McGrew's book, Bruce Old Style originated in 1869, Binny Old Style around 1863, and Bookman Old Style originates in 1860. Caslon itself was revived in the US supposedly from English electroplates at about the same time, also under the name 'Old Style'. Later in the century they put the name Caslon back on it, and with hot metal type every foundry had versions of both Caslon and "Old Style", often with shortened descenders. One of the most refined of the higher x-height revivals was Imprint, which I think you can still see used occasionally.

I don't know, but I would guess from the 1860s on you will see a lot of 'old styles' in print. The peak of the craze for Caslon was probably 1900 to 1925. After the Bembo and Garamond were revived, it lost some of its mystique as there were other good and refined old style revivals available, as well as the new stuff from Goudy, which was very popular also in the US. Today I sense we are about due for a new Caslon craze :)

By the way, I think the Scotch style, such as Nick has revived, in my eyes was never as problematic in text as the real Didones, which have more starved horizontals.

It caused something of a stir because it was so much more readable than the ’Moderns’ that were then fashionable :) Updike, who admittedly was a Caslon fanatic, said the revival was “The typographic event of the mid-nineteenth century”.

Lady Willoughby's Diary was influential, but the idea that it was "so much more readable" is a non sequitur.
In fact, the revival was found wanting, and what grew out of it and did become popular, the Miller and Richard "Old Style" was, to all intents and purposes, a modern face, with high contrast and vertical stress! The same is true of the other "Old Styles" you mention.
So don't be mislead by the term "Old Style" as it was used prior to the more authentic revivalism of the 20th century, that was sparked by Morris' work in the late 1890s.

Updike was extremely prejudiced against the trade typography of the 19th century, omitting it from his history (e.g. he shows no sans), so hardly a reliable source as to what was significant then.

...the real Didones...

Nick, unlike your scan of Scotch, I find that Didot pretty bad as far as readability. The weight of the stem in the Scotch is carried much further into the top arch, compared to Didot and Bodoni, where the horizontal arch is thinner throughout.

The result to my eyes is that there is a lot of shimmer from the 'picket fence' effect in your scan, because the heavy verticals are so dominant.

As far as the Old Style of Miller and Richard, here's what Jaspert's encyclopedia says: "The stress is vertical, but though not abruptly so. Note the curves of the c, e, and p."

Remember that Caslon's o has a vertical stress, as well as some of his caps in many sizes. The c, e, and p have a slight old style stress in the Monotype version of Old Style that Jaspert shows.

But the important point in that note is "not abruptly so". The gentler modulation is the main thing they took from Caslon, and with it lower contrast. Judging by the many later versions of Old Style, you are mistaken in saying that Phemister's original Old Style for Miller & Richard has high contrast. In fact, the low contrast and big x-height is overdone, in my opinion, in the "Old Style", though it is very readable. (I don't have a sample of the original Miller & Richard type.) My problem with the Old Style is an aesthetic one, namely that it is rather dull looking--something that certainly can't be said of the Scotches, including your revival.

I never said that vertical stress was a problem in itself. There are great text faces with vertical stress, like Caledonia--a modified Scotch. What I do think is that those with vertical stress are less tolerant of higher contrast--you can push diagonal contrast a little more without getting into trouble.

And in any case text type needs lower contrast, lower than in your scanned example immediately above, IMHO. Note that this issue also is not simply absolute thinness of the thins, but also how bold the stems are in relation to them. Here in your Didot scan the result is exactly the thing I have problems with in text. It is beautiful in display, but that is another story.

**

Bill: Judging by the many later versions of Old Style, you are mistaken in saying that Phemister’s original Old Style for Miller & Richard has high contrast.

It depends how you define "high contrast".
I certainly get the impression of high contrast from this Victorian oldstyle (below, from the same magazine as the previous sample), looking at the hairline thickness of the crossbar in "a", horizontal strokes of "b" and "d", and the thin strokes of "w" and "y", but at the same time there is much less contrast in "e", "h" and "n" and across the top of "a".

Thanks for those wonderfully revealing scans, Nick. There's a lot of food for thought there. I'll think about it post tomorrow...