Is this a book or magazine? How new is it? What a strange form for the w. That is a beginning line character being used within the text.

Looks just like Linotype (metal) Janson to me. There was also a “recut” version that was slightly less eccentric.

Clarification: Some of the Linotype italics had very odd proportions due to the duplex nature of their fonts—the roman and italic had the exact same metrics. The “recut” versions were separate from the duplexed versions, allowing the correct proportions to be used in the italics.

This is from a book published in 1962. What is meant by a “duplex nature” to the font? What was the impetus for creating the metal versions? How do others feel about the look of it as opposed to the standard italic?

Linotype machines had a “magazine” which contained matrices (moulds) for two fonts at a time, but both fonts had to share the same character widths. Basically, there were two styles of a character on each matrix, and of course each matrix has only a single width. This was called “duplexing”. It was convenient because you could use two styles in the same line of type (roman + italic, or roman + bold), but sharing metrics meant that compromises had to be made in the design of the fonts. For example, for serif typefaces, the italics are traditionally narrower than the roman. When they duplexed a serif roman and italic, it was usually the italic that suffered most since it was probably not going to be used as much as the roman. Linotype also issued “true cut” italics for situations when the italic was going to be used alone, when the compromised metrics were unnecessary.

The standard duplexed italic version of Janson is problematic for me so I’m after the metal or true cut versions (or are these the same?). I’ve searched these a few times on Linotype’s site but fail to come up with them. Where are these available?

Appreciatively,
Luca

It appears that the Linotype digital version of Janson does use the “true cut” italics. I’m not sure if the duplex version has ever been digitized. Still, Linotype’s version isn’t the only one available. There are lots to choose from:

http://new.myfonts.com/search/janson/fonts/

Note that some versions are called “Kis” (after the name of the punchcutter who cut the original) due to trademark reasons.

To my eye, these other versions actually don’t appear quite the same, seeming to lack the width of the example above and the f is certainly different. I would love to find this face...it would be very useful in recreating the text.

So, you want to match the duplexed italic in the sample? I would be surprised if there was a digital version.

If I recall properly, the metal type was created at Stempel during the 1950s, under the supervision of Hermann Zapf. Stempel would have later adopted the design for Linotype matrices, which are duplexed. But when Stempel made the phototype version (if there was one…) or the digital version now distributed by Linotype, their basis would have been the metal version, not the metal one. They would not have gone back to these intermediary, duplexed Linotype matrix designs.

The Linotype—duplexed—version would have represented a design compromise intended just for typesetting with the old Linotype machine. The “proper” design would have been the hand set version, which would not have been duplexed (i.e., no weird f). There is no need, when there is a good hand setting model, to also convert the Linotype version to photo/digital/etc. I understand what you mean when you say that a digital version of the Linotype matrix version would help you reset the text, but really, the drawbacks outweigh the benefits. Everything is going to be slightly different in the present digital version… i.e., the letterspacing is most likely different now, so you wouldn’t be able to easily maintain the same line wrap anyway! Just reset the document and use a similar point size, leading, page size, margins, etc. That is enough, I think.

Don’t worry about this thing with the wonky italic… the Linotype machine version that you are looking at is a work around, not the “proper” version. The current digital version is closer to the “proper” design. Using that is better ;-)

I very much see the difference in this text which makes extensive use of this wonky italic. This is, I should mention, work for a family member of Richard Neutra. The text is Neutra’s, and if he had any oversight at all in its layout, then it’s best to recreate it exactly as he intended. Posted here is the actual page and the recreation with standard Linotype versions. Comments welcome.

I don’t know… back in the early 1960s, you had a lot less typeface choice. I doubt that Neutra decided that this book should be set on a Linotype machine, and then printed from that type. Most likely, he and the publisher selected this option because it was the cheapest and/or most convenient option. Hand-setting the whole book would have most likely been too costly. I doubt that a whole lot of books were still being handset in the US in the early 1960s.

Once the decision to use a Linotype machine was made, then Neutra and the publishers would have only been able to use whatever fonts that particular shop had in stock. Janson Text would have been one of the newest (and best) options at the time.

You aren’t going to find an exact match of the design you want, because no one has made a digital version like that (with good reason, I think). But you can use the digital font that you have to better approximate the feeling of Linotype Machine-set text. Try these two steps: Turn off all Kerning in the document. So you’ll be using NO kerning pairs (the Linotype Machine did not support them). Then, you could letterspace all Italic text passages a bit. This won’t give you the wider letterforms you want, but it will open up and widen the text, and that will give a very close impression. Typography isn’t really about individual letterforms anyway. It is about how they all come together… what the pattern is. You can approximate one books pattern with similar, but not exact tools. I would not see this as being detrimental to Neutra’s legacy at all.

I agree with Dan. There’s no way to look exactly the same, except scanning and reproducing. Even in the remote case that you could get (or design) a revival of this italic, technology printing is different now, so you can’t get the same feeling.

If you compare, let’s say, Adobe Garamond with an original sixteenth-century Garamond, differences are notable. But Adobe Garamond still a very accurate revival.

Spacing is wider in the original, too, for italic AND roman. If you follow this in your digital font, it may generate a very loose aspect.

Don’t worry about it, it seems that it’s the closest you can get —unless you can do it in a Linotype machine. I’d be more worried about false small caps and errata (INTSTRUCTIVE).

But if you really want to look exactly the same, don’t forget Perpetua on the headline. ;-)