Google: authentic garamond site:typophile.com

The most extensive revival of Garamond is Garamond Premier Pro. Hard to beat.

My view: Authentic revivals are impossible—and not even desirable. Forget about authenticity, and choose what you like best.

There's not much authenticity in digitizing punches.
IMO an authentic copy font should be able to create a facsimile page that is indistinguishable from the original.
That's difficult, unless you're printing letterpress on 100% rag stock.

By any other measure, there will be questions about what is "authentic" -- letter shapes, which size is being used as a model, how much distress is being applied, whether the punch or the printed page tells the truth, how much accommodation/modification should be made for present day demands, &c., &c,

Nick had more patience to explain it, thanks. I agree.

whether the punch or the printed page tells the truth

Can’t this question be answered with the statement, that people don’t read punches, but prints? Augereau is probably more the punch than the print.

These are my favorite digital “Garamonds”:

1. Merlo
2. Stempel Garamond slightly enbolded with Fontographer
3. Berthold Garamond less slightly enbolded with Fontographer
…
∞. Garamond Premier Pro

Merlo is beautiful, but I doubt if people would classify it as a Garamond.

Can’t this question be answered with the statement, that people don’t read punches, but prints?

Nonetheless, there is press gain. Less with Monotype than during Garamond's day, and less still in offset litho, but still worth considering.

(Of course, no Garamond printed on coated paper, or offset, could ever be considered authentic!)

@ William

You are much more competent on that field. But when I compare Merlo and Stempel Garamond, I see more similarities than differences, except from the different stroke width and contrast. The feeling, that I have, when I see these typefaces, is similar, more than in the comparison of Sabon and Stempel Garamond, which is often called a Garamond, isn’t it? But I wouldn’t exclude, that I see the similarity, because I simply like both typefaces very much. They are in the top ten of my favorites. And Merlo is intended to be used in another point size than the digitized Stempel Garamond. Stempel Garamond is more agile or less even with regard to the single glyphs, but this does not disturb the legibility, because the glyphs are in harmony. I wish there would be optical sizes for both typefaces. For using them in the same document, they are too different.

Another word to Augerau: The plain metrics and the kerning are a desaster, especially the kerning, as far as I remember. (Much worse than in Stempel Garamond, which already is not well spaced and kerned.)

Arno: Augereau is probably more the punch than the print.

I think Augereau is more Abrams than (Garamond) punch or print.

I had the pleasure of meeting Mr Abrams at an ATypI congress, and I have a copy of the nice specimen book of his ‘Jenson revival’, Abram Venetian. It has been a long time since I looked at his Augereau, but I don't doubt that it represents his ideas about the 16th Century French style just as his Jenson represents his ideas about the 15th Century Venetian style.

There's a long history of new type designs being passed off or advertised as ‘the most authentic revival’. My favourite example is the 1924 Caslon Foundry complete recutting being sold as ‘struck from the original 18th Century punches’. It's advertising, which is another way of saying bullshіt.

Rather a sweeping generalization, John.
Claiming untruths is not bullshit, it's just false.
However, claiming that, for instance, a large x-height (or a small one) improves legibility, is bullshit, because it is neither true nor false.
Then again, there is advertising which is true, and not bullshit but genuinely informative -- such as the present Font Bureau banner ad at Typophile which states that Ibis has 48 styles and is designed by Cyrus Highsmith.