I would like to see the C, R and a closeup of the g, please. (I know, these letters should be enough, but so far, I am having no luck.)

Oh, and please also a 'T'. Thanks.

So far, the bold type (Kristus fogantatasa..) looks like Monotype Albion Bold (see Encyclopaedia of Typefaces - Jaspert, et al.), but I am still looking.

Thanks for your efforts, Mike. Here are the shapes requested.

If you need more shapes of the bold type to corroborate that it's Monotype Albion, I'll be happy to try and track them down, although they will be a bit more difficult to find.

Also, there is some italic text scattered here and there, apparently from the same family, maybe it helps (see 2nd and 3rd sample). Sorry the last sample is so jagged, my scanner is acting up.

Best,
Endre

Sorry for posting twice.
E.

French Face Extended (Jaspert 'Encyclopaedia') is quite similar in most features, but I notice the serifs on the 'u' and 'm' italic letters are not the same style. The Roman matches pretty well, and is the best match I have seen so far. I am still looking.

Well, it was only my (uneducated) assumption that the italic and the roman belonged to the same family. Given the setter's choice to use a different bold type (not only for headings but also for emphasis in the running text), I wouldn't put it entirely past them to have used a third face for italics.

Maybe some more italic samples will help to decide whether there's really significant difference in the serifs.

However, please note that this is not urgent business -- I don't want to take up too much of your time. This is just personal curiosity on my part; as a reader, I find this particular Bible a masterpiece of readability (and thus of typography), in particular when compared to some of its successors, and I wanted to take a look at the works behind it :-).

Endre

Actually, Mike, I think you're one page off. The next page in Jaspert shows a face called French Round Face that is an exact match (taking ink spread into account) to my eye. Every little quirk is there. Too bad the showing is so limited (only letters and numbers in roman and italic).

Here's what Mac McGrew (American Typefaces of the Twentieth Century) has to say about it:

"FRENCH ROUND FACE originally called Didot Roman or simply Modern, was one of the first revivals of the faces cut by Firmin Didot in France about 1784. This was cut for Monotype in 1910, under the direction of J. Horace MacFarland and William Dana Orcutt. The italic unusual in that some lowercase letters have serifs like the roman. No. 16 on Linotype and Intertype is similar but heavier. Compare Suburban French.

Your assumption is usually a good one, but I suppose nothing prevents a publisher from using any type that is legible at the required type sizes.

The biggest problem with italics is that they are often neglected in type specimen showings in popular books.

I have finished looking through the Jaspert book, and I have found no better match than the French Face Extended which was a Monotype typeface.

One problem that we have had several times is that Central European types are not well known in the U.S., and my reference materials are rather limited on those typefaces. If these typefaces are not Western European or American, my chance of identifying it is very limited.

It appears that neither of the typefaces I mentioned exists by those names as digital type. If you do not have the Jaspert book, I would be happy to scan samples of Albion and French Face Extended.

I am not optimistic that I will find the italic. Unless someone else on this Board has better references for European typefaces, this may end up as a mystery we can't solve for you. I know you said it was 'just personal curiosity', but that's often what motivates us to learn to identify these things, I think.

Besides, questions about text type are relatively rare, and kind of fun to research. So I will look in a few more places, but I am running out of material to check.

The bold weight is a bit mysterious. I don't see any references to a bold weight of French Round Face (or any of its imitators). The Linotype version (No. 16) used Century Bold for bold.

Oops! Sorry Mark, I was writing my post while yours came up. You're right. Somehow I missed that sample on the next page. The serifs on that italic do match.

So close, but no cigar!

Good eye Mark.

Thanks for your joint effort, folks, also for the quote from McGrew.

I ordered Jaspert's Encyclopedia at Amazon.

Unfortunately I don't have all information I would like on the Bible edition in question, but it seems to me that it's an unchanged reprint of a previous edition set in metal type (metal setting is what an irregular baseline points to, or am I wrong?).

I know that the text hasn't changed since 1908 (when it was published by the British and Foreign Bible Society), but it has probably been re-set a few times.

As to the bold, I have included a few more samples in case it helps. But maybe I should open a new thread for that?

Endre

I still think Albion Bold (in the Jaspert book) is the closest match I have seen, and it is still consistent with these new letters. The font is from Monotype in 1910. The typeface is odd in that the Bold has a different 'g' than the regular weight.

I will make a scan to show you while you wait for your copy.

Here is my scan of Albion from the Jaspert 'Encyclopaedia of Type Faces'.

No need to open a new thread Endre, I "reactivated" this one.