Good question. In my font list I've got Garamond3 by Adobe, but also GaramondThree (spelled out) by Linotype. There don't seem to be any differences between the two.

You probably already know this link.

Maybe it came from Lettergietereij 'Amsterdem', who were the ones who made the Linotype matrices for it?

James — I’m pretty sure the “No. 3” designation was introduced by Mergenthaler Linotype.

I would imagine the numerical designations were used to distinguish different versions of other foundries’ Garamonds that Linotype might have been called upon to produce for various markets.

I get the impression from McGrew’s account that Mergenthaler attempted their own version first (which presumably would have been No. 1), which did not meet with any commercial success.

According to McGrew, the “No. 2” designation was used for some other fonts of a Garamond design produced by German Linotype. (Maybe this is the version Dan is referring to?)

No. 3, then, was assigned to the version they adapted from the popular Benton revival in conjunction with ATF, which has been the most enduring.

I would have to look into it more, but I thought that this Linotype machine Garamond design was produced by Tetterode (Lettergiereij 'Amsterdam'). Jan Middendorp should know. Stempel in Germany had their own Garamond, for which Linotype matrices also would have been made, as far as I know.

To clarify though, Garamond 3 is the Benton/ATF design, with the necessary adaptions, I guess, for the Linotype machine. It just had to be renamed for marketing purposes. All sources that I can find point toward Tetterode having released this in either the 20s or 30s. I hope that Jan sees this and chimes in.

Thanks, guys.

All,

Linotype Garamond No. 3 was the cut licensed from American Type Founders (ATF) which was a refined redrawing of Garamond.

I'm not sure where Tetterode/Amsterdam would factor is, except there may be some confusion imparted by TFA / ATF confluence.

That is, Type Foundry Amsterdam or Amsterdam Type Foundry as it was sometimes referred in the States.

As far as I'm aware, Tetterode/Amsterdam didn't engage in matrix manufacture. Megenthaler in Brooklyn produced mats for the US market, and Linotype AG, (well before being absorbed by Stempel) produced matrices for the European market.

And yes, Stempel has it's own cut of Garamond for foundry type, as well as historic other designs, such as their take on Baskerville which differed from the "Fry's" Baskerville ATF issued (but not called the Fry's cut), and further, the Baskerville Mergenthaler released for Linotype in the US.

Stempel Garamond specimen

All rather confusing isn't it. Blame the marketing departments.

mjb / interrobang letterpress

Michael, my understanding of the German Linotype in the hot-metal era was was that it was a relatively small organization, at least in in terms of their own creation of new typefaces and the cutting of matrices. European foundries entered into agreements with them to adapt existing designs to the Linotype machine, and produce matrices in general (including Stempel and Haas). Stempel didn't absorb Linotype AG … rather, in 1985, it was more the other way around. That's certainly how the former Stempel employees have relate the situation to me.

I think that Tetterode cut matrices for the Linotype and the Intertype machines, too, but it would be nice to get some confirmation for this. Jan Middendorp touches on Tetterode's relationship with Intertype in "Letters from Amsterdam," Linotype Matrix. Volume 4, number 3 (winter 2008). Pages 40–53. The article, incidentally, is set in Garamond 3, although the design is not mentioned in the text or in his Dutch Type book.

Also, the ATF Garamond (and Garamond 3, naturally) look more like they were based on Jean Jannon's seventeenth century types (just like Monotype Garamond) than earlier type from Garamond his contemporary sixteenth century French punchcutters (as is more the case with Stempel Garamond, Linotype's Granjon, Sabon, etc.)

Also, the ATF Garamond (and Garamond 3, naturally) look more like they were based on Jean Jannon's seventeenth century types…

The ATF cut is definitely based on Jannon’s work, although it would not be hard to adapt it into Garamond’s stiffer design. The Jannon design Benton and Cleland sourced adheres closely to Garamond’s roman with a little extra calligraphic liveliness. I started this thread because I was getting confused by the various Garamond/Jannon revival apocrypha that often refers to ATF Garamond as Garamond 3. And of course some of it mentions Monotype because of Warde’s connections there (and because of Monotype’s own Garamonds), which can make for a big headache if one reads too much of it in the same week!

I was under the impression that the 'Dutch' version was marketed under the name ‘Garamont’, but I may be mistaken (loosing brain cells at an alarming rate).

I was under the impression that the 'Dutch' version was marketed under the name ‘Garamont’…

There’s more than one Garamont. I don’t know which was is the “Dutch” version, but Goudy designed a Garamont for Monotype and Deberny and Peignot created their own. Both of those are based on Garamond’s roman.

Hi James

I went through what you're going through while researching to provide the design history commentary at http://www.100types.com/100types.com.23garamond.html

The answer to your original question is that Garamond 3 as a designation originates with Mergenthaler Linotype and their agents. As Dan and others have pointed out, this was done to distinguish it from ATF Garamond (Benton and Cleland's original work), because the design was tweaked to make it fit the spec for Linotype machine matrices.

Bert is not mistaken; Tetterode/Amsterdam Type Foundry released their own cut named as Garamont, and I believe that Goudy/Monotype and D&P simply followed this trend for the name.

Someone with an old Tetterode specimen should compare, but I think that the Tettorde Garamont might well be just another version of ATF Garamond/Garamond 3, and not an "independently made" Garamond.

I'd be interested in finding out more about the Tetterode/Amsterdam mat manufacturing presumption. I was not aware they were in the business, and if they were, they may have been manufacturing for Intertype rather than Linotype.

I just checked my (late) 1960 Amsterdam specimen and they don't show anyone's version of Gara(x).

To reiterate, "Garamond No. 3" was the design licensed from American Type Founders. The two cuts are one and the same. I have foundry Garamond in cases, as well as the full series of Linotype mats for efficiently setting straight matter when needed.

Yes, due to the exigencies of duplexed matrix manufacturing in which the normally more narrow italic must be made to function on a roman width, the italic was refitted. That said, it was possible, if one were to make the investment in the several sets of refinements that would run as single characters and logotypes, to achieve italic settings that were more in keeping with the foundry fit.

These were the "Italic Lower Case, Special No. 5" which was the a-z and punctuation,and the "Italic Logotypes, Special No. 5" which were all the ƒ combinations. Additionally, there were other sets. I have a small number of these in 11pt.

mjb / interrobang letterpress / linotypesetting.com

As regards the link to "Illuminating Letters". Aside from the terrible design... I'd take the scholarship with a grain of salt.

That is, they refer to "... one produced by the Monotype foundry,...". Monotype was not a foundry, and further, there were two Monotypes. Lanston Monotype in the US, and Monotype and Machinery Limited in Britain.

Lanston worked with Goudy (as did ATF) and produced their take, the "Garamont (Goudy) 248". They also issued an "American Garamond 648" which, in comparing with a proof of ATF foundry Garamond laid in a case, appear to be the same cut. (Looking specifically at the g, b, and d. The bowl on the b in both is larger that the bowl on the d which is more diminutive, and the g is identical.)

English Monotype released a series No. 156 in roman and italic, as well as a refined Italic No. 174.

Pulling a late Deberny & Peignot specimen book, their "Garamont" bears relation to Lanston's "Garamont (Goudy) 248".

mjb

hmm, a quick re-read, and the final statement about the D&P Garamont should have read: it bears NO relation to Lanston's Garamont.