It is very difficult to replicate the true texture of a renaissance typeface with modern printing methods without looking cartoonish.

My Goodchild is quite faithful, if you overlook the ITC-style x-height!

A large x-height is a good thing; that reminds me of the news item about a Texas newspaper that commissioned an oldstyle typeface, making itself rather unique in that field.

Looking at it, though, I didn't get a Jenson "feel", but I may not have looked carefully enough. It looked like Palatino Book (oops, sorry, Aldus) if anything at first glance. With a Times or Corona level x-height, though, it's hard for a layman like myself to see the essence beneath the surface.

I think x-height is over-rated.

hhp

I didn’t think that Houston Jenson was particularly old style—it doesn’t have a Venetian “e”, for instance, IIRC.
Goodchild was conceived as a news face, and has been used by Tony Sutton on a number of occasions.
Here it is compared with the original.
I opened the counters up, as news text is much smaller than Jenson’s type.

Thank you for making your typeface's closeness to the original Jenson more apparent. Although that top serif on the lowercase h was corrected to meet current practice (which makes sense to avoid startling newspaper readers), it's now clear to me that this is indeed quite authentic.

> startling newspaper readers

I don't think that happens.
Look at the Houston Chronicle face, a Venetian: http://www.christianschwartz.com/houston.shtml
It might seem like a caricature, but at small sizes and lo-fi conditions it really clicks.

hhp

@hrant:
The additional information on that page was interesting. So this all came about as an accident - the face wasn't initially requested, but it was made due to a mix-up, and it turned out to work better than any of the ordinary faces!

And Jenson Oldstyle, even if it owes more to Morris than Jenson, is a nice face for headings and headlines.

Quite close, a bit wider, a bit bigger x height, a bit less contrast and without the slight slant. Good for news!

Guess I remembered wrong about the e.

quadibloc, I'm not sure what's your definition of a "true" revival – one that's adapted to current standards, usability requirements or one that's as close to the original as possible? For what it's worth, there's also Jenson Eusebius by Richard Beatty, which in my opinion may be too close to the original to be of great use today, with its weird flying i dots, crippled R and other irregularities.

Nick — You weren’t completely wrong. The Venetian e was retained in Houston Display and Houston Deck styles, but changed for the Text versions.

Here’s a bit about the Houston Chronicle redesign from a 2004 FB promo piece:

{to follow}

Because I'm using a GoldenType-inspired typeface for stuff, but I'm concerned that it may not work well in certain situations. Some of its... personality... may be overstated, and it's x-height is ...unfashionable.

Quirks that your Goodchild... "corrects."

I still like a curly-tailed /y/, though. Even if it's "inauthentic." I'll look to see if your typeface has alternate characters.

Amado, minor point: something like that "{to follow}" is a low-tech tracking mechanism - it only makes sense when it's the only (and first) thing you post to a thread. (And once we have a proper "following" mechanism it won't be useful at all.)

hhp

As I argued here, I think the pursuit of 'authenticity' is a snare. You can try to capture features of any of the old types, but trying to mimic the look you end up with a type that is only of antiquarian interest. Jenson is one of the greatest types, and people keep trying to capture its magic in different ways and with varying success.

My own view is that they need to be evaluated each on their own merits, whether it's Centaur, Goodchild, Adobe Jenson, Eusebius, or whatever.

@Jens Kutilek:
I'm not sure what's your definition of a "true" revival – one that's adapted to current standards, usability requirements or one that's as close to the original as possible?

Both!

One that's adapted to current standards enough to be usable - but which is very close to the original in all respects not constrained by that, so that it keeps the feel of the original!

Of course, that isn't quite clear enough yet. Doesn't Cloister Oldstyle capture the "feel" of Jenson's typeface?

So perhaps what I'm praising is what others would esteem less. To be a revival of a previous typeface, and not simply a new typeface taking inspiration from that typeface, instead of striving for an original creation, after doing what is necessary to avoid the type being unfit for its intended purpose, the type designer needs to be imitative rather than creative.

Art will still be present, as there's no mechanical way to "true up" an incunabular typeface, but we move on the spectrum towards craftsmanship and away from fine art.

Oh, and to avoid confusion: among modern digital faces, what I'm thinking of is Nicolas Jenson SG, not Jenson Eusebius.

I note that, in The Centaur Types, no less an authority than Bruce Rogers has this to say of Eusebius: "It was a much more faithful reproduction of Jenson's letter than Centaur or Cloister."

Though he was of course writing long before some of the other modern 'revivals' came into being... I do think you'd be hard pressed to find a more strictly faithful recreation than Eusebius.

I'd venture to suggest that the Doves Press Roman might have earned a similar distinction... if it had survived, at least. :(