88 character
10 Pitch Prestige Pica
12 Pitch Courier
12 Pitch Letter Gothic
96 character
12 Pitch Letter Gothic
10 Pitch Prestige Pica
More from the Selectric manuals:
Type I
Type II
Posted on 09/10/2004 5:23:19 PM PDT by Thanatos
Times (New) Roman and its part in the Development of Scalable Font Technology
By Charles Bigelow
Charles Bigelow posted this article to the Usenet newsgroup "comp.fonts" in May 1994 in response to the question: What's the difference between Times Roman and Times New Roman? I am grateful to Prof. Bigelow for his permission to publish the article. I have taken the liberty of retitling it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.fonts
Subject: Re: What's the difference between Times Roman and Times New Roman?
From: Charles Bigelow
Date: 5 May 1994
"Times Roman" is the name used by Linotype, and the name they registered as a trademark for the design in the U.S. "Times New Roman" was and still is the name used by The Monotype Corporation. The face was developed by The Times newspaper for its own use, under the design direction of Stanley Morison. Originally cut by the Monotype Corp. in England, the design was also licensed to Linotype, because The Times used Linotype equipment for much of its actual production. The story of "The Times New Roman" can be found in Stanley Morison's A Tally of Types, published by Cambridge University Press, with additional, though not quite the same, versions in Nicolas Barker's biography of Stanley Morison, and in James Moran's biography of SM. (There should be an apostrophe in that name, "Times' Roman", I suppose, though no-one uses it.)
During WWII, the American Linotype company, in a generous spirit of Allied camaraderie, applied for registration of the trademark name "Times Roman" as its own, not Monotype's or The Times', and received the registration in 1945.
In the 1980's, all this was revisited when some entrepreneurs, desirous of gaining the rights to use the name, applied to Rupert Murdoch, who owned The Times; separately, a legal action was also initiated to clarify the right of Monotype to use the name in the U.S., despite Linotype's registration.
The outcome of all of the legal maneuverings is that Linotype and its licensees like Adobe and Apple continue to use the name "Times Roman", while Monotype and its licensees like Microsoft use the name "Times New Roman".
During the decades of transatlantic "sharing" of the Times designs, and the transfer of the faces from metal to photo to digital, various differences developed between the versions marketed by Linotype and Monotype. Especially these became evident when Adobe released the PostScript version, for various reasons having to do with how Adobe produced the original PostScript implementations of Times. The width metrics were different, as well as various proportions and details.
In the late 1980's, Monotype redrew its Times New Roman to make it fit exactly the proportions and metrics of the Adobe-Linotype version of Times Roman. Monotype claimed that its new version was better than the Adobe-Linotype version, because of smoother curves, better detailing, and generally greater sensitivity to the original designs done for The Times and Monotype by Victor Lardent, who worked under the direction of Stanley Morison. During the same period, Adobe upgraded its version of Times, using digital masters from Linotype, which of course claimed that it had a superior version, so there was a kind of competition to see who had the most refined, sensitive, original, genuine, bona-fide, artistically and typographically correct version. Many, perhaps most, users didn't notice and didn't care about these subtle distinctions, many of which were invisible at 10 pt at 300 dpi (which is an em of 42 pixels, a stem of three pixels, a serif of 1 pixel, and so on).
When Microsoft produced its version of Times New Roman, licensed from Monotype, in TrueType format, and when Apple produced its version of Times Roman, licensed from Linotype, in TrueType format, the subtle competition took on a new aspect, because both Microsoft and Apple expended a great deal of time and effort to make the TrueType versions as good as, or better than, the PostScript version. During the same period, Adobe released ATM along with upgraded versions of its core set of fonts, for improved rasterization on screen. Also, firms like Imagen, now part of QMS, and Sun developed rival font scaling technologies, and labored to make sure that their renderings of Times, licensed from Linotype in both cases, were equal to those of their competitors. Hence, the perceived quality of the Times design became a litmus for the quality of several font formats. Never before, and probably never again, would the precise placement of pixels in the serifs or 's' curves etc. of Times Roman occupy the attention of so many engineers and computer scientists. It was perhaps the supreme era of the Digital Fontologist.
As for the actual visual differences in the designs, well, like any good academic author, I leave the detection and analysis of those "as an exercise for the reader".
© Charles Bigelow
It's a Minkmen!!!
Should be able to with MS Word for the Mac & Times Roman font.
I don't see why it would matter, unless the Linotype was licensed for use on typewriters in the early 70s...
It's actually very simple -- someone forged the documents before he forged the documents!
The most daming evidence is that the characters line up exactly with sample documents produced in Microsoft Word. History tells us that Microsoft's version of Times New Roman is different from anyone else's, and that the spacing should not line up exactly unless the documents were forged using Microsoft Word.
I would like to see how a Postdcript or WordPerfect Times New Roman looks compared to the original document.
What did Dan know and when did he know it?
Seems to be working now. Not sure why you had trouble.
I've got hotlink protection, so pulling it from my site to another won't work if that's what you were trying to do...
I sure don't see either TR or TNR on that list...
oops.. the top graphic is for Type I and Type II Selectrics, the bottom graphic is for Type III Selectrics
Dan . . . a word with you? RESIGN!
Lightened it up a little bit...not a real good image and it starts to lose definintion
I've long ago set my browser to show everything in Arial. Much easier on the eyes...when web pages cooperate.
Nope, just linked to see. Got the red x.
I haven't watched him in more than ten years. Literally. I thought he looked and sounded REAL bad. Is he usually not this awful?
You may find slight differences between Times Roman and Times New Roman.
Well, yeah.
For what it's worth, my company still operates working Linotype machines to this day and will continue to do so for the next 10 years or so or until we can find something that can do what Linotype machines do so easily and quickly.
I've read all the memos and such and my thought was...
I could probably reproduce the memo with Linotype slugs, centering and all.
So, how many linotype machines did the Texas ANG have for typing memos? I mean, you only need a machine, a hot-lead re-melter, some antimoney and tin supplies and a willing operator. I mean, the machines, depending on common models like the Monarch or Comet, weigh in at about 2 tons, and need a handful of mechanics. Didn't every office have one? (bwahahaha)
CBS reminds me of the Black Knight Scene in The Holy Grail.
Lying in direct contradiction to the prima facia truth.
I have to add a quote from the stinky DU..(sent to CBS)
troubleinwinter (24 posts) Fri Sep-10-04 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #7
26. Thanks for posting the CBS news email addy
I sent 'em a thanx:
"Thank you, and congratulations on your integrity and character in your excellent reporting on the Bush National Guard documents! Thank you for having done your homework on their authenticity and STANDING UP and BACKING UP your story. Well done! It is so good to see genuine investigative reporting!
Congratulations on a job well done."
HAHAHA!
Now I need a shower!!!
Notice the letterspacing. It is not at all like the memos.
Anyone dig up the fonts for the Executive?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.