Old Emerson Typeface

[hrant]

I hadn't seen that Nonpareil stuff. What a horrible digitization
of Emerson (or actually Spiral). Somebody get them to pull it.

hhp

[quadibloc]

> Somebody get them to pull it.

A Google search let me find the website and get their PDF specimen. It does seem like the x-height line isn't even, although I saw that with some examples of the "real" Emerson as well. Other than that flaw, which should be easily correctable if it is real, the digital version did not look terrible to me - and I'm glad one exists.

Looking more closely, and using the "test drive" feature of their site, it seems that the problem is really with only one letter: the lowercase z. It is too low, and is tilted so that the right side is even lower. The "real" Emerson from Monotype appears to have a characteristic like that in the lowercase z as well, but not so pronounced.

[quadibloc]

> Zoom in to the foot of the "i".

I see that the two serifs on either side are not equal in length. However, that seems to be true for most of the other lowercase letters as well; it seems to have been intentionally done to give flow or directionality to the letters.

Thus, the serifs on the right-hand vertical of the "h" are similar to those of the "i", while those on the base of the "f" and "r" point in the other direction.

[hrant]

Zoom in to the foot of the "i".

hhp

[hrant]

Sorry, I meant the "i" in the display cut.
But in the text cut, check out the "U"...

hhp

[quadibloc]

I'm still not entirely certain what you may be wishing me to look for, as the samples of the real Emerson that I've seen weren't at a large enough scale for me to compare them with this.

However, the curve at the bottom of the U in the text version does seem to change abruptly, I will admit.

In the case of i in the display version, the counter on the left-hand serif at the bottom does seem to have a problem - where the others are smooth curves, this one seems to depart from the vertical earlier, and change to a straight line leaning against the vertical - which then rejoins the normal serif after a bend with a smaller radius of curvature.

[Bendy]

Yeah, I got in touch with them and they've fixed the pdf link now. They could do with some optimisation to get their website on Google's radar. I've been researching Emerson all week and they hadn't come up at all. But the whole site is Flash.

The lowercase /x/ and /y/ in the display cut have similarly unsmooth serif joins. I'm hoping to find out how the digitisation project was handled.

[hrant]

It looks like FontLab did it...

hhp

[Bendy]

Hrant, I got a new scan from my friend at Wells College, and overlaid it on the scan you had, noting a few differences, particularly the descender of italic g. (The darker scan was the one you sent me.) Some of the differences of course could just be ink spread but I think the Wells specimen has stronger serifs and terminals. I haven't yet got exact details of the source (and whether it could be the foundry version).

Also I gather there's some 14pt metal Emerson knocking around there so I've asked for some macro photos.
If you'd like me to e-mail this new scan I'd be happy to. I'm pretty happy about the quality. :)

[kentlew]

Stronger serifs and terminals could indicate fresher type. Monotype would typically be cast fresh for each setting, but long runs might get more worn toward the end. Handset foundry type would be more likely to exhibit affects of wear and tear, depending upon the printer’s practices.

I can’t explain the smaller shorter g of the Wells specimen. I don’t think Monotype was in the habit of making short/long-descender versions. That was more a Linotype practice, due to certain constraints.

[hrant]

Like Kent said, the softer serifs are probably just a wearing of the metal. BTW, Monotype fonts were sometimes cast as sorts for hand-setting, and being much softer than foundry would wear down much faster in such cases.

The only real difference is indeed the "g". Since the earlier Spiral didn't even have an Italic (correct?) the only explanation I can think of is that they set the "g" a point or two larger than the rest!

hhp

[Shrdlu]

I was at Wells last summer and got to take a monotype class from Mike Bixler. But I also picked up a copy of Victor Hammer and the Wells College Press which has this passage at the end of the book:

Spiral Type, 14 point Roman, approximately 200 pounds. Donated to Victor Hammer by Joseph Blumenthal.*

* This is most likely the only existing Spiral Foundry Type in existence as only 1000 pounds was cast. Blumenthal gave 200 pounds to Hammer and eventually melted down the remaining 800 pounds. That Wells has this much Spiral and the original Emerson type is a tribute to the devotion of Father Thomas J. Collar, a printer who live in Aurora, and friend of Victor Hammer. This type was pied in the many moves and nearly totally lost. Father Collar spend countless hours setting the pied type back on its feet and tying and wrapping it so that it could be easily relayed and used. Without his almost heroic effort, this type would certainly be lost forever.

I suppose I should have used it in the specimen book I printed there. But presumably that's the foundry version then. I have a picture of the front of the California cases that say Spiral, but that's not so interesting.

[Bendy]

Wow, that's really exciting! I'm going to get in touch with my friend; she mentioned Mike Bixler so I'm now really wondering what the source of her scan was!

[quadibloc]

I remember there was a thread about identifying a typeface in an encyclopedia by Golden Books in which the Emerson typeface was discussed extensively. However, while the search feature of this site seems to be working again, it did not turn up that thread.

Thankfully, Google stepped into the breach:

https://typography.guru/forums/topic/76413-forwarding

[Bendy]

More: Spiral & Emerson: An Interview with Joseph Blumenthal.

[Bendy]

I've created a page on Wikipedia for Emerson. It's a bit concise, so feel free to edit or let me know any suggestions and I'll amend.
Emerson (typeface)

[quadibloc]

Interesting Wikipedia article.

The first use of Emerson - or perhaps Spiral - was in publishing a private-press edition of Ralph Waldo Emerson's essay Nature, in 1935, but that had been published before (in 1908, and perhaps earlier). Somehow, I think, the wording should be made explicit on this point, to avoid leading people to think that the font was first used for the initial publication of that work.

Speaking of Wikipedia articles, there is a beautiful and detailed article entitled "Linotype Machine". But there was only a paragraph describing how Monotype machines work in one of the articles about the history of the Monotype corporation. I created an article, but it's far from complete, entitled "Monotype system", if this news might reach anyone interested in doing it properly!

[Bendy]

Thanks, I've amended that, hopefully it's clearer now?

[hrant]

That Typocurious interview is quite revealing - thanks for sharing!

It's interesting how Blumenthal was in such denial about the pivotal positive role that Hoell played... To me Emerson would have been lukewarm at best without Hoell's contribution.

hhp

[Bendy]

I've finally had the chance to look at a scan Dan Rhatigan sent through to me a while ago, from the MT archives. I don't feel I can post it here, but I've compared the original foundry version with the MT version.

My observations of the changes:

• Overall the MT face is lighter. Odd perhaps, wouldn't both versions have used the same kinds of ink in the presses?
• Round letters (CDOQ especially) are considerably lighter.
• HMNPS were made narrower. (To fit the 18-unit system?)
• Terminals on CGS were trimmed down.
• Lowercase extenders were brought in.
• Arched counters on m and n were raised. Similar with the a. Crossbars of f and t thinned.
• Zero was changed from round to narrow form (still oldstyle, both have same modulation).

I think the last is the only stylistic change, the other adaptations seem to have been made for practical reasons.

I'm afraid my observations are sadly not quantified due to the low-ish resolution images I have, but I'm hoping to make some high resolution scans fairly soon, and see what else the MT archives hold.

[kentlew]

> Overall the MT face is lighter. Odd perhaps, wouldn't both versions have used the same kinds of ink in the presses?

My guess (only a wild-ass guess) is that perhaps because hot metal is softer than foundry, the anticipation was that the type might wear slightly over any moderately long run (for books, for example) and gain as a result.

(It’s a stretch, and I have no evidence or direct experience, but that was my first thought upon reading your observation.)

[ultrasparky]

Ben, I don't remember all the details from the correspondence about Monotype's cut of Emerson, but I at least remember that there was discussion about the weight, and trials printed to compare the foundry cut against ours. You can correct me if you come and look through the files, but IIRC it was a conscious decision to get at a weight that seemed more in line with other text faces in the library.

Here's a scan of the comparison setting

[Bendy]

Ha, there's the man! Thanks for chiming in, Dan. I did wonder if it was something to do with Monotype's house style.