🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <l9lnlrINNls8@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu>, eijkhout@cupid.cs.utk.edu (Victor Eijkhout) writes:
> In article <1992Aug25.131542.1@hmcvax.claremont.edu>, dhosek@hmcvax.claremont.edu writes:
> |> In article <l9kqsnINN7kb@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu>, eijkhout@cupid.cs.utk.edu (Victor Eijkhout) writes:
 
> |> > If I would have had any say in the choice of paper I would have
> |> > opted for parchment, in real leather binding :-)

> |> Probably would have taken Baskerville even worse. Today's smooth
> |> papers are largely an outgrowth of the demands of the
> |> transitionals and moderns as well as certain illustrative
> |> printing processes.
 
> Bull, Don. Have you ever seen a page printed by Bodoni himself?
> I have. (If you ever get to Antwerpen, Belgium go see the Plantijn
> museum. It makes people like you and me positively drool. They
> have some neat samples of old printing there, by Plantijn and
> some others. Also lots of old equipment.)
> That paper is of high quality, but nowhere near as smooth as what
> is used nowadays, for instance in my book :-) And Bodoni's type
> is much more demanding that Baskerville.

But how does that page look? Are there break-ups like in your
book? Or, more likely, plenty of fill-ins of counters. Remember
that Bodoni was also printing letterpress which has its own
unique characteristics. If I remember right, Bodoni used extra
pressure on his presses to get a decent impression.

But whatever historical arguments you make, the point cannot be
denied that the appearance of your book has suffered because of
the typeface/paper combination. I, for one, would not claim that
the broken appearance of the letters is attractive.

-dh

Don Hosek                  
dhosek@ymir.claremont.edu  
Quixote Digital Typography 
714-621-1291