Being a novice typophile, I've been trying to read what I can about history, designs, and utility of typefaces. Recently been introduced to the Times, Times NR, and Starling intrigue. Older posts here in 2006-2009 suggest that a few designers would meet with Mike Parker at a convention... but no one seemed to post results, if any, of the meetings.
So, I was curious about 3 issues:
1. What has the type industry understood to be the more accurate history relating to Times: the conventional story or MP's version ?
2. How has the typeface Starling (Font Bureau) performed in technical production, and is the typeface selling well?
3. For years, I've had some negative view of Times somehow implanted in me as being a technically flawed typeface... but in the 1994 C. Bigelow interview, it seems that both Monotype and Linotype had spent years fine-tuning almost everything about the typeface. Just playing around with Times last night, with a different mindset, allowed me to see that it is interesting in its own (early 20th century, and yet forward thinking) way. Is Times just misunderstood, or do professionals truly find flaws with it?