I don’t get it - that’s the font on your own site!
Did you forget what you used or something?

Baskerville: it has some of those traits, but the tail is a bit too open... Although the italic on your site does look very Baskerville indeed... Maybe Fountain’s cut?

hhp

It’s not Fountain’s 1757. The descenders are too short and the tail of the “g” is too open.

Here is the grab I get on my macintosh from the pdf output of a latex source that uses the gtamacbaskerville package. The associated font is Monotype Baskerville. At that size, with just a bitmap, I can’t see the difference. Can you?

I guess they’re hinting the gap much more open?

hhp

Yes, it IS the type on my own site - that is the embarassing part. A good friend did all of the coding for the site, but he can’t remember what face he used for the navigation buttons.

That looks VERY close if not exactly it!

I was thinking that may be the case - a Baskerville that when used really small and decreased by Photoshop for the web might do that.

Thank you very much!

I guess they’re hinting the gap much more open?

If I open with Acroread or Acrobat, at 100%, a pdf file containing those words in Baskerville 10pt, I see those open gaps on the screen. If I open the very same file with Preview, I don’t. I was thus quite lucky to get that close match and the hinting would not be enough to explain the gap.