Well, yes and no. I’d disagree with a bit of it, & some detail is lacking. ITC Baskerville is the same as Linotype “New Baskerville.” Linotype created New Baskerville, and in the days of the Linotron 202, sold it to ITC & then re-licensed it. So us 202 users were in the position of being able to buy “New Baskerville” from Linotype, or “ITC Baskerville” from Linotype for $20 more, but they were in fact essentially the same fonts.
To my eye, the digital version of ITC Baskeville looks very similar to the older photocomp version, perhaps the x-height has grown a touch larger. But it has been used for extended text for years, by many award-wining designers such as Rich Hendel, Richard Eckersley, etc. A different generation, I know.
Monotype Baskerville, in digital form, is as the wiki says. The letterforms were never adjusted for the difference in ink spread between letterpress printing and offset printing, and this is exacerbated with direct-to-plate offset printing.
The Berthold Baskerville doesn’t have the character weight problem of Monotype — and to a smaller extent, ITC — but to my eye, somehow lost the quality of “Baskerville.” I haven’t used the Storm version, so can’t say anything.
My main gripe with the wiki is that it gives the impression the “New Baskerville” is unsuitable for book-length text. While not one of my favorites & while it does have some weaknesses, it has been successfully used for years, in both photocomp & digital forms.
27.Aug.2008 3.32am
Monotype Baskerville or Frantisek Storm’s John Baskerville.
27.Aug.2008 3.52am
I’ll second the ’John Baskerville’ suggestion.
Dav
27.Aug.2008 5.00am
Again, it’s all in the wiki: Baskerville
F
27.Aug.2008 5.22am
Again, it’s all in the wiki:
Well, yes and no. I’d disagree with a bit of it, & some detail is lacking. ITC Baskerville is the same as Linotype “New Baskerville.” Linotype created New Baskerville, and in the days of the Linotron 202, sold it to ITC & then re-licensed it. So us 202 users were in the position of being able to buy “New Baskerville” from Linotype, or “ITC Baskerville” from Linotype for $20 more, but they were in fact essentially the same fonts.
To my eye, the digital version of ITC Baskeville looks very similar to the older photocomp version, perhaps the x-height has grown a touch larger. But it has been used for extended text for years, by many award-wining designers such as Rich Hendel, Richard Eckersley, etc. A different generation, I know.
Monotype Baskerville, in digital form, is as the wiki says. The letterforms were never adjusted for the difference in ink spread between letterpress printing and offset printing, and this is exacerbated with direct-to-plate offset printing.
The Berthold Baskerville doesn’t have the character weight problem of Monotype — and to a smaller extent, ITC — but to my eye, somehow lost the quality of “Baskerville.” I haven’t used the Storm version, so can’t say anything.
My main gripe with the wiki is that it gives the impression the “New Baskerville” is unsuitable for book-length text. While not one of my favorites & while it does have some weaknesses, it has been successfully used for years, in both photocomp & digital forms.
27.Aug.2008 5.59am
New Baskerville makes a great text face but gets horsey at larger sizes.
27.Aug.2008 3.13pm
My favorite is this: http://typophile.com/node/30583
It has by far the best “g” (which is saying a lot).
hhp
28.Aug.2008 11.25am
Very nice, Hrant. Aren’t you working on a version? How’s it going?
28.Aug.2008 2.42pm
It’s in hibernation. :-(
But that bear will be raised from its slumber.
hhp