1930's scientific journal main face (U.S.)

The journal is Scripta Mathematica published by Yeshiva University. It looks like some variant of Caslon, not sure though.

Low res, sorry (update: here's another one). There is also http://a reprint of the collection of early issues on Google Books with preview (actually reprinted from the old scanned version).



The V in the italic "Vita" does seem to be a dead giveaway for Caslon.

It definitely is not Caslon 540, as it has long descenders.

Imprint seems like a possibility to me; it's too bold, and too contemporary, to be Caslon Old Face, and Imprint does retain the strongly sloped V of the Caslon italic.

A larger view of some of the reprint on Google Books can be found on Amazon, at


just "click to look inside".

Also, of course, since this was published in the United States, and it contained mathematical notation, it is likely that the Lanston Monotype was used. Historical accounts of the press at Yeshiva University may be available.

Thank you quadibloc! Imprint looks like a good option for substitution. Though it shares the same lack of a single-story lowercase italic ‘g’ which seems to be a distinctive feature of the original italic here.

I also tried to go over the old Monotype specimens but still no luck, particular for this ‘g’.

BTW, I've attached another specimen.

There were a lot of these modernized Caslons, and I can't claim any expertise on distinguishing them. However, Linotype http://Old Style no. 1 might be pretty close (it seems to have been made with both styles of lowercase italic "g"). Unfortunately, I don't think it has been digitized except for a distressed adaptation called Coldstyle.

Thanks a lot archaica! Linotype Specimens book proved helpful. Linotype Old Style No. 1 is close, but I find Caslon with Italic and Small Caps (from this book) to be even closer (please see comparison chart with some distinctive characters below).

I'm aware about another one—Linotype Caslon No. 2 (and Monotype Caslon No. 37 of which Linotype's No. 2 is a copy), but couldn't find full specimen. Both were furnished with alternate descenders.

Anyway, as they have not been digitized (as far as I know) I'll probably have to stick with some of the proposed or Lanston's Caslon 337.

As the comparison chart has strangely disappeared from my last comment, here it is again: