This is Monotype's "Neo-Didot", released in 1904 (IIRC). I've only seen it used once, in this wonderful 1985 edition of Lucian's stories and dialogues, produced by Franz Greno.

As far as I know, this face hasn't been digitized yet, which is a shame, as the digital Didots currently available have a stroke contrast way too high to be useful for longer stretches of text...

best
Nils.

Does anyone know who designed Monotype Ehrhardt? The Monotype site simply credits "Monotype Design Studio". Sebastian Carter's _Twentieth Century Type Designers_ says that Stanley Morison directed the Monotype Drawing Office to tweak up a proprietary version of Janson, but Ehrhardt has certain idiosyncratic details--most notably the curved crossbar of the A--which seem out of character for Morison. It does seem like a particular designer with a particular personality worked on this one. Anyone know who?

Many thanks,

Max

WOBURN, Mass. Dec. 8, 2010 – Monotype Imaging Holdings Inc. (Nasdaq: TYPE), a leading global provider of text imaging solutions, today announced it has acquired Ascender Corp., a privately held font provider with long-standing relationships with several leading brands including Google and Microsoft, for $10.2 million in cash and stock, net of acquired assets. The acquisition enables Monotype Imaging to broaden its font intellectual property offerings and gain significant typeface design and development talent.

Monotype Imaging Announces the Commercial Launch of Fonts.com Web Fonts
New Offering Provides Best Font Selection, Language Support and Workflow Solution for Web Designers

WOBURN, Mass., Sept. 14, 2010 – Monotype Imaging Holdings Inc. (Nasdaq: TYPE), a leading global provider of text imaging solutions, today announced the general availability of Fonts.com Web Fonts, the company’s cloud-based solution that enables thousands of high-quality fonts to be used in Web page design. Subscription plans are now available at www.webfonts.fonts.com for anyone who creates for the Web, from brand managers, publishers and advertising agencies to non-profit organizations, institutions and bloggers across the globe.

Highlights of Monotype Imaging’s Fonts.com Web Fonts solution:

Do any of the Typophile brethren have an idea why Monotype opted to use upright romans rather than sloped romans when it digitized Fairbank Italic? I've owned this typeface since its initial digital release and hate that I've never used it believing the metal design is vastly superior.

The digital ampersand just hurts and ugh the spacing & kerning is ridiculous. It took me a while to get anything that closely resembles the specimen listed in the Bixler catalogue (the above image in the attached pdf) and still . . . it's pretty weak. Any insights would be appreciated. I'll pipe down now like a good Typophile lurker should.

For a long time I have been typesetting mathematics with LaTeX, which of course works very well. For a while I have contemplated the prospect of typesetting mathematics via letterpress, namely with Monotype's 4-line system.

I admire deeply the work of Hendrik de Roos and Jan van Krimpen, but have been dismayed in my search to find revivals of both men's work. The two dominant Dutch foundries committed to JvK, TEFF and DTL, haven't touched Spectrum, though Monotype did a half-baked and impractical digitization. Also, though De Does' Trinité supposedly takes cues from JvK's Romanée, and TEFF is slowly working on a revival, I would like to know if those plans are still in motion. And what, then, about Cancelleresca Basterda, a face that might finally give JvK's ill-fated Romulus super-family more legitimacy, and which is quite beautiful in its own right?

Both releases are considered as definitive versions and at first sight the DTL Albertina and the MT Albertina seem to be identical to each other. But on closer inspection slight differences reveal themselves to the beholder (e.g. how the serifs flow out of the stems or how the curves are drawn).

I’ve drawn a first comparison between some of the characters. I’ve chosen the characters “E”, “F”, “e” and “c”, because “E” and “F” as well as “e” and “c” have some common ground, so that one can review the consistency and the homogeneity of the design.