Mais où est passé Re: Re : Typographie du Gaffiot

[Thierry Bouche <Thierry.Bouche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

comme je sais que tu es un maniaque des mesures... j'ai ceci dans ma
besace...

From: "Justin Howes" <jhowes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Andrew Boag's excellent article in Reading University's _Typography Papers_
1 (1996) gives a detailed and well-researched chronology of typographic
measurement systems from Moxon onwards. It was on 17 September 1886 that the
24 members of the US Typefounders' Association, meeting at Niagara, adopted
the point system of Marder, Luse & Co as a standard, adapting it to the
'pica' (12 points) of MacKellar, Smiths and Jordan of Philadelphia, then the
oldest and largest typefoundry in the US. This fixed the pica at 0.166044
inch, rather than at exactly one sixth of an inch (there were objections to
the recurring fraction). (This works out at 1 inch = 72.27 points). British
type foundries started to adopt the American point standard in 1898,
encouraged by the proprietor of Caslon's, Thomas W. Smith. To add a
complexity, Legros and Grant note, in 1916, that one British inch = .999997
US inch. Boag also points out that prior to 1919, the Monotype pica measured
0.1667 inch; Monotype adopted the Anglo-American standard in 1919.

From: Thierry Bouche <Thierry.Bouche@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
According to Knuth, the value 1 pt=.013 837 in goes back to ATF (1886),
circular 570 of the national bureau of standards (1956). His 
1 pt = 1/72.27 in has a 1/100 000 000 discrepancy with the "classical"
definition. He also says that the value of an inch was modified in a
larger scale in 1959, from 1/.393 7  cm to 2.54 cm.

From: "Marc L Cohen" <mlcohen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Well, to quote from another site.....

     The (more or less) original point system (Didot) did have exactly 72
points to the inch. The catch is that it was the French imperial
     inch, somewhat longer than the English inch, and it went away in the
French revolution. What most people now think of as points
     were established by the United States Typefounders Association in
1886. This measure was a matter of convenience for the
     members of the Association, who didn't want to retool any more than
they had to, so it had no relationship to the inch. By that
     date, people realized that the inch was an archaic measure anyway; the
point was set to be 1/12 of a pica, and an 83-pica distance
     was made equal to 35 centimeters. (Talk about arbitrary!)

     Thus the measure of 72.27/in. is just an approximation. Of course,
when PostScript was being written, it was necessary to fit into
     an inch-measured world. For the sake of simplicity PostScript defined
a point as exactly 1/72". With the prevalance of DTP, the
     simplified point has replaced the older American point in many uses.
Personally, I don't see that it matters one way or the other; all
     that counts is that there's a commonly-understood unit of measurement
that allows you to get the size you think you want. That is,
     after all, the point ;)

And to quote from another site:

Point size is an important typesetting parameter. A U.S. point is 0.0138"
or approximately
                              1/72 of an inch. With the advent of DTP, it
has become customary to consider a point to be
                              exactly equal to 1/72 of an inch. The body
size or nominal size of a font is its x-height +
                              ascender + descender expressed in points. The
smallest type that can be read comfortably by
                              the average person is about 6 points. Longer
texts (books) are usually printed in sizes between
                              9 and 14 points. A pica is 12 points or
(approximately) 1/6th of an inch. The point used in the
                              European Didot system is equal to 0.0148";
twelve points of this system are called a cicero.

And see http://www.irisa.fr/faqtypo/truchet/truchet1E.html for an early
history of type size standards.

Marc L. Cohen

From: Gerald Giampa <office@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Justin how to get hold of Andrew Boag's article? You mentioned things that
stunned me. A brave industry we are in.

Always I am interested in Printing history, founding in particular, but my
original question was mathematical, a question gone awry. I have my answers but
here is my dilemma, the repeating number. And points to the inch.

I have a copy of the  "American Point System" published  in 1910 it reads that
a point is .0138 which would have made a pica .1656.

So there should have been no need for a repeating figure correction.

However the same chart shows that the pica as .166. Also the math taken from
this chart makes the inch 72.2892, rounding off to 72.29. So that is in
conflict with Andrews. There is little difference in any event.

72 points is 6 times 1 pica. Yes! Well The 1910 published American Point System
chart reads there are 12.0482 / 72 point "American ems" to the foot. To get the
inch you divide by 12 and your new measurement for the pica, guess what?
12.2892. So it seems to me either they had made an error and some correction
was made in 1919. Does he know anything about that?

Is there something about the water in Niagara? Some funny math going around in
the old day? Who knows, there may have been a "flu bug".

Note: American Ems have a different meaning than the English. I believe.

Objections to repeating numbers are justified. It seems to have caused problems
in the pica so there was a decision made even though not shown in either
Lanston or Monotypes unit wheel charts. They both based the charts on .166
Sometimes by adding a 0. Something arbitrary had to stop the movement.

When you divide the .166 by 12 you arrive at a point size of .013833, yet
another repeating figure. Not the stated point size. Well, well.

Now from the same chart let us take the 72 point. Now you divide the stated
.996 by 72 you get, surprise .013833! The same repeating number. What happens
when you multiple repeat. After all they are supposed to be units there of?

I think they should have stuck with their stated "point of .0138" and
multiplied from there. None of this would ever have happened.

Now I was unaware that the English Foot was different than the American one and
curious what we use in Canada. I know we used the Imperial Gallon. I also
wonder what effect if any it had on Monotypes customers. My suspicions are
little if any. Lead is hopefully as forgiving as all of you are.  Makes me
wonder about my micrometer readings on the casting room floor. I had both
English and American micrometers. The difference was "nil" because any good
caster man or women used a micrometer for approximate set-up, and a finishing
micrometer built into the caster itself as the mould come up to temperature.
This adjusted for accumulated errors. He or she corrected to fit the galley
gauges. Hence my earlier comment about flushing toilets. It played hell on line
lengths.

Also anyone that was in the foundry industry knows that blocks were the bureau
of standards. Both Lanston and Monotype and ATF used "microscopic measuring
gauges" that met the most rigorous standards even to this day, well, as long as
you have constant room temperature and care is taken for lost motion. They are
based on the International Units of Lengths. Also moulds were made smaller and
allowance for tolerable wear. Most were acceptable for the comp room floor
until they cast fins of lead. The same with true of type height. These
variations, unless extreme, made little difference. Mainly mathematical
graduations of points sizes led to predictable outcomes. As far as the minutia
of the mould size and the slight differences the main concern was that you
could mix fonts in the line and still have "lift" in the chase, and "stay put"
on the bed. Also type height was such that slight variances were tolerable as
long as not shown on the printed page and no tedious make-readies were
required.

Blah, blah, blaw...

Most importantly "Our customers never made any 'points' about this repeating
number problem".

By the way I have made my decision as to what to do. This seemingly unimportant
math discussion was very valuable to me because Lanston is reproducing an
historical type library, most of you are doing new work. We are using the
original cutting card tables so I am examining what conversion to use if any.
Our software has changed making the old conversion tables obsolete.

But this began with a small question. Do the application or printer
manufacturers ever intend to use traditional 72 pica to the inch lengths?

Dare I ask the what the industry intends to do with regards to traditional line
lengths? I have designed with photocomposition, (never would admit it) and I
would speck the job in pica lengths and they would deliver it in pica lengths.
So do the application makers ever intend to address this problem, or are all
the point and pica poles obsolete? My suggestion is we can stick with the
present typographical point size. They could adjust leading slightly and make
the layout grids fit the traditional setting. That does not seem too hard to
me.

Obviously this discussion has been somewhat heated and I never intended that.
But the industry can surely see there is an interest in tradition.

Applications have preferences asking "printers quote marks", "inches", "picas"
why not yet another "printers picas"? That would make everyone happy. Well
maybe not everyone.

I have made my decision there are 72 pts per American Inch. Dave agrees, I
think most do.

I needed to make that decision before manufacturing more fonts.

So Justin I am sorry for all this.

So we have a much talked about "point" in motion, and it seems the "Niagara
Influenza" has moved to photo comp, now to France, and on to England, very
contagious. How do we stop it? Dam those colonials you say!

It 's a nasty bug. But I am over it.

I hope they all get well soon!

NOW FOR THE REALLY GOOD NEWS

I will not be addressing this matter any longer. Sorry I did because it seems
to have interrupted things including myself. So no more about this from me. I
have given my address for anyone that finds I have erroneously stated any
facts. People have fun doing that, and as you can see, I am a good sport.



©Gerald Giampa

From: Gerald Giampa <office@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
We have in our possession the original type sent to America cast by
Fournier himself. Benjamin Franklin was unaccustomed to French foundry
convention hence this perpetuated confusion. The French foot was indeed,
as  so kindly pointed out to me, much larger than the American foot. It
has been told this foot is based in honour of the Italian gentleman
giant traveler in Paris by the name of Piano, the inventor of the common
piano hinge. Ben also did not realize the French had the nicks cast at
the top of the type when the Americans had the nick at the bottom. So
the Pica should have read .991 and not .166. Fournier was a kind man,
knowing of  Ben's bad eyesight he chose for him the Piano Foot Pica. But
blindly, Ben set by the nick.

Deeper in our search we have found Fournier had supplied an infinite
number of 9's and 3's so Benjamin could correctly specify this precious
invention. So not only was Fournier the inventor of the pica but he
found "infinity itself" which in trade terms is "the Hell Box". Yet
another printing first, can you imagine, a mathematical contribution.

Ben armed with this new limited letter less font inspired him to invent
"Dial 911."

So for this precious little impractical joke I hope the community will
welcome me back into the community.

For me the "Topic Wins".

I hope to hear an infiniteless number of claps. I hope you are not
reading this mail on company time.


©Gerald Giampa

Thierry (qu'est-ce qu'y faut pas faire pour écrire de plus longs
courriers  que ceux de JM !)