Re: The Geejay

From: Andreas Stötzner (
Date: Sat Jan 05 2008 - 05:16:09 CST

  • Next message: Andrew West: "Re: Acceptable alembic glyph variants"

    Am 05.01.2008 um 06:31 schrieb Curtis Clark:

    > On 2008-01-04 01:08, André Szabolcs Szelp wrote:
    >> They did not chose to care about this aspect, even
    >> though they definitely had to create a new (physical) cut for that
    >> character,
    > Perhaps a bit off-topic, but it occurs to me that one wouldn't
    > necessarily have to cut a new punch for something like this, but
    > rather just punch a mat with "G" and overpunch with "j". Are any of
    > you familiar enough with hot metal typesetting to know whether this
    > would be a reasonable solution?

    Principally yes, but it has probably not been the method chosen in the
    case under discussion.
    The two Geejays have been cut seperately. Though the first one (of
    1929) looks much like if two punches were simply overstruck, you’ll
    notice in the enlarged image that the standard j of that composing is
    longer than the j-part of the Geejay.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jan 05 2008 - 05:18:43 CST