In relation to this answer on Skeptics, how are the kerning pairs of contemporary reproductions/versions of metal type derived? Can one expect, say, Times New Roman in a computer typeface (by Monotype themselves) to match the kerning details of some Monotype metal type of Times New Roman? Or, was there no way in the 1960s to automate kerning (in the sense of getting reproducible results, as that answer is also claiming--at least at "large" sizes)?
asked Feb 8 at 15:59
-
2I don't think you need to evaluate kerning: the premise in that answer is pretty wrong. The fact is: a sign of that size would easily have been made using any so-called normal type, a photo enlarger, and a silkscreen. Hand-painted signs in the 50s were also very common and very cheap and the guys who did it were pretty great at it. I also noted when that was question was posted that the OP asserts signage like that would be expensive. It would not be– YorikCommented Feb 8 at 18:46
-
Looks like there has been some rather heavy handed digital restoration on the image shared by the OP in that question. The original is available from Getty Images. The man in the pic is Cecil Williamson, taken by Randall Harper, dated 1956. Also the original image is not as sharp, and there are chips out of the lettering.– Billy KerrCommented Feb 8 at 21:50
-
@BillyKerr Yeah, that's what I concluded in my answer on Skeptics. Apparently that's not enough for some people, though, they've decided the Getty version is just a better forgery, and are determined to find some tiny clue 🤷🏻♀️– IMSoPCommented Feb 8 at 23:05
-
2Linotype wasn't the only type available and people kerned by hand. Note also that in the old school analog world the product could be made using a vast array of methods all at once, including things like individual water transfer decal letters.– YorikCommented Feb 9 at 15:25
-
1Signs would not normally be made using printing technology. It would be painted. Silkscreening was for posters. Also, the kerning would be different at different sizes, and Times New Roman, while available, wasn't popular in the US at this time, especially not for display type.– CopilotCommented Mar 4 at 17:30
|
Show 2 more comments
1 Answer
It looks very fake. Signs at that time were hand-painted.
-
1This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post. - From Review– lmlmlmCommented Mar 4 at 15:21