The font named Times New Roman is trademarked by Monotype, but the font is licensed to Microsoft (perhaps to others too?). These two fonts (MS TNR & Mo TNR) are clearly different in their coverage. Version 6.85 of MS TNR (bundled with Windows 8.1) contains according to BabelMap 4,098 glyphs, whereas Mo TNR according to their own website has only 631 glyphs.

But with respect to the glyphs they actually share, are these two fonts any different at all?

1 Answer 1


...but the font is licensed to Microsoft (perhaps to others too?)

It is licensed to anyone who bought the license:

Times New Roman is a serif typeface commissioned by the British newspaper The Times in 1931, created by Victor Lardent at the English branch of Monotype. It was commissioned after Stanley Morison had written an article criticizing The Times for being badly printed and typographically antiquated. The font was supervised by Morison and drawn by Victor Lardent, an artist from the advertising department of The Times. Morison used an older font named Plantin as the basis for his design, but made revisions for legibility and economy of space. Morison's revision became known as Times New Roman and made its debut in the 3 October 1932 issue of The Times newspaper. After one year, the design was released for commercial sale.

But with respect to the glyphs they actually share, are these two fonts any different at all?

In the links you provided, you are comparing whole Times New Roman Family to the Times New Roman Regular. If you take a close look you will notice that the Unicode ranges/blocks differ (TNR Regular does not provide Arabic, Hebrew, Cyrilic, etc. characters).

There exist a few different TNR variants, since already Microsoft's naming "Times New Roman" is in reality TrueType version of Times New Roman PS, a narrower variant of Monotype's classic Times New Roman typeface.

However to answer your question directly - the two font's you compare have the same glyphs, just that you compare the whole family to a single subset.

  • Under the assumption that by "have the same glyphs" you mean that the glyphs are drawn identically, could I ask for some elaboration on this claim? I.e. what is the claim based on? My interpretation of the oft cited piece by Charles Bigelow (truetype-typography.com/articles/times.htm) is that the licensees could (and did) change the fonts.
    – Sverre
    Commented Apr 21, 2014 at 16:40

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.