D.B. Updike’s Printing Types online

Kent Lew
Posts: 1,018
in Type History
For those type drawers who have not otherwise already heard about this amazing resource elsewhere, I thought I’d share this here.
Nicholas Rougeux, a very talented designer and data artist, has unveiled an online version of Daniel Berkeley Updike’s classic Printing Types: Their History, Forms & Use.
This is *so* much more than just an online transcription. Instead of illustrating Updike’s examples with scans of reproductions from the book, Nicholas has tracked down literally hundreds of high-quality images of the actual specimens & books from online collections & archives and used those originals in place of Updike’s reproductions. Incredible.
Of even greater value, in my opinion: for many of the instances where Updike references additional works but did not provide any illustration (for practical reasons, no doubt), Nicholas has also tracked down those examples in online collections and provided supplemental links. A real service! and a labor of love.
I have a feeling I am going to be turning more often to this version, rather than turning around and reaching for the original volumes on my book shelf now.
Go check it out.
15
Comments
-
And the icing on the cake is that Nicholas uses Matthew Carter’s digital version of Monticello, which was Linotype’s revival of the Binny & Ronaldson Pica Roman that Updike used in the originals (which printers knew at that time as “Oxford”).Perfect! 😙👌
2 -
Ah. This is interesting because of the new features in his online version. Since I was aware the book was available on the Internet Archive, at first I was wondering why this was news, but I understand now.0
-
This is brilliant.2
-
Sounds wonderful, but the site’s not loading for me. I guess I’ll check later.
1 -
Mark Simonson said:Sounds wonderful, but the site’s not loading for me. I guess I’ll check later.
Didn't for me last night but did just now.0 -
It’s working now. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯0
-
Very cool! I purchased the two-volume Dover edition in the late seventies when I was first getting interested in type design. I’m pretty sure I actually read them, too. Or at least large portions of it. It left a big impression on me, giving me a detailed sense of the history of type founding. I’m glad I discovered it when I did. This new digital edition looks amazing compared to my tattered, water-damaged softcover edition.1
-
It was one of the first books I read about type and typography. I recall James Mosley and others saying it contained numerous errors. I’d love to see an annotated edition with corrections and addenda from later scholarship.0
-
And a search function!0
-
Notable for its omission of the sans serif genre.
He was a bit of a snob, and considered the sans infra dig, much too “trade.”
He also disliked fat face, condensed, expanded, hairline and blackletter, so there are huge gaps in his coverage of the 19th century.
His focus was fine book typography, not jobbing.
8 -
Nick Shinn said:Notable for its omission of the sans serif genre.
He was a bit of a snob, and considered the sans infra dig, much too “trade.”
He also disliked fat face, condensed, expanded, hairline and blackletter, so there are huge gaps in his coverage of the 19th century.
His focus was fine book typography, not jobbing.I can forgive nearly all of that. The book is certainly very useful as a resource, even if one doesn't agree with its opinions.The only opinion in that book, though, that I have a real quarrel with is his finding the Aldine roman far inferior to Jenson's. That leads me to question his taste and judgment. But apparently this was a common attitude prior to the rediscovery or revival of the Aldine roman.And it must be admitted that the Aldine roman is certainly very different from Jenson's roman; it's much more suitable for contemporary book typography. That difference somewhat makes it more plausible that the Aldine roman could be thought of legitimately as "inferior" if one highly values certain attributes of the (excellent and beautiful, of course) Jenson roman. So, while this view may still be considered incorrect, it may not be as bad as I think it is, due to a failure on my part to really get my head around the rationale for that view.EDIT: Looking at the web site version of the book brought Pacifico Massimo to my notice, and I've added him to my one-page history of typefaces. In doing so, I noticed that in my discussion of Linotype's Benedictine Book, I omitted to ever mention the name of Plato de Benedictis, and I have remedied that omission as well.
0 -
I should add that Updike considered himself a “liberal conservative, or a conservative liberal,” and was not against contemporary experimentation—at the Bauhaus for instance, that he eruditely addressed in comparison to several historical engagements with the banishing of capital letters. But he was traditional in taste, and a book printer, a fine book printer, as evidenced in the title of a compilation of his writings, The Well-Made Book, which I can thoroughly recommend.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 46 Introductions
- 3.9K Typeface Design
- 485 Type Design Critiques
- 560 Type Design Software
- 1.1K Type Design Technique & Theory
- 653 Type Business
- 848 Font Technology
- 29 Punchcutting
- 519 Typography
- 119 Type Education
- 323 Type History
- 77 Type Resources
- 112 Lettering and Calligraphy
- 33 Lettering Critiques
- 79 Lettering Technique & Theory
- 549 Announcements
- 91 Events
- 114 Job Postings
- 170 Type Releases
- 173 Miscellaneous News
- 276 About TypeDrawers
- 54 TypeDrawers Announcements
- 120 Suggestions and Bug Reports