D.B. Updike’s Printing Types online

Kent Lew
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.

Comments

  • Kent Lew
    Kent Lew Posts: 1,018
    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! 😙👌

  • John Savard
    John Savard Posts: 1,206
    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.
  • James Puckett
    James Puckett Posts: 2,027
    This is brilliant.
  • Mark Simonson
    Mark Simonson Posts: 1,764
    Sounds wonderful, but the site’s not loading for me. I guess I’ll check later.
  • Craig Eliason
    Craig Eliason Posts: 1,485
    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.
  • Mark Simonson
    Mark Simonson Posts: 1,764
    It’s working now. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Mark Simonson
    Mark Simonson Posts: 1,764
    edited September 23
    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.
  • John Hudson
    John Hudson Posts: 3,530
    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.
  • Craig Eliason
    Craig Eliason Posts: 1,485
    And a search function!
  • John Savard
    John Savard Posts: 1,206
    edited September 26
    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.

  • Nick Shinn
    Nick Shinn Posts: 2,301
    edited September 27
    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.

Categories