laser-lovers@uw-beaver (05/19/85)
From: Chuck Bigelow <CAB@SU-AI.ARPA>
The newspaper known as "The Times" (which is sometimes called
"The London Times" by us Americans who have our own "The Times",
namely the New York Times) has always used some form of roman type
for its body text (it once used a blackletter for its nameplate,
sometimes called a masthead).
In 1932, The Times changed from one roman type (which could then
be called "The Times Old Roman") to another, newer roman type,
which was called, appropriately enough, "The Times New Roman".
As time went by, the name The Times New Roman was shortened by
typographers to Times New Roman and thence to Times Roman.
As time continued to go by, and printing conditions at The Times
changed, Times Roman became less satisfactory as a newspaper type.
(It is very little used in U.S. Newspapers, where Corona is the most
popular roman type.) In 1972 and 1973, The Times adopted a new type,
specially designed by Walter Tracy. It was named "Times Europa",
though it could of course have been called "The Times Newer Roman".
Times Europa is a completely different design from Times Roman.
It now appears that The Times has gone back to Times Roman, though
I don't have a recent copy handy to make sure of that. (Here in
San Francisco we read the Chronicle, which gives us a more accurate
picture (despite the absence of reliable news) of the decline of
the West.)
To repeat some items mentioned earlier on this network, the name
Times Roman is a registered trademark of the Eltra corporation
(now Allied Linotype) in the U.S. (registration in 1945). Internationally,
Times Roman and Times New Roman are more generally considered to be
proprietary to the Monotype Corporation, which developed the face. There
is also a suggestion that The Times actually should be considered the
owner of the trademark.
By the way, the New York Times uses another face for its body type:
Imperial, originally designed by Edwin Shaar for Harris Intertype.
Of course, there are several different versions of Times Roman,
depending upon what size of type was intended. Part of the confusion
and visual differences between different laser printer versions of
Times Roman results from different firms adopting different size masters
for a given implementation. Mergenthaler Linotype used to offer
four different masters, tuned to 8, 10, 12, and 18 point. Laser printer
versions are often based on one or another of these. Since most laser
printers are used to set text type in the 9, 10, and 11 point region,
it would seem most sensible to adopt the 10 point master for such
purposes. The 12 point version seems, to my eye, rather light and tightly
spaced (perhaps I should say "spindly, sickly, and cramped" to be in tune
with the pejorative tone appropriate to a laser-lovers tirade) when used
for sizes below 12 point, but of course it seems fine from 12 to 16 point,
and a bit heavy ("crude") at 18 point and above, where the 18 point master
excells. At 6 point, even the 10 point master seems too light. The metal
Times Roman has a special 6 point version, and an even smaller 4.75 point
version called "Claritas". So arguments about whether a laser printer
version of Times Roman "really looks like the real Times Roman" should
be careful to specify exactly which version of the real Times Roman
is being referred to.
As a final note, I have noticed that the HP Laserjet has a font
cartridge called "TIMSROMN" No. 92286B, that contains a face called
Roman Light 8 point (TMS RMN, 8 pt) which definitely appears to be
Computer Modern rather than any version of Times Roman. The same
cartridge also contains something called Helvbold (presumably a version
of Helvetica) but this face is actually a species of Computer Modern
Sans-serif Bold, rather than any version of Helvetica. Perhaps Laserjet
afficionados could check this font out and report more accurately on
what is really going on (I am not a Laserjet expert).
--Chuck Bigelow
$