By far the most useful criticism of Ludlow's new Jenson type came from Bruce Rogers, the designer of the phenomenally successful Centaur, also a Jenson derivative. We have highlighted interesting sections.
Bradford Road, Mount Vernon, New York
August 27, 1927
Dear Mr. Detterer:
I congratulate you heartily on your successful adaptation of Jenson's letter, a fragment of which I have just seen in the "Inland Printer". It will prove to be, I predict, the most admirable Fifteenth Century type-face we have any of us produced. I am impatient to see proofs of larger masses of it, and properly printed (the smooth paper of the magazine does not, of course, show its probable richness.) I wish I had known of its existence in time to have set the Caxton Club book in it.
I assume that you are as unbiased and as eager as I am to give to the printing world the best possible type and books -- and on that ground, I would earnestly suggest to you that you reconsider the weight of several letters. If you will permit me, I would point out that when "i" and "m" come together, the meagreness [sic] of the first and the heaviness of the first and second letter are very apparent. Could these two letters not be revised before the face goes on the market -- or is it already too late? The "o", too, seems to me quite too small for the other letters of the fount.
Your capital "U" is, of course, a matter of taste -- perhaps you have been wise enough to supply both forms: U and u, but the drawing of the curve of "U" is certainly inferior to the drawing of the other capitals shown in "I" -- "p".
I hope you will read these few criticisms in the spirit in which I write them. You have produced such an admirable thing that I can not refrain from trying to help make it what would seem to me even more perfect. I have long thought of recutting my old Montaigne type, or revising and cutting a larger size of Centaur; but now your new type has made both ideas obsolete.
I am correspondingly grateful to you for having saved me so much labor and trouble.
With my renewed congratulations and best wishes,
Sincerely,
Bruce Rogers (Signed)
September 1, 1927
Mr. Bruce Rogers,
Bradford Road,
Mt. Vernon, N.Y.
Dear Mr. Rogers:
Since writing you on the 31st, I have been looking over our samples of the Nicolas Jenson face and I find that I overlooked the trial we made of this face on Bruce Rogers Rag. I am, therefore, sending you some samples of this, printed dry and also wet. I hope that this will be of use to you in your examination of this face.
I repeat that if there are any criticisms that you would like to make, I hope that you will feel free to do so, as we will greatly appreciate anything in this line from you.
The proofs enclosed were made from the first finished matrices. In this design you will probably notice that most of the ascenders and the cap "I" have a slight leaning to the right. The dot on the lower case "i" is also placed farther to the right, which in our opinion seemed to be too much.
These characters that have this slight angle have been modified and while the tendency to lean to the right has not been absolutely taken out, they are much more vertical in appearance than the first matrices driven.
Some of our friends that have had an opportunity of seeing specimens of this font, have expressed themselves to the effect that they would not make any changes in the angular effect, especially at this time, but our own idea in this was that any freakishness might be severely criticised and we have therefore, made another set of punches and another set of matrices in which this fault, if it is a fault, has been corrected.
Mr. Detterer is fully advised of these facts and can talk with you at length about it.
I think I omitted to say in our first letter that the 16-point size is the only size finished at the present time. We desire to get an expression in regard to the font and general appearance of the letter, before we make the additional sizes, which would run from 6- to possibly 72-point.
Very truly yours,
LUDLOW TYPOGRAPH COMPANY
(GEO. O. CROMWELL)
Vice President.
GOC:MW
ENCL.
September 1927
[ed. rcvd by Ludlow September 10]
My dear Mr. Cromwell
I have your two letters and the proofs of the 16pt. Nicolas Jenson type which you have so obligingly sent me. The type-forms have not yet arrived but will, doubtless, in due time. I can make a more satisfactory estimate of the design if I can take my own proofs here for I have practically given up the use of rough antique papers in making modern books and it seems to me that neither the B.R. Rog (or any similar paper) is best suited to show this type in its best qualities. The old types for printing on rough papers were cut much lighter and more skeletonized than our modern designers draw them, and the processes of modern type-founding seem to call for a rather rounded edge, when the bevel meets the face of the letter. This catches more ink, gradually, and, though showing a clean line on hard, smooth, papers, immediately thickens the letters when impressed into antique papers. The advantages of damp printing is that the ink can be cut down to about 2/3 the quantity necessary on similar papers printed dry but your dampened proofs look much blacker than the dry ones perhaps your pressman did not understand about the proper method. Therefore, as I said, I would prefer to give my final impressions of the design after I have tried it out myself. But perhaps criticisms or opinions of that period should be made t Mr. Detterer himself as I assume that he has been the one responsible for the drawing and proportions of the letters (the article in the Inland Printer was a little obscure on this point.)
However, with the proofs of the alphabet before me, I do not mind commenting on certain letters I will repeat my comments to Mr. Detterer when I see him next time.
I have already written him that I thought the l.c. i too thin and the m too heavy (judging only from the showing in the Inland Printer.) This thinness of the i does not appear in the proofs you have just sent me but the 2nd and 3d legs of the m still seem to me a trifle heavier than necessary the n's thinner, Im sure and very satisfactory but the m having three parallels rather closer together than the n should be, I think, correspondingly lightened, so as not to catch the eye on a page. I am not at all in favor of more uniformity or regularity than you have given the type. It is the lack of mechanical perfection that helps to give the letter its charm. But, on the other hand, there should be no particular letter singled out by the eye because of undue weight, or size, or alignment. The lower case o hits my eye in respect of size just a mere shade taller would harmonize it better with the e and other round letters.
I am glad to see there is a plain cap U the new cutting does not seem to me so successful in the curve. I think you are going to find that the lower case g will spot the page on account of the breadth of the lower loop. I would not have it narrower, but I found in both the Montaigne and the Centaur types, I had to lighten the weight of line considerably more than the other letters, to effectually conceal the letter when reading. My Montaigne gs were recut 3 or 4 times each time lighter until the final and satisfactory letter looked by itself almost a wrong font.
There is, of course, a decided italic feeling to the whole type so that I do not notice the particular letters you mention as having changed.
I dont care for the little hook on the l.c. j at the bottom. It seems too trivial for so bold a type.
I have no further fault to find until we come to the 2 which would be better like the top of 3 the effect of all the other figures is slightly italic but the 2 leans backward (in drawing I mean.) The lower curve of 5 seems to me a little light for the top and for the other figures.
The form of the comma (and the similar points) seems to me somehow a little insistent noticeable suggests a kite with a tail perhaps the tail is just a shade too long and heavy.
Other than these few details my congratulations on a most successful revival of perhaps the most beautiful Roman type ever cut.
And many thanks for putting me so promptly in possession of available information about it.
I will see your exhibit and Mrs. Reade next week at the printing show.
Very truly yours
Bruce Rogers
P.S.
I find that my objection to the m (and this applies also to the n) is not so much the heavy vertical strokes as the thickness of line at the beginning of the curves when they join the uprights the h is much better cut there. In many good old types there is an actual break in the line there though that may not have been intentional. But I find even a problem line there is more pleasant than a too heavy juncture which fills up with ink gradually and makes a heavy top to the letter.
September 28, 1927,
Mr. Bruce Rogers,
Bradford Road,
Mount Vernon, New York.
Dear Mr. Rogers:
I fear that I have been very delinquent in not notifying you of the shipment of the Jenson matrices with the Caslon True Cut 14-point Italic. These were shipped to you on the 21st and have been at our New York office I presume for a week. In some some way I took it for granted that our Mr. Mulcahy, manager of the district, had been fully informed of the purpose of our sending these forward and that he would, without any notification from me, advise you of their availability. I sincerely hope that he did so act and that if any delay has occurred that you will pardon me for my seeming inattention.
I wish to add that the facilities we offered to you are at your disposal for just as long as you need them and for as many trials as you require and if there is any further service that we can render that you will not fail to notify us so that we can supply your needs.
The changes that you were good enough to recommend in your letter of September 6th have been taken care of and new matrices for the various characters that you think should have some attention will be furnished in a new font if you find that you wish to continue in the use of these characters.
I am also pleased to advise you that we are making now some trial characters in the 18-point and that we will be able to send these forward to you for your use prior to October 8th at which time I understand you desire to have them in your possession. If there is any need for an earlier delivery, will you kindly advise?
Awaiting your further commands at your convenience, we are
Most cordially yours,
LUDLOW TYPOGRAPH COMPANY
BY G.O. Cromwell
GOC:MM.
Mr. Cromwell:
The attached postscript is a part of the letter, which we have written to Mr. Bruce Rogers, one day last week. Will you please attach it to the carbon of the original letter.
M. WESLEY
P.S. -- In the specimens submitted herewith, you will note that there is a comparison made with the Cloister type. It was the only type available to us by which we could make any comparative test. We have not troubled to trim these off the Ludlow Jenson. In addition to the alphabet shown on the sheet, we have included the alphabet and the extra characters that we made on a special sheet.
G.O.C.
October 24, 1927
Mr. Bruce Rogers,
Bradford Road,
Mt. Vernon, N.Y.
Dear Mr. Rogers:
In our letter of October 6th we notified you that we were sending certain characters in the 18-point roman and 16-point Jenson Light italic to our New York representative, Mr. W. F. Mulcahy, with instructions to him to phone you immediately upon their receipt. We have been advised that you have been in touch with him and either had or will have a certain number of lines cast from the matrices sent you.
As we informed you in that letter, the characters sent were merely trial characters and did not represent, except in the case of the 18-point roman, completed specimens. At the time of sending you the 16-point italic, we were in doubt as to propriety of these first trial characters, as we had not taken any time to study the effect and to see how closely the effect produced approached our idea of what we should have. Since then we have given some study to the various characters submitted and I am enclosing proof on which we have made some notations of action we contemplate in regard to this face.
You will note that we have concluded that the cap "H" was not sufficiently extended and that the lower case "g" would be improved by redrawing. Our thought was that the lower case "o" could also be improved by an addition to the color. We found that the lower case "h" serif of right stem was injured on the punch and this shows in a defect in the proof. It is our purpose to proceed with the cutting of the entire font and then to make our corrections as the showing indicates.
We are anxious, if you find merit in the completed face, to have it ready for your use at any time that you may call for it. This prompts us to put the work immediately in hand and if we are not intruding too much upon your time, we would like very much to submit to you the pattern punches, together with some proofs of recut punches, for your criticism and any suggestions that you care to make. Please do not regard this as a duty. If, however, you can find it convenient and at the same time a pleasant undertaking, we would be glad to receive any criticisms or suggestions that you might have to offer.
In reference to the 18-point Jenson, will say that if you are able to determine from the two sample characters that we sent you that this face will be suitable for your work in hand, we could within a very short time send you the complete font, as the punches for this font are now being engraved and will be ready soon to drive.
Would you be interested in receiving specimens of new faces that we produce from time to time? If so, we would be very glad indeed to put you on our list and see that advance proofs are mailed you as the faces are ready.
Thanking you very much for the many favors that we received at your hand thus far and hoping that we can continue to make our work of some interest to you, we are
Very cordially yours,
LUDLOW TYPOPGRAPH COMPANY
(Geo. O. Cromwell)
Vice President.
Copy -- Mr. George A. Poole, Jr.
Bradford Road, Mount Vernon
Feb. 7, 1928
My dear Mr. Cromwell
You will think by this time that I never meant to acknowledge your last letter or to report upon the Nicolas Jenson, type after all the trouble you took to send it on to New York for my experiments. The fact is I have had such a strenuous winter, finishing the Tory [?] for the Grolier Club and trying to finish the book for the Caxton Club, to say nothing of five or six other rush commissions, that I have been compelled, for the time, to put aside absolutely everything not bearing directly upon that work. As it is I am taking Sunday afternoon to write this, having still no leisure at the office.
First of all, the type will not do for the proposed Prayer Book even if I undertake that job, which now seems uncertain of going through at all. The Prayer Book is a continuous mixture, throughout, of various sizes of Roman and Italic in the same line, and the V-shaped spaces necessary between the two sorts would break up the lines fatally. The only way I (can think [?]) of managing it would be to set larger slugs than required then saw them through where the breaks occurred and join them closer together. This would take so much ----- calculation as to final lengths of line, as to be impractical. So it's out of the question for the Prayer Book, at least.
My general criticisms of it are as follows: I have already called attention to what seems to me too heavy ms and ns (and perhaps one or two more characters, this is as apparent in the 18 pt as in the 16 pt. For use in the modern manner, or except in very openly leaded papers, the capitals (if many of them are required) are very prominent in solid composition (though they follow Jensons originals very closely in this, so far as I can observe.) I tried the experiment of setting 16 pt. Caps with 18 pt. Lower case, which resulted in a much smoother page, but the caps were there a little too light in weight. (See enclosed proof of exciting short story anonymous author.)
To my eye the chief fault of the type is its rather wide, and somewhat uneven set width I have compared this with my original Jenson pages and I must say that the original has been very closely followed in width of set, but it is a question whether we can successfully follow old models in every respect. Even the best of Jensons printing (of Roman) would not be tolerated for an instant, today, and when we use his type on modern papers and with more perfect press-work than he ever accomplished, the irregularities of his types which are concealed behind the general picturesqueness of his work, become glaringly apparent when perpetrated by our modern and more perfect processes.
Therefore, unless very heavily inked, and printed with so much impression as to lose the greater part of the distinction of Jensons original type, the new type appears weak and rather scattered on the page individual letters stand in as units rather than combining into pleasant words and sentences. This requires wider spacing between words to keep the word units distinct and the whole page is thus broken up and unsatisfactory (more apparent in the 16 pt. than in the 18 pt.)
I am speaking only of the effect of a page as a whole and with special preference to a whole book of such pages. A single page, or a few pages, if well spaced openly, and openly leaded, could be made very pleasant and my strictures do not, of course, apply to its use in single or a few lines, or at all to its use in advertising. But to my mind it is essentially a book type at least in its smaller sizes. It ought to be better still when you cut the smaller sizes, as the spaces between letters then reduce automatically, I suppose. I have not at all lost my interest in its development (and particularly of the Italic, which seems to me to promise a most admirable cursive letter) and I hope you will continue to send me proofs of new sizes as they are produced. The forms of the letters still seem to me as admirable as they did at first. (except m, n, etc.)
I received your book of Italic types, for which please accept my thanks, and believe me,
Very truly yours,
Bruce Rogers.
P.S. If you should write to me again will you kindly give me the name and address of H. Wiebkings successor?
February 17, 1928.
Mr. Bruce Rogers,
Bradford Road,
Mount Vernon, New York.
Dear Mr. Rogers:
I greatly appreciate the effort you have made to inform us with reference to the experiments you have conducted in trying to adjust our Nicolas Jenson typeface to your uses and thank you very much for the time you took to write us so completely in longhand on February 7th. I felt that al1 in good time you would inform us or your conclusions in regard to the practicability of the use of this face for the work that you first had in mind for it. Of course we are all disappointed to think that the study you have made precludes its use in the prayer book, but we fully understand these reasons and agree with you that the objections you raised are valid and would be a detriment to the use of this typeface.
The objections that you raised against the use of the italic with the roman presents a problem we will be able to solve in due time. We have never yet had it presented in quite the way that you have done and we think that it will1 be quite advantageous for us to find some way of removing this objection, not with any view of having you change your mind in regard to the use of the faces, but for the general welfare of the Ludlow method of composition. As soon as we have made some experiments in this line we will give you as a matter of information the results that we attain, if any.
We note again your comments in regard to the heaviness of the M's and N's. It was my intention at the time these 18-point types were sent you to explain that the corrections of the patterns have not been carried out and that the M's and N's would undoubtedly appear with the same faults in them that you found with the 16-point size. All of the criticisms that you offered were carefully noted and changes necessary to conform to your opinions were incorporated in the patterns at a later date and we now have in process in the factory a new font of 18-point in which the objections that you bring up in regard to these characters and one or two more do not appear
In cutting the 16-point size we lined it without reference to the 18-point. Later in planning the line for the full series we found that by a change of four and one-half thousands we could make the 18-point align with the 18-point. We have not yet driven any quantity of the 16-point mats and it was our thought that we could cut a new font of punches to make the alignment conform to that of the 18-point. This would permit the use of the 16-point caps with the 18-point lower case and give a much better effect in the direction that you desire. At the same time if we understand your criticism, the weight of the l6-point caps could be slightly increased thereby removing another objection that you raise in regard to the use of the 16-point caps with the 18-point font. We would like to know if you think it worth while to do this, not with any reference to the work you have in mind, but generally for the good of the typeface. At your leisure I would like to have your comments on the above.
I am particularly interested in the comments you make in regard to the fault of the uneven set widths in the face. My understanding of this criticism is that this refers to the spacing between the letters and not to the set width of the characters themselves, that is, the drawing. In reaching this opinion I am influenced by what you said in your first letter regarding the general appearance of the font. Will it intrude too much upon your time to answer me definitely in regard to this point of set width? In this connection I want to say that the sample characters sent you were not prepared with the same amount of care that would be used in the fitting of the characters in the regular fonts. This was not because we are not impressed with the necessity of doing this work right, but from the fact that we acted in the matter rather precipitantly in order that we might have something in your hands whereby you could make a study regarding the possibility of the use of the 18-point size. The criticisms you offer in regard to the set widths between the various letters are entirely in order and we note, as you call our attention to it, a great irregularity in the matter of the fitting. This, of course, is a point that we can very easily correct and will in the production of all of these fonts give careful attention to this particular point.
We were aware of the fact that Jenson's type was rather widely set and we also noted, as you probably had, that the set was not always uniform. It was not intentional on our part to make the set conform so exactly to Jenson as you seem to think it is. We did, however, feel like following the set and we believe now since we have your valued criticism that this was a mistake and that feature of our production will be corrected as I have mentioned above. Our main idea in the production of this face was to procure the form which we felt would make a very desirable typeface. Jenson types and books therefrom are so generally admired that if the form he undoubtedly had could be approximated, we felt we would have a typeface that would meet with genera1 favor. We were delighted to think that it met with your approval and we have also had some other comments from typographers along practically the same line, but not with the same particularity you give to it. We, therefore, appreciate your comments more fully than any of the others we have received.
It is our thought, too, that we cannot afford under the modern conditions in which types are used to cling too closely to the examples that we find in the early typefaces and we have not knowingly tried to duplicate anything but the forms that were revealed to us by a study. I very greatly appreciate the consistency of your criticisms, as in comparing your letter of the 7th instant with that of your former letter on this same subject, I can see how well your criticisms hang together and as I said before, we will so far as we are able, modernize it to meet our present conditions of paper and press work and we hope to be able to submit to you proofs of the results of our efforts in this direction and if you will kindly, when you receive them, give them such thought as your time permits and write us on the matter, I will be greatly indebted to you. I do not mean by this to place upon you any burden other than that which you might be willing to undertake for the genera1 improvement of a useful typeface.
I note your postscript for the address of the successors of Robert Wiebking. The business is being carried forward by his two sons, Robert and William, and the plant is in the same location. The title of the company is Wiebking Engraving Company (not incorporated) and the address is 1133 Newport Avenue, Chicago, Illinois. You will probably be interested to know that for several years prior to Mr. Wiebking's death he had these two boys in his factory instructing them in the details of the business and watching their development. Since his death these young men have carried forward the work of the father in a very creditable manner. We are all the time having work done by them and have generally found that the execution of same was very good. 0f course the knowledge and skill that Robert Wiebking, Sr. was possessed of made him occupy a class entirely by himself, not so much in detailed execution of manufacture, but in the other details of preparation and general good judgment as to the proper relation of one character with the other. Robert, Sr. was a master and his death is quite a definite loss to those desiring his aid in the development of typefaces. So far as I am informed this is the only free lance engraving plant worthy of any particular confidence. Of course it is not as valuable to designers as it formerly was under the senior's direction, but the young men have been pretty well grounded in their work and I think under competent direction would be able to do for you the things that you would like to have done. If we can be of any assistance to you in this particular, I will be very glad to have you avail yourself of our services.
I hope you will pardon me for the length of my reply to your favor and that you will be able to answer the questions I have raised in regard to set width within a short time. If you find yourself in Chicago. I will be very much indebted if you would advise us of your visit and permit us to extend to you such courtesies as we feel we owe you for the great care that you have given to matters in which we are greatly interested.
With every good wish, I am
Very cordially yours,
GOC:
MM.
Bradford Road,
Mount Vernon, N.Y.
Feb. 22, 1928
Dear Mr. Cromwell
The holiday gives me an opportunity to reply to your letter of the 17th almost at once.
I realized that the matrices you sent for my experiments did not represent the final revisions of several characters, but thought it just as well to remind you again of my first impressions of them the m and n in particular. I shall be very glad to see final proofs when they are ready, or even trial proofs of the Italic, as it progresses.
I think it is a distinct advantage to have the 16 & 18 pts. align exactly if it can be done without distorting any letters; but I would not favor increasing the weight of the 16 pt. caps to make them harmonize with the color of the 18 pt. lower case. Probably I am almost the only one who would ever care to combine them and I could strengthen the lighter letters when printing so please do not consider that an important defect if it be one at all.
I am sorry I did not make it clear that my criticism of the wide set did not apply to the face of the letters. It was meant for the bodies only, which seem to me capable of some improvement. In the 18 pt. it is not so apparent as in the 16 pt. and I think the smaller the sizes the more carefully it must be considered. I mean the general 'loose' look of the page due to irregularity in fitting. Of course fitting can never be done with entire regularity, nor is it desirable, in my opinion, but some of your letters seem to be off center in their bodies and when you get two of these in conjunction it breaks the word in which they occur. But this is all very obvious to you, as you have studied these individual characters much more closely than I have, and I note with much satisfaction that the final matrices are to be carefully revised in this respect.
I expect to go abroad in the late spring or early summer for an indefinite stay but if your final proofs are not at hand by that time they will be forwarded to me.
I must ask you to keep all my correspondences and suggestions in regard to this type confidential. I will tell you (what you may already know) that for some time I have taken retainer from the Monotype Co. to concern myself wholly with some features of their work and any assistance I may have given in the production or advertising of the Jenson type might be construed as an infringement of the spirit, if not of the letter, of my agreement with them. I consider it wholly a private interest of mine in the type itself, so long as I take no compensation and am not referred to in connection with it. So I trust you will treat my letters in the same light.
Robt. Wiebking (your stenographer spelled it Wiedking but surely in error?) cut my Centaur type, and I have visited his works in Chicago. He was a marvelous engraver and his loss to the profession was a great one. I have written his sons to ask for a return of any patterns or other material connected with the production of that face as I shall not have anything more done to it feeling that in future your new type will answer every purpose for which other sizes of Centaur might be used.
Yours very truly,
Bruce Rogers
April 6, 1948
Mr. Bruce Rogers
October House
R.F.D. No. 3
New Fairfield, Danbury
Connecticut
Dear B.R.:
Enclosed are the notes on the designing of the Ludlow Nicolas Jenson type by Ernst F. Detterer. As I mentioned in a previous letter, I suggest that you use these notes as a basis for composing your own statement. If the material is not adequate I shall be glad to try again in any direction you may suggest.
Upon making a search for the original 16 Pt. Nicolas Jenson font, I have discovered to my surprise and chagrin that the original font of 16 Pt. matrices was unwittingly destroyed. The punches are still in existence, but this is an impossible time for me to arrange for the redriving in another font of matrices from these punches which have never been listed or sold by the Company.
When I receive the photostatic print of the Jenson page from you I thought that I would set up the material in our present 16 Pt., and space it to conform with the Jenson fitting. (We have very thin graduated steel spaces for this purpose.) Since the actual size of the type is slightly smaller, this experiment may not be at all satisfactory. I shall do whatever I can, but under the circumstances I do not feel very hopeful in being able to obtain the sort of illustration you are seeking for your book. The moment I receive the print of the Jenson page I shall set up a few lines and send them to you.
Cordially,
RHM:DG
Enclosure
The originals of these letters are in the Middleton papers at the Newberry Library.