From: Character <Char@cters.bold.italic>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:39:32 -0700
Subject: Re: Solopedia question
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.fonts

On 10/21/2011 6:34 AM, abfonts wrote:
> Character<Char@cters.bold.italic>  wrote in news:0m2oq.23091$SU2.18630
> @en-nntp-07.dc1.easynews.com:
>
>> On 10/20/2011 11:21 AM, abfonts wrote:
>>
>>> A few more Solopedia concerns....
>>>
>>> Wings on pages 53 and 59 are not the same font. The two are currently
>>> treated in the Solopedia as if they are the same font.
>>
>> I don't understand. They look identical to me
>
>
>
> Looking a second time, they are indeed identical. I am sorry. It looked
> different when I looked yesterday. My eyes might have wandered.
>
>
>
>>>
>>> Is Alouette a Dan X. Solo font? In the Alias/Analysis column for
> Auriol
>>> (pages 49 and 119), one of the entries is Alouette (Solo). I could
> not
>>> find that font in the Solo Dover fonts or at MyFonts Solotype page.
>>
>> Good question. I have Alouette in TTF and Type 1, Normal and Italic,
>> with Dan X Solo attribution; They are bit for bit identical with
> Solo's
>> Auriol, including metrics and metadata. It may be a chicken-or-the egg
>> thing.
>>
>
>
> I just found copies of Alouette Normal and Italic Normal. Solo might
> have renamed the Auriol fonts for some reason.
>
>
>>
>>> I only used the font names to search the Solopedia. You might be able
> to
>>> find few more from your George Williams font collection.
>>
>> You prompted me to look at Williams' fonts - The Solopedia shows his
>> "Ambrosia" as matching both Ambrosia (Page 47) and Asteroid (Page 10),
>> which are completely different from each other. Need to do a little
> work
>> on those!
>>
>> I'll see what else I can find.
>>
>>    Thanks.
>>
>>    - Character
>>
>
>
> The home page of George Williams at Duke is gone but it is in the
> Wayback Machine
>
> http://web.archive.org/web/20051223080638/bibliofile.mc.duke.edu/gww/fon
> ts/fonts.html
>
> I am hoping that Solopedia will also be picked up by the Wayback
> Machine. I submitted the site to Alexa to tell them about the site but
> it takes about a year before a site is included in the Wayback Machine,
> if ever it gets there. The information contained in the Solopedia is too
> good... enough reason for Solopedia's inclusion in the archive.
>
>
> Something for you to decide, in the index of the Solotype Catalog is an
> entry named Niteclub on page 53. This is also the font name used for
> that font in the Solopedia. On page 53, the font is named Nightclub, the
> same font name used for the font on page 69 of the 100-font Art Nouveau
> book. I am sure you've already dealt with something similar.to this.

For a typographer, there are a lot of typographical and/or spelling 
errors in Dan Solo's materials. The Catalog was produced before the days 
of automated indices (which aren't that good anyway), and there are many 
discrepancies between the index and the samples. And between the catalog 
and the 100-font books. And among those and the 24-font CD/Books. And 
among all the above and the Solotype digital fonts. Not to mention 
similar errors that have been introduced by me and others in the ongoing 
development of the Solopedia :) Like the following one ;)

> Another is Empreror on page 42 of the Solotype Catalog is not listed on
> page 42 of the Solopedia. There is an Emperor on page 900 but that is
> the entry for the Solotype font at MyFonts although the font on page 42
> is mentioned in a remark.

  (You do mean Emperor and not Empreror, don't you? - Sorry, couldn't 
resist!)

And the Solotype digital font named Emperor is NOT the same as the one 
in the Catalog and 100 Art Nouveau fonts. Naturally.

I did the one on page 42 a couple of years ago, named EmperorAN (for 
Emperor - ArtNouveau) Attached. Maybe I hadn't posted it before.

I've never been quite sure what the 900 entries represent ...

More later.

  - Character

Attachment: EmperorAN.otf
Attachment: EmperorAN.ttf

FONT DOWNLOAD

Open Type + True Type