Talk:Goudy Old Style

The move and the revisions

The added references are a good thing, but I'm unclear on the rationale for moving the page. When I created it, I carefully considered whether it should be Goudy or Goudy Old Style. Since the original version of the type family and most subsequent versions, including those currently available, are collectively called "Goudy", calling the page Goudy seemed to make more sense. I also take issue with the new infobox and sample, which don't follow the convention of other text typefaces in Wikipedia and are, respectively, less complete and less useful. I would appreciate any thoughts from other editors on these matters. My inclination is to revert, but I won't be hasty. Rivertorch 01:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rivertorch. Here's my thinking: a Google search for Goudy Old Style brings Goudy Old Style, a more general Goudy subject search does include Goudy Old Style but also Goudy Modern, Goudy Catalog, Goudy Text, and Goudy Sans. The other reason I moved/renamed the page was that in catalogs and websites for foundries it is labeled Goudy Old Style. On the format of the specimen, I wanted to show more of the alphabet. The lowercase in the previous sample, even on my monster monitor was mouse sized. I've tried to follow a convention of showing roman and italic, in large, select letters, full lowercase, full beta characters, and a contextual word that is native to the time period or culture that produced it. Example for Goudy Old Style I used an American word Adirondacks because he like the area and lived just south of it. But say for FF Scala and FF Scala Sans I've used Dutch words. I very much appreciate your not being hasty, and your thoughts. Best, Jim CApitol3 01:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

link deleted

hello, i removed a link

Samples of Goudy in various weights, plus design information

<-- it doesn't work -- 78.55.7.175 (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I've substituted a link to a different Linotype page. (Btw, you can tag dead links by adding {{dead link}} instead of removing them, if you like.) Rivertorch (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Digitisations

I’ve seen claims that digitisations of Goudy Old Style are thinner than it looked originally. (The metal type would have been cast thinner than it looked on the page due to ink spreading out on the paper, and additionally different point sizes might have been slightly different to make small sizes a bit more chunky-so a digitisation based on size 20, say, or just looking at the metal type, would be thinner than text should look.)

It’s certainly a slender design, but does anyone have a reliable source for this claim? I’ve examined specimen sheets and digital does seem slightly lighter than them but the difference is slight. I've tried two digitisations, Microsoft/URW’s and Schwartz's Sorts Mill Goudy and they’re similar-but Schwartz’s may be based on Microsoft’s rather than on period samples. Blythwood (talk) 08:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]