Talk:Sort (typesetting)

Terminology

I think most non-specialists would refer to this as a "piece of type." Since "type" redirects to typesetting, I've put in a link there.DGG 05:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks David :)

Arbo talk 23:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on what "this" is :-)

Here is the OED definition of sort, n.2, I. 13. b (https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/184953)): "Typography. One or other of the characters or letters in a fount of type. Usually in plural." The term does not refer to the individual piece of type.

Also see for instance The printer's manual : a practical guide for compositors and pressmen or just about any manual of typography.

Henrik Thiil Nielsen (talk) 03:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

and just to make life entertaining, according to the Oxford Companion to the Book: Sort: An individual piece, or pieces, of physical type.^[1] and [ibid] Out of sorts: Sorts being individual pieces of type, to be out of sorts is to find that the available type is insufficient for a job, typically because certain letters are lacking. This circumstance, possibly occurring frequently in the hand-press period, left the compositor and other workmen irritated.^[2]

Your The Printer's Manual citation doesn't really settle the matter: it just seems to say "if you get 400 pounds of "letter A" sorts, each of those sorts will weigh 2 pounds (which seems infeasibly heavy for a single letter?). A search for "sorts" returns many more hits but none that we can use to settle the matter conclusively. I suspect that author was unaware of the possibility that anyone reading the book might not know something so basically obvious.

I realise that you are correct, but we would still need a definitive citation. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting that Southward's Dictionary of Typography, (page 66) doesn't bother to define it. But then he doesn't define "letter" at the elemental level either. Well, its not a kindergarten primer!

This ("Founts, fonts and typefaces") is quite good but it is self-published so not usable. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now here's an interesting one: Sort—A type or character considered as a part of a font, usually a quantity of one kind. When all the letters of one kind are missing the case is out of sorts. When the copy calls for more than the usual number of a particular character it runs on sorts.^[3] NB "a type or character". And on page 8, Stewart admonished the apprentice compositor to get into 3. The habit of picking up at once type and other articles dropped on the floor. A type stepped on is spoiled. So, using modern parlance, a 'sort' is logically a letter or other glyph but physically a type. Discuss! --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But to get to the end of an interesting diversion, I don't see any reason the change the article as it stands today. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Sort
^ Out of sorts
^ A.A. Stewart (1919). TYPESETTING: a primer of information about working at the case, justifying, spacing, correcting, making-up, and other operations employed in setting type by hand. Typographic technical series for apprentices—Part II. No. 16. United Typothetae of America. p. 92 – via Project Gutenberg.

Image issues

The image is unacceptable because it has been mirrored. Type is SUPPOSED to be backwards. However, I can understand cropping to show the subject better. I'll upload a cropped version that is reversed.--Andrew c 20:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrew. :) The image has not been mirrored. The type is backwards in this image. Open it up in a bitmap editor and rotate it 180 degrees—the type is still reversed, as it should be. Beware of mirroring and flipping images in a bitmap editor: flipping without mirroring actually reverses an image. Flipping and mirroring produces the same result as a 180 degree rotation.

I've overwritten the image with a rotated version. The type is "the right way up" (not upside down), but still reversed as in real life. Thanks, we got a better encyclopedia from this :)

best regards, Arbo talk 23:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only now reading this page - 16 years later! Although pleased by the quality of the article, I'm disappointed that the letter H is used for the illustration. Despite all the asymmetrical letters that could be used to make the orientation clear, a symmetrical one has been chosen. Could a different letter be used for the image e.g the letter a JRGp (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Unfortunately the person who created it (on Commons) hasn't been active in over ten years so I'm afraid you will have to create a new version yourself (or phone a friend?). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I can see there's some history there. Looks likely to be hard. JRGp (talk) 00:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

metaltype.co.uk

This page (linked to from the article) seems to concern hot metal type, which - as I understand it - doesn't use sorts. --Taejo|대조 17:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Sort

[2] Out of sorts

[3] A.A. Stewart (1919). TYPESETTING: a primer of information about working at the case, justifying, spacing, correcting, making-up, and other operations employed in setting type by hand. Typographic technical series for apprentices—Part II. No. 16. United Typothetae of America. p. 92 – via Project Gutenberg.

[1]

[2]

[3]