Jan. 7, 2005

Columbia Journalism Review's Pein is wrong

At 03:04 PM 1/5/2005, Mikus Grinbergs wrote: >You find Mr. Phinney more persuasive. I find Dr. Hailey more persuasive. Let's agree to disagree. I think the main difference is that something like almost everyone with significant expertise in this area finds my arguments more persuasive. You go on to say that you think the IBM Executive could have done it. Have you actually *read* my full analysis as written up on creativepro.com? I absolutely eliminated two devices as having possibly produced those memos. One was the IBM Executive. Short version: the memos use the 18-unit system that Times was developed on (and the widths match Times perfectly). The Executive uses at most 6-unit spacing system.* It is physically impossible to devise any font on that system that will match the line lengths of the memos. I would be willing to testify to this in a court of law, as a matter of simple mathematical fact. Additionally, there was one specific font available for the Executive that has been generally thought of as the closest general stylistic match for Times. However, this font is significantly wider in set than Times. So much so that one doesn't have to be a typographer for the difference to be blatantly obvious. By the way, the design of the "5" of the memos is essentially only useful as a means of disproving that a particular device or font could have made the memos. Finding one that matches the "5" would not prove that the given device could have produced the memos; there are many other characteristics, including the widths fingerprint, that would have to match. Regards, T

No comments: