[snowsislander]

Probably ignoring this wild speculation and wishful thinking until someone actually analyzes the document. It's funny how quickly the factcheck stuff got quickly attacked in all sorts of ways and here people can't mention the word "font" even after 1000 posts.

The proportional "font" problem in the Rather documents was obvious, since there were no reasonable machines capable of proportional spacing that would have been available to produce such transitory documents.

What appears to be the typewritten font here isn't proportional. Other than that, with such a poor quality image, it would be hard to look for traditional problems such as a damaged element on the typewriter, where you might see, for instance, a "m" consistently deformed.

The typewritten portion appears to line up in a manner that I would have expected from using a typewriter. It appears to me to be a bit light, perhaps, which might be consistent with older manual typewriter. I do notice that the typist used the very common convention of capitalizing last names.

There might be some obvious problem with the typewritten portion, but I don't see one.

I think that the most interesting part isn't so much analyzing this document as getting its provenance and finding out about the referenced primary documents. Those are the real birth records that this document is putative certfication of.

In the Rather case, the documents were an end product in themselves; in this case, the document is a pointer to other primary documents.

[SE Mom]

Good points- all.

[palmer]

What appears to be the typewritten font here isn't proportional. Other than that, with such a poor quality image, it would be hard to look for traditional problems such as a damaged element on the typewriter, where you might see, for instance, a "m" consistently deformed.

Thanks. At least that's a start. Hopefully other people will start doing some serious analysis.

[PhiKapMom]

Looks like it used the old cloth ribbons which got lighter the more they were used. I would say it was a manual typewriter the way it looks. My Mom had one of those which is what this looks like. I have an old electric typewriter and the type is totally different as it has the one and done ribbon. Hasn’t been used in years.

[Bikkuri]

Probably ignoring this wild speculation and wishful thinking until someone actually analyzes the document. It's funny how quickly the factcheck stuff got quickly attacked in all sorts of ways and here people can't mention the word "font" even after 1000 posts. The proportional "font" problem in the Rather documents was obvious, since there were no reasonable machines capable of proportional spacing that would have been available to produce such transitory documents. What appears to be the typewritten font here isn't proportional. Other than that, with such a poor quality image, it would be hard to look for traditional problems such as a damaged element on the typewriter, where you might see, for instance, a "m" consistently deformed. The typewritten portion appears to line up in a manner that I would have expected from using a typewriter. It appears to me to be a bit light, perhaps, which might be consistent with older manual typewriter. I do notice that the typist used the very common convention of capitalizing last names. There might be some obvious problem with the typewritten portion, but I don't see one. I think that the most interesting part isn't so much analyzing this document as getting its provenance and finding out about the referenced primary documents. Those are the real birth records that this document is putative certfication of. In the Rather case, the documents were an end product in themselves; in this case, the document is a pointer to other primary documents.

I was thinking along the same lines... I have been following this (including salamander's edit/reedit prob that, honestly, I thought the same thing.. DU hade made a sloppy 'quikfix' to mess everything up... But I was able to see salamander come back and explain that she did it, and the reason why... Looking back through all of these posts... it's amazing people who log in read the first few posts.. then post opposition or at least a question that has already been explained more than 5-10 times... Read what is already there before you post an innocent (but already answered at least 2 or 3 times) question. I started reading this about 2100 hours (9pm for the peeps that don't understand that time value).. and am still trying to catch up (I have lived in Japan for the last 11+ years... my best news source IS FR)... OH.. and 1 more thing... sonic, you are NOT Jim Thompson.. errr.. Jim Robinson... He has the final say on what is legit on HIS website. I don't want to ruffle feathers.. but you are doing a good job on yourself. Bikk

[Salamander]

"It appears to me to be a bit light, perhaps, which might be consistent with older manual typewriter."

As I mentioned, I have an Underwood from the 40s/50s and I assure you that you have to almost type with your fists.

It is REALLY hard to easily [and consistently] punch the keys.

Here is a photo of one that is similar to mine. It was first patented in 1927 and superceded in the 50s by a more "portable" version that was *quite* expensive.

When my mom worked for Sinclair Oil in the 60s [yup, I'm old] she was still using a Royal brand model that was just as big and clunky as this.

She was a speed typer even on these things so she could probably have bent steel with her bare hands, if she'd wanted to...:)