[Kleon]

But this is really a clear and well presented analysis of variations in the typefaces that could not occur if the letters examined had been produced on a single typewriter. I thought this one was particularly devastating:

The second R is affected by the fold of the paper, while the first one is not. Like, duh.

[ml/nj]

The second R is affected by the fold of the paper, while the first one is not. Like, duh.

You're kidding, aren't you?

Let's look again:

#3 is shorter. It has a long flat serif. The serif on #145 is short and stubby. The cross stem on #3 thickens toward the right; the one on #145 thins toward the right. The framed areas are completely different as pointed out by the caption here and by moi at post #38 on this thread. The downstem on #145 looks like a little 'L'; the one on #3 looks like an backwards 'J'.

Anyone who asserts that these two 'R's were typed on the same machine is either a White House flack or delusional.

ML/NJ

[DiogenesLamp]

The second R is affected by the fold of the paper, while the first one is not. Like, duh.

Well enough. Please explain what happened to this "R". Tell me why the pixel size and bit depth changed from one character to the next.