"According to IBM the Executive was introduced in the 1950's and used the traditional hammer style type . Hammer type cannot produce proportional "fonts".
"
Wrong again. Sheesh....just back up the thread and look at the ad for the 1953 Executive. Or go on Google and search for "IBM Executive Typewriter." IT TYPED USING PROPORTIONAL SPACING! These "Experts" are not experts if they don't know that.
These 'posters' aren't paying attention anymore, are failing to read previous posts for content, and are disregarding plainly stated fact while doing so; sign me back out inactive ...
My issue is not with proportional types, but with a small, superscript "th". No one has yet proven to me that this was possible in 1972.
We'll grant that.
What's disturbing is that two completely different printing/typesetting technologies used 30 years apart would give exactly the same results with minimal effort on the part of each user. That's exactly the same (allowing for pixellation by one faxing) spacing, kerning, character shapes, positioning of superscripts, line breaks, use/absence of hyphenation, absence of spelling errors, etc. I've fiddled with nuanced formatting for a couple decades, and there's no way these would match that perfectly with so little effort. Fake. Huge fake.