This looks good except for something I saw right away. In the first sentence, the "1st" clearly has more spacing between the 1 and the letter s. How is that explained?
It seems clear to me that someone wrinkled up the original typed letter and then copied it. That would account for variations.
Two possibilities:
1. The "original" has a gradual variation of width, as not all matches up exactly everywhere. This is likely due to a series of faxing/photocopying operations, where analog optical errors were introduced.
2. The font rendering software may be slightly different between the systems that I used and the forger used, causing a slightly different spacing/kerning in certain character combinations.
Don't miss the forest for the trees.
Two possibilities:
1. The "original" has a gradual variation of width, as not all matches up exactly everywhere. This is likely due to a series of faxing/photocopying operations, where analog optical errors were introduced.
2. The font rendering software may be slightly different between the systems that I used and the forger used, causing a slightly different spacing/kerning in certain character combinations.
Don't miss the forest for the trees.
Correction: the discrepancy is that there is a space between the 1 and the st, which is narrow enough that I overlooked it - and such narrow spaces just were not done on typewriters then.