I've done a bit of searching, but I can't find bold, italic, and bold italic
versions of Baskerville Old Face. Can anyone confirm that they don't exist?

One of our new clients uses Baskerville Old Face for their Word manuals, but
seem to be using a bold version of it for headings. I know in some software
you can "fake" bold and italic. Is Word one of those software applications?

What are the issues associated with faking bold and italic? Do they affect
print quality? Embedding?

If they should be using another flavor of Baskerville, does anyone have a
recommendation? I ran across Baskerville EF, Baskerville LT, and ITC
Baskerville. Not sure how many others there are or what have the best
quality for the price. Or is there a non-Baskerville font that's closer to
the look of Baskerville Old Face, but with real bold, italic, etc.,
versions?

Thanks,
Renee

AFAIK: Neither URW, Linotype, or Elsner+Flake offer anything beyond the regular face and a
Small Caps variation.

Re: "...
One of our new clients uses Baskerville Old Face for their Word manuals, but
seem to be using a bold version of it for headings. I know in some software
you can "fake" bold and italic. Is Word one of those software applications?
...."

Yes ... UNFORTUNATELY  ... Micro$loth Wurd users often make mistakes like that. It's a
real **pain** to publishing professionals "down the line." Unfortunately, Micro$crew feels
that the world begins, and ENDS, with their software ... and it's everybody else's job to
be compatible with them. The M$ Orifice products have developed a (well deserved)
reputation for being compatible with other M$ Orifice products, but not necessarily with
anything else!

Re: "...
What are the issues associated with faking bold and italic? Do they affect
print quality? Embedding?
...."

Fake bold and italic often will not print as such on "professional level" printers, or
using professional level page layout software (such as PageMaker, InDesign, Ventura,
Quirk, Adobe Illustrator, etcetera). The "special effect(s)" often just disappear.

As for "embedding," you can't "embed" what you don't have.





"RMR" <rraduechel@myob.almondinc.com> wrote in message
news:103sc9ece62h4e2@corp.supernews.com...
> I've done a bit of searching, but I can't find bold, italic, and bold italic
> versions of Baskerville Old Face. Can anyone confirm that they don't exist?
>
> One of our new clients uses Baskerville Old Face for their Word manuals, but
> seem to be using a bold version of it for headings. I know in some software
> you can "fake" bold and italic. Is Word one of those software applications?
>
> What are the issues associated with faking bold and italic? Do they affect
> print quality? Embedding?
>
> If they should be using another flavor of Baskerville, does anyone have a
> recommendation? I ran across Baskerville EF, Baskerville LT, and ITC
> Baskerville. Not sure how many others there are or what have the best
> quality for the price. Or is there a non-Baskerville font that's closer to
> the look of Baskerville Old Face, but with real bold, italic, etc.,
> versions?
>
> Thanks,
> Renee
>
>

"RMR" <rraduechel@myob.almondinc.com> wrote in message news:<103sc9ece62h4e2@corp.supernews.com>...
> One of our new clients uses Baskerville Old Face for their Word manuals, but
> seem to be using a bold version of it for headings. I know in some software
> you can "fake" bold and italic. Is Word one of those software applications?
> 
> What are the issues associated with faking bold and italic? Do they affect
> print quality? Embedding?

Faked bold will usually pass, fake italics are an abomination. Compare
wspecially a,e,f,g in true italic, and faked (i.e. obliqued roman).
They probably won't work outside Word.

> If they should be using another flavor of Baskerville, does anyone have a
> recommendation? I ran across Baskerville EF, Baskerville LT, and ITC
> Baskerville. Not sure how many others there are or what have the best
> quality for the price. Or is there a non-Baskerville font that's closer to
> the look of Baskerville Old Face, but with real bold, italic, etc.,
> versions?

There are a lot of "Baskervilles". From what I can see, the "Old Face"
you mention don't resemble these much; eg having rather sharper serifs
and being fairly wide. So I don't think you should worry too much
about the name.

A few possibles: Linotype Janson; ITC Caslon, which have somewhat the
same flavour.

But quite likely your client has no idea what fonts they used and
chose it at random. Just redo it in a font you like and ask them to
approve.

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 11:47:17 -0600, "RMR"
<rraduechel@myob.almondinc.com> dijo:

>I've done a bit of searching, but I can't find bold, italic, and bold italic
>versions of Baskerville Old Face. Can anyone confirm that they don't exist?

AFAIK, they don't exist. 

>One of our new clients uses Baskerville Old Face for their Word manuals, but
>seem to be using a bold version of it for headings. I know in some software
>you can "fake" bold and italic. Is Word one of those software applications?

Indeed, it is.

>What are the issues associated with faking bold and italic? Do they affect
>print quality? Embedding?

If you fake a bold or italic they will print as the regular font when
you send the file to an imagesetter. Some RIPs are even worse -- they
will substitute Courier or whatever their default font is.

The way Word (and most other programs) fake a bold is to print the
character a second time, slightly offset. The results are pretty ugly.

To fake an italic the program just slants the letters of the regular
Roman font. You can always tell a fake italic because the a will look
wrong. Other characters will too, but it looks worst in the a.

--
Bogus e-mail address, but I read this newsgroup regularly, so reply here.

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 19:38:24 -0800, Marek Williams <abc@example.com>
wrote:

>The way Word (and most other programs) fake a bold is to print the
>character a second time, slightly offset. The results are pretty ugly.
>

Actually, it can be better or worse than that. Type a character like
an A in a very large size, draw two lines in word at the top and
bottom and left right as markers, then switch bold on and off. There 
are varying techniques used to fake bold, some fonts won't do it at
all. I have to assume that there's some sort of suggestion about this
in the true type font file since the results vary with different
fonts. 

>To fake an italic the program just slants the letters of the regular
>Roman font. You can always tell a fake italic because the a will look
>wrong. Other characters will too, but it looks worst in the a.

Actually, that one is often better than you might think. Word will
actually transform the A to an italic a in some typefaces, and will
redraw in some others with varying effects. Again, it really depends
on the specific typeface you are using and results vary. And again, 
I have to assume there's some suggestion in the TT font file since the
results are not the same for all typefaces (some won't italicize, some
change characters, some fake it). 

Dedicated fonts are always the best and most predictable. 

Bob wrote:

> On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 19:38:24 -0800, Marek Williams <abc@example.com>
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>The way Word (and most other programs) fake a bold is to print the
>>character a second time, slightly offset. The results are pretty ugly.
>>
> 
> 
> Actually, it can be better or worse than that. Type a character like
> an A in a very large size, draw two lines in word at the top and
> bottom and left right as markers, then switch bold on and off. There 
> are varying techniques used to fake bold, some fonts won't do it at
> all. I have to assume that there's some sort of suggestion about this
> in the true type font file since the results vary with different
> fonts. 
> 
> 
>>To fake an italic the program just slants the letters of the regular
>>Roman font. You can always tell a fake italic because the a will look
>>wrong. Other characters will too, but it looks worst in the a.
> 
> 
> Actually, that one is often better than you might think. Word will
> actually transform the A to an italic a in some typefaces, and will
> redraw in some others with varying effects. Again, it really depends
> on the specific typeface you are using and results vary. And again, 
> I have to assume there's some suggestion in the TT font file since the
> results are not the same for all typefaces (some won't italicize, some
> change characters, some fake it). 
> 
> Dedicated fonts are always the best and most predictable. 


Bob,

I think you are misunderstanding what Marek asserted (of course I could 
be wrong about that).

I believe Marek is only talking about what Word and some other programs 
do _in the absence of_ a companion bold or italic font. Word is 
perfectly capable of finding the bold or italic font in the family if it 
is there and properly named. But if it cannot find the correct font, 
then and only then does it fake it. Word isn't smart enough to make a 
one-story italic a out of a two-story roman a; but it is smart enough to 
find the italic font if it's there.

As to Marek's assertion about the faux bold, PageMaker actually makes 
five closely spaced copies of the character when it fakes a bold. I 
don't know that Word only does two, but that's possible.

I do recall working one place where a Word document template had become 
corrupted so that the body text in some paragraph styles had the Shadow 
attribute turned on (and this, unfortunately, propagated to other 
templates on many computers before I arrived on the scene, so it was 
really pervasive). To the naked eye, the text looked like a poorly 
executed faux bold. But when you copied text and pasted it in another 
application or--worse--converted the document to a PDF, eeaacchh 
cchhaarraacctteerr wwaass ddoouubblleedd. Very disconcerting to say the 
least.