[60654]

Of course I read the details on stencils and patterns in the text. But you misunderstand what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is that there are many "concrete instantiations" of drafting lettering style, that all look basically the same, because they all came from the same source, and Gorton is just one of them. So what we're seeing in elevators and on plaques is not "Gorton" specifically. While in contrast we do see Helvetica specifically on NYC subway signs, Johnston in the London tube, etc.

Too fine of a point? Perhaps. And also, it doesn't take away from the quality of the essay which is a delightful romp through the history of draftman's lettering showing up in all sorts of forgotten utilitarian places.

(But I've got to ask - what's with the ad hominem at the end? We should be above that.)

[fenomas]

> What I'm saying is that there are many "concrete instantiations" of drafting lettering style, that all look basically the same, because they all came from the same source, and Gorton is just one of them.

Open a couple of old drafting lettering guides (e.g. ones linked in sibling comments or TFA), and look closely. They'll obviously have a similar overall vibe, but there'll be tons of variations - differently shaped 3/4/7, where the curves start and stop on letters like CJGS569, whether the various corners are pointed or rounded or flattened, etc.

If your premise above is true, then we'd expect to see similar sorts of variations in the various fonts derived from drafting style, and TFA's entire point is that the author has collected hundreds of cases where we don't. Check his photos - they show the same font with the same idiosyncrasies, the off-balance G, two flattened points on the 4, the slightly asymmetric 8, etc. TFA is about the ubiquity of that specific set of letter shapes (modulo some variations that he discusses), not just of lettering that's generally in the drafting style.

(Also: in the best of faith and not meant as shade, you might want to look up "ad-hominem".)

[60654]

> If your premise above is true, then we'd expect to see similar sorts of variations in the various fonts derived from drafting style

If you look at the photos in the article, there are a lot of variations! For example, in the article, if you look at the first two sets of photos of keyboards, you see a variety of shapes, especially visible with the 6s/9s, 0s, Rs, Ss, etc. And then in the next set of photos (the ones with a selection of plaques), you again see a collection of various letter shapes - look at the varying shapes of Gs, Ss, etc. This repeats throughout, when you look at the random assortments of plates and signage.

Later on, after he discusses ANSI and DIN standards, the author goes on to say:

> In the regulatory space, the U.S. military canonized Gorton in 1968 as a standard called MIL-SPEC-33558 for aircraft and other equipment dials, cancelled it in 1998… then brought it back again in 2007.

Except that the specimens he shows right below, of ANSI Y14 and MS 33558 (and whatever the third one is), are very different from Gorton and even from each other - just look at those letter forms. Which makes sense, as their lineage is _not_ from Gorton, but from traditional lettering.

So that's what I mean - it's not that Gorton _specifically_ is everywhere, it's just that draftman's lettering style is everywhere, and in many variants, including the very popular Gorton one.

[fasola]

I saw the argument more as: Gorton begat Leroy and that became the defacto technical drawing standard through the widespread adoption of drawing templates. The differences between Leroy and the standards you mentioned seem very small to me.