New to Typophile? Accounts are free, and easy to set up.
Now that I finally have both the books in front of me, and am re-reading them, I just want to question why it is there are so many different methods for classifying type. I can appreciate Bringhurst, when he eloquently states that it is not yet like the taxonomic classification of animals, yet, he also clearly relates the latin letter to an "animal" itself. The system utilized in his book is based on "periods" where as others seem to "fabricate" terminology such as geralde and transitional for their own proprietary classification systems.
Generally, I would side with Bringhurst, and say forget the rest of the terms that I have already learned, but, what is really the best system here, and which is more widely used and understood? I doubt that if I were to go back to my professors and speak of neoclassical, baroque, or rococo types, that they would have the slightest clue as to just what that meant. I come from a university that used the "fabricated" system, which also seems to be used in most of my other typography books, including Walter Tracy's "Letters of Credit". I think it's just ironic to have two of the three triumvirate books in complete disagreement over which system to use for classification. One would surely be better then multiple, overlapping methods.
p.s.— Why is it that we say Gutenberg invented movable type (or at least most people say that) when in fact it existed almost 400 years before Gutenberg in China by Bí Shēng?