To understand the apparently complicated and contradictory designation of 19th century types which went under the general style of "Ornamented No. X," it is necessary to discard our contemporary preconceptions of what a typeface really is.
Today, and indeed for over the last hundred years, the "essential" core of a typeface has been its design. This basic design could be made in any number of sizes, but the design, not the size of the type, is the important thing. This reached a sort of high point in the mid 20th century with types such as "Univers" which became a single design laid out on a kind of mathematical grid of sizes and weights. Today it has become mundane as computer scale type at the whim of the user - sometimes for the better, sometimes not. But it isn't necessarily so.
To practical printers of the 18th century, trying to get work out the door, the important thing wasn't that they had a particular style of type from Mr. Caslon vs. another style from Fry's. Rather, the important thing was that they had a blank space in their forme which needed to be filled with a couple of lines of Great Primer [a size of type, roughly 18 point in post-1886 terms]. They'd fill it with copy in whatever type of that size they had at hand, stopping to consider the design of the typeface only if they happened to have more than one typeface in that size. The size of the type, not its design, came first.
Typefounders, in making type in a range of sizes to suit their customer's needs might strive for some uniformity of style between sizes, but this was a secondary consideration. If you look at the type specimens of the Caslon foundry, for example, or even in Bodoni's Manuale Tipografico, you will frequently find significant differences of style between sizes. In part, this was due to the fact that each size was cut, by hand, separately. But in part it was intentional - a recognition of the fact (lost these last hundred years or more) that type at any particular size has particular characteristics that may not translate to other sizes. (In many cases these characteristics are not simply matters of scaling, however sophisticated, but rather the presence or lack of typographical features.) Although we have forgotten this, it is a view which was current throughout the 19th century. When the pantograph emerged at the end of the 19th century as a viable method of producing series of metal types scaled mechanically, there was some degree of outrage at the damage it did to type design (this, in turn, was a contributing reason for the brief revival of hand punchcutting in the early 20th century).
(Today the variation of the features of types within a single series survives only in the case of a few highly decorative types, such as the revival of Arboret, where it simply isn't possible to fit all of the frilly bits into the smaller sizes.)
Given this basic (but forgotten) fact that size in type is more basic than design, an early 19th century typefounder with a range of types would not present them by typeface, but rather by size. So, for example, the 1812 Binny & Ronaldson Specimen of Printing Types begins with a type simply identified as "SEVEN LINES PICA" (which would be, very approximately, 84 point). All of the types in this specimen are identified primarily by their size, sometimes by style (Roman or Italic) only occasionally by general design characteristics ("French" or "American") and sometimes, when two similar faces exist, by number. Thus they show "LONG PRIMER ROMAN, No.1" and "LONG PRIMER ROMAN, No 2." Clearly, any attempt to understand how type worked at this time which keeps our contemporary notion that design is the essence of type will fail. To the practical printer who needs to lock up a forme, print it, and bill the customer, the design of type is entirely secondary to the size of type.
(Even today in the digital world this is true. If you're setting a 96 point headline and for some reason the font you have of the typeface you wish to use looks terrible scaled to that size, you'll switch to a different typeface before you'll change the headline to 72 point.)
So through the middle of the 19th century a typefoundry producing series of ornamented typefaces would list them primarily by size, and then usually just number them within the size. The typefounder might, for example, list all of their Great Primer sizes of ornamented types together (roughly 18 point) and then just number them: Great Primer Ornamented No. 1, No. 2, etc. Then they'd list the next size - perhaps Two-Line Pica (about 24 point) and number those: Two-Line Pica No. 1, No. 2, etc. It might well be that one design was represented in multiple sizes, but there would be no correspondence of its number between sizes. Neither would it be guaranteed that a Two-Line Pica No. 2 from one specimen book would be the same typeface as the Two-Line Pica No. 2 in a subsequent specimen book.
Only much later, in the late 19th century, did typefounders "rationalize" their numbering of ornamented faces so that "Ornamented No. X" became the designation of a single typeface produced in a series of sizes. (Generally this seems to have been after (a) naming typefaces became popular and (b) the point system was adopted in the 1880s, but I have not yet examined this in detail.)
For example, the Bruce foundry typeface which was rationalized as Ornamented No. 1515 ( revived in the 20th century as "Belgian) appeared as late as 1874 with six different size/number identifications:
(The 1874 Bruce specimen actually represents an intermediate stage. In earlier specimens, the design would have been where the old size/number designations have been retained but the six sizes have all been gathered onto a single page as a unified series.)
Hamilton No. 232
Said to be shown in an 1892 Hamilton catalogue (by HiH in their digital revival of Central's Art Gothic. Shown in the 1899 Hamilton Catalog No. 14, Hamilton's Wood Type (Two Rivers, WI: The Hamilton Manufacturing Co., 1889-1900)
Similar to (perhaps inspired by?), but not the same as, Art Gothic (Central).
The group of typefaces later regularized into Ornamented No. 1515. See also Derived faces were/are generally known from the 1960s through the present as Belgian (q.v.) in reproduction proofs and in film, digital, and metal revivals.
Ornamented Nos. 7, 19, 27, 40, 1046 ( Bruce)
This face, Ornamented Nos. 11J, 20J, 24J, 22J ( Cincinnati), and a face by Caslon, circa 1865 (revived 1884) identified in Nicolette Gray's XIXth Century Ornamented Types and Title Pages. First Edition. (London: Faber and Faber Limited, 1938) (Gray's Catalog No. 190, p. 204) would seem to be copies of each other. McGrew, p. 344, identifies it as circa 1860 when associating Bruce's Ornamented No. 1046 with Tuscan Graille.
Ornamented Nos. 11J, 20J, 24J, 22J ( Cincinnati)
This face, Ornamented Nos. 7, 19, 27, 40, 1046 ( Bruce), and a face by Caslon, circa 1865 (revived 1884) identified in Nicolette Gray's XIXth Century Ornamented Types and Title Pages. First Edition. (London: Faber and Faber Limited, 1938) (Gray's Catalog No. 190, p. 204) would seem to be copies of each other. McGrew, p. 344, identifies it as circa 1860 when associating Cincinnati's Ornamented No. 22J with Tuscan Graille.
[Two-Line Great Primer] Ornamented, No. 13 ( Farmer, Little)
By 1867. Titling. This would appear to be an earlier version of the typeface which became better known in upper-and-lower-case versions as Ornamented No. 1515 ( Bruce). In the 20th and 21st centuries this typeface has became known as Belgian.
[Two-Line Pica] Ornamented, No. 16 ( Cincinnati)
[Two-Line Pica] Ornamented, No. 18 ( Bruce)
Two-Line Pica Ornamented, No. 20 ( Cincinnati)
[Two-Line Pica] Ornamented, No. 24 ( Bruce)
[Two Line Pica] Ornamented, No. 24 (Montreal, 1850)
[Two-Line Great-Primer] Ornamented, No. 27 ( Bruce)
Ornamented No. 847 ( Bruce)
I have not yet seen a specimen of this face, so everything here is based on secondary sources.
In the process of tracing the origins of the Twentieth Century revival Tuscan Ombree, McGrew (p. 344) identifies it as a copy (I presume by electroforming) of Bruce's New York Type Foundry's Ornamented No. 847. What he says, literally, is: "[Tuscan Ombree] was originally Bruce's Ornamented No. 847. It originated about 1849." Unfortunately, it is not clear from this whether McGrew means (a) that Ornamented No. 847 was itself made in 1849, or (b) that Ornamented No. 847 was copied from some other type and that that type was cut around 1849.
See also Two-Line Small Pica, circa 1849, by Stephenson, Blake. This is the same face as Doric Ornamented (in wood) by Wells & Webb. Revived in the mid Twentieth Century in metal as Tuscan Ombree and in the late Twentieth Century digitally as Zebrawood[TM]. See the main entry for this design's history under Tuscan Ombree.
Ornamented No. 851 ( Bruce)
Ornamented No. 864 ( Bruce)
In his discussion of the John S. Carroll version of Rustic, McGrew traces its history to an 1864 Figgins example (attested by Nicolette Gray as Rustic No. 2 (1845/6) of Figgins), via Bruce's Ornamented No. 864.
Ornamented No. 881 ( Bruce)
Rick von Holdt has identified the 20th century revival Circus by Typefounders, Inc. [of Phoenix] with this type. He notes as well that it was "shown much earlier by some French foundries." ( http://www.briarpress.org/27508/)
Ornamented No. 1071 (Laurent & Deberny)
In the process of associating the Twentieth Century revival Tuscan Outline with Bruce's Ornamented No. 851, McGrew, p. 344, identifies Laurent & Deberny's Ornamented No. 1071, from 1830, as its source.
Ornamented, No. 1514 ( Bruce)
Recut by ATF as Gold Rush (that in turn electroformed by John S. Carroll also as Gold Rush ( Replica Type Foundry?, Typefounders, Inc. [of Phoenix], Los Angeles Type Founders, Barco/F&S, Skyline Type Foundry); aka Klondike.)
Ornamented, No. 1541 ( Bruce)
Cut in typemetal patrices (which were then electroformed to make matrices) by Harrison T. Lounsbury for Bruce. ( Loy says of Lounsbury that "so far as can now be learned his work was all on soft metal.")
This face is identical to the one shown by Bruce as Lithographic Roman in the "10th Supplement to Bruce's Abridged Specimen Book of 1869" issued 1875-07-01 (which is bound with the online copy of An Abridged Specimen of Printing Types Made at Bruce's New-York Type-Foundry. 1874 Reissue (New-York: George Bruce's Son & Co., 1869, 1874)
This face makes an interesting comparison with Italic Copperplate (a face by Herman Ihlenburg for MacKellar, Smiths and Jordan. Both share similar patterns of short diagonal lines, and both are associated with styles of plate engraving.
All of the type specimen documents reproduced or extracted from here are in the public domain due to their publication without copyright notice when such notice was required, or the failure to renew copyright as was then required, or the expiration of all possible copyright. The reproductions of/from them here remain in the public domain.
All portions of this document not noted otherwise are Copyright © 2011-2012 by David M. MacMillan and Rollande Krandall.
Circuitous Root is a Registered Trademark of David M. MacMillan and Rollande Krandall.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons "Attribution - ShareAlike" license. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ for its terms.
Presented originally by Circuitous Root®
Select Resolution: 0 [other resolutions temporarily disabled due to lack of disk space]