1

enter image description here

Hi, does anybody can help to recognize the font of this file. Please pay attention to "g"s. If it is typewritten, which font is nowadays similar to that in Office word? Thanks.

7
  • 3
    Looks like a type written document to me!
    – Joseph Wright
    Jul 12, 2015 at 12:30
  • Since it is scanned I think that it is a simple tt font.
    – Sigur
    Jul 12, 2015 at 12:30
  • Just use \ttfamily or if you want in some words only \texttt{foo}.
    – Sigur
    Jul 12, 2015 at 12:43
  • 2
    Since this is clearly a typewritten document (people more than 25 years old may have seen a typewriter), there's little chance to get an identical output. And there's no reason to, either. It's as ugly as possible: 40 years ago it was the only method available for publishing own material, now such ugliness can easily be dispensed with.
    – egreg
    Jul 12, 2015 at 13:20
  • If you can buy a typewriter, you'll get the same aesthetics and appeal.
    – user9424
    Jul 12, 2015 at 13:31

1 Answer 1

3

The book is

Local Fields, by J. W. S. Cassels, Cambridge University Press, 1986

as testified by this preview in Google Books (the yellow bits are due to the search engine)

enter image description here

This is a sample from page 3

enter image description here

At the time some publishers didn't want to afford big expenses for typesetting books with a small readers' base such as mathematics: the cost for typesetting math was much higher than for normal books. Thus they often accepted typewritten texts that were simply photographed and printed in offset.

The font is something you can find in some old British typewriter. You get an approximation with the standard Computer Modern Typewriter font (not the peculiar “g”, I'm afraid). Several math departments had very skilled typists that were able to get good results despite the medium. Anyway, this is something I'd not even try reproducing: it's even uglier than the average word processor document

3
  • 1
    I can hardly believe that Cambridge University Press couldn't afford typesetting such a book in 1986.
    – user9424
    Jul 12, 2015 at 18:48
  • 1
    @Joseph The reason was surely economical.
    – egreg
    Jul 12, 2015 at 19:39
  • 1
    @Joseph According to an expert in the field, a math book in a specialized field could be expected to sell less than 3000 copies. With today's technologies, printing on demand is very economical and also book typesetting is much less expensive, so there's no reason for camera-ready any more. At those times many books were printed like that; consider that the subject is very specialized: the choice was between ugly printing or no publishing at all.
    – egreg
    Jul 12, 2015 at 20:08

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .