Introducing Introducing “Tribute” —a family of

Roman, 8 by Ligatures, , Ordinals; Italic, Ligatures One & Two, Frank Heine, Ordinals released by Emigre Fonts (2003) P 1 ][

Introductory Booklet

Contents A Frank Heine “Tribute” about Tribute C o n t e n t s by Frank Heine

3—4 Back- ground Information aib 5 Footnotes 6—9 Call it The Tribute What it is— family of fonts An Essay by [For François Guyoq] is based on John Downer types cut by the Frenchman, The Tribute I’ve always had a desire to design 9 François Guyot. Family a based on a Renaisance AnXqua.À The single exam- 10—11 Sample ple that I used Texts There are two reasons. as the model for Tribute was a Synopsis 12—13 Firy, the Renaissance can be considered reprint of a type of Characters the prototype for moy of today’s . specimen pro- 14 Special bably printed Features and It already provided a formal maZriy at the end around 1565 in Characters the Netherlands. of the th century, with an excepXonal level of (An original can Ordering 15 15 be seen at the Information differentiation Folger Shakes- between single haracers, ofering good legibiliy. peare Library, K Washington, DC.) Second, I am particularly attracted to its archaic feel, especially with settings in smaller design sizes (Nonpareil through Bourgeois). It is rougher with less filigree than the types of the following centuries, thus © 2003 Emigre, exhibiting much of the cruder craJsmanship All rights of the early printing processes. reserved. Tribute is To a certain extent the early a trademark of Emigre Renaissance Antiqua Graphics. congenially reflects the Booklet and contradictions of its time; Contradictions Design by the vanishing Middle Ages versus Humanism, and the urge for of its time Frank Heine. cognizance or Inquisition versus Reformation. > P 2 P 3 u

Contents Background Information

I’ve always had a desire ¬ François Guyot’s types ¬ François Guyot’s types were not as in- pel comes to mind immediately) 1 The Renaissance Antiqua is based upon a fluential as those of his elders, Griffo or appeared to me as over-interpreted in the misunderstanding. Early Italian Humanists François Guyot Garamond. There were many inconsisten- details. They were mostly too thin and ster- rediscovering the Greek and Roman An- was a punch- cies not usually seen in this class of typefaces. ile looking, erasing any traces of its origins. tique interpreted the Early Carolingian Minuscule, 8th century cutter born in Some of the characters have an unrefined or With the design of Tribute it was my inten- (which came 700 years later) as Roman Paris, France, unusual feel, such as the N, the asymmetri- tion to maintain, visually, this link to the handwriting and imitated its style. The Hu- who moved to cal M, the abrupt cut of the tail of the y, or past. K The way that typefaces are contin- manist handwriting became the source for Humanist hand- Antwerp in 1539 the treatments of the accents and brackets. ually revived and placed into new contexts the first (Venetian) Renaissance Antiqua cut writing became the source where he worked has always fascinated me. In contrast to the in Italy by Sweynheim and Pannartz Late Carolingian Minuscule, 11 th century in the type more inflexible art forms such as architec- (in Subiaco near , 1463). This typeface founding trade. ture, sculpture or painting, the historical still shows some characteristics of Gothic Until his death typeface continues to be an active and vivid types. But only a few years later, Nicho- in 1570 he was a medium for contemporary experiments and las Jenson created his elaborated types regular supplier typographic solutions. Historical models can in in 1470, which became the model of type to Chris- easily be updated and adapted to current for many successive punchcutters and type- , 1480 tophe Plantin, production techniques and find many use- face designers until today. K Another in- Antwerp’s re- ful applications in today’s media. This speaks teresting aspect of the Renaissance Antiqua nowned printer. Furthermore, the available size on the orig- to the triumph of early Humanist fonts and is that it is the first typeface consisting of The first type- Together with his inal print from which I worked did not re- their attainment of legibility that outlasted two alphabets: capital and lowercase letters. face consisting of two alphabets competitor, Ameet veal much detail. For instance, no clear ex- centuries of typeface development, and still While the lowercase letters were modeled Humanist Italic, 16th century Tavernier, Guyot amples were apparent regarding the logic of functions today. S aJer the Humanist handwriting, the capi- produced types serifs or stroke endings. In this respect the tals were taken from Roman inscriptions that were highly source leJ enough room for individual de- such as on the Trajan in Rome. influential in cisions. Most oE these detail decisions—such the appearance as how far the character stays within the 2 The German Industry Norm (din) dif- Type by Sweynheim and Pannartz, from: of printed work historical attributes, or how far it edges away ferentiates between Venetian and French Re- Speculum Humanae Vitae, Rome 1467 in the Low from them—were relatively easy to arrive naissance Antiqua. Within the United States Countries in the at, since the basic forms of a Renaissance the terms French Aldine or Aldine Roman may period from Antiqua are quite familiar to me.€ As I was sound more familiar. K The typical char- 1545–1570, and drawing each letter directly in Fontographer acteristics of a French Renaissance Antiqua/ they were in 3.5, I made these decisions quite intuitively. French Aldine are shown in the Tribute Typeface by Nicholas Jenson, from: De Prae- great demand K Due to my preference for smaller de- letters below: paratione Evangelica, Venice 1470 throughout sign sizes, Tribute was equipped with a ro- much of West- bust stroke width and decreased contrast ern Europe. between thin and bold strokes. This ensures the needed heavy text “color” and equabili- ty that is necessary for good legibility at small sizes. K Despite my fondness for From top to bottom: Scan of Guyot’s 1544 o and round shapes: slightly tilted to the leJ; Capitals from the Trajan Column, typefaces originating from about 1480 to Double Roman (scaled 50%); detail of i: convoluted, quite heavy serifs with concave Rome 113 A.D. The naging 1580, there was the nagging question about the original model (scaled 170%); inter- transitions to the stem (brackets); k: triangu- question the sense and purpose of adapting a histori- pretation of serifs (H, l, k) and stroke endings lar upper ; e: small , horizontal Pictures above taken from: Albert Kapr, Credits cal model for today’s digital techniques. (c, l, k). crossbar, relatively high; a: small, narrow SchriJkunst, Verlag der Kunst Dresden, 1971. There are already many, partially well counter; f: swinging far to the right, The model for the Tribute family was an illus- designed, revivals available. But many of drop-shaped; overall character: decreased tration taken from: Atlas zur Geschichte der these solutions (the digital version of Stem- contrast between stems and hairlines. SchriJ, Volume 3, TU Darmstadt, 2001. ab P 4 P 5 eee

Background Information Footnotes

The Renaissance Antiqua ¬ A discussion of typeface sources ¬ C A L L On the one hand, a type designer who makes In his talk, Gehl noted that type experts (in- tours. Any “digital recutting” takes place a serious efort to acknowledge certain cluding some efective and influential type merely in a figurative sense. K But don’t I T sources oE inspiration opens himself or her- promoters, I should add), have been known let pure semantics completely limit our abil- Pure John Downer self to criticism concerning the ethics of ap- to give imprecise descriptions and fabricate ities to label today’s digital replicas oE his- semantics about Tribute W H A T I T I S propriating the work of another. K On the misnomers. Monotype’s introduction in 1929 torical types in real and fitting ways. Apt aib other hand, a type designer who fails to cite of a typeface series known as “,” based descriptions are almost always possible if sources, or, worse, makes a conscious efort on the first of Aldus Manu- there exists a broad vocabulary from which by to avoid acknowledging sources, leaves him- tius, circa 1495, was cited by Gehl as an to establish appropriate terminology. We still self or herself open to charges of impropri- opportunity for Stanley Morison, the need new nomenclature for the digital era ohn owner ety. K One may ask, “Is there no safe and typographical advisor to Monotype, to in- to replace outdated language that has lost its J D sound route these days?” K I believe there accurately characterize Bembo, as he did meaning or has taken on an erroneous twist. S is. In fact, I think there are several good with other historically-based typefaces by Oxymorons like “digital punchcutter” and To understand roads. K To understand the intrinsic dif- Monotype in the 1920s. Morison, according “digital ” are common in the the intrinsic A discussion of typeface ferences between plagiarism (normally re- to Gehl, “... insisted upon calling his historical trade, but at least they have the word “digi- di erences f sources seems to pop up garded as a bad thing) and preservation reconstructions of the 1920s ‘recuttings’ of ear- tal” as a qualifier. That’s a lot better than not A lot better (normally regarded as a good thing), we ly types, when in fact most of them were beauti- having a qualifier. K The same may be said than not having whether a designer admits should look at various means by which new- ful new types inspired by handsome old ones.” of the common term “revival” in describ- a qualifier to being inspired by er typefaces are derived from older ones. K This observation strikes a familiar chord ing updates of typefaces that never fell com- There are indeed many approaches. Outlin- among type reviewers. Accuracy oJen hing- pletely into disuse before being converted to hiyorical models or noq. ing them can be helpful in considering the es on semantics, so semantics are important. a new medium. Labeling a typeface “digital practices surrounding revivalism in gener- revival” lets us know that the original was al. K The integrity of a typeface revival de- It seems that the term “recutting” could be born in a pre-digital medium, most oJen Born in Getting the appropriate pends not solely on what the designer does accurately applied to a faithful recreation, metal. To do a revival in type is to resurrect a pre-digital authorization when to create a workable version of an old idea; iE it were cut by hand and cast in metal, but a design that has fallen into disuse, not to medium it also depends on what the designer, or the that is not exactly what has been done in the rehash a workable design that never became needed, and giving the designer’s copywriter or publicist, has to say process of creating usable facsimiles of cen- obsolete or outdated. As Gehl has noted, The genesis of proper credit, are but about the genesis of the design. K If ad turies-old type. To do a “recutting” in the “Let’s just resolve not to call them historical the design copy, or whatever prose is written to launch most literal sense of the word would osten- ‘reproductions,’ ‘recuttings,’ or even ‘re-designs’ two of many consider- a typeface, is inaccurate or misleading, there sibly require a cutter of type to work in the unless we intend to do just that, reproduce a type ations. Other issues such might be grounds for a dispute. In con- same manner, and with the same materi- that works like the original.” K Gehl further trast, if the story behind the designer’s efort als, as the originator. The term “recutting” remarked, “... In my professional capacity as as fidelity to the model, stands up to the scrutiny of type historians has come into modern usage partly by way collector, I frequently meet with designers and hronological accuracy, and scholars, a revival has a far better chance of inheritance and partly by way of conve- design teachers and students. What I have to say of being considered a welcome addition to nience. There is no real cutting being done today is thus conditioned not by my sense of and the pros and cons the world of revivals—not so much for be- by makers of digital typefaces; namely, fac- what you as typographers and type writers are of revisioniy hiyory ing a “servant” to a given typographic model es meant to be fully accepted as recreations doing right or doing wrong, but by my reading as for bearing a relationship to its history. oE former glories. K In the digital medi- of what practicing designers and design stu- get debated and argued K Historians regard type history in ways um, a medium without the physicality of dents make of what you do and say about type.” at length. that type designers and type critics seldom sculpture, what’s attainable can be but a sil- do. This theme was articulated in a keynote houette oE facial features produced by carv- On that cue, a few definitions would be Definitions The talk can get hot. address at the 2002 conference of the Associ- ing type at the size—the only size—it will handy. Below are mine. I’ve divided my would be handy Designers always ation Typographique Internationale (ATypI) print, in relief, in reverse, in steel. Unlike descriptions into two categories: one for in Rome by Paul F. Gehl, historian and cutting away excess material to render the designs that closely follow the original, and feel the curator of a type-history collection at The form desired, digital type is shaped by ma- the other for designs that loosely follow the heat. Newberry Library, in Chicago. nipulating on-screen descriptions of con- original. bea P 6 P 7 ajb

Call it What it is Call it What it is

In his talk ¬ Revivals/Recuttings/ ¬ a 1 a 2 b Centuries ago, loose interpretations were easier to produce than close (faithful) inter- Introducing pretations because the level of skill needed Revivals/Recuttings/ Reconsiderations/ to produce punches was high. But late in the 19th century, the use of the pantograph as Reclamations } Reevaluations/ a tool in cutting punches and matrices by Closely based on historical models (metal Reinterpretations } machine eliminated the need for a punch- “Tribute” type, hand-cut punches, etc.) for commer- Loosely based on artistic successes (of any cutter who worked by hand. The speed cial or noncommercial purposes, with the medium) as a kind of laboratory exercise, of replicating existing typefaces increased. Historic right amount of historic preservation and oJen without much concern for their im- Phototype was yet another step in the direc- Preservation sensitivity to the virtues of the original be- mediate or eventual commercial viability. tion oE fast copying, and digital type can be —a family oE ing kept in focus—all with a solid ground- copied in an instant by almost anybody. K ing in type scholarship behind the efort, too. Homages/Tributes/ Our ability to make digital facsimiles of types that were cut by hand centuries ago afords Paeans } Anthologies/ us a chance to render them as we see fit. We 8 fonts; Surveys/Remixes } Loosely based on historical styles and/or can make them look old, like the original specific models, usually with admiration and types, or we can make them look fresh. We Closely based on characters from various respect for the obvious merits of the ante- can’t, however, make them look identical to fonts all cut by one person, or cut by various cedents—but with more artistic freedom to historical models, for digital type is not met- hands, all working in one particular style or deviate from the originals and to add per- al type. The two are diferent creatures and Roman, genre—like a medley or an overview done sonal touches; taking liberties normally not they manifest separate identities. They each more for the sake of providing a “sampling” taken with straight revivals. have their own idiosyncrasies. K Realiz- than for the sake of totally replicating any ing that digital type can actually only simu- one single cut of type. Encores/Sequels/ late the “look” of old type is an important Italic, Reprises } aspect of evaluating type revivals. Terms like Knockoffs/Clones/ “digital homage” or “historical fiction” can Loosely based on commercial successes (of Counterfeits } be used to describe what we attempt to do any medium) as a means of further explor- when we pay tribute to types of the distant Closely based on commercial successes (of ing, or further exploiting, an established Small Caps past without relying too heavily upon their any medium) to belatedly muscle in on part genre; milking the Cash Cow one more time. of an unsaturated market, oJen by being design. K It is evident that Frank Heine’s little more than a cheap imitation of what Tribute possesses an element of “type carica- Extensions/Spinoffs/ has already been deemed by experts as a le- ture” in its drawing, but this fact doesn’t rele- @ gitimate revival. “Me Too” fonts, or “Copy Variations } gate it to that one category. Heine has really gone Focus on Cat” fonts, as they are called, tend to focus Loosely based on artistic or commercial suc- beyond parody, well into an area of personal ex- opportunism on opportunism rather than on originality. cesses (of any medium) for only rarely more ploration. He has challenged many traditional These don’t rate as revivals because they than minor advancements in a tried, popu- assumptions that we “connoisseurs” of hand- don’t revive. lar, accepted style; akin to previous category. cut type have maintained in our attitude toward Ordinals: the historical accuracy sought and loved and ex- pected in “revivals.” The result is a unique com- Caricatures/Parodies/ bination of caricature, homage, alchemy, and Burlesques } fanciful reinterpretation. K Tribute, I think, Loosely based on prominent features of the recalls Guyot’s native French-learned style, $95 With humor model, oJen with humor or satire as the primarily as a of departure for an origi- or satire primary objective, but quite oJen also with nal—albeit implausible—work of historical humor or satire as an unexpected efect. fiction, with merits and faults of its own. S jqj P 8 P 9 ][

Call it What it is Call it What it is

Centuries ago, loose ¬ 5 points (B) Typi non habent claritatem insitam; est usus legentis in iis Typi non habent claritatem insitam; est Typi non habent claritatem insitam; est usus le- Typi non habent claritatem insitam; est usus legentis in iis 5 points (A) 7 points (A) qui facit eorum claritatem. Investigationes demonstraver- usus legentis in iis qui facit eorum clarita- gentis in iis qui facit eorum claritatem. Investi- qui facit eorum claritatem. Investigationes demonstraverunt 7 points (B) unt lectores legere melius quod ii legunt saepius. Claritas lectores legere melius quod ii legunt saepius. Claritas est etiam est etiam processus dynamicus, qui sequitur mutationem tem. Investigationes demonstraverunt lec- gationes demonstraverunt lectores legere melius processus dynamicus, qui sequitur mutationem consuetudinum consuetudinum lectorum. Mirum est notare quam littera tores legere melius quod ii legunt saepius. quod ii legunt saepius. Claritas est etiam pro- lectorum. Mirum est notare quam littera gothica, quam nunc gothica, quam nunc putamus parum claram anteposuerit Claritas est etiam processus dynamicus, qui cessus dynamicus, qui sequitur mutationem con- putamus parum claram anteposuerit litterarum formas huma- litterarum formas humanitatis per saecula quarta decima nitatis per saecula quarta decima et quinta decima. Eodem modo et quinta decima. Eodem modo typi, qui nunc nobis vide- sequitur mutationem consuetudinum lec- suetudinum lectorum. Mirum est notare quam typi, qui nunc nobis videntur parum clari, fiant sollemnes in ntur parum clari, fiant sollemnes in futurum. Typi non torum. Mirum est notare quam littera go- littera gothica, quam nunc putamus parum cla- futurum.Typi non habent claritatem insitam; est usus legentis habent claritatem insitam; est usus legentis in iis qui facit thica, quam nunc putamus parum claram ram anteposuerit litterarum formas humanita- in iis qui facit eorum claritatem. Investigationes demonstra- eorum claritatem. Investigationes demonstraverunt lectores verunt lectores legere melius quod ii legunt saepius. Claritas est legere melius quod ii legunt saepius. Claritas est etiam pro- anteposuerit litterarum formas humanita- tis per saecula quarta decima et quinta decima. etiam processus dynamicus, qui sequitur mutationem consuetu- cessus dynamicus, qui sequitur mutationem consuetudin. tis per saecula quarta decima et quinta deci. Eodem modo typi, qui nunc nobis videntur par. dinum lectorum. Mirum est notare quam littera gothica, quam.

9 points (B) Typi non habent claritatem insi- Typi non habent claritatem in- Typi non habent claritatem insi- Typi non habent claritatem insitam; 9 points (A) 10 points (A) tam; est usus legentis in iis qui sitam; est usus legentis in iis tam; est usus legentis in iis qui est usus legentis in iis qui facit eorum 10 points (B) facit eorum claritatem. Investiga- qui facit eorum claritatem. In- facit eorum claritatem. Investig- claritatem. Investigationes demonst- tiones demonstraverunt lectores vestigationes demonstraverunt ationes demonstraverunt lectores raverunt lectores legere melius quod legere melius quod ii legunt saepi- lectores legere melius quod ii legere melius quod ii legunt sae- ii legunt saepius. Claritas esq etiam us. Claritas est etiam processus legunt saepius. Claritas est pius. Claritas est etiam processus processus dynamicus, qui sequitur mu- dynamicus, qui sequitur mutatio- etiam processus dynamicus, dynamicus, qui sequitur mutati- tationem consuetudinuM lectorum. nem consuetudinum lectorum. qui sequitur mutationem con. onem consuetudinuM lectorum. Mirum est notare quam litera gothic.

points points 18 Typi non habent claritatem insi Typi un habev oariVWm esitaM; 18 tam; ey usus legentis in iis qui facit usu ey legevi e ii qui facit eorc 24 points 24 points Inveyigationes demonyra InveyigaXoss deonyraver verunt lectores legere me uv lectores legere mliu eXa 36 points 36 points Claritas est etiam Claritb esq qVX mutationem cons osm DnsueZdiwr 60 points 60 points ⁄uisequet, Qui sequeZ aeeeb P 10 P 11 abab

Tribute Roman & Small Caps Tribute Italic Roman abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzßfifl abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzßfifl Italic ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQ⁄RSTUVWXYZ ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQ⁄RSTUVWXYZ áàâãåäæçéèêëíìîïñóòôõöøœúùûüÿ áàâãåäæçéèêëíìîïñóòôõöøœúùûüÿ ÁÀÂÃÅÄÆÇÉÈÊËÍÌÎÏÑÓÒÔÕÖØŒÚÙÛÜŸ ÁÀÂÃÅÄÆÇÉÈÊËÍÌÎÏÑÓÒÔÕÖØŒÚÙÛÜŸ 1234567890$¢£€¥ƒ§ªº™@©®¶ 1234567890$¢£€¥ƒ§ªº™@©®¶ °=≠≈+±÷<>≤≥∞^~∫∂µ∏π√∑Ω∆◊¬ °=≠≈+±÷<>≤≥∞^~∫∂µ∏π√∑Ω∆◊¬ !?¡¿†‡#%‰&(/)[\]{|}* !?¡¿†‡#%‰&(/)[\]{|}* .,:;…·•-–—_«»‹›‚„“"”‘'’´`¨ˆ˜¯˘˙˚¸˝˛ˇ .,:;…·•-–—_«»‹›‚„“"”‘'’´`¨ˆ˜¯˘˙˚¸˝˛ˇ

Roman Italic Ligatures hdocçEf FIHJLgr abhdocef IHgijklmnr Ligatures One vwxpys tVWXZS TG vwxpys VWXZS Gtquz 1234567890$¢£€¥ƒ§ªº™°¶ ABCDEF JKLMNOPQRTY ∂¬πßÿΩ#%‰&(/)\|†‡*⁄Y áàâãåäæçéèêëíìîïúùûü MOQPRABCDnN 1 234567890$¢£€¥ƒ§ªº™°¶ abeijqu ∂¬πßÿΩ#%‰(/)\|†‡*⁄ @Ukkz[]{}<> æ&@U[]{}<>

Roman abcdefghijklmnopq⁄rstuvwxyzßfifl abcdefghijklmno Italic Small Caps Ligatures Two ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ pqrstuvwABCDEFGHIJK áàâãåäæçéèêëíìîïñóòôõöøœúùûüÿ MNVWXYZyáàâãåä ÁÀÂÃÅÄÆÇÉÈÊËÍÌÎÏÑÓÒÔÕÖØŒÚÙÛÜŸ çéèêëíìîïóòôõöúùûü 1234567890$¢£€¥ƒ§ªº™@©®¶ 1 234567890$¢£€¥ƒ§ªº™°¶xOPRQ !?¡¿†‡#%‰&(/)[\]{|}* ∂¬πßÿΩ#%‰(/)\|†‡*⁄ .,:;…·•-–—_«»‹›‚„“"”‘'’´`¨ˆ˜¯˘˙˚¸˝˛ˇ æ&@Uz[]{}<>ST

Roman Italic Ordinals abcdeèfghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdeèfghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz Ordinals ABCDEÈFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ ABCDEÈFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ {ÍÇ´⁄€‹›fifl‡°·‚—}/[–¡™£¢∞§¶•ªº©ç] {ÍÇ´⁄€‹›fifl‡°·‚—}/[–¡™£¢∞§¶•ªº©ç] 1234567890áàâãåäíìîï 1234567890áàâãåäíìîï ∂¬πßÿΩ®<>≤≥ ∂¬πßÿΩ®<>≤≥ & P 12 P 13 <>

Synopsis of Characters Synopsis of Characters This character set is supported with the Macintosh A This character set is supported with the Macintosh A some characters may not be available with Windows some characters may not be available with Windows Common fiflßfIHcyfiflßf IHcy Ligatures expeced yory finished Fanciful fiJLhdovwxpJ Lhdovwxpbiuj 1565 Ligatures lABCDEFGHIKVWXYtZyabcdef ghijklmnopqrstuvw soh vuteg e bad vadows Historical — sVWXZSGsVWXZSG Characters Zace kiSes Zorobolus Alternate EFgtT⁄#&&@Uaek mMnN Characters qzABCDEF JKLMNOPQRTY ##&@&U # 3 ⁄uit @ Azure & Cormoranq LotioN Special Small ([{k}])©®@*$£€¥ƒ&#%‰§†‡¶/|\ Caps Characters (small/caps} © 2003, $ 95,— &c. Printers’ ] [ ] [} { ≤≥ Flowers & ] [ < > ST|\QABCDnN ≤ Tıck here, write there:NNN Ornaments a b e i j q u ]u A Lining 12345678901234567890 Numerals 1653 ≠ 8342 ≠ 7319 Tabular 1234567890 1234567890 Numerals 1653 = 8342 = 7319 Old Style 1234567890 1 234567890 Numerals

Small Caps 1234567890 Numerals D

Superior/ ⁄ €‹›fifl‡°·‚/¡™£¢∞§¶•ªºáàâäãåíìîï Inferior Num’s © 2003 Emigre Ordinals abc ABC 1st 2nd 3rd {ÍÇ´} abc ABC1st 2nd 3rd {ÍÇ´} (2003) } P 14 aiib P 16

Special Features and Characters 1565—2003

B Ordering Information