Ian Jelf wrote:
writes
sigh Another sign that English isn't taught well these days. If you had
been brought up in, say, Liverpool or Manchester, you would have been very
familiar with the large store called Lewis's (different company to John
Lewis).

Ahem, or Birmingham! ;-)

Is that the same Lewis's that took over Selfridges in Oxford?

"Richard J." wrote in message ...
Joe wrote:
Why are some signs at St. James' Park spelled St. James's Park and
some spelled St. James' Park. I'm quite surprised they didn't notice
it when they were put up ages ago.

AFAIK there is only one incorrect "St. James' Park" sign (eastbound, near
the front of the train, by the stairs). Considering that the LU HQ is
above the station, it's remarkable that the sign has never been replaced.

I was at St. James's Park this past Friday, and found the sign in
question. and I was quick to notice that it is NOT IN THE CORRECT
TYPEFACE.

By looking at the apostrophe (') I assume it not to be any of the
Johnston fonts that have been used over the years.

This strikes me as weird, as the Johnston typeface was implemented
before the switch from the solid red disc and bar to the roundel (as
we know it today).

Given this, can anyone confirm my findings and possibly provide some
insight into this?

Thanks,

Michael

(Michael Gamer) wrote the following in:
om

"Richard J." wrote in message
...
Joe wrote:
Why are some signs at St. James' Park spelled St. James's Park
and some spelled St. James' Park. I'm quite surprised they
didn't notice it when they were put up ages ago.

AFAIK there is only one incorrect "St. James' Park" sign
(eastbound, near the front of the train, by the stairs).
Considering that the LU HQ is above the station, it's remarkable
that the sign has never been replaced.

I was at St. James's Park this past Friday, and found the sign in
question. and I was quick to notice that it is NOT IN THE CORRECT
TYPEFACE.

By looking at the apostrophe (') I assume it not to be any of the
Johnston fonts that have been used over the years.

That's what the original Johnston apostrophes look like. It's also what
they look like in the P22 Johnston Underground font that you can get
for use on computers. The apostrophes more consistent with the use of
the 'diamond' to dot the letter i are found in New Johnston, the font
currently used by TfL.

--
message by Robin May, but you can call me Mr Smith.
Enjoy the Routemaster while you still can.

Another high quality lesson from Robin May:
Your and you're are different words!

Robin May wrote:
(Michael Gamer) wrote the following in:
om

"Richard J." wrote in message
...
Joe wrote:
Why are some signs at St. James' Park spelled St. James's Park
and some spelled St. James' Park. I'm quite surprised they
didn't notice it when they were put up ages ago.

AFAIK there is only one incorrect "St. James' Park" sign
(eastbound, near the front of the train, by the stairs).
Considering that the LU HQ is above the station, it's remarkable
that the sign has never been replaced.

I was at St. James's Park this past Friday, and found the sign in
question. and I was quick to notice that it is NOT IN THE CORRECT
TYPEFACE.

By looking at the apostrophe (') I assume it not to be any of the
Johnston fonts that have been used over the years.

That's what the original Johnston apostrophes look like. It's also
what they look like in the P22 Johnston Underground font that you can
get for use on computers. The apostrophes more consistent with the
use of the 'diamond' to dot the letter i are found in New Johnston,
the font currently used by TfL.

You can see the different styles of apostrophe he

Original Johnston Underground typeface:
http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark...frankpick.html
(a page that curiously makes no mention of Edward Johnston!)

New Johnston typeface is on page 7 of this 21-page document:
http://www.transportforlondon.gov.uk...icElements.pdf
(Requires Acrobat Reader; zoom in to view. The apostrophe is not shown,
but it's the same shape as a comma or one of the double quotes.)

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

"Richard J." wrote in message ...
Robin May wrote:
(Michael Gamer) wrote the following in:
om

"Richard J." wrote in message
...
Joe wrote:
Why are some signs at St. James' Park spelled St. James's Park
and some spelled St. James' Park. I'm quite surprised they
didn't notice it when they were put up ages ago.

AFAIK there is only one incorrect "St. James' Park" sign
(eastbound, near the front of the train, by the stairs).
Considering that the LU HQ is above the station, it's remarkable
that the sign has never been replaced.

I was at St. James's Park this past Friday, and found the sign in
question. and I was quick to notice that it is NOT IN THE CORRECT
TYPEFACE.

By looking at the apostrophe (') I assume it not to be any of the
Johnston fonts that have been used over the years.

That's what the original Johnston apostrophes look like. It's also
what they look like in the P22 Johnston Underground font that you can
get for use on computers. The apostrophes more consistent with the
use of the 'diamond' to dot the letter i are found in New Johnston,
the font currently used by TfL.
[SNIP...]

Sorry, I know what both the Johnston and New Johnston typefaces (and
the apostrophe's) look like... this is most certainly neither of the
two.

it looks like the traditional "round ball with hook" type to me

If I can remember to take my digiCam next time I pass through, I'll
photograph it.

Michael

Michael Gamer wrote:
Robin May wrote:
(Michael Gamer) wrote the following in:
om

Joe wrote:
Why are some signs at St. James' Park spelled St. James's Park
and some spelled St. James' Park. I'm quite surprised they
didn't notice it when they were put up ages ago.

I was at St. James's Park this past Friday, and found the sign in
question. and I was quick to notice that it is NOT IN THE CORRECT
TYPEFACE.

By looking at the apostrophe (') I assume it not to be any of the
Johnston fonts that have been used over the years.

That's what the original Johnston apostrophes look like.
snip

Sorry, I know what both the Johnston and New Johnston typefaces (and
the apostrophe's) look like... this is most certainly neither of the
two.

it looks like the traditional "round ball with hook" type to me

I see what you mean. The "St. James' Park" sign is in a typeface that is
close to but not identical to either Johnston or New Johnston.

As you say, the apostrophe has a circular ball at the top, but the dot
under the T of "ST." is square. Also, several letters are narrower than
Johnston, and the E and K have subtly different proportions. Looks like an
amateur attempt to copy Johnston. I wonder why.

[Michael: I have photos of the signs. Email me (see sig) if you want
copies.]
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

That's what the original Johnston apostrophes look like.
snip

Sorry, I know what both the Johnston and New Johnston typefaces (and
the apostrophe's) look like... this is most certainly neither of the
two.

it looks like the traditional "round ball with hook" type to me

I see what you mean. The "St. James' Park" sign is in a typeface that is
close to but not identical to either Johnston or New Johnston.

As you say, the apostrophe has a circular ball at the top, but the dot
under the T of "ST." is square. Also, several letters are narrower than
Johnston, and the E and K have subtly different proportions. Looks like an
amateur attempt to copy Johnston. I wonder why.

[Michael: I have photos of the signs. Email me (see sig) if you want
copies.]

Perhaps Gill Sans?
http://www.adobe.com/type/browser/F/...10005000.jhtml

I know either Johnston or Gill Sans was based on the other, and it has
similar looking Upper Case chars, and the correct apostrophe.. what do
you think?

Michael

Michael Gamer wrote:
That's what the original Johnston apostrophes look like.
snip

Sorry, I know what both the Johnston and New Johnston typefaces (and
the apostrophe's) look like... this is most certainly neither of the
two.

it looks like the traditional "round ball with hook" type to me

I see what you mean. The "St. James' Park" sign is in a typeface
that is close to but not identical to either Johnston or New
Johnston.

As you say, the apostrophe has a circular ball at the top, but the
dot under the T of "ST." is square. Also, several letters are
narrower than Johnston, and the E and K have subtly different
proportions. Looks like an amateur attempt to copy Johnston. I
wonder why.

[Michael: I have photos of the signs. Email me (see sig) if you want
copies.]

Perhaps Gill Sans?
http://www.adobe.com/type/browser/F/...10005000.jhtml

I know either Johnston or Gill Sans was based on the other, and it has
similar looking Upper Case chars, and the correct apostrophe.. what do
you think?

No, definitely not Gill Sans. The R is quite different. I've checked with
Identifont and can't find anything that matches, though it's closest to New
Johnston, apart from the apostrophe.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

"Richard J." wrote in message ...
Terry Harper wrote:
"Mait001" wrote in message
...
I agree that "St. James' " or "St. James's" is a matter of debate.
It is considered better practice to omit the additional "s",
although I would not agree that it is grammatically wrong to include
it.

Why do I say "better practice"? Because it is The Queen's English
and Her Majesty's Court is known as the "Court of St. James' " and
not the Court of "St. James's". For example, Ambassadors are
appointed to "the Court of St. James' ", not "the Court of St.
James's" or even "the Court of St. James".

There is no apostrophe in "The Court of St James". St James in this
case is not the genitive case.

True, but that's not actually what they call it. It's "The Court of St
James's" in the Court Circular, and at www.royal.gov.uk. I assume it's
short for St James's Palace.

London Underground should be commended for using both spellings at
this station since, as this thread has proved, there is not a
generally accepted 'correct' usage - either spelling seems to be
acceptable. One might argue for a consistent spelling if there was
the possibility of confusing one place with another - but this does
not apply here.

"umpston" wrote in message
m...

London Underground should be commended for
using both spellings at this station since, as this
thread has proved, there is not a generally accepted
'correct' usage - either spelling seems to be acceptable.

No, they should not be commended, because it is a mistake. The station does
not have two different names, and would not even if the eponymous park did.

Incidentally, does one of the Ruislip Central lIne stations still have
roundels which use completely the wrong font?

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes