For the body copy, I think it's a version of Rockwell. [0] It fits the time, as well as the lower case "g" always looks quirky to me in rockwell-flavours. Stubby tail + serif on top. The heft on the headings also matches Rockwell Extra Bold with a couple tiny variations. Plus, just simply... slab serifs.

Things working against that are:

- % is wrong. That really looks like a different typeface all together. Not unheard of, might be worth seeing if it matches any other monotype fonts.

- Bolded headings have some differences. Rockwell Extra Bold should still have circular tittles, but unless it's a scanning artifact, the few lowercase "i" examples I can find in those headings seem to be square.

- The Rockwell favour in the tables is tweaked, with no descenders and uses tabular digits. This is pretty common, but the digital copies of Rockwell I have laying around don't have those exact forms... doesn't really say much when we're talking about what specific hot-metal type casts did monotype sell them 90-odd years ago.

---

On the title pages (like page 13), my best guess is Memphis. [1] The R is wrong for Rockwell, but also the lower a in "Brand" is totally wrong for Memphis, and the quote is totally different. Going to take lunch, and possibly come back to this in a bit because now I'm intrigued haha.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell_(typeface) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memphis_(typeface)

Agreed, the design is really strikingly beautiful.

The typography is part of this, but I suspect you may also be undervaluing how much the overall design contributes here. The layout, use of whitespace, use of different fonts and sizes to convey hierarchy. It's just really good design made with care and attention by a skilled practitioner.

It's not precisely the same but you may enjoy Berkeley Mono: https://neil.computer/notes/introducing-berkeley-mono/

I enjoy using it for reading and writing code.

The cover looks like the Spire typeface.

You might notice that this link isn't from Corning. It's from the Corning Museum of Glass' excellent library

Machine tool manuals too: https://motolab.ru/SIP%20MP-1/

I raise you a Whole Earth Catalog - Fall '69:

https://archive.org/details/wholeearthcatalo00unse_7/page/62...

Where and when else could you mail $1 to Rolling Stone's original hq and have them send you a longer Bob Dylan interview, and then on the opposite side, the publisher reveals their costs?

https://archive.org/details/wholeearthcatalo00unse_7/page/12...

This is surprisingly common at big research universities! My classmate even managed to take a course on glassblowing--and have it count for her PhD!

Probably more for repairing than producing, in my experience. That stuff's expensive and breaks easily. An old lab joke: Which daily sound scares a chemist the most? - Krk.

> All of the glass examples in TFA are borosilicate all-caps PYREX, while most of what you can buy today in the store is lowercase pyrex (Europe is an exception where the all-caps variety can be found).

Using all-lower or all-upper case is not a good indication of the type of glass used.

A recent video (Sep 2025) from the I Want to Cook channel, "PYREX vs pyrex -- What's The Difference & Why It Matters", went into the history of this:

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DKasz4xFC0

Specifically, he found the following at the Corning Museum of Glass site:

> The short answer is that the change from Pyrex trademark upper to lower case signified a re-branding of the trademark Pyrex® in the late 1970s but is not a conclusive way to determine, historically, what type of glass formulation the product is made from.

* https://libanswers.cmog.org/faq/398431

So if someone goes to thrift stores looking for borosilicate via the 'old way' of spelling the name, there is no guarantee it will be borosilicate.

See 16m11 of the video for advice if you want borosilicate glass: in Europe, it is all borosilicate; in US, import it yourself, look for "Made in France", or use another manufacturer (e.g., Oxo names the glass they use).

Its worth noting that in Europe borosilicate PYREX cookware continues to be made and sold.

- https://pyrex.co.uk/pages/a-unique-glass

- https://pyrexhome.com/

It is a source of some annoyance that lowercase pyrex infects the market via imports.

I regard this as a prime example of customer betrayal. The company set up the brand to promote a specific product(borosilicate glass cookware) After many years of this specific promotion, to the point the pyrex was interchangeable with borosilicate glass in customers minds. That brand stopped being made of borosilicate glass resulting in a product that looked exactly the same but with distinctly different mechanical properties.

Final thoughts: I don't think PYREX vs pyrex painted on is enough of a differentiator and my understanding(as the parent post pointed out) both types of glass are used with the lowercase trademark. I think glass cookware should have a standardized indicator stamped into the glass itself as it is very tricky to tell otherwise.

There is the mineral oil IOR test, but... the IOR ranges of the two glass formula actually overlap so it is very tricky to tell for sure. There is the heat shock test, but... that will destroy the item if it is tempered glass. I suspect you could use a polarized light test to identify if it is tempered glass. but none if the threads I have read on the subject have mentioned it probably because it requires specialized equipment.

OXO sells borosilicate glass bakeware if you're looking for an alternative in America. The original PYREX is available for Europeans.

> Europe is an exception where the all-caps variety can be found

'can be found' is too weak, it just is all-caps & borosilicate. (Perhaps imported lower-case stuff 'can be found', but it's not the norm at all, you won't see it in shops, and - I just checked - I haven't been suckered with it on Amazon either.)

Where can you buy uppercase PYREX today in America?

Not to be confused with Pyrex, which has been forked into Cython.

[flagged]

Actually as a "consumer" you shouldn't know the difference, you'll be a better "consumer" that way.

As an informed human being who happens to buy things from time to time you should definitely know the difference though.

I definitely get this often vibe that: somewhat comparable things that take a lot more time often end up a lot better than things that take less time. It's like that commitment you make when you're doing something like this, the amount of effort, care and focus that must be exhibited to finish something like this document.

We should definitely reflect on that a lot.

I had the same thought but I also wonder if these highly trained illustrators were happy with making corporate renderings or if they had imagined themselves working in a more creative capacity?

I also don't think its gone. We still have great illustrators but someone somewhere has to decide to use illustrations instead of a photo, CGI, or something else and then they have to pay the premium for that service.

The quality of layouting and print publications dropped off long long before AI slop became a thing. Already in the 80s it was mostly lost.

Totally agreed. And as the sibling comment points out, it started before AI slop became a thing. I think it's because technological progress in typesetting means you don't have to "care" as much (it is automatic). Of course as a result, this means modern typesetting is "careless".

Extend this metaphor however you please.

Software typesetting/layout. Software music engraving. Hot-melt glue in bookbinding. Those are my three favourite examples of the definite trend. Technology has made good enough easier, at the cost of actually good.