SeaKing wrote:
>But coming back to size, I read once that they worked hard to produce
>type that would print really small but clear letters in phone books.
Yes, but back then it was a matter of balancing the interactions of:
- a film of ink on a bit of lead making an impression on paper
- a camera lens
- film
- making a printing plate
- printing from said plate
So mostly it was hugely exaggerated ink / light traps and sturdy forms which would hold up to the several stages of reproduction.
Some brief details here:
http://nicksherman.com/articles/bellCentennial.html
William