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.
Comment got deleted, but Gallatin isn't the title page font. That was a digital font released in 2019, which is meant to look like Memphis with a two storey a. https://fontsinuse.com/typefaces/128627/gallatin
That does mention that Linotype had a Memphis flavour with a two-storey "a" though... so maaaaaybe it is Memphis! Most likely their Rockwell typeface was also supplied from Linotype in that case, probably under a different name.
I could be wrong, but I think that Stymie is a closer match for the body than Rockwell, particularly due to the serif on the middle arm of capital E (and F). I think that Stymie also matches other details as outlined in the comparison page on Identifont (http://www.identifont.com/differences?first=stymie&second=ro...)
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 a great font but I do not see anything that looks similar in the PDF. This comment is more like "Speaking of fonts, I like this unrelated san serif mono spaced font."
This catalog is by Corning. Randomly, they have an absolutely incredible museum called The Corning Museum of Glass https://home.cmog.org/ located about 5 hours drive from New York City.
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?
My roommate in college worked at GE's Global Research lab in Schenectady. As a bit of a relic from the heyday of US corporate research they still had an in-house glassblowing department for producing all the necessary glassware for all the labs and chemical/material research!
If your institute doesn't have an in house glass blower and you need one, I've been happy with these guys for the past 20 years https://adamschittenden.com/
The first session in my freshman Chemistry lab was on bending glass tubing by
heating it to softness with a Bunsen burner. One of my classmates, with a burned finger, said that the takeaway lesson was "hot glass looks like cold glass".
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.
As a consumer, it is important to note that `pyrex` and `PYREX` are not the same thing [0]:
"Corning used borosilicate to produce all Pyrex products. However, the company that purchased the cookware products switched to soda-lime glass, adopting the name pyrex (spelled with all lowercase letters).
Corning continued to make its lab tools with borosilicate, dubbing these products to be PYREX (spelled with all uppercase letters)."
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).
> 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:
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.
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).
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.
I've seen the new pyrex in stores and it's readily apparent just how green it is. My old pyrex is clear. But apparently that has nothing to do with the type glass used, both kinds can be green.
> 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.)
I believe it's interesting that these kinds of intricate, hand made objects float to the front page of the HN while at the same time many people glorify how AI can handle these jobs and can do an "arguably better job" in less time.
It's evident that these hand-drawn diagrams or any artifact with high levels of human effort (for lack of a better term) contains something we lost in today's world.
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.
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.
I know nothing about the industry let alone in the era, but I imagine 'drawing glassware for Pyrex catalogue' wasn't a full-time job - but either a temporary contract, or just one project for an agency. So you might view it as an opportunity to perfect your drawing of glass, or just a boring gig but paying the bills.
If you reflect on your own profession & career though... Well, rather than speak for you, I too 'had imagined [myself] working in a more [x] capacity'!
Who says they're not also being more creative elsewhere?
Plus wouldn't it be a sense of creative pride knowing that you can create an illustration that perfectly depicts refraction through glass, such that people find it hard to differentiate it from a photo? (which did exist in 1938)
To you second paragraph, the output of a CAD model is often used for line art of a product, and sometimes for an illustrated parts breakdown.
My heuristic is that quality is largely a function of human attention during creation. The transition to digital layouting etc meant less human attention could be spent on it while still achieving “acceptable” results, and so market dynamics ensured that less attention was spent on those tasks, lowering quality.
Whether or not you personally would make this cost/quality tradeoff comes down to the individual, but to me it is also quite clear that something was lost in the transition.
I think another thing is a lot of modern stuff is under thought, either in trying to be overly broad or just misunderstanding the user.
Google Shopping is an example. It has enforced opinions about what a product looks like, so you have to force a square peg through a round hole.
They’ve got a lot of stuff about pricing and loyalty and quantities, but if you dig into tons of categories they have almost nothing that represents the real categories sellers and buyers care about.
Look at the collectibles category. If you sell Pokémon cards and collectibles there is zero merchandising info that actually matches your products or how they’re sold.
That means your analytics, automatic listings, ads, etc. are too generic for your customers. All your automated stuff is going to come through wrong.
Meanwhile niche and deep sellers who avoid that forced genericisation, like McMaster-Carr[1] can have these incredibly valuable, useful, and compelling catalogs.
I’d say that deep user knowledge is why Aperture had such a strong fan base too.
I struggle with this buying from Lee Valley. Their caralogs are fantastic, but I have trouble finding things on their website.
This turned into a rant, but maybe a TL;DR is a lot of modern software has no skin in the game of specialization, and so they inadvertently limit these experiences.
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".
Nice, page 13 has the 'standard' chemical labels which happened to also be the contents of a 'standard' chemistry set (minus a couple for me, like no concentrated sulphuric acid and only dilute nitric acid.)
One of the things that has always impressed me was mid 20th century laboratory equipment, lots of clever ways to achieve the required accuracy.
My new theory, developing for a while, is that as technology makes things easier, the perceived average quality goes down over time. I've yet to fully understand the factors that drive this trend, but feel certain AI will put it in overdrive! I'm not a luddite or hater actually - but this trend is pretty apparent...
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.
After college I got a Pyrex 5L erlenmeyer flask as a wine decanter and it's served me well two and a half decades later. Always a fun topic when people see it for the first time.
I got a set of 25ml Erlenmeyer flasks to use as shot glasses. Also fun, and with the bonus feature that if you can't pour into the very narrow neck, you probably don't need a shot.
This is random, but if you're ever in the Corning area, do check out the Corning Museum of Glass. They did a really great job of blending an experience of history, art, creation, and science in there. The history of glass areas in particular made me really emotional seeing art expressed in this way. The fact that something so old was made it this far through time.
This is even more random, but Harvard's Ware Collection of Blaschka Glass Models of Plants is my single favorite natural history collection anywhere in the world. It alone is worth a trip to Cambridge!
It's incredible to a layperson, and if you've ever done any glass working whatsoever you'll be moved close to tears.
This reminds me of the American Science & Surplus catalogs we used to get in the mail. Hand-drawn pictures of each product along with cheeky copy for almost all the little motors and breakers and push buttons and on and on. Sad that they stopped their mail order business.
I've always wondered: is there a term for the process that brought those hand drawings into a printable form like that which then enabled it to be mass produced? I understand how it can be done with computers and scanners, but I've struggled finding what tech/process was used back in the day.
Lithography, usually - still widely in use today. Drawings were made or transferred to an etchable surface (initially limestone, then metal) using an etch-resistant substance. Then etching agent (acid, usually) was applied to the surface. Everything was washed and voila, a plate was produced which had a positive image which could be inked and pressed just like letters. By 1938, offset printing might have been employed, which is basically the same thing but with a rubber drum as an intermediary between the plate and the paper.
Lithography is the general term. There are numerous methods depending on the desired result, for instance using an offset can produce full colors pressing one at a time.
Yes, I would not be surprised to find most of these drawings were direct reproductions of the original art from when each particular item first became available. Some dating back from decades earlier, others not so much since they all didn't exist that many years earlier.
>Within its 128 pages will be found 2353 individual items, 737 of which have not been listed previously. From the many advances made in the field of glass laboratory apparatus during the past few years, we have attempted to select for listing in this catalog those items of proven worth, and for which there is a definite demand on the part of chemists.
A lot of the same PYREX items used for routine lab testing today are also identical to the ones in this book.
At Florida the original Chemistry Building was from 1917 and when I got there in the early 1970's the full glassblowing department was still there from when most of the specialized items were not available commercially.
Plus research always needs custom work.
Starting my career I always had big old kilo-sized hard-bound catalogs from suppliers of more generalized apparatus, in addition to being PYREX dealers, where plenty of the random illustrations were the same decades-old original art. And that was well into the 1990's.
It was just not that unusual for art like this to remain unchanged for decades.
In the early 1970's the UF labs themselves had never been rebuilt since original construction [0], no air conditioning of course, and as a freshman there were still quite a few pieces of glassware having the old logo about this age or older. Right in some of the drawers of each undergrad's PYREX, stocked for that semester's "experiments".
The old logo is basically exactly as shown on the cover of this catalog, as that baked green colored circle containing fine print around PYREX, strongly marked onto the glass.
I would estimate about 10% or more had survived for decades under assault by butterfingered freshmen without breakage. Anecdotal statistics tell me that a sizable percentage of those had been dropped more than once, and survived. IOW, they bounced :) Overcame the same type impact that had destroyed many of their less-robust brethren.
>Furnished in tubing form with a wall thickness of about 0.5 to 1.2 mm, depending on diameter, and in 3 foot lengths. Of proper composition for use in the fabrication of thin glass membranes for measuring the hydrogen-ion activity or pH. Reference: The Determination of Hydrogen-ions, W. M. Clark, William and Wilkens, Baltimore, 1928; Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, Analytical Edition 37 (1929); Journal of the American Chemical Society, 53 , 4260 (1931); Public Health Reports, Vol. 45, No. 38, Sept. 19, 1930.
>Since " CORNING " Brand No. 015 Glass is not a stable glass , it has a tendency to deteriorate when stored. For this reason it is advisable to purchase this particular glass only in such quantities as are required for current needs.
By the following year (1939) Beckman would commercialize his first instrument, a pH meter, ushering in the era of electronic pH meters using glass electrodes where the glass itself is the high-impedance electrochemical contact.
[0] Remodeling was long overdue after fifty years, even the stairs in the stairwell were halfway worn out. There was an excellent new building right adjacent to it though :)
Edit: Not my downvote, btw, corrective upvote instead :0
Assuming you aren't looking for an exact millimeter-for-millimeter version of the spiral condenser, I bet you could find someone to make it in the US quite easily.
It's still one of the major glassblowing countries. In fact, if you remember when folks were worried about those two quartz mines in Spruce Pine, NC that are the only place with pure enough quartz for chips? That's also the home of Spruce Pine Batch, one of the big glass suppliers in America.
I love the hand-drawn illustrations, but I really love the typography.
Does anyone know which fonts (or, probably more importantly, which modern-day equivalents) are used to get this feeling?
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)
Comment got deleted, but Gallatin isn't the title page font. That was a digital font released in 2019, which is meant to look like Memphis with a two storey a. https://fontsinuse.com/typefaces/128627/gallatin
That does mention that Linotype had a Memphis flavour with a two-storey "a" though... so maaaaaybe it is Memphis! Most likely their Rockwell typeface was also supplied from Linotype in that case, probably under a different name.
I could be wrong, but I think that Stymie is a closer match for the body than Rockwell, particularly due to the serif on the middle arm of capital E (and F). I think that Stymie also matches other details as outlined in the comparison page on Identifont (http://www.identifont.com/differences?first=stymie&second=ro...)
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.
It's a great font but I do not see anything that looks similar in the PDF. This comment is more like "Speaking of fonts, I like this unrelated san serif mono spaced font."
That's a nice font but... pricey.
$75 for a font is pretty good I thought . I’ve found some other fonts I’d love to use for twice the price, or more, with more restrictive licensing.
The cover looks like the Spire typeface.
This catalog is by Corning. Randomly, they have an absolutely incredible museum called The Corning Museum of Glass https://home.cmog.org/ located about 5 hours drive from New York City.
You might notice that this link isn't from Corning. It's from the Corning Museum of Glass' excellent library
Old tool catalogs have similarly great illustrations
https://archive.org/details/stanley-catalogue-34-1929/page/6...
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...
Machine tool manuals too: https://motolab.ru/SIP%20MP-1/
My roommate in college worked at GE's Global Research lab in Schenectady. As a bit of a relic from the heyday of US corporate research they still had an in-house glassblowing department for producing all the necessary glassware for all the labs and chemical/material research!
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!
If your institute doesn't have an in house glass blower and you need one, I've been happy with these guys for the past 20 years https://adamschittenden.com/
The first session in my freshman Chemistry lab was on bending glass tubing by heating it to softness with a Bunsen burner. One of my classmates, with a burned finger, said that the takeaway lesson was "hot glass looks like cold glass".
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.
As a consumer, it is important to note that `pyrex` and `PYREX` are not the same thing [0]:
"Corning used borosilicate to produce all Pyrex products. However, the company that purchased the cookware products switched to soda-lime glass, adopting the name pyrex (spelled with all lowercase letters).
Corning continued to make its lab tools with borosilicate, dubbing these products to be PYREX (spelled with all uppercase letters)."
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).
0: https://www.corning.com/worldwide/en/products/life-sciences/...
> 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.
I've seen the new pyrex in stores and it's readily apparent just how green it is. My old pyrex is clear. But apparently that has nothing to do with the type glass used, both kinds can be green.
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?
> Where can you buy uppercase PYREX today in America?
Uppercase is no guarantee:
* https://libanswers.cmog.org/faq/398431
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DKasz4xFC0
second hand stores where i find them.
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.
Beautiful.
I believe it's interesting that these kinds of intricate, hand made objects float to the front page of the HN while at the same time many people glorify how AI can handle these jobs and can do an "arguably better job" in less time.
It's evident that these hand-drawn diagrams or any artifact with high levels of human effort (for lack of a better term) contains something we lost in today's world.
Maybe we should reflect upon that, a bit.
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.
This is also a catalouge to sell products in an era where producing them is expensive and you can't easily change it after the fact.
Its quite a different situation compared to your average clickbait.
People are more careful when you really only have one shot to make a good impression and you can't (cheaply) redo stuff if you mess it up.
Ironically with glass itself, it's the ones that take less time that tend to be better.
Especially any borosilicate glass with a hard edge
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.
I know nothing about the industry let alone in the era, but I imagine 'drawing glassware for Pyrex catalogue' wasn't a full-time job - but either a temporary contract, or just one project for an agency. So you might view it as an opportunity to perfect your drawing of glass, or just a boring gig but paying the bills.
If you reflect on your own profession & career though... Well, rather than speak for you, I too 'had imagined [myself] working in a more [x] capacity'!
Who says they're not also being more creative elsewhere?
Plus wouldn't it be a sense of creative pride knowing that you can create an illustration that perfectly depicts refraction through glass, such that people find it hard to differentiate it from a photo? (which did exist in 1938)
To you second paragraph, the output of a CAD model is often used for line art of a product, and sometimes for an illustrated parts breakdown.
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.
My heuristic is that quality is largely a function of human attention during creation. The transition to digital layouting etc meant less human attention could be spent on it while still achieving “acceptable” results, and so market dynamics ensured that less attention was spent on those tasks, lowering quality.
Whether or not you personally would make this cost/quality tradeoff comes down to the individual, but to me it is also quite clear that something was lost in the transition.
I think another thing is a lot of modern stuff is under thought, either in trying to be overly broad or just misunderstanding the user.
Google Shopping is an example. It has enforced opinions about what a product looks like, so you have to force a square peg through a round hole.
They’ve got a lot of stuff about pricing and loyalty and quantities, but if you dig into tons of categories they have almost nothing that represents the real categories sellers and buyers care about.
Look at the collectibles category. If you sell Pokémon cards and collectibles there is zero merchandising info that actually matches your products or how they’re sold.
That means your analytics, automatic listings, ads, etc. are too generic for your customers. All your automated stuff is going to come through wrong.
Meanwhile niche and deep sellers who avoid that forced genericisation, like McMaster-Carr[1] can have these incredibly valuable, useful, and compelling catalogs.
I’d say that deep user knowledge is why Aperture had such a strong fan base too.
I struggle with this buying from Lee Valley. Their caralogs are fantastic, but I have trouble finding things on their website.
This turned into a rant, but maybe a TL;DR is a lot of modern software has no skin in the game of specialization, and so they inadvertently limit these experiences.
[1] mcmaster.com
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.
Nice, page 13 has the 'standard' chemical labels which happened to also be the contents of a 'standard' chemistry set (minus a couple for me, like no concentrated sulphuric acid and only dilute nitric acid.)
One of the things that has always impressed me was mid 20th century laboratory equipment, lots of clever ways to achieve the required accuracy.
I almost didn't click through to the catalog, but boy am I glad I did! Some of those drawings are so aesthetically pleasing.
My new theory, developing for a while, is that as technology makes things easier, the perceived average quality goes down over time. I've yet to fully understand the factors that drive this trend, but feel certain AI will put it in overdrive! I'm not a luddite or hater actually - but this trend is pretty apparent...
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.
After college I got a Pyrex 5L erlenmeyer flask as a wine decanter and it's served me well two and a half decades later. Always a fun topic when people see it for the first time.
I got a set of 25ml Erlenmeyer flasks to use as shot glasses. Also fun, and with the bonus feature that if you can't pour into the very narrow neck, you probably don't need a shot.
This is random, but if you're ever in the Corning area, do check out the Corning Museum of Glass. They did a really great job of blending an experience of history, art, creation, and science in there. The history of glass areas in particular made me really emotional seeing art expressed in this way. The fact that something so old was made it this far through time.
This is even more random, but Harvard's Ware Collection of Blaschka Glass Models of Plants is my single favorite natural history collection anywhere in the world. It alone is worth a trip to Cambridge!
It's incredible to a layperson, and if you've ever done any glass working whatsoever you'll be moved close to tears.
And go see the demos! Or watch their YouTube channel!
This reminds me of the American Science & Surplus catalogs we used to get in the mail. Hand-drawn pictures of each product along with cheeky copy for almost all the little motors and breakers and push buttons and on and on. Sad that they stopped their mail order business.
I've always wondered: is there a term for the process that brought those hand drawings into a printable form like that which then enabled it to be mass produced? I understand how it can be done with computers and scanners, but I've struggled finding what tech/process was used back in the day.
Lithography, usually - still widely in use today. Drawings were made or transferred to an etchable surface (initially limestone, then metal) using an etch-resistant substance. Then etching agent (acid, usually) was applied to the surface. Everything was washed and voila, a plate was produced which had a positive image which could be inked and pressed just like letters. By 1938, offset printing might have been employed, which is basically the same thing but with a rubber drum as an intermediary between the plate and the paper.
Lithography is the general term. There are numerous methods depending on the desired result, for instance using an offset can produce full colors pressing one at a time.
https://gallery.lib.umn.edu/exhibits/show/pre-separated-art/...
I recall seeing similar glassware illustrations in catalogs from the 70's?
Yes, I would not be surprised to find most of these drawings were direct reproductions of the original art from when each particular item first became available. Some dating back from decades earlier, others not so much since they all didn't exist that many years earlier.
>Within its 128 pages will be found 2353 individual items, 737 of which have not been listed previously. From the many advances made in the field of glass laboratory apparatus during the past few years, we have attempted to select for listing in this catalog those items of proven worth, and for which there is a definite demand on the part of chemists.
A lot of the same PYREX items used for routine lab testing today are also identical to the ones in this book.
At Florida the original Chemistry Building was from 1917 and when I got there in the early 1970's the full glassblowing department was still there from when most of the specialized items were not available commercially.
Plus research always needs custom work.
Starting my career I always had big old kilo-sized hard-bound catalogs from suppliers of more generalized apparatus, in addition to being PYREX dealers, where plenty of the random illustrations were the same decades-old original art. And that was well into the 1990's.
It was just not that unusual for art like this to remain unchanged for decades.
In the early 1970's the UF labs themselves had never been rebuilt since original construction [0], no air conditioning of course, and as a freshman there were still quite a few pieces of glassware having the old logo about this age or older. Right in some of the drawers of each undergrad's PYREX, stocked for that semester's "experiments".
The old logo is basically exactly as shown on the cover of this catalog, as that baked green colored circle containing fine print around PYREX, strongly marked onto the glass.
I would estimate about 10% or more had survived for decades under assault by butterfingered freshmen without breakage. Anecdotal statistics tell me that a sizable percentage of those had been dropped more than once, and survived. IOW, they bounced :) Overcame the same type impact that had destroyed many of their less-robust brethren.
Last but not least:
>Type 930 Tubing "CORNING" Brand Electrode Glass No. 015 (Mclnnis & Dole)
>Furnished in tubing form with a wall thickness of about 0.5 to 1.2 mm, depending on diameter, and in 3 foot lengths. Of proper composition for use in the fabrication of thin glass membranes for measuring the hydrogen-ion activity or pH. Reference: The Determination of Hydrogen-ions, W. M. Clark, William and Wilkens, Baltimore, 1928; Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, Analytical Edition 37 (1929); Journal of the American Chemical Society, 53 , 4260 (1931); Public Health Reports, Vol. 45, No. 38, Sept. 19, 1930.
>Since " CORNING " Brand No. 015 Glass is not a stable glass , it has a tendency to deteriorate when stored. For this reason it is advisable to purchase this particular glass only in such quantities as are required for current needs.
By the following year (1939) Beckman would commercialize his first instrument, a pH meter, ushering in the era of electronic pH meters using glass electrodes where the glass itself is the high-impedance electrochemical contact.
[0] Remodeling was long overdue after fifty years, even the stairs in the stairwell were halfway worn out. There was an excellent new building right adjacent to it though :)
Edit: Not my downvote, btw, corrective upvote instead :0
1300 and 1320 look like drug paraphernalia.
1120 looks suspiciously like a beer glass.
Most of the people in my college dorm drank beer from various sizes and shapes of pilfered labware.
To me, they all look like valid beer vessels.
If it fits I sips
At 250ml it's not far off a half pint.
Can anyone explain the concept of “oddly satisfying” in this context? These drawings are like… cozy or something. Is it nostalgia that I’m feeling?
I don’t think it’s nostalgia, skillful hand drawings are just nice.
It's uncluttered and purposeful.
Pyrex != PYREX
Beautiful drawings like this are a lost art.
It's not lost. People can draw like this today. It's just that nobody wants to pay for it.
What a treat to see hand drawn stuff in the days of AI slop.
You don’t know what you have untill you lose it.
It is mind blowing to see the prices of the complex spiral distillation condensers at $5-10 each.
Today these are like $300 at least, and I'm guessing they cannot be made in the USA. (I would be glad to be wrong)
edit: ok with inflation from 1938 it's not so incomparable. But still.
In 2025 dollars that is around $230.
Assuming you aren't looking for an exact millimeter-for-millimeter version of the spiral condenser, I bet you could find someone to make it in the US quite easily.
It's still one of the major glassblowing countries. In fact, if you remember when folks were worried about those two quartz mines in Spruce Pine, NC that are the only place with pure enough quartz for chips? That's also the home of Spruce Pine Batch, one of the big glass suppliers in America.