I will admit I lost interest after it was revealed that the letters had been replaced several times and that the original was most likely correct. "frank lloyd wright messed up the orientation of an H" has a bit of interest to it; "some random later person messed it up" has none.
I don't understand why the author is intent on pinning the ever changing orientation of the letters on architects. Wright's intent would have been in the architectural drawings. Everything after that, including the original installation, would be the responsibility of the person who installed the lettering. I've seen much more obvious errors (e.g. spelling errors) occur during the installation of similar signage ... things that would not have made it to the final architectural drawings.
Im curious if the mounting points for the letters had 180deg rotational symmetry. If they didn’t (such as a mount point on the crossbar in the H), that’d go a long way to explaining “correctness”.
The typeface that is used there is not something typical, and it's very top-heavy in letters like P and R. The top-heavy H (called "upside-down" in the article) does not seem too odd in this context. F on the other hand is almost "normal".
For the love of all this is holy, do not read this article. If the internet has taught has anything, it's that you cannot unsee an image - I predict you will not be able to unsee upside-down H's (and even an S) post-reading. Save yourself.
Given that there had been wrongly installed letters continuously since at least 1956 and we have no proof that an entirely "correct" version ever existed, I'd consider the inverted H historically accurate and I hope it won't ever get fixed and especially not as an overreaction to the article.
Given that the original drawings did show all letters in the orientation that's obviously correct for the font, I'd be hesitant to say the upside-down installations were ever historically accurate. It most certainly wasn't FLW's vision.
That is hidden behind a paywall. The curious part of me wants to know what the guy said, but the logical part of me knows it was likely little more than “oops”.
I think you need to touch some grass if you don't know the difference between curiosity (searching for the answer and evidence) and conspiracy (inventing answer out of nothing and ignoring the evidence)
The article makes clear that the orientation of the lettering has changed over time, which counts against the idea that what it is now necessarily reflects the original intent.
zem|11 hours ago
JohnCClarke|9 hours ago
- Apollo "Little Joe" A-003 (May 19, 1965): A roll gyro - Proton-M Launch Failure (July 2, 2013): Yaw sensors - Genesis Space Probe (2001): Accelerometer
Getting things the right way round is very important.
gylterud|3 hours ago
II2II|4 hours ago
chris_engel|11 hours ago
parpfish|16 hours ago
Cerium|16 hours ago
greggsy|16 hours ago
Just send an email to the board of trustees / body corporate and move on.
tptacek|14 hours ago
maratc|3 hours ago
vessenes|18 hours ago
JohnCClarke|9 hours ago
WillAdams|17 hours ago
https://xkcd.com/1015/
NooneAtAll3|11 hours ago
readthenotes1|16 hours ago
weinzierl|11 hours ago
shmeeed|10 hours ago
emmelaich|17 hours ago
peddling-brink|17 hours ago
jsdalton|19 hours ago
emmelaich|17 hours ago
knallfrosch|12 hours ago
Is this some kind of joke, or is the author really lost in some conspiracy-level detail tracking, hunting for "hidden signals"?
NooneAtAll3|11 hours ago
nacozarina|12 hours ago
NooneAtAll3|11 hours ago
2) it's called research and there are whole ministries dedicated to answering random questions like this one
brudgers|1 day ago
That it is not aesthetically obvious, suggests it was drawn that way and not a mistake. Good typography is subtle and bespoke typography even more so.
mjg59|19 hours ago