As a kiwi reading this, at the start I thought it was about a new hybrid mānuka tree developed off German root stock ...nope it was just tree metaphors about a new font.

Me too. I'm very disappointed :/.

Me three.

3 out of 7.9 billion is not bad!

https://klim.co.nz/about/:

> Our foundational ethos is “a thing well made”.

I see what you did there.

The site is about fonts and text, not trees and roots.

Does anyone know how wood was able to be carved with sufficient precision to enable it to be used as a medium for type? At such small scales, surely it splintered and fractured all the time?

As the previous poster mentioned, wood would only be used for particularly large poster type, but (if I recall correctly) even at large scale the printing press does wear out the wood blocks more quickly than metal type; the good designs that you see in wood would anticipate that distortion without compromising legibility.

Wood type was also often very trendy, insofar that new designs that were bigger and bolder were developed and produced quickly — the aesthetic lifespan may not have been longer than the physical one.

Understood, thanks. Interesting point about wooden type being easier to produce - that makes a lot of sense. Thank you for taking the time to answer the question.

My understanding is that it's actually the opposite of what you're thinking. Small scale wasn't an issue because wood type was used for large letters. This is because large scale was an issue for metal type, which could cool unevenly and warp at larger sizes.

Ah right, this makes perfect sense. Thank you for taking the time to answer the question.

There's an image[1] of text with bush in the background that appears to have no manuka whatsoever in it. You don't have to travel far in NZ to find thousands and thousands of manuka trees. I'm not convinced the author even knows what manuka is.

[1] https://klim.imgix.net/original_images/Manuka-Campaign-Slab-...