[HN Gopher] H-Bomb: A Frank Lloyd Wright typographic mystery
___________________________________________________________________
H-Bomb: A Frank Lloyd Wright typographic mystery
Author : mrngm
Score : 137 points
Date : 2026-02-26 09:18 UTC (3 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.inconspicuous.info)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.inconspicuous.info)
| brudgers wrote:
| I would not be surprised if the manufactured letters and their
| installation was based on hand hand drawn letters.
|
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| brudgers wrote:
| Fair enough.
|
| To me the evidence in the article still suggests that "hard
| correctness" is probably not historically appropriate...hand
| lettering is not a typeface.
|
| That's really where I am coming from -- the perspective of
| historical architecture, historical architectural practice,
| and historical methods of delivering buildings.
|
| In particular, today's mythological Wright is not the 1908's
| historical Wright on a commercial jobsite. And the
| contractual relationships of a 1908 construction project were
| not delineated like current construction projects.
| saghm wrote:
| And yet the article shows the original sketches Wright made
| for the building that show the asymmetrical H's with the
| bars aligned with the bars on the E's (i.e on the upper
| half) in virtually identical font to what was eventually
| installed.
|
| I don't really see how you can come away with the
| conclusion that this suggests lack of intent; at most, it
| seems like you had already formed the opinion that there
| was no intent, and you didn't find the evidence to the
| contrary convincing enough that you were wrong. I don't
| think your take is necessarily wrong, but I don't think
| it's fair to characterize the evidence as suggesting what
| you're saying.
| jsdalton wrote:
| I was more bothered by the extraneous word spacing on the second
| line, between "and" and "the." Is it just me?
| emmelaich wrote:
| I noticed that but I guess it's to avoid the vertical river.
| soperj wrote:
| I'll bite. What's a vertical river?
| otherme123 wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_(typography)
| Biganon wrote:
| I don't understand the use of "I'll bite" when the message
| you're answering to is obviously not... bait. Are we now
| saying "I'll bite" before every question we ask?
| vessenes wrote:
| 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.
| WillAdams wrote:
| ob. XKCD:
|
| https://xkcd.com/1015/
| lioeters wrote:
| XKOCD
| readthenotes1 wrote:
| It reminded me of PG wodehouse's characters who would study
| newts. The British Gentry had nothing better to do with their
| time
| NooneAtAll3 wrote:
| if you don't know what Wilhelm scream is, DO NOT RESEARCH
| JohnCClarke wrote:
| If you ever want to watch a movie again, do NOT work on codecs.
| Just saying.
| emmelaich wrote:
| part2: https://www.inconspicuous.info/p/the-man-behind-the-
| upside-d...
| peddling-brink wrote:
| 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".
| greggsy wrote:
| I was initially interested but after skimming through I
| questioned if this pedantic detective tale needed to be told...
|
| Just send an email to the board of trustees / body corporate and
| move on.
| tptacek wrote:
| Please don't. We'll spend $500,000 tracking down what happened.
| parpfish wrote:
| 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".
| Cerium wrote:
| The second image in the article clearly shows screw holes in
| the letters. The H appears to be perfectly symmetric for 180
| degree mounting.
| knallfrosch wrote:
| All this because some guys installed the letters wrong?
|
| Is this some kind of joke, or is the author really lost in some
| conspiracy-level detail tracking, hunting for "hidden signals"?
| NooneAtAll3 wrote:
| 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)
| nacozarina wrote:
| ppl with this sort of mania should be allowed to collect
| disability and stay home
| NooneAtAll3 wrote:
| 1) it's called a hobby
|
| 2) it's called research and there are whole ministries
| dedicated to answering random questions like this one
| zem wrote:
| 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.
| JohnCClarke wrote:
| A long and venerable litany of spaceflight disasters would beg
| to differ:
|
| - 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.
| zem wrote:
| agreed, but "these letters have been taken down and put back
| up several times and along the way the H and S weren't always
| put the right way up" is a complete story. just let the place
| know and they can fix it. the details of when each letter was
| messed up by whatever random person are of little interest.
| weinzierl wrote:
| 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.
| shmeeed wrote:
| 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.
| weinzierl wrote:
| And this where we disagree. The original drawings show the
| artists original supposed intention but what counts for
| historical accuracy is how the work was perceived for the
| majority of its existence.
| exmadscientist wrote:
| Which, as the article and other comments here make clear,
| has been changing back and forth over the decades.
|
| In a situation like that, I think you kind of have to
| acknowledge the original drawings as the preferred state
| for things. Especially when just about anyone with training
| in this area would readily agree that that design aligns
| with what they'd all consider usual or correct.
| weinzierl wrote:
| Sure, it has been changing back and forth which makes the
| pristine version the least historically correct because
| few, if any at all, ever experienced that.
| chris_engel wrote:
| Nobody speaks about the way larger spacing between "AND THE" in
| comparison to the other spaces...
| II2II wrote:
| 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.
| gylterud wrote:
| Not sure why the comments here are so negative! I found it mildly
| interesting, and worth a few minutes on a Sunday!
| maratc wrote:
| 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".
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-03-01 23:01 UTC)