# [OS X TeX] Minion Pro and Bickham Pro

Sun Apr 15 18:39:18 CEST 2012

On Apr 14, 2012, at 10:49 PM, Michael Sharpe wrote:

>
> On Apr 14, 2012, at 8:13 PM, Richard Seguin wrote:
>
>> Has anyone used the Bickham Pro script font together with Minion Pro and MnSymbol? I'm wondering how compatible they are in weight. Bickham comes in regular, semibold, and bold versions at a cost of $35 per version. I'm guessing that the regular weight would be the most appropriate. At the moment I don't think I have use for the bold versions. Is installing the regular version only compatible with the mathalpha package? I'm tempted to try this for$35. Of course, if I do I'm sure there will be more installation questions ...
>>
>> Richard Séguin
>>
>>
>> ----------- Please Consult the Following Before Posting -----------
>> TeX FAQ: http://www.tex.ac.uk/faq
>> List Reminders and Etiquette: http://email.esm.psu.edu/mac-tex/
>> List Archive: http://tug.org/pipermail/macostex-archives/
>> TeX on Mac OS X Website: http://mactex-wiki.tug.org/
>> List Info: http://email.esm.psu.edu/mailman/listinfo/macosx-tex
>>
>>
>>
>
> Bickham Script regular is on the light side for use with MinionPro/MnSymbol.
>
> For example, the following file:
>
> \documentclass[11pt]{article}
> %SetFonts
> % Minion Pro+MnSymbol
> \usepackage[lf]{MinionPro}%has its own math, no amssymb should be loaded
> \usepackage[cal=bickham,calscaled=.93]{mathalfa}
> %SetFonts
> \begin{document}
> This short fragment of mathematical nonsense uses Minion Pro as text font, MnSymbol as math font and Bickham Script as math calligraphic alphabet. For all $A\in \mathcal{A}/\mathcal{I}$,
> $\mathcal{X}=\{f+g\mid g\in A^\perp\}\oplus\mathcal{F}_t.$
> \end{document}
>
> gives as output
>
> <bick00.pdf>
>
> The mathalfa package doesn't require that you possess all three weights of Bickham Pro---just the one you call. It may be that semibold is a better match to Minion Pro. To make that permanent, you could change the piece of ubickham.fd from
>
> \DeclareFontShape{U}{bickham}{m}{n}{
>   <-> \bickham@@scale  bickham-r
>
> to
>
> \DeclareFontShape{U}{bickham}{m}{n}{
>   <-> \bickham@@scale  bickham-s
>
> and use, instead of mathalfa,
>
> \usepackage[scaled=.93]{bickham}
>
> Michael

Michael,

Thanks for the sample! The sample actually looks pretty good. I opened the attachment in Preview and greatly enlarged it. If anything, it might be slightly too light, but as close to perfect as any other script I've looked at. I looked at the semibold version on the Adobe website and I think it would be too heavy -- more too heavy than the regular weight is too light. It appears to me that the regular version would print well at 9 and 10pt, or at least as well as boondox. (For example, my old ps type 1 Linoscript does not print well at 10pt and below.)

I'm using the very latest TeXLive, I already have TeXFontUtility, FontForge, and the bickram.zip file from ctan. If I were to install this .otf font (changing the tilt angle to 20% as you suggest), what would be my easiest and most idiot proof overall route? I've looked at bickham-doc.pdf and TeXFontUtility.pdf and am a little unsure.

Richard