In reply to ATF Oxford:
When comparing printing from digital fonts to printing from metal fonts, I'm not quite sure what wouldn't be "derivative."
The papers are different, the inks are different, as is the method of applying the ink. The individual characters are different, too. Each character in metal is cast -- each "e", for example -- and has it's own blemishes -- or uniqueness, depending on how you view such things.
The positioning of the letters in metal can vary as well -- in three dimensions, though oddly enough, "width" is usually quite well controlled.
Having said that, getting the ink to form the same with metal/letterpress as with digital/offset is a challenge few are willing to undertake, or have the skill to achieve. I think Carter did rather well, his digital Monticello is a bit better than the Linotype 202 (photocomp) Monticello.
Is this what you had in mind? Or did you mean the Linotype (linecaster) Monticello differs from the ATF Oxford.
From another source:
http://luc.devroye.org/fonts-33550.html
Linotype Monticello was designed by Griffith in 1946. Its design is based on James Ronaldson's Roman No.1 and Oxford Typefaces from American Type Founders and was revised by Matthew Carter while he was working at Linotype between 1965-1981. Mac McGrew: Monticello is a Linotype recreation of America's first great typeface, Binny&Ronaldson's Roman No.1, cut about 1796 by Archibald Binny in Philadelphia.
. . .
C. H. Griffith, Linotype typographic consultant, made a detailed study of Binny's type and redrew it in 1946 for the requirements of Linotype composition and modern printing conditions.
Even though the linecaster & its duplexed mats required differences from foundry type, to the extent possible, Griffith went ahead & allowed as many of the complications as possible -- the full-formed italic j, f, etc.
So I'd say it is an adaptation, not derivative.
& I believe Matthew further removed some of the linecaster compromises when he did the PostScript version of Monticello, though I'm working from memory, & might have that wrong...
BTW, & Updike notwithstanding, Binny & Ronaldson's fonts are usually considered a, what, "not-the-best-quality" ripoff of fonts from the U.K.
