> It is? Do you have any supporting evidence for this claim? I don't have any evidence to support this claim. I always thought about it as self-evident, becau

> It is? Do you have any supporting evidence for this claim? I don't have any evidence to support this claim. I always thought about it as self-evident, because it was in that journal that Grothendieck published his work, and the same style is used in by the legendary Hermann editor from Paris and by Bourbaki. But I cannot find any non-partisan source of my claim. As for non-neutral sources, you have for example the congratulations on the typesetting by Dieudonnée [0] (who was a member of the IHES), or a more recent article by Haralambous about the Baskerville variant used by the institute [1]. I will retire my claim of "undisputed" if you find a source that says that the pinnacle of mathematical typesetting is something else :) [0] https://expo-patrimoine.ihes.fr/?page=9&lang=en https://expo-patrimoine.ihes.fr/?page=9&lang=en [1] http://www.numdam.org/item/CG_1999___32_5_0/ http://www.numdam.org/item/CG_1999___32_5_0/ You also have this semi-anonymous blog post [2], that laments the decline in quality when the journal in question was acquired by Springer. Quote: > How good was the typeface? It was so good, some people submitted their papers to IHES precisely for the beauty of the typesetting [2] https://www.galoisrepresentations.com/2014/08/15/the-decline-and-fall-of-publications-mathematiques-de-llhes/ https://www.galoisrepresentations.com/2014/08/15/the-decline...