I&#x27;ve always hated the mingti--serif comparison. Mingti looks too artificial and beholden to technology (woodblock printing) for that to hold up. And kaiti likewise is too caligraphic and human to fit the bill either. With both of those constrained by their orignal medium enough to count as skeuomorphism---call me out on bias as a western or non-mason, but serifs don&#x27;t evoke stone-inscribing as obviously to me---I was about to give up and say there is no serif analog.<p>But what font is this? <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;qzprod.files.wordpress.com&#x2F;2015&#x2F;10&#x2F;yan-rad1.png" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;qzprod.files.wordpress.com&#x2F;2015&#x2F;10&#x2F;yan-rad1.png</a> (from the article), is definitely not JinXuan, and I think is the &quot;most serif&quot; Chinese font I&#x27;ve seen. It&#x27;s definitely a Kaiti first and foremost, which I consider a necessary traditionalism for this analogy. Yet, the general boxiness of the strokes, especially the cusps on the corner of the boxes&#x2F;kou3, defy the practicalities of brush-strokes (e.g.. harder to do tangency-breaks) and evoke the &quot;cuspiness&quot; of serifs.