Are the roman-type 1611 reprint and Gothic-type identical?

Are the 1611 reprint editions in roman type every letter the same as the original black letter or Gothic-type 1611 "He" Bible edition?

Donald Brake noted that “Oxford published an exact reprint of the 1611 King James Version in 1833” and that Oxford’s intention was to publish the 1611 “letter for letter, retaining throughout the ancient mode of spelling and punctuation, and even the most manifest errors of the Press” (Visual History of the English Bible, p. 214). It has been suggested that none of the printer’s errors in the 1611 edition had been corrected in the 1833 roman-type reproduction.

Since it had been said that no type-setting errors in the original 1611 edition had been corrected in the later roman-type reprints, I had assumed that was true.

I have a list of 1611 differences compiled by a man who compared a Gothic-type 1611 edition with a present edition, and it has some differences that I could not find in my Thomas Nelson roman-type 1611 reprint.

Has anyone else ever noticed any differences between the roman-type 1611 reprint editions and a Gothic-type 1611 reprint?

 

Steven White, a KJV defender, had listened to a voice-recording of the KJV while looking at a digitally reproduced reprint of the Gothic-type 1611 printed by Greyden Press in 2000 (White’s Dictionary of the King James Language, Vol. Two, pp. 22, 30-55).

Since D. A. Waite had used a Thomas Nelson 1611 reprint in comparing the 1611 to a post-1900 KJV edition, I had also used this same reprint in my comparison of the 1611.

I also have not made an exhaustive comparison, but I could not find some of the differences that White had listed, some of the printer’s errors in the first edition listed by David Norton in Appendix 1 (Textual History, pp. 167-172), and some of the list of 1611 errata at the end of the 2010 Oxford reprint of the 1611 in the Thomas Nelson edition of the Roman-type 1611 reprint.

In checking the places where type-setting errors are said to be found in the original 1611 edition and then in comparing those places in the roman-type 1611 reprint printed by Thomas Nelson with a digitally reproduced Gothic-type 1611 reprint, some apparent differences between the two were detected.

 

For those who have both a roman-type 1611 reprint and a Gothic or black-letter reprint, here is a place to check.

Lev. 17:1 in the original 1611 edition and in a Gothic-type reprint has "unco Moses" while the Thomas Nelson 1611 roman-type reprint has "unto Moses."

 

Gothic letters can sometimes be mistaken for a different letter that is expected to be in a word. Perhaps the "c" could easily be mistaken for a "t." If you look with a magnifying aid at the word, in my opinion it becomes clear that the letter is a "c" in the 1611 Gothic reprint from Greatsite.com. It is easier to see in the 2010 Oxford roman-type reprint of the 1611.

The 2010 Oxford edition of the 1611 in roman-type may have restored some type-setting errors in the actual original 1611 "He" Bible edition that were not kept in the 1833 Oxford edition in roman-type.

An example that is easier to see without any magnifying aid is at Luke 20:10
theh uf bandmen beat him [Gothic 1611 reprint]

the husbandmen beat him [Thomas Nelson roman-type reprint]

 

Another type-setting error that can be seen in the 1611 Gothic reprint is at Jeremiah 44:4, but this is corrected in the roman-type reprint.

Jeremiah 44:4 servantg

 

From my comparison of the Thomas Nelson roman-type reprint with a Gothic-type reprint where typesetting errors are said to be found, I see 40 places where type-setting errors seem to have been corrected in the roman-type reprint.

I find ten or eleven of those type-setting errors restored in the 2010 roman-type reprint by Oxford.