I've updated the link. You should be able to find the version you need.

I tested it with the version of Courier that comes with my version of Windows, and I think it does match, so I validated your answer.

Apparently, older versions of Segoe UI had that "2" before it was redesigned:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Segoe_UI_Revision_Differences.png

http://www.identifont.com/show?NA9

Yes it does. But this is not how our forum works. The "link" field is meant for links that allow users to directly buy/get the font. Please use these whenever possible. Links to fontsinuse can absolutely be given in your message to show more information if you feel that it is necessary. Thank you for your understanding.

Akira, it would be a lot of easier if you filled the "link" field with the version you think is the best one, instead of using like to fontsinuse. The link field is meant for people to buy/get the font easily. I will change the link in your reply again then.

Another option - among others: https://fontsinuse.com/typefaces/31773/thorowgood-sans-shaded

It's extremely close but the "!" doesn't really match, and I think that this version called Determination Mono matches a bit better. Regardless, it's a perfectly good suggestion of course.

If you're talking about this font, it's a commercial font that can easily be purchased.

Got it, thank you for confirming.

Just to be sure, would it be called "Pin Sans" or "Pinterest Sans"? Or would these be two different fonts? I can only find this one called "Pinterest Sans": https://www.grillitype.com/commissions/pinterest

It's the "w" in this font.

Yes, it's not impossible that it has been drawn using a pre-digital typeface as a reference. And yes, it is meaningful to introduce the original typeface. That's what I meant in my message. It can be interesting for some people. That being said, I would argue that it is fair to assume that nowadays, more than 99% of the designs will be done with digital versions of typefaces. Maybe I'm wrong of course. But when it comes to giving answers here, it might be better to assume that people are using digital versions. Of course, if you give an answer, you can always add some information about the original typeface in your comment. But unless you're absolutely sure that the answer IS a pre-digital version, because the sample is obviously very old, or there is NO digital version, or something like that, it would be better to assume the answer is a digital version. I'm just explaining why your answer (Rustika) hasn't been validated, while someone else's answer (Norplay) has been.

As usual, Akira1975, we appreciate your knowledge, but it is fair to assume that people use digital versions nowadays. Especially for such modern samples. You are free to share any kind of information you want of course. But ultimately, unless you can prove that no digital versions were used for a specific older sample, it doesn't make any sense to suggest a physical thing from more than a century ago. You are absolutely free to add this information while suggesting a digital version that must have been used - some people will find it interesting.

Your fonts have been updated, thank you.

The Japanese one is the same as the one for the brackets.

Link updated, thank you