facts about the KFE

The KFA was written by Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī ibn Ḫalaf al-Ḥusainī al-Ḥaddād alone.
It was a sign of the inde­pen­dance from Istanbul (Nov 1914) (not from the UK Feb 1922).
It was the first offset printed muṣḥaf.
It was set with less than 300 sorts out of the 470 designed by Muḥam­mad Ǧaʿfar Bey ‒ in 1906 a new set of inter­locking types with improved kerning had been adopted, allowing con­nect­ing strokes to meet with­out visible breaks (there were 406 Arabic sorts, the rest: Persian, num­bers, punc­tu­a­tion ‒ before 1906 there had been over 900 sorts; but even the re­duced set had too many stacked ligatures for Muḥ. Ḥifnī Bey Nāsif; he wanted a muṣ­ḥaf with baseline orientated letters for people educated in state schools, reading novels and news papers.

here you see the Amīrīya set text and the same text set in Hyderabad: mostly the same with the kasras higher, in the last example a different form of end-mīm was used (in the first line with the deep mīm kasratan are move slightly to the left)
the KFE(resp. al-Ḥaddād) did not reconstruct the spelling according to Ibn Naǧāh, he just follwed a Faz print
I base this assertion on two groups of facts: the adding of ġāli­ban in the informa­tion. first the original words 1342 to 1414:

the 1420 version

again in 2019

and in the grand edition:

The information at the end of the book state its sources (although ... see below),
but that many features were Maghribian (Moroccan in fact) al-Ḥaddād kept to himself.
Only the Kufic counting, the partition into aǧāzʾ and aḥzāb,
    and the pause signs were based on Eastern sources.
Western/Morroccan were
    ‒ the rasm (largely after Abū Dāʾūd Ibn Naġāḥ)
    ‒ the small substitute vowels for elongation
    ‒ the baseline hamzae before Alif at the begin­ning of the word (ءادم instead of اٰدم).
    ‒ the distinction into three kinds of tanwin (above each other, one after the other, with mīm)
    ‒ the spelling at the end of the sura, which assumes that the next sura is spoken imme­diate­ly after­wards (and with­out basmala): tanwin is modified accor­dingly.
    ‒ the absence of nūn quṭni.
    ‒ the non-spelling of vowel shortening.
    ‒ the (wrong) spelling of ʾallāh.
    ‒ the Maghrebī (and Indian) attraction of the hamza sign by kasra

in G24 hamza with kasra is below the base­line ‒ in the Ottoman Empire (include Egypt) and Iran hamza stays above the line

‒ noted as­si­mi­la­tion like in the Magh­reb (and in India):

the first three lines are Otto­man (Rušdī, Ḥasan Riḍā in ʿIrāqī state edi­tions, Muṣ­ṭafā Naẓīf Qadir­ġalī Cairo 1911),
in the middle Giza 1924
then Maġribī Warš edi­tions ‒ note that in the older edi­tion the second stem (vertical stroke) of لا is lam+šad­da, while in the modern Algerian Šaḏilī one, it is the first stroke.
the Maġribī writers, al-Mu­ḫal­la­lātī, and G24 have no sign above the assi­mi­lated latter and a šadda above the assimi­la­ting one.

A new feature was the diffe­ren­tia­tion of the Maġ­ribī sukūn into three signs:
‒ the ǧazm in the form of a ǧīm with­out a tail and with­out a dot for vowel-less­ness,
‒ the circle for never to be pro­nounced,
‒ the (oval) zero: only pro­nounced after a pause.
(while before ‒ as in IPak ‒ the absence of any sign signified "not to be pro­nounced").
Further, word spacing, base­line orien­tation and exact place­ment of dots and dashes.
A new feature was the differentiation of the Maghrebic sukūn into three signs:
    ‒ the ǧazm in the form of an ǧīms without a tail and without a dot for vowel-lessness,
    ‒ the circle for never to be pronounced,
    ‒ the (oval) zero for "only pronounced if paused".
(while before ‒ as in IPak‒ the absence of any sign signifies "not to be pro­nounced").
Further, word spacing,
baseline orientation and
exact placement of dots and dashes.

In 7:103 und 3:144+21:34 11:97+ 10:75+23:46+28:32+ 43:46 have the same rasm and are pro­nounced the same way, but written diffe­rently:
wa-malaʾihī
IPak: وَمَلَا۠ئِهٖ
Q52: وَمَلَإِي۠هِۦ
Both scripts use a mater lectio­nis in the rasm for /a/ and /i/ ‒ not for 7ā/ and /ī/,
since alif, yāʾ and wāw were the only letters available to signal the pre­sence of a vowel. in India alif is mute (= does not lengthens the fatḥa), yāʾ carries hamza
in the West alif carries the hamza, yāʾ is mute.

In 3:144 + 21:34 ʾa-faʾin
IPak: افَا۠ئِنْ
Q52: اَفإي۠ن
for Indians and Turks the alif is mute
(in proper IPak there is NOTHING above alif, since 1935 some put a circle,
Turks put qaṣr, Persians bil-qaṣri below)
die Araber sehen das alif als Hamza-Träger, das yāʾ als stumm.
Muṣṭafā Naẓīf lässt das stumme yāʾ in seinem (in Deutsch­land und Indo­nesia nach­ge­drucktem) 604er berkenar muṣḥaf in 21:34 weg: اَفَإنْ
Sonst hat er ‒ wie üblich ‒ alif und yā, aber in dem 604er fehlt das yāʾ und die meisten Heraus­geber der Re­prints stört(e) das nicht.

In 21:34 ʾa-faʾin
IPak: افَا۠ئِنْ
Q52: اَفإي۠ن
India and osm/Tur make the alif silent
(Indians used to leave the alif without any sign, now they put the silent making circle,
Turks write qaṣr underneath)
for Arabs alif carries hamza, yāʾ is silent.
Muṣṭafā Naẓīf in one of his manu­scripts (the 604 pages berkenar one) just drops the otiose letter. اَفَإنْ
It does not help to observe that in his other maṣāḥif he has the super­fluous letter. The 604 page muṣḥaf is often re­printed (not as often as the 522 page one, but in different countries) without "correc­tion".
Similar 6:34 min-nabaʾi

al-Ḥaddād switched from وَمَلَا۠ئِهٖ to وَمَلَإِي۠هِۦ , and from افَا۠ئِنْ to اَفإي۠ن , should be proof enough, that he uncrtical­ly copied Morocco.
I do not claim that al‑Ḥaddād is wrong; I merely note that he offers no argu­ment for his choice.
Now alif hosts the hamza while the yāʾ is silent, whereas pre­viously the alif was silent and the yāʾ served as the seat for both the hamza and the /i/ vowel.
















Incidentally, MNQ once forgets to write the otiose letter:

The Ḥafṣ ʿan ʿĀṣim King Fuʾād 1924 edition

The field of study of printed editions of the Qur'an needs to be cleaned up.
Many German Orienta­lists refer to the offi­cial Egyp­tian edi­tion of 1924/5 as "the stan­dard Qur'an", others call it "Azhar Qur'an". Some call it "THE Cairo Edi­tion/CE" ‒ non­sensi­cal de­signa­tions. Many false ideas cir­culate about the King Fuʾād edition, the Giza Qur'an, the Egyp­tian Survey Autho­rity print (المصحف الشريف لطبعة مصلحة المساحة المصرية), the 12-liner (مصحف 12 سطر).
Some believe they are look­ing at a manu­script.^♦

♦ like Abdel Theo­dore Khoury, ʾAsmāʾ Ḥilālī, sogar A.A. Brocket (Two Trans­missions p. 9) ↩

Andreas Ismail Mohr calls it "type print­ing". Yet the epi­logue ‒ from the 1925 small (Būlāq) edi­tion even more clearly than the first, large one (Giza 1924) ‒ makes every­thing clear: The fair copy writ­ten by Egypt's šaiḫ al-maqāriʾ Muḥam­mad ibn ʿAlī ibn Ḫalaf al-Ḥu­sainī al-Mālikī aṣ-Ṣaʿīdī al‑Ǧir­ǧāwī al-Ḥaddād (1282/1865-1357/ 22.1. 1939) ‒ not to be con­fused with the calli­grapher Muḥammad ibn Saʿd ibn Ibrāhīm al-Ḥad­dād (1919-2011) ‒ was set in Būlāq with five tiers per line (pause signs; fatḥa, damma, sukūn; letters [for base­line hamza includ­ing the vowel sign]; kasra; spac­ing).
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Type printing is a letter­press pro­cess. Types/sorts leave small inden­ta­tions on the paper: they press the print­ing ink into the paper. Offset is plano­graphic: the paper ab­sorbs the ink; you can't find inden­ta­tions. With his eyes, Mohr saw that it was not hand­written. But he does not know that type print can only be re­cog­nised with the sense of touch.
"That's nonsense, instead of ela­bora­tely type­sett­ing and print­ing that ONCE, why not have a calli­gra­pher write it?" (Mohr) This fails to appre­ci­ate the tech­no­id sense of accuracy of the editors of 1924. The accuracy established by type­setting and now achieved through Open­Type tech­no­logy is matched by no one but ʿUṯmān Ṭaha: per­fect align­ment with every vowel sign sitting exactly above or below its letter.
Traditional letterpress struggles with this layout. While charac­ters on top of the line stay close enough to the eye, the des­cen­ders force the kasras too far below the base­line. This breaks the visual con­nec­tion, mak­ing the page harder to read.
A look at the Hyderabad 1938 print shows what hap­pens when you use (normal, like Monotype) movable-type: kasras sit beneath the des­cender of end-mīm, -lām, -ʿain, and -ḥāʾ, in 1906 Būlāq got new sorts, with notches/morizers these were lifted up next to a stroke, or into a counter. (On the image, I made the Giza kasras red.) The Amīrīya Press got interlocking lead types with precise, complementary notches and mortises along their lateral walls. This mechanical innovation allowed overlapping (kerning) letters and diacritics to seamlessly slide into one another's bodies like puzzle pieces, completely eliminating the vertical gaps of traditional rectangular blocks and achieving the fluid, uninterrupted connecting line of Arabic calligraphy.
When ʿUṯmān Ṭaha (UT) copied the Q52 text into the ber­Kenar lay­out he kept the linear form and the space between words of the 1924/52 print the 1938 kasras sit too low, making the page look dis­jointed and harder to read. (In the image below, I marked the kas­ras in red that had been "lifted" on the galley proofs for the Giza print).
Two examples to illu­strate.

While UT clearly reads yanhā, the beau­ti­ful Ottoman hand­writ­ing reads naihā; while the three vowel signs (fatḥa, sukūn, long-ā) are clear­ly in the right order (there is no other way, they are all on top), nūn (per­haps) comes before yāʾ (or does the nūn dot come before the yāʾ dots). Inci­den­tally, the two "tooth" letters have a tooth or spine in UT, but none in court Otto­man! While there is clearly no­thing bet­ween heh (I use the Uni­code name to clearly dis­tin­guish it from ḥāʾ) and alif maq­ṣūra in UT, there could well be a tooth in Otto­man: You only needed to put two dots over it and it would be hetā or some­thing like that.

2^nd example: wa-ma­lā­ʾi­ka­tihī Whereas the 1924 print (below) and UT (middle) use the small letter alif‑madda hover­ing in front of the yāʾ‑tooth ‒ an added long‑vo­wel that leaves the tooth free to carry a ham­za di­rect­ly beneath it, yield­ing a hamza‑yāʾ (/ʾ/, not /ī/ or /ā/) ‒ the Qa­ṭar muṣ­ḥaf (top) puts a mu­tat­ing alif‑madda direct­ly above the tooth, there­by turn­ing that tooth into a long‑vowel alif, and lets the hamza hover below after it. Sound and rasm re­main the same, but the ortho­gra­phy is dif­ferent ‒ not ad­missi­ble for those who do not to­lerate any ap­proxi­mation in the Qurʾān.
Now the whole of page 3 in com­pari­son. Giza print and UT: the Amīrī­ya is more calli­graphic than UT, which can be seen in the examples in the right margin.
All in all, UT follows the default. Base­line and clear from right to left. Only in the spac­ing bet­ween words is it less modern than the Amīriy­ya (which is why Dar al-Maʿrifa in­creased the spac­ing). While the Amīrīya has bāʾ/tā/ṯāʾ, sīn/šīn, mīm and fā above mim, UT writes it in front (right) of it. Simila­ri­ly: KFE: lām above heh, UT before heh.

if you don't want to read the whole page, but just some words, in which KFA is more calli­graphic can UT:^◉

◉ ↩

Also from page 3 Com­parison of Muṣḥaf Qaṭar and UT. In the first and last examples, Abū ʿUmar ʿUbaidah Mu­ḥam­mad Ṣāliḥ al-Banki / عبيدة محمد صالح البنكي does not place the yāʾ-dots EXACTLY under the tooth (in the first case because of the close nūn, in the second case with­out need). Three cases show tooth let­ters without a tooth. And a cuddle-mīm, which makes its vowel sign sit wrong (for modern readers): the mīm is to the right of the lām, but the mīm vowel sign is to the left, because the mīm is to be pro­noun­ced after the lām. So it is rightly "wrong".

letters from the KFE and from UT1 (below):
In the upper part you see that KFA (white back­ground) is more calli­graphic, UT (yellowish) more type­writer style.
The lower part shows Būlāq sorts not used for the qurʾānic text, i.e. used for the appen­dices or not at all in the KFA.

KFEs

There are two editions of the King Fuʾād Edition with different qurʾānic text.
There are thirteen differences in the pages after the qurʾānic text ‒ dedication (ا), bend of the information/(taʿrīf), (ف) and confirmation (ḫātima) (س) ‒ plus one in the qurʾānic text (p. 775) in the suc­cessive editions 1925 to 1929.
There are two different sizes (due to different presses).
The small editions after 1952 are basicaly reprints of the edition of 1926 with a few adap­tations to Q52.

Different text means different rasm, different spelling.
The oral text of Ḥafṣ ʿan ʿĀṣim has been fixed for many centuries.
There are two basic spelling con­ventions: Western (Maghrib, Andalu­sia, Africa) and Eastern (India, Persia, Ottoman, Indon­esia) ‒ not to be confused with the difference between Warš (pre­dominent in the West) and Ḥafṣ (pre­dominent in the East, in the Muslim world in general)
The two basic rasm+spell­ing I call: Maġ and IPak ‒ basic is the spelling of long vowels, assimi­lation, silent letters ‒
the two spellings of KFEs I call G24 and Q52 ‒ these spelling inclued all features like pause signs, signs for secondary pron­ouncita­tion (like /ṣād/ as [sīn])
Unfortunately not all KFEs after 1952 follow Q52.
While all KFEs before 1952 ‒ there was a second run in 1343 ‒ follow G24, and all large KFE II follow Q52, the small kfe II b are mostly G24 with some im­por­tant switches to Q52 (like tanMwīM instead of taNwīN after suras 4, 5, 6, 17, 18, 19, 24, 25, 31, 33, 34, 35, 38, 41, 48, 54, 65, 67, 71, 72, 73, 76, 78, 84, 85, 86, 90, 100, 101, 104, 105, 106, and 110 because now reciting the basmala is assumed not the first verse of the next sura as 1924)
but not the elim­i­na­tion of information about the chrono­logy of revelation, not the new pauses (so with only 37 changes of the 950 changes of the large edition, i.e. changes of 1952, but without the change made in 1929 on p. 775 and with­out the de­dica­tion page and its empty verso) + sura numbers in the Table of Suras (see below)

Although since 1952 in large editons, the main text (pp.2‒827) is different to the text of 1951 and be­fore (G24),
many experts are not aware of this, because it is the same type, the same page layout
(12 lines on 826 pages, with medallions for ǧuz, ḥizb, saǧa­da and saktha on the margin);

there are almost thousand differences: mostly pauses and changes in the title boxes, only one clear mis­take (7:137 /kalima/ was with a knotted tāʾ; since 1952 it has an open one)

this was the 1924 text; here comes the corrected one:

there are differences between editions 1924‒51 and large post-1952:
the only change in the qurʾānic text before 1952 being الن or ين لن in 73:20,
there are changes in the twenty or so pages after p.827
One concerns the very first page after an-nās: is it paginat­ed (ا) or un­paginated.
1924:

1952 ‒ with an added (ا):

is it about the King or about the king and his heir,
1924 AND 1952:

1347/1928/9:

or empty (after 1952)

(plus: in the official Egyptian editions after 1952 it is counted al­though absent, the first page after the qur'anic text being ج , in private or foreign editions it is ا or 828);
Pages ج to ن being always the same,
there are two differences on page س : only the names of the editor, an ʿalim, the man who initiated the pro­ject, a bey, and two teachers at the teachers training college, or four signets

and did Šaiḫ al-Ḥusainī al-Ḥaddād "write the book" or did he "write the origin of the book" i.e. the leaves which the type setters set.
I like the German word for aṣl: Vor­lage, modell, template, literal­ly: what was in front of the type setter when he worked.

For the large editions (17 x 27 cm) starting in 1952 the original plates (made in Giza) were re­used (without أصله and without signets).

In 1924 only the Survey of Egypt in Giza could print in offset.
After the first edition was bound, embossed and published in Būlāq, the Amīriyya bought a small off­set print­ing press with which they printed maṣā­ḥif in 15 x 20 cm.
In the 1940s, the National Library got a big press, on which the Amīriyya had the large editions printed 1952 and after­wards.

There is a stupid mistake in the large print of 1952 (which I call KFE II). The editors reprinted all the material of 1924: the dedi­ca­tion to the king, the information about the ʿUṯmānic maḥāṣif al-amṣār, the number­ing of verses, the dis­tin­guish­ing of Mekka and Madinan suras etc, the pause signs, the signatures of the four men mentioned, the im­pressum, infor­mation about the sett­ing and print­ing of the text.
While reprinting the first parts is fine, the original im­pres­sum should not have been re­peated (or be it in small, inform­ing the reader that that was stated in 1924) [as it is, some librar­ies took the 1924 im­pressum for the im­pressum of their copy],
In the large prints after 1952 (which I call KFE IIa) the 1924 impressum has gone.

Signa­tures guaran­tee­ing the cor­rect­ness of the above
‒ are mere fiction (how can anyone vouche for fault­less­ness of a text from 1924 or 1952 in 1919?);
‒ the page is paginated ف but is at the wrong place, after ض .
Instead of being after the infor­mations of 1924 it is after the text about the changes made in 1952, even after the im­pressum of 1952:

which lets people who did not know a thing about making a muṣ­ḥaf (the pro­fessors at the peda­go­gical college) or were dead (Šaiḫ al-Ḥusai­ni and Ḥifnī Bey) guarantee for an edition they had no idea about.
Which let to a second mis­take, one that makes the Amīriy­ya look stupid:
In the last royal edition they had paginated the ḫātima as ف ‒ after page س and an empty ع ‒,
but after page ض page ف makes one wonder whether they can not count or just do not know the abjad.
This mistake could not happen in the small edition be­cause here the editors pass the changes 1924-1952 in silence (because they do not im­plement the changes in pauses menti­oned in the "Seven Pages").
Let me repeat: There are two major editions: KFE I and KFE II with almost thousand small dif­feren­ces.
There are KFE I a, b , c, d one after the other, because
‒ there is a correction: added اصله
two pages with signets instead of just the names
a change in the qur'anic text: لن لن for الن
dedication mentioning the heir to the throne

There are two KFE IIs: II a (big) and II b (small) both from 1953 on
plus the original (big) KFEII'52 ‒
only KFE'52 has the 1924 dedication to King Fuʾād,
the big ones have no sura-numbers in the table of suras, only names,
  but seven pages on changes to the 1924 edition,
plus a wrongly placed ḫātima: after the text about the 1952 edition,
  instead of where it originally stood);
the small ones lack any information on the new edition,
  but have both names and numbers of suras in the table.

  (only small kfe II [after 1952] after the numbers of sura in the ToS)

Giza1924, KFE I

The Giza Qurʾān
‒ is not an Azhar Qurʾān
‒ did not trigger a wave of printings of Qurʾāns,
    because there was finally a fixed, authorized text
‒ the King Fuʾād Edition was not immediate­ly accepted by Sunnis and Shiites
‒ did not contribute signifi­cantly to the spread of the reading of Ḥafṣ, it was neither pub­lished in 1923 nor on 10 July 1924.
But it drove the abysmally bad Gustav Flügel edition out of German study rooms,
‒ had an afterword by named editors,
‒ gave its sources,
‒ took over ‒ apart from the Kufic counting,
    and the pause signs, which were based on Eastern sources
    ‒ the Maghrebi rasm (mostly/ġāliban) accord­ing to Abū Dāʾūd Ibn Naǧāḥ
    ‒ the Maghrebi small fall back vowels for lengthening
    ‒ the Maghrebi sub­division of the thirtieths (but without eighth-ḥizb)
    ‒ the Maghrebi baseline hamzae before leading Alif (ءادم instead of اٰدم).
    ‒ the Maghrebi mis­sspelling of /allāh/ as /allah/
    ‒ the Maghrebi spelling at the end of the sura, which assumes that the next sura is recited immediately afterwards (without Basmala): tanwin is modified accordingly.
    ‒ the Maghrebi distinction between three types of tanwin (one above the other, one after the other, with mīm)
    ‒ the Maghrebi absence of nūn quṭni.
    ‒ the Maghreb non-writing of vowel shortening
    ‒ the Maghrebī (and Indian) notation of assimilation
    ‒ the Maghrebī (and Indian) attraction of the hamza sign by kasra

in G24 the hamza is below the baseline ‒ in the Ottoman Empire (include Egypt) and Iran the hamza stays above the line



















New was the differentiation of the Maghreb Sukūn into three characters:
‒ the ǧazm in the form of a ǧīm without a tail and without a dot for no vowels,
‒ the circle as sign: should always be ignored,
‒ the (ovale) zero for sign: should be ignored unless one pauses thereafter.
‒ plus the absence of any mute (unpronounced) character.
‒ word spacing,
‒ Baseline orientation and
‒ exact placement of diacritical dots and ḥarakāt.

It was also not the first "inner-Muslim Qurʾān print" (A.Neuwirth).
Neuwirth may know a lot about the Qurʾān, but she has no idea about Qurʾān prints,
since there have been many prints by Muslims since 1830, and very, very many since 1875
and Muslims were already heavily involved in the six St. Petersburg prints from 1787-98.
It was not a type print either, but - like all except Venice, Hamburg, Padua, Leipzig, St. Peters­burg, Kazan, one in Tehrān, two in Hoogh­li, two in Calcutta and one in Kanpur - plano­graphic print­ing, al­though no longer with a stone plate, but with a metal plate.

It was also not the first to declare to adhere to "the rasm al-ʿUṯmānī“.
Two title pages from Lucknow prints of 1870 and 1877.

Yes, it had 5150 alif al-madd less than the Ottoman standard, but compared to the switch from Asian to African spelling of initial alifs and long vowels (almost 32 000) that is a small change.

In 1895 appeared in Būlāq a muṣ­ḥaf in the ʿUthmani rasm, which perhaps meant "unvocalized." Kitāb Tāj at-tafāsīr li-kalām al-malik al-kabīr taʼlīf Muḥam­mad ʿUthman ibn as-Saiyid Muḥam­mad Abī Bakr ibn as-Saiyid ʻAbd­Allāh al-Mīrġanī al-Maḥǧūb al-Makkī. a-bi-hāmišihi al-Qurʼān al-Maǧīd mar­sūman bi’r-rasm al-ʿUṯmānī.
Except for the sequence IsoHamza+Alif, which was adopted from the Magh­reb in 1890 and 1924 (alif+madda didn't work because madda had already been taken for leng­thening), every­thing here is as it was in 1924.

The text of the KFA is not a recon­struc­tion, as al-Ḥusainī al-Ḥaddād al-Mālikī had told G.Berg­sträßer: It does not exactly follow Abū Dāʾūd Sulaiman Ibn Naǧāḥ al-Andalusī (d. 496/1103) nor Abu ʿAbdallah Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad al-Ḫarrāz (d. 718/1318), but (except in about 100 places) the common Warš editions.
The adoption of many Moroccan pecu­lia­rities (see above), some of which were revised in 1952, plus the dropping of Asian characters ‒ plus the fact that the afterword is silent on both ‒ is a clear sign that al-Ḥusainī al-Ḥaddād al-Mālikī adapted a Warš edition.
All Egyptian readers knew the read­ings Warš and Qālun. As a Malikī, al-Ḥusainī al-Ḥaddād probably knew Warš editions even better than most.
The text, supposedly established in 1924, was not only available in the Magh­reb and in Cairo Warš prints, but also in Būlāq in the century before.

Now to the publication date.
You can find 1919, 1923, 1924 and 1926 in libraries and among scholars.
According to today's library rules, 1924 applies because that is what it says in the first print

But it is not true. It says in the work itself that its printing was on 10.7.1924. But that can only mean that the printing of the Qurʾānic text was completed on that day. The dedication to the king, the message about the com­pletion of printing, could only have been set afterwards; it and the entire epilogue were only printed after­wards, and the work - without a title page, without a prayer at the end - was only bound after­wards - pro­bably again in Būlāq, where it had already been set and assembled - and that was not until 1925, unless ten copies were bound first and then "published", which is not likely.

Because Wikipedia lists Fuʾād's royal monogram as that of his son, here is his (although completely irrelevant):
this is a Google translation of one of my German posts

the al-Ḥusainī al-Ḥaddād rasm

The Gizeh 1924 print did not follow Abū Dāʾūd Sulaimān ibn Naǧāḥ's at-Tabyīn li-Hiǧā’ at-Tanzīl,
nor Abū ʿAmr ʿUṯmān Ibn Saʿīd ad-Dānī's al-Muqni‘ fī ma‘ri­fat marsūm Maṣā­ḥif ahl al-amṣār
or the choice/mix of the two by Muḥammad ibn Muḥam­mad al-Kharrāz.

After scrutinizing parts of the text, I guess that it mostly followed the common Maġribian rasm, i.e. only in about 150 words al-Ḥusainī al-Ḥaddād al-Mālikī choose to write them differently.
Here is an example of a word, for which he choose the Eastern rasm, ad-Dānī's, Indian (& Indonesian), Persian.

The top line is from Hafiz ʿUṯmān the Elder (Büyük Hâfız
Osman Efendi): he has a dot­less yāʾ for /ā/.
His 200 years younger namesake HO Qayišzāde
(Kayışzade) has no letter for it,
nor has Muṣṭafā Naẓīf Qadir­ġalī (Mustafa Nazif Kadır­galı).
Modern Turkish editions strangely have a "normal" yāʾ.
computer set for the State Religious Office
hand written by Hüsyin Kutlu.
al-Muḫallalātī,
and Libyia (Qālūn) follow ad-Dānī.

The Tunisian Republic (Qālūn),
the late 19th century editions
    from Fās (Warš),

the 1931 Warš Alger edition,
the KFC ʿUT Warš edition,
all have an extra alif.
Since the KFE doesn't have it,
the ʿUṯmān Ṭaha editions do not have it either.
Nor do Indian edi­tions ‒ here the South African
print from the Waterval Islamic Institute.

Nor Indonesian.
But the Persian calli­grapher Nairizī (here from
the splendid 1965 Arya­Mehr print) has a dotless yāʾ.

For good measure,
five examples from
the Islamic Republik Iran.

As you can see in the middle of my examples, the transmission (Ḥafṣ, Warš, Qālūn) is independent of the spelling. In my German blog there is an other example (it gets bigger when you click it once -- as always in the Blogger).

Giza 1342/1924 <> Cairo 1371/1952 and after

Page 775 of the Amiriyya print (page 574 in editions that end on page 604) is remarkable because in the first line allan is sometimes written ان لن sometimes الن . There is no difference in meaning, no difference in pronounciation.
But it is important to some: they deliberately "correct" the spelling. Here now, two pages from the Amiriyya, both with الن




There are three differences on this page between the 1924 and 1952 edition, typical differen­ces found through­out the muṣ­ḥaf ‒ there are more than 800 of these ‒ plus four minor corrections.

To show that the changes did not stop 1952, I have copied two version distributed by the King Fahd Com­plex into the Amiriya-frame:
first ʿUṭmān Ṭāha 1

then ʿUṭmān Ṭāha 2

On the next pair there is no sura end, no sura title, but again one changed pause sign and on the very last word the hamza has moved from above to below the line (which is one of the four corrections mentioned in the afterwork to "the second printing").1924:
1952:

Here the same page is not from the Amiriya but from a Bairut print: the page number is on top of the page and the catch word is missing.
Here the page from Hyderabad 1938 ‒ they had not noticed the insonstistency:

On the last pair there is only one difference: kalimatu (line 5) is written with ta maftuḥa vs. marbuṭa.

­‒