I thought this was going to be about the typeface used for the main text.
If anyone is curious, as I was, there is some academic research on this, although not a lot. The most in-depth "palaeotypographical" analysis I have found was this [1] paper, which also seems to correct a long-standing assumption about the printing:
"Visual and historical evidence have led me to suggest that the font is the second pica roman of the Huguenot punchcutter Pierre Haultin [...] cast for Jaggard’s use probably around 1603 or 1608 by an unknown typefounder who likely inherited the matrices from Pierre’s nephew Jerome Haultin. The font was old and in poor condition when it was used to print the Folio, which supports the view that Jaggard and his pressmen did not see the Folio as an unusually important book."
Very interesting. Sometimes classics (speaking of the well-used font) are dusted off because they are beloved. Perhaps this was not printed at the greatest expense, but that says little about respect paid to the works. Relatedly, the Bible is sometimes printed using very inexpensive means, even by those who consider it important, because it is considered too important to not distribute.
If anyone is curious, as I was, there is some academic research on this, although not a lot. The most in-depth "palaeotypographical" analysis I have found was this [1] paper, which also seems to correct a long-standing assumption about the printing:
"Visual and historical evidence have led me to suggest that the font is the second pica roman of the Huguenot punchcutter Pierre Haultin [...] cast for Jaggard’s use probably around 1603 or 1608 by an unknown typefounder who likely inherited the matrices from Pierre’s nephew Jerome Haultin. The font was old and in poor condition when it was used to print the Folio, which supports the view that Jaggard and his pressmen did not see the Folio as an unusually important book."
[1] http://reedreibstein.com/assets/reibstein-first-folio.pdf