Maybe Mr. Eaves should get of his lazy ass and look for a job and stop mooching off of his obviously overworked wife.

Hmm...I'm not sure, really, but I do think it would be a shame if it came to that point -- Mrs. Eaves is just too good to be blacklisted.

"Mrs. Eaves is the new Comic Sans." :)

Jeff

Mrs. Eaves may be overused by designers (a small portion of the population), but it's nowhere near the saturation levels of the worst offenders.. arial/helvetica, times, comic sans, etc.

I think overuse means everyone is sick of seeing it...and how could you get sick of looking at that font?

A typeface is just a typeface. Maybe the way it's been used is growing tiresome, but it's only ever as good as the designer who's using it.

Personally I have never thought much of Mrs. Eaves as a text face. But for display it's tolerable.

while i personally barely ever used mrs eaves i do think it has qualities that make it long lasting. different than most of the emigre fonts i recall, its not a flashy weird font that passes like a season does. as far as kyle's comment: i don't even have a problem with helvetica and times being used so often. i use them both often and believe when used right, they are great classic faces that never grow old. use times right and its a beautiful face. i tend to feel the same about garamond for example as well. would be interesting to see what the SU community considers the "timeless classics"...

for me Mrs. Eaves is a beautiful typeface that I almost never use (main reason being the type of project/client I work with), but wish I had a chance to work with more.

I love it's elegant but soft and charming forms, the way in which to perceive it's feminine side without being overwhelmed by it.

Mainstream fonts such as Helvetica, Times and apparently Mrs. Eaves are only mainstream as long as the designer is mainstream. They are still classic fonts carefully designed and kerned for ultimate useability, and should never be blacklisted by designers.

Arial, on the other hand, is not a font designed for print and should not be used as one either. The same goes for verdana, comic sans and georgia.

I think Mrs. Eaves is not a good text face at all. The proportion of thick stroke to thin stroke for a face with such a low x-height is too small for optimum clarity. It has a more than a little of that Frederick-Goudy rubberiness. And the italic is just such a pain in the ass, especially with any word with a "gy" combination, and a bit too narrow in relation to the over-wideness of the roman. My Favorite Plant is a nice use of Mrs. Eaves, designed I think by Carin Goldberg, but still. But I'm no great fan of Baskerville, either.

It seems, however, that Mrs. Eaves has become the token/default "classic-looking face without actually being Bodoni or Janson" for a lot of designers. This indicates to me nothing about the typeface so much as the general willingness to make default type choices. But then, I'm very cranky. In the end, as Rebecca says, it's mostly in how you use it.

Mrs Eaves was the first typeface I purchased, and I've been thinking about upgrading to the OpenType version . . . but I haven't used it in more than a year, for three reasons:

1. My predecessor at my job was very fond of Mrs Eaves, to the point where it was practically her signature typeface. I'd feel weird doing work that looks like hers.

2. Most of my work is on book interiors, and I agree with Rebecca that it's not ideal as a text face. I've seen only one book set in ME that I liked.

3. I do feel that it's slightly overexposed--or, more important, tends to be used in ways that I find inappropriate. It's a beautiful, striking face, and I'm always happy to see it (though I wonder, "Did Zuzana get paid for that?"); however, too much of the stuff I see it on makes me go "Huh?!"

All that said, I'm keeping Mrs Eaves close at hand for when I have the right project.

Mrs. Eaves is one of the typefaces that I probably won't be replacing (I just posted in Beg, Borrow and Steal how I left a lot of fonts behind at my old company). I loved it for a while, and smile when I see it, but I'm more likely to invest in a good Baskerville (and, ahem, I confess I rely on a v. knowledgeable friend when it comes to choosing the "good" versions of classic faces).

It's hard to say what its ultimate fate is. I'm sure it has miles to go before it sleeps, though.

I'm sick of looking at it.

I've only used it once, always wanted to use it again for something, but it's been ruined for me.

One guy's opinion.

Somehow, I don't get exhausted with serifs as quickly as sans serifs. Compared to the non-stop quest for the Next Helvetica (which in the last 15 years or so has included Meta, Bell, Nobel, Avenir, DIN, Interstate and Gotham among others), Mrs. Eaves seems like a comfortable old friend.

It's ironic that this subject has come up. In my own work I've been using Mrs. Eaves as the default serif face because of its old-style numbers and distinguished look. I should feel guilty as a member of this trend, but frankly it's not a real issue.

When Microsoft attempts to copy it, and create an alternate Mrs. Eaves the way they did with Arial/Helvetica, then I'll be uncomfortable because it will become a system default for the masses.

A poor carpenter blames his tools.

I don't think it will ever become blacklisted. It's getting to the point of being overused, but it is too good of a typeface too be blacklisted. Blacklisted fonts should only include those fonts that have little or no value to designers. Comic Sans is the epitome of what a blacklisted font should be.

Mrs. Eaves will be overused and eventually shelved away by designers only to appear again briefly. It's a designer's favorite toy of the moment, it will be replaced at some time by another.

The fact that it is being overused is a clear sign of it's power and appeal. It's a great typeface and will continue to be so.

If first saw it used in a paper promo years ago, and immediately fell in love with the italics. I bought it soon after.

I love it as much as Adobe Garamond. It is tough to use for large amounts of text -- but it's just so beautiful as a display font. The ligatures are especially elegant.

I'm sort of like Michael -- I seem to attach myself longer with serifs than sans. Their missions and learning curves are different. But I knew it may be time to move on when I saw it being used in a Wal-mart commercial. That was the beginning of the end for me.

I don't care about whether or not it's "overused" -- trendiness has nothing to do with it. I guess it's more about the "voice" of the font. When a font becomes a part of the mass consciousness -- it begins to carry more baggage than I care to have when using it.

A good example is Template Gothic, a Barry Deck font that I still think is beautiful -- but alas, fell into this same trap.

I think Mrs.Eaves will avoid that fate -- it's more complex than the average font. But we'll see.

I fully agree with Rebecca and Kingsley. The problem that most of us seem to be pointing out isn't the font itself. The problem is the use of the font in places and in ways where we deem it absurd (normally the most obvious). Mrs. Eaves is in my opinion a beautiful font and yes, I believe in many ways it has been overused, but does that negate its validity as a solid serif in my font arsenal?

What I have problems with is the gratuitous use of not only Mrs. Eaves but every good font in very methodical ways. Another example of this is Mason by Jonathan Barnbrook. You can look at almost any cliché pseudo-Industrial album cover or cheesy nightclub trying to give off that "dark" feel and Mason seems to adorn every piece of their identity. Does that negate its use in other pieces that deviate from that norm? Or better, does that kill its use altogether?

I sometimes wish we still lived in a time when the only typefaces available were carved into tiny metal blocks. Then MTV, Microsoft and AOL couldn't bastardize them by putting them on the Cribs masthead or the "new and improved" AOL X.0's release packaging... But we don't. So I say Mrs. Eaves can survive, but only with our help by pushing it into new and unexpected uses.

Comic Sans is a different story, it's always been ugly.

Of course, none of it really matters when you can't get stupid FontBook to work and stupid Suitcase gives you a stupid error message every time you try to use fucking Sabon.

-- end irate digression --

I think she is just gorgeous, and I have seen her around quite a lot lately as well. She is precious to me, and I only use her for the finest of work - this way, I wont get sick of her! :)

Did somebody say Mrs. Eaves?

On a personal level I've never really liked Mrs. Eaves, but its an extremely well-crafted typeface with a lot of versatility and so I think it can continue to be used as frequently as it has been.

That said, I'm not sure whether or not most people really see the differences; I've flashed examples of Perpetua smallcaps (a personal favorite) and Mrs. Eaves small or petite caps and few people discern that there's a significant difference. I'm not implying that "it doesn't matter," but with more...obvious faces, such as Template Gothic or Exocet, I think people pick up on them much more quickly. What's nice about Mrs. Eaves is that designers who used it never incorporated it into a specific client or industry sect--as was mentioned earlier, its made the rounds through just about everything, from Radiohead's latest album to cosmetics packaging.

Overuse of anything great can ruin its appeal. That's one of the main reasons why MINI Cooper sales are limited to 20,000 a year. (USA)

> That's one of the main reasons why MINI Cooper sales are limited to 20,000 a year.

...which just goes to prove..that everything can be equated back to cars.

letmeguess Zoelle, you're a bonafide car nut, right? :-)

this gives me an idea for a fun thread to post on Friday...stay tuned (pun not intended)

...stay tuned

Nice.

I have always liked Mrs Eaves she is comforting and never pushy. I don't think that Mrs. Eaves will suffer the same fate of Mason (good example Christopher). To this day I cannot bring myself to use Mason for anything because of its overuse in the past. Journal is another face that I can't stand becuase of overuse. Mrs. Eaves has staying power...the Audry Hepburn of type.

The only problem I see is when designers use Mrs. Eaves inappropriately as a design band-aid. It only cheapens her (It makes her feel soooo dirty).

Of course, none of it really matters when you can't get stupid FontBook to work and stupid Suitcase gives you a stupid error message every time you try to use fucking Sabon.

Rebecca - take heart. You are not alone. FontBook sucks, and the new Suitcase crashes like a drunk driving a motorhome.

Regarding Mrs. Eaves - The small caps are astounding. Beautiful. And I don't think it's going the way of, say, House Gothic (damned awful overused-for-no-reason piece of garbage that I hope to never see again). Just because it's growing common doesn't take away from what it can do. No different from Univers, Helvetica (Neue) or Jenson. The ligatures alone makes M.E. so elegant that her lifespan will be longer than many.

But while I'm thinking about typefaces that annoy me, let me also nominate: Crackhouse, Meta, Gill sans (sorry. Don't like it) and Base 9/12. I have had more than my fill of these, and if I never see them again, it will still be too soon.

-R

I agree with Rebecca and others about the use of type and I think that M Kingsley's reference to that old saying is most appropriate.

Personally, I consider typefaces to be like using spices and/or herbs when cooking food. In the same way that the basic components of a dish are enhanced by the spices used in it's preparation, the basic components of a design project, namely the verbal and visual content, are enhanced by the expressive quality of a typeface.

To continue with the spice/herb metaphor, I think that people can get tired of the "flavor" of a design if it's used over and over again. In addition, some spices (fonts) just aren't right with certain foods (designs). So I would say that moderation and contextual appropriateness "makes the meal" when using typography, IMHO.

Stepping away from the food metaphor, I am intrigue with the notion that some of you have that design is all about what's hip at the moment. It's as if the personal gratification of being hip is more important than the professional services notion of trying to solve problems. While I certainly enjoy riding that bleeding edge and pushing boundaries, I do have problem with that being the major motivation for my creative efforts. If being cool and hip is appropriate to the context of the design solution, then be as self-indulgent as possible. Otherwise, I feel that it's important to give a client a solution that best meets his or her needs. I mean, people are paying you money to help them enhance their business or institutional interests.

With respect to Mrs. Eaves specifically, I think that it is a very well-crafted, elegant font that has a lot of classical timelessness and I think that it will mature a lot better than some of their earlier, trendier fonts (or even some of the other fonts that they sell). Template Gothic, Matrix, etc. were good buddies at the time, but they're now just a part of my checkered past, like those skinny leather ties. ;-) But, I can easily see myself using ME ten years from now, from time to time. It just feels comfortable.

One font I will most likely never use again is Palatino, even though it's not at all trendy. Well, actually, it was sooo abused back in the early/mid 80's, with those little repeat dot patterns. (No offense to all of my former profs, mentors, and aquaintances with that common first name. Y'all were really inspirational to me and had given me wisdom that I still hold dear today.)

And hey Tan and Zoelle, I too have a certain fondness for the metal beast.

Okay, my wife is asking me to finish putting the lights on the tree. Gotta go.

she's a beaut, Steven! (your Caddy, not your wife...uh, not that your wife isn't...uh, nevermind)

Nice ride! I've always admired the classic cars for their "whole car" design. By that, I mean that the entire car is designed with all the elements relating to each other. I cringe every time I see vehicles with parts that look like they were designed separate from the vehicle, then later forced into the design due to bids and budgets. It's also interesting to see a car that actually acknowledges and designs for a front license plate.

Sharp car. It looks like you put allot of Karate Kid work into her.

Every time I go to the bookstore, I've started counting the number of books on the new release shelves that use Mrs. Eaves. (Did I mention my non-designer friends roll their eyes?) It's an epidemic. She's everywhere and anywhere.

I still love her though. Before her current reign as Queen of the Book Cover, I put her on my own weblog site. Once I noticed how tiresomely popular she was though, especially in the last two years or so, I asked some of my weblog readers if they thought it was time to let her go...to a man/woman, they all said there was nothing wrong with her, which indicated to me that people who don't work in graphic design really don't notice these things.

Graphic designers may be sick of Mrs. Eaves, but that doesn't mean she's any less effective on those whose attention she's meant to grab.

All in all, I'll repeat the notes others have sung: it's a great font, but in my opinion Mrs. Eaves is too often miscast as a "classic" typeface when it's really a postmodern, playful one. When it's used with breathless gravity on sombre backdrops or as some kind of nod to Victorian sensibility, I can't help but think it's a waste. The small caps and ligatures are wonderful, but precisely because they are warm and almost jolly in their lack of precision. And I really scratch my head when I see Mrs. Eaves as a text face. It's not very easy to read, since those very idiosyncrasies that make it wonderful and unique in the first place also interfere with it's legibility in longer clumps of text.

Mrs. Eaves is a worthy font. The trend today is to use her, but some younger brighter font will come and maybe take the spotlight for awhile. That doesn't mean she's going to retire though.

I love her, her endearing small caps and stunning italics. I can't get away from that lovely Mrs. Eaves.

While I find the designs of Zuzana Licko thought provoking and exciting — a major inspiration and influence in my career — I don’t even try to use a design like Mrs. Eaves because it has too much character. I did go through a phase of using Base just before it reached saturation with its most base implementations, and I bought Tarzana to use as a face for personal correspondence, but I find that the moment I insert a Licko face into a piece that it starts to become an Emigre design. I imagine that effect will dissipate over time.

I'm not surprised that this topic came up. I've been thinking about it a bit. Mrs Eaves was a typeface designed by a graphic design-driven type designer for graphic designers. Yes, it may have been inspired by Baskerville, but I'm afraid it is no Baskerville. This is by no means a demeaning comment. While Baskerville has a calculated, crisp and stately charm to it that evokes neoclassical architecture, Mrs Eaves is soft spoken, warm, low contrast and has a distinct feminine touch to it. This subtle femininity is very rarely seen in contemporary type design, except perhaps some (almost stereotypical) script faces.

I think Mrs Eaves is probably a typeface for graphic designers rather than typographers, as are many other �migré fonts.

Rebecca wrote that Mrs Eaves is perhaps a 'tolerable' display face, but not for text. I can't make up my mind. Mrs Eaves's distinctive features and small x-height certainly makes it tough to use for continuous text in most cases (not 'invisible' enough); on the other hand the generous spacing, robust serifs and low think-thin contrast make it somewhat unrefined for display use and lend it more towards the league of typefaces for small sizes.

Perhaps it is this paradox that makes Mrs Eaves so appealing to graphic designers? I think that's �migré's mission: to design faces that are on the threshold between text and display. Wait, it's the ligatures! They are simply delicious. Who can resist...?

The best piece I've ever seen set in Mrs Eaves is their specimen booklet. I've only seen the offset lithographed version, but I imagine the letterpressed one would be quite exquisite.

I don't think Mrs Eaves became popular because of trend. For a contemporary seriffed typeface to become a classic, that's quite something. I do think Mrs Eaves have some uniquely distinctive attributes that stand on her own two feet. It really can't be compared with ephemeral typefaces like Template Gothic, though also by �migré. They are not really in the same league.

Overused typefaces by graphic designers are quite different from overused typefaces by general users. The former became overused because of the aesthetics/formal characteristics, while the latter became overused simply because they are widely available. Whether they are inherently good typefaces is another matter. I disagree with the comment that Georgia should only be used for screen. It is an extremely good workhorse typeface for general used, in my opinion, for print, made by a master type designer, Matthew Carter. It should replaced Times New Roman as the default typeface for general office correspondence and documents. It is probably the best free font there is.

I've just finished using Mrs. Eaves on a project. Yes, she is appearing everywhere. But, I do agree she has legs. Mrs Eaves originally intrigued me as a body copy typeface, and to my mind still seems like she may work that way.

She does have issues. The transition from roman face to italic while reading a body of text in Mrs Eaves is a real problem.

In the end, she is a stylish font. And the verdict is still out on her. Flighty trend? A face for all time? I agree that it's all in how we find ways to use her.

I am glad that type designers can solely focus on their craft and make a living from it. We have to support our own. Big ups to Ms. Licko, for she has donned us with one of the best types ever.

Obviously, Mrs. Eaves is a distinct, well-drawn contemporary rendition of Baskerville's (metal) original. Although, most designers don't know that, nor do they care. The eyes don't lie, and it's definitely unique and attractive! Hence the success. I would hate to see people start to hate this face for overexposure. It deserves to be handled with care, and if used correctly, the results can be illuminating. It does not deserve to be plugged in and farted out. We (culture) have such a rich typographic tradition and it is the typographer's (yes, you) job to disperse the culture's written messages appropriately.

I am a graphic designer by trade, but currently work as a letterpressman, and I have printed countlesssss pieces (identities, announcements, invitations�you-name-it) where Mrs. Eaves is the principal typeface. I have even printed pieces that have been "designed" by non-designers using Mrs. Eaves. It seems like it has become a copout choice. Kinda' like "Serif, yeah. Fuck it�Mrs. Eaves. Less time I spend thinking/researching which typeface to use, the better." Right?

Plus, what's wrong with using something simply because you like it?

What I'm saying is this: I'd like to see professional designers and all those who handle type make better (or just try to think at all) critical judgements in the use of our beloved craft of typography.

I believe that Mrs. Eaves will last for a very long time and hope that if you do or will favor a serif face that you have Mrs. Eaves in your arsenal. Use her, but use others too, they are quite good if you do your homework. Don't be a font-biggot.

ironically enough, my studio just got done using both mrs eaves and mason for A GOURMET CHINESE RESTAURANT.

What I find interesting is that the question posed by this thread is bound to echo in many of our heads the next time we think to use Mrs. Eaves, probably more loudly than the contrary opinions that largely make up the discussion itself. In this way is a self-fulfilling anti-trend born.

A goal for 2004: Don't look over your shoulder when you design.

> A goal for 2004: Don't look over your shoulder when you design.

Paul, another way of looking at it is to ask yourself (not you personally) why are you using Mrs. Eaves, are you using it because it fits the project and it's appropriate for the message you want to convey? Or are you using it because it is approved (by designers if you will) so you don't have to really think about it and know that in the end it will look good?

> using it because it is approved (by designers if you will)

Does anyone really think this way?

I think (me, personally) I am more inclined to not use something out of concern for appearing trite/cliché than I am to use something because I think it is hip or "approved."

If it was not already clear, my Goal for 2004 was as much for myself as for anyone else. In fact, for better or worse, I feel like I'm thinking aloud at least half the time when I post here...

> Does anyone really think this way?

Paul, I am still not even sure what I meant by that comment, so� yeah.

I guess by "approving" I meant seeing Mrs Eaves in a lot of design annuals — not that anybody should design based on design annuals — so some designers might be accustomed to using Mrs Eaves because it is "OK" to use it. I am not saying this is a fact, I'm just sayin'.

I don't understand this notion of 'overuse' that seems to prevail amongst graphic designers. Does it stem from a misunderstanding of the purpose of communication? Mrs. Eaves is a great face, and we should use it when it's appropriate. It shouldn't matter how many other people (mis)use it; all that matters is whether it is suitable for the project you're working on right now. Good design is not defined by how much it differs from the rest; it means what it's always meant - appropriate, intelligent communication and message delivery packaged aesthetically some way. If Mrs. Eaves does the job best, so be it.

Cargo wrote:

Good design is not defined by how much it differs from the rest; it means what it's always meant - appropriate, intelligent communication and message delivery packaged aesthetically some way.

Part of evaluating the 'effectiveness' of a design is determining how the piece relates to the current environment. Using the font-du-jour -- and extrapolating to include illustration style, color scheme, general layout, etc. -- makes the piece less distinct and may reduce it's effect.

Various linguistic theories present the notion that communication is a process of 'context' and 'difference'. 'Tree' refers to 'not forest' or 'not bush' and all that kind of stuff...

My favorite easy examples are supermarket tabloids like the National Enquirer and the Star. Their layout, paper stock, typographic ethic and overall look are pretty similar -- and wouldn't you know it, the articles are pretty much the same too. They are interchangeable and devalued by their sameness.

I'd like to nominate Trajan for early retirement for Movie Titles. Next time you're in the theatre watching previews, count'em.

As to Mrs. Eaves — I think it depends on what field you're in. I bought the font when it came out but only had few opportunities to use it.

Comic Sans on the other hand should definitely be verboten — especially for any communications from client to designer...

It is a great font for online. Easy to read and pretty. Works well with a lot of projects.