An open letter to Tobias Frere-Jones:

Please forgive me for ruining Gotham.

When I first saw it, I just had to be the first boy on the block to use it. It was so perfectly distinctive and anonymous at the same time. I wanted to use it for everything and with time, it became my new Trade Gothic.

Now I know that like America's national parks and beaches, my, and everyone else's love for Gotham will be the death of it. What could have been a breath of fresh air is on the verge of turning stale through overuse.

You have my word that I'll lay off the Gotham... um... as soon as these current projects are done. Honest.

Hoefler Text has become one my favorite typefaces for body copy. It is just very elegant with solid serifs so that it works well small as well as in bigger sizes. It's become my new Bodoni.

RE: Typotheque

Fedra has been my biggest inspiration the past year. Our firms identity is braced on the back of Fedra, and I couldnt be happier. I will not say something like: "It's such a versitle face", in fact it may not be very versitle at all. But it is this unquiness that reall shines -- and helps set us apart. Cheers to Peter, and thanks for Fedra -- not to mention being such an all around nice guy.

Hildebrant.

I adore Hoefler Type Foundry's typefaces to no end. I fully agree with Rob — Hoefler Text is a magnificent serif font, in both style and versatility.

On the sans-serif side of the fence, I cannot get enough of Gotham and it's inspired simplicity (Don't worry MK, I don't think every is on to it... yet).

If only I could afford to buy everything on the site...

Images link to respective typefaces at Hoefler's site. Swoon.

The project I am working on now ( detail ) mixes Hobo, Avenir, Sailor Gothic, and House Broken. As well as hand drawn type illustrations for all the chapter heads. I try really hard to not use workhorse type faces because when I do, I end up using Cooper Black, and that is not good for anyone but me.

I have to say that my current addictions of the moment are both Gerard Unger's Swift and Lucas de Groot's The Sans. If only that lottery ticket would pay off and The Sans could join its siblings The Mix and The Serif.

I always find myself ending with the same choice after hours of research. Getting past Helvetica is quite hard sometimes, however if I really choose not to use Helvetica, then I go for Univers just because of lowercase "a". As far as Futura goes I would never use it, and the reasons are personal...and upper-case "R" and #7.

If the client has a rich budget then I explore and buy fonts from Emigre, as it was the case the last time. However, even though I love BaseNine I've seen it being overused in the recent HBO previews, so I stoped using it.

I rarely use Serifs, unless it's a Slab-Serif. It might be because of my age or growing up in Europe and looking up to the geometric-modernism of the sans-serifs...who knows?!

Curently I am using PMN Caecilia

This is what Adobe Systems Incorporated has to say —

Typeface notes:

This Linotype typeface was designed in 1990 by Peter Matthias Noordzij (PMN), and named for his wife, Caecilia. Because its shapes are humanist rather than geometric, PMN Caecilia is easier on the reader’s eye and so more useful as a text typeface than most slab serif designs.

Designer:

• Peter Matthias Noordzij

~ ~ ~

truly, a remarkable refuge:

Kind of high maintenance when it comes to kerning, but I love the roundness of the letter forms contrasted with the squareness of the serifs.

I have always loved Magnus Rakeng's Radio from Thirstype. And, a little like Avant Garde, it looks its best when setting its name ("Radio"). I used it recently in the feature article of a magazine we do 'round here.

As Speak Up demostrates, I'm a huge fan of Underware's Unibody. On the bitmap end I would buy anything by Miguel Hernandez over at Atomic Media.

T-26 used to be the font foundry when it first burst onto the scene, but it seems like they are caught in a time warp that has kept them back in the '90s. Time to move on, please.

> Fedra has been my biggest inspiration the past year.

Fedra is absolutely amazing.

I wish I had a project to use Olson's Fig family. The script is beautiful.

- I wish I had a project to use Olson's Fig family. The script is beautiful.

Armin, I was so close to finishing up a project using Olson's Fig at my previous gig, however the creative director came back to me with "WHAT IS THAT?!"

So we ended up using THIS instead.

I'm a big fan of Neil Summerour's work, particularly the Aaux family, which I chose as my theater company's primary face. It has a refined roughness that perfectly matches our style, and it works on both posters and program text. And now that he's expanded the family and included small caps and OSFs, it's become even more versatile.

Another recent favorite is Kent Lew's Whitman, which I'm using for my wedding pieces as well as for a project in progress that provides stories for adult literacy students.

Armin, I agree with you completely RE: T26. I remember when it seemed like they had the "coolest" type on the block. Now I don't even bother to look at their site. T26 is evidence of how much designers' tastes have changed in the last four years.

And as for type...I love Fountain. Not only do they produce a range of wonderful faces, they are also affordable for a freelancer like me.

I'm more of a code monkey than typophile, but I have a soft spot for really nicely set type (especially exhibition wall text with effective ligatures).

That said, when I do need a good looking typeface I invariably turn to Bitstream's Vera series. As a proponent of Free Software, Bitstream's special agreement with the GNOME Foundation--to release fonts under an open source license--strikes a nice chord for me.

It hurts so much that I don't have Andulka, Serapion II & Sebastian from Storm.

I am a big fan of Cartier Book. I've never seen anyone else use it. Not sure why.

Jeff: Glad you mentioned the Storm stuff, I feel bad that I didn't say anything earlier. :(

Hildebrant

classics, my ass. more like "type so pervasive everyone's practically numb to it anymore, so you're safe in setting it like crap if feeling lazy." i never neutralize my typographic layer.

i own a shocking amount of barnbrook's work. it's a lot more versatile than folks think; i use priori and melancholia all the time. what's even freakier is priori sans sets up perfectly with scala sans or gill as a complement. no lie.

i haven't yet bought them, but on my list (yes, i have a shopping list for type) are dynagrotesk and john sans from storm. that dude has such a freaky hand in his work. you'd think it wasn't digital. love love love it.

Serapion II italic: I would never have imagined that strokes flying in so many different directions could fit together so beautifully.

Being on an extremely tight budget, I've found the free fonts at www.larabiefonts.com to be a boon. The ratio of useable/unuseable is high, and the quality is better than the usual run-of-the-web freebies. There's something for almost every taste there.

> classics, my ass. more like "type so pervasive everyone's practically numb to it anymore, so you're safe in setting it like crap if feeling lazy."

Definitely another valid way of saying it.

The new Veer Umbrella collection is starting to become a real nice set of typefaces.

And I have always enjoyed Pablo Medina's work at Cubanica… and there is a new one, mmmm.

I've been really font-poor for a while now. The last time I went font shopping I picked up a bunch of stuff from Storm. I particularly love some of his weirder faces, and Monarchia is actually one of my most-used fonts (yes, a blackletter. go figure).

But I am looking for the perfect suite of sans and serif workhorses. On my list for when I get some cash are: Enschede's Ruse and Collis (!!!), DTL Documenta Sans and Foundry Monoline. (and I'm liking the look of Aaux Pro).

I've been using Eureka and Eureka Sans for far too long, and I am also guilty of jumping on the Gotham bandwagon. But you know, there's a bit of that anti-fame thing going on there. Gotham's a great face. Just 'cause everyone's using it doesn't mean we need to stop.

And these days my serif of choice is Plantagenet, by Ross Mills of Tiro Typeworks.

I'm a sucker for pixel fonts of all kinds, but always return to Unibody Italic and Mini 7.

Oh yeah, Armin -- Brea's on my most-wanted list.

Well, I use DIN and Interstate when all else fails. But that's not that exciting.

On a project a while ago, I used a typeface called Spectra, designed by Andrea Tinnes [site not up yet]. I don't have the license for it any more, so I can't show you a sample (since we're being legit, here), but it's got a nice gothic, italic and slab. Versitle and readble.

For pixel fonts (which I am also a sucker) I too enjoy unibody, but usually end up usin Sevent and sometimes Silkscreen, which is one of those new-fanangled ultra-pixel fonts I saw on here a while ago.

it looks its best when setting its name ("Radio")

Armin, why do you think I named it Radio?

:-)

> classics, my ass. more like "type so pervasive everyone's practically numb to it anymore, so you're safe in setting it like crap if feeling lazy."

I couldn't possibly disagree more (and I was going to hold my tounge until someone posted the above, since I know this wasn't intended as a "classic vs. trendy" debate). I actually think it's lazier to rely on the use of new and different typefaces in order to make my work look fresh. If the work looks stale with a classic typeface, then I know I haven't done a good enough job. In this way, classic typefaces give me a point of reference — a way to gauge the quality of what I do.

More and more I find myself agreeing with what Massimo Vignelli said about knowing a core group of typefaces really well. The more I use Franklin Gothic, the better my work seems to get. Far from being "numb" to classic typefaces, I think I've become numb to all the typefaces that don't have that level of quality to them.

That being said, we've branded a line of products with Dialog, which I like very much. It's a thick and thin sans serif that looks very contemporary. Since I work with this product line almost daily, I've gotten to know exactly what the typeface can do.

http://www.omnibus.se/engix/lkdialog.html

Funny that this thread started just as I was reading Joseph Muller-Brockman, who basically said that designers should use nothing but Helvetica for everything (of course, this was the early 1960s).

David, I couldn't agree more. That's what I was taught in every type class I had in college. So far it seems to have served me well.

> Funny that this thread started just as I was reading Joseph Muller-Brockman… I read him in school and still believe that he was just renouncing all things classic (captitals included) and that his ideas on microtypography don’t add up to much.

Back to the point: I guess I’m a staunch neo-classicist. I'm guilty of not trying many new faces for two reasons:

1) I feel it’s my duty to understand the classics and create good work (fresh, timeless, or both) with them instead of relying on newer, trendier faces in an exercise to set up perameters for working; before throwing them out of the window.

2) Budget. Let’s face it — type costs a lot of dough. I work alone and usually never have the surplus to devote to type purchases. I just take what I have and make the most of them. However, I must say, we are a very intimate group.

Worthy of mention here is Jeremy Tankard’s practice. He has done some great work.

I'm just curious. Do those of you who prefer a limited number of fonts, also limit your number of colors, paper types, paper formats, page proportions, images, binding methods, printing technologies, etc.? Or is type simply different in this respect? And don't say you prefer the classics because people read best what they read most. There must be hundreds of typefaces out there that deviate from the classics and are still perfectly legible.

And why this concern for being trendy? Do you really think you can avoid being part of any kind of trend these days?

I think as you start out using fonts as a designer, it does make sense to limit your font choices - and learn how to use them properly or creatively. It's not uncommon for a painter to start with a simple color palette and expand it as they learn to use the colors. (as one example)

But I think it is then fun and challenging, as one gains experience, of exploring and experimenting with different fonts and actively looking outside of that initial safe set. Pushing yourself out of your comfort zone, so to speak.

And for some, it makes sense to just dive in and not limit yourself from the get-go and use a variety of new or different fonts.

Rudy—I’m not sure I use a limited number of typefaces because they are “classic.” (Classicism isn’t much of a distinction. After all, these days 1970 Road Runners and Aerosmith records are “classic.”) I would argue that there are a lot of dippy typefaces around (old and new) and that using them as the primary method of achieving something “fresh” (or hip, or trendy, or of-the-moment. . .) is weak.

The reason I might advise someone to use a limited range of type is not for the limit as much as to avoid being beguiled. If you look at so much of what passes for cool new design that uses weird type and imagine it remade in Franklin Gothic or Sabon or whtever, you realize that a lot of it is badly-formed, boring, or both. The only worthwhile design work was done by your wife or another type designer. The graphic designer performed a role that’s not much greater than someone picking out paint chips at the Home Depot. (No, there’s nothing wrong with picking out paint chips but neither does it advance architecture.) It is very easy for a designer to trick herself into being satisfied with a project because of nice colors, paper, or typefaces that are unfamiliar or currently popular. Most people would be better off designing using boring typefaces in black only then adding color and typefaces choices almost as afterthoughts.

Phil Banes summed it up nicely when he talked about British designers doing weird things with normal typefaces and American designers doing normal things with weird typefaces. That’s been some time ago and I don’t know if his summation of national characteristics hold water but doing “normal things” with weird typefaces seems like the green beer on St. Patrick’s day. Cute, but it’s still Miller Lite.

Re: Phil Banes summed it up nicely when he talked about British designers doing weird things with normal typefaces and American designers doing normal things with weird typefaces.

Wow! That's so true!

I'm just curious. Do those of you who prefer a limited number of fonts, also limit your number of colors, paper types, paper formats, page proportions, images, binding methods, printing technologies, etc.? Or is type simply different in this respect?

You’re obviously making the point that since designers generally don’t limit things such as colors, paper types, etc., there’s no reason to limit typefaces. But I believe that type IS different than those things. Typography is the heart and soul of design. Someone could be considered a good designer (in my opinion) without much knowledge of printing and paper types, yet no one without strong skills in typography could be considered even competent.

If you’re designing a brochure, there are only so many things you can do with paper before it no longer resembles a brochure. If the brochure has to fit in a rack, there’s even less you can do. With a well-designed typeface, there’s potentially an infinite amount of possibility to do something expressive. For myself, I know that I’d never be able to do my best at exploring that if I were to work with typefaces I was less familiar with — and especially if the typefaces were less flexible.

Like Justin, this was the principle I was taught in school. If you pay people a lot of money to educate you, it’s wise to trust that they know what they’re talking about, so I followed that advice. In my professional life, I’ve found that this is, for the most part, what works best for me.

And don't say you prefer the classics because people read best what they read most. There must be hundreds of typefaces out there that deviate from the classics and are still perfectly legible.

I agree with you about legibility. I think that if you can recognize the letterforms, then the typeface is legible. But, since typography is all based in tradition, the perceived “quality” (my word) of a typeface has as much to do with cultural prejudices as it does any objective standards. We all have these prejudices, as do our clients and the end users of what we produce — and that’s not necessarily a bad thing (ironically, I think that Bodoni can be a very illegible typeface. At small point sizes the thin strokes tend to disappear, especially if reversed out of a color).

And why this concern for being trendy? Do you really think you can avoid being part of any kind of trend these days?

I didn’t say I was concerned with being trendy. A lot of my work has been very trendy. That’s not something I’ve ever tried to avoid if it was appropriate to the job. I’ve done a lot of work for a youth market where we used every “techno” cliche we could get away with. I have to say, though, that the best of that work was done with classic sans serif typefaces.

My main point was that designers often use a new typeface to make an otherwise bland layout more interesting. To me, that’s lazy.

You’re obviously making the point that since designers generally don’t limit things such as colors, paper types, etc.

It's a very good point. It's nice to say things like "typography is the heart etc. of design," but it's neither fair nor realistic. Type does not exist in a vacuum. Bad paper or tacky colors will go a long way towards invalidating your typesetting effots. It's a house of cards, not a Lego castle.

Oh, and you didn't really answer the question *grin*

[...]there are only so many things you can do with paper before it no longer resembles a brochure. If the brochure has to fit in a rack, there’s even less you can do.

Er...what? A trifold is a trifold* whether it's on Crane paper, or Astrobrights with eight colors of foil. If your brochure doesn't resemble a brochure, then you shouldn't fault the materials, but the designer. Fitting in a rack is only a minor constraint that will actually reinforce its brochure-ness via context, and possibly let you get away with more.

With a well-designed typeface, there’s potentially an infinite amount of possibility to do something expressive.

You can do expressive things with crap typefaces, too. Actually, you'd probably better since they'd never stand up to the Bringhurst treatment.

If you seriously think there's only so much you can do with paper, then you don't have enough samplers. (Not that a giant collection is necessary, but I'm sourcing materials at the moment, and they were there.)

Fine materials are well and good (great, even!) but you shouldn't conflate them with fine work. Use what you need and is appropriate to the job. Frankly, I'd rather be caught out using cheap stuff than royally botching a block of Hoefler Text. That'd just be sad.

*or whatever format you choose.

If you’re designing a brochure, there are only so many things you can do with paper before it no longer resembles a brochure.

...the hell are you talking about..?

> Do those of you who prefer a limited number of fonts, also limit your number of colors, paper types, paper formats, page proportions, images, binding methods, printing technologies, etc.?

Apart of the philosophical stances, there are many objective and logistic reasons why designers use a limited number of fonts. Price, being one; not that I'm saying fonts are expensive, they are not, but they are an expense that is almost impossible to justify to a client (at least the times I have tried), whereas telling the client that using paper A will cost this much and paper B will cost this. But that's only when dealing with clients though; when spending money on fonts, what would you rather spend $5,000 on? 5, 6 "classic" families that you know will serve you on almost any job or 100 highly-individual fonts that can only be used on very specific projects?

It's also about comfort (some might read laziness). Just like I know which papers perform well on press (and I do go back to those time and time again) the same can be said for typefaces. It's a bad cycle though, because it does limit the propensity to try new things… but that's another, bigger issue.

...

pk, Su: tag-teaming again you two?

Sorry, I have to say it: I feel that you need to know your past to know your future. Especially in our craft which has such a rich history. It’s like judging a musician by hearing what they can do with the classics rather than hammering away in an improv session (I’m paraphrasing). I agree with some of the comments above: If you look at some contemporary designs and perform a subtractive analysis, you sometimes learn that had it not employed a quirky face, the layout is lame (or altogether incoherent).

Do those of you who prefer a limited number of fonts, also limit your number of colors, paper types… etc.?

Sometimes yes.

I worked as a pressman at a printer that sees its fair share of top jobs and I must say that many of the jobs that would come through there did rely on press embellishments rather than holding their own in the actual design. So, I told myself to judge my work by the design, not by its production. If the design works (in repect to form and counterform) I then go on to add colors, paper, etc.. What if the mill ran out of that paper you were going to spec? It could happen.

I am just staring out and you know what? My philosophy and M.O. are helping me. Unlike Justin and David, I didn’t learn this way of working in school. On the contrary, I went to a school (undergrad) that has a reputation that doesn’t follow far behind Cranbrook. A good deal of my teachers came from the 80s school and got me to “have fun…experiment more”. I’m kind of glad I had the opportunity to learn both ways of working — postmodernist in school, classicist afterwards — and found something in between that works for me.

For now…

Armin: Yeah, well. We'd just gotten into the house and were making the rounds.

what would you rather spend $5,000 on? 5, 6 "classic" families that you know will serve you on almost any job or 100 highly-individual fonts that can only be used on very specific projects?

Sorry, but this is a logical fallacy. You imply the classic and quirky collections are mutually exclusive. In reality, you're probably going to buy a few classics regardless of anything, and then buy however many quirky ones as jobs demand which is my entire point. How many times have you used Radio?

If you look at some contemporary designs and perform a subtractive analysis, you sometimes learn that had it not employed a quirky face, the layout is lame

Oh, come on. That's about as committed as a horoscope. Change a few adjectives and you could say just about any non-committal thing you wanted about any design period.

What exactly goes on during this "subtractive analysis?" You obviously can't just rip out the type, so are you replacing it with Helvetica, or some such? Do you believe you're actually looking at the same thing at that point?

What if the mill ran out of that paper you were going to spec? It could happen.

Linotype's storage servers could spontaneously combust, too. This is completely irrelevant. A mill could run out of any paper, for any number of reasons. While picking some weird specialty color might increase the chance by some amount, that's not a critique. It's a practical consideration. Picking "classic/standard" paper out of supply chain paranoia is, again, a failing in the designer, and not the materials.

This is also invalidated by the fact you'd find out the stock situation before going to press. You are, by necessity, discussing finished product here. If the mill were out, then the designer would go back, pick some other paper, and possibly need to adjust the design. Again, it's all interconnected.

I'm just curious. Do those of you who prefer a limited number of fonts, also limit your number of colors, paper types, paper formats, page proportions, images, binding methods, printing technologies, etc.? Or is type simply different in this respect?

you didn't really answer the question

I thought I had answered the question (or at least one of them), but I guess I didn’t make myself clear enough. I don’t generally put limits on what type of paper, printing process, colors, etc. I use. Those restrictions do exist in almost every project I do, but usually they are defined by what is appropriate for the job, branding restrictions, printing budget restrictions, postal costs, etc.

To the second question: I believe that type is definitely different than those things. The design of a typeface communicates much more than the look and feel of a paper stock. But more importantly, the number of options I generally have to do something interesting (or unusual, or experimental) with type is usually far greater than my options with paper and printing. Naturally, there are many things that can be done with paper and printing, I just don’t often have the opportunity to utilize them. In my experience, if a client asks for a 4 x 9 rack brochure, he/she wouldn’t be too happy if I were to design something else. However, the client generally will feel that I’ve surpassed his/her expectations if I can manage to do something interesting with type that enhances the message. So, FOR ME, the real opportunities to do good creative work most often lie in the use of type. This is, of course, assuming I’ve made good choices in color and paper. I didn’t mean to give the impression that I thought these considerations were unimportant.

“have fun…experiment more”

I’m all for having fun and experimenting. That’s a big part of what makes design enjoyable. My point was that I find I can actually experiment more AND do better work when I stick to a core group of typeface families.

When questioning the merits of classic type families compared to the existence of so many unique type faces, a comforting parallel can be drawn outside of the field of typography.

In music there is a conflict of criticism between melody and motif. These arguments equate to the designer's familiar debate over style vs. substance. Let us ignore substance for now.

Turn on the radio and you will hear many permutations of melody. Log on to usenet and you will find many modified faces (tucked away, of course, in alt.binaries.fonts). Some of what you will find will be of classic form, most will not.

I cannot play the Swiss contingent and wax ambivalent: I will laud the classic elements present in music and type as virtuous; they transcend the peaks of ages. Not every unique song on the radio is worth listening to; not every melody is as different as it would like to be. Not every type is worth the time it took to make it.

We cannot deny our heritage; who can claim to be some new type of man?

I'm not saying you should never restrict yourself when designing. Actually, I think that's what design is all about. It's an editing process that is all about working within the restrictions of the job at hand.

What puzzles me is graphic designers who have a preconceived idea about what they will use to design. Now you're setting yourself limits before you even know what the job's restrictions are. Isn't each job unique? Doesn't each job deserve a unique approach? Why limit yourself beforehand?

And I'm not talking about using a funky font simply to spice things up. That's not really graphic design. That's what my niece does when she needs a sign to sell lemonade. I'm talking about professional graphic designers like Massimo Vignelli, and many others, who pick 5 fonts and that's it. Century Schoolbook, Bodoni, etc., are fine fonts, but there are hundreds of fonts (again I'm not talking about FuckMe Bold or whatever), just as fine and usable that can add a subtle but distinct personality to a job if used correctly.

Finally, fonts are not expensive, and should be seen as regular business overhead. If you can't afford them, make some yourself. It's fun.

Oh, come on. That's about as committed as a horoscope. Change a few adjectives and you could say just about any non-committal thing you wanted about any design period.

Okay, here I meant that some pieces employ flair by relying on superfluous (unnecessary) design flourishes, type can be one of these. The adjectives I chose were specific.

You obviously can't just rip out the type, so are you replacing it with Helvetica, or some such? Do you believe you're actually looking at the same thing at that point?

Yes, and no, to both questions. I usually do some kind of imaginary replacement (never Helvetica though, just a matter of taste — you can pick your own) for some works, just as an exercise to see how the layout/grid holds up. This is only to serve the purpose of seeing if the piece dates itself by the type choice. Haven’t designers made pieces that they look back on and realize they only used a certain typeface because of its novelty? Realizing they could have used another more timeless face (assuming of course that the project permitted). I’m not saying that they should go with the latter or that there’s anything wrong with it or only one way of working.

…Again, it's all interconnected.

Agreed. But when designers’ intentions are to use a specialty paper or finishing process only to spice up a rather boring (this is subjective) piece is a cop-out. I agree that paper spec’ing and binding, etc. is part of the design process, but I prefer to appreciate a piece’s two-dimensional form first, production afterwards. You can judge by your own criteria. These are just my thoughts and observations.

Doesn't each job deserve a unique approach?

Of course. I hope I haven’t portrayed myself as a Vignellist. Chances are I’m not going to use Centaur to design a skateboard ad. Whatever the job requires to maximize its message should be a part of it.

Finally… No, fonts are not expensive for someone officially in business. I am not. I quit the print stint to focus on getting my book together so I can start looking for my first design job (so I can design and buy some of those fonts ;)

"Finally… I quit the print stint ...so I can start looking for my first design job."

I should've read this first...jus' jivin.