PDA

View Full Version : Who Knows This One?


BobRoosth
11-18-2005, 09:31 PM
This looks familiar, but I am drawing a blank.

terrie
11-20-2005, 02:32 PM
Garamond Small Caps or Trajan Pro???

Terrie

BobRoosth
11-20-2005, 06:06 PM
Nope. More like Optima, but the thick/thin veritcals are reversed. And the midpoint of the M doesn't go to the baseline in this font.

ktinkel
11-20-2005, 06:34 PM
Nope. More like Optima, but the thick/thin veritcals are reversed. And the midpoint of the M doesn't go to the baseline in this font.Sorry. I spent some time yesterday trying to pin it down, with no luck.

It is like an amalgam. The flare-serif characters look to be in one category (and the short M a subset); that ornamental R in quite another. And the cross-barred W belongs to yet another. Besides that, the weights are strangely out of balance from one character to another.

Do you know this was set in type? Could it have been hand-lettered?

iamback
11-20-2005, 09:57 PM
Could the capitals be in one font and the lowercase "small caps" another?

To me has a 1920-1930s feel to it (definitely not 1961). But it's very badly spaced (which I would not expect if it's hand lettered, unless it's done by someone not schooled in typography).

BobRoosth
11-20-2005, 10:44 PM
I do not know the history. One of my customers is a printer who sent me a scan of a business card. For all I know the art dates to 1961. I am going to suggest that one of us trace it. And improve the spacing a bit in the process.

FYIIW, attached is the art that sits to the left of the text.

BobRoosth
11-20-2005, 10:45 PM
Thanks to both of you for taking a look. Now I don't feel so bad about not recognizing it.

ktinkel
11-21-2005, 06:04 AM
Could the capitals be in one font and the lowercase "small caps" another?

To me has a 1920-1930s feel to it (definitely not 1961). But it's very badly spaced (which I would not expect if it's hand lettered, unless it's done by someone not schooled in typography).Most of the small caps appear to be large caps but at a smaller size (note the lighter weight; real small caps are weight-matched to their taller brethen).

The spacing really is horrendous. Maybe it was set by an amateur using transfer type, which was very common in the 1970s and early 80s, which is when I would suppose a company might be bragging about being in business since 1961.

Who knows? But it sure doesn’t appear to be any known (trademarked) typeface, at least not one that I can find.

ktinkel
11-21-2005, 06:30 AM
I do not know the history. One of my customers is a printer who sent me a scan of a business card. For all I know the art dates to 1961.I would assume the art dates more recently than 1961 — recently enough that someone thought to brag about being in business since 1961: 1970 or later.

I am going to suggest that one of us trace it. And improve the spacing a bit in the process.I was going to suggest that you recommend resetting it in an existing typeface, possibly with a similar feeling. That is, assuming they are trying for a 1930s sort of look. (The 60s, of course, would be Helvetica; for a bit more style today, though I would suggest the actually older Akzidenz Grotesk in one of the lighter weights.)

Radiant might work, although the medium is a bit light and the bolder weights too much so. Or look at Lydian; kind of homely, but of the 30s look.

FYIIW, attached is the art that sits to the left of the text.Yikes. Very cute. :rolleyes:

Stephen Owades
11-22-2005, 12:34 PM
Sorry. I spent some time yesterday trying to pin it down, with no luck.

It is like an amalgam. The flare-serif characters look to be in one category (and the short M a subset); that ornamental R in quite another. And the cross-barred W belongs to yet another. Besides that, the weights are strangely out of balance from one character to another.

Do you know this was set in type? Could it have been hand-lettered?The type looks very similar to the "Irvin" face that has been The New Yorker's standard for headlines and covers, although there are enough differences that it probably isn't exactly that. MyFonts shows a knockoff of Irvin at http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/wiescherdesign/new-yorker-type/, in which many of the similarities (in letters like the "R," "M," and "W") are obvious and some of the differences (as in the "A") are also apparent. The sample appears to be narrower than Irvin, but that could have been done by squeezing.

ktinkel
11-22-2005, 01:35 PM
The type looks very similar to the "Irvin" face that has been The New Yorker's standard for headlines and covers, although there are enough differences that it probably isn't exactly that. MyFonts shows a knockoff of Irvin at [MyFonts.com] in which many of the similarities (in letters like the "R," "M," and "W") are obvious and some of the differences (as in the "A") are also apparent. The sample appears to be narrower than Irvin, but that could have been done by squeezing.I bet you mean Irwin (for Rea Irwin, who also designed Eustace Tilley). The R and W actually reminded me of that, so I went looking. The simpler letters are really simpler in Bob’s specimen — no amount of squeezing (or flopping) would produce them.

The New Yorker didn’t use digital (or photo) fonts until it began to be produced on the desktop (early 1990s, maybe?) They do not distribute their font in any event. There have been several unauthorized fonts made in the past couple of decades, the best of which may be David Rakowski’s UpperWestSide. It looks very close to the magazine’s type, but not too much (except in the R, P, W) like Bob’s sample.

Bob’s type is really a mystery.