Looking for new Fleischmans

Hello,

I was wondering if anyone here know whether two recent takes on Fleischman might be available anywhere/for sale. One is the face Gilly Roman, by Mr Porter Gillespie:
http://luc.devroye.org/fonts-81824.html

The other is Slagerij, a revival by Mr Hrvoje Zivcic:
http://luc.devroye.org/fonts-68060.html

(To see either of them, pls scroll all the way down). 

Your advice is much appreciated -- thank you!

Comments

  • I'm sorry, but why bother? Both are yet more neutered revivals, uncommitted to gifting Fleischmann's true genius to the digital world. That reference to the supposed "quirkiness and whimsy" is the most damning clue. And anybody who ignores Fleischmann's #65 (a ~12 point) should not be teaching typeface design. Here's a detail from a scan I once made from the best typeface specimen ever produced: Enschedé's colossus of 1908.


    I guess this is all to be expected when the deepest work of another genius (and I never use that word lightly) is reduced to a freak show for the easily-distracted to gawk at:
    https://www.futurefonts.xyz/hex/marionette
    I swear I can hear WAD turning in his grave...
  • John SavardJohn Savard Posts: 825
    edited February 8
    If I am understanding what "neutered" means in this context, while Porter Gillespie's Gilly 2015 is certainly neutered in that sense, his Gilly 2015B, althogh we only see a single letter of it, an enlarged lower-case g, appears to be authentically preserving the imperfections of punch-cutting.
    Myself, I'm not sure that doing so in the digital medium actually helps; but if that's the case, what is a revival supposed to do to be worthwhile?
    As for W. A. Dwiggins, how can a digital font be prevented from being used at inappropriately large point sizes?
    EDIT: Since my reaction to your comment reached the stage of my having an actual point, I think I should do you the courtesy of explaining what my point is.
    And it is this:
    I am not unsympathetic to your desire to give proper respect to the great type designers of the era of metal, hot and cold, in digital revivals.
    But in my reaction, in two different ways for the cases of Fleischmann and Dwiggins, I entertained the possibility that perhaps the digital medium might be inherently flawed, to such an extent that proper respect might not be genuinely possible, at least to the standards you are setting.
    And if that is the case, some indulgence is in order - particularly as, due to the economics of the matter, there is really no other practical way to set type these days but digitally.
  • Thank you, both. 

    I actually agree with you, Mr Papazian. I did not expect these two digitizations I asked about to come anywhere close to the magic of the original. I was just curious about them. But yes, I don't think we don't yet have a revival that does justice to Fleischman. 

    Thankfully, for every kid who takes Dwiggins' name in vain, there is a master who pays him proper respect:
    https://shop.letterformarchive.org/collections/fonts
    So, I guess, a semblance of balance in the world is still maintained... And, maybe that speaks against the limitations of the digital medium, Mr Savard. Maybe what they all need is a better source to work from (cf. Jim Parkinson's story of how he went about designing Aluminia). 
  • konrad ritterkonrad ritter Posts: 186
    edited February 8
    The Fleischman that I would like to see revived was this one, below. A truly outstanding version for running text, with a clearly lower x-height (and taller ascenders) than the digital versions we have. Much better suited for immersive reading, IMHO. This snippet is from a book printed at the Hague (Martinus Nijhoff, 1899). From the 22-volume series Oeuvres Completes de Christiaan Huygens. Text size:



    And small text size: 


  • John SavardJohn Savard Posts: 825
    And, maybe that speaks against the limitations of the digital medium, Mr Savard.
    I do not insist on the digital medium being too limited to properly reproduce metal types with respect; the other possibility is that perhaps the standards of Mr. Papazian are perhaps too exacting.
    I do see a fundamental issue with the digital medium. It's hard to say that it is limited, when one can choose any combination of pixels one wants, and the resolution available is now quite high - with antialiasing also available.
    And yet...
    When the pantograph freed type from the limitations of punchcutting, there were many then and later who lamented the loss of the human warmth of the old designs, for the cold sterile perfection of the pantograph.
    Generally, when designs from the punchcutting era are revived, they are cleaned up to conform to the expectations of the modern reader as set by the pantograph and its successors, phototypesetting and digital type. This is what I took the term "neutered" to mean, but it could have referred to other characteristics of the typeface that were lost in the revival.
    My problem is that I fear that one can't win. Because digital type is not punchcutting, if the imperfections of punchcutting are faithfully reproduced in it, the result may be percieved as artificial or gratuitous - like a less-extreme version of Caslon Antique/Fifteenth Century (which, of course, simulated badly battered type, not punchcutting per se).
    What can be suggested? That our laser printers should be designed to mimic ink spread? No, that's obviously just a gimmick.
    I don't object to versions of the types of Jenson or Griffo that are trued-up to a fare-thee-well, provided the designer made a faithful effort to search for the Platonic ideal Jenson or Griffo were aiming at, but prevented from fully attaining by the limitations of punchcutting.
    Jenson Oldstyle (the one from ATF) and even Cloister are not much used these days, because they seem dated - not to Jenson's day, but to the day they themselves were made. While Jenson's typeface has endured, the fashions of that time have not, but they were embodied in those revived typefaces. (Only subtly, and to a limited extent; I think that both Jenson Oldstyle and Cloister are still worth using, but I can see why they're not all that popular.)

  • I love Cloister. Never get tired of it. 

    One thing I don't get about switching to digital, though, is: why hasn't it kept up with how printing has evolved? Maybe our current versions of Bembo, New Caledonia, Century Expanded and Corona looked really good back when all printers were inkjet or below (I for one remember them). But now, when most paper is semi-coated and laser printers get better and better, all these faces look washed out and spindly. It wouldn't be too much work to develop "grades" of these classic faces, of the kind that Mercury, Chronicle, or Poynter come with. Then we'd have options. 



    Of course, I'm not talking about small/individual artisans. God knows they work themselves ragged to make a single font. I'm talking about the behemoths who have the money, time, and manpower to evolve. You know who you are. 
  • I don't think we don't yet have a revival that does justice to Fleischman.
    I am sure you know the DTL version:
    What do you think of this revival? Besides the cost of the license, I mean. Regarding to its aesthetic quality, is this close to what you are looking for?

    A more economical but decaffeinated alternative: https://www.myfonts.com/fonts/bitstream/fleischman-bt-pro/
  • Thank you, Mr Henestrosa. I have those already, and they do have their merits, to be sure. Nothing wrong comes out of Mr Blokland's hands. 

    One thing I'm not happy about, in the Fleischmanns we have, is the x-height: it's too large. It's for historical reasons, of course. But, still. It wasn't the only cut that Fleischmann did. So, to come closer to what I really wish I had, I played a little bit with the digital versions you mentioned. 



    Still, I'm looking for something with more presence on the page. Something like this -- very compact and yet unmistakably readable. 


  • Ori Ben-DorOri Ben-Dor Posts: 351
    There's a good chance Slagerij was Hrvoje's type-revival project at Type and Media. And if that's the case, there's a good chance he's never finished it. But why don't you just ask him? His email address is publicly available at his website: [email protected]
  • Thank you, Mr Ben-Dor. This makes good sense. I don't know what I was thinking. 
  • There's a good chance Slagerij was Hrvoje's type-revival project at Type and Media.

  • John SavardJohn Savard Posts: 825
    One thing I don't get about switching to digital, though, is: why hasn't it kept up with how printing has evolved? Maybe our current versions of Bembo, New Caledonia, Century Expanded and Corona looked really good back when all printers were inkjet or below (I for one remember them). But now, when most paper is semi-coated and laser printers get better and better, all these faces look washed out and spindly.

    I personally haven't noticed this as a problem with the specific typefaces you've mentioned. But I have noticed it as a serious problem with newer versions of Caslon - at least since the phototypesetting era, if not earlier.
    Of course, eventually, with this famous typeface, something was done about it by a major typefounder. We got Adobe Caslon.
    I absoultely agree that making typefaes slightly heavier so that their appearance would correspond to the original intent is badly needed, but this example shows that, for whatever reason, there is little hope of it happening. Probably it is that brand-new designs, if successful, are more profitable.
  • I'd say that Bembo is emblematic of the falling-behind-the-technological times dysfunction. Also, Caledonia. In the New Caledonia, the roman is much too pale, and the next grade up is semibold, which it unsuited for text. Here's what Dwiggins' two faces were supposed to look like, on paper:



    The commercial digitizations are a far cry from this. 

    Same goes for Bembo, even the newer Bembo Book. Still too rickety and unsteady on its feet. Not as sturdy as this one, for all its faults:
    https://www.myfonts.com/fonts/indian-summer-studio/aldo-new-roman/


  • John SavardJohn Savard Posts: 825
    Same goes for Bembo, even the newer Bembo Book. Still too rickety and unsteady on its feet. Not as sturdy as this one, for all its faults:
    https://www.myfonts.com/fonts/indian-summer-studio/aldo-new-roman/

    It seems to be quite nice looking. They do warn one that it is intentionally not the same as the original from which it draws inspiration.
    I just had a chance to notice one attribute of the typeface which seems to me to be a fault: it is kerned to very tight letterspacing.
    I know this is technically possible, now that letters are no longer on lead slugs, but this makes me think of the quote from Jurassic Park: although they could, did they stop to think if they should?
    But in this, my judgment may be flawed.
  • No, you're right about that. I too feel that way about Aldo New. Fortunately, that's easily fixable. 
  • One is the face Gilly Roman, by Mr Porter Gillespie:
    Gilly was made during Type Paris 2015, and might not have been completed or for sale. But, just as with Mr Hrvoje Zivcic, Mr Porter Gillespie's email address is publicly posted on his website: porter.gillespie (at) gmail.com
  • Thank you, Mr Calders. 
Sign In or Register to comment.