Which typeface is better: Helvetica or Akzidenz Grotesk?

J. Bridges

Which typeface is better: Helvetica or Akzidenz Grotesk?

James Puckett

We don’t have to choose. Arial combines the best of both worlds.

J. Bridges

I like the square shaped periods of both.

jeremy tribby

Gerstner-Programm

Andreas Stötzner

J. Bridges said:

Which typeface is better: Helvetica or Akzidenz Grotesk?

kidding, ey? 

Every bad typeface is better than Helvetica.

Cristóbal Henestrosa

It is hard to tell if we don’t define “better” first. Linotype Helvetica has more weights, so in that aspect is “better” than Akzidenz, but I like more some details of individual letters in the Regular cut of Akzidenz, specially in the uppercase (but I kind of love the horizontal endings in Helvetica, so…). Well, to be completely honest, actually I try to avoid both of them. Not my cup of tea. For that kind of work, now I am using Acumin, and I am very happy with it.

Nick Shinn

I’ve used both.
Helvetica is more useful, having the greater available range of styles.
But by the same token, it’s easier to go wrong with Helvetica.

John Savard

James Puckett said:

We don’t have to choose. Arial combines the best of both worlds.

LOL.

To those reading this who are not typographic experts, Arial is a typeface which Microsoft commissioned from Monotype to allow documents to be prepared within Windows for printing on an HP Laserjet printer which included Helvetica as a built-in font. Because this was cheaper than licensing Helvetica.

Arial is a modified form of Monotype Grotesque which has the same metrics as Helvetica.

The general opinion is that, even if Monotype Grotesque was not entirely without merit, Arial is hideous.

As to the original question:

Of course one could say that it's meaningless if "better" is not defined; after all, art is subjective. But there are usual and conventional criteria by which the merit or quality of a typeface is judged.

Someone made a video on YouTube about what a great typeface Akzidenz Grotesk was.

And Helvetica is generally considered to be somewhat... overused.

So that settles it, Akzidenz Grotesk is better!

Ahem.

No, it's never quite that simple.

Helvetica wouldn't have had the chance to be overused if it didn't have something going for it.

Let's start with some background, shall we? The "Akzidenz" in Akzidenz Grotesk doesn't mean that the typeface was being described as some kind of accident. No, this German word corresponds to the English word accidence. So the claim was made, from the beginning, for this typeface that it was being designed with more attention to detail than the sans-serif faces that existed heretofore.

Akzidenz Grotesk was quite popular. In the United States, that typeface was given the name "Standard", and was initially used quite a bit.

In general, though, what Akidenz Grotesk began, Helvetica is regarded as completing. So the transition from ugly 19th-century sans serifs to sans serifs designed to be as beautiful as olstyle serif typefaces was accomplished by Helvetica.

Given that, clearly Helvetica is better; Akzidenz Grotesk was a halting, imperfect first step, and Helvetica was the culmination and perfection of that line of progress - which sans-serif typefaces designed subsequently could strive to equal, but never hope to surpass!

So we now reach a point where a conclusion can be drawn. If one likes what Helvetica does, Helvetica is better. If, instead, one believes Helvetica became overused not just because it was so good, but because it was homogenized to suit flawed popular tastes, while Akzidenz Grotesk was a typeface with real character, then Akzidenz Grotesk will be what you percieve as better. So now, to know which one is "better", one just has to know one's own personality type.

Instead of dogmatically answering the question... I explain the controversy behind the question.

Or, to put it in simple terms: Akzidenz Grotesk is the "arty" one, Helvetica is the "technically flawless" one.

Note that this posting may have the following flaw: instead of presenting genuine insight, it may simply consist of the regurgitation of well-established stereotypes.

John Hudson

Helvetica is the "technically flawless" one.

Which Helvetica? The Linotype/Adobe digital version inherited unitised widths, which meant that its sidebearings were wildly inconsistent. It also used the PS Type 1 slant function to produce the ‘Italic’ from upright outlines.

Helvetica was the culmination and perfection of that line of progress

No, that would be Univers. Helvetica wasn’t even the culmination of its own line: Helvetica Neue was produced to iron out the quirks and inconsistencies of Helvetica and extend it to a greater range of weights and widths to be more like ... Univers.

Chris Lozos

The question I ask is "better at what for what purpose?" Type users chose a type for a given job, not a popularity contest. The proof is in the purpose of usage.

Ray Larabie

Sorry to go off an an Arial rant, but it's sort of relevant...maybe? I think Arial Nova is beautiful. It retains the right amount of that Akzidenz flavor and the italics have character. I've never used it for anything but I've always admired it. I don't think the fact that Arial was required to a fit within certain metrics requirement makes it bad. You may have reasons you think Arial is hideous but I don't think matching metrics makes a typeface bad. Lots of beloved typefaces were forced to fit into specific grids and other metric requirements. Arial being based on Monotype Grotesque probably brought some of it bad-ass character along with it. I love that typeface so much! The lawless structure of the family—you just don't get that in these days of precise variable typefaces and interpolated families. It could use some more italic styles and languge expansion but it's a treasure. I worry that someone will give it a "nova" treatment where it's forced to interpolate, like the new Univers and the condenses styles lose their flat sides.

My point is: Arial is worthy of respect and I think @James Puckett was correct.

Russell McGorman

John Hudson said:

Helvetica is the "technically flawless" one.

Which Helvetica? 

This pit has no bottom. 

John Savard

Ray Larabie said:

Sorry to go off an an Arial rant, but it's sort of relevant...maybe? I think Arial Nova is beautiful.

I don't completely disagree with you...

My understanding is that Arial is generally regarded as hideous. My own opinion of it is not quite so harsh.

Arial Nova may be beautiful; I'm not familiar with it. Having followed your link, and taken a look, I can definitely say that it is, at the least, acceptable, and indeed it may even be beautiful.

Being required to fit metrics, in itself, isn't going to make a typeface bad or ugly. The selection of typefaces for the IBM Selectric Composer stands as proof of that, if proof was needed.

Ray Larabie said:

My point is: Arial is worthy of respect and I think @James Puckett was correct.

However, I do think that James Puckett was being intentionally sarcastic. Of course, I could be wrong.

John Savard

John Hudson said:

No, that would be Univers. Helvetica wasn’t even the culmination of its own line: Helvetica Neue was produced to iron out the quirks and inconsistencies of Helvetica and extend it to a greater range of weights and widths to be more like ... Univers.

And here I thought that Helvetica Neue was simply a money grab, and not legitimately needed because of any flaws in the original Helvetica.

However, I definitely agree with you that Univers is superior to Helvetica - at least, in one important respect.

In my opinion, Univers is somewhat "dry" compared to the original Helvetica. And the original Helvetica is a thing of beauty. However, while Helvetica is a magnificent display typeface, eminently suitable for its role in signage, for example, although some books have been typeset in it, which people have read without going blind... it is not a particularly good text typeface.

Univers, on the other hand, is a monowidth sans-serif typeface that is also a good text typeface. It may no longer be unique in that respect, since it's been around long enough for its achievement to be copied, even in typefaces that aren't imitations of it, but I am inclined to credit it for proving that a monowidth sans-serif could even possibly be a decent text typeface.

Trying to make a Helvetica that's still a Helvetica, but which also does what Univers is good at... seems to me like a misguided effort. One can certainly design a new typeface taking inspiration from both Helvetica and Univers, but that's something different.

Chris Lozos

Univers, on the other hand, is a monowidth sans-serif typeface

I would add that Univers has noticeably more contrast than Helvetica.  This was a great distinction in the 60s and made it a landmark typeface for me from the day it was released in the USA.

Nick Shinn

Should be “Monoline”—with optical adjustments, of course.
Monowidth means fixed width, as per typewriter.

Vasil Stanev

The "best" typeface for any project is the most appropriate for its style.
I wouldn't set the poster for "Fear and loathing in Las Vegas" in Helvetica, nor are the illustrations for the book in a clean and solid Victorian style.
I remember that I collected German bandee dessine of Asterix as a kid. They were all set in a somewhat inappropriate Helvetica (I think it was Helvetica), which may be legible but it was not a comic book font.
The "best" typeface for any project is the most appropriate for its style.

Cory Maylett

I've spent my career as an art director and designer who uses type and dabbles in type design after hours. With my feet in both camps, I have a slightly different perspective.

The design of a typeface might have standalone appeal, but when divorced from the context of actual use, that appeal is a bit superficial. I've used Akzidenz and Helvetica in many projects over the years. Despite their similarities, both possess separate personalities that lend themselves to solving different design problems.

The two typefaces aren't interchangeable, and which is better depends on the job at hand. Helvetica might be a bit more refined and available in many versions. However, when Akzidenz is the best fit for the job, none of Helvetica's other attributes matter.

John Savard

jeremy tribby said:

Gerstner-Programm

Finally, I got around to following my curiosity and did a search for this enigmatic name. And I located the following Forgotten Shapes article:

https://forgotten-shapes.com/gerstner-programm?article=gerstner-programm

which describes this typeface, designed by noted designer Karl Gerstner. It was designed with Akzidenz-Grotesk as a basis, and with painstaking care to have overall consistency.

While the previously latest posts in this thread are absolutely right, in that the most important thing about a typeface is that it be appropriate for its intended use - and there are many different uses for type - so that it is often irrelevant, even if it were meaningful, that typeface "A" is better than typeface "B", I think that the quality of an individual typeface is also important to be aware of, since often for a particular application, where a specific kind of typeface is required, there are still many competing typefaces.

Unlike Arial, I would venture to say that Gerstner-Programm does bid fair to be a typeface which provides the "best of both worlds" when compared to Akzidenz Grotesk and Helvetica.

Actually, though, "article" may be the wrong word. On the right of the page is a preview of the various weights with "Add to Cart" links. I do hope the avalability of this Berthold typeface is not affected by Monotype's acquisition of Berthold. So perhaps Forgotten Shapes does other revivals of interest?

EDIT: I looked at the main page. Of the revivals they offer, the only other one that caught my eye was Lector. This roman typeface, somewhat resembling - not so much Melior as some other popular modern roman the name of which escapes me - may have been designed (at least, doing so was suggested) to match the spacing of Times Roman.

Could one imagine a world where Microsoft, unable to license Times Roman, made use of Lector instead, even as Arial substituted for Helvetica?

John Savard

In addition to Gerstner-Programm, I have located another alternative typeface for those whose projects seem to demand Helvetica, but who wish to instead choose a typeface that indicates taste and discernment. Theinhardt.