Hello folks — I have got a question in regards with type weight, in particular when making a Regular and a Book version. What would be the purpose of a Book version in your opinion? Does it do something point size wise that a Regular cannot?
If you define it as a weight between light and regular the use follows common typographic rules regarding performance in print, on-screen or readability. If by “point size wise” you mean it could have a different stroke contrast, I would say it is quite unusual to apply that to one single font style only.
As I have said in other threads on the topic, I have never found this term appropriate to a type weight ‘between light and regular’ (the logical and common name for which is ‘Semi Light’). The nominal Regular weight in digital type has often been lighter than traditionally used in book typography*, so ‘Book’ usefully refers to a slightly heavier weight, either between Regular and Medium or actually a synonym for Medium if the Regular is particularly light or the weight range between Regular and Bold too narrow to accommodate both Book and Medium and distinct, useful variants.
A good example of what I mean can be seen in the distinction between Bembo Regular—a notably light design digitised from artwork for metal types—and Bembo Book, a later addition to the family that better represents the weight of those types when inked and used in print.
I’m working on a new variable version of our Euphemia family, and since Ross’ original Regular is quite light, I have opted to call the OS/2 weight class 500 instance ‘Book’, since it is close to the weight I would probably choose for 10 or 11 point text.
Hermann Zapf wanted to call the typeface Aldus Palatino Book instead, so comparing Aldus to Palatino would be another example. And there's Bodoni and Bodoni Book.
If a typeface is designed principally for use in books or other purposes with similar needs, obviously there's no need for a "Book" version of it. But if, instead, the basic idea of the typeface is suitable to both a display face and a text face, then one way to distinguish them would be to call the display face by the basic typeface name, and add "Book" to the text face. I think there are examples, although I can't recall one offhand, where it was done the other way around, by adding "Display" to the display face.
I recently read We Were Eight Years In Power by Ta-Nihisi Coates, published by Random House in 2017. The colophon identifies the typeface as Bembo, but it is good and solid, so appears to be Bembo Book, and is lovely to read, for my ancient eyes.
I would say that the extra “grading” (and this is not just press gain) of Bembo Book when printed by offset lithography compensates for the missing “druk”, that occurred with the original Bembo in letterpress. And as John Hudson mentioned, the first digitization of Bembo was made from font artwork, not a printed image, so was a little on the thin side.
That comment arrives at the drawback of “book” as a label: it feels like an optical size but usually is a weight.
Is that a drawback?
Yes, the "Book" form of a typeface, compared to its regular form, has many of the same differences that you would find in a smaller optical size of the typeface.
But by making it a weight instead, it becomes easier to specify.
And, incidentally, it would not be impossible to have "Regular" and "Book" forms of a typeface that was also optically sized.
I totally agree with @John Hudson's views. My feeling was that 'Book' felt a pinch heavy on the digital environment but ideal for printing body text. I wonder whether the potential customers are not confused or simple not well informed about these nuances when they see a type family they like including these two variants. I was...
In the digital era, Fontlab, for one, contributed to the confusion, by assigning the numerical value of 400 to all three of Book, Regular and Normal weights, in its Font Info dialogue. Therefore, if a FL user wanted to include two of these weight names in a typeface, it was debatable which should officially be the heavier, and which the lighter, with the result that in practice, from different foundries, both resulted. Although Book does occur higher up the list, suggesting that it is the lighter:
The subset of valid usWeightClass values (1–1000) that are mapped to nominal weights could certainly be supplemented by additional named weights, but at this stage this would be likely to produce a lot of inconsistent and non-standard font name/weight mappings. About the only common one that seems fairly consistently implemented is
Comments
A good example of what I mean can be seen in the distinction between Bembo Regular—a notably light design digitised from artwork for metal types—and Bembo Book, a later addition to the family that better represents the weight of those types when inked and used in print.
Regular:
Book:
I would say that the extra “grading” (and this is not just press gain) of Bembo Book when printed by offset lithography compensates for the missing “druk”, that occurred with the original Bembo in letterpress. And as John Hudson mentioned, the first digitization of Bembo was made from font artwork, not a printed image, so was a little on the thin side.
Therefore, if a FL user wanted to include two of these weight names in a typeface, it was debatable which should officially be the heavier, and which the lighter, with the result that in practice, from different foundries, both resulted.
Although Book does occur higher up the list, suggesting that it is the lighter:
The OpenType spec itself indicates that Regular and Normal share the same weightclass, 400.
It does the same thing with ExtraBold and UltraBold (both 800), and Black and Heavy (both 900).
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/typography/opentype/spec/os2#usweightclass
350 = Semi-light