1960’s artist’s logotype – handdrawn or typeset? – MACK

JLA

Hi there,

I’ve been trying to find out whether the logotype used by this artist by the end of the 1950s and in the 1960s, Heinz Mack, is a handdrawn logotype or typeset, and if it’s the latter, which font has been used.

Does anyone recognize the exact typeface here?

https://emuseum.duesseldorf.de/internal/media/dispatcher/164215/full

The MACK logotype was used throughout multiple print media and in different sizes, all with otherwise different typefaces (mostly Futura), and occasionally on the windows of galleries etc. It wouldn’t be too difficult to draw this; then again, it looks oddly familiar with the small counter, low bar of the /A, and missing overshoot of the /C, like it was meant to be typeset in large sizes with no line spacing.

I tried my books as well as whatfontis, whatthefont, and identifont to find an exact match, all to no avail.

Edit: If it was a logotype and not typeset, how would it have been realized in different media during that period? They wouldn’t have cast this in lead or cut in wood for printing, would they? For the windows, a skilled signpainter probably copied it from the printed original—or was there another technique available during that time?

Stuart Sandler

I'll bite . . . A few quick observations . . . Looking at the M, it's very dark and much bolder than the other letterforms and looking at the C, because it is precisely aligned at the top and the bottom of the other forms and has no overshoot, that tells me it's also been improperly scaled or is from another font size.

Since you're talking 1950s, they did have stat cameras and my initial thought is that they set the letters MACK from a font, scaled them to the same height and made a logo OR they took wood type at different sizes and created this mark however given there's no texture and the corners are too sharp, I'm more inclined to assume the former.

There are many folks who could identify the actual font if it exists and it does feel it has wood type origins based on the forms but what is obvious is that each form was independently scaled using a stat camera and no font would have been drawn this way or have gone out the door this inconsistent, even if it was wood type so chances are this was cobbled together from multiple sources.

Stephen Coles

Feels like wood type to me. But heads up (per the rules): Font ID is a dedicated forum for typeface identification.

JLA

Thanks Steven, I’ll head to the other forum for the font ID (if it is a font). Apologies for that part of my post going against the rules.

This topic is thus to focus on the other part—the means of reproducing such a logotype in different media (print/window/façade lettering).

Here’s a view of the window with the same logotype:

https://zerofoundation.de/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/1960_Mack_Selbstbildnis_ZERO.1.V.179.jpg

How would they usually transfer this to the glass pane back then?

Stuart, thanks a lot, that’s a great hint. I wouldn’t have guessed the letters might have been scaled independently. I’ll try to find out whether and how a stat camera was involved.

Stephen Coles

I’m seeing that the logo on the window doesn’t match the print. The M and A are mirrored and the C has a top overshoot. (This may just be how the letters were painted or applied.)

Stuart Sandler

@Stephen Coles I'd also add if you look at the original mark posted, you'll see slight warping of each letterform as if it's on a baseline that is slightly curving down from left to right (like a frown) which is either an optical illusion based on the letterform color or some sort of additional optical distortion.

JLA

I didn’t notice the M and A being mirrored, Stephen. Good catch. This might be due to the stencils or cut-out letters that the sign-painter used being applied back to front, I guess? I don’t see the overshoot, though. I’d rather say the baseline of the C is shifted.

Stuart, the effect you describe is ever so subtle. What in incredible observation. I haven’t seen the original yet so I can’t tell whether this is optical distortion in the print or in the reproduction, but right now, I imagine it’s the latter.