No, it is pretty old-fashioned. Which can be useful however, depending.

You should be able to find another font that carries whatever
you feel is contemporary about it, without the moldy baggage.

hhp

Rob,

If it makes you feel any better, I have an ongoing debate with a couple of my typoholic buddies about this very subject. I agree that Century feels somewhat contemporary, and I just don't see the "moldy baggage" that my friends and Hrant continue to point out. So I guess the point of this being, we may be wrong, but at least we're not alone :)

Hrant, could you suggest a font that Rob and I might find an acceptable replacement for Century? Thanks!

> Hrant, could you suggest a font that Rob and I might find an
> acceptable replacement for Century? Thanks!

Yeah, that would be great.

I like Century, especially the Expanded (why ever it’s called so).
It certainly gives anything you do with it that retro look.
An update of Century and even more of Clarendon would be great, even greater when done by H&FJ maybe.

Well, Stephen & Co. are better at this sort of thing. But maybe if you figured out
what in Century looks contemporary to you I could help find something better.

hhp

Personally, I've always liked Century Schoolbook. The original Century was drawn by Linn Boyd Benton. To me it isn't as good at the later Century Expanded and Schoolbook drawn by his son Morris Fuller Benton.

I like Century Schoolbook too.
But tellingly I happen to know that I'm old-fashioned. :-)

hhp

I'm also a taker for Century Schoolbook. And i don't think it looks dated, I'm convinced that no typeface does look dated per se, it all depends how a typeface is used and in what (formal) context. ( I do admit that there are typefaces that are more likely to look dated/old-fashioned than others, but there's no absolute IMO)
In other words, I wouldn't be put off from using a face because somebody says it looked dated to them, i'd rather understand this as a challenge to use it in a way that doesn't make it appear old-fashioned*. If somebody said the way i use it or my design looked dated, THAT would make me think tho.

* Unless an old-fashioned look is required, but that's a completely different story.

Century was of course commissioned for Century magazine. I don't know, but imagine it was a multi-column format, to explain how condensed the original "Century" font was. It was just too condensed for single-column texts such as books, so an expanded version was made quite a bit later ("expanded" only in comparison to the original). This was the "Century" font most often selected for book work. I don't know about the linecaster days, but it did have small caps in the Linotron 202 format. I think it didn't have old-style figures, but I don't really remember.

But the best "Century" for bookwork was Primer, which did have small caps and old-style figures. P.J. Conkwright selected it for Princeton's Thoreau books. Bitstream has a sort-of revival (Century 751?), but as I remember, it was a typical Type 1 font with no small caps, os figs, etc., and not particularly well done. I tried to make a version of Primer, and while it was OK, it just didn't have the magic of Ruzicka's Primer in metal. But I'm a comp first & text interior designer second. If any true font designer were to make a good Primer, I think it would be welcome.

As to being dated -- Depends. If you're trying to impress other designers or marketing managers, probably so. I was at a meeting last week, where it came out that for some presses, the marketing manager had final say on book jacket designs. Turns out that for a number of them, a "good jacket" is one which will sell when placed in an airport terminal. That few university press books are sold in airport terminals seems to have escaped them.

If you're trying to help an author connect with a reader, of course Century isn't dated. On the other hand, Century Expanded was one of those fonts that didn't survive the move from the Linotron 202 to PostScript -- like so many others.

With the Linotron 202 fonts, Century Schoolbook worked for text with about a 9-point setting. It is aother of those fonts that worked well in one or two sizes & IMSLTH opinion, not others.

Century Schoolbook is an extremely wide font, so I can see that it might not be suitable for books except at very small size.

However, when an extremely readable, wide type is suitable, it can work admirably. For example, the Government Accounting Office here puts out reports on letter sized paper (8 1/2 x 11), which is always a problem. Their solution is to use Century Schoolbook with wide margins. This to me is a pretty good solution, and results in extremely readable reports.

The layout is a bit old-fashioned 'modernist', but still it delivers the goods admirably well. Here is one example.

Bill,

As to Century Schoolbook & book composition: it may be the width of the letterforms, but I think it is a bit more, particularly their weight. I've specified Schoolbook once or twice, and set a few more books where it was specified by other designers, but it has been quite a while. When you specify a type size, some designers at least are looking at "the color of the page," which includes a number of relationships, character fit, word spacing, line spacing, margins, and of course the type itself. For some reason, Schoolbook seems to "snap" with a nominal 6x9 trim & 24-26 pica measure in around a 9-point setting.

Of course, that's old school (i.e., dated). Nowadays, any font is OK if you specify it 10/15, unless you can sneak 9/15 by the people who have to sign off on the design.

>color of the page

I also feel that this is a critical factor--which is why I think optical sizing is so important if the design is to work at different sizes.

Because Century Schoolbook is so unusual in its width and, as you point out, weight, it may only work well in very special situations. But it may work very well then.

Personally, this style of design, which I think of as a variety of 'Scotch', is not one I am that fond of aesthetically. I should have written above that I "admire" Century Schoolbook rather than really like it. It is admirably well executed. The only scotch I really like in print is Caledonia, but maybe it crucially departs--I haven't studied it enough to know.

On the issue of leading, I was very interested to read in Mitchell & Wightman's 'Book Typography' that blacker type usually requires more leading to work. Thus Quadraat calls for a lot of leading.

I do prefer the older style in which there is less leading and somewhat longer ascenders and descenders. To me the type looks more graceful, and it knits the page together better. But working well with tighter leading depends on the design of the type.

> blacker type usually requires more leading to work.

This doesn't sound right.
Think of how darker fonts need tighter (lateral) spacing.

> I do prefer the older style in which there is less
> leading and somewhat longer ascenders and descenders.

Depends on size.

hhp

>darker fonts need tighter (lateral) spacing

I don't think there is a generally valid rule. My feeling is that it depends on the design and intended size.

>Depends on size.

Mitchell and Wightman were discussing normal book text sizes.

This thread is taking an odd twist. Anybody have more thoughts on Primer (aka Century improved)?

> it depends on the design and intended size.

No, all else being equal, darker weights need
less inter-letter spacing. This is very old news.
And the reason is the most basic: balanced notan.

hhp

>odd twist

Here the Talmudic style is followed: the side issues often are more important than the topic. I like it, but then I also like the Talmud :)

I haven't seen Primer used, so I don't know. The MyFonts text on it is interesting, saying that Chauncy Griffith commissioned it to correct fitting problems. As they also say, Primer loses that iconic form of Century Schoolbook.

Of course my feeling about it being 'iconic' may well because I learned to read with the 'Dick and Jane' primers, which I believe were in Century Schoolbook.

No, all else being equal

OK, back to the odd twist.

Yes, it depends. I've seen some beautiful 19th century French books, where wide word spacing was used -- it was in fashion then. To compensate, the leading was increased, as were the margins. The character fit was not tight, but hardly loose. At first it looks odd to a modern eye, but the overall balance soon takes over & you don't notice it.

Good balance is more than one parameter, and will to a large extent survive a change in fashion.

Let me try to explain better: If you have a text face in a light weight and in a dark weight, the dark weight needs to be spaced tighter than the light weight, otherwise it's no longer a text face. This is basic type design stuff.* If we are in fact discussing "normal book text sizes", then if you stray from a quite tight relationship between internal versus external white, you are killing readability. No matter what kind of boots you prefer. Issues of functionality do not make those of "fashion" moot - in fact the two do need to be balanced, always. But let's not pretend that It Doesn't Matter.

* William: ask Berlow.

The way this relates to what William wrote about linespacing is that the
same type of thing (although certainly to a lesser degree) probably applies.
And it makes sense: a darker line holds itself better, so you need less leading.
What happens to look better to whom in what century is beside the point.

hhp

this is basic type design stuff.

Ah, Betty Crocker. OK, I'll travel

Don't forget a laptop with FontLab on it. :-)

hhp

>more than one parameter

That strikes me as the complex heart of the matter.

The problem with saying 'other things being equal' is that they *can't* be equal when you make a design bolder. You will affect either the width of counters or the character as a whole, or both, and you have a choice on how to do this. And those choices will affect best spacing.

Good balance of white and black, or 'notan,' and in particular good letter spacing also depends on optical size.

My previous post was cross-posted with Hrant's and Charles's.

>I'll travel.

Please stick around. I love to hear your views, as they are based on experience and accomplishment, which I really respect. --Not that I will always agree :)

Hrant, as a general rule in contemporary type design a bolder version of a design is tighter. But then also the bold is not usually intended for continuous text, but for titles and emphasis. But the way it's generally done now is not necessarily the only way.

>a darker line holds itself better, so you need less leading

Mitchel and Wightman say the opposite: that with tight leading the color of the paragraph with dark lines will be too dark, and hurt readability. Charles here also notes the great importance of good color, which I think is correct.

Tighter word spacing does tend to reduce the need for leading, but that is a different (though interacting) variable.

> as a general rule in contemporary type design
> a bolder version of a design is tighter.

My contention is that it has to do with more than just fashion, but how we read. And we're not really talking about using a Bold for text, but the general case of how spacing (and leading) relate to weight. Think for example of using a Demi of a font for somewhat small text; it should be easy to read, and it can't be if it's not tighter than the Regular (assuming the Regular is spaced properly of course). I don't know why you're resisting this classic axiom.

> Mitchel and Wightman say the opposite

Well, yes, you just said that, and that's what I was complaining about.

> the paragraph with dark lines will be too dark, and hurt readability.

I'm not seeing how a dark parapraph of itself can hurt readability. I think you're essentially talking about aesthetics. And the way I see it, a parapgraph set in dark lines with large leading turns into a Modernist's inadvisable wet dream.

> Charles here also notes the great importance of good color

I'm not seeing how that's related.
And let's not start about "good color" again, eh?

hhp

William, could you point out some text faces where
a darker weight is looser than a lighter weight?

hhp

>let’s not start about “good color” again, eh?

Charles mentioned this key factor again, and in my opinion he's right, and on this particular point you're profoundly mistaken. You regularly poo-poo the importance of good color in type. But design, spacing and setting of type is not all about 'notan'. It is both notan *and* color, at least as far as I understand these terms. And yes, color affects readability. Try *looking* at Mitchell and Wightman's examples.

As to text faces where a darker weight is looser, I believe that in the very small sizes, optical adjustment of metal type sometimes involved slightly increasing all three: width, stroke weight and letter spacing. That's not just the one isolated factor of weight, but as I said before it is anyway impossible to make 'everything equal' because the factors are interdependent.

> You regularly poo-poo the importance of good color in type.

False.
I do however jauntily poo-poo on your terminology and your grasp of reading.

> in the very small sizes, optical adjustment

You are skirting the issue.
Because you're having trouble admitting a mistake.
Poo-poo on that.

hhp

>You are skirting the issue.

Hrant, I said in my first post (11:01 am) on this that spacing depends on size as well as darkness. That's what you took issue with. And I said immediately that 'everything equal' can't apply because of interaction between factors.

Instead of addressing the point you issue insults.

Charming.

> That’s what you took issue with.

No, I totally agree with you on those (as I have
said myself often). What I've taken issue with were:
1) Mitchel and Wightman's claim.
2) Your "I don’t think there is a generally valid rule"
to my "darker fonts need tighter (lateral) spacing".

> ‘everything equal’ can’t apply because of interaction between factors.

It can apply just fine, in the realm of thought.
Thought being one of two foundations for practical decisions.

> you issue insults.

You know, I insult you often enough that
you really don't need to invent instances.
I poo-poo on victim syndrome.

hhp

>It can apply just fine in the realm of thought

No, it doesn't even work in the realm of thought, or theory. As I said, *geometry* dictates that a bolded glyph is either wider on the outside or narrower in the inside, or both. And depending on what you do with the width of the glyph, it will affect what spacing will look best. --As will changing the optical size. So to talk about best spacing you have to also talk about width of counters and optical size, not just boldness. It may be typical nowadays to 'go East or go West' [as Nick Shinn put it] in bolding a glyph, but there are other options.

And, as Charles pointed out overall style can also affect spacing. Many of the traditional 'modern' (Bodoni style) serifs style were quite bold, but as he points out, their wide, high contrast shapes didn't take kindly to very tight spacing in text.

So your rule is just too simplistic. While often true, it has important exceptions and so is misleading and wrongly restrictive.

The Mitchell and Wightman issue is different. Quite clearly *here* you are (without looking) denying their view, which is explicitly based on color considerations. And in many discussions you have also denied the traditional view--which I follow--that evenness of color is one primary goal in good text type design.

You're just flailing. And what's really funny is that you're hinding behind "even color" now, even though what I'm explaining actually helps that too! What you're advocating ensures even color all right - between the two weights! :-/

This really isn't very complicated. Darker weights, when done properly (as in your own "normal book text sizes" - you know, something you'd read a book in) have less white space inside than lighter weights, almost always in absolute measurements, but at the very least in relation to the black bodies.* Heck, otherwise they wouldn't look darker! The fact that the inside whites are relatively smaller means the outside whites have to be smaller too, otherwise either the lighter or the darker weight will have bad notan - like how Helvetica is too tight. I shouldn't have to explain this, and frankly I don't, because you already know it, you simply slipped, possibly in your eagerness to defend Mitch & Whitie against me; or really anybody against me. We all make mistakes; but some of us have great trouble admitting it.

* Meaning that even if a darker weight has the same absolute inside counter measures (which is very hard to find examples of, not least because it makes the widths too great), the darker stems etc. will make them look relatively smaller. But as a rule the insides do get smaller, because that's the smart way.

If you have a real-world counter-example, please show it.
Show me a font where a darker weight is looser. And if you
find it, go ahead and call it readable with a straight face.

> So your rule is just too simplistic.

It's not my rule! Please, ask around. Yes it's basic, but that's the good kind of rule.
It comes straight from notan (although that's not the usual term used).

> The Mitchell and Wightman issue is different.

Yes, but not different enough. Not different enough to be true. If a darker weight needs tighter letterspacing between letters to maintain readability, tighter leading would generally help too. For one thing, think of wordspaces and their role in the determination of optimal leading.

True, unlike letterspacing it's harder to ruin readability with looser leading, but it's still functionally bad in terms of readability (at the very least by wasting saccades over pages, but probably more significantly).

> evenness of color is one primary goal in good text type design.

Now that's simplistic.

hhp

And what do we think about the readability of Perpetua Bold?

And I don't mean you, Nick, since you think Eunoia-Text can be
used for a book. You might ask William what he thinks about that.

hhp

BrooklynRob,

Also, Century might well more appealing in the USA than in other places. See http://typophile.com/node/12634

Helmut Krone's art direction for Avis ads in the 1960s is often cited in best-of lists.

Yeah, and people think that stuff set in Mrs Eaves is great too.
But some of us know better: http://typophile.com/node/34030

hhp

Times New Roman Bold also has wider side bearings on the lower case than does Times New Roman Regular. And I have never heard complaints about the readability of Times Bold.

It is true that Walter Tracy thinks that the total side bearings of the n should never be greater than the counter of the n, which Times New Roman Bold violates. However, he doesn't criticise the fact that the Times bold has greater sidebearings than the regular. And indeed, he says that proportionally to the counter, the bold H usually requires larger sidebearings than the regular. It would be interesting to see what Tracy did in his own fonts.

As Tracy notes, the phenomenon of related bold is a 20th century invention. And as we can see from Perpetua, Times New Roman, and Adobe's recent faces, there have been diverse approaches to the companion bold.

In Adobe's case, the effort has been to use Multiple Master technology to produce a great range of weights for serifed fonts, in the way that such a range was introduced for sans faces--first for Futura, if I'm not mistaken. This has resulted in much more similarity in size to size than in the case of old metal fonts, especially pre-pantographic punch cutter fonts. Current practice of Slimbach more or less follows Tracy, but with considerably tighter spacing than Tracy recommends.

As to readability, I don't think companion bolds are particularly readable in extended text, nor are they intended to be. You almost never see extended text in a bold weight. That rarity is, I believe, because excessive darkness hurts readability--as does excessive lightness. The 'good notan' gained by tight spacing of seriffed bolds is a matter of aesthetics, and the purpose of contrast to the companion regular, rather than readability.

Overall, I am inclined to not to regard the issues of spacing bolder fonts as settled art. I do think it depends partly on style and optical size. For example Times New Roman Bold deliberately has stylistic differences from Times New Roman--harkening back to the pre-pantographic punch cut days. This is not necessarily a bad idea.

> Times New Roman Bold

> the phenomenon of related bold is a 20th century invention.

> I don’t think companion bolds are particularly readable

I previously tried to get you to see past the Bold angle, but apparently I've failed.
Hopefully as you progress in making your Caslon, you'll come around.

hhp

Charles, I checked my late Uncle Ben Lieberman's 1967 book 'Types of Typeface' for Primer. At the end of the book he has a variety of typefaces (metal) all set in the same paragraph at 10/11. This is a useful device for comparison, though of course it has its limits.

At any rate, the contrast between Century Schoolbook and Primer--he has both--is striking. The most obvious thing is that Primer is much lighter. At this small size with little leading, Primer is much more of a 'text' face, much more readable.

My guess is that Century Schoolbook was designed for primers and other children's books, and intended to be used at very large size with lots of leading. And it does look very readable and pretty in such useage.

I suspect that it works well as an alternative to Courier on letter sized paper, or that it works at 9 point in some settings, as you say, is more or less good luck, beyond its original 'brief'.

>I previously tried to get you to see past the Bold angle, but apparently I’ve failed.

Huh? I don't know what you are talking about.

You wrote:

>What I’ve taken issue with were:
>1) Mitchel and Wightman’s claim.
>2) Your “I don’t think there is a generally valid rule”
>to my “darker fonts need tighter (lateral) spacing”.

You haven't even looked at Mitchell and Wightman, and the success of Times New Roman Bold I think is a reason to question your perported 'rule' as an iron one. And it seems that you have already conceded that comparing small optical sizes to regular your 'rule' might not hold.

The practice of Wm Caslon I was certainly different from Adobe's today. I'm working hard to get the best of both worlds. And I've wasted way too much time posting to this thread, so bye bye for now.

> Huh? I don’t know what you are talking about.

Reminds me of another thread.

hhp

Bill.

Primer was an improvement on "Century (Expanded)," not Century Schoolbook. I suppose both the Schoolbook & Expanded could be considered variants on the original font "Century," but CE appeared far earlier. In my circles at any rate, Century Expanded was far more common than Schoolbook.

I used Primer (c.1985) for a product brochure -- it was great in a large text size (14-18pt) and for very big headlines. It was still Century, and not Clarendony, as the usual Centuries become when used large, or Moderny/Didony, which is the way Centuries often end up in display versions. Is it available digitally?

And what about a Century with sc&osf?

> Is it available digitally?

Yes, Linotype does have it, but sans the most significant thing about it: being the last of the great faces of that era, it embodies the greatest sophistication of optical scaling ever. (Credit to either Kent or Gerald for once pointing this out to me.)

hhp

Charles: Anybody have more thoughts on Primer (aka Century improved)?

No way am I going to touch that other tangent, but I'll gladly discuss Primer.

Primer is another of those classic American book faces whose unavailability in a decent digital form I lament. (Caveat: I have never worked with the Bitstream version, but what I have seen doesn't impress me.)

Primer is a lot harder to find "in the wild." But, William, here are two samples from my collection.

The first is from the book I mentioned in Eben's book-collecting thread: Beneath the Wheel, by Hermann Hesse [Farrar, Straus and Giroux, Inc., 1968]. This is set in either 10/14 or 11/14 (see below for why I'm hedging), printed on an ivory antique-finish stock. This particular book is in only fair/good condition and there's quite a bit of foxing, which I didn't bother to try to clean up.

The second is from Song and Garden Birds of North America, edited by Alexander Wetmore [National Geographic Society, 1964]. This was printed on a pretty hard, coated stock. The text setting is 9/12. The head is 24 pt.

Note: These examples are not to scale with one another.

Primer was produced in two variations: one with short descenders and one with long descenders. You'll notice that the Nat'l Geo book uses the short descenders, while the Hesse is set with long descenders. Both versions would have been cut on the standard alignment for the nominal point size. The short descenders would fit on the nominal body, but the long descender version would need to be cast on a body at least one size larger. This is why I'm hedging a little in declaring the size of the Hesse setting. But the Hesse text is the same size as the subhead in the bird book ("Family Picidae").

Another interesting aspect I've noticed is that the typical optical adjustments between sizes is particularly pronounced in the Primer series. (I thought I had something from Griffith mentioning this, but I can't put my hands on it.)

From some 1954 MLCo. advertising copy: "In the small sizes, Primer can crowd considerable type into a small space without graying into fuzziness. The even gradation of color through the various sizes from 6- to 12-pt. results directly from Linotype's policy of making separate drawings for each point size, modifying the width of individual characters as needed." [emphasis in the original]

I'm pretty sure Primer was indeed conceived to replace (i.e. compete with) Century Schoolbook, hence the name. (Again, I can't seem to put my hands on a primary source.)

Naturally, it was primarily marketed toward textbooks and educational materials. From the same ad copy quoted above: "Primer was designed for us by Rudolph Ruzicka primarily for textbook or schoolbook use. But Ruzicka drew us an alphabet so clear, so free of frills and mannerisms that might interrupt the reader, that we strongly recommend it for all types of work where legibility and dignity are of the essence." (Remember, this is marketing copy.)

Ruzicka had this to say [from Rudolph Ruzicka: Speaking Reminiscently, edited by Edward Connery Lathem, The Grolier Club, 1986.]: "Finally, after Fairfield Medium, I did Primer, which was intended to be a text type; that is to say, one principally meant for text books and that sort of thing. It was to be totally without artificial refinement, without affectations of any kind. Supposedly; but it isn't, really."

Charles -- I don't know whether I'd qualify for you as a "true font designer," but I have, on several occasions, toyed with the idea of doing a revival of Primer. The original Linotype working drawings are at the Printing History Museum in North Andover, and I've had a brief look at some of them. Gardner would never let me work from them without permission from Linotype, but now that Lino ownership is back in the States, it might be easier to get some traction with the idea. I could bring it up with Allan Haley. Still, I'm not convinced that there would really be enough broad market appeal to make the venture truly viable.

-- K.

Fascinating, Kent.

>don't know if I’d qualify for you as a “true font designer,”

Are you KIDDING? Say 'Whitman' three times.

To me this feels too much like a newspaper type modified for book work. I'm not sure I like it, but I probably would if you redrew it :)

My problem with it is that it looks awfully wide to me. But at the moment everything wider than Caslon (which varies width with optical size!) looks wrong, so my vision is probably distorted.

>Gardner would never let me

Heh,heh. Don't tell him who told you, but though he presents a very gruff exterior, I think you can sweet talk him. They let Matthew Carter use those drawings for his digital Monticello. Admittedly, that is a Linotype digital font, and he is Matthew Carter. But hey, you are Kent Lew :)

> No way am I going to touch that other tangent

But you already have. Here's a composite of Whitman
Regular and Bold, with the right sides of the rightmost
stems of the "m"s aligned, and with the Bold in gray:

William, you're working with FontBureau as well.
Expect to hear from them what I've been saying, eventually.

Primer: It would certainly be great to see a proper revival; and
there's no reason to doubt that you could do it justice yourself,
especially considering your proper awareness of optical scaling.
But I have to agree with your hunch that the market for it would
be minimal; and maybe that was the case with the original, which
would explain the apparent general disinterest in a digital version.

Since you're so good at making original contributions
and not just revivals, I would stick to that instead!

hhp

Kent,

By "real" or "true" font designer, I means essentially someone other than me. I can usually "fix" a font, but that is a far cry from starting from step 1. Looks like you qualify.

I would think that if Linotype gave you access to their materials, they might want to co-release it. I will try a "personal message" through Typophile.

Best,

Charles

CE: By “real” or “true” font designer, I means essentially someone other than me.

Well, then I guess I would qualify ;-)

William, you are kind; but one font could just be a fluke. We'll see what future efforts yield, and then time will tell.

WB: Heh,heh. Don’t tell him who told you, but though he presents a very gruff exterior, I think you can sweet talk him.

Oh, I know that. I have a great relationship with Gardner. But he explained his position vis-a-vis Heidelberg (owners of Lino at the time) and I respect his position. The work that Matthew did on Monticello was done with the full blessings of Linotype (and they co-own the results, and it's a shame they didn't launch any marketing efforts in conjunction with the Princeton project), and that's why he was allowed to use the drawings.

Primer is a wide design. In fact, it has pretty unique proportions all around -- rather wide and extremely large x-height, especially for its time. But, you're also probably reacting strongly to the 9-pt above, which is unduly emphasized by the screen enlargement.

Nevertheless, some of these aspects, which admittedly are part of its charm, also give it some limitations. Which is why it was always better suited to textbooks and was never as popular or broadly useful in general book work as Caledonia or Electra or Fairfield, for instance.

Hrant, you're right. Although I constantly toy with ideas about reviving faces I admire (and don't think have been done justice), I am possibly more temperamentally inclined to do other work and to just let it be deeply informed by those models.

-- K.

Hrant, you are completely off the mark in your assumptions about what I am doing, and I am well aware of what you are illustrating with Kent's wonderful typeface.

> you are completely off the mark in your assumptions about what I am doing

You are making a typeface, am I correct?
Will it have more than one weight?

> I am well aware of what you are illustrating

The next step for you is to realize that it's functional, not fashionable.

hhp

edit: I see now you have edited out an insult that I responded to, and I have deleted my response. I'm happy that you thought better of it, but I'd be still happier if you'd cease the tiresome one-upmanship. And I hope I'll be wise enough not to push back, which always makes it worse.

Big Edit:

I spent a good ten minutes addressing your hissy-fit, and now almost all of it needs to be dumped because you changed your mind. But it's worth the effort, especially since admittedly it was a change of mind on my own part (even though the span was less than 5 minutes, not an hour...) that apparently triggered most of it, even though your edit (and the subsequent IM to me to do likewise) is not unlikely to have been self-serving, at least in some ways (as in to cover up bad judgment). Here, however, is what remains:

1) My post did not previously contain an insult - please watch your terms.

2) You're seeing one-upmanship because that's what's in you own head. What I'm seeing is attempts to correct disinformation on your part; I don't want Typophile to harbor advice that I consider bad. Your persistent denial of this simple reality in favor of demonization is convenient, and typical.

hhp

Hello everyone. New guy here. I'm a letterpress printer with a hundreds of pounds of Century and a little bit to say about it. Century Schoolbook was designed for text books with maximum readability in mind. It was "mechanically" designed by ATF under Morris Benton's guidance, meaning its form was dictated by the use of mechanical tools rather than by a pen in the hand of a typographer. They (ATF) conducted "studies" to perfect it, and in my mind it worked, as it is an extremely readable type face, and is, to this day, perfectly suited for children's books. In fact, I don't think any other type face should ever be used for a children's book, but I suppose that would take too much away from everyone's creative "freedom." It is what a lot of us Gen-Xers recognize as the classic American alphabet. Century Old Style, another ATF typeface credited to Morris Benton (along with 221 others), is also truly American. Stan Nelson, formerly of the Smithsonian, once told me it was "about as exciting as a truck...but some people like trucks." I like trucks, basic pick up trucks without extended cabs and flared wheel wells...like a Ford F-150 or something. In fact, last time I checked (about 7 years ago), it sure looked to me like the NY Times was set in Century Old Style. I could be wrong. But if you're one of those people who think the NY Times is to America as the BBC is to Great Britain, there is nothing more American, more utilatarian, than Century Old Style. Century Expanded is definitely old fashioned, dated, American (of course), and cool. I like the Century family because of its classic nature. The real stuff is about a hundred years old, it does what it needs to do exceptionally well, and I don't see any reason to try to improve it.

> perfectly suited for children’s books.

I think it would be even better without serifs.
Which is why I once made a sans Armenian derivative:
http://www.themicrofoundry.com/f_arasan.html

hhp

The New York Times text is Imperial. Has been for at least the last several years (couldn't vouch for 7 years ago, but I believe it's been Imperial for quite a long time). Imperial was originally an Intertype design from 1954.

The primary headline style is now a specially harmonized suite of Cheltenhams, especially re-crafted for The Times by Matthew Carter. Prior to that update (ca. 2003, I think) the headlines were a cacophany of several styles. I suppose Century may have been among them, but I don't recall.

Nevertheless, the whole Century family does seem to epitomize a certain American quality, albeit early 20th century.

-- K.

If your comment is to be taken literally...

I think it would look stupid without the serifs.

Which is why we have News Gothic.

> I think it would look stupid without the serifs.

I think that seeing a font as being perfect,
even for one specific task, is what's stupid.

hhp

> ...seeing a font as being perfect...is what's stupid.

Then I must be stupid.

I'm logging out before I cause too much trouble. Never been any good at these kinds of discussions. Peace be with you.

You know, I have this thing against people claiming and adulating "perfection". I managed to restrain myself after your original post, but I guess I failed when I read your own "stupid". I really have no reason to think you're stupid, and I apologize. I'm a big fan of letterpress, and we don't have enough of such experts here, plus my difficult attitude is not typical of this forum, so please accept my apology, and stay.

hhp

your hissy-fit,

Welcome to the club, Bill.
Did you dare to proffer an opinion that differs from that of the omnuisciant Hrant?
Well shame on you, the world must be protected from such "disinformation"!
And did you dare to object to the magisterial dictates of one so knowledgable and accomplished? -- well then, the insult must be all in your mind, and you must be stupid, and thankful that he pointed it out, so please work harder to be smarter, and he will make you a better person, OK?

Nick, you don't value the intergrity of discourse. For you Typophile seems to be simply a means to further yourself. But at least realize that not everybody is always like that; some people sometimes object to things simply because they feel it's untrue, even if that causes people to dislike them.

hhp

>he will make you a better person

I figure if I learn to handle Hrant's rants graciously, I will be able to do anything. Something like Miyagi in movie 'Karate Kid':

Daniel: Wouldn't a fly swatter be easier?
Miyagi: Man who catch fly with chopstick accomplish anything.
Daniel: Ever catch one?
Miyagi: Not yet.

I haven't caught one, but I'm still trying :)

Nick, pay attention. There's always room to grow, even in the
strangest places. Enjoyment isn't everything. But you do need
the right attitude - so you might be happy to hear that it's really
all up to you after all.

hhp

Hrant, be a good fellow and give us all a break from the amateur psychology, would you?

Nah, you give us all a break from the infallible flaming artiste routine.

hhp

> The New York Times text is Imperial.

That makes perfect sense, as the Times was set with Intertypes till, what...not too long ago...wasn't it 1977 or something like that? Or was it even later?

Anyhow...just did the research, and sho'nuff if that Imperial isn't an interpretation of Century Old Style, designed almost 50 years prior, and it illustrates my initial point well...it's just not as well balanced, not as gracefully proportioned, not as classically truckish as the type it's trying to duplicate closely, but not copy, because there's copyrights on all this stuff, remember, and Century Old Style belonged to ATF, and Linotype surely had a type face that was similar. So maybe it doesn't illustrate my point (which was that you cannot improve upon these things because they were designed so perfectly) because it was not an attempt at improvement, but rather an attempt at close-as-possible mimmicry. Am I right? I mean...I could be wrong, but that's sure what it looks like to me.

Sigh . . . I think another neutrino just whizzed by.

> sigh

Okay. Man...first stupid and now a *sigh* response. Whew. Y'all is uptight over here. All I'm looking for is someone... kentlew, I suppose... to respond to my observation that the NY Times Imperial designed by Intertype looks like an ATF Century Old Style rip-off. This thread is titled "Your opinions on Century," right? And this is directly related to my opinion that Century = Classic = Very Good. The real stuff, that is...the lead stuff...the undiluted original ATF Century family.

Isn't the "real stuff" what the original designer (Harry Carter?) intended? Because it's no secret that metal type had limitations that skewed things around (like making kerns more modest to reduce breakage). A good example is Octavian, which actually improved when it moved out of metal - like look at the "f".

hhp

> Isn’t the “real stuff” what the original designer (Harry Carter?) intended?

Eesh. Now I sound like the pompous letterpress ass...let me take back that "real stuff" comment, please. But I will stick with my opinion that the original, the metal Century Old Style, credited to M Benton, is better than the copy-cat Intertype Imperial and most definitely better than the copy-cat digital Imperial I saw on myfonts.com last night, with or without the limitations you mentioned. (Maybe there's a better version of the digital Imperial out there...I don't know...I'm not especially hip to the world of digital type.) And it's better than the Century that's on my Mac. When I look at them side by side, the same typefaces, metal vs. digital, the metal reigns.

This could very well be purely subjective, and I like to stick to objectivity whenever possible, but for now I don't have the time to put together an objective arguement...I'm at work for cryin' out loud!

I'm not going to deny your opinion that some letterforms may have improved when they moved out of metal. That very well may the case. Mostly I registered and logged in to give my opinion about the Century family.

Koppa, I don't think the 'neutrino' was you...

According to Mac McGrew's 'American Metal Typefaces of the 20th Century' Imperial was designed by Edwin Shaar.

Incidentally, I notice that the text of the McGrew book is in Century Schoolbook.

I don't know whether the choice of Century Schoolbook for the text was made by Mac McGrew, or by my Uncle, J. Ben Lieberman, who was a moving force behind that book, and printed the first edition himself. In either case, it was selected as the representative American face of the 20th century by someone who knew these faces well, and lived through most of that era.

A few points (ducking any neutrinos):

Koppa -- Are you certain you aren't confusing Imperial with Ideal? Both are Intertype newspaper faces. Ideal was indeed designed specifically for The NY Times, ca. 1926 or 1928 (I have conflicting sources). Imperial was designed ca. 1954/57 and wasn't adopted by the Times until 1967. I don't recall when they stopped composing in metal.

Here are visuals for those attempting to follow along at home:

Intertype Ideal

Intertype Imperial

Ideal does indeed show a debt to the Century family. However, it appears most similar to Century Expanded, not Century Oldstyle. Notice details like the terminal and tail of the 'a', the terminals of the 'c' and 'r', the overall character of the 'g', and the straight serifs on the 'u' (contrasted with the canted serifs of Century Oldstyle).

For comparison:

Century Oldstyle

Century Expanded (sorry for the distortion on the right at the binding)

Century Schoolbook (for the sake of thoroughness)

Imperial, on the other hand, looks to me more like an attempt to keep up with Linotype's Legibility series, especially Corona. It could be argued that all the legibility newspaper faces of that period bear some passing resemblance to the Century family, as they all seem to have descended through a Clarendon/Ionic (and maybe a hint of Scotch) lineage. Century Oldstyle diverges most from this path (as its name might suggest).

As to your point about mimicry vs. improvement, I would say that Imperial bears neither relationship to Century; but I would say that Ideal was an attempt at improvement, to the extent that it was an effort to take overall design characteristics of the popular Century Expanded and improve their performance in a specific arena -- for newspaper text size and printing methods. I wouldn't be surprised if that was part of the brief from the Times (but I don't have any direct evidence of that, of course). Century Expanded, as is, simply would not have worked.

-- K.

Credits: Ideal and Imperial are taken from Anatomy of a Typeface by Alexander Lawson (David R. Godine Publishers, 1990). The Centuries are from my 1923 ATF specimen book.

>According to Mac McGrew’s ‘American Metal Typefaces

A-ha! Why didn't I just reference that book in the first place?...it's sitting right here next me (a gift from Brother Theo...Thanks, Theo!). It's a great, indispensible resource, and while it doesn't state that Imperial is a Century Old Style rip-off, I don't think anyone could deny the resemblance.

No disrespect intended towards Mr Shaar (rip-off is admittedly strong language)...those guys had jobs to do and they did them very well.

kentlew, thank you for posting the specimens and commentary. Great stuff. I mostly see the resemblance in the shortened ascenders and desenders, I thought the lowercase g and s were nearly identical in COS and Imperial, but now I see that they are not. Also noted is the canted vs. straight serifs. Haven't analyzed type this much in a while and it feels great. Nice chatting with you all.

> the metal reigns.

A lot of that of course is the general absense of optical scaling in digital
type (meaning that one design is made to do for all sizes). Fortunately
more and more designers are making optical masters these days.

hhp

The Berthold collection comprised a dozen digitized versions of various Century typefaces in PS Type 1 format, which vanished from the market after the bankruptcy, e.g. the digitization "Century Original" (see German typesetting specimen www.sanskritweb.net/temporary/centorig.pdf). It was claimed to be a replica of Benton's original version of 1900.

The dimension of the descenders would have been largely dictated by Standard Alignment. And relatively large x-height and shorter ascenders is pretty much de rigeur in small legibility faces like Imperial. So I don't think that this superficial resemblance is necessarily much evidence of influence.

Upon closer examination, I will grant that there appears to be a stronger resemblance between Imperial and Century Oldstyle than with the other Centuries (the "unfurling" of the terminals in 'a' and 'r', for instance). But there are other distinctive differences, and I don't know how much of a case can be made for direct influence.

Incidentally, in examining these examples even more closely, I've become convinced that the 'd' the specimen of Century Oldstyle, above, is wrong font (see lines 3 & 4: produced, versed, minds, and students). The angled stress in the bowl is decidedly anomalous and unlike the 'd' in other sizes. Looks like it slipped past the proofers. However, the 'd' in the last line (in received) looks correct.

If I had to guess, I'd say some Clearface got into the Century Oldstyle type case.

-- K.

Neat! No doubt on those d's. I love that kind of stuff...imagining the compositors setting those specimen books...sometimes the choice of words and phrases is a real crack-up, especially in that 1923 ATF book. Who made those decisions? It couldn't have been up to the compositor, could it? Surely there must've been a discussion about this in the past.

unrelated side note...I cannot believe I've been censored for the use of the word ass as in ass = donkey = fool = myself. Ass is not a naughty word in this context. Are typophiles notoriously uptight?

> sometimes the choice of words and phrases is a real crack-up

A digital foundry that has picked up that wonderful tradition is FontBureau.

Also: "Alphabets to Order: The Literature of Nineteenth-
Century Typefounders' Specimens" by A Johnston, 2000.

hhp

FontBureau
AFAIK, Tobias Frere-Jones wrote many of those, and may be doing same at H&F-J.

Jon Parker at Veer is also ace -- just got "TypeCity" specimen today -- very nice.

A specimen of Georgia might help illuminate some of what's not so contemporary about century schoolbook.

> “Alphabets to Order

Thank you for the book tip.

> what’s not so contemporary about century schoolbook.

There is no debating that Georgia is the more contemporary of the two. And beautiful, too. And the Century Schoolbook remains the classic. But why? What makes something classic? Or is it just classic in my mind because the climax of my nostalgiamania lies in turn of the last century America, at the birth of the age of the machine? Or is it really classic because it was the flagship of the biggest, best, most widely distributed type manufacturer in the country during the golden age of metal type?

These are real questions. Was it ATF's flagship? Seems reasonable to think so. And how do you define classic?

> Or is it just classic in my mind

Typically something being something in somebody's mind is
an indication that it's the same (or very similar) thing in
other's people minds too. But the only way to be certain
enough is to ask around a lot.

> how do you define classic?

In the prologue to "Revival of the fittest" (yes, another book)
a number of type luminaries take a shot at defining that.

hhp

how do you define classic?

One definition might be that it's an important part of the main evolutionary line.
Clearface has been mentioned, but there's quite a radical jump in many of its lettershapes.
In comparison Century was really just a revival of the Scotch Modern, beefed up to
(1) help Theo De Vinne's aging eyesight
(2) bring some Arts and Crafts heft to workhorse text type style (William Morris' aging eyesight)
(3) pack in a little more character count to please the publisher (De Vinne again)
Century Schoolbook addressed a further issue -- education, readability and social benefit -- after all, it was made during the Progressive Era, designed by an engineer.

***

Just looking at a big ad for Ikea in my morning paper, with house style of huge Century Schoolbook type, paired with Futura, another rationalist, early 20th Century face.

***

The simplified lines and enlarged features of Century Schoolbook -- which play to its audience of children -- also have a pop art quality, in the way that attention is drawn to the basic elements of a vernacular cultural artefact, in this case text type.

It's ironic that a rationalist approach, with the intent of making the style disappear when read at text size, should have this effect when the type is blown up large and the details may be readily inspected, but the paradoxical phenomenon of scalability is at the heart of typography, and one of the major reasons it's so fascinating to us.

Speaking of Clearface, it's a little-publicized fact that
it was actually design "scientifically" to improve reading.

> the paradoxical phenomenon of scalability is at the heart of typography

It is however almost entirely misunderstood,
to the point that we've come to believe that
a single font that can be scaled from 4 to 72
is actually a good thing...

hhp