Typophile - Gill Sans Light - Comments

Doesn’t anyone from

malcolm — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:07:02 -0700

Doesn’t anyone from Monotype frequent this board? There is plenty of info on the origins of all the Gill cuts in the Monotype archives.

> I guess you are talking

fredo — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 05:27:50 -0700

> I guess you are talking about this quote, from MyFonts:

Actually, what I had in mind was, despite Pierponts reservations he and his crew made Gill Sans into a good and proper typeface. He was much more than a gifted craftsman, just look at Plantin!

never seen that cursive

geraintf — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 04:05:31 -0700

never seen that cursive italic e before, either!

From A Book of Typefaces

Nick Shinn — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 21:28:44 -0700

From A Book of Typefaces Rules And Ornaments, used by Brown, Knight and Truscott Ltd., London, 1961.
Note how the design of “a” is different at 36 and 30 pt., and the “a” at 36, 30, and 24 pt.

I’ll make a wild guess

Miss Tiffany — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:18:01 -0700

I’ll make a wild guess that he was still very much of the “type for book typography” mindset and couldn’t wrap his head around what all the young kids, like Stanley Morison, were hip to at the time.

>what about Pierpont, eh? I

William Berkson — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:12:58 -0700

>what about Pierpont, eh?

I guess you are talking about this quote, from MyFonts:

*
“I can see nothing in this design to recommend it and much that is objectionable” — Frank Pierpont’s first impressions of Gill’s drawings of Gill Sans, in a letter to fellow Monotype manager William Burch, 1927
*

Given what Pierpont did at Monotype, I’m sure he was a good craftsman. I wonder what his objections were, and why. I have a feeling they were different than Ben Archer’s, as presumably Pierpont was involved in getting the final version of the a, with the small tail.

William: But I don’t

fredo — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 15:08:38 -0700

William:
But I don’t agree with much of Archer’s sour analysis of it.

Neither do I. And what about Pierpont, eh?

From an undated Monotype

Maxim Zhukov — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:02:39 -0700

From an undated Monotype specimen (probably early 1950s), Belserdruck, Stuttgart.

Nick, I am sure you know that what you show here is the custom version of Gill Sans created for the continental/international market. It is an imitation of Futura commented on by Walter Tracy in his Letters of Credit (p. 95). Its alternates — AJMNQRWW and abdgpqstuw (roman), and JMQ and aaefgptu (italic) — are set in a separate line in the ‘Monotype’ Book of Information. The figures look especially unauthentic...

I understand how in Britain

William Berkson — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 11:00:50 -0700

I understand how in Britain you could get thoroughly sick of Gill Sans’ eccentricities, from overexposure to it. But I don’t agree with much of Archer’s sour analysis of it.

Yes, you can argue about the “a” tail being too small, but it is in character with the two-weight or relatively highly modulated g and e, and does have a flavor and way of spacing that is a different and arguably good solution.

There are to me a lot of virtues in Gill’s design, and shortcomings in Johnston’s that Archer doesn’t note.

The biggest defect in Johnston’s Underground is that the lower case has clotted joins. This is a fundamental defect that needed to be remedied somehow. It is still that way in P22 London Underground, which I think is a pretty faithful revival. Others under the influence of Johnston’s none the less still great type face have fixed it in different ways.

Still, Gill’s ideas are by and large very good and to me work visually. The two-weight a is a way of getting all those stacked strokes into the space without being clotted. The g does the same and I think beautifully.

The spurless b d p q are also ways of reducing clotting in the joins, and add interest to the face, as well as solving a problem. I don’t think they are a defect at all. Jeremy Tankard’s beautiful Bliss follows Gill here, with characters that I personally like better than Gill’s, but draw on his ideas. Tankard’s g also follows Gill’s lead, again with a different solution, though in this case not superior to Gill’s.

Gill’s face, with its modulations in key spots, overall gives a clean confident impression. Its sharp t and other details make it a bit too aggressive for my taste, which is why I prefer the softer and more elegant Bliss.

Still there are occasions on which Gill’s more assertive look will do better. It may be way over exposed in Britian, but it was and still is a good typeface. I really can’t see the lower case of Johnston’s face being well used “as is” for text at all. I fondly remember Johnston’s caps on Underground stations from my years in England, and I hope they never change them. The lower case is not so bad on big signage, but still not so great either.

For all its eccentricities, Gill Sans is still a great face for print. I can’t say that for Johnston’s lower case.

James, that’s a great

Jason Alejandro — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 10:25:08 -0700

James, that’s a great example of what you mentioned at the conference at Kean, how every women’s magazine has to have an “ultra-skinny” typeface somewhere.

From an undated Monotype

Nick Shinn — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 09:51:35 -0700

From an undated Monotype specimen (probably early 1950s), Belserdruck, Stuttgart.
“M 10, Serie 262-11, Durchschuß 2”
There is also Bold, but no Light shown.

A few notes on the Gill

fredo — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 08:36:48 -0700

A few notes on the Gill article by Ben Archer in Wills link

There are three developmental forms of the Gill Sans lowercase ‘a’ on record; revisions were made at the Monotype drawing office and passed back to Gill for approval. The original design for ‘a’ is strikingly similar to Johnston’s (as might be expected), followed by a second attempt which was put into production and can be seen on early specimen sheets. The third and least satisfactory character is seen in all versions of Gill Sans since the early 1930s
I have seen the second version in logos and signs dating from at least the mid eighties, so at least in photo comp & display it must have survived much longer.

Gill obliterated the terminus endings of the vertical stroke in ‘b’, ‘d’, ‘p’ and ‘q’; the Monotype drawing office again came to his assistance and revised the forms so that they were preserved in the medium weight (this can be seen on early samples of the series 262). Today however, this feature only persists in the lightest weight of the digital GillSans.

These details have survived in the regular cut of Bitstreams version.

Back in the day I printed a

will powers — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 07:09:26 -0700

Back in the day I printed a lot of Gill Sans Light in metal. It is gorgeous on the right paper, with the right ink, the right impression, and the right design.

Go here to see more about Gill:

http://www.typotheque.com/articles/re-evaluation_of_gill_sans/

powers

It looks to me like the

charles_e — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 05:57:14 -0700

It looks to me like the Light face is too thin for use in metal . . .

As a rule of thumb, you can use a lighter typeface with letterpress than with offset. The ink spread will make the type appear a little heavier in letterpress. This happens with all papers, even coated stocks, though the amount of spread will vary with the paper. Usually the center of the stroke is lighter with letterpress — the ink is pushed out — but the edge heavier, so the general appearance is of a little more weight, and better definition.

It looks to me like the

Maxim Zhukov — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:44:28 -0700

It looks to me like the Light face is too thin for use in metal, so I had guessed it was developed as an addition to the Adobe Gill suite, but I’m perfectly willing to accept that it was cut for photocomp.

There are grounds to believe that Gill Sans Light was developed before the advent of phototypesetting.

‘Monotype’ Book of Information: New Enlarged Edition (London & Salfords: The Monotype Corporation Limited, [1959]) shows Gill Sans Light (Series 362) on pp. 104 and 116.

Specimen Book of ‘Monotype’ Non-Latin Faces (London & Salfords: The Monotype Corporation Limited, [1963]) shows the Cyrillic and the Greek versions of Gill Sans Light (series 362 and 672).

Both titles were printed letterpress, quite neatly.

A Book of Type and Design by Oldřich Hlavsa (New York: Tudor Publishing Co., 1960) says, on p. 220, ‘Gill Sans was produced in 1927, and between 1928 and 1930 was gradually introduced to the market in the light, medium, bold and bold condensed weights mostly with italics, in sizes from 5 to 72 points.’

FWIW.

Gill Sans Light

lirmac — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 03:10:38 -0700

80 years after its initial release, it seems I can’t walk 100 metres without seeing something set in Gill Sans. But can anybody provide any info on the fantastic light weight – like who designed it? Linotype, MyFonts and the other usual sources simply state ’by Eric Gill’, but I doubt it’s quite as simple as that! Thanks, Lir