Sudden Realization: Tanger Serif by Typolar seems not to be discussed in various typography blogs. Why?

oobimichael's picture

One of my favorite typefaces is Tanger Serif by Typolar. To me, it seems formal enough for business essays and articles, etc... but also adds a mild touch of unique style...

But googling Tanger Serif doesn't bring up the various reviews normally found regarding other main stream typefaces...

Was curious is anyone has had any publishing/design experience with Tanger Serif... and what their opinions might be...

Frode Bo Helland's picture

Most of the typefaces that get a “review” does so because someone likes it. This is how the type scene operates. The stuff no-one likes is usually shoved under the carpet. Sometimes an occasional sarcastic remark on Twitter.

PabloImpallari's picture

What Frode says.. adding that also, some other gets reviews for marketing reasons. AFAIK some foundries pays extra $ to get featured in the distributor's email newsletters.
Another factor may be the "news-nest" of a font... almost nobody reviews old fonts, although there are many beautiful hidden gems. For example, this is one of those gems: http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/efscangraphic/zapf-renaissance-antiqua-sb/

Pomeranz's picture

Please take a look at ABCdarium > Tanger Serif (in german).

oobimichael's picture

Thanks for the comments thus far... but maybe my question was mis-worded. What I was attempting to ask was NOT 'general information' about the Tanger Serif typeface (mostly what is found is written by the designer or Typolar corporately).

But rather, my question was about how other professionals rated or viewed the typeface. To my novice eye, it is an interesting typeface with a bit of character that mainstream formal typefaces do not seem to have. I tend to like unconventional serifs such as Mamontov by omtype or in this case Tanger Serif, even for formal corporate business reports, etc.

So... with the various typography blogs out there, I haven't seen much (if any) written about Tanger Serif, and was curious why this might be. Is it due to bad design of the typeface? Or bad marketing by Typolar? Or perhaps even that design professionals tend to remain loyal to 'safe' or 'mainstream' alternatives (such as something from Adobe, Linotype, et. al.) ?

Hope that clarifies my question. Thanks.

Bert Vanderveen's picture

As the proverb says ‘The proof of the pudding is in the eating’… Acceptance in the market is the way a font is rated. As soon as you see a tf used in a major publication or ad campaign you know it is a *good* one.

hrant's picture

One thing to note here is that Typographica failed to compile a "best of" for 2009 and 2010...

some foundries pays extra $ to get featured in the distributor's email newsletters.

Is this based on hearsay or could you offer some concrete details about this?

As soon as you see a tf used in a major publication or ad campaign you know it is a *good* one.

That's not my own world view. :-) Exhibit #1: Mrs Eaves. Used by everybody and their neighbor's dog's groomer in the 90s. But seriously flawed. Exhibit #2: The "typography" (using the term quite loosely) of Avatar. I could go on until Pangaea reforms.

hhp

Syndicate content Syndicate content