Garage Gothic?
Industrial right out of the box.

http://fontbureau.com/fonts/font_frames.tpl?cart=10512783843867582&fontname=GarageGothic

Randy

Perhaps not as industrial as what you have in mind, but Monotype Grotesque has been a favourite of mine for a number of years. I use the Bitstream version called Gothic 720.

Adobe's Grotesque MT
http://www.adobe.com/type/browser/P/P_1231.jhtml

Bitstream Gothic 720
http://store.bitstream.com/searchresults.asp?category=&searchtext=Gothic+720&platform=&format=

I wouldn't say Jay's advice is extreme, perhaps utopian and quixotic, but not extreme. I think it is fair to say, however, that the average client can't afford a new typeface (font, set of letters). That is why as designers, in situations where the client can't afford a new set of letters, we must know the market and the competition and be able to do as Stephen suggested.

a typeface is a generic term encompassing all type. font is a family of one specific typeface. there are countless ways of classifying type. i prefer the vox method, but on a very broad level you can make the distinction between display face or text face. in the post i made earlier i suggested that a trademark should be created with the ideal of display in mind. this is not just a preference but a rule. i don't find this extreme in any way. creating original display type can be very easy. it's not at all a horrible task, for god sakes we are designers, we should enjoy this stuff. over all it's the distinction between text and display that is important. a text face is used for setting copy this is what they were built to do. in the days of metal type one face had many different cuts. it was different at 10pt then at 32pt. this is because as a type face gets larger and becomes a display it needs to become more robust in it's joins and horizontals. making it more of a display face then text face. the fact that the computer makes no compensation for this in a typeface as it gets larger is apparent in the fact that large computer type looks so bad. no one would dream of setting a book in a display face so why should one be as ridiculous to make a trademark out of a text face. yet this is done all the time because most designers are lazy or naive.

>In the meaning I associate with that term, I'd say the opposite. Display type [generally] requires finer detailing, higher contrast, even delicacy and elegance on occasion.

this could not be further from the truth. a display face recuires less detailing in it's joins and such. it becomes more robust in this manner because there is no need to read it in the traditional sense. the eye and mind deal with it as one word not a collection of words skimmed over and formed together into concepts. for this reason it needs more substance and less detail. this subject is covered extensively in doyald youngs book font's and logo's.

as far as your point about the duality of the reader i agree. but i think you have it mixed up the text face needs legibility as a key element [yes] while the display face which relies less on this can change all it wants. the more drastic the better because it creates interest on the part of the reader. a display situation deals with less type [maybe just one word] and so generally less cognition is needed then reading a paragraph of text. because of this it can be much more dramatic and illustrative then a text face. this is apparent in the fact that most trademarks are heavy and robust examples of display typography.

> this could not be further from the truth. a display face recuires less > detailing in it's joins and such. it becomes more robust in this > manner because there is no need to read it in the traditional sense. > the eye and mind deal with it as one word not a collection of words > skimmed over and formed together into concepts. for this reason it > needs more substance and less detail. this subject is covered > extensively in doyald youngs book font's and logo's.

Try setting Berthold Baskerville to 200 pt and you get a Clarendon-like slab serif! I think what you saying is, text type need to accommodate things like ink spread, so details like ink traps at 'joins and such' have to be considered, am I right? Reading in the traditional sense is precisely as you put it - 'skimming over and formed together into concepts'. We don't read letter by letter but 'word-images'. We take jumps and periodically stop at points of fixation, picking up the meaning as we go along.

So, in terms of features, text typefaces are less refined, because they are prone to unpredictable reproduction qualities. Besides, we don't really see the details very clearly unless we use a magnifying glass. Display type, on the other hand, have to be delicate and a lot more refined, because everything is exposed right in front of our eyes to see - there's nothing to hide. So display types are usually have higher contrast, thinner serifs, more refined features so we don't get this chunky slab serif when we blow it up. Think this way for a moment: reading text type is like looking at objects at a distance: they are less sharp and less defined. Display type, on the other hand, is like looking at objects right in front of us, so everything is sharper and more detailed.

keith, i agree in part, everything up to the thin serifs in display faces. i think that things need to get thicker and more slabish as they move into display. this is what is traditionally done for trademarks. as far as the more refined issue goes i agree they become more refined as they are simplified but also as more decorative elements are added

> text type need to accommodate things like ink spread

Traps are actually one of the secondary things that make a good text face - there are much more fundamental factors.

I would even go as far as stating this paradox:
A real text font has to have a certain ugliness about it.
This is because of the optical and "reading firmware" issues.
Look at Tracy's stuff - he was da man.

> i think that things need to get thicker and more slabish as they move into display.

Well, in the display realm it's all about easthetics, so for example if a given identity is based on "slabbishness", you would put moderate slabs on the text cut (because of the need for moderation for readability) but indeed exagerate the slabs in the display.

But all things being equal, the display cut generally needs to be less clunky.

> in trademarks and billboard kind of display work, the type does need to be robust

Because of technical/repro issues? Sure. But still less so than in a text font for use at like 9 point!

hhp

> when things get larger they need ... more weight

This is generally incorrect.
Which is one reason why inline fonts exist, and why some people use gray (or a color) instead of black for larger settings.

hhp

I have read Young's book - in fact at this instant it's less than a meter to my left.

I totally agree about the letterspacing part - just not the weight part. My quote-editing must've been misleading. (FYI, I use four dots to include the ommitted stuff, but three dots to skip over it.)

BTW, I feel letterspacing needs to vary with any point size, not just above 18.
Below about 8 points for example most any font certainly benefits by being set looser.

hhp

Yes, the real measure is subtended angle, not absolute point size.

hhp

>you should almost never use an existing typeface for a trademark.

Even though I am still a student (which equates to minimal experience) I find that this is pretty much true. Even though, as tiff said, it sometimes comes down to client budget and not being able to afford a custom face, I find it much more satisfying to draw custom lettering. At the moment I am essentially rebranding my mother's store and I couldn't really bring myself to use an "off the rack" typeface for her logo. Is it really that hard to make a few new letters?