Alternative for "Foundry Monoline"

Evie's picture

Hi everyone,

I'm looking for an alternative for the "foundry monoline" typeface

http://www.foundrytypes.co.uk/the-foundry-typefaces/sans/params/foundry-...

preferebly a typeface with a regular, medium and light weight.

All help is really appreciated.

Les ONeill's picture

Not sure why Foundry Monoline isn't working for you but maybe
Forza
http://www.typography.com/fonts/forza/styles/
or Purista
http://www.fontshop.com/fonts/downloads/suitcase/purista_family/
will meet your needs?

kthomps5's picture

http://www.identifont.com/find?similar=Foundry+monoline&q=Go

(see the lists of similar fonts to the left and right, some of which have already been mentioned above).

hrant's picture

What's your motivation in finding an alternative?

hhp

Evie's picture

thnx for replying everyone!

Reasson i'm looking for an alternative is because the client asked for it, the previous font they used was Foundry Monoline, they want a font that looked kind of like it but they wanted a complete new identity including the typeface...i tried to convince them in just staying with Foundry Monoline since they wanted something that looked or had the same feel but the answer i got was "we like to have something more up-to-date".....myself i preferred for them to use Foundry Monoline but i didn't really wanted to get into this big argument that would make them say "let us think about it for a while and we'll get back to you" and risk losing the job..

Martin Silvertant's picture

The typeface does seem a bit old-fashioned though. I can actually understand they want something more contemporary. That /t in particular makes me think of Bauhaus.

http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/suitcase/nudista/

DrDoc's picture

DIN has that same sort of squarish-grotesk thing going on but is perhaps a bit more timeless.

Martin Silvertant's picture

I think it's smart to avoid DIN for branding if at all possible.

DrDoc's picture

@Martin: Why? Because it's used so much elsewhere? If you're relying on your typeface to give your brand all of its personality, your brand probably doesn't have that distinct of a personality anyway.

Martin Silvertant's picture

Yes, that's my consideration. I like DIN a lot as a typeface, but I'm getting really tired of seeing it. For some reason it's the default art academy typeface, where 80% of the students will use it for their presentations. That can't be good. I personally feel it doesn't speak of being a good designer if you consistently use the same typeface. For every new project different considerations should be made regarding the choice of typeface and so it's more than just unlikely that DIN will be the ideal typeface every time. A design philosophy like Massimo Vignelli's I consider to be very bad.

Nevertheless, DIN is beautiful and can offer nice branding possibilities, but considering its overuse I would recommend looking further if possible. You want your brand to look unique/original after all.

DrDoc's picture

Personally, I think how you're using the typeface is a lot more important than the typeface itself. Using a grotesk that gets less exposure is still using a grotesk, and unless there's something really funky about it your brand isn't going to look unique or original. There are a few cases where a custom typeface has really helped shape a brand's voice — like GE Inspira, for example — but most of the time an out-of-the-box typeface isn't going to do that for you, and someone could just as easily come along a few months later, use the same typeface, and dilute your brand.

Brooklyn Academy of Music uses News Gothic, arguably the most boring typeface out there, but it does interesting things with it which makes the brand distinctive. Would they have been better served using, I don't know, Founders Grotesk or something? I don't think so.

I'm not saying typefaces don't matter – they really do — I'm saying the vast majority of the time a typeface isn't capable of doing the heavy lifting for you.

hrant's picture

I have to agree with Martin. Because although how a typeface is used makes a big difference, it's just as significant how others have used it...

hhp

Martin Silvertant's picture

Personally, I think how you're using the typeface is a lot more important than the typeface itself.

That might be, but I feel this is a different issue. Why not first select a functional, beautiful and original typeface and THEN see how best to use it? It doesn't matter if you use Helvetica in the best way possible, I will still be annoyed with its choice.

Using a grotesk that gets less exposure is still using a grotesk, and unless there's something really funky about it your brand isn't going to look unique or original.

Probably not, but using a highly prolific typeface is probably going to add insult to injury. Reading your statement one could almost draw the conclusion that it doesn't really matter whether you use Arial or Nimbus Sans. I submit that it does matter — a lot.

There are a few cases where a custom typeface has really helped shape a brand's voice

The impact it has may be very subtle, but even the subtle effects should be considered. Let's say there is a brand which uses a typeface which is neutral to everyone and has no impact one way or the other but our small type community is very annoyed with some of the details in that typeface. Wouldn't it then be a better practice to choose a typeface which is at least neutral to everyone? Even if it impacts few people, I think it still matters. Whether making such small extra impact is cost-effective should obviously be considered as well, but that's a different matter.

Would they have been better served using, I don't know, Founders Grotesk or something? I don't think so.

I have my doubts but I wouldn't completely dismiss the possibility either. To be clear though, I don't necessarily want every brand to use an "exciting" typeface. I agree it's vital how a typeface is used, and often a "boring" typeface can equally impress, sometimes more so.

I'm not saying typefaces don't matter – they really do — I'm saying the vast majority of the time a typeface isn't capable of doing the heavy lifting for you.

I tend to agree with that, but to dismiss the subtle impact a certain typeface will have is taking things too far.

To get back to the DIN consideration, I still think that if everyone is using DIN, it's wise to look for alternatives. Why would you only differentiate in the use of the typeface if you can also differentiate with the choice of the typeface? It doesn't have to be vastly different, but caring immensely about the details and subtleties is what deserves respect and what will strengthen the brand. Using Helvetica in the best way possible doesn't have that effect on me. In fact, almost by definition when I see Helvetica being used, I feel the company/designer is either ignorant or doesn't care enough about the details and subtleties and what they want to represent.

Syndicate content Syndicate content