New to Typophile? Accounts are free, and easy to set up.
Create an account
Typophile RSS | More Feeds
Thanks in advance TypeStars
Galliard Bold Italic (aqua care only, dunno about the other)
Thank you Patty, I think there's probably a bit more leeway with the other text (is it me or do the "e"s look very narrow, especially compared to the "a"?).
The other one looks like it might have been obliqued rather than a true italic. Yes, the e's are strange looking. If you do in fact have leeway, why not use the Galliard there too? Perhaps roman to offset the italic in the logo?
The other "font" is the Adobe substitute font that is used when the original font is missing in a PDF.
Ooh, I knew it looked familiar, ugh. Then by all means use the Galliard, or a complimentary sans.
The other “font” is the Adobe substitute font that is used when the original font is missing in a PDF.
Isn't that just called "Adobe serif"?
I think it's turning out to be one of those occasions when we are required to reproduce an incorrect rendering of a logo.
There's a version on their site that looks like this
I remember Yves made a long post about Adobe Font substitutions some time ago. I'm wondering how to create an Illustrator file with editable text that one could use to demonstrate it. Could you edit the font name in a file, so that it always substituted??
EDIT: fixed the image Mark. I just tried editing the font name (using a text editor) in a simple EPS file to something gibberish, but it syill opened without substitution in Illustrator :(
Something wrong with your image, Richard. I just see a missing image icon + .gif]
Never mind--I found their website.
It looks to me like they are using an artificially boldened Garamond No. 5 Italic.
Unfortunately, I can't figure out how to link directly to a custom sample setting on MyFonts, but here's what it looks like:
You can see by the proportions that it fits.
It gets more interesting. There's something strange going on with the Galliard as well.
And I think you're right about the Garamond on their site Mark.
That artificially boldened Garamond No 5 italic is so similar to the Galliard ital, I reiterate why not be consistent? I bet the web designer was trying to match the Galliard (especially the distinctive w) and either couldn't find it or was too cheap to spring for it.
I bet if you subbed the galliard italic the client wouldn't even notice the difference anyway.
I noticed the A looked a bit slanty too.
As you can see, the Garamond fits with the text under the logo, too. The loose spacing indicates that it was artificially boldened like on the website.
Regarding the Galliard oddities, not all cuts of Galliard are identical. The Bitstream version has a slightly more slanted A than the Linotype/Adobe version, not as slanted as this though. FYI, the Bitstream version is more "true" since Carter supervised its digitization. The spacing in the italics in the Linotype/Adobe version is not so good.
Thank you Patty, for the initial ID, and Mark (and Paul) for subsequent thoughts.
I think I feel a blog entry coming on, about the perils of trying to reproduce a logo that has already been b*****d by somebody else.
I really feel this logo should be a contender for this week's XXX-rated 'Crimes Against Typefaces' section... :-)
Which one Jon, the one with the artificially emboldened Garamond, or the sustituted AdobeSerifMM? don't sit on the fence, tell us which you'd vote for.
Tough call... can I vote for both?