DTL Fell, or...?

pbaber's picture

I really like DTL Fell—in particular its solid colour/letter shapes—but I don't like the swashy italics or Q. I'm looking for something that has Plantin-esque neutrality/solidity and ideally a reasonably dark colour on the page, but still some slight idiosyncrasies (I love Fell's numerals). Any suggestions would be much appreciated.

—P.

Bert Vanderveen's picture

This is like looking for your ideal woman (substitute gender of choice here) — everything is to your liking… haircolour, size of b**bs, sense of humour, biorhythm, car, apartment, BUT … o gosh… she has an ingrown nail!!!!
So what do you do? Look for the OTHER perfect one, or live with it?

Don't moan, P., go for it and avoid those Q's (and don't they pop up everywhere?)…

. . .
Bert Vanderveen BNO

pbaber's picture

The uppercase Q is not so much an issue—it is the italics that are the problem (for the text I'm setting).

Reed Reibstein's picture

I assume that Renard and Galliard are too swashy in their italics, too. Might Poynter Old Style work? Or maybe one of the many Janson's/Kis's available?

EDIT: And DTL's own Van den Keere is another option.

John Nolan's picture

Not the same at all, but with similar colour, is FF Clifford. And the italic has alternates with less swash: see here.

pbaber's picture

Thanks for your suggestions. Poynter Old Style is good but a bit too light. And I really like Van De Keere but it is probably too expensive for me right now (this is a self-initiated project). Out of interest, does anybody know if DTL Fell is available for purchase—it doesn't seem to be for sale on the DTL website?

To summarise what I am looking for; something with a fairly dark, Plantin-esque colour, solid forms (definately shouldn't have sharp serifs), not too much contrast, unpretentious feeling but with some idiosyncrasies. I am sure something like this must exist out of the thousands of typefaces out there!

Any ideas are much appreciated

—Phil.

John Nolan's picture

Umm...Hoefler text? (if you're on a Mac, you have at least some of it.)

John Nolan's picture

Indigo: nice call!

Stephen Coles's picture

Phil - can you describe what you don't like about FF Clifford?

pbaber's picture

Thanks a lot for more suggestions—Musee looks close, in fact I really like it. To help clarify a bit further; Indigo is too 'sharp' (the angled cuts on the a,d etc.)

Stephen—I really like Clifford in its own right and looking at it again it is similar to what I'm looking for. But, and I don't know this is a good explanation, I feel like it has too much 'sparkle'—perhaps because of the tapered vertical strokes? I'm comparing this to Musee or Plantin which look more solid and abrupt. Other thoughts/comments appreciated,

—Phil

Miss Tiffany's picture

I think the advantage of Clifford is the choice of optical sizes. I would say Musee has more sparkle than Clifford, but both are more sparkly than Plantin.

pbaber's picture

Interesting that you think Musee has more sparkle than Clifford. Perhaps I need to see printed examples of the two alongside one another. Is it possible to get a printable PDF of Clifford from somewhere?

—Phil

Miss Tiffany's picture

Stephen could probably help you out with Clifford, but here is Musee. Do you have access to a high res laser printer?

http://www.myfonts.com/images/library/source/Musee.pdf

pbaber's picture

Thanks Tiffany. Hmm seeing Musee printed, I now think that it looks too elegant (although all the ligatures they threw into that sample may have something to do with it). Wow I'm really fussy! But I should add that to the list of characteristics for the typeface—unfussy and not elegant or in anyway delicate or precious.

Stephen Coles's picture

> Perhaps I need to see printed examples of the two alongside one another.

Yes, you really do need to print text fonts to properly test. Here's FF Clifford (88KB PDF).

Syndicate content Syndicate content