New to Typophile? Accounts are free, and easy to set up.
Most Attractive Old-Style Year
Posted by Ehague in
1 Jan 2008 — 10:48am
1 Jan 2008 — 10:48am
This is a continuation of some of the ideas put forth on this thread.
What year do you think sets most attractively in old-style numerals? For whatever reasons, I'm partial to 1914.
User login
Support our Sponsors
1 Jan 2008 — 1:33pm
By century...
1056
1156
1256
1365
1465
1569
1659
1756
1856
1956
2056
I really like combinations of 5 and 6 in oldystle numerals.
1 Jan 2008 — 3:48pm
1969
1 Jan 2008 — 5:09pm
666
1 Jan 2008 — 5:10pm
I noticed in looking at inscriptions in New York on buildings that pre WWII a lot of dates on buildings used the descending 9, but the others without ascent or descent. The makers obviously felt free to do whatever would look good.
1 Jan 2008 — 6:13pm
5. This is going back a while, of course, before my time. I think 5 is the most elegant old style numeral, if done well.
1 Jan 2008 — 6:15pm
1970
1 Jan 2008 — 7:04pm
I like years that have both ascenders and descenders in them. The 1980s and 1990s were good for that, although I didn't like the repeating "9" so much in the 90s. Unfortunately, the last such date was 1998, and we won't get another one until 2036. I hope to still be around for that one. :)
Cheers,
T
1 Jan 2008 — 7:10pm
1871
1 Jan 2008 — 9:06pm
Tiffany, nice pick.
1 Jan 2008 — 9:29pm
Thomas is right. It's going to be a long, dull ride in the 2000s for oldstyle figs.
2 Jan 2008 — 1:09am
I am SOOO happy that we are in the 2000's now. Seeing all these 1xxx's compromised by terrible kerning of the '1' made me sick to the stomach. So here's my list of favorites:
200 — 999 AD (exclude the one's with a 1)
2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
. . .
Bert Vanderveen BNO
2 Jan 2008 — 2:19am
1691
2 Jan 2008 — 5:04am
Thomas: Unfortunately, the last such date was 1998, and we won’t get another one until 2036
Unless you use those funky French numerals, in which case a mix of ascending and descending numerals will not arrive until 2043.