Should we buy the Adobe Type Collection?

Kenny Venekamp's picture

Hello,

The company I work at owns a copy of the ITC Full Library (840 typefaces). They bought it in 2000/2001. The disc contains TT and PS files and seems to work fine on all machines. We also have a ITC-officina sans/serif bought separately.

One minor problem is that the ITC library does not contain any Euro-symbols.

Now we have a unique offer to buy the Adobe Type Collection with a 1500 euro discount.
My question: should we buy the Adobe Type Collection?

Ken Messenger's picture

Sounds like a good deal. It certainly wouldn't hurt to have some quality OpenType fonts and add some new faces to your current library.

lapiak's picture

I purchased the Adobe OpenType Collection a couple of years ago. Even though I got a $1000 discount, as a designer, I'd prefer to buy select type families from various foundries, though I don't regret the versatility and classics that the collection provides. If your company deals with common typefaces with your clients, I'd recommend the purchase.

poms's picture

But i would check out first, if all the classical serif-typefaces from linotype, monotype, etc. come with OSF (beside Tabular Numbers) and SC.

dan_reynolds's picture

Poms, the OT fonts from Linotype in the Adobe Collection should be the same as (or really close to) the versions you'd get directly from Linotype. But the OT fonts from ITC and Monotype are not the same. If you buy them from Adobe, you get fonts with less features than if you buy them from ITC or Monotype. If you want Monotype or ITC OT fonts with features, etc., you need to go to one of their sites (ITCfonts.com, Fonts.com, Faces.co.uk, Linotype.com, etc…).

mondoB's picture

In a word, NO! As discussed on other threads, the Adobe OpenType collection contains a surprising number of text families that offer no more glyphs than their old type-one PS versions. This means, especially, there are no oldstyle figures where you would most expect/want them.

After being razzed here for implying that all their new OTs now had full glyphs, Adobe made the bare minimal qualification in their sales copy for the OT collection: now "many" but not all families have full glyphs. You have the burden of researching 2,300 fonts! So, it pays to shop around and not spend such a bundle in one place.

If, for example, you like Galliard but want to use oldstyle figures with all its fonts, you must acquire the new ITC OT version, which gives you all that, instead of the Adobe OT version, which does not. Or Plantin, which comes with full glyphs only in the Monotype OT version, not the Adobe. When buying from Adobe, favor the families Adobe originated, like Arno, Warnock, Minion, etc. For these, their own children, Adobe made all the right moves. It's easy to get screwed buying the wrong version...caveat emptor!

Miss Tiffany's picture

Mondo, you should create a wiki entry on where to by the right version of the fonts.

By the way, if I read you correctly, Adobe aren't criminals. Anyone paying attention and doing a little research would realize their fonts do not have the OsF or small caps included.

Miss Tiffany's picture

Haven't they always just been called STD (standard) ? I've always understood that those fonts, STD, weren't enhanced OT but only fonts re-packaged in an OT wrapper.

You are right and I was suggesting that they need to be researched. But, if someone is making an investment like that I'd assume (yes, yes I know what happens) that they'd want to research exactly what it is they are licensing.

mondoB's picture

If you spot-check Adobe STD packages, you'll find that some have and some do not have more glyphs. With oldstyle figures, it mainly depends on whether Adobe offered expert sets in the old type-one PS version (that's where OSFs were parked); those would usually get folded into the OpenType version but the result would still be labelled STD as distinct from "Pro" which indicated more bells and whistles, like optical weights. So the purchaser must still research Adobe's glyph coverage symbols before he buys. I also like to e-mail customer service and get an unambiguous answer, because if the fonts lack what they promised, you can claim a refund...otherwise, goom-bye!!

Thomas Phinney's picture

In Adobe's fonts, the Standard vs Pro nomenclature is about language coverage, not typographic features. For example, Kepler, which has a boatload of typographic goodies, is a "Standard" family.

However, I'm a little confused by this reference to "the Adobe Type Collection" and "the Adobe OpenType Collection" and people then talking about Adobe's info/PR for same.

Adobe has a product called Font Folio (or Adobe Font Folio), which has lots of OpenType fonts. The latest version is Font Folio 11, replacing the older Font Folio OpenType Edition (a.k.a. Font Folio 10).

Monotype has created a product called "the Adobe Type Collection, OpenType edition," which has lots of Adobe fonts which they are authorized to resell. Adobe did not create and does not sell this bundle of fonts, and is certainly not responsible for disseminating info about it.

Regards,

T

Kenny Venekamp's picture

Hi,

First, thanks for all the responses. I have to deside within two days and I found out that the Adobe Font Folio 11 costs less then the Adobe Type Collection It also looks like the Folio 11 contains the same fonts, perhaps even more. Also the ITC library we already had, turns out to be outdated.

• The Adobe Open Type Collection will cost me 3200 euros (10 licenses)
• Folio 11 cost 5500 euros (also 10 licenses).

What are the major differences between the two pakkage (except the huge amount of money)?

Thanks,

Miss Tiffany's picture

You should do a comparison:

(Monotype) The Adobe Type Collection, OpenType edition: http://www.fonts.com/images/pdf/Adcat_Final.pdf (20 mb)
(Adobe) Font Folio 11: http://www.adobe.com/products/fontfolio/pdfs/fontfolio11_font_list.pdf (128 kb)

nicholasgross's picture

I'm also considering recommending purchasing Font Folio 11 for our clearing/Publishing house. One of the strongest reasons in its favour, in my opinion, is that Adobe seem to make embedding really uncomplicated in terms of the EULA. Thomas Phinney has claimed elsewhere that Adobe don't require any additional licensing fee for use of a font for an ebook or PDF publication. This will make a big difference to us. I hope I haven't misunderstood.

Thomas Phinney's picture

That is correct. Adobe's licensing does not charge anything extra for "commercial PDF" usage or the like. All the fonts that are entirely Adobe-owned are even set for "editable" embedding. The license even allows for user modifications, which hardly anybody else does any more (it used to be more common).

Regards,

T

Syndicate content Syndicate content