New to Typophile? Accounts are free, and easy to set up.
Create an account
Typophile RSS | More Feeds
anyone have any ideas what this is – it has a Zapf look about it.
Many thanks in advance.
It is very Zapfian. It has the same structural genetics as Zapfino. The "thins" in the M look too heavy to me. Could it have been altered to rid the design of a lightness where the diagonals appear in the M?
Can you I.D it tho?
It is very Zapfian.
It has the same structural genetics as Zapfino.
No it doesn't.
The “thins” in the M look too heavy to me.
"too" heavy? Compared to what, Zapfino?
Could it have been altered to rid the design of a lightness where the diagonals appear in the M?
It's possible, but only for people who believe it's supposed to be like Zapfino.
j a m e s
I think you're wrong James - Michael is right; Zapfino is the starting point.
This is done with outset paths, a bit of skewing here and there and no other manipulation.
A bit more refinement and you're there.
There’s also Zapfino Forte (which, btw, sounds to me like it was only available on prescription).
You beat me to it Florian
Zapfino Forte One? I knew he had released a heavier version.
And as to the thick/thin disparity I was merely trying to say that the thins are much heavier than Zapf would have done! It has been altered as well.
Ps Nick, I had already prepared the same graphic.
You were just pulling my leg, right?
Oh I forgot. The only other style it could be is Noris Script. However the "I's" exit left instead of right and the diagonal joins are softer in Noris than in the eg., similar form though. And then there is the edge aberration.
@typerror: And as to the thick/thin disparity I was merely trying to say that the thins are much heavier than Zapf would have done! It has been altered as well.
Assuming Zapf did it. What if it isn't altered Zapfino, but merely a few glyphs that look like altered Zapfino?
Not really. I just think it's wise not to jump to obvious conclusions based on visual evidence alone. We don't know the Zapfino theory is true, we only assume it is. It's one thing to overlay a sample on top of glyphs from a particular font and say "it was made out of this but modified" on account of the similarities, and it's another thing to acquire and provide proof that that is indeed what actually happened.
@Nick Cooke: I think you’re wrong James - Michael is right; Zapfino is the starting point.
A bit more refinement and you’re there.
Your overlay drawing proves nothing other than the similarities between the glyphs in the I.D sample and Zapfino 1. It does not prove Zapfino was the starting point. I looked at Zapfino 1 as well, compared the sample, and concluded it may have been derived from Zapfino, or maybe not. Either way, all you've got is speculation based on what you want to believe, what you want reality to be.
Whoever made the sample glyphs could have drawn them that way by eye using a sample of Zapfino. I could have done it by eye with a sample on-screen or printed and taped to the shadow mask of the screen. Any competent bezier wrangler could have done it by eye.
I'm not saying it wasn't made out of Zapfino. All I'm saying is we don't know it was with certainty. The overwhelming similarities could be coincidental.
And I'm playing devil's advocate too. Somebody has to.
28 years of calligraphic practice and an adoration for Zapf, hence an ability to identify his work, down the drain.
I feel so dumb!
I just tried playing around with Zapfino Forte and Zapfino One, and adding stroke thickness approaches the sample, but the stroke details are wrong, as are the angles. When I tried adding negative shear the M was too skewed if I got close with the I's. I also tried using path offsets with the outlines, and that was closer in some respects, but still had the wrong calligraphic stroke details.
My inclination, based on my crude attempts, is to say that someone skilled in calligraphy might quite easily imitate the forms of Zapfino, but not without imparting their own signature technique. That's what I suspect we are seeing.
If your goal is to approximately replicate this, then I agree with using Zapfino as a starting point, unless you have the calligraphic skill to imitate it. Unless you match them side by side, I think it would be hard to describe the differences.
- Mike Yanega
To play devil's advocate is one thing, to be dismissive is another!
"I’m not saying it wasn’t made out of Zapfino."
Yes you did!
ME: "It has the same structural genetics as Zapfino."
YOU: "No it doesn’t."
Michael, I changed my position slightly. Get over it.
@typerror: ...to be dismissive...
@Nick Cooke: "I think you’re wrong James - Michael is right; Zapfino is the starting point."
"This is done with outset paths, a bit of skewing here and there and no other manipulation."
Is that any less dissmissive?
So much fuss over a humble font. You'd think the people involved would have more constructive things to do (myself included).
thanks for your thoughts – enlightening and entertaining as always. Should I find out anything here, I’ll post.