Booktype: Serif ID (similar to garamond)

dag-henning's picture

Can anyone tell which one this is?
It carries a calligraphic characteristic to its terminals, and is simliar to galliard, garamond.

AttachmentSize
type.jpg28.53 KB
Chris Keegan's picture

Similar to a Galliard or Garamond, but I don't think that's it.

dag-henning's picture

yeah right, it aint it though. hmm

bowfinpw's picture

Are those the only letters you have as samples of this typeface?

- Mike Yanega

Chris Keegan's picture

Where did you find this sample? That may help narrow it down.

dag-henning's picture

This is unfortunately the only sample. I found it on the cover of one of the books at
http://www.collection-fmra.org/

dag-henning

bowfinpw's picture

Well, this one is stumping me. I have just scanned through about 1700 serif font samples at MyFonts looking for this t and c, and for something with nearly horizontal serifs, and if they had it I missed it.

The most similar fonts I found were FF Atma Serif Bold, George Ryan's Kennedy, and Oldrich Menhart's Figural Bold, revived by Michael Gills.

The 'c' seems like the best character for ID purposes, but I couldn't find anything that seemed exactly right, especially with the other characteristics in this sample. It's amazing how much you are forced to see when you have a limited number of letters as samples.

- Mike Yanega

Chris Keegan's picture

I'm stumped as well. I looked at European type foundries - Dutch Type Library, Our Type, Porchez Type Foundry, since this looks like it may be from a French publisher? I looked through all the Garalde type styles on MyFonts, looked through Font Bureau (Elmhurst is close), but no luck.

sapitau's picture

I'd say Emigré's Mrs Eaves, set in narrow with

dag-henning's picture

hmm, im clueless aswell. This is definitely nothing like mrs Eaves, or baskerville for that matter.
Look at the calligraphic ending of the lowercase t. Figural bold comes quite close in that sense.

bowfinpw's picture

I was hoping this thread didn't die, but I don't have any new suggestions. I am still as stumped as ever.

- Mike Yanega

rifffinnel2's picture

It think it’s Bulmer, which comes in several weights.

bowfinpw's picture

While Bulmer has some resemblance to the sample, the 'c', in particular, is not right. Just set "Vito Acconci" as the Sample Text and look at the stroke and counter of the 'c', in any weight you choose. The shapes are wrong, to my eye.

- Mike Yanega

acnapyx's picture

I am quite unsure about this one. Looks like some kind of Century distant relative. If Sol Hess's Bruce Old Style had a Bold weight, possibly this would be it... But obviously it's not.

rifffinnel2's picture

I was the one plugging Bulmer. There are Bulmers and there are Bulmers. MT Bulmer is quite close, whereas BT Bulmer is not. I think Mike is right: Character by character, given the versions we have available, the shapes are not quite there—though it is hard to make out the letterforms from the small jpeg. But the sample is definitely wider than the MT Bulmer.

There’s basically thee ways to identify a font. One: You know it right off by its overall feel or look, like a car going down the street. That’s a Chevy or a Ford, or that’s Helvetica or that’s Univers. Two: Character by character, which may miss the forest for the trees, given the number of different cuts of faces that are available and were available pre-digitally. (I hate to admit it, but I’m a very pre-digital typographer.) And the third method: go with your first impressions then eliminate possibilities character by character. Bulmer is, afterall, an older “transitional” face. Bulmer is the closest transitional face, or any face, for that matter, that I could come up with. My best guess, for what it’s worth, is that it’s a Bulmer that is a close relative to an older Bulmer shown in the sample.

rifffinnel2's picture

Is it okay to correct myself? If so, I think, character for character, the typeface is the widest of the transitional faces—Baskerville. Specifically, BT Baskerville Bold does very nicely character for character (28 point).

dag-henning's picture

Thanks for all your interest in this one. I cannot see the relation with bulmer to be honest. This typeface does not strike me at all as a nything towards baskerville, (low xheight, tall ascenders) nor any schotch/modern typeface (tall xheight, low ascenders). It seems to be much better balanced than that, even more like times roman. Or plantin. News plantin.

But what i think is characteristic about this one, is the stroke width and angles that resembles the one you get from writing calligraphy.

dag-henning's picture

to correct myself, better balanced was bad choice of words. What i mean is that its more evenly balanced, than baskerville and bulmer, when it comes to xheight/ascenders.

rifffinnel2's picture

For what it’s worth, here’s what I set in Baskerville. In my opinion, the angles and shapes look correct.

Syndicate content Syndicate content