New to Typophile? Accounts are free, and easy to set up.
I wuz robbed!
Posted by Nick Shinn in
26 Jul 2004 — 1:55pm
26 Jul 2004 — 1:55pm
Once again I failed to win the TypeCon quiz (top prize going to that damned amateur Coltz!)
However, I coulda been a contender if not for the "put these typefaces in their order of release" question.
There were several contentious faces:
Bell, which quizmasters placed in the 18th century
Clarendon, in the mid 19thC, and
Interstate, in the 1990s.
The way I see it, there was no typeface named Bell until Monotype released one in 1930.
And no Clarendon till that of Eidenbenz in 1953.
Interstate was released in the 1990s, but it is an iteration of Highway Gothic (caps from the 1940s, lowercase from the 60s)
I put my faces in order of named releases.
But the quizmasters mixed theirs up, determining some by date of typeface design (eg Bell), and others by date of typeface name (Interstate). Leaving aside Helvetica for now...
Whadaya say, can I get some sympathy?
User login
Support our Sponsors
26 Jul 2004 — 2:02pm
If anyone other than Jon had won the contest you'd have some sympathy, if not a strong case for a recount. In this country however the judges have the final say in these matters.
Fortunately Jon can't win next year as he's going to be drawing up the questions. He promised me that WAD would not be the answer to any of the questions in next year's quiz.
Si
26 Jul 2004 — 2:13pm
I got that one right, but did something really stupid (well, actually Stuart and I did it together, since we were grading each other's sheets): the questions with many-part answers I only counted once, so like for that question I got one point instead of six...
I think my correct score was in the mid-20s (instead of the lame 14 or whatever it was), but still not high enough. Congrats to Jon. What happened to Kent?
Oh, and weren't many of the questions the same as last year's? Is this some kind of attendance-reward mechanism?
BTW, what happened with Tiff's name-that-font thing on the bus?
hhp
26 Jul 2004 — 2:55pm
>Oh, and weren't many of the questions the same as last year's? Is this some kind of attendance-reward mechanism?
Many of the answers were the same - not sure about the questions.
26 Jul 2004 — 10:21pm
Nick,
You raise a very good point! My quiz sheet is a scribbly mess, the epicenter of which lies on that very question. With regard to Bell, I first dated my answer to that of John Bell's specimens; then I recalled, just as you have written, that "Bell" wasn't released by that name until 1930 by Monotype, and so I changed my answer. In a moment of blind panic combined with nightmarish PSAT recall ("your first answer is usually the right one" -- whatever the hell that means), I changed my answer back.
That question was indeed make-or-break, and I just happened to get fairly lucky.
Jon
26 Jul 2004 — 11:14pm
With regards to the ordering of fonts, the stated rules were that one was supposed to use the date of the original design, not the revival. Of course, on that basis the quizmasters goofed in marking Interstate as 1993. As Nick says, they were inconsistent. But they did say how it was supposed to work. (Of course, it was a pretty noisy environment, so it's not a shock that Nick didn't hear this rule being explained.)
I *think* I would have gotten three more points had this question been marked correctly. But that would only have tied me with Kent for second, and who knows how many other folks would also have gotten more points....
Oh well! I think this just goes to show that we shouldn't take it too seriously.
Oh yeah, there *were* a bunch of repeat questions from previous years' quizzes. I was particularly embarrassed by one question I missed *again*.
Cheers,
T
26 Jul 2004 — 11:14pm
Oh, and to answer Hrant's question, the right side of the bus got distracted and stopped paying attention, so the lefties just played on by themselves. It was fun. Though I would probably want to suggest some rules changes to Tiff before doing it again.
T
27 Jul 2004 — 7:19am
Nick, at least you got to be the answer to the third place tie-breaker.
Congratulations to Stephen Coles for beating me on that. Course, it helps to be already standing at the judges' table rather than having to run from the back of the room. :-)
Who was the other guy (besides me and Stephen) who tied for third?
27 Jul 2004 — 7:32am
On that ordering of fonts question, I got some mixed advice. I was going to put Clarendon in the fifties, but someone told me that everyone was saying they meant the original Clarendons. Seemed plausible, so I changed it and got it "right." I still think fifies is right for the same reason as Nick said.
Then the same guy told me that Times pre-dated Futura. I was pretty sure it was the other way around, but he was adamant, so I changed it and got it wrong. I guess the judges hadn't heard this theory either.
27 Jul 2004 — 7:42am
> "your first answer is usually the right one"
Totally. It's like Blaize said.
hhp
27 Jul 2004 — 8:47am
>Times pre-dated Futura
Yes, the Starling Burgess attribution.
It was good to see Mike Parker at TypeCon -- he was at the party too; don't know where he placed Times in the quiz.
27 Jul 2004 — 10:19am
On the question of Name That Font, I ended up switching sides when my team, which was never very focused to begin with, finally lost it altogether. I wish I had acquitted myself better -- I started off well, completely fell down in the middle, but picked up again in the end. In my defense, a lot of zeroes look like they could be Frutiger. Just saying.
But the diversion made the two-hour bus ride go by very fast. Thanks, Tiff!
27 Jul 2004 — 12:12pm
Nick, you may have some points ...
Let's take a look.
You finished with a 31.
Had you gone 6/6 on the typeface birthdates,
you would've had 35. Didn't Mark and Stephen
have 35 or 36?
Changing the "correct" order might have
had some Impact on Mark and Stephen
and you could've moved up.
However, lots of others had scores in the
low 30s, too.
There was a group in front that shared
answers shhhh. and they finished with 32, I think.
Keith Tam had a 32, too.
So I don't think you were robbed, per se.
In fact, you didn't seem all that bothered
once the dance floor opened for business.
Way to bust a move, man!
And for the record, there were two correct
answers on the David Carson question.
Carson wasn't just a regular joe surfer,
but a Professional Surfer, ranked as high as
eighth in the world. (And a sociology teacher.)
So I'll take my 32 and know that I was only
a few away from some of the Type ID linchpins.
There's always next year.
bj
for the record, Jon scored a 42, pretty
much snapping the serifs off our collective stems,
with luck playing absolutely no role.
27 Jul 2004 — 1:53pm
BJ:
Kent Lew got 39, but didn't want to claim a prize. Such a modest guy! I got 35 myself, including 4/7 on the order-the-typefaces-by-date question (where I was robbed). But even with that I'd only have 38. Pfeh!
T
27 Jul 2004 — 2:59pm
for the record, Jon scored a 42...
Uh, actually it was 43. I graded his paper. Allan
didn't hear us make the correction (like it mattered
anyway). 43! Sheesh! Good job Jon!
Delve
27 Jul 2004 — 9:43pm
thanks for the clarifications guys.
I was going only by the hands raised when
they asked for those who had scored over 35.
those cape cods were a bit bonkers,
with more vodka than cranberry juice!
Jon, maybe next year's questions could
be designed so that there is no wiggle room.
Neverthless, with the open bar, the type, and
the music, it was definitely a Type High ...
bj
28 Jul 2004 — 4:58am
>And no Clarendon till that of Eidenbenz in 1953.
Nick, I don't believe that's true. I believe the very first of the Clarendons was indeed known as "Clarendon"; in fact, wasn't Clarendon the first type face to get some sort of legal protection in the UK? Thorne or Thorowgood or Besley -- I don't have my sources with me.
I tend to agree with you about Bell -- it wasn't really "Bell" until Stanley got ahold of it.
IMHO, any score in the 30s was very respectable. Jon totally blew me away with his 43. Major props.
>What happened to Kent?
Last year, I established the [perhaps unfortunate] precedent that the winner of the previous year helps Allan with the next quiz.
This year, I decided to establish the precedent that once you've won, you're disqualified from future contests. (I mean, who wants the same group of nerds winning over and over? And besides, how many ITC collections, or whatever, does a person need?) I "audited" the quiz, because I can't help myself. I got a 39.
-- K.
28 Jul 2004 — 7:30am
>I believe the very first of the Clarendons was indeed known as "Clarendon"; in fact, wasn't Clarendon the first type face to get some sort of legal protection in the UK?
Hmmm. I don't recall seeing that name in any old specimen books, and it doesn't seem like the kind of name types were given then; however, my knowledge is somewhat spotty, so Clarendon it may have been. If anyone has visual proof, please post...
>So I don't think you were robbed, per se.
Yeah, I know I finished back in the pack. My complaint was strictly rhetorical -- but I also have a genuine interest in the subject of naming and dating, which is really why I started the thread.
28 Jul 2004 — 7:43am
So who won 2nd place?... Oh yeah, that was me with 38 (A slightly hollow victory since Kent really came in 2nd.)
28 Jul 2004 — 8:35am
Clarendon was the first typeface to get "design-copyright" protection, in the UK*, in 1845. But I don't know what that really says about the name.
* See Lawson's Anatomy, page 315.
hhp
28 Jul 2004 — 9:56am
@ yves ... i'm unable to provide a snappy retort at the moment ...
<< but fyi, the little guy to the left is from the Google cache.
Tiffany spotted the same chubby cheeks child
being used as a promo for a radio station.
bj
28 Jul 2004 — 11:40am
BJ, your photo always makes me think of this photo, which is from a greeting card:
Now that I look at it again, it also reminds me of the photo of Yves which his icon photo comes from. (It's posted somewhere on Typophile, but I can't find it.)
28 Jul 2004 — 12:01pm
that is too funny ...
btw, next year, custom avatars on the badges!
3 Aug 2004 — 3:52pm
>>I believe the very first of the Clarendons was indeed known as "Clarendon"; in fact, wasn't Clarendon the first type face to get some sort of legal protection in the UK?
>Hmmm. I don't recall seeing that name in any old specimen books, and it doesn't seem like the kind of name types were given then; however, my knowledge is somewhat spotty, so Clarendon it may have been. If anyone has visual proof, please post...
A late 1890s BB & S specimen book shows a bracketed slab serif called Clarendon and several unbracketed slabs call French Clarendon. If BB & S were using the names at that time, then they were probably common place. I can't scan the specimen however, it's too fragile.
George
27 Jul 2004 — 1:24am
> Whadaya say, can I get some sympathy?
No. Life's not fair. People botch up quiz questions. Nobody's perfect.
I'm JOKING!!!
27 Jul 2004 — 7:29am
> (...) it helps to be already standing at the judges' table rather
than having to run from the back of the room.
See? Life's never fair.
27 Jul 2004 — 8:05am
I knew Jon was a serious contender when he actually got out of
the food line after waiting 30 minutes when the contest started.
He was about 6 people away from getting some food. That's
dedication. (Ahem, I stayed in line.)
27 Jul 2004 — 11:45am
>>I ended up switching sides when my team, which was never very focused to begin with<<
Those little paper cups full of Sake and wine, in addition to realizing that we just couldn't name the fonts anyways (or at least I couldn't, my participation involved drinking and pointing out what was italic), skewed our focus on the game. Cheshire was the only reason we got points, but our competition was tough
27 Jul 2004 — 11:48am
Oh, and if anyone happened to find the written quiz that the puppets filled out, I would like to have a copy.
27 Jul 2004 — 3:23pm
Mark deserves third place as much as I do. I only beat him to
the tiebreaker answer because I was under the influence of a few
too many cape cods and therefore more obnoxious. Squeeky
wheel got the grease.
At the risk of boasting I must say this is the 3rd year in a row
I've placed in the Top 5 but that's only because many of the
same questions keep appearing. Can't what to see the doozies
Jon conjures for '05.
28 Jul 2004 — 5:06am
Respect, Kent, on both your attitude and your points.
BJ, you look a bit older and a lot less chubby than I expected.
This is not your real picture, is it?
28 Jul 2004 — 10:03am
I must hang my head low and admit to being part of that team of ill-repute. Kinda sad, we had some super-geeks on our team too and we still didn't do that well. I think my score was 33 ... but next year I will brush up and not cheat. <hangs>
28 Jul 2004 — 4:49pm
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Mark that picture is too funny!
It looks like me, some 30-odd years ago.