Quentin Blake book font: Drawing for the Artistically Undiscovered

waldvogel's picture

Dear typphile's
has anybody any clue what font is used over here (quentin blake and John Cassidy) in the original or alternat version?

Thanks.

AttachmentSize
Schermafbeelding 2012-10-15 om 15.51.13.png56.07 KB
Schermafbeelding 2012-10-15 om 15.04.18.png25.14 KB
Atwe's picture

The script is Filmotype Honey.

Mike F's picture

The second is Filmotype Honey.

With every repeated letter being quite different in the first image, it might be from an Opentype font with alts - but I doubt it. Likely it's done by hand.

bowfinpw's picture

I agree with Mike F, that the first sample looks hand drawn. There must have been other digitizations of that script, because Susie Q seems identical in form, and would be completely identical with a bit of added stroke. It's the sample labeled "Suzie Q" (erroneously).

- Mike Yanega

bowfinpw's picture

Here is a link to the Type Revivals font SusieQ, much older than the Filmotype version.

- Mike Yanega

Mark Simonson's picture

The Filmotype version is from the 1950s. The digitization is recent (I did it), but as far as I know, the design originated with Filmotype and the one I did is the only authorized version. It's also the only one with all the contextual alternates included (and it uses them automatically).

That said, the sample given was probably made using one of the many knock-off versions of Honey, particularly since it utilizes none of the contextual alternates which are typically missing.

riccard0's picture

The thing that baffles me about Filmotype fonts is that different versions (bold, condensed, etc.) of the same typeface have completely different names. The fact that those names share the same initial doesn’t help much, since there are also different typefaces with the same first letter in the name.

Mark Simonson's picture

Well, that's how Filmotype named their fonts way back when.

A few years ago, when the group of us* were planning on how to digitize the Filmotype library, we debated the question of this quirky naming scheme. In the end, we decided it was important to us to preserve the historical names as much as possible. They don't all fit neatly into type families anyway.

* I'm a former member.

riccard0's picture

Thank you for the insight. I still think that some sort of post-facto grouping could have been useful for new users (and for some type IDs too ;-)

bowfinpw's picture

Hi Mark,

When I said 'older than the Filmotype version', I meant the new digitizations that are being released. Congrats to you, Patrick Griffin and others for reviving these old film types.

The Type Revivals version was done in the '90's, and not only they, but also Bitstream and URW had brought back some of these designs, before the recent re-creation of Filmotype. The midsection of the Solotype Catalog is filled with examples of these scripts, and it's nice to see them coming back to life.

- Mike Yanega

HVB's picture

There is yet another, much poorer, version of the script font - probably a partial clone of either Susie Q or Filmotype Honey, but with major differences. This is "Positive" by Enstep/Imageline. They also had one, named Experttype, that's similar to the Honey Script Light Condensed seen in the Solotype catalog.

- Herb VB

waldvogel's picture

Thanks a lot for all the comments and help

Mark thanks for the brief history lesson.

- Sebastiaan

Syndicate content Syndicate content