« Wow |
| Stuffing, sticking and stamping »
Posted at 11:44 in Typography | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451d49569e2010536e737b9970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Times:
lower case 'e'. yum.
Jan 20, 2009 at 12:52
In all my years I have never, ever used Times.
Jan 20, 2009 at 13:42
TimesTenGreek is pretty sexy.
Jan 20, 2009 at 13:54
For the sake of discussion may I propose that the best cut of Times is actually Georgia!
Jan 20, 2009 at 13:59
Yeah, that's right Richard - you tell him. After all, there are 52 other fonts he could use, aren't there?
Jan 20, 2009 at 14:28
I'm guessing this isn't helpful Ben but I'm reasonably serious: Is Georgia the Times of the digital age? Perhaps the answer's "No", in which case, if I had to I'd buy this:
...mainly for it's OpenType-usefulness.
Jan 20, 2009 at 15:52
The best cut for what? Print, screen, books, newspapers, signage? As a general purpose package, I'll second Richard. But really, I'd skip Times for one of these:
Stephen Coles (Stewf) |
Jan 20, 2009 at 16:10
oh, that's easy - TNR, force-bolded, set in Word to 72pt with auto leading, printed onto an A4 sheet of paper and stuck on a window with one piece of tape, so that the 'signage' curls inwards. gets me going every time.
Jan 20, 2009 at 18:16
such cynicism! Times was a workhorse for a good reason, one that's a bit unfashionable now: it was very legible at all sizes and most surfaces/printing systems.
The original Lardent/Morison TNR was very good, worth checking out, esp. for the young 'uns … phototype & then digital type versions got more & more anemic,
I think one reason designers now disdain TNR is that it was a newspaper font par excellence. The economic darwininism of newspaper typography was a healthy constraint and its hard for many designers today to appreciate how vastly important it was to set lots of copy, legibly, in a minimum of expensive space.
mahendra singh |
Jan 20, 2009 at 19:25
Jan 20, 2009 at 22:20
I'm going to swing on a rope here and admit to a fondness for the old Berthold cut (digitised as Times New Roman BQ)... especially as the extra bold has a wonderfully plum-pudding-cheerful feel.
Is anyone else familiar with the spiky, argumentative serifs of TimesET? We used that extensively for one particular client at my previous job... not that I hold any fondness for it at all, no sir.
argh, my fingers |
Jan 21, 2009 at 05:32
Ooooh, the abuse.
I have to say that ALL typefaces can look terrible when used badly. Centred, large, white paper, sticky tape is a great example. Even finely tuned brand guidelines for type use can go out the window if someone 'just knocks up a quick window notice'.
I'm with the old school here, a nicely used piece of Times New Roman, small, is quite a nice thing to see, as long as it's not forced away from its comfort zone.
al woods |
Jan 21, 2009 at 09:05
has to be Berthold
graham peake |
Jan 21, 2009 at 12:59
'It was the best of Times, it was the worst of Times' - surely Dickens' reference to his ongoing frustration at the typesetter employed by his publishers, and how, depending on how many ales he had consumed the night before, he might set his prose with great flair and skill or appalling sloppiness.
Jan 23, 2009 at 13:17
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
(URLs automatically linked.)
(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)
Name is required to post a comment
Please enter a valid email address