Gill Sans is not IMO over used in the United States - we can use it for any project for which it fits.

Thanks, Bojev. Things are slightly different in Europe. Anything high-end with a sense of understatement has a chance of being branded with Gill Sans. The question is, how would you describe the context you consider most appropriate for Gill.

I don't know what feeling authentic really means in this context. Gill Sans works wherever it works, which in my opinion isn't that often (never been a big fan of Gill Sans).

Thylacine, what I mean with "feeling authentic" is where Gill Sans works according to you. For instance, use it for McDonald's and it's probably not going to be very convincing.

Have you checked out Fonts in Use?: http://fontsinuse.com/typefaces/45/gill-sans

I've always considered Gill Sans one of those classic sans, on a par with Futura.

I just helped someone on the Font ID forum with a Futura identification, and he felt foolish (when he shouldn't have) for not recognizing it himself. But it had been used so elegantly, it seemed more up-to-date than something designed in the late 1920s/early 1930s.

I feel the same way about Gill Sans. Use it thoughtfully and well, and it can seem timeless. Its geometry does seem to lend itself, however, to products or services meant to evoke precision, craftsmanship, and/or style.

What I am tired of seeing, however, are "fashion" versions of Didot/Bodoni. Enough already.

Gil Sans well set is very classy and elegant.

@kthomps5: Thanks for the fontsinuse suggestion. Quite useful, although the list deserves a few updates.

I'll have a look at your Futura post in the Font ID forum, you made me curious.

As for Gill Sans, I'd like to use it for a new logo, it fits the identity, but unfortunately the letters don't make the font stand out at its best. Too bad. Not like this one, I saw today http://www.huntlyhooper.com/

@bojev: You bet. See the link above!

As you say, Gill Sans is so ubiquitous that it no longer evokes midcentury Britain for anyone except typophiles.

I still like and use Gill Sans, but might just be a habit formed in the early years of desktop publishing. There were few widely-available sans serifs then, and they tended to be either monotonous and sterile (Helvetica, Univers) or monotonous and mechanical (Futura, Avant Garde). The only sans serifs that were easy to find and looked like the work of a living, red-blooded human were Gill Sans and Optima. Optima was a little precious, so we used Gill Sans because it looked good, it worked well, and it was just eccentric enough to keep from being boring.

I associate Gill Sans with the Merit chemistry set, and with a toy where a robot indicates with a pointer the answer to a question you had previously turned it to; I think it had "Magic" in its name...

Ah, yes. The toy was called "Magic Robot", and it was even made by Merit as well!

If you like Gill Sans AND want to use it for its ‘feel’… why not use a proto-Gill Sans instead, eg Johnston or Underground. They have glyphs that have more character than GS.

There is a digital Johnston by ITC: http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/itc/johnston/
An open source version (Railway Sans): http://openfontlibrary.org/en/font/railway-sans
Underground is a P22 gig: https://p22.com/family-Underground
The ‘official’ version of Underground is more of a modern take and exclusive to London Transport: https://www.tfl.gov.uk/info-for/suppliers-and-contractors/font-requests

I find it works very well for educational institutions.

works well for anything British or WW2/1930s related. Ase all caps with lots of kerning.

As Victor notes, the feel of authenticity is entirely subjective.

For typographers, it’s a priority that the end-user-audience feel it, but there are many more audiences than that. One’s peers, for instance, who are better informed.

I was exposed to Gill Sans at an early age, younger than ten, in the text of the manuals that came with my Meccano. This would be in the UK, c.1960. I still have some of those, very technical, set in the Light weight.

My first exposure to practical typography came in 1969 when I inherited my grandfather’s small press, with four typefaces—Times, Bodoni Ultra, Palace Script and Gill Sans (Reg and Bold).

For me, as an antiquarian, Gill Sans has a very mid-century-non-modern look. The curve of the bowl of the /a, for instance, reminds me of such things as contemporary baby carriages.
http://ancientpoint.com/inf/5083-midcentury_modern_german_design_plastic...

Martin, you've touched on the reasons for my lack of enthusiasm for Gill Sans. The caps are mostly fine, but the wonky lowercase and the peculiar inconsistencies between weights have never appealed to me. This quirkiness might add up to character and personality for some, but to me, it's just sort of ugly.

The near-universal love of this type family has really puzzled me over the years, so there's apparently something that I'm just not getting.

Not liking Gill Sans is probably too strong. It's personality has just never matched up with what I've needed, so other than a time or two with the caps, I don't recall ever having used it.

Of course I could say the same thing about most typefaces with distinct personalities — they're useful mainly when their personalities fit the task at hand. Unlike most typefaces, however, Gill Sans enjoys the kind of widespread use most often associated with broader-purpose, more generic typefaces that tend to take on the qualities of their surroundings. It's puzzling to me why Gill Sans is used so often in instances where its personality doesn't complement the context in which its used — the Bart Smit logotype being a good example.

Gill Sans Ultra Bold is really a separate typeface.
Some info on the origin of Gill Kayo (AKA Double Elefans):
http://fontsinuse.com/uses/29/schauspielhaus-zurich
http://www.typotheque.com/articles/re-evaluation_of_gill_sans/
http://stoneletters.wordpress.com/2011/02/15/kayo-also-known-as-gill-san...

I had no idea it was a separate typeface and now I understand the context and the purpose for which it was designed I suppose I can appreciate those tittles a bit more, although I still find them awkward. The branding for Schauspielhaus is really cool though.

The article "Eric Gill got it wrong; a re-evaluation of Gill Sans" is also rather fascinating. I never knew Gill Sans was made as an attempt to improve on Johnston. In that regard I feel it fails in some regards. The article almost seems to imply Gill was a student who didn't quite know what he was doing. What do you feel about that? It might be the case, but I feel Gill Sans does bring some unexpected and pleasurable results.

Very interesting links riccard0. Thank you.

Simply being content to ignore Gill Sans, I'd never looked into its origins. I thought I was mostly alone in my questioning of Gill's peculiar decisions in this type family, but it seems others have noticed the same oddities.

As for the Ultra Bold / Kayo weight, the Schauspielhaus Zürich work really is surprisingly nice. I can honestly say now that I've seen at least one use of Kayo that actually builds upon its personality rather than being at odds with it. It reminds me of something Herb Lubalin might have done.

In our century, Eric Gill is best remembered for his types, but he didn't consider typography his principal occupation. In his lifetime he was famous as a sculptor, and the inscription he chose for his headstone was:

PRAY FOR ME
ERIC GILL
STONE CARVER
1882-1940

I've always thought that his alphabets felt like they were made with a chisel rather than a pen, and I admire the alchemy by which he transformed the solidity of stone into the solidity of metal. In his own words, "Letters are things, not pictures of things."

Erstwhile authenticity in Germany:

From an undated Monotype specimen (probably early 1950s), Belserdruck, Stuttgart.
"M 10, Serie 262-11, Durchschuß 2"
There is also Bold, but no Light shown.