Come on, Jonathan, you can use your real name here -- you're among friends. We all think you make very nice little typefaces.

"why are you anonymous?" - he/she isn't anonymous. but - [un]anonymous[ly]

Hrant, you are funny, every time this person posts something you have the same response. Keep up the good work. Dan who isn't anonymous

It's the context, baby.
And it's not a "person", more of a club of sorts.

hhp

Anonymous, aka Lazy.

The least you could do, Anonymousperson, is make an anonymous avatar.

And make the effort to come up with a more focused thread-starter.

Coz this anonymous vague question leads nowhere.

Can you be more specific?

(Sorry - could not resist.)

Can you be more specific?

(Sorry - could not resist.)

I think the administrators should make Anonyous read only status. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Daniel, great idea!!!

Hey, I've been censored!

You are now registered. There is only one "Anonymous", so
the more you post the more we can pin down your essence,
and use that context to qualify your participation.

hhp

> There is only one "Anonymous"

I'm not so sure about it. Anyone can still create
new user accounts. We've seen "anonymous-registered"
posts before (Anon.E.Mouse, Clint Eastwood, etc ;).
And, this one here is probably just joking around,
not being the original anonymous of the thread.

It doesn't matter, he's still one person. If for example if "Anonymous" (of which there can only be one) spends most of his posts attacking one of us, then any given instance containing an attack will be seen as insincere participation. Some people actually frequent lists mainly to defame.

hhp

Tobias, is good material.

Gerald Giampa

I think the Hoefler foundry is one of the best in the world - their fonts are consistently highly capable and historically intelligent. But with the duo's huge resources of insight and talent, don't shoot me if I enjoy thinking that the best is yet to come.

hhp

The underlying question is this: how did a couple of young squirts get so damned good so quickly? And whatever it is, will they bottle and sell it?

(Hey, 101st post -- I'm finally regular!)

(Well, it was my 101st post before I got a "Form Referer Not Found." error.)

Ok, I'll be a trouble maker. Hoeffler's faces are extremely well done, but there is something about his aesthetic that I personally don't warm to.

I do like Gotham, but that is from Tobias Frere-Jones, who was at Fontbureau (whose taste I generally like.)

No, I have no connection to either house.

Hoefler was at FontBureau too, no? That's probably the reason they matured so quickly: a lot of hard work under a "top gun" of typography - Berlow the Quiet.

hhp

Maybe FontBureau should take to adopting infants and incubating them until they're old enough to hold a pencil -- just imagine the genius type designers they could hatch!

I wish I could be more articulate on this, Tiffany, but I can't really explain it clearly. To me there is a kind of 19th century feel to his typefaces, which is not to my taste.

It isn't exactly a Classic vs Romantic thing. For example, I love Christian Schwartz's work (Orangeitalic.com), and his stuff is very expressive, like his recent Amplitude.

I'm sure Hoefler's work deserves its success, but I must admit it doesn't grab me.

> I can't really explain it clearly.

On the contrary, I think you did just fine! And I agree.

Hoefler's work is deeply informed by history, probably because that turns him on. But that always entails a dependency too: it becomes harder to innovate. Mind you, he's done some notable innovations in the display realm, but in the darker realm of text it's much harder to escape the ghosts of the past. But if you manage, you'll really make your cultural mark.

hhp

Hrant, I have a feeling our reactions are for a different reasons.

I think text type is inherently more conservative than I suspect you think it is.

And I don't mind revivals - I like most periods, just not Victorian.

I have a feeling that I just don't resonate with the same historical stuff that Hoefler does. It's a way of handling detail and ornament...

> I think text type is inherently more conservative than I suspect you think it is.

It's certainly more "conservative" (not sure if that's the right term) than display fonts. But it's a lot less conservative than most people who make text fonts think. In fact at some points in the past (like the first quarter of the 20th century) people had a lot more balls than us. And of course the reader couldn't even tell the difference (consciously). These days the fall in the level of craft versus pretentious artistry has annihilated the consideration of what the reader needs, especially in the subconscious realm.

The other day I showed a setting of Eidetic to three laymen and asked some carefully tangenial questions about how they felt about it. None of them thought there was anything notable about it! Most "serious" type designers however think it's way out there.

Break loose from that cozy old fireplace - there's a rich world outside, it's called the future!

hhp

I guess one person's cozy is another's boring, and the latter's interesting is the former's uncomfortable. But who is more likely to mark cultural progress?

hhp

What I find is most people now have an attention span of a flea. I was just in a checkout line at the supermarket and the two people in front of me were on their cell phones, trying to make a purchase and chat on the phone at the same time. The same is true with print communications, while they are looking at printed material they have the TV on in the background and a pda in hand. Typeface? What typeface? This may not be true worldwide but in my little corner of the USA it is. Dan

>who is more likely to mark cultural progress?

Actually, I think history says you can't tell. Bach was, I believe, pretty conservative and great. Beethoven was innovative and great. Who was it - Brunelesci? - invented perspective drawing, one of the greatest innovations in drawing, but I don't think he was the greatest artist in two dimensions, though a great architect...

You won't be remembered if you rehash the past.
Time only moves forward, hence does not forgive lethargy.

hhp

Hrant sometimes time moves sideways and a little up and down and even backwards. How can you explain George W. He's his father all over again. (Aside) I hope you're not anywhere near those horrible wildfires. The stat that made me cringe is the area burnt is the size of the state of Rhode Island.

Nah that stuff is pretty far away, although there's a lot of fine ash in the air sometimes.
If it makes it anywhere near me it would mean it's razed like half of LA county, which means it'll start feeling like back home. :-)

hhp

Hrant there is an amusing article on Creative Pro today not so subtly dissing Arnold your governor. How did he get in? Is this politics hell times, Jeb down in Fla, George in Washington (although I think the vp is really running things) and Arnold in CA and we have multibillionaire Bloomburg here, yuck! Dan

>>Anonymous, glad you've made it official, and welcome

Well thanks, but...

No, I'm not the anon who started the thread
Yes, I was just joking
Yes, I am registered under my real name too
No, I'm not here to insult anyone

I think Nick is right when he says unregistered anonymity is lazy.
And I think those that wanted no anonymous posts had good reasons for that, but I also think there is a place for anonymity. I've seen threads here where convincing arguments have been made by people who would not have been able to say those things under a real name.

I think the way it is now, with only registered anonymity, is the way it should be.

(I posted a much more thoughtful message about anonymity, but it got eaten by the web monsters and my brain can't do thoughtful twice in one day, so sorry if this is a bit rushed)

Now Anonymous you need a better looking logo, too boring make something reflecting your talents that looks like a stock Illustration from a cheezy free site. Dan

Dan,
If you read your post back, you'll see it makes no sense. If you can be bothered, please post again, so I can understand your point.

I don't know why you have taken against this expression of registered anonymity. I, or anyone, could register under a 'John Doe' name, and you wouldn't know their identity. (Its also true that when I post under my real name, you wouldn't know who I am anyway, but that isn't the case for everyone here, so anonymity has a role in promoting open discussion)

Christian still does some work through FB, I think.

> my wife .... found tiring to read

It's the subconscious kicking in.
Ask her if she had a problem with the font at the very beginning of the reading effort.

hhp

William, market forces play a role in the conservatism of HTF.

The good commissions and sales for foundries are to large corporations and publications, with multi-user licensing. Those instiututions are very conservative.

This is not to deny the innovative quality of HTF typefaces in many areas, but it is subtle.

The designers at HTF have all done experimental, more uniquely contemporary work, but that's barely reflected in HTF's positioning. Compare the early Fetish and Gestalt with the bulk of the foundry's catalog.

Rarely do the clients that pay best want one's most creative work. In fact, there's probably an inverse relationship between remuneration and creativity.

The retail font market is different, you can do crazy work, but it's a crap-shoot.

All very true.
Which means of course that Capitalism opposes cultural progress.

hhp

Nick said the big money isn't in creativity, and he's right.
Cultural progress doesn't make money, massaging the status quo does.

The only way you can really innovate in type for example is by not expecting much money from it.

hhp

Nick: I would say market forces also play roles
everywhere else. All we have to do is take a
look at Linotype's or MyFonts bestsellers.

There's no coincidence on Linotype's recent
efforts on redesigning Univers, Optima, Avenir,
Sabon et al. Even knowing there are lots of
improvements on those fonts, I can't stop
wondering what would happen if the same money
could be invested on new typeface designs.

I agree with Hrant: cultural progress doesn't
make money, at least not while it's still
understood as 'innovation'. Maybe that happens
because conservative people need to separate
trendy and volatile stuff from things that
came to stay. In typeface design it could
take a few decades.

A common example of that conservative behaviour
found here in Brazil is the use of Officina.
The font is almost 15 years old, but just now
it became trendy, replacing most of Univers or
Helvetica uses everywhere. Nobody judges if
the replacement works, just follow the tide.

---

Talking about the original subject, I have
great respect for the HTF fonts. I wish I could
know more of their custom work, such as Retina.

hC

Pioneering is always a very tough road, but probably less so in capitalist countries than others, because of general wealth and the diversity of the market.

I have no problem with contemporary use of good typefaces from the 17th or 20th centuries. I don't care if it's conservative or innovative, as long as it's good. Of course, in typography suitability to the project is almost everything. To me that means there are contexts where something new is better, and contexts where something historical is better.

The observation that the big money in type is typically associated with fairly conservative design can be interpreted in a number of ways, some of them clearly dubious. Proceeding from this observation to the conclusion that capitalism inhibits innovation requires making a number of assumptions. One of these assumptions is that innovation is measurable by the amount of money paid for a single product rather than on the number of products in the market. Obviously, in a capitalist economy, the number of products in the market is very much larger than in pre-capitalist or non-capitalist societies, and this is the usual measure of relative innovation, not how much money X producer obtained for Y product. Indeed, the greater the number of competing products in a market, the lower the average price will be. Since no capitalist economy is ever a purely capitalist economy -- not least because some notions of value are inherited from pre-capitalist societies, especially in 'craft' businesses such as type design -- we should not automatically conflate conservatism in type design with a specifically capitalist status quo. Despite what the most ardent capitalists proclaim, there remain more ways of measuring value than the price the market will bear. The commissions that type designers like Jonathan and Tobias receive from magazines and newspapers reflect interesting and contradictory client desires: to have something new and fresh and distinctive, and to have something with an enduring value that is not merely fashionable. The fact that Jonathan and Tobias so regularly deliver and satisfy these contradictory desires is testament to their considerable skills.

In that last post, I meant to write:

'One of these assumptions is that encouragement of innovation is measurable by the amount of money paid for a single product rather than on the number of products in the market.'

John said:
>The fact that Jonathan and Tobias so regularly deliver
and satisfy these contradictory desires is testament to
their considerable skills.

True, and I have the same opinion about many fonts from
the FB library (wich are related to Frere-Jones' excellent
typedesign approach in some way).

John:
You've mentioned Hoefler designed many comissioned
type projects for magazines and newspapers. Besides
Retina, which I've known through HTF's site, are there any
other interesting projects worth seeing?

hC

The Proteus set (Ziggurat, Leviathan, Saracen and Acropolis) was designed for Rolling Stone magazine

Champion Gothic was designed for Sports Illustrated. This design was later greatly extended in weights and widths to form the Knockout series.

HTF Didot was designed for Harper's Bazaar.

I believe Requiem was also designed for a magazine, but I can't recall which one.

Jonathan designed Mercury Display for Esquire magazine in 1997, and in 1999 Tobias extended the design to create the newspaper type family Mercury. Mercury is not shown on the HTF wesbite yet, because it is still under exclusive license to New Times newscorp I believe, but you can see it in the ATypI/Graphis publication Language Culture Type.

>> Which means of course that Capitalism opposes cultural progress.

Interesting.

I think capitalism is actually highly dependent on cultural progress, because it is partly based on the idea of selling people stuff they either already have in some form (a stylistic or functional upgrade, if you will), that they don't really need (pure luxury) or that satisfies the basic human desires (among them: greed).

This wouldn't be possible, if the good ol' wheel were not reinvented and remarketed as a 'brand-new must-have circular motion device' on a regular basis and if the stylistic definition of 'mainstream' didn't undergo a subtle but seismic shift every now and then.

So, capitalism needs to at least look as if it's moving forward all of the time, even if it doesn't. It achieves this by using cultural splinter groups as 'idea incubators' on the fringes of the mainstream, testing what might work on a mass scale. If they have something, the mainstream moves to gobble it up, the fringes move elsewhere.

The devious achievement of capitalism is in permitting and not repressing this process, a system which feeds off those that oppose it to reinvent itself and thereby stifle this opposition.

If it weren't just human nature, I'd call it a damn cunning plan

Good points, Refusenik. Of course, we're all assuming that cultural progress = making new and innovative things, which on reflection I don't accept. Hrant made a jump from his claim that capitalism stifles innovation to capitalism stifling cultural progress. Now, those of us pointing out the various ways in which capitalism encourages innovation (albeit without necessarily paying for it) are in danger of making the same jump: that encouraging innovation = encouraging cultural progress.

There are various ways of reckoning cultural progress, and innovation in the marketplace is not a universal criterion. How you measure cultural progress depends largely on your own cultural values.

Requiem started as a request from Rolling Stone, but I think it got dropped and then later finished for Travel & Leisure.

At their AIGA gig, the wonderboys talked about the development of the lovely Surveyor face for Martha Stewart. Yummy. (The typeface, not Martha.)

The first step to betterment is admission.
Capitalism and culture are mostly opposite.
Elaborate apologistics does not change this.

hhp

John -- to your list I would add that Hoefler Titling (released last year) was originally completed on commission for House & Garden, circa 1997.

Tiffany -- It was GQ that originally used Gotham Condensed. I'm pretty sure T F-J completed that on commission prior to finishing the entire Gotham family for retail release late last year.

Meredith -- I wish I could have attended the Hoefler/Frere-Jones presentation. Are you referring to the light slab-serif currently used for primary text in MSL? For some reason I thought that was called Archer, not Surveyor. Am I completely off-base, or did they change the name in the end? Or is Surveyor that revised Walbaum Italic?

BTW, Tiff, I think MSL still uses Benton Gothic, which was designed by Tobias, but under the auspices of FB not HTF -- so not every MSL face is a HTF font; but you're right, it wouldn't be a bad bet to start with.

-- K.

Unsupported one-line assertions do not an argument make.

Kent, Archer is the slab-serif. Surveyor was based on the lettering on old maps (a bit precious, I guess, but this is Martha Stewart, after all). Really quite nice. Is it a revision of Waldbaum Italic? I dunno -- that didn't occur to me when they showed example slides of it, but it's possible. I haven't seen it in use yet.

I thought Gotham was developed for the Lever House restoration -- or am I conflating two different projects?

Okay, thanks for the clarification. Old maps, eh? I confess that at first I thought it was just off-the-shelf Walbaum Italic -- Monotype, not Berthold.

Wait a minute . . . You know what?: When the redesign first came out (ca. Oct 02), when they introduced the Archer, MSL was using off-the-shelf Walbaum Italic. Along with a display italic that is similar in flavor -- presumably Surveyor (see Oct 02, pg. 243, for example).

Now -- Sept 03 (my mother-in-law hasn't handed down the Oct issue yet) -- I see that they're using some of what I presume is Surveyor roman (pp. 156-163, for example).

But they're also still using off-the-shelf Walbaum. See the article starting on p. 106, for instance. And what is that sans? That's not Benton Gothic. Looks like Tobias's digitization of S.H. de Roos's Nobel for Font Bureau. Hmmm.

I'm not aware of the Gotham/Lever House connection, but maybe you're right. I see now, however, that the HTF catalog credits the whole Gotham family (not just the Condensed) to a GQ commission.

-- K.

John & Hrant

"Capitalism and culture are mostly opposite."

I have been thinking about this. Hrant might have a point. They certainly are different pursuits?

I would hate to ruin my well earned reputation of disagreeing with Hrant. But you know, it hurts me to say this. Hrant may have a point!

The innovative artist who advances culture may not directly pursue a capitalistic
objective, but many great artists have been or are the benefactors of a capitalist patron.
Doesn't the support given by a patron allow the artist to be innovative and progressive?

There is no pure Art. But the less materialism is involved, the higher Art is.

The benefits of patronage are illusional. In reality, the other edge of the sword will get you in the end.

hhp

There is no pure Art. But the less materialism is involved, the higher Art is.

Does that mean that 'conceptual art' is higher than painting and sculpture?

It is worth noting that artists also benefited from patronage in pre-capitalist society and in communist society. All this really tells us is that artists need to eat, and that people who value art find ways to pay for it.

Still the objectives are entirely different. The objectives define the difference.

We should not confuse capitalism with consumerism. Capitalists are not required to be merchants. Or for that matter, benefactors.

But capitalist often like groovy things. Otherwise what would be the point to an abundance of wealth?

Those with bad taste often hire an art investment dealer.

Also as we know many artist were not, and still, often are not expected to actually eat. Artists are supposed to live in garrets and eat pigeons. In fact nothing make a art consumer happier is to have the artist that he or she collected to "pass away". Healthy artist are considered a long term investment.

You just know how popular that is these days.

In any event, capitalism is the pursuit of profit.

Culture is not.

Somerset Maughm said that those who complain about the crassness of the market place are just second rate. If you are first rate, he said - much more eloquently than I am doing here - you will figure out a way to realize your artistic vision in a way that reaches the public.

This is an over-generalization in the opposite direction, in my view. But it does I think rightly raise a warning flag about those who are always decrying the low taste of the public.

" The benefits of patronage are illusional. "

My clients ask me to make something for them. When the thing is completed, they pay me for my efforts. I use the payment for things like rent, and food and art supplies.

This "illusion" appears to be quite realistic... I hope I can be forgiven if I have mistaken it for fact.

> those who are always decrying the low taste of the public.

When did I do that?
What I'm saying is that materialism is anticultural.

> they pay me for my efforts.

Which is why you're not really an Artist, but a Craftsman. Well, a craftsperson. :-)
This is not a criticism - the other way around would be - Art is selfish.

hhp

I must agree, the market place is a busy place. Not always crass. Often, but not always. The marketplace has little to do with pursuits of capitalism. In fact, free markets hinder profits. Small business hinders profits. Have you ever heard of corporatism?

Communism dealt with markets. Under Communisms there were great arts. Under capitalism we have great arts.

Arts have markets. "Everyone has something to sell."

But not everyone has cultural pursuits.

Cultural pursuits are not the pursuits of capitalism.

Profit is.

Capitalist on the other hand are people. People do funny things with their money.

> The marketplace has little to do with pursuits of capitalism.

You are not using the word 'capitalism' in the way the word normally is used. Here is a definition of capitalism from Meriam Webster's on-line dictionary:

"An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market"

The free market is part of the concept of modern capitalism. There is a struggle by large owners of capital to exercise monopolistic powers, which is restrained to a greater (eg. under Clinton) or lesser (eg. under Bush) degree.

A free market is largely due to vigorous government policy and enforcement of laws upholding contracts and supporting fair competition.

> A free market is largely due to vigorous government policy and enforcement of laws

It certainly makes sense that a System's definitions are oxymoronic.

hhp

>a System's definitions are oxymoronic.

No, this is not at all contradictory. Strong government is necessary to have a free market. Right and left wingers often misunderstand this, and in the poor nations it is generally and tragically not understood. (By the way Adam Smith understood it very well.)

The wonderful Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto has recently explained how many Latin American and other poor countries have been held back by their governments being pre-capitalist, in not creating and enforcing the legal framework necessary for free markets to function.

On type design there are issues relevant to this subject, concerning property rights for typedesigns.

But I see that I am going off into political discussion, so I will stop posting on this.

I was talking about the "free" in "free market" being not free at all,
but under the strict control of the system, a system which twists
terminology (like in "Defense Department") to fool more poeple more.
Just like the state which coined the term "freeway" has highways
which are the most restrictive in the nation.

> I will stop posting on this.

Right.

--

BTW, since Martha Stewart is in the news again, I wonder about something: has Hoefler been getting less commissions from them since the scandal?

hhp

I have tried to think more about what it is that I don't warm to in Hoefler's designs, in answer to Tiffany's question. They are of course masterfully executed.

The thing I don't like about Victorian design, and that I sense, rightly or wrongly, in Hoefler's designs, is that ornament is somehow laid on, rather than organic.

For example, I don't like the very sharp but old style serifs on Hoefler Text and Requiem. These are something new, I think, but to me they don't work.

Knockout is I think by intention is more reminiscent of the Victorian predecessors than many modern sans grotesques. I don't know enough to tell you the difference, but whatever they are I don't like look. For example the wide 'a' with the small tail I don't like, and some of the way the thick-thin transitions are handled on the heavier weights.

Now it may be that my reaction is influenced by my age. My (late) grandparents grew up in the Victorian era, and to me Victorian design always looks fussy and stuffy.

I lived in London for five years, and saw plenty of genuine Victorian stuff, but still never warmed to it. I felt as one of my teachers back then said, that it was as if during the Georgian period the builders could do no wrong, and in the Victorian they could do no right.

Maybe those in a younger generation, like Hoefler are less prejudiced than I and can see the merits in the Victorian taste. But to me it almost always seems to have forced and laid-on ornament.

Just not to be misunderstood, I am not against ornament. In the art nouveau and art deco periods I think they did wonderful things with ornament--and before. Queen Victoria, I am not amused.

Wow did this thread get derailed. I'm glad it's back on course.

I like Hoefler's work. He is very talented. I think he has some interesting ideas. But everyone has their own tastes. I do see what you mean by the kind of "fussiness," William.

Also what exactly does Josh Darden do for Hoefler? I looked him up on MyFonts but can anyone tell me more about him?

William,

CAPITAL GOODS: "goods used to produce other commodities rather than for sale to consumers."

CAPITAL GAIN: "the

William,

Certainly do not think I am calling you a redneck. I do believe we should defend what is dear to us. Nothing wrong with free markets as long as they are just that, free, and better yet, fair. Fair includes social responsibility. I would be most surprised if you did not agree with that.

My point was about Hrants remark. Which hurts me big time. But cough, cough . . . he is not always wrong.

Enough said on that matter.

"I have looked at Jonathan Hoefler fonts. I find them charming and refreshing."

To put this in the perspective of personal choice, as well as socio-economic theory, Maxfield Parrish had this to say (probably not his actual words, as it comes from my memory of it being quoted by Maurice Sendak -- but you get the idea):

"I've been painting nymphs on rocks for 13 years. I could do it for another 13 years. The commercial market tempts one to repeat oneself."

Nick,

I don't know if that is a good example. Frankly painting nymphs on rocks for 26 years is one mighty attractive consideration. ". . . you get the idea):" (the smiley face goes here)

Man-o-man. You vonder vhy I'm qviet? This is so much better, or at least interesting in distant retrospective to find these little minefields of conversation. . .

Hey, would you like to try on something from the new line?
http://typophile.com/node/12863

hhp

In fact, I wonder if anyone will find this, way at the bottom of a 2 1/2 year old thread, but what the heck.

Jonathan didn't work for me directly, or in the same room for long stretches. He knew all about the history and styles before I found him and all I really showed him was how the spaces and spacing worked, what all the modern characters were used for, and how "the business worked." I gave him a few projects to do and he honed his skills on his own, and was soon as busy as I was. Tobias knew less about the history and styles but for him the spaces and spacing, and what all the characters were for, was natural and known, respectively. He was not interested in the business at all. And then, he absorbed the history rapidly under the influence of myself, but more from Black, Parker and Carter while my main task was to see that he had interesting projects along with the dozens he had in mind.

Whether or not you like their work, or you choose to tangent off into the relationship between commerce and art, it's an interesting duo. But what's clear to me, from reading this long dead thread, is that type design, in the case when the goal is a product, for either general or specific use, is not an art, and you need a patron, if not a client to get the best out of the best.

"I've been painting nymphs on rocks for 13 years. I could do it for another 13 years. The commercial market tempts one to repeat oneself."

But the Nymph might also have Something to do with it ... don't you think?/|\ ;)

Great bits of "internal history" - thank you. And yeah, nymphs rule.

BTW, the Typophile "tracker"* lists threads by most-recent activity (and -if you're logged in- shows how many unread posts a thread has), which is the only way (now that email delivery is suspended) of staying on top of all the action. And since your Frankenstein-style electric jolt this thread has been towards the top of the list. But to find a dormant (never dead) thread like this [was], you'd have to throw something like "site:http://www.typophile.com berlow" at Google, and click on result #13 (at the moment). :-)

* http://typophile.com/tracker

hhp

Hoefler Type Foundry faces are AMAZING

voila.

Requiring registration is a far cry from censorship. I for one welcome participation in any form, whether someone cares to post under their real name or a pseudonym.

To get back to the original topic, I really appreciate fonts that come from The Hoefler Type Foundry. Now while some may consider my opinion biased due to the fact that I have worked with Jonathan for the last few years, I have genuinely found the HTF library incredibly useful for my needs as a graphic designer. The fonts range from classic text faces to contemporary display and are very well built and battle-tested at length before being released.

Now that Tobias Frere-Jones has joined Jonathan at HTF, I can think we can only expect great things to come.

The Hoefler typefaces are among the best licenses I've ever purchased.

I think the original question posted for this thread should have articulated as to why they are asking this question.

The Hoefler/Frere-Jones combo is a knockout (pun intended). It's wonderful when these teams work out so well. And let's not forget one of HTF's secret weapons, Josh Darden. He's another (really) young squirt with amazing talent and technical gifts. The boy almost flunked his high school exams because he was busy making faces.

Anonymous, glad you've made it official, and welcome. We'll just be careful not to mistake you for A. Nonymous and Anon E. Mouse. =)

William. I don't think you are a troublemaker. But, I would like you to explain what it is you don't like about them. You say "something about the aesthetic", could you explain this further?

So there will be no "cozy fireplaces" in the future?

From Kent Lew who is having posting issues on his console:

Hrant, AFAIK Hoefler never worked at The Font Bureau. He started under Roger Black before breaking out on his own to do type design full time.

Meredith, FB doesn't start with infants, but they do have a good track record with interns. Christian Schwartz did a stint with FB, I believe. There have been other names who got their start at FB, whom I can't recall off hand. Dyana Weissman is currently "apprenticing" there. Coincidentally (or maybe not) most of their interns get drafted out of RISD and Yale.

RE: Eidetic. The other day, my wife -- who generously tolerates my type obsessions -- mentioned that she was reading a book which, although she was very interested in the content, she found tiring to read and she thought it had something to do with the typeface (yes, she actually said that!). So naturally I had to take a look. It was set in Eidetic Neo.

-- K.

What?

If by 'conservative,' Nick really means 'not trendy' then
Hrant's axiom should be 'Conservative organizations
oppose trendiness' and nothing more.

Town and Country is currently using HTF Requiem, but it was not created for them.

Martha Stewart Living (Omnipresent) Omnimedia has been soliciting HTF for a very long time. I'd wager that any font they use publicly (published) might just be from that humble foundry. Oh, and, The creative director, Gael Towey, is married to Stephen Doyle, of Doyle Partners which was formerly Drentell Doyle. Didn't their Spy magazine use Hoefler. Was it called Spy at that time?

Is it GQ or Esquire that uses Gotham now? Oh wait, whom isn't using Gotham. (I don't blame any of the magazines that are by the way.) This could be a game, a new thread, "Find HTF at your local Bookstore".

[ Moderator Hat: Let's reel this thread in and get back to Hoefler fonts. Pretty please. ]

Why are you anonymous?

hhp