I think the copyright mark should match the numerals in vertical span, while the registered and trademark should be floating to the height of the caps (but not too small).

hhp

The contrary argument is that at display sizes, the registered and trademark need to be even smaller than the main text.

In general, copyright is supposed to align with the body text, and registered and trademark symbols should be superiors; that is, about 1/3 of their size above the cap height, and 2/3 below, with the overall size being considerably smaller than the cap size. (How much smaller being dependent on both the weight of the font and the intended average point size of usage.)

T

>the intended average point size of usage

But in practice that will vary:

In my experience designing ads, flyers, and marketing newsletters, the Registered symbol is used in body text (size 8 - 14 pt) as a superscript to a brand name.

Then it is repeated in a footnote (with the name of the owner of the brand) as small as possible, (4 - 6 pt).

I always prefer it when fonts have a cap-height Registered symbol, because it is easy to "superscript" the symbol in the body copy, but very difficult to increase the size of a pre-shrunk symbol in the footnote and not have it look too bold and misaligned vertically. If you just set it straight, it's but a speck.

That's why I make cap height Reg symbols in the fonts I design, unless they are outright display faces.

However, I seem to be going against the flow here, so I would like to confirm with typographers:
Do you prefer a pre-shrunk Registered symbol in your text fonts?

Nick,

Your idea makes perfect sense. Your customer gets it both ways, any other way they don't, at least not easily, or elegantly.

If it's not broken don't fix it.

Another thing to consider is the weight problem. I almost always go up one weight (if possible) when I use a super-shift version of the TM or R. Perhaps if you choose to go with the full-size method, you can increase the weight a bit? I don't know what other consequences you might run into if you choose that option.

Here at Gigantacorp, we often redraw fonts for the circulars for superior numbers and special characters. By the time we get to the redrawing stage, we already know what size range we will be needing and therefore can make the "right" choice in adjusting "r-balls" and "tms" in size, weight and positioning.

Digression: Does anyone else call them "r-balls"? I never heard it before I came to this place.....

Digression: Does anyone else call them "r-balls"? I never heard it before I came to this place.....

I was an employee of Gigantacorp for a couple of years and I recall they practically had their own language. I had trouble with the idea of using the word "guest" when refering to mail-order customers, though.

...super-shift...

I know you meant "superscript," but only a former typesetter would make that slip. :-)

That's a big problem, that the weight and optical size is all wrong if one simply scales the mark to the desired size.

This is an area that screams for a sensitive optical size treatment, with *much* smaller registered and TM symbols at large display sizes, and pretty big ones for small print.

If you don't have separate optical sizes of the typeface, one could also include different size versions of the R/TM as alternates. I think I will do this for the typeface I'm working on right now, actually....

T

Thread shift:

What about Bold, Italic, and Condensed "r-balls"?

How far should the mark match the style of the typeface -- in particular, why do most italic fonts have roman marks?

Call me Mr Agreeable, I like the suggestion by Thomas.

How far should the mark match the style of the typeface -- in particular, why do most italic fonts have roman marks?

The answer, as always, is: it depends.

I have strongly suspected that some sloppy font producers throw in a generic humanist "r-ball" or "tm" on any font they create. To me, it's an obvious error if the R in the registration mark doesn't bear a strong resemblance to the R in the typeface it "modifies."

The "depends" part deals with condensing and/or obliqueing the circle along with the R inside the circle. That's just wrong! Keep the circle round. Then condense or oblique (if you have to, but you really should re-draw) the R within the circle.

Of course, after I've gone through the process of doing all that, the effect can be so distracting that I throw the end product out and default to the roman registration mark. Italic Rs within a circle sometimes look silly. Italic TMs sometimes look silly. Avoid silly.

Thomas, I agree with Gerald -- providing alternate versions is a great solution -- I'd be tempted to provide a version set at x-height as well.

In the metal type days, fonts did not come with matching registered, trademark, or copyright symbols. These were purchased separately in a range of sizes and had generic designs. They came in only serif or sans serif if there was any choice--no condensed, bold or italics. Phototypesetting fonts were similarly limited. The idea of having these characters match the font is a recent development and one that seems not to have been completely worked out yet.

In the metal type days, fonts did not come with matching registered, trademark, or copyright symbols.

One of the first fonts we made when Alphatype (dedicated cold-type setting) started sharing their font creation materials was a font with nothing but registration marks. We had graduated sizes in different "generic" styles: bracketed serif, slab serif, san serif; uneven stress, even stress, etc. It was one of our most-used fonts.

Does anyone know whether a similar font exists today? Would there be any use for it?

Yeah, bullets are almost always too big, and the mid-point is often too small.

As for Nick's question on weights and styles for registered marks, I agree with Kristen, with the additional wrinkle that I don't see any need to italicize the R. For whatever reason, it's just not done; it looks wrong to me when I try using one that is italicized.

T

Hey, finally a good use for upright italics! ;-)

hhp

"Yeah, bullets are almost always too big, and the mid-point is often too small."

Thank you for confirming this with me Thomas.
I was actually just thinking this a few hours back, setting some type. The bullet was like a basketball, and the mid-point like a marble.. I'm in need of something, baseball sized (excuse all the sports metaphores)

Hildebrant.

Mark,

In the metal type days, fonts did not come with matching registered, trademark, or copyright symbols. These were purchased separately in a range of sizes and had generic designs.

No point messing with a good thing. After all, ugly is beautiful.

One the other hand.

The bullet was like a basketball, and the mid-point like a marble.. I'm in need of something, baseball sized (excuse all the sports metaphores)

With Monotype these were not "type face dependant." They were "sorts matrices". You could choose from a vast selection of sizes. For that matter for a fee, not enormous, you could have your own matrices cut for the copyright, trademark symbols etc.

This sort of activity was common.

Here at Gigantacorp

Excuse my ignorance, but is Gigantacorp a generic/humourous term employed to not reveal where you work?

kris

Kris, it's a subsidiary of Global Tetrahedron.
http://www.theonion.com/onion3512/populace_lurches.html

hhp

Yeah. I love the Onion. It is one of the only news sources that I can trust.

risk

Good one, Hrant!

Kris, I work at Target (www.target.com), which I call Gigantacorp. After spending 25 years in small craft shops of less than 30 employees, the switch to a Global Tetrahedonic-size employer is a shock for me. It's no secret; it's in my e-mail addy. It does, however, make my work experience different from that of most typophiles, I think. Who else would come up with "R-balls"?

Radio Shack.

You're supposed to use the square brackets for "parentheses within parentheses".

You're supposed to use the square brackets for "parentheses within parentheses".

Joseph had four, would it just alternate between parenthesis and brackets inifinitly?
I know having four is more an issue in copywriting then typography, but how would a typographer handle 3 or more nested parenthesis

> how would a typographer handle 3 or more nested parenthesis

Use a dagger on the copywriter.

hhp

Not the inventor of LisP.

hhp