Can’t see how you can avoid Helvetica. I would only cover Arial and other metrically compatible variants (some of which, eg. Monotype Albany do interesting things on Arial/Helv metrics) as a subsection of the Helvetica story.

Definitely include Verdana ;-) esp. if you’re coming to TypeCon as we’ll have some never-before-seen behind the scenes material on the font. Just got back from a trip to Vancouver where I interviewed Virginia Howlett for the exhibit.

What makes Meta a Neo-Grotesque? (What is a Neo-Grotesque?)

I don’t consider Meta or Verdana to be grotesques, neo- or otherwise. I prefer a new category for Meta, “Narrow Information Sans”, which derives from Orator, Trade Gothic, and other categories of type. Verdana? Not sure how you’re associating that with the grotesque category.

I would be interested in further research into earlier (earliest) grotesque designs and their precursors. Helvetica is really quite removed from them in its antiseptic regularity. Showing that evolution I think is interesting.

You might like to peruse Stephen’s review of just this same material.

I would be interested in further research into earlier (earliest) grotesque designs and their precursors.

I would be too - my understanding is that Akzidenz-Grotesk had come to stand for a whole bunch of 19c typefaces. Instead of repeating that, might you go back and see what else was there? I’d be fascinated to learn what (if anything of value) has been lost in the taking of that part for the whole that has become the conventional history.

What makes Meta a Neo-Grotesque? (What is a Neo-Grotesque?)

I think that Neo-grotesques are designs that add humanist quirks to the old grotesque designs. IIRC the term appeared in Revival of the Fittest and may appear in The Complete Typographer. It’s a pretty rarely used term, so the whole notion is murky.

I would be interested in further research into earlier (earliest) grotesque designs and their precursors.

As would I, but that would require traveling to Europe to peruse old specimen books and other printed works, along with learning in German. It would be an excellent graduate thesis (or better yet, a PhD.), but it’s not doable with the time and budget I have for undergrad work.

As for what fits under the mantle of a grotesque, I guess that it just depends on how loosely one defines the term. I should probably come up with some solid definitions for the categories I want to look at and figure out if they fit under my umbrella of grotesque or if I need to adjust my targets.

I would be too - my understanding is that Akzidenz-Grotesk had come to stand for a whole bunch of 19c typefaces.

Akzidenz was a label applied to a handful of typefaces that the original H. Berthold AG bought up between 1890 and 1920. In 1957 and 1958 G.G. Lange redrew the whole line to fix a lot of the inconsistencies—although he left a few—and expanded the range. There are some really great threads that explore the history of AG. But it’s been over a century with two devastating wars and some serious economic and social upheavals since those old grotesks were folded into the AG name, so tracking down information is a pretty serious undertaking.

James, these classifications might help; they make sense to me anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sans-serif

Some good history:

http://typefoundry.blogspot.com/2007/01/nymph-and-grot-update.html

crossgrove: You might like to peruse Stephen’s review of just this same material.

I would like to read the review, but albeit the exact link: the nearest I can get to the article are the comments. I suppose it’s because I’m trying from a computer in germany: There is always a prompt automatic redirection to the german website of fontshop, whatever I’ve tried.

Is there perhaps another link to that review?

This seems to lack focus at the moment.

Historically, there are a lot of variations of the grotesque, more than enough for learned library research; and there are huge lacunae surrounding the origins of the genre, and the origins of its lower case and italics. I suspect that one would have to dig deeper than specimen books to find the answers.

At the other end of the scale, today there are many foundries doing “their” grot — OurType and Process spring to mind — and IMO these are more interesting extensions of the genre than widening it to include Meta etc. In fact, Meta has spawned its own genre.

The Helvetica-ish category is presenterd in the recent FontShop promotion, and Stephen Coles amassed quite a few fonts for that.

What do you mean by “significant”? certain forms of historical research could quantify that, eg the gross weight of foundry type sold, or the number of newspaper readers. In general I am extremely sceptical of that term, as it is used by authors to justify there own preferences, preconceptions, and prejudices. I’ve designed a couple of grots, with another on the way, all of which I consider extremely significant! — and for quite different reasons.

>Is there perhaps another link to that review?

Could try msn search cached version...

http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=8285351111184&lang=en-US&mkt=en-US&...

I suspect that one would have to dig deeper than specimen books to find the answers.

That is why I am starting with Akzidenz. As much as I would love to do all that research, I fear that it will not be possible with the resources available to me, particularly time. You make a good point about contemporary grotesques, and researching those would probably turn up a lot of useful information about their roots that could later lead to deeper research.

What do you mean by “significant”?

So far I have been thinking of significance in several ways, certainly too losely. I see that I need to reconsider what makes the typefaces significant, in terms of technical/aesthetic developments, history, and influence on descendents and derivatives. Ditching Meta, and even Helvetica, and focusing more on the types that stay closer to the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth century grotesques seems like a much better idea.

Thank you very much, sii, this works fine!

Another good article about grotesques has been written by Keith Tam. The title is: “Calligraphic tendencies in the development of sanserif type in the twentieth century” and you’ll find it as a pdf at his website.

Thanks for that one, Tina! I can’t believe I never found his site before!

Futura?

Signage-grotesques like Metro, Gill, Gotham, (DIN)?

I was going to ask about Gill Sans as well. Does it fit into one of these categories?

I’ve just found this about helvetica and sans: http://www.eyemagazine.com/print/feature.php?id=143&fid=613

Isn’t Gill a humanist sans?

Other true grotesques worthy of your consideration would include Jonathan Hoefler’s Champion / Knockout co-family as well as his Leviathan display type, Eric Olson’s Maple, David Berlow’s Bureau Grot (based of Stephenson Blake models from the 1800s), and Frantisek Storm’s Dyna Grotesk.

Conrad Baur & Walter Baum’s Folio and Günter Gerhard Lange’s Imago also come to mind.

Also, if you are going to include Franklin Gothic, you should also include its sisters, News Gothic, Lightline Gothic and Alternate Gothic, and should probably include a look at Benton Sans as well.

David Thometz

Gill is sort of the grandaddy of humanist sans type, so it’s out. Metro and Futura are geometric sans, and even farther from what I want to get into than Helvetica/Univers. Gotham falls into some weird vernacular hybrid category (Along with Neutraface and other similar designs) that I’m not about to try categorizing.

After thinking about this stuff some more, I see two options
1. Cut things off, stylistically, just before Helvetica/Univers. This way I get to focus more on grotesques with a more human quality than those with none. I also don’t have to worry about the grotesque/neo-grotesque categorization arguments. Design-wise, this sends me down the path of a traditional grotesque.

2. Ditch my earlier notion of neo-grotesque and treat Univers and Helvetica as the origin of the neo-grotesque (which after a little reviewing last night I think is correct) and follow those developments up with the newer categories that come with the innovations of Meta, Verdana, etc.. This one is a little more appealing as it gives me reason to explore the definitions of new categories, and to create a contemporary design of my own.

James, one of the most helpful insights I learned about design history was from an very old show on PBS about antique furniture. The guy would put one chair or something on a pedestal, and go on rhapsodizing about it for a half hour—or maybe it was an hour. It was great. One of the things he always said was that if you want to understand an object, look at the period just before it. Every craftsman is reacting to what came just before, what he has grown up with. It’s true, and that’s the key. So I think concentrating on the original grotesques, and then going forward to look at modifications is a great idea.