I really can’t see any reason to use Times in a book other than to suggest office documents or a newspaper. It’s a very dull-looking face, and not the sort of thing most people want to stare at for long stretches of time. And the italic is sort of ugly.

I agree, the distinction is subtle (do you know how the faces are related?), and I think Plantin would be better. I think it has a little more character, and its sturdy serifs and color make it more comfortable for reading. Times is another face that looks spiky in digital format. Get the size and leading right and Plantin will look classic. The advantage you have is that they are similar in proportion, and few laypersons will know the difference.

I have a particular horror for the bold of Times, including the bold italic. I think they both look truly awful, and of course are overused by the formatters of Word documents.

I second what Adam has said in this related thread:

I often use Aldine 721 (Bitstream’s version of Plantin) instead of Times New Roman, especially when printing stuff in the office environment or on laser printers. The vast majority of people do not notice that it is a different typeface, but Aldine 721 has a slightly darker, more pleasant color.

Am I right in believing there is a theory that Morrison based Times on a more highly contrasted version of Plantin (monotype I assume)?

One story about Times New Roman is that (roughly speaking) it is a redrawing of Monotype Plantin with the instruction by Stanley Morrison to put sharp Perpetua serifs on it. That makes visual sense to me, but the whole question of who created Times New Roman is very much contested. If you do a google search you will get some of the debate.

The whole question of who created Times Modern is contested William.

There was a chap who drew as his art director summoned. I forget his name this instant.

>The whole question of who created Times Modern is contested William.

Um, isn't that exactly what I just wrote?

Victor Lardent was in charge of the drawing, and Stanley Morrison was theoretically in charge. Beyond that there's the debate.

Um, isn’t that exactly what I just wrote?

No.

Victor -- poor Victor!

>No.

Ok, I wrote:

"the whole question of who created Times New Roman is very much contested"

You wrote:

"the whole question of who created Times New Roman is very much contested"

Call me crazy, but those seem to me exactly the same. What's the difference?

I prefaced my statement by mentioning one of the theories that is advocated and contested.

"Lord, save me from these sailed and moored..."

Your cut + paste, paste + haste is much maligned, much inclined to hasty trace of one's own thoughts' space.

Bill --

Dux referred to Times *Modern*.

-- K.

>Times *Modern*.

Ahh! Sorry. Note to self: don't post while falling asleep.

Mind you, I don't know exactly what Dux means. Unless perhaps he meant to refer to Times Millennium. Isn't that the other one that had a cloud over it?

Um, at the risk of faulty cut and paste again, here is about "Times Modern" from the Wikipedia:

"On 2006-11-20, Times newspaper unveiled Times Modern, as the successor of Times Classic.[9] Designed for improving legibility in smaller font sizes, it uses 45-degree angled bracket serifs. The font was published by Monotype as EF Times Modern. The font was designed by Research Studios, led by Ben Preston, Deputy Editor of The Times, in partnership with Neville Brody, former art director of The Face, and lead designer on Actuel, City Limits and Arena magazines. The design team included Ben Preston, David Driver, Mike Prowse, Chris Davalle, Kathleen Wyatt Research Studios: Neville Brody, Jon Hill, Luke Prowse."

Since Dux = Luke Prowse drew Times Modern he was evidently indulging in a bit of wry inside humor that I totally didn't get last night.

> I really can’t see any reason to use Times in a book other than to suggest office documents or a newspaper. It’s a very dull-looking face, and not the sort of thing most people want to stare at for long stretches of time. And the italic is sort of ugly.

I can't agree with that. Times is a fine face for books. It is extremely readable (in the right size, measure, margins and leading). And ugliness of the italics is a designers opinion (with which I fail to agree). Many, many books (generally 20 years or more ago) were set in it, and I have never heard of people having trouble reading it "for long stretches of time."

All that said, I will agree that the font is overused, and therefore would not use it unless forced to somehow. But it is not a poor font based on other merits.

About Times New Roman, (not Times Modern!) I agree with Don. It may not be suitable for current Newspaper printing conditions, but it has been a great book face. True, it's stale from being ubiquitous. All type designers--whoever designed it!--should be so lucky.

It's also constantly wrongly used at full measure on letter paper, but that's not its fault.

Somehow I missed that Times Classic had already been overthrown. Hmm. The Times is dead; long live the Times.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Times for books. Never has been. It is a perfectly good face for books. As with all faces, one has to be careful about how it is used.

In metal Times, oldstyle figs and smalls were available, and even a long-descender version, which was splendid.

Today there are several "Times" versions to choose from, and when a typographer works out how a book is to look, and looks at all the versions and chooses the right one, a fine looking book can be made.

The thing most people don't "want to stare at for long stretches of time" is poorly-set type. Do not decide against Times or any other typeface because it is overused. Choose typefaces that are right for the project. That's the only criterion.

powers

I have seen books printed in Times New Roman some 50 years ago which look really good. And I have seen many more contemporary books and magazines printed in Times New Roman that look disastrous. Is not there a big problem of lacking good digital transcription of Times New Roman ? What I would find absolutely unacceptable is setting book matter in one of those ugly Microsoft Times New Romans from Windows 98 era.. what, I am afraid, is often the case.

Peter S.

If you really are obliged to use Times, then I'd recommend using Adobe Times Ten, which has been designed, spaced, and otherwise optimized for smaller text sizes.

It's the only Times to use for text, in my opinion, except for perhaps Times Europa, although that's also a step or two removed from Times.

While I'm no huge fan of Times New Roman and its variants generally, I have seen the family used beautifully in some instances.

David Thometz

Will Powers said: In metal Times, oldstyle figs and smalls were available, and even a long-descender version, which was splendid.

A great pity that this has not been digitalised — for many books this would be the one to use!

I agree with gulliver: Adobe Times Ten in OpenType is the biggest, best proportioned and snappiest Times on the market, and being able to shift globally to oldstyle figures makes it right for books too. It's the only one with OSFs, as far as I know. But that's if you have to use Times at all; it is, after all, the most over-exposed typeface on earth now.

The problem with Plantin is choosing between the light weight, which is too light for reliable use under 11 pt, or the regular weight, which is a little too black and clumps up. But I love the look and proportions for Plantin and always have. Depends on your point size and the paper. Plantin Light works with smooth or coated stock but not below 11pt. The toothier the stock the better the regular weight looks.

Be sure to buy your OpenType Plantin from Monotype...they have OSFs; Adobe's OT does not.