Typophile

Garamond vs Garamond. The Battle Continues.

dan z

Hi all-

First time poster although I have browsed for some really great information in the past. Thanks to you all. Full Disclosure: I am a graphic designer not a type designer so please bear with me.

I am in the process of establishing some branding type standards for a client. Their logotype which I cannot alter uses a hand lettered version of what looks like ITC Garamond which I do not like for a variety of reasons which have already been discussed in this forum. I have already sold them on the idea of using Garamond as their main corporate typeface and we are both happy with this direction. I have picked Adobe Garamond which I like because it has a good bold weight and has a nice balance between squared off and rounded serifs. It also has a clean, streamlined, timeless look to it, less quirky and "old style" than say Garamond 3. The only problem with Adobe Garamond is that the capital G and A are different than in the logotype: The top of the A is rounded in the logotype as in ITC Garamond and Garamond 3 rather than the chiseled edge in the Adobe version. The G in the Adobe version has a spur vs no spur in the logotype.

I tried using Garamond 3 as it is closer to the logotype but it is not bold enough for my needs. It also feels more quirky and old timey, mainly because of the capital A and the T.

I am thinking of altering the A and G in Adobe Garamond to match more closely to the logotype.

So, my question to the forum is threefold:

1. Are the differences between the A and G too minor to worry about?
2. Would you alter the typeface? If so, what software would you recommend? (should be very basic and easy to learn)
3. Are there other typefaces out there that may work? (A and G like Garamond 3 but a bolder weight.)

Sorry for the overly long post. I look forward to your insight and feedback.

Thanks,

Dan

Jackson

1. Hard to say without seeing it but the difference would probably bug me, I dislike when things are similar but have inconstant structures or details.

2. You're probably better off hiring a professional type designer since this is for a client's corporate typeface.

3. Adobe Garamond is the nicest digital Garamond in my opinion.

paulstonier

I would say the differences are too minor for this case.Ideally, you would want to do so; at best have a type designer design a custom face with those distinctions,but build it from scratch. Otherwise, you'd be stealing someone's work.
If you have the budget for it, go for it. If not, don't.

However, altering the font and using it for commercial use like that is illegal. Doing it for a logotype is not quite as punishable, but if you are going to be using it as a full corporate face, you are going to be breaking the EULA of the font. Especially, if you are recreating it as a font and dispersing it along the company.

Jackson

FWIW, Adobe's EULA is unclear about modifications as it's been discussed here a few times (http://www.typophile.com/node/16180, http://typophile.com/node/31280). Best bet again is to contact the foundry directly, or talk to a reputable type designer.

Cristobal Henestrosa

I don’t think that logo and corporate typeface must use the same font. If you can’t change the logo it’s ok, but changing Adobe Garamond is not a good idea either. Trying to match it with ITC Garamond is almost impossible, since they are based on different models (first by Garamond, the second a loose interpretation of Jannon’s work). In addition, you say it is a hand lettered version, so it’s not really ITC Garamond anyway. I’d accept they are two separate things and go for Adobe Garamond as it is. Though a bit overused, it is one of my favorite designs.

Good luck!

Cristobal Henestrosa

Some other options: http://new.myfonts.com/search/garamond/fonts/

dan z

Thanks everyone!

Captured from web.archive.org on 11 Mar 2011. view this capture