• Board on Printing Type Faces formed to create order out of chaos
• Here are resolutions adopted for approving type face designs
• Printers and type manufacturers derive mutual benefit from board

The effectiveness of a type face from the standpoint of its design alone has always been a controversial subject among printers, artists and advertisers. In addition to being judged for its effectiveness in a piece of printing, a new face is subject to a critical scrutiny on the grounds of what it looks like.

That the typefounders and composing machine manufacturers recognize this is evidenced by the methods used in promoting a new type. If the eventual user of the letter is not swayed by the three or four colors used in the introductory specimen, then he is told that here is something without which his composing room will be a dim place indeed. Of course, all this is perfectly sound sales technique, but still there are growls about having to buy another new type.

Gaudy Faces Go

In 1929, after several years of gaudy faces (remember Boul Mich, Broadway, Modernistic, etc.?) a group of typesetters decided to make a joint statement. This group, under the auspices of the Advertising Typographers Association of America organized the National Board on Printing Type Faces.

The National Board proposed to “analyze the practicability, the usefulness, and the potentialities” of types being prepared by manufacturers. A difficult task, this, and further beset by the problem of finding a solution to the situation.

However, the original board did meet quite frequently and produced lists of types which were approved for use, particularly in advertising. The board also sought to clarify the nomenclature of types and to prevent the production of faces which bore names similar to existing types but which were varied in their design.

The board became less active following 1935, principally because the manufacturers were paying little attention to its findings. It is not a simple matter for a printer to make his competitor see eye-to-eye with him about the effectiveness of design.

With the postwar reactivation of foundries (particularly the European firms), attention again became centered upon the need for such a group. The board was reformed. One of its first acts was to issue a resolution which stated its objectives. This resolution follows:

“WHEREAS, The National Board on Printing Type Faces was formed to recommend the suitability of type faces for advertisers, printers and book manufacturers. And whereas the purpose of the Board is to suggest and to approve type faces of proper design which are a credit to their manufacturers and to American typographic arts, believing that such a list of faces shall be a guide to buyers and users of type.

“Resolved, First, that this Board shall be available to all manufacturers of new type faces.

“Second, that the Board shall invite all manufacturers to submit their original designs to the Board for their critical and constructive recommendations before proceeding with the usual expensive steps of manufacture.

“Third, that the Board shall invite all manufacturers to submit type designs which are in production but which have nor been finished or placed on the market for sale.

“Fourth, that the Board shall invite manufacturers to bring before them and questions of the desirability of a complete range of sizes and weights of designs to be produced and of type faces produced in limited form.

“Resolved, that all manufacturers of type should concur on families of type faces in order to avoid confusion of names and the manufacture of nearly similar designs with different names. That this should result in efficiency of manufacture and economy to all concerned.

“Resolved, that manufacturers of type faces should take advantage of the counsel of existing organizations and experts in their fields, and of new methods of sampling their designs, with the ultimate goal of producing only useful and desirable type families.”

While most of the objectives in the resolution are an attempt to create order out of chaos, the resolution fails to be realistic about the most important factor. This is the fact that the production of printers’ types is an extremely competitive business, particularly in the area of advertising types.

Producers Protect Themselves

Type manufacturers have their own procedures for determining the marketability of a particular type. Undoubtedly, they would not take kindly to a critique by any specialty group. In addition, the chance of letting information about a new design leak our to a competitor would be a hazard, in view of the difficulty of copyrighting type designs.

Printers are probably most responsible for many of the conditions about which they are critical. For example, if a type “rings a bell” as a foundry face, pressure is placed upon the machine companies to bring it out, with resulting confusion in name, number, or weight. The number of “Why don’t you bring out a new type?” letters is at least as large as the number which ask, “Why did you give us still another?”

The National Board of Printing Type Faces can be extremely useful to both manufacturers and printers by acting as a sounding board for many of the problems confronting both groups.

However, we can not expect that new designs will be restricted any more than we can demand that all commercial designs remain static. The board can probably assist in resolving the conflicting terminology of type weight and (as mentioned in the resolution) the problems of similar designs with various names.

The publication of a list of “approved” types does not meet the needs of the printers unless they know the criteria by which types are selected or rejected. In 1949, for example, out of 191 types submitted by manufacturers, the board listed only 69 as “desirable for advertising.”

On the list were a number of notable types. But it would be possible to nominate a reject for every accepted type. For example, Lutetia is listed, but Centaur is not. The Gothics are listed as “Gothic Family.” Does that category include Spike Gothic and Novel Gothic?

Don’t Overdo It

Individual preferences for types are legion. We all go through periods of falling in love with a particular face and tending to use it for every other job. Five years or so later we are horrified at our lack of taste. We then usually switch to another type face and again take all the freshness from it by using it too much.

It is the handling of type in a job that matters and not so much the face itself. We all know printers who can use a hackneyed face in such a way as to make it appear fresh and new. The type that is simply a bad letter will remain on the supplier’s shelf. Like book publishers, the typefounder is occasionally guilty of a lapse in taste, but he can’t be blamed for giving in to the pressure.

Membership on the National Board on Printing Type Faces is made up of two representatives each of the American Institute of Graphic Arcs, Art Directors Club of New York, Advertising Typographers Association of America, Printing Industry of America, Society of Typographic Arts of Chicago, and the Type Directors Club of New York. Each member is qualified by reputation, ability, and experience to evaluate type and design.

The board will undoubtedly be glad to hear from interested printers. The effectiveness of the group can certainly be increased by a variety of information.

This article first appeared in “The Composing Room” column of the March 1958 issue of The Inland Printer.