• Names of type faces give little or no clue to variations of design
• Confusing terms often lead to annoyance over needless resetting
• Printing progress could be advanced by proper designation system

Ever since type founders decided to name types instead of designating them by size or designer or founder, the result­ing confusion has frustrated those who use printing types. Certainly the beginner is almost completely at a loss. Even the ex­perienced typographer frequently shakes his head over the irrationality of some of the terms.

Picture for a moment the ad that has been marked up for a line of Spartan Black. The printer doesn’t have Spartan, but he does have Futura. In order to set the line he will have to use Futura Bold. If he happens to have the Tempo series, he will have to use Tempo Heavy. Or if 20th Century is his sans-serif type, he will set the line in the extra-bold weight.

Four Variations of Weight

Here, then, are four variations of what at first seems a single weight. Unless the customer has included a sample of the type he wants, a misunderstanding may ensue.

Of course the sans serifs are a natural for this confusion, but the same problems exist with types used in commercial print­ ing. The ATF specimen book lists Stymie Black. The Monotype book shows the same type as Stymie Extrabold.

Nearly every printer can list his own pet confusions which may cause alterca­tions with a customer over extra charges for resetting. The customer is apt to end the argument in annoyance by asking when the printing business is going to get itself organized.

Although the result of the independ­ence of old-time printers, many of today’s confusing terms now have the backing of tradition to help their universal accept­ance. In this category is the term Roman, which may be used to designate: (a) a letter form based upon 15th century Italian manuscripts, and (b) a letter with a vertical axis as opposed to the slanted axis of an italic letter.

Sans serifs are not considered to be Romans, even though in most instances they follow the Roman pattern. However, many a proofreader has marked “roman” on a proof of sans-serif types incorrectly set in italic. Then, when does a sans-serif type become a gothic, or vice versa? It is generally accepted in American printing that Gothic refers to types without serifs.

But in July of this year a publication which is widely read by typographic de­ signers listed a classification of Gothic for black letter or text letter. While this is correct in a historical sense, it runs counter to established practice.

Since there is no universal standard in the classification of types (although from time to time tentative overtures are made in this direction), there is frequent mis­understanding about what features repre­sent old style, transitional, or modern. We see such designations as book types, news­ paper types, Bible types, contemporary types, etc.

A well-known type such as Century is listed as old style in the specimen books, although from a design standpoint, the type is transitional; that is, it contains features of old style and modern. How­ ever, since the esthetic features of letter design may be of a controversial nature, clarity of terminology does not begin at this point. If the day ever comes when rationality reigns, a sensible classification system will be the firm basis upon which to build.

In the area of type names and in desig­nation of weight and set width, we can hope for more immediate improvement. The printing industry is being criticized for its lack of standardization. While the printer’s plea for individualism is a strong one, it cannot offset industry’s demands to raise production, hold the line on hour costs, and other details.

Type Listings Are Inconsistent

Anyone who has ever used a type speci­men book can attest to the inconsistencies of weight of stroke. Bodoni, for example, is listed as simply Bodoni, Bodoni Bold, and Bodoni Book. As Book represents the light weight, the so-called regular weight might better be called Bodoni Medium.

The first step in this direction would be to list various weights, from the light­est to the heaviest. These designations would then be standard, so that no matter what the name of the type, if a weight was given, it would be standard in all types. Such a list would include: 1. Light, 2. Medium, 3. Semi-bold, 4. Bold, 5. Extra­ bold, and 6. Ultra-bold.

With six weights, the sans serifs, the square serifs, and most commercial or publicity types would be covered as would the standard old styles, transitionals, and moderns. There are at present some 13 designations of weight in commonly used American sans-serif types, such as Thin, Book, Heavy, Extra-heavy, Black, and Extra-black. All of these would readily fit into the foregoing list of six terms.

While both type founders and com­ posing machine manufacturers in Europe and the United States have complicated matters for many years, we Americans be­gan it all, with Cheltenham type.

Cheltenham was the first type to spread itself into the “family,” as its universal acceptance made almost any variation of the original design into a best seller. With the road easily marked, it has been a simple matter to build a type family. Few suppliers can resist the temptation to ex­pand and contract type designs. Fewer still can agree upon what to call the variations in set-width.

First, there was the simple condensed and then extra-condensed. But this didn’t fill the bill, as we also have compressed, vertical, medium condensed; skyline, cam­panile, etc. In those versions which are wider in set, there are extended, expanded, wide, extra-extended, etc. One type in particular-Century Expanded-is al­ most identical in set-width with Century Schoolbook, giving the name little value as a descriptive term.

Possibly three variations of width would be sufficient for most needs : 1. Extra-condensed, 2. Condensed, and 3. Wide.

Such a brief listing would encompass the variations in the sans serif. Since only the types used in advertising and com­mercial printing lend themselves to such extremes of design, no further designa­tion would be required. In addition, it would be simple to add the weight to this listing, such as Extra-bold Condensed, or Bold Wide. The third listing-Wide­ could have been Extended, but the addi­tion of the “ex” would be bulky in a term such as Extra-bold Extended.

It will hardly be possible to standard­ize the actual names used for the types, as there is as much fretting about naming a type as in the naming of a baby, a book, or a movie. The designer may achieve first billing (Goudy this or Reiner that), or the designer’s wife (Lydian), his home (Deepdene), his address (Murray Hill), a style (Quillscript), or anything that the market research department wants.

We can be reasonably sure that types will continue to be issued from the foun­dries, and that most thoughtful printers would like to see standardization in their terminology, only a suggestion of which is given here. It is about time to demon­strate that progress is more than just a word in the printing industry.

This article first appeared in “The Composing Room” column of the September 1957 issue of The Inland Printer.