Talk:Garamond

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Typography (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Typography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Typography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
 

University of Chicago Press[edit]

Also uses it. Might as well refer to the font as "Lattimore/Grene". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.19.12 (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

I have taken out:


The text below is presumably referring to some specific typeface called "Garamond", but which one? It's not clear that describing (any version of) Garamond by relating it to Times Roman is a particularly great plan, anyway...

Garamond is the inspiration for most modern typefaces with serifs, notably Times Roman. The strokes are somewhat thinner and more sculpted than Times Roman. The ends of strokes end in tapering calligraphic triangles reminiscent of brush strokes. The designer coordinated the angles of the strokes, sizes and ornaments of the serifs and radii of the flourishes across many sizes to achieve a stylistically unified typeface that has the same feel, while remaining readable at all sizes. The clearest evidence of unified angles is in the capital W and M, classically the largest and hardest glyphs to design.


This is a general discussion about serif fonts, which belongs on the serif page, and I'm currently working on a classification there. Will take this back in eventually. -- djmutex 2003-04-30

Confusion[edit]

While you point to the confusion between Jannon's and Garamond's faces, you have put Monotype Garamond in the infobox. This is based Jannon's work and is more of a transitional font, whereas Garamond's is old style. Would it not be more accurate to have a font based on actual work from Garamond there, like Stempel or Adobe Garamond? ~AR


Mention that Garamond was Apple's main font used in publicity during the 80s and 90s? Tobyink 07:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


"The Quick brown fox" sentence looks remarkably like the letters below. What face is it in, if it's not garamond? Can't it be removed from the picture? If someone confirms it's not Garamond, I'll chop it off myself --Storkk 21:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Show/hide[edit]

Does anyone know why, in MSWord, when you show your invisibles, the dots for spaces are so far to the right (almost on top of the following letter) in Garamond?

Numbers[edit]

Could someone explain the numbers? It's confusing having the 1 look like a small I and the 0 look like an o. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.188.172.165 (talk) 03:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

They are oldstyle digits, also known as text figures. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.144.9.74 (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Here is a simple way to look at it: old style figures (which Garamond has in its specimen) are deisgned to compliment lowercase. Lining figures (the ones you may be more familiar with) are diesnged to compliment uppercase. CApitol3 17:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter?[edit]

The introduction of Harry Potter as a specific example of a book using Garamond seems really out of place in the midst of a general discussion about the typeface. It should be removed unless there is some reason pointed out as to why this example is exceptional and significant. Brian Hill 17:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

removed. Kzhr 16:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


Also, I seem to remember at least one of the (American) books being set in 11.5 point Garamond instead of 12 point. I don't have the books with me, can someone check? (The article says all of the books were set in 12 point.)Joelanders (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

First three hardcover American editions are in 12-pt. Adobe Garamond. Not sure beyond Prisoner of Azkaban. Rivertorch (talk) 07:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Dates Issue[edit]

It says he was born in 1480 but the caption on the figure says it's an example of his font from 1485? Precocious kid! - Rakesh K.

I noticed this too and removed it. 72.79.213.108 (talk) 13:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Penguin[edit]

It seems that "Monotype Garamond" is the typeface most often used in the classic Penguin paperbacks from the 1960s and thereabouts. It seems possible that this is the place most people would have encountered Garamond. Perhaps someone with more information can expand on this.Priceyeah 11:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The many faces of Garamond[edit]

Glancing over the article, it occurs to me that most significant typefaces rate their own articles. While a general Garamond article is certainly a good thing, I wonder if some of the typefaces going by that name deserve separate articles of their own. Stempel Garamond, for instance, is much more similar to Granjon (which has its own article) than it is to ITC Garamond (which doesn't). At the very least, some redirects are probably in order. Any advice appreciated. Rivertorch (talk) 07:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Cyrillic font rendering[edit]

Glyphs[edit]

In Russian, two letters are visibly different from their original scripts. These are Д "de" and Л "el". These are displayed (if italicised with the Garamond font) similar to the Alexander font. The characters of these letters in Garamond font are rendered as follows: Д (Cyrillic letter "de"), and Л (Cyrillic letter "el"). The letters are similar to the Greek Δ "delta" and Λ "lambda", as the Cyrillic alphabet derived from the Greek alphabet.[1] 序名三「Jyonasan」 TalkStalk 20:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

References

I took this section out because it is unsourced and makes no sense. First, what is "their original scripts"? Original Garamond had no Cyrillic, did it? Second, you don't know how the reader's browser is going to render that span, it depends on what fonts they have installed and their browser preferences. I would fix this if I could figure out what you're trying to say, but I can't, so I have removed the section. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Just curious....[edit]

Why does the example of Garamond in the page image omit the digit 6? I would guess it's because you can deduce what it looks like by turning the 9 upside down.... 2.25.141.140 (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Jannon misattribution[edit]

This section should really contain a reference to Beatrice Warde's original article:

Warde, Beatrice, The 'Garamond' types : sixteenth & seventeenth century sources considered / by Paul Beaujon [i.e. Beatrice Ward]. p. 131-179 In Fleuron no.5 (1926)

Also a summary was reprinted in The Montotype Recorder vol 44 no. 1 autumn 1970. The details given in the section seem to be garnered from her research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambrosebrown (talkcontribs) 21:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

ok, this should perhaps be referenced too: Mosley, James; Garamond, Griffo and Others : The Price of Celebrity, BIBLIOLOGIA vol. 1 2006 http://www.libraweb.net/articoli.php?chiave=2239&rivista=84 or here: http://typefoundry.blogspot.com/2011/04/garamond-or-garamont.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambrosebrown (talkcontribs) 23:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Cursive[edit]

A pity the remarkable Cursive of the Garamond (and the form of its Q and &) are completely ignored by this article. Glatisant (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

YOFonts Classiq[edit]

Someone added Classiq (which is a Sans Serif font loosely based on Garamond fonts) to the Jannon section. I don't think it's highly relevant here because strictly speaking, it is not a modern version of Garamond (and it is relatively unknown - try Googling "YOFonts Classiq"). Maybe we can mention it in passing?Thomas J. S. Greenfield (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

  • I felt it was notable as an attempt to translate the ideas of Garamond releases (including letterform designs, cursive italics, stretched Q crossbar etc.) to the modern idiom of sans-serif fonts, because its author describes it as being specifically based on Jannon's designs, and (frankly) because I think it's a beautiful design worthy of mention. (Usual disclaimer about lack of personal interest.) I wouldn't be happy with removing it but if you can find any other sans-serif takes on Garamond adding them might be good as I think there have been a few others. Blythwood (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I brought it into a separate subsection. 22:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Thomas J. S. Greenfield (talk)

culture.fr[edit]

Perhaps this can be a source? http://www.garamond.culture.fr/en/ (for some reason the page isn't fully translated)

http://www.garamond.culture.fr/en/page/garamond_in_16th_century_france

The Garamond W[edit]

I've been looking for a source on this but found it surprisingly difficult to get one online (and I can't get to a good library on this sort of thing), so I thought I'd put it open for discussion: Did Garamond's original type (the one he cut himself) contain a W? And if so, was it the double-v W we know today? I want to check this because I haven't found a source that explicitly mentions it. The EB specimen has one, but it's printed for German use and I suppose they could have added one. Blythwood (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Considering Good Article nomination[edit]

Hello all! I've been interested in upgrading the article for some time now - and am mostly finished, I hope. I'm considering nominating the article for Good Article status soon, maybe when I've cleared out and cited the list of usages. (I think many of these can be cut - Garamond is used in so many books as a body text face it's getting hard to care about them all.) Any thoughts or suggestions for deficiencies I should try to fix? Blythwood (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Going to nominate now. Blythwood (talk) 09:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Garamond/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


Wow, an interesting thing to write about! I'll read and make straightforward copyedits as I go (please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning). And jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

...are the small eye of the e and bowl of the a - looks funny with no quote marks or italics - just unadorned 'e' and 'a'.....not a hard call but something worth discussing I think.
OK. rephrased.
I'm not a fan of an isolated single sentence definition before the two lead paras. If there was a sentence about when the term came into common use, then para two would segue nicely and we'd have two paras.
agreed, changed.
link or explain ascenders.
yes, descenders too.
...creating a design that seems organic and unadorned. - err, what's "organic" supposed to mean here?
added an explanation - essentially, looking not too far abstracted from handwriting - at least, not compared to what came next.
M which had no serif at top right - err, an illustration might be good here as I can't picture what this means.
Put one in the gallery at the bottom. Horrible picture (blowup of a scan obviously not intended to show the letters in detail) but I think it will do.
Hmmm, it'd be nice to get it nearer the text....let me think about this....
a design so eccentric --> "a design held/thought/considered to be so eccentric"
added a bit more explanation of why that is.
Claude Garamond's name is written both as Garamont and Garamond. Using "Garamont" might make the prose clearer when it refers to the person or font...
Good point. I think though it's best to standardise on Garamond since that's what people expect in English. Mosley has commented on this as not being ideal.
I think some context is needed about where Garamont was - reading the body of text one has no idea. I added that he was French but might be better to say Parisian....
Added, yes. Nobody really has a clue where he grew up or what he was doing until he was about 30 although since his mother lived in Paris at the time of his death a whole life spent there seems likely...
glamorous - might be more NPOV to say "highly-regarded" or something
Good point. I've rephrased.
The Jean Jannon misattribution segment is unclear - this font was widely called Garamond at the time I presume? Otherwise why is it here..?
Fonts at that stage often didn't have individual names - normally they were named by size, although often they were named after their creator. The name 'Garamond' really only gets going in the early twentieth century, after other fonts that look different had started to be created. It's at this point when the misattribution of Jannon's work to Garamond happens. (In Garamond's time, all fonts looked like his - his were just seen as a bit better executed - so the question of naming wasn't really important. This is why there's so little certainty about what he actually did and didn't make.) Rephrased that section and added a picture.
Jannon-derived types are most immediately recognizable by the lowercase a - umm, then it would be ciritical to have a box comparing the lowercase 'a's (and possibly m,n and r) I would have thought.
Drat, that must have in from an early draft before I got involved. It's much more the 'm', 'n' and 'r' that are distinctive. Rephrased. The image that shows it is the collection of revivals all saying 'agnostic'.
Not having encountered Granjon's name before leaves me wondering whether Adobe Garamond is more like original garamond or Jannon...
It's as based on Garamond as anything anyone can realistically release today can be. The regular style is Garamond's, the italic is based on Granjon's (although edited to harmonise with the regular), and the bold and semi-bold come from Slimbach's imagination, since they didn't exist in Garamond's time. And of course massively regularised compared to wonky old metal type to fit modern expectations.
he realised this vision - aargh, sounds like a glossy page advert....rephrase
True.
How does Garamond Premier differ from Adobe Garamond anyway.....
Hard to describe and I haven't found any sources that explain it well. (I also don't have a license, so I can't create a sample image.) But basically, its design goes to extremes of style (very delicate, very solid) since it's made in styles for different text sizes (see the large-size version for instance). I would say as a personal opinion that to me it more resembles revivals of Garamond from the twentieth century. (What I have done is put in a sample image of EB Garamond to show what optical sizes do.) I wish I could find a good picture of Garamond Premier, since it's by far the most complete modern Garamond-based font - ironically Thomas Phinney is on Wikipedia, so you could ask him for a quote! But he was recently made CEO of his company so I imagine he's quite busy right now - I told him about nominating and he did make one very sensible change to the article but no more than that...
Do we get any global figures that help indicate popularity of the font or subfonts? Either now or historically?
I can't see that happening, sorry. The Coles article uses a straightforward sample of a specific, limited number of books that were up for an award.
Fair enough - we can only add what is sourced....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Contrary to many folks, I like In popular culture sections...they generally work better as prose with some encompassing statements. See if you can do that here.
Yeah. The 'In popular culture' is none of it my work (I heavily cut it down, you can't list every book printed in Garamond-revival type) and it's such a mixture I can't imagine fashioning it into coherent prose. I have to say, I think it's better as disconnected bullet points.
Not a deal-breaker and can't be done if no encompassing statements....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Given when one is reading footnotes, one is moving between body of text and footnote, I think they go better above the references. I've done this at many articles I've worked on - see Corona Borealis for instance.
Good idea. Done.

All in all, a fascinating read. I am not familiar with the subject but am interested - I think it needs some more context to get it to make sense in places. As it comes together I might have some more ideas. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Brilliant, thanks. That's a lot of helpful feedback and I'm planning how to incorporate those comments into the article now.

Running through some of those comments, I'll just add a few notes. I expect to be thinking myself over the next day or about how to rephrase and thought I should note down (partly for myself!) what's going on.

I'm adding a gallery for pictures. Looking into rights situation for images of historic books and on Wikimedia commons. I really want to add a few more pictures of Garamond's original type (and that of his contemporaries) now without overloading the article.

Done this now, using a sample of print in Garamond's type from the 1740s.

A subtext running through the article (which I don't quite dare state because it would be opinion) is that there was a lot of reverence for the name of Garamond, one of the most famous creators of metal type in the early days of Parisian printing. So people seem to have been keen to revive the holy work of Garamond - whatever scholarship thought that was that particular week! Garamond seems to have been one of the most respected artisans of his time (not that he ever got very much money out of it!) and memory of his reputation lingered after people forgot what type he actually cut.

So a quick chronology, following Mosley. In 1745, the type of Garamond and his colleagues (or in the style of it) was still very much in use in Paris, almost two hundred years after his career had ended. Mouldering in a box in a back room at the Royal Printing office too was some type by Jean Jannon. Over the next sixty years or so, printers in Paris disposed of all their old metal type, moulds etc. following a transition in taste. Apparently the only original Garamond type saved was in Antwerp at what is now the Plantin-Moretus Museum.

Fast forward again to the late nineteenth century. Interest in Garamond's work (and that of his contemporaries) was increasing. The National Printing Office, knowing Garamond once created Greek type for them, discovers Jannon's matrices in the back office and decides Garamond made it too. All the first 'Garamond' revivals were based on it, not anything Garamond himself did. Once people realised he didn't make it, well, people forgot about Jannon's work again! So actually it's the reverse: the first modern 'Garamond' fonts were actually based on Jannon's work, the 'Garamond' on your computer included. The authentic ones actually came later.

Granjon: it's simple. Garamond doesn't seem to have ever bothered to take too much interest in italics - at the time these were created separately to regular type. A printer would use one in a book or the other for body text, but not so much italics for emphasis inside body text as now. (I'm not clear on why this is, but printers have historically thought his italics weren't as good as his roman type.) So most revivals don't use his italics: they use ones developed by Granjon. Adobe Garamond's upright (roman) is based on Garamond, as are all the revivals listed as such. Jannon worked at a slightly later date where the regular/italic system we know today had been established, and he does seem to have created matching roman and italic type. So the revivals based on Jannon's work use his italic, as Monotype Garamond does. (The Warde article has a specimen of Jannon's type and the italic which I've mentioned, and they look almost identical - though I think with a few edits to fit the limits of printing technology of the time, which wasn't great at dealing with heavily overlapping letters.)

No serif at top right: simple. Open Word on your computer and set the font to Garamond. Look at the capital 'M'. Now imagine that with no spike (serif) on the top right. It really does look like Manutius's book De Aetna had this glitch by accident and his French imitators decided to copy that for whatever reason. A good place to see that is this scan of it (caution: 10MB file), p. 28, bottom right. You'll see that the 'M' there clearly has a serif at top left but not so much on top right.

Spelling of Garamond's name: not with out reservations, I've decided to standardise on Garamond because that's what people expect in English. But I realise this isn't historically correct. (Mosley has written about this himself.)

Not that it matters just yet, since I'm working on the text, but the main references are: the French Ministry of Culture site and 'Paleotypography' books are by far the most important books on Garamont's work himself; Warde's 1928ish article is an important summary of scholarship and interest in his work up to that point (it was when that was put online that I realised I could really get this article to be good); Professor Mosley's articles (some of them are on his own blog) are also very good historical sources. As you've probably gathered, this is a bit of a pet (amateur) project so my goal was to try to bring all the references I could find together so some others are really just there to back those up or because they explain things a bit better-it's still not an ideal situation as journals on printing history are rare and digitisation of past journal articles is effectively non-existent. It's not a field with the standard of completeness and extensive journal coverage we're used to in science and medicine. I am a bit limited on what I can add on Garamond himself though (I don't speak French) so that section of the article is kept reasonably simple... Thanks for all the feedback once again!

Blythwood (talk) 14:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

  • So timeline now finished and I've now spelled out much more of the information which up to now was in links. Still running through each of your points and thinking about images though. Blythwood (talk) 14:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Re:turnitin: All of those are verbatim quotes and cited. I have to say, Mosley writes beautifully (he's one of the people who really should write some magisterial four-volume history of printing but is clearly never going to) and I felt it was worth putting a bit of his writing in the article. I don't think they're very extensive quotes.

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:
Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:
Citations to reliable sources, where required:
No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:
Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: going through this presently... their age is good for us and copyright....
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:


Overall:

Pass or Fail: - checking images now. As well - a chunk of text is identical - scroll down here and see. Distancing them would be good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad - I missed the attribution. That's okay. Just had to duck off am make a load of nachos cheese in the oven for the kids....and a coffee for me... :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Brilliant. Enjoy the nachos! Blythwood (talk) 00:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Where now....[edit]

@Blythwood: I recommend a peer review as I can ping a few folks who'd be interested in taking a look at this, and then having a crack at WP:FAC. Once it passes there, you'll have a thoroughly-reviewed template to base other font articles on..an' Bob's yer uncle ;) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Casliber: Peer review sounds great. I already have some other font articles in the GA queue - Gill Sans and Bembo, and Ehrhardt which Professor Eppstein passed - and am planning to start doing my own reviewing now or possibly after my next article - would welcome feedback on this though. I really don't want to write other font articles this big though and can't see it being worth it for most of them (Gill Sans is pretty big, though most of that is its usage) - this was a bit of a special project :)
I'm certainly planning to turn this into a DYK submission [done now] but will think about FAC-although if you recommend it... One thing that is very awkward is that although I know a whole pile of publications came out of the Plantin-Moretus research in the 70s I haven't read any of it, since it's not available online! Obviously the article does though cite Vervliet's later book very extensively which I was able to read. (There just isn't the level of journal publishing in this area and digitising of old journals we're used to in science and medical fields.) So might have to go to the British Library but will think about it - on the other hand, you know, who cares what Garamond actually did? Certainly not the people who made most modern fonts named after him...I think the article is more about modern revivals of his work which are better-documented anyway. But I think both Garamond and Gill Sans could make FAC with a bit of effort, the latter perhaps more easily since the sources are more available to review. Once again, thanks for the very thorough review - this has given me a lot of food for thought on ideas on what to add to my other article projects. Blythwood (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Garamond. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)