I Love Typography

Why Bembo Sucks

By Kris Sowersby

At a recent panel discussion on New Zealand book design, I lambasted the overuse of Bembo in many New Zealand books. As more questions were asked than could be answered, I wrote this article to explain myself. Let me begin with a brief history.

Before digital typesetting and offset printing, there was the letterpress. A typeface was composed of fonts, one font for each size. These size-specific fonts consisted of individual letters made from metal alloy. Single letters were placed by hand to create words, words were aligned into sentences, sentences were stacked to make paragraphs, and these were inked and pressed into paper. As a printing process it is fairly basic. Woodcuts and potato stamps use a similar method.

Bembo

However, cutting a 7-point lowercase ‘g’ takes a lot more skill than making a smiley-face potato stamp! The old masters of typeface design spent decades perfecting their craft. Each font of type was designed to work at a specific size. For instance, when Bodoni needed a font for text size, he cut a font at 9 point. When he needed a larger size for headings, he cut another font at 36 point. The 9 point worked beautifully for text and 36 point worked for display. If one were to blow up the printed impression of the 9 point to the same size as the 36, the differences would be readily apparent. The 9 point has sturdier details: the serifs are thicker, the contrast is lower, and the spacing is more generous. The 36 point has much finer lines and the spacing is tighter. This is as much a technical consideration as an aesthetic one: the 9 point needs to be sturdier to withstand the printing process. If the details are too fine then the metal will quickly wear or serifs will break off when pressed into paper.

This practice takes on new meaning when we consider that there can never be a definitive Bodoni, Garamond, Jenson, or Fleischmann typeface, as their oeuvres consist of a multitude of single, size-specific fonts. It is like mashing up Othello, King Lear, Hamlet and a touch of The Tempest and publishing it as ‘The Shakespeare’.

Why is this relevant? Well, in the rush to adapt to digital typesetting technology, type foundries digitised classic typefaces. The nature of digital fonts is to use one outline and scale as desired. Typefaces went from being cut in a multitude of sizes to a single, all-encompassing outline. A digital typeface can be optimised for a few sizes, but hardly for all. Bembo, for instance, is a digital copy of a metal interpretation of an original typeface cut in 1495 – a copy of a copy. So, the process of digitisation poses a problem: which point size should be digitised?

This seemingly superfluous dilemma can only be truly understood when the original metal typefaces are seen in print. Oh, what a joyous sight! The subtle variation of letterform, the slight impression into the paper, the vibrant warmth of a page of text. It is not only beautiful, but an absolute delight to read. The effect of these typefaces is impossible to emulate with their insipid digital ghosts. Modern printing has become so perfect, so uniform and precise that the spirit of the original is crushed. It is like spending a lifetime slurping instant coffee and never experiencing a proper espresso.

As languages change, so do typefaces. These changes are not radical; they are subtle evolutions that address culture and technology. Modern typography requires modern typefaces, designed by the people of our time for the people of our time. There are cultural considerations as well. Is it appropriate to set contemporary Pasifika poetry in a typeface designed by a seventeenth-century Italian philanderer? What about using an eighteenth-century clanger for a twenty-first century New Zealand political polemic?

Are the ideals of the typeface designer compatible with those of the writer? It would be pedantic, of course, to match every nuance of the writing to the tone of the typeface. However, it is nice when some effort is made in the selection of typeface. Reading New Zealand books would be far less tiresome if the internal typography was much more considered. Just imagine if the same amount of effort went into choosing the typeface as there is for choosing the colour of the cover!

Clinging to the corpses of digital ‘classics’ is pointless, old fashioned and anachronistic – it will only ever lead to typography that is dull at worst and pedestrian at best. Ultimately, the point is to respect the reader. They will spend a lot of time reading the thing, so it is sensible to make that experience as comfortable and appropriate as possible.

Kris Sowersby is a professional type designer from New Zealand. You can see his typefaces at Village.


Tags:       

  1. Nice piece! I was initially taken aback by the title, as I have coincidentally recently rediscovered Bembo at work, for use in promotional materials. I thought I was being pretty unique, as I don’t see much Bembo in my American life. Little did I know that it is the scourge of New Zealand!

    I think your point (no pun intended) is truly insightful, about different point sizes of a hand-cut font essentially being different fonts. Some foundries try to glancingly acknowledge this by releasing a “display” version of their fonts, but this isn’t exactly a cure-all. Perhaps someday there will be a next-generation font format that will accomodate these sizing issues… OpenType Plus?

    And there really is something amazing about reading a metal-set text. Sometimes analogue is just more beautiful than digital, eh?

  2. Don’t blame Bembo!

    I think typographers should just include more size dependent cuts of the same face. It seems like 3 variations should do it (for text, headline, and display).

    I cannot for the life of me understand why “multiple masters” died. This really was set to make the whole problem go away.

  3. Alec
    If you look at books, especially texts printed perhaps in the late 1980s and early 1990s, you’ll find a lot of Bembo. Now you see a lot of Adobe Garamond or Minion, which are actually better choices for novels and academic works than Bembo, because these typefaces families DO have optical sizes available from Adobe.

    Monotype released a new OpenType version of Bembo a few years ago. It is called “Bembo Book,” and it is optimized for book texts… i.e., it is a different digitization than the “normal” Bembo you migt have… even than the OpenType Bembo you might have!

    Bembo Book Pro at Fonts.com
    Bembo Book at Linotype.com

    However, if you’re using “just plain Bembo” for your books, you might want to stop and follow Kris’ advice.

  4. kalle

    Thanks for the enlightenment. This was really interesting. Never really thought about it but you’re right. Original letters seem to be more interesting than just digital copies. I’ll have an eye on old manuscripts now :-)

  5. Very interesting article. When designing I always try to stay away from overused typefaces. When it comes to books though the question came to mind if a typeface can really change the readers interpretation on how the story should be read. Kris made and excellent point,

    Modern typography requires modern typefaces, designed by the people of our time for the people of our time.

    So if Bembo is really the “voice of the past” then in certain books maybe it should be left alone.

  6. RogueJunkie

    Nice piece, even though I disagree (with most of it, not all).

    I feel that some revivals, or digitalizations, of classic typefaces deserve a LOT of credit. I especially like Adobe Caslon, Baskerville, Garamond, and some others. I feel their curves are very nicely executed, and the feel they give to the page is that of academic authority. Not that I dislike modern classic–inspired typefaces (Requiem and Epic are gorgeous), but where would we be without the digitized classics, available for everyone to study?

    However, I dislike Bembo (and Bodoni, for that matter), no matter the size.

    But thanks for the article Kris!

  7. Tlönista

    I gasped when I read the title, because I adore Bembo and, like Alec, don’t get to see it that often. But I guess Adobe Garamond will do…*grumble grumble*

  8. Owl

    Funny, the graphic “i love typography” at the top of the page is in Bembo.

  9. Seems to me that you’re mixing two ideas here: 1) type looks better when designed for specific point sizes, and 2) recent typefaces are better choices for printing recent texts. I don’t see what the two have to do with each other. Even new typefaces would benefit from size-specific designs, but they won’t have them either, just as your digital Bembo does not.

  10. You seem to be suggesting that part of the advancement of typography will be the re-introduction of irregularity, the way a good drum machine can play very slightly and irregularly out of rhythym to imitate the natural way a real drummer would play.

    Interesting…

  11. we are in complete agreement on this one. Irregularity is a good thing :)

  12. It is like mashing up Othello, King Lear, Hamlet and a touch of The Tempest and publishing it as ‘The Shakespeare’.

    Touché! :)

  13. Ric

    Very interesting, if a little ironic following on from the trumpeting of Bembo Zoo!

    As this is my first posting, may I congratulate you on a fantastic site. I’m a complete novice at all things typographical and “i love typography” caters for everyone who loves type.

  14. In fact the time spent to choose the color for books cover still the most important… to sell more books. Books are also products. No?

    Then, yes, selecting a suitable typeface for the text is also a key, but make sense only if the author is good ;)

    To comeback to the subject, most of earlier digital typeface suffert from same kind of what Kris developed about Bembo. In my early days as typeface designer, I recall to have heard so many times, people saying that Monotype have created the best typefaces — looking at Monotype fonts in digital forms, well… hum not my choice, not the choice of people like Stanley Morison who before the war started this collection and false (if applied to today Monotype fonts available on their computer) reputation. Its why at the time, early nineties, I have designed Apolline, strong color typeface for texts, as many friends also with new typefaces more suitable for digital world. FF Scala is not a sort of good digital version of Bembo? I recall to have heard that from the mouth of its designer at least…

    Thanks again to Kris for this article.

  15. Perhaps Kris will address some of the points raised through your comments.Just a couple of notes from me:

    The header is indeed set in Bembo, and is intended to be ironic, perhaps. Especially the weight of ‘typography’ which really is about as Bembo as my cat (and I don’t even have a cat) ;)

    Benajamin
    I also can’t comprehend why Multiple Masters ‘died’. It seems to have been pretty short-lived—getting its start in the early 1990s1992. Adobe Jenson MM is one example of a PostScript font that employs MM.

    I’d be interested to know what people—especially type designers—have to say about the ‘failure’ of MM. Is it perhaps more to do with the Font Format wars?

  16. Florian Wagner

    You are completely right. It’s the same thing with digital music. I used to love electronic DJ’ing with vinyls. Though the sound was not perfect, those subtle pops and scratches made music much more live and authentic. Nowadays everybody’s coming along with their MacBook Pros and super state of the art software to emulate turntables. Somehow, that’s a shame.

  17. JakeT — That’s a really good analogy. I remember buying a Roland R-8 back in the early 90s, and it was one of the first drum machines to incorporate some sort of “human feel” algorithm. It wasn’t perfect (that is, it wasn’t perfectly imperfect), but it really made a huge difference.

  18. Some info and a List of Multiple Masters fonts.

    Just found this excellent article on Typographica: Adobe & MM Fonts: Insight From the Inside. Thomas Phinney on Why MM failed.

  19. Has anyone used Bembo Book? How well does it remedy the weakness of the original digital Bembo? Does it at all capture the beauty of hot metal Monotype Bembo?

  20. >beauty of hot metal Monotype Bembo

    Isn’t a lot of this quality you speak of unattainable today? I mean how much of the beauty was caused by the paper used in the 1920s–50s, the bite of the metal type into it, the subtle irregularities, etc. and not by the typeface itself?

    Today, we print via other printing techniques (offset litho, digital printers, etc.). There is a lot from past typography that you don’t get with these things. That doesn’t make yesterdays printing better than today’s, however. We have a lot going for us in 2008.

    This ties into Kris’ closing idea, I think… we as a people may or may not “need” new typefaces to express our ideas… but the methods of reproduction that we use definitely do!

  21. Bert Vanderveen

    Dan has a point, but do take in account that transitions in technology take time… In the early days of offset printing a lot of typesetting was done on Lino and Mono typesettingmachines, with the resulting galleys being proofprinted with extreme care on very smooth and white paper (aka barite), before being pasted up and fotolithographed. The result of this was a very sparse letterimage, not at all that would have been the result of ‘proper’ printing.

    But this technique resulted in a shift in public taste — anorexic type became the defacto norm & when fonts were ‘transposed’ to the new phototypesetting systems the anorexic samples were used as the models. Something that hase gone on into the current digital age…

    In other words: the mainstream adaptations of the classics are below par. Typefaces developed nowadays, by experts who are aware of the requirements of printing etcetera, are in most cases better suited for most of the printing jobs.

  22. Hi folks,

    Thanks for taking the time to read the article. There are a few questions/comments that I’d like to respond to. But first, I have to point you all to Bert Vanderveen’s comment. Make sure that you read it. He fleshes out my point perfectly. Thanks Bert!

    And there really is something amazing about reading a metal-set text. Sometimes analogue is just more beautiful than digital, eh?

    Yes, sometimes it is. But not all the time.

    Don’t blame Bembo!

    I don’t. It was just used as an example. I blame those who keep using it in ignorance!

    I’ll have an eye on old manuscripts now

    Be my guest! But remember that lettering & writing are quite different to printing & typography, and a manuscript, by definition, is “written by hand rather than typed or printed”.

    Nice piece, even though I disagree (with most of it, not all).

    Great! I provided the article as food for thought, not as doctrine.

    I gasped when I read the title, because I adore Bembo and, like Alec, don’t get to see it that often.

    Just wait until you see it in metal…

    Seems to me that you’re mixing two ideas here: 1) type looks better when designed for specific point sizes, and 2) recent typefaces are better choices for printing recent texts. I don’t see what the two have to do with each other. Even new typefaces would benefit from size-specific designs, but they won’t have them either, just as your digital Bembo does not.

    It seems to me that you misunderstood my point. Please allow me to explain. I used the examples of optical sizes to demonstrate how things were done for the letterpress technology, thus a digital ‘Bodoni’ is not at all like an original size of ‘Bodoni’. Sure, one could be inspired by a cut of Bodoni, and call it ‘Bodoni’, but it will be Bodoni only in name.

    The point is not that letterpress printing is better or worse than digital printing. I am merely trying to point out that they are different, and typefaces should be made for the technology at hand, not to mimic one or the other. Which you must understand, as your css style sheet specifies:

    font-family: verdana, sans-serif;

    for every instance that I could see. As we all know, Verdana was designed for the screen, for the technology at hand. You wouldn’t be speccing Times New Roman, now, would you? ;)

    You seem to be suggesting that part of the advancement of typography will be the re-introduction of irregularity

    Not at all. Irregularity/randomness has already been introduced to many digital typefaces, but they hardly mimic letterpress type.

    Isn’t a lot of this quality you speak of unattainable today?

    Probably not, but that isn’t the point. It’s about designing appropriately for the technology at hand instead of mimicry.

    In other words: the mainstream adaptations of the classics are below par. Typefaces developed nowadays, by experts who are aware of the requirements of printing etcetera, are in most cases better suited for most of the printing jobs.

    Exactly.

  23. Monticello is a Linotype metal font that was pretty effectively revived in 2003 by Matthew Carter with nearly the same look as the original. It can be done effectively, but it takes some shrewd and thoughtful adjustment of the outlines. John Berry shows some of what Carter did in this article on the Monticello release.

  24. While reading the excellent Counterpunch, I came across this [pp 179]. I think it will help explain things a little better.

    “We could better spend time in encouraging students to be honest. Only honest designers can look freshly at the new challenges (fresh does not mean wild). Only honest designers can chuck out the typographic sludge and see what is left. And then they can decide what is worth adding to the typographic repertoire. ‘Worthwhile’ is hard to define, because even in book typography the borders are open. Why, for example, should one use some third-or fourth-hand Baskerville imitation, which doesn’t begin to work visually, just for the sake of the statue named ‘Baskerville’?”

  25. Kris, I think there are two different issues here. One is to what extent it is possible to capture the look of a metal original. The other is the whole question of revivals vs new designs.

    I think that the example of Monticello shows that it is possible to get much closer to the look of a metal original (especially metal from Baskerville on) than was done in the initial round of digital type design. I don’t know how good the new Bembo Book is, but that was a second round attempt at any rate.

    The other question is whether revivals are worth doing at all. The Smijers quote I’m afraid is a poor argument as it stacks the deck. It opposes a “third-or fourth-hand Barkerville imitation, which doesn’t begin to work visually” to a newer type. But what about Adobe Garamond or Jenson, which are first rate and work very well?

    Personally, I am very glad we have these excellent revivals of classic typefaces, as well as wonderful new ones, such as your own.

  26. this is a thought-provoking article. My question is what would type designers say about the use (or rather the overuse) of Helvetica in future, say in the XXII century?

  27. Coming up for air again from work, I find this article’s title staring me smack in the face and I feel like a family member has been insulted. Then, of course, I read on and get the sense of hat Kris says. All of which raises the question: Isn’t it something of a trend to design a font for a range of sizes: something like, say, 7-pt for 6- to 9-pt; 12-pt for 10- to 16-pt, etc.?

    And the Open Type Bembo package from Adobe, with Old Style and Expert stylings (perhaps not the best way to describe them) to choose from, these are a “one-size-fits-all” production also?

    It’s funny, I am in the middle of a great time—non-stop work, mostly straight book layout work and not design, but I’m gratified nonetheless. A while back, when I was not so busy, I got neck deep into reading. Letters of Credit and Anatomy of a Typeface got me to take a long, hard look at Bembo and I designed a book with it. After which I started to notice how often it has been used. But I guess that’s how something becomes classic, isn’t it?

    Anway, I suppose I’m long overdue to begin purchasing some type. I do believe—when I get around to having the cash to lay out (pardon the pun)—I intend to gt Scala and Scala Sans. Thanks to John and iLT for making me take a prolonged look—they’ve grown on me over time.

  28. Honest and astute, Kris! And, great analogies…

  29. I agree that there are two slightly disparate lines of thought in Kris’s argument. I might attempt to reconcile them this way:

    Many times in today’s books the use of one of the revered old text typefaces is an unthinking choice. Time-honored classics can also become time-worn. One shouldn’t use a Bembo or a Garamond, for instance, just because it’s a member of some “sanctioned canon” and that’s what all the best publishers have always used.

    In preparation for a talk I gave to the Vermont Book Publishers Association about five years ago, I made an unscientific survey of 313 recently published books. (I went to my local library and pored over all the new acquisitions, fiction and nonfiction.) The three most commonly used text faces together comprised 29% of the total (89 books). These were Sabon, Bembo, and Times New Roman — in most cases, unimaginative choices at best. Only 58 books were set in anything designed after 1950 (and a full quarter of those were Minion).

    As Kris explains, many digital revivals of the metal classics do not do justice to their exemplars via today’s technologies. Those originals were conceived for different printing methods and reading environments. The qualities that recommended them for use yesterday may no longer be present today.

    Digital typeface design is maturing, and many of today’s new text designs are better suited to today’s technologies and today’s voices. It behooves a book designer to keep his/her eyes open to new possibilities.

    That said, book design is an admittedly conservative field, for good reasons. Newness is certainly not a sufficient attribute; and new type designs must pay some dues, be put through their paces, and be held to high standards. Those that measure up over time will enter the repertoire, others will fall by the wayside.

    A classic becomes a classic for good reasons. But if a designer today is going to choose an old classic, then he/she must do so with discrimination. In today’s digital environment, the old metal classics cannot simply rest on their laurels. They must be judged on the basis of their performance in offset printing and on smoother papers.

    I just finished judging the annual book show for the Association of American University Presses last week. (Sue Colberg and I judged interiors; Bill Drenttel and Jessica Helfand judged covers and jackets.) I wish I’d done a similar survey of the text types in the 347 books we went through. But I will report that my overall impression was that designers were being more adventurous and thoughtful in their choices than just a few years ago. I encountered a good percentage of more contemporary designs than I’d expected — Chaparral, Cycles, Dolly, Fedra, Quadraat, Scala, Whitman, to name a few that come to mind.

    I think this bodes well for the future.

  30. Interesting post, Kent. Nice to have another New Englander on the site! Whitman is a beautiful font, by the way. Congrats on its success.

  31. For those who haven’t yet seen it, be sure to read the Typophile node in response to the above article.

  32. joel dalmau

    as much as many of you may write about the imperfections of metal fonts being appealing -even thought they were taken into account- they were never intended to be part of the typographers designs. Just as the noise on a vinyl lp, as endearing as it may be, was never intended by the musician.

    I think it’s important to distinguish between design and the consequences that the technicality of reproduction bring about.

    We as designers, when choosing a typeface, should take into account all aspects- size being one of them- and choose the right font for the job. MM was great but I’m sure some other format is on it’s way that will take these issues into account. Some sort of evolution of OpenType might be promising…

  33. Zach

    I find it interesting that this article fails to mention the biggest reason digital Bembo sucks: the effing capital R. What a swashy kerning nightmare! No metal version of Bembo I’ve seen has that monstrosity. Where the hell did it come from?

  34. bembo-de-aetna.jpg

    Blame it on Aldus Manutius and that Griffo chap ;)

    Also Monotype’s Bembo Book includes a short-tailed R.

  35. Jeff

    Two words: Bembo Book. That said, the KLIM faces (along with many other 21st century designs) make very nice alternatives.

  36. I’m going to take you to task for your deriding comment on instant coffee :)

    Now let me preface this with the fact that I’m a coffee junky. I know exactly what “hints of mocha” should taste like, and what too many “slight notes of green” does to an otherwise perfectly french roasted unbleached-filtered fine-ground cup of Mocha Java. I can also smell an extra bold roasted Tanzanian Peaberry a mile away. I even know what the beans look like compared to others! That said, I love instant coffee. I drink it nearly as much as the best coffee I routinely buy ($16 a pound, yikes…)

    Instant coffee is not Tanzanian Peaberry. Sometimes I just call it a “coffee beverage”.

    I collect old books once in a while. I have some early 19th century books here done in various typefaces. Nothing, nothing compares to the feel of the paper, the subtle undulances in the depression made in the paper by the sharp-edged metal font face. It’s a very different experience to reading on flat paper. It’s almost musical. It’s like the difference between decent mp3 quality recordings of a live performance, and a live performance in your living room. Or the difference on a steel string guitar that has a European Englemann Spruce AAA top vs one with spruce plywood top. Yet one of my favorite guitarists, Phil Keaggy, records one of my favorite songs of his “Sign came through a window” on a kids junk guitar. But he also plays is 10K Olson on his instrumental pieces. Same guitarist, different kinds of music, great results either way. In the hands of a master, anything can become a masterpiece.

    I love instant coffee (for what it is) I love expensive coffee (for everything it is).

    Same goes for typography and the current state of digital technology. That said, it would be great to have some options in the digital age for great type and a great experience with paper and all that it could be. However, I like Bembo, as I have it, for what it is. And Aksidenz Grotesk Light, too.

  37. Why MM died.

    I asked Matthew Carter about this last year at an SP meeting, as I was wondering about the interim technology between hot metal and the florescence of digital type (such as it is).

    He had mentioned that Linotype had initially looked at digitizing from 3 sizes of the master drawings (now in the collection of the Museum of Printing in North Andover, MA) and attempted to market that “breadth” of optical sizing, the belief being that traditional typesetters would demand materials up to prior standards.

    “Build it and they will come”.

    No one came. The middling sizes were what commercial typesetters were willing to spend money on. Remember, the “democratization of typesetting” is a recent phenomenon. Up until the recent advent of thoughtless and effortless piratization of digital type, it actually was a capital investment to purchase a library of type from any of the remaining foundries. ATF failed miserably in making the transition. Linotype and Monotype were more successful at releasing product that was passable, but just so. Competition was fierce. There were actually Monotype electronic cuts of Palatino, and cellular mats for Helvetica to cast on a Monotype comp caster. Cats and dogs sleeping together even then in the early 90’s. Who would have thought…

    In any event… Follow the money. No one was willing to pay for MM fonts, and so, despite the concept behind them being superior, and no one but a trained typographer might be able to recognize that the counter of the 6pt lowercase “a” was more open then the 72pt “a”.

    And so the niceties fell away.

    That’s my understanding of the situation anyway.

    mjb

  38. I should probably state also that I have long maintained that digital type sucks for the very reason sited in the article.

    16 years ago I did a side by side setting of 54pt foundry Palatino and Adobe’s cut from around 1990. The difference to my eye were vast. The subtle turns in the lower case m, the radical differences in the figures. Let’s not forget the limitation to the character set that saw the swash caps fall away from the Italic character set.

    I don’t believe that any “foundry’s” cut of Weiss Italic contains the alternate swash caps that would have been part of the font available from Bauer when one was investing in type. There are certainly none of the interesting refinements available from any “foundry” that ATF issued for Garamond Italic. Well, except from the Dale Guild casting from mats Dan Carr rescued at the ATF auction.

    And that’s simply not right. So yes, “Bembo” continues to suck. But does anyone beyond you or I really care?

  39. … I like Bembo, as I have it, for what it is …

    I hesitate to chime in here, because I almost feel as if this is a discussion among scholars. I’m a simple maker of pages. I tend to use typefaces that I already have; I haven’t gotten anything new in some time. Generally, I do much more layout than design. And my layout clients tend to be repeaters. So the types their books use tend to be the same—especially when they belong to series.

    So when I took on a design and layout project last spring, I looked at types in my library that I really hadn’t any familiarity with. And Adobe’s OpenType Bembo—while I take everyone’s word is nothing when compared to metal Bembo—is something I took an immediate liking to. The book I used it for looks nice; and the client for whom I did the book was very pleased.

    So I wonder, do we design pages and set type for the people who pay us and the people who read them? It sounds sometimes as if all this is really supposed to be some higher calling in the service of the Lord. Or something.

  40. Danielle

    I don’t see why you dislike the font so much. I got it a few months ago and I am completely in love with it. I know some other people who love it, too. It’s so nice and elegant.

previous post: Sunday Type: Spaced-out Type

next post: FontBook

November Fonts October Fonts September Fonts August Fonts July Fonts June Fonts May Fonts April Fonts March Fonts February Fonts January Fonts January Fonts November Fonts October Fonts September Fonts August Fonts July Fonts June Fonts May Fonts April Fonts March Fonts February Fonts January Fonts december Fonts October Fonts September Fonts August Fonts July Fonts June Fonts May Fonts April Fonts March Fonts February Fonts January Fonts December Fonts November Fonts October Fonts September Fonts August Fonts July Fonts May Fonts April Fonts March 2011 Fonts February 2011 Fonts January 2011 Fonts December 2010 Fonts November 2010 Fonts October 2010 Fonts September 2010 Fonts August Fonts July Fonts June Fonts May Fonts April Fonts March Fonts February 2010 featured fonts December Fonts November Fonts October Fonts September Fonts August Fonts July Fonts June Fonts May Fonts April Fonts March Fonts February Fonts January Fonts December Fonts November Fonts October Fonts September Fonts August Fonts July Fonts June Fonts May Fonts April Fonts March Fonts February Fonts January Fonts December Fonts