Comments on: Archer the Elegant Slab Serif

By: The Dude Abides » Blog Archive » Bookmarks for June 24th from 10:31 to 15:31

Tue, 24 Jun 2008 21:50:46 +0000

[…] Archer the Elegant Slab Serif | i love typography, the typography blog - A nice write-up on Archer […]

By: Stephen Tiano

Stephen Tiano — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 14:56:14 +0000

I’m generally not a fan of slab serifs—just my reflex, really, upon seeing them. Even so, I must say that Archer is a nice-looking type. I still can’t picture reading a long stretch of it, but who knows.

As for Hoefler … What I was reminded of was just how long it’s been since I really took notice of what the system fonts are on a Macintosh. I mean, know they’ve grown and changed since my first Mac, a Mac IIx, in 1989 or 1990. Yet I still think that System Fonts means Times Roman, Avant Garde, Helvetica, helvetica Narrow, New Century Schoolbook, Bookman, and Palatino. As well as Zapf Dingbats and Chancery. Did I miss any?

Back when I got that old IIx and my first laser printer, the IINT, I felt like Ben Franklin or Gutenberg himself. I was free from the miserable—embarrassing, actually—dot matrix print of my ImageWriter II. Especially when a friend had the same dot matrix printer, but his Mac Plus generated much better-looking print.

Viva the DTP revolution!

I only wish the Super Bowl broadcast later today includes a great Apple ad reminiscent of the 1984 one. I know, it ain’t going to happen. But I’m hoping, as I haven’t seen a list of all the commercials that will air.

By: Mark Chandler

Mark Chandler — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 11:26:08 +0000

The astronomy picture example of Archer wasn’t all that impressive, but on my second time reading this article (I check back a few times a week for updates) I clicked the link to the official Archer page and, wow!, the other official examples are very catchy indeed!

By: Hamish M

Hamish M — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 04:58:40 +0000

Alec
Thanks for the insight. And that’s an interesting story — just goes to show how a typeface can evolve even as you’re making it.

By: inspirationbit

inspirationbit — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 20:15:48 +0000

What an elegant face this Archer has. Every time you’re featuring a new typeface here, I’m trying to see which one would suite Inspiration Bit’s new look. Still hadn’t made my mind. I might ask for your advice, John, since you’re the one with all your fab types making me so indecisive ;-)

By: Sakto

Sakto — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 14:11:08 +0000

What a beautiful typeface. Not unlike the others H&FJ offers, it perfectly fits the description and aim of its design.

By: Alec

Alec — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 12:34:52 +0000

@Hamish — I always start with the regular weight, then work my way up to bold and down to light. (Actually, with my most recent font, I started with what I thought was regular, but it turned out that when I made the bold version, the bold version was really the way the font should look. I might not even release the regular version, because the bold version is just so much more “right”.) In my experience, working up towards bold is much easier than working down to light.

By: WEBARMY

WEBARMY — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 07:56:16 +0000

Wow that typeface has to be one of the sexiest one’s I’ve ever seen.

By: Hamish M

Hamish M — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 04:57:06 +0000

John
Haha, brilliant. If only it were that easy. Of course, that does make me wonder, how in fact do most typographers create each weight? Do you start with the lightest and build your way up?

By: johno (iLT)

johno (iLT) — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 00:25:37 +0000

Hamish
I don’t know why, but upon reading your comment, I had a vision of Jonathan Hoefler sitting at a huge Thunderbirds-esque control panel covered in huge red buttons with a variant inscribed on each; and there he is slapping the ‘hairline’ button, then the ‘bold italic’…

Perhaps it’s time for me to sleep. Good to see you, Hamish.