This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Blythwood (talk | contribs) at 11:40, 13 November 2015 (Blythwood moved page Talk:Garamond (typeface) to Talk:Garamond over redirect: There is no reason why a page title should automatically say typeface. Bembo doesn't, Helvetica doesn't, Gill Sans doesn't. Speedy revert. Feel free to open a move d...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 11:40, 13 November 2015 by Blythwood (talk | contribs) (Blythwood moved page Talk:Garamond (typeface) to Talk:Garamond over redirect: There is no reason why a page title should automatically say typeface. Bembo doesn't, Helvetica doesn't, Gill Sans doesn't. Speedy revert. Feel free to open a move d...)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Typography C‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
University of Chicago Press
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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
Glyphs
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. 序名三「Jyonasan」 Stalk 20:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- 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....
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
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 . 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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Cursive
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)
- Sources? Blythwood (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
YOFonts Classiq
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
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
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)
Categories: