Univers, Linotype Univers and Univers Next

[Iain Farnsworth]

This topic was imported from the Typophile platform

I am having some trouble discerning the better digitization of these three typefaces.

There do appear to be some differences in them, not withstanding the face that Linotype Univers and Univers Next offer a far greater number of weights than Univers, as well as the more desirable ampersand; the cut (so to speak) appears different. Both Linotype Univers and Univers Next seem to have more modulation in the strokes, and Linotype Univers 430, which I assumed to be an equivalent to Univers 55, seems, well, heavier!

Also, any idea which is closer to Frutiger's original design?

Any help appreciated.
Iain.

[hrant]

Is there a reason to worry about what's closest to the original? Unless there's some peculiar historical consideration here why not simply choose the one you like most?

Or better yet: go with Unica. :-) If you can find it...

hhp

[Iain Farnsworth]

Thanks hrant.
No, no peculiar historical consideration - I suppose I'm just being a little pedantic. I do prefer the ampersands of the Linotype and Next versions, and the cut feels a touch more elegant, but felt it was worth checking I wasn't flying in the face of popular typographic opinion.

Cheers,
Iain.

P.S. I'd love Unica if I could find it!

[Chris Dean]

Sadly, my library is on the other side of the continent. I believe an older Adobe version (with the 2 digit numbering sustem — 45, 55, 65, &c) is closest.

While that may be incorrect, I do know that the oblique for the Neue Linotype version was increased by a few degrees so that the distinction between it and the roman was significantly more salient.

[Celeste]

Linotype Univers and Univers Next have been marketed by Linotype as “closer to the original design” and endorsed as such by Adrian Frutiger himself — indeed they show some traits which were absent from the previous digital version (the ampersand, the slope of the italics, etc.).

In my opinion, the real questions are : considering that designers have for decades been using the “old” digital version, hasn’t this one become a classic in its own right ? Who can decide (Linotype ? Adrian Frutiger ?) that the “new” versions should be preferred ? And how can Linotype dare to pretend that they care about typographic quality when they have been selling for decades a version of Univers which presented “obvious flaws” (their words) — which the “new” version supposedly corrected ?

[Karl Stange]

hasn’t this one become a classic in its own right ?

If the sole criteria for making it a classic are ubiquity and the absence of alternatives.

Who can decide (Linotype ? Adrian Frutiger ?) that the “new” versions should be preferred ?

The people that make the decision to use them, such as Iain.

And how can Linotype dare to pretend that they care about typographic quality when they have been selling for decades a version of Univers which presented “obvious flaws” (their words) — which the “new” version supposedly corrected ?

To talk about Linotype as a homogeneous entity is to ignore the incredibly talented group of designers and engineers that work there and care deeply about those differences and the importance of doing justice to a great typeface. If this were not the case, those flaws would not have been recognized and no effort would have been made to improve anything.

[Celeste]

@ Karl Stange

Mmh… It hadn’t struck me that the work done by Willi Kunz for Columbia University School of Architecture with the “old” digital Univers, for instance, had suffered from an “absence of alternatives”.

I do agree with you, though, that the decision to use this or that version of ANY typeface is down to the users themselves — but I don’t want to underestimate the game of influences and PR played by large digital foundries towards the graphic design community either.

Finally, although I have the deepest respect for the creative people working at Linotype (the incredible Akira Kobayashi, for instance), Linotype DOES indeed present itself as a single entity (remember “Home of the Originals” ?) when dealing with the buying public. And this single entity has for years positioned itself as a haven of good typographic design while, at the same time, marketing and selling fonts that were simply not up to par.

[Karl Stange]

Stéphane

I am not disputing that it may have established itself as a classic (and thank you for bringing Willi Kunz to my attention), merely that wide-spread usage over a long period of time does not, on its own, establish it as a classic.

[Celeste]

This is where our opinions diverge a little bit : repeated use (in graphic design work) DOES establish a typeface as a (graphic design) classic, regardless of its inherent qualities — because it then becomes loaded with intellectual and cultural associations which make it a point of reference for subsequent uses.

Sorry, I’m afraid my poor grasp of English doesn’t allow me to make a convincing argument here (though all this is quite clear in my head, I’m apparently unable to explain it in a foreign language).

[Karl Stange]

In which case I think the word staple would be more appropriate than classic, at least to my mind. Using your definition, something like Comic Sans (which I do not arbitrarily hate, as some do) might be considered a classic. We may simply have to agree to disagree, though I prefer your term, to diverge.

Aside from your use of all caps for emphasis, which perhaps has more to do with etiquette than language, you appear to have a fine grasp of English.

[Celeste]

Indeed it is because I wouldn’t consider Comic Sans (or Papyrus, for that matter) as “classics” that I took care to narrow my argument to (professional) graphic design uses — as a graphic design teacher and critic, I’m particularly interested in how graphic designers (this strange tribe) envision the typographic tools they use, how they choose them, how their perception of them is informed (and by what factors). I’m deeply convinced, for instance, that certain historic, iconic and/or high-profile professional uses of certain typefaces have made them classics within the graphic design canon.

The problem I have with the latest digital versions of Univers is that they significantly differ from the one which, by virtue of its use by the likes of Willi Kunz, Angus Hyland (the “Pocket Canons” series) or Werner Jeker (and all the designers who ever worked for the Kieler Woche during the past 25 years), has become a point of reference within the collective culture of graphic design professionals. In this respect, the fact that these “new and improved” versions are supposedly closer to Adrian Frutiger’s original drawings from 1954-1957 seems irrelevant to me and doesn’t make them more vital (desirable, compulsory, etc.) than the “old” digital version.

Thank you for your support about my written English — I'll try to amend my overuse of all-caps setting, I promise.

[quadibloc]

While Adrian Fruitger's original drawings aren't a point of reference for the ultimate readers of books or advertisements, I can indeed see people rejecting, at least in the case of Times Roman, the current digital version, as opposed to the versions by Linotype and Monotype in the hot metal era, as the "standard" that people recognize.

That the same might be true of Univers, leading to a conclusion that digital type is still in its infancy, and lacks subtle qualities of grace and beauty - or some other characteristic - generally present in the hot metal era does not strike me as wildly improbable.

The good news is that there's every chance this lack has the potential to become a "recognized quality" - there's no royal road to designing better types, but this could be something any competent type designer could learn not to overlook. (Or it could require cooperation from others, such as adding other types of curve instead of just Bézier curves to the font technology.)

[Celeste]

— John
I agree with you that there could indeed be a consensus amongst type designers that the “old” digital version of Univers is inferior to the original metal versions (foundry type, Linotype or Monotype hot-metal) ; it doesn’t make it less iconic in graphic design culture (i. e. end-user culture), on account of the “quite-recent-but-already-classic” works I listed in my previous comments (all these works were indeed done with the “old” digital version).
Please bear in mind that I didn’t mention iconic works (by Armin Hofmann, Emil Ruder, etc.) using the original metal Univers — these works can’t be emulated anyway since the typographical material and technology they used are no longer with us.

[hrant]

endorsed as such by Adrian Frutiger himself

Before or after his senility?

considering that designers have for decades been using the “old” digital version, hasn’t this one become a classic in its own right ?

Good point.

But guys: classic does not equate to good.

Who can decide (Linotype ? Adrian Frutiger ?) that the “new” versions should be preferred ?

As always: the individual; if only for himself.

how can Linotype dare to pretend that they care about typographic quality when they have been selling for decades a version of Univers which presented “obvious flaws” (their words) — which the “new” version supposedly corrected ?

Do you mean: How can they dare to want to make money?

Also, as Karl implies: things change.

Linotype DOES indeed present itself as a single entity

What company -that survives more than a month- doesn't? The same applies to any group of people, like a family.

the typographical material and technology they used are no longer with us.

Sure they are. Even a digitboy like me has printed in letterpress (with metal fonts, although I do prefer PPL) on occasion.

hhp

[Celeste]

— Hrant
I mean : How can they dare to want to make money at all costs, even if it means disregarding the overall logic and integrity of the original Univers design ? The fact that the “old” digital version had its (numerous) flaws is in contradiction with Linotype’s repeated claims that they had the utmost respect for Adrian Frutiger’s work — but it hasn’t prevented this very same version to become an important part of contemporary graphic design culture.

[Iain Farnsworth]

Celeste, it's interesting that you mention that the 'old' digital version of Univers (used well, I think, by Willi Kunz, etc.) has become the point of reference for new graphic design professionals.

Part of the motivation for asking my original question was an admiration for Otl Aicher's use of Univers in his Munich '72 work (which is on display in the café in London's Design Museum, by the way!), way before any digitized versions were to appear, and in my opinion, much more attractive than the first digital version of Univers.

Just a side point: I said in my original question that Linotype Univers 430 seems heavier than Univers 55. I meant the opposite. LT Univers 430 seems lighter. Just thought I'd correct myself.

[hrant]

I wouldn't say it's "at all costs".
Maybe you have a fetish for the old Univers? :-)

Also, repeat: things change. This includes not only the conditions that fonts need to be used in (making them less ideal over time) but also the opinions of people who make fonts; I for one only like my most recent work (and I think this is typical of designers).

The only thing that bothers me in this sort of revisionism is using the opinions of people who can no longer think straight (as far as I've heard) as a marketing tool.

hhp

[hrant]

Good to hear that. Me too.

hhp

[Celeste]

Although — they’ve always seemed so convinced of their own probity and trustworthiness, maybe it was plain Orwellian “Doublethink” after all ?

[Iain Farnsworth]

- Celeste
The Munich '72 display is part of the 'Designed to win' exhibition showing until the 18th November.
There are only a limited number of Aicher's posters in the café. 6, I think. I don't know how many are in the exhibition, as I haven't attended it yet. Soon though...

[Celeste]

— Iain
Thank you for the tip about the Design Museum ; do you know how long will this display last ?
About the Munich Olympics : I don’t know if they used the metal or photocomposition version (you’ll probably have to ask Ian McLaren, who was on Aicher’s team at the time, for that).

— Hrant
I can assure you I have no fetish for the “old” digital Univers ; I just have serious qualms about PR doublespeak when it comes to cultural artefacts such as typefaces.

[Celeste]

— Iain
OK, thank you very much. I’m in London next week, I’ll make a quick stop at the DM.

— Hrant
Sorry for asking, but what’s PPL ?

[Té Rowan]

Linotype increased Univers's lean/obliqueness? So it isn't Frutiger's fault that the oblique feels to me like it's about to follow the Lorella and the Roderigo to the bottom, then?

[Celeste]

It’s the other way round — the original slope (16°) had been decreased (to 12°) in the first digital version. The “new” Linotype Univers reinstated the 16° slope for the sake of authenticity (or so they say).

[Celeste]

— Hrant
OK. I know the technology quite well (I used it a number of times), I didn’t know the English acronym. Thank you.