Best and Worst Typefaces of All Time!

[quadibloc]

This topic was imported from the Typophile platform

Found this page

http://absolutegraphix.co.uk/bestworstfonts.asp?strID=Guest

by that title.

Most of the list is not that unreasonable. However, including Verdana and Myriad on the "best" list while not including, oh, say, Caslon (or Baskerville, Optima, Century Schoolbook, or Palatino, or many others) seemed to me to be favoring the recent too much (among recent ones, there's Stone... typefaces that happen to be on everyone's computer shouldn't be the only ones considered)... and I couldn't see the justification for listing Brush Script and Copperplate Gothic among the "worst", even if I wouldn't argue too much about the other three choices there.

[oldnick]

De gustibus non est disputandum…

[altsan]

I notice this list seems almost entirely focused on display typography, which probably explains the neglect of good text faces like Caslon and Baskerville. (They included Times mainly as a sop to its popularity, I guess.)

It also seems that their 'worst' list is mostly based on how overused those particular faces are, not on any objective measure of their quality (barring Comic Sans, I suppose). Although it seems odd that they'd then put Times on their 'best' list when it's almost as overused and abused as Papyrus and Arial...

[hrant]

I now have a candidate for #1 when I compile my Worsts Typeface Lists of All Time!

hhp

[quadibloc]

@altsan:
Although it seems odd that they'd then put Times on their 'best' list when it's almost as overused and abused as Papyrus and Arial...

Well, if Copperplate Gothic was chosen not because of its quality, but because of its use, that might make sense. But if you go back to 1969 in your imagination, when Times Roman existed in quality authentic forms and was used well, I think it stands up to comparison with Caslon and Baskerville... and thus it should be on a list of the best typefaces of all time.

Even if some of the digital versions today wouldn't be that far out of place on a list of the worst ones either.

But a list of the "worst typefaces" is sort of like a list of the worst comic books or the worst movies - those lists never seem to include the really bad ones, only the bad ones from sources that should have known better.

Thus, you won't find Caslon Roman - or, more appropriately, the typeface from which it is derived (and I don't mean Caslon) - on a list of the worst typefaces of all time. Not that I fault George Williams; I praise his effort in making available a Unicode font with a wide character range for free.

But the face itself is based on older Chinese and/or Japanese versions of the Latin alphabet, made without the proper cultural basis for the aesthetic of the Latin script. It is hideous in appearance, to put it briefly.

And then there's Fifteenth Century, now known as Caslon Antique. Before we had Comic Sans to kick around, that one used to get a lot of criticism from typographers.

[hrant]

BTW one best/worst compilation that I do recommend people pay attention to is the book "Types Best Remembered / Types Best Forgotten". One way you can tell it's good is that some fonts are featured in both the Best and Worst sections! :-)

hhp

[canderson]

I regret clicking the link.

[Frode Bo Helland]

You mean, your Worsts Typeface Lists of All Times New Roman Italics?

[Ruira]

I know that copperplate is used for Moleskine logo, it looks not so bene in there.