Serrano: a custom typeface for Bank of New Zealand

[dezcom]

I quite like the terminals. I don't think it is a requirement to follow existing methods used in long-accepted faces--particularly when the point of a custom face is to create brand separation. This is a contemporary sans that takes on the task of setting a brand-specific tone. I think the terminals go to that aim quite well along with the rest of the structure.

ChrisL

[William Berkson]

Chris, I don't think there is any "requirement to follow existing methods used in long-accepted faces" either. I just am not that taken with the way the terminals work here--but it looks like I'm the only one!

[Quincunx]

It looks excellent. I like the contrast between the straight and the rounded (corporate yet friendly).

At first glance it also reminded me of Strada, or maybe a pinch of Evert Bloemsma in there as well. But as you (and Erik) already said, it's not too close at all.

And very fast too, 5 weeks and 3 days, or something like that...

[Therese Brockie]

It looks a lot like foco.

[hrant]

Link?

hhp

[clifton]

It's fantastic.

[justinthomaskay]

as always i am a huge fan kris. fantastic!

[Jos Buivenga]

... or maybe a pinch of Evert Bloemsma in there as well ...

Exactly what I thought when I saw Serrano. Nice one, Kris!

[Miss Tiffany]

Really great combining of styles. The petal-like terminals are really nice. A fun semi-rounded take on a sans at display sizes and a straight-forward sans at text sizes.

[Sarah Mint]

Wow Kris, I'm impressed. Serrano is so friendly I want to take it home for a cuppa. Shame I won't be able to do that until 2013.

[boardman]

Congratulations, Kris. It's lovely. I especially love the bold italic.

[paul d hunt]

Kris,
I've been suppressing this comment for a few days because I don't want it to come off as a slight in any way and it will use a VERY BAD word in reference to your work. You once asked me what it was that I thought characterized your style and after seeing Serrano, it finally gelled in my mind. To me, your work is a combination of Classic (so far so good) and Cute. There, I said it. Of course this design is meant to be friendly, but I think that's part of your aesthetic in general. I think all of your work (that I've seen) follows this Classic+Cute formula, with the exception of NZ Rugby Chisel. I mean all of this in the best possible way. I for one am a fan of your work and as you can see by this post, I'm not alone, so the formula's working. Mostly I just wanted to come back to the conversation we had months ago and fill in the blank. Keep up the good work! Oh and hello from Catherine Griffiths, she dropped by the DaMa offices the other day and we got to meet her and she raved about you. :D

[billtroop]

Paul, this is reminiscent of David Berlow's comment in Robert Norton's TBR/TBF in the middle of an ITC selection committee meeting that he doesn't like Stone Sans italic and similar. (Something to do with masculine/feminine terminations which I never figured out.)

I like your formulation of Classic+Cute -- which is acute (which is the original meaning of cute). The problem with a corporate typeface is that it must be noticed and must be liked, but must never waver in its credibility. This is very tough to do. A great corporate typeface must also have Zeitgeist awareness. The feeling that this design belongs here, now, I like it now and I will like it for ten years, if not forever. Very few type designers have the ability to connect with and exploit the visual language of their moment - - it is such a very subtle thing. It's very easy to lose, and for the few who succeed, the achievement seldom carries over beyond a generation.

Cute is an interesting word in that it has simultaneous good and bad connotations, unlike for example 'naff' which can mean one of two opposite things (not invariably discoverable by context) but not both together. One could think of cute as having a possible axis with ego as one extreme and humour as another.

In a recent thread criticizing the Vista C-fonts, I used cute primarily negatively. There, the design goal was to prepare several typefaces suitable for everyday, every-hour use, to be used by hundreds of millions of users. All-day, all-weather use. Crystal goblet design. In this I think they failed, except for the user base which happily cohabits with the most famous C-font of all, Comic Sans. However, any of the C-fonts would be considered superb candidates for a corporate identity or advertising project.

By contrast we're using cute here in its happiest senses. This is a happy typeface. That is one of the very hardest things to do. I don't care how it happens, as long as it happens.

Speaking of the how, two people have noted a resemblance between Serrano and Foco (including its primary designer, Fabio Maag). Based on the web samples available, I just don't see it at all, and I am something of an expert on what constitutes type cloning. If someone is going to make this case, I think they should make it in good, high, resolution. Don't say something looks like something unless you're willing to prove it. (I could just as well say that Foco looks like a sans version of the Vafflard font I have been working on for the past 15 years. It does! Shame! The f and t without the left bar are mine! Forever!) However, in this particular case, having spent some careful time with the web samples, and even allowing for the low res, I must say they look like completely different designs to me. The suggestion of influence should not have been made.

[William Berkson]

I guess I agree with Paul about the 'cute' part about this design, but not about Kris's designs in general, where I would say 'beautiful'.

In looking again at it, I'm thinking that what bothers me is not so much the terminals themselves, as their combination with the slight reversed contrast, the Bloemsma influence. A more assertive design that Kris did--I think it was called Karbon--made the Bloemsma influence work well. But here the softness of the terminals for me don't go well with the heavy looking strokes. For example, in the 'a', the top stroke is quite heavy--like Gill sans. But then comes the soft, tapered stroke which to me contradicts it. By contrast, if you look at the soft terminal at the bottom of the 'g', which has a thinner stroke, the effect is lovely.

Also, I wonder whether it would look better with a rounded inner corner rather than outer corner in the stems of the m n r. And why have horizontal cuts terminating the 'w' when all the other verticals end in soft terminals? I just keep getting the feeling that a more formal design had a bow stuck on it. Very well drawn, but disconcerting to me.

I am here looking at the bold, as this stuff is not noticeable in the lighter weight in the link to Kris's site.

[haag]

Billtrop, I didn't mean to say that Serrano could be a clone of Foco in any way. Sorry if it perhaps sounded like that. It just reminded me, mainly because of the terminals and how they are executed on c s e... here's a quick comparison of both. I'm also currently designing italics for it, so I'm really into it.

>(I could just as well say that Foco looks like a sans version
>of the Vafflard font I have been working on for the past 15
>years. It does! Shame! The f and t without the left bar are
>mine! Forever!)

Gee, can I see that? (I couldn't find on the web).

I started Foco from sketch in a workshop Bruno Maag did about 8 years ago. A few years after the workshop I finished my version of it and DaMa got interest. So they fine tune it to their high standard and it was released in 2006.

Kris, nice work! ; )

[hrant]

I just saw the link to Foco (sorry). And thanks for the nice comparison, Fabio. I have to think that the similarity ends with those characteristic terminals. In essence the two are nothing alike.

Concerning Dan's candid and incisive insight: I do see it, but Kris is just starting. If he gets stuck on one style, that's a problem. But I see him moving on, with confidence, as needed. That said, some people never move on from a style they're comfortable with and still contribute a great deal to the craft. As an example, some people (including Bill, IIRC) see persistent cuteness in the work of Unger, but we know how that turned out!

hhp

[billtroop]

Fabio, thanks for the illustration. I now see some more of the similarities, and also more of the differences. I can better see why William is bothered by the terminals, but honestly, whereas I wouldn't want to use the font myself, I would love for my bank to use it -- and that's the whole purpose here. Fabio's design has a completely different flavour and feeling. Fabio, I wasn't serious about that Vafflard remark. Vafflard was the first (about 1783) to take the left bars off f and t, and I was the first to start reviving Vafflard's designs quite some years ago without however ever having released any of the work. (Interestingly, one of my quarrels with Adobe, when they took this work on, was that they decided halfway through that they wanted left bars put on. Matthew Carter and Sumner Stone, whom I consulted about this lunacy, professed themselves quite unable to understand it. That it was an issue at all illustrates my commitment to the barless f and t in this design. I gave in to them in the end -- what choice did I have? -- but that wasn't enough to save the project, which remains unreleased though occasionally used. A typophile thread where the font is illustrated is https://typography.guru/forums/topic/57453-forwarding. You can see why Robert didn't want it released before Garamond Premier and some of his other later fonts, which incorporate many curiously similar ideas.)

Hrant, will you remind me what I said about Unger and cuteness and how it turned out? I don't remember any of this.

[billtroop]

To get back on topic, I think Fabio's terminal treatment is more likely to work best at smaller sizes and I love anyone willing to take on the challenges of the left-bar-less f and t. (I am remembering Slimbach and Twombley's incomparable performance in this respect. 'Week 1. We think you should have a little blob, the teeniest thing, just two or three units, to the left of f and t. Week 2. Do you think you could shape the blobs a bit more? Just a couple of extra points? Week 3. We don't think two or three units is enough. Could you try five or six? Week 4. The blob shape isn't working for us, do you think you could make it more like a bar? Week 5. We know we asked you only for a tiny bar, just ten units, but do you think you could extend it just a tad to thirteen or fourteen? Week 6. Let's have the bar come out fully. We think that will give the characters better balance. Don't worry, Bill, it's just a blob. Nobody will notice it.' Oh, did I say I say I was going to stay on-topic?)

I enjoyed also Kris's article about Balance. I am more convinced by Bloemsma's curve theories than by his stress theories and I am glad Kris didn't overdo the stress.

I realize that Kris's approach to the terminals isn't entirely consistent, but it really works for me in sizes large enough to be visible. I think I know why: What is so acute about this treatment is that it states, through the simplest graphic elements, a strong message: innovation and modernity (C), plus tradition and stability (u). This is an utterly brilliant use of graphical elements to send a signal that will be recognized by everyone who has ever seen a conventional typeface in use. I really admire the intelligence and instinct at work here. William, surely, in these terms, you can see why he has done exactly what he did. I cannot think of another typeface where this has been done so successfully. It succeeds on so many different levels: visual, psychological, aesthetic. An exceptionally sophisticated command of contemporary marketing and advertising language is seen here at its clearest, its most elemental. I don't think I'm overstating the case when I say that we all can learn a lot from this typeface.

[William Berkson]

>I am more convinced by Bloemsma’s curve theories than by his stress theories

I am not convinced by either. By 'curve theories' I take it you mean his quote from a teacher, "a straight line is a dead line." I think this is sometimes true, enough to make it a good quote. But it is also sometimes false. Straight verticals, for example, convey strength in some designs. The straights are also often combined with curves, and the tension is very lively, and not dead.

As opposed to the 'sometimes true' view about straight lines, I just don't like the reversed contrast thing with roman. The "heavy vertical, lighter horizontal" rule is so deep in the DNA of the Imperial caps and Carolingian minuscule that I just don't think the reversal works. Hebrew is the other way around, and there the heavy horzontal, light vertical rule works fine--but the shapes are fundamentally different. Also the Roman Rustica caps are reversed contrast, but again have a different skeleton. When you take classic upper and lower case 'bones' and try to put reversed-contrast clothing on them, it always looks ill-fitting to my eyes.

[hrant]

Bill, concerning the Unger comments:
1) It might not have been you.
2) It might have been a private comment (in which case I apologize).
3) Hwoever/wherever it was, the opinion was that Unger's work is often cutesy.
4) In terms of "how it turned out", I just mean that Unger has been a superb contributor (as I think you agree) irrespective of any persistent theme (cuteness or otherwise) throughout his work.

> I am more convinced by Bloemsma’s curve theories than by his stress theories

Well, his stress theories evolved rapidly and markedly even starting from Avance, and certainly by Legato. In the end (which came so soon) Bloemsma didn't see reverse contrast as anything central (if he ever did). He was slowly coming around to the practical benefits of (so-called) stroke contrast, serifs, etc., although absolutely not in terms of chirography, quite the contrary.

> Straight verticals, for example, convey strength in some designs.

I agree. And honesty too.

> The “heavy vertical, lighter horizontal” rule is so deep
> in the DNA of the Imperial caps and Carolingian minuscule

This makes no sense to me. There is nothing comparable to DNA here. And really, even DNA mutates! :-)

> the shapes are fundamentally different
> .... a different skeleton

This skeleton business has to go. Leave them in the closet, then burn the closet. We don't read skeletons; it's just an intellectually lethargic way to make fonts. And any differences are not "fundamental", but malleable; which is not to say we should change things in cavalier or chauvinistic fashion. But if something needs change, we should try.

hhp

[Nick Shinn]

I did a project for a corporate client a few years ago which bears some similarity. This kind of work is more styling than design. Nothing wrong with that, it's the kind of font development the situation calls for. Smoothing some of the corners is a quite literal (though somewhat simplistic) interpretation of the brief for something "friendly", that can be pointed to, easily understood, and signed off on by various levels of client. Art directors contribute by deciding where, and in which direction, the go-faster streamlining goes.

There is rarely enough time to do a thorough job from scratch, so it's expedient to whip up a font solution by taking something basic off the shelf and applying a little tinkering. Indiscriminately rounding some of the corners is one technique that does the job, as is chopping some of the perpendicular terminals off at angles. Voilà--a new custom typeface!

**

The positioning is no longer valid, following the economic crisis.
What people want is a bank that's secure, not friendly.
Surviving corporations will need to rebrand.

[hrant]

> Indiscriminately

Well, you can do it discriminately too.

> The positioning is no longer valid

Agreed.

hhp

[William Berkson]

>The positioning is no longer valid

Wow, very interesting. I will now be looking out to see whether the relatively new cartoonish logos and informal, somewhat cutesy faces (eg ATT), which seem to be everywhere, start to be replaced.

Should we be also expecting a lot of Corinthian Columns? :)

[Nick Shinn]

Well, you can do it discriminately too.

True. What I was trying to get at was the apparent lack of rationale for where the round corners go. Sure, one can discriminatingly place them here and there so that the overall effect in text is comfortable, but is that all there is?

[dezcom]

"Should we be also expecting a lot of Corinthian Columns? :)"

Perhaps a few up-scale Spa/massage facades though for AIG :-)

ChrisL