Typophile - Papyrus need to be put back in the tomb for a few decades. - Comments

>Times Roman is even more

William Berkson — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 06:57:55 -0800

>Times Roman is even more overused and ...(dare I say it here and suffer the vitriolic barrage to come) it is a very good typeface!

Times New Roman is flat out a great typeface. But I think it is also not just overused, but misused—eg at 12 pt in long measure on letter sized paper. It is dark and compact and works best in short measure, at relatively small sizes—its original purpose.

While Papyrus is OK as a

dezcom — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 05:57:19 -0800

While Papyrus is OK as a face for some uses, it does not have what it takes to be used in a multiplicity of situations. Its overuse is very largely do to bundling and it’s not capable of overcoming its own shortcomings when taken out of its element. Times Roman is even more overused and bundled but it at least has a much broader range of purpose and (dare I say it here and suffer the vitriolic barrage to come) it is a very good typeface!

Papyrus is a niche face that has overflowed its vessal of credible uses. That is not a criticism of the typeface, this is a criticism of the people who have used it so poorly—and they are legion!

ChrisL

I agree with Linda, Papyrus

William Berkson — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 05:45:08 -0800

I agree with Linda, Papyrus is a well done face. It is just that because of the ’faux antique’ roughness it is cloying after a while. In this respect the comparison with Comic Sans is very apt. Its positive qualities make it popular. Its affectations (faux antique, faux child-like) make it very irritating with overuse.

i hate papyrus sooooooooo

austin — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 01:47:24 -0800

i hate papyrus sooooooooo much

Well, as much as this

Linda Cunningham — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 21:30:02 -0800

Well, as much as this discussion makes me want to go “yes, Papyrus sucks,” I just can’t.

One of my clients has used it for years, and to keep some semblance of consistency in their “look,” so have I in the work I’ve done for them. It’s not a bad face, although I’ll agree that because it’s been part of a bundle, it has been used excessively and, at times, inappropriately (hello Comic Sans!).

Doesn’t mean it’s “bad” though....

Fonts like Papyrus become so

James Puckett — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 17:39:18 -0800

Fonts like Papyrus become so popular for a variety of reasons, but in this case, I believe that it’s because Papyrus makes it very easy for designers to be lazy and rip off ignorant clients. It’s quite easy to take on a cheap design job, slap up Papyrus text, a stock image/illustration, and then ping the client for a couple hours worth of work that really only took fifteen minutes. For the last few years I can’t go to any city in the USA and not see Papyrus. Hell, two blocks from this building there’s a French restaurant that used Papyrus for its logo! But 99.9% of the uses are drek; just lazy designers using it to fill one of a dozen niches that it doesn’t really, but since it’s so damned pretty and odd it can pass long enough for the check to clear.

Davex, There have always

dezcom — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 16:43:11 -0800

Davex,
There have always been “hot typefaces” but before digital type and bundling, they became hot by getting used by big name design firms and ad agencies and perhaps winning some awards. That flocked a bunch of “me too” users. In the 80s, U&lc was published and became a very effective showcase for all the ITC faces. Type, even then, was much quicker to come to market as phototype than the old hot metal predecessor. Many of these faces were redesigns of older styles and brought back (albeit with a bigger x-height and tighter spacing). The faces you say “are never heard of again” will be the next decades “retro” and hot again.
The good stuff (and some not so good) will come back as new. I remember when Tiffany lamps were being junked. Then they were replaced by 50s clunk. Then they came back as elegant antiques. Then the 50s clunk comes back as cool retro. Fads always happened, sometimes for better reasons than others.

ChrisL

Although in the case of

Miss Tiffany — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 16:23:26 -0800

Although in the case of Papyrus, bundling might be the problem, I don’t think the bulk of the “blame” can be put on bundling for other fonts that become popular. What about Meta? It was never bundled.

Paul, I agree with you but

Davex — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 16:16:07 -0800

Paul, I agree with you but what about pre-bundling? Pre-computers? I started out on Varityper equipment before the desktop revolution and back in the early 80s every third practitioner of the healing arts that walked in wanted Novarese. Then in the 90s everyone loved Lithos. These neolithic fonts are huge in SW advertising. Authenticity of the primitive maybe? I don’t know. Usually I try and give the customer what they want or gently steer them toward something similar but less abused but the papyrus virus has gotten so bad that if one more realtor or mortgage broker decides to go with it I may commit typocide. The judge will let me off I’m sure of it.

”(…) beautiful design

twardoch — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 15:59:45 -0800

”(...) beautiful design (...) it is sad to me that it got so popular as it has no value anymore (...)”

This is really interesting reasoning. In other words: it’s so good that it’s useless?

why are some fonts like this

paul d hunt — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 15:49:52 -0800

why are some fonts like this one so popular?

bundling. any font that is bundled with mainstream software is bound to get overused as people don’t have to purchase additional licensing to use them. this is part of an explanation, at least for current trends.

At the risk of resurrecting

Davex — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 15:32:12 -0800

At the risk of resurrecting this mummified thread I must add my thoughts on papyrus, a font that has run amok in trendy Santa Fe. My question is (and perhaps this thread has been covered to death elsewhere on this site but forgive me, I’m a new user as of two minutes ago)...the question again...why are some fonts like this one so popular? Why was Souvenir such a hit in the 80s and Italia and Novarese and now you almost never see them anymore? What causes a font to gain popularity and then fade to obscurity? Is there something about papyrus with its chipped and hieroglyphic look that speaks to this particular decade?

Personally I find Papyrus to

finn — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 13:04:55 -0700

Personally I find Papyrus to be grating, regardless of saturation. Something about the combination of those particular letterforms and the uniformity of the distressing …

Dan, good point about

Nick Shinn — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 12:08:47 -0700

Dan, good point about Trajan.
However, there is room for many interpretations of classic roman letters, not just Adobe’s much-bundled font.
For instance, how about a more weatherbeaten approach, something like, er, Papyrus...

(Geez, I had to dig out my

Linda Cunningham — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 11:35:32 -0700

(Geez, I had to dig out my really old Postscript Font Handbook to remind me how much I don’t like Dom Casual either!)

Any sans serif that came with the IBM Selectric: Letter Gothic and Orator.

(brrrrrrr)

Papyrus need to be put back in the tomb for a few decades.

alchion — Mon, 2 Jan 2006 16:43:14 -0800

Chris Costello’s 1983 font Papyrus was a beautiful design and I bought it myself back in the day (when fonts came on 3.5” 1.4 meg discs) it is sad to me that it got so popular as it has no value anymore to me because of the immense saturation. In other words it is good for one thing-blanding.
Anyone else have any thought on the use of overly used display fonts?