Akzidenz-Grotesk (Re-)Release Dates

gabrielhl's picture

In Anatomy of a Typeface, A. Lawson says that sometime around the 50s "Berthold reissued the even older Akzidenz Grotesk", but there's no date for the original release or the reissuing. I would be very very thankful if someone pointed me to these dates.
Thank you! :)

thierry blancpain's picture

if you need short passages translated, i'll be happy to help (just not very fast, but i'll do it). not 2 pages full of text, but passages are no problem ;)

dezcom's picture

So Thiery, then you won't translate Wagner's Parsival for me in one night? :-)

ChrisL

blank's picture

Now if someone could just translate that chronology for me before I have turn in the research paper on Thursday night...

This is a really rewarding bit of research, but next time I have a two-week deadline I'm not choosing to write about pre-WWI German typeface.

thierry blancpain's picture

jpad, i'll probably be able to do it saturday or sunday (its 3:30AM here, friday night to saturday), so if you'll show me exactly which passage you want translated, i'll translate it. of course i dont know the print/design terms as exact as someone like erik, but i'll try my best.

Rodrigue Planck's picture

Can I say this has been a thrilling thread, I have my family specimen of Standard (Amsterdam Type), which brings up the point, if AG was just renamed Standard and "BertholdTypes" is now selling both, what gives? Also, Berthold big book in the 70s "E" lists AG and Standard together under AG, interesting, nes't pas?
I have always maintained that to design with AG, you gotta have guts, cause it is a great family, but it is a little wacky here and again and the spacing, well maybe it is just me, but it is a loose cannon.

Beautiful specimens!

The Truth shall set you free

dezcom's picture

"but it is a little wacky here and again"

That is a real truth. With the history of AG, I don't see how it could be anything else. It amazes me that it can work as well as it does. I still can never mix the medium with the regular because they are just too wierd together. The xtra bold is fine though, go figure.

ChrisL

Rodrigue Planck's picture

Chris, you are right, for instance, the numeral "1" from regular to medium they defy logic to one another, are they they related?! It seems to me that regular seems almost taller, by sight(which gets worse each day) and they seem to me to be spaced very much the same, but it is a beautiful font!

The Truth shall set you free

hrant's picture

Different weights have different functions (beyond intermixing).

hhp

blank's picture

I could really use translations of the major events listed in the chronology, especially since I've had trouble with some of the verbs. Just important stuff like the founding or major moves/deaths/etc. Stuff like buyouts or probe releases I can figure out on my own. Thanks!

Also, if it's not verboten to do speak about it, is the stuff Luc Devroye wrote about Berthold and the Hunts accurate?

dezcom's picture

"Different weights have different functions (beyond intermixing)"

That is quite true. I have used the different weights. I just meant that the weights in AG do not intermix as well as Univers or Frutiger, for example. This seems to be due to the way AG came about with a mixture of designers, foundries, and time periods. Univers was designed as a system right from the start by one designer in one era so it makes sense that it would be more successful in mixing weights.

ChrisL

hrant's picture

> the weights in AG do not intermix as well as Univers or Frutiger, for example.

But this is exactly why the latter might be deficient in other ways.

hhp

blank's picture

> But this is exactly why the latter might be deficient in other ways.

Fruitger or Univers deficient? That's just apostasy! ;)

hrant's picture

You should hear what I think of Modernism as a whole. :-)

hhp

blank's picture

If you ever come to DC let me know, we can get tanked and crack on modernism together.

hrant's picture

You got it man.

hhp

blank's picture

Erik, John Kane's book A Type Primer states that you added the oldstyle numbers to AG in 1990. Is this correct? And were any other big changes made in 1990?

eriks's picture

John Kane’s book A Type Primer states that you added the oldstyle numbers to AG in 1990.

That is correct. But I only did them for the light weight, Akzidenz Grotesk Mager, and only for in-house use on Berthold’s own stationery. It was never supposed to be released. I think that only happened after Berthold went bankrupt in 1993 and the library was taken over by someone claiming to be the legal successor (there is no legal successor to a bankrupt company, unless they would also take over the liabilities). BTW: We (myself and my colleagues at MetaDesign Mark I and II) designed all the forms, invitations, exhibition stands, brochures and type specimens for Berthold between 1983 and 1993, including the revised logo.

Bleisetzer's picture

This was one of the most interesting threads I found in this forum.
Thanks for it.
This is a picture of a 84 p Bücher-Grotesk (Akzidenz-Grotesk schmalfett as I learned here from Andreas):

Preußisches Bleisatz-Magazin

blank's picture

I have posted a gallery of Standard/Akzidenz—pre-Lange version—specimen scans on Flickr under a Creative Commons license:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28813954@N02/sets/72157622754652530/

Chris Dean's picture

@ Spiekermann: Thank you for such great content. It says you've been here for seven years and this is the first time I have seen you speak. A valuable contribution.

kentlew's picture

@ Christopher Dean: Well, this thread is 3 years old, after all. Find more Spiekermann on Typophile here: http://typophile.com/user/1042/track

Syndicate content Syndicate content