New to Typophile? Accounts are free, and easy to set up.
Underware releases Fakir
Posted by franzheidl in
19 May 2006 — 6:32am
19 May 2006 — 6:32am
Probably no news to anybody and his dog, but i find this so remarkable i take the risk and rather post it: Underware releases Fakir
Great work and a truly fresh approach IMO.
User login
Support our Sponsors
19 May 2006 — 7:12am
Yeah!
19 May 2006 — 7:14am
I love those guys.
19 May 2006 — 7:43am
Lekkkkker Vet! Nice nice nice.
19 May 2006 — 8:08am
Delightful!
19 May 2006 — 8:17am
The black weights are wonderful. I don't get the light weights. Perhaps I need to print them out small. But their PDF link is not working.
19 May 2006 — 8:19am
william. you really should have your own type critique blog. steal some of yves' thunder. >^P Or maybe you could work together and we could get a dialog going. anyhow, i just thought that'd be interesting.
19 May 2006 — 8:57am
The Fakir fonts are also now available from FontShop.
Paul, you and William are always welcome to post your longform thoughts on Typographica.
19 May 2006 — 9:30am
>The black weights are wonderful
yes!
19 May 2006 — 9:32am
i love that they have a "hobby" package. what a great concept!
19 May 2006 — 9:33am
Awesome.
hhp
19 May 2006 — 9:53am
I love 'Fakir'.
( As been mentioned before, the blackest and darkest weights, the most. )
( On a related note: The free 'press' and publicity new Underware type releases get is stunning. Well deserved, me thinks. Ive seen 'Fakir' mentioned on at least 3 or more sites, I visited / checked today. :)
Dav
19 May 2006 — 12:20pm
Never a disapointment when Underware releases a new type family! Adding another family to the 'wish I could have' list
22 Jun 2006 — 1:31pm
First shown at Typecon 2005
22 Jun 2006 — 6:12pm
"we based the construction on broadnip textura, with lots of broken, edgy, interrupted strokes"
22 Jun 2006 — 9:04pm
Not to be a party pooper but I can't possibly see using this font.
22 Jun 2006 — 10:29pm
Patty, at TypeCon 2005 (see Miguel's link) the posters in the black weight of this font looked very playful and exhuberant--none of the stuffiness that is sometimes the aura of black letter. They looked great there and I can imagine in other informal settings where you wanted that playful mood and had a large size they might be great as well. But a *lot* of uses, no.
24 Jun 2006 — 8:31am
Quote> The free ‘press’ and publicity new Underware type
releases get is stunning.
It's also listed in the latest Creative Review.
Can't see myself using fakir tbh. In fact I don't like it. Sorry!
Phil
24 Jun 2006 — 8:33am
The point though really is: can you see other people using it?
hhp
24 Jun 2006 — 8:42am
I can see using it. The face actually reads well when it seemingly shouldn't. It's incredible!
24 Jun 2006 — 8:44am
Of course I can. I can see people using Arial (not that I'm
comparing anything Underware does to Arial of course).
I appreciate the quality of the crafting and the creativity,
but it just doesn't appeal to me aesthetically.
Phil
24 Jun 2006 — 8:49am
Phil,
http://typophile.com/filter/tips
I look forward to the opportunity to use it but I haven't found the right project yet.
Tim
24 Jun 2006 — 8:57am
I should rewrite my earlier comment to concur with Phil - I don't like it either. I think it tries too hard, like a lot of Emigre's fonts, like Elektrix.
Of course I can see other people using it and given the comments on this thread I'll probably be seeing it a lot.
24 Jun 2006 — 9:32am
Type faces speak in different voices - seemingly. Underware's stuff tends to be pretty exuberant. Exuberant is very 'in' just now. But it's hard to do well. I think they clearly do it well. There's no reason it should be everybody's cup of tea. But Pattty & Phil: Do you see the quality of this stuff? - Quite apart from the issue of style.
24 Jun 2006 — 9:44am
I like Underware in general - love both Bello and Dolly, as well the Typeradio logo. I don't own any of their fonts but would also willingly use Sauna or Auto if I had them.
I'm sorry but Fakir makes my eyes hurt. I just can't get on the bandwagon with this one.
24 Jun 2006 — 10:04am
Quote> But Patty & Phil: Do you see the quality of this stuff?
Quite apart from the issue of style.
Eben, as I said in my previous post, I do appreciate the quality
and creativity of this face and all of Underwares stuff. I just
find it ugly
24 Jun 2006 — 10:36am
I own all of their fonts up to Fakir and HAVE used some of them for real, eg Sauna and Auto for corporate identities. And I plan on using Bello for my own new project ("TypeDoc").
24 Jun 2006 — 3:49pm
Actually I don't like Bello.
I went off brush work typefaces in about 1960; a straighforward poster kind of thing is ok for me, but that's about it. Especially done as a script. When I see all the 50's retro stuff, the charm of it is lost on me. It may just be my age, but I don't think it will look good in another ten years either.
For me Dolly and Sauna are wonderful.
24 Jun 2006 — 8:34pm
I had a look at the pdf oof Fakir on offer at Underware's site. Fakir works very well at smaller sizes. It has a distinct flavour and is quite legible when used correctly, it would appear.
I'm a big fan of these guys, and they've already proven they know exactly what they're doing: Dolly, Sauna, Auto. Dolly in particular is an exemplary text font.