Underware releases Fakir

franzheidl's picture

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.

k.l.'s picture


Isaac's picture

I love those guys.

lettertiep's picture

Lekkkkker Vet! Nice nice nice.

crossgrove's picture


William Berkson's picture

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.

paul d hunt's picture

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.

Stephen Coles's picture

The Fakir fonts are also now available from FontShop.

Paul, you and William are always welcome to post your longform thoughts on Typographica.

poms's picture

>The black weights are wonderful

paul d hunt's picture

i love that they have a "hobby" package. what a great concept!

hrant's picture



Dav's picture

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. :)


dave bailey's picture

Never a disapointment when Underware releases a new type family! Adding another family to the 'wish I could have' list

enne_son's picture

"we based the construction on broadnip textura, with lots of broken, edgy, interrupted strokes"

pattyfab's picture

Not to be a party pooper but I can't possibly see using this font.

William Berkson's picture

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.

Phil Baber's picture

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!


hrant's picture

The point though really is: can you see other people using it?


ebensorkin's picture

I can see using it. The face actually reads well when it seemingly shouldn't. It's incredible!

Phil Baber's picture

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.


timd's picture


I look forward to the opportunity to use it but I haven't found the right project yet.

pattyfab's picture

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.

ebensorkin's picture

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.

pattyfab's picture

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.

Phil Baber's picture

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

Bert Vanderveen's picture

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").

William Berkson's picture

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.

Palatine's picture

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.

Syndicate content Syndicate content