ITC Bookman Italic with Swashes

Sorry to contradict you here, Grant, but it's Bookman Bold Italic--the original early twentieth century version, not the ITC version. It appears that it has been modified a bit here and there, as logos often are. I don't believe that this typeface has made the leap to digital. It was very popular in the '60s and '70s.

Here's a scan of it from an old Letraset catalog:

Is it the Coffee Bean font?

What's the Coffee Bean font?

I believe Karen is referring to this:

http://www.coffeebean.com/

I don't think so: the lc "a" is different. Check the spot
where the bowl rejoins the stem.

I bow to Mr Simonson. All those years of typing ITC as a prefix in font libraries at Image Club catch up with me sometimes. At least I got the Bookman part...

You're right Yves! The bowl joins the stem at a different angle. You have officially become scary-good.

The Coffee Bean logo resembles a Bookman variant from the late '60s or early '70s called Meola Bookman with Swash, but the only specimens I can find are neither bold or italic (in other words, only regular roman).

I strongly suspect custom lettering. Or perhaps the logo has been redrawn enough times over the years that it no longer matches the original typeface it was based on.

Precision Type still sells the Franklin Typefounders version of Bookman Italic Medium.It's not Bold but it is Italic. It looks like it might be dark enough, but you can't see a full character set to see if it has the other 'T'.

But that's the ITC version again.

My question is still the same, that font was popular when I was getting into the industry and fell out of favor until now, why now? I never loved it then and don't love it now. Its too easy for non-designers to abuse the swashes. It seems once a week at MyFonts someone is asking about it.

My theory is that people with little experience with type tend to find such fonts easier to distinguish from "normal" fonts. When they want something to have a "special" look, they tend toward fonts that are obviously "special" in some way. No room for subtlety or refinement at that level of awareness. It's sort of like the difference between picking "red" and picking "Pantone 214."

Good point Mark, do you think its because anyone who has a PC can now call themselves a designer if they get type? Which leads me to ask where are the type designers heading towards the masses on PCs or towards educated designers. Because if it for the former I'm afraid more Bookman Swash Italics will be developed rather than elegant faces like Neutraface.

What, educated designers don't use PCs???

Mark has a very good point, and the key phrase in his comment is 'level of awareness'. As people become more informed and less impressed by flashiness, perhaps such attention getters may not impress the new desktop graphics folks, but I wonder if their customers will ever have that sort of savvy? I have been hanging out doing font ID's in newsgroups and forums for over 3 years and I can almost count the number of times people asked about text type on my fingers. (This forum has a better percentage of those 'clients' I'd say).

In my opinion 'newness' (even if it's old fonts being revived) is what attracts the font collectors and users. To me that's what is a bit funny about Neutraface as a font fad. There's nothing radical, or inventive, about it, just like there wasn't with Chalet, but House does such a nifty marketing job, that they make everyone want it. I agree with you Dan that is has an elegance, but so did the designs that it imitates.

You know the line about how 'history repeats itself'? It's true in fashion and in fonts too. Art Deco and Retro fonts appear to be in vogue, and this is a great time to revive them. Fonts like Bauhaus and Eurostile and their conceptual offspring seem to be timeless, in that they manage to keep looking 'new'. Part of that is because many people don't know the history, so they begin to repeat it, thinking they have discovered something. I tend to think that's they way it will always go, just like the way skirt lengths and colors change with the trends, but rarely really discover anything new.

One person's idea of font sophistication may be only as good as the uses the font is put to. If it's the right choice, you look like a true artist, if it isn't you are one of the masses just playing with fonts.

That's my bit of font philosophy for today.

I don't think amateurs using type on PCs necessarily think of themselves of designers. It's kind of the "I don't know type, but I know what I like" school of type selection.

Mike & Mark I agree with both your obversations. I keep giving more credit to the non-designers using fonts than I should, but there is so much bad design and bad decisions out there. Like today I saw a van with Behard Fashion that was stroked to make it bold. It was plain ugly.

Could we please stop stressing the assumption that amateurs
use PCs and vice-versa? It's not the machine that counts, it's
what you do with it and how you use it*.

Please don't let this remark interrupt this discussion
gennelmun!

* Heh, that's what they tell people with small youknowwhats...

I meant "PC" in the generic "personal computer" sense. The Mac is a PC after all, just not a Windows PC.

I agree with Mark I use a Mac and I call it a PC (Personal Computer). Yves if it clarifies anything I will refer specifically to my computer in futher posts as an iMac G4 800mh 512mg Ram operating OS 10.3.2. I'm sure that will make communications speed up dramaticily

I will refer specifically to my computer in futher posts as
an iMac G4 800mh 512mg Ram operating OS 10.3.2.
I'm sure that will make communications speed up dramaticily.
Errr... You've got a point there, Dan.

Though you're both technically correct, there still is
that thing called "perception". As I'm in the language
business I know how easily people misunderstand, and
I'd rather avoid needlessly irking the PC community which
would be a shame. I suggest we use "computer" as a
generic term and both "Mac" and "PC" to denote specific
machines/operating systems. Just a thought from your
friendly neighbourhood community warden*.

* I'm supposed to preserve the peace around here so
don't make this harder than it's supposed to be, guys'n'gals!

Maybe we should allow 'pc' (lower case) to be an abbreviation for 'personal computer'. If it's 'PC' that means a Windows pc; and 'Mac' means a Macintosh pc. 'Computer' is sooo many letters, Yves. Whaddaya think, warden?

What's the problem with simply using Mac for macs and PCs for IBM PC systems or clones thereof? Let's not forget that while "Personal Computer" was a widely used term that defined all sorts of computing devices back in the 70s, IBM was the company that took the PC abbreviation and trademarked it.
Referring to Macintoshes as PCs might not be completely incorrect, but when 99% of the world have agreed on a convention, why should we create a new one exclusively for this board? It seems somewhat pedantic to me.

Sorry for the derailment. Let's get back to talking about type...

What word would you use if you wanted to refer to both? Are we stuck with saying "Macs and PCs" (or "PCs and Macs")? What about Linux, etc.?

I generally refer to my Mac as "my computer" in conversation. Calling it "my Mac" in conversation I think makes me sound like I'm part of some religious cult. Computers are computers (but, of course, I think Macs are better). Maybe I'm being a little P.C. about it.

Not that I think it's a big deal, in any case.

I'll hang with the Warden on taking one or two seconds to
type 'computer' to indicate the box with whatever OS.

Linux is a different matter, that's software. Most Linux machines are PCs technically, x86 processors and all. Sorry, my turn to be pedantic.

I too call it "my computer" in conversation. I was just mentioning that, if we have to be specific, why should we make up some new convention when the rest of the world simply says Mac and/or PC?

So Yves, Computer it shall be.

Can you tell I saw Return of the King.

Let me explain why I'm sensitive to this matter.
When I started out at FontShop I made the same
"mistake" by referring to personal computers in
general by using "PCs" in the announcement of the
first Belgian FontShop Award. You wouldn't believe
the grief I got over that from the Macintosh community!
I thought it was totally overblown, but since then I try
to be careful in my phrasing.

For what it's worth I personally don't really care
what you use as long as it's not in a negative way.
It was the unfortunate "amateurs with PCs" I was a
bit weary of.

Case closed?

I'd say so.

Yves, I've never concidered a computer to be more than a tool, and the preference being like the difference between a 3B and a 6H pencil the point is they are both pencils. The Mac I used 2 years ago isn't the same computer that I use now even though it has the same brand name, Mac.

Back to Bookman.

I think Mark makes astute observations on the awareness level of the uninitiated, and gravitating to something that looks *special*

But I think there is a larger trend in design: the retro swash revival. It may not be as widespread as the humanist sans outbreak of the 90's, but one need only look at a Veer catalogue to see the incredible number of retro brush scripts and swashy *new* designs. Perhaps it has something to do with the general cultural trend toward bootcut jeans made to look 2 years old right off the shelf. Keep your eye out for knickers, suspenders, and headlines set in Hobo Next.

Ha! Randy

FWIW, I quite like swashes. Even overdone ones.

They were very big around 1970 or so. Bookman set the example, even though it's from much earlier. By the mid-seventies, they were adding Bookman-style swashes to everything. They were usually called Whateverthefontwascalled Flair.

I have a specimen book which contains a section titled "A Flair for all Reasons" which includes Torino Flair, Goudy (Heavy) Flair, Cooper (Black) Flair, Franklin Gothic Extra Condensed Flair, Bodoni Flair, Baskerville Flair, Allegro Flare, Neon Melior Flair, Stymie Black Italic Flair (as seen last week here), and--believe it or not--Univers Flair. I have also seen Helvetica Flair.

Designers quickly got sick of this trend and moved on to other gimmicks.

If you're right about a swash revival, that's okay with me. They might not be tasteful, but they are fun to draw.

> I have a specimen book which contains a section titled "A Flair for all Reasons" which includes Torino Flair, Goudy (Heavy) Flair, Cooper (Black) Flair, Franklin Gothic Extra Condensed Flair, Bodoni Flair, Baskerville Flair, Allegro Flare, Neon Melior Flair, Stymie Black Italic Flair (as seen last week here), and--believe it or not--Univers Flair. I have also seen Helvetica Flair.

Wow! Could you post scans?

I like swashes too.

Warning: The following images may be disturbing for some viewers.

Is Bookman Swash available anywhere? Bookman (which i'm not overly fond of) is the identify typeface for the University I work at, and I'm thinking if I could get a hold of the swashes, maybe I could liven things up once in a while without deviating much from the identity look...

Thanks!

Jeff

MyFonts used to list the ITC version, although it's gone now... like Mark said, Bookman Swash probably never made it to digital.

My post in this thread (above) dated January 26 has a link to Precision Type's offering of Franklin Typefounders ITC Bookman Swash & Bookman Swash Italic. That may be good enough for your purposes, and those are the only Bookman Swash versions I have been able to find in digital form.

that univers flare is so crazee

It strikes me as the equivalent to putting an ornate guilded frame on a Mondrian painting.

You got a problem with how I frame my Mondrians, buddy?

The pre-ITC Bookman Swash is one of Jason Walcott's favorite typefaces. I emailed him about it a couple years back. He told me that there is a digital version sold by Castcraft, called OPTI Bookman. It's actually two fonts: OPTI Bookman Bold Italic and OPTI Bookman Bold Italic Swash Supplement. Their online catalogs seem to be broken, so email or telephone to see if it's still available.

You got a problem with how I frame my Mondrians, buddy?

I might not, but I'm sure Mondrian would. :-)

Mark between the Franklin Gothic Extra Condensed Flare and the Universe Flare, I can't decide which one makes me want to upchuck more. At least no one did a University Roman Flare

If only that were true...

He he. Flair eh? Even the nomenclature is retro-silly.

And both Franklin Gothic and Univers Flair are insane! Simply out of the world! Stark ranting and raving mad!

Made my day!

Btw, swash lovers should help me out by posting their favourites here.

This is really funny. I was just gonna say that University Roman already has built-in swashes. It's such an OTT font isn't it.

This thread has turned into gold. Great laughs all around!
Thanks Mark for the hilariously delicious scans. Lovely!

BTW Now at last I know: Torino Italic Flair. Thank you Mark
for inadvertently solving that little mystery.

Mark you made my day, only an evil scientist from a 50s B movie would make a flare font for University Roman. Don't tell me they made a flare font for courier.

Dan, don't tempt him, PLEASE!

Yves, he's scary good isn't he.

Don't tell me they made a flare font for courier.



Bwa-ha-ha-ha!

(Just kidding. It's not real. Sweet dreams.)

Mark you beat me to it, I'm still laughing

"You want to express yourself, right? 15 pieces of flair is the minimum. You don't only want to do the minimum, do you? Brian, over there, is wearing 37 pieces of flair. 15 is the minimum, but some people choose to wear more, and we encourage that. Mmmkay?"

He he. Office Space.

This thread has gone looney.

Jumping back into this old thread years after the fact, and I see the smilies are all gone. All those little broken images; Typophilie used to have smiley graphics and not anymore. How very sad.