Actually, that’s the extra bold weight, and it doesn’t look like it’s been distorted at all, other than spacing. The font is by Michael Neugebauer from 1980-87, according to the ’98 FontBook.
Yeah, when I look at them side by side I see what you mean, but it’s not grossly distorted, just a little wider/flatter. I’m not trying to make an argument, my point was just that it’s not too different than the font has looked for over 20 years. “Really mangled” is a matter of opinion, for sure.
- Mike Yanega
Who's Online:
There are currently 23 users and 94 guests online.
User login
New to Typophile? Accounts are free, and easy to set up.
25.May.2008 6.22pm
Squire
28.May.2008 7.52am
I would have never guessed that to be an actual typeface. It’s obviously been extremely man-handled and stretched out of whack.
Just curious Mike, what attracted you to this face? What do you have planned for it?
28.May.2008 9.06am
Actually, that’s the extra bold weight, and it doesn’t look like it’s been distorted at all, other than spacing. The font is by Michael Neugebauer from 1980-87, according to the ’98 FontBook.
- Mike Yanega
28.May.2008 9.13am
IDK Mike, take a look at that “ed” looks kinda squooshed and stretched actually. It’s just really mangled next to the Fontshop version.
28.May.2008 11.35am
Yeah, when I look at them side by side I see what you mean, but it’s not grossly distorted, just a little wider/flatter. I’m not trying to make an argument, my point was just that it’s not too different than the font has looked for over 20 years. “Really mangled” is a matter of opinion, for sure.
- Mike Yanega