New Bold Monday release: Trio Grotesk

boldmonday's picture

Trio Grotesk is Florian Schick’s personal interpretation of Kaart Antieke – an early 20th century sans serif used by Piet Zwart in his famous, yet never officially published essay about modern typography called “Van oude tot nieuwe typografie”.

Trio Grotesk started as a student project for the KABK Type & Media masters course in type design. During a visit to the Meermanno Museum in Den Haag Florian discovered the only two remaining copies of Piet Zwart’s essay. Being struck by the historical value of this booklet, he decided to revive the typeface it was set in instantly.

Florian enlarged and examined the original 7 point printed typeface in great detail and tried to replicate the image of this typeface as faithfully as possible. Certain features which are unique to letterpress printing, such as roundings caused by ink spread, have been preserved for instance.

Trio Grotesk comes in three weights, sports a Latin extended characterset and includes small caps, seven ranges of figures, and numerous arrows, ornaments and dingbats.

More info:

Bold Monday

Té Rowan's picture

I'll be right effin surprised if you don't get swamped with demand for this one.

eliason's picture


KCH's picture


boldmonday's picture

Thank you Craig, thank you Keith!

@Té: That would be wonderful of course, although this is not your average low contrast, slightly condensed, clean-shaven corporate sans serif. We released this typeface first of all because of its connection to Dutch typographic history. And simply because we love the overall design!

Nick Shinn's picture

Nice open fit—very interesting sidebearings.

Té Rowan's picture

Both map and face are giving me bursts of dèjá-vu, but I can't figure out to what. Probably a booklet or pamphlet.

boldmonday's picture

The fit is indeed quite open since it is based on 7 point metal type. The generous spacing guarantees that the typeface is still very readable in small sizes.

ahyangyi's picture

Nick Shinn:

Nice //t :) How did you type it?

Té Rowan's picture

He may have entered it directly – fi IIRC.

Nick Shinn's picture

Option-shift-5 (Mac keyboard).
Option-shift-6: fl
Option-hyphen: – (en dash)
Option-shift-hyphen: — (em dash)

These are old-school (I started using them in Quark c.1988) but fortunately they still work.

Té Rowan's picture

As far as I know, there are no equivalent key combos in Windows. At least, though, HTML entities work in the input box, so fi (fi), fl (fl), – (–) and — (—) will do as well, though slower.

Birdseeding's picture

In windows Alt+0150 (on the numeric keypad) is En Dash, it's the only one of them I use. :)

Té Rowan's picture

Seems to work here, too, along with Alt+0151 for the em dash and Alt+0133 for the ellipsis… as long as I remember to put the NumLock on. I'm just too used to using the keypad as cursor control.

vilbel's picture

Very nice! I'm not a professional when it comes to type (helaas pindakaas haha) but it has certain qualities of a monospaced font. Must've got to do with the wide spacing.

riccard0's picture

Not to be a party pooper, but am I the only one that thinks |a| and |e| look too closed?

Nick Shinn's picture

That is the personality of the typeface, and furthermore, it serves a functional purpose.

The small apertures of /a and /e distinguish their terminal detail from that of a frequently adjacent character with similar details and general shape: /s.

In an extended style such as this, the middle of the /s tends to the horizontal, so that there are three characters with a potentially theta-ish appearance, /a, /e, and /s.

The design of /a and /e disambiguates them from /s.

It also removes the possibility of a “super-counter” occurring in the combination of adjacent counters in the e_s and s_a combinations.

Such almost-closed counters are also found in the Scotch (Modern) genre of serifed type.

eliason's picture

The small apertures of /a and /e distinguish their terminal detail from that of a frequently adjacent character with similar details and general shape: /s.

Huh? Wouldn't a more open-apertured /e/ be *more* distinct from an /s/?

hrant's picture

You can love the style of this, but let's not pretend it's highly readable.


Nick Shinn's picture

Come on guys, do I have to illustrate this with a diagram?

Té Rowan's picture

I think it might have good legibility from very acute angles, though.

Syndicate content Syndicate content