Typeface Categories: Blurred Lines ?

oobimichael's picture

Hi... what started out as a novice attempt to organize a publishing firm computer network and design assets (from art scraps to fonts), I have personally been intrigued by how difficult it is to accurately categorize the Sans-serifs. Various forums have pointed to the 'g' as a defining marker... but this seems to be not always the case...

As an example, the line between 'grotesk/grotesque' and 'neo-grotesk' seems blurry, specifically in modern designs of even historical typefaces (with optical kerning, etc.). So, here is how my first take on drawing the line between grotesk and neo grot (and between neo-grot and humanist, not included in this list). The Humanist and Geometric are also another kettle of fish. But is this correct, so far ?



[Berthold] Akzidenz Grotesk
[OurType] Parry Grotesque Pro
[FontFont] Good Pro
[Paratype] News Gothic BT
[ITC] Franklin Gothic
[Storm Type] DynaGrotesk Pro
[Linotype] Trade Gothic
[URW] Grotesk
[Optimo] Theinhardt

NeoGrotesk (minus DINs)

[Adobe] Antique Olive Std
[Linotype] Neue Haas Grotesk Pro
[Bitstream] Zurich BT
[Linotype] Univers Next
[Font Bureau] Antenna
[Mark Simonson] Proxima Nova
[Font Bureau] Benton Sans
[Monotype-Ascender] Endurance Pro
[Font Bureau] Scout
[Monotype] Azbuka Pro
[Font Bureau] Titling Gothic
[Monotype] Slate Pro
[FontFont] Sero Pro
[OurType] Fakt Pro
[ITC] Avant Garde Gothic
[Paratype] Pragmatica
[Klim] Calibre
[Positype] Air
[Linotype] Helvetica Neue LT Pro
[Process Type] Colfax


Humanist & Geometric (later)

Syndicate content Syndicate content