"Columbia Titling" on sale at MyFonts ($8 for the family!)

My new typeface, "Columbia Titling", is now on sale at MyFonts and for a limited time is just $8 for four weights!

Columbia Titling is an titling-caps display family based on wide Clarendon-style wood type and industrial signage design from the late-19th and early-20th Century. It includes a small set of OpenType features, including both tabular and proportional figures, special superscript ordinal suffixes, underlined superscript alternate letters, and OpenType fractions. The typeface takes its name from the historic S.S. Columbia, a steamboat launched in 1903. Though not a true reproduction, the wide, slab serif letterforms on the front of the Columbia's wheelhouse provided some inspiration for to develop this typeface. Enjoy!

http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/typetanic-fonts/columbia-titling/

AttachmentSize
columbia_slide01_sale.png1.38 MB
columbia_slide06.png323.45 KB
grshutters's picture

Some samples below:

Columbia Titling, Sample 1

Columbia Titling, Sample 2

marcox's picture

This is really handsome. I licensed it yesterday.

MATOI's picture

Very nice I'll look it up.

Nick Shinn's picture

Why didn’t you make the underlined superiors the lower case?

grshutters's picture

I thought about it, though I preferred they be used sparingly and for only very specific purposes (ordinal suffixes, surname prefixes — e.g. Mc-, Mac-, Di- — etc.). In making them lowercase I thought I might be unintentionally inviting their use as a full lowercase, which I didn't intend.

Nick Shinn's picture

Yes.
I’m not sure I did the right thing in Parity, a unicase typeface, by making the lower case an optically scaled version of the upper case. Certainly, it provides value for money, but when the face shows at distributor sites in their default U&lc setting as “Unicase with Small Unicase” it looks like a silly novelty, and not at all the way it’s intended to be used.

grshutters's picture

Right — that was my thinking. I occasionally wonder if I did the right thing since not all programs can access those OpenType superior features, but since they're to be used sparingly anyway I think I'm okay with it.

By the way Parity is a gorgeous typeface!

grshutters's picture

Thanks, Marc!

Nick Shinn's picture

…not all programs can access those OpenType superior features…

And in the ones that can, they are buried beneath several clicks, drags and/or popup menus.

In fact, in InDesign, for instance, when the user goes digging, the first “Supescript” is faux, and the OpenType real deal is a level deeper. Aaaagh!

Alternates are actually more easily accessible as separate fonts, because the font field is clearly on view in the top level of all layout applications.

I don’t know why I’ve been making these all-in-one OpenType fonts for so long, other than to impress myself with how clever I am.

daverowland's picture

Don't stop now, Nick. Eventually, users will become more savvy, and applications will get better. If all type designers go back to making separate fonts for small caps and all the rest of it, the people who make the layout applications won't bother making them work better. It's annoying that not all end users use fonts to their full potential, but doesn't it make it that bit nicer when you see that somebody has done?

Nick Shinn's picture

Sure, but if Adobe hasn’t be bothered to fix its OpenType menus for ten years*, why would they ever?
Perhaps webfonts will change that.

*Big Thing, my 2002 critique.

Chris Keegan's picture

I'm no type designer, but $8 for 4 fonts? I realize that's the sale price, but at that price why not release it for free? After the MyFonts commission and taxes I can't imagine there's much profit left...

hrant's picture

I used to think that a nominal amount is better than free since it blocks frivolous use, but then I realized that frivolous use is better than no use.

hhp

Nick Shinn's picture

Chris, it’s a form of advertising.
The idea is that bargain basement prices will push sales and get the new release into a MyFonts best-seller list, and hence promoted in one of their emails.
Free fonts are not counted in such lists.

hrant's picture

Sad.

hhp

Andreas Stötzner's picture

Nick:
> I don’t know why I’ve been making these all-in-one OpenType fonts for so long, other than to impress myself with how clever I am.

I have been asking myself for years: the user popping down the typeface menu, the user popping down the OT menu, what makes the difference?? But for me as the designer/producer, it makes a great difference wether I put an alternative set in a seperate font – or to labour additionally upon OT implementation. (which is not an equally appropriate concern for all of the alternatives possible, of course). Does this extra-work ever pay-off?

Sorry for going off-topic.
Congratulations to the typeface, very nice!

grshutters's picture

Thanks for the comments, everyone!

In regards to pricing, Nick is correct — bargain sale prices are essentially a form of advertising. Plus, if there's the possibility of selling more typefaces at a lower price, the revenue stream stays the same — i.e. selling 20 licenses for $8 versus selling 4 licenses for $40. In a field growing as quickly as type design, it's good for a young foundry that might otherwise struggle to get noticed.

And this idea is nothing new — several foundries post their fonts for 50, 75, even 90% off on first release for this reason.

Nick Shinn's picture

Does this extra-work ever pay-off?

As a designer/foundry, one does develop a clientele of repeat customers attuned to one’s work.
Hopefully they study the PDF (and occasional printed) specimens we provide, and become familiar with the sophistication of the OpenType features at their disposal, and why we put them in the fonts.

This is particularly relevant for figures.
You can’t do fine typography without discriminating between the many different styles of figure available in an OpenType font, and it would be absurd to put these all in different fonts.

The question is, are those discriminating typographers my potential customers?
I’d like to think so!

Syndicate content Syndicate content