among others that I don't think fit. posted by neustile at 9:29 AM on June 25, 2007
I was gonna say Ministry, but the 'R' is all wrong, and it's not quite tall enough (though, I suppose it could've been stretched). posted by pfafflin at 9:34 AM on June 25, 2007
DIN from fontfont? Try their preview out! posted by pullayup at 10:02 AM on June 25, 2007
neustile, there's a little serif at the bottom of the R in Nimbus. Botanika is closer but the B isn't right. posted by Taken Outtacontext at 10:04 AM on June 25, 2007
I think it's just been condensed by horizontally squitching it by about 10% (in Illustrator or InDesign, for instance)--it looks a bit distorted. posted by pullayup at 10:05 AM on June 25, 2007
pullayup, the loops in the B are not quite right with DIN. posted by Taken Outtacontext at 10:06 AM on June 25, 2007
The loops in the sample's B are almost identical (top one is just a bit smaller). posted by Taken Outtacontext at 10:07 AM on June 25, 2007
I thought it was slightly mechanically-condensed Interstate Bold, which matches except for the M. posted by luriete at 10:50 AM on June 25, 2007
It's a small sample but I suspect we're looking at Hoefler and Frere-Jones' Gotham. The M and R are both typical. posted by zadcat at 10:54 AM on June 25, 2007
The poor aspect ratio on a couple of letters makes me think it's a pretty generic font, just stretched. posted by wackybrit at 10:59 AM on June 25, 2007
My first hunch was Gotham as well, but Identifont should be able to help you know for sure. posted by jjg at 11:10 AM on June 25, 2007
Gotham condensed 90% perhaps. I also looked at Interstate but the Ms in that font are wrong. posted by zadcat at 11:34 AM on June 25, 2007
There are, by the way, no "generic" fonts. They're all distinct. The M and R in this font show that it's by no means merely yet another Helvetica knockoff, if that's what's implied by "generic". posted by zadcat at 11:37 AM on June 25, 2007
On the WhatTheFont forum, someone identified it as News Gothic Bold. That looks pretty damn close. Whatcha think? posted by Taken Outtacontext at 1:10 PM on June 25, 2007
Well, the strokes of the 'N' vary in thickness on News Gothic, compared to yr sample ... and the middle vertex of the 'M' in News Gothic sits on the baseline, while in the sample, it doesn't. Which makes me think the designer may have done some mixing-and-matching. But if you're happy with News Gothic, go fer it! posted by pfafflin at 1:33 PM on June 25, 2007
Almost, but the N is too wide, and the O too square. And the hook of the J comes all the way round rather than ending at an angle.
Do people mix-and-match typefaces? I've never known anyone to do it (apart from the Futura question mark, of course). posted by Grangousier at 2:46 PM on June 25, 2007
You are right. The O isn't an exact match. Rats.
I've mixed typefaces for a logo before (then converted it to a vector graphic). posted by Taken Outtacontext at 3:13 PM on June 25, 2007
The point of the M does not reach the baseline in your sample and that rules out News Gothic and Hamburg for starters.
Try the Typophile Type ID board if you do not think this is Gotham slightly machine-condensed. posted by zadcat at 5:22 PM on June 25, 2007
The part that says "NOT JUST SMART" is without a doubt Gotham, smooshed a little.
But identifying the font in the "BRILLIANT" part, which is different, is driving me off-the-wall bonkers. Trade Gothic Bold No. 2 is like a 90% match, though. posted by tepidmonkey at 8:36 PM on June 25, 2007
I wrote the company the ad is for to see if their marketing department could help. Thanks all. posted by Taken Outtacontext at 6:08 AM on June 26, 2007
« Older
How do you fold toilet paper i...
| BlackBerry: can my new 8830 r...
Newer »
Nimbus Sans or Botanika Lite SC Bold
among others that I don't think fit.
posted by neustile at 9:29 AM on June 25, 2007