I Like What I Like

February 10th, 2010

I came upon an interesting article the other day, Know your type: Cheltenham. The article describes the history of the typeface family Cheltenham. It reminded me of an exchange I had on one of the typeface aficionados’ forums a year or two ago. I mentioned that I liked ITC Cheltenham and had decided to use it on a book design I was doing at the time.

I must admit right off that I am partial to Old Style type—Did you know “Garalde” comes from bringing together the names “Garamond” and “Aldus”? A few of my favorites are Bembo, Adobe Garamond, Jenson, and, of course, Cheltenham. I especially like that the contrast between thick and thin strokes is not extreme with Old Style typefaces.

When I mentioned hw much I liked Cheltenham on that forum, I heard a chorus of “boos” in pretty short order. Indeed, I don’t remember anything in the way of approval for my choice. This puzzled me.

I made clear I intended to use Cheltenham for body text of the book I had in mind. And as the idsgn piece makes clear, the original Cheltenham font was designed to be “a book type in which legibility would be the dominant element.” As that is the point of good typography, and book design—to make lines of legible and pages of readable type—I still feel very good about the choice. The unique kind of look that stops readers in their tracks might be a good thing for advertising, movie posters, and even book covers; but on book interior pages, it’s just an unwanted and unadvisable distraction.

The extended ascenders and shortened descenders are, in fact, odd-looking in an interesting way; and it was good enough for the New York Times. But that was the original Cheltenham, also known as “Chelt.” By the time of ITC’s digitized Cheltenham, the x-height was increased noticeably to make a most readable type. A classic was adapted and made far better for book interiors.

Entry Filed under: typefaces

4 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Joel Friedlander  |  February 10th, 2010 at 9:34 pm

    Very interesting post, Steve. I’ve never liked Cheltenham, apparently for the exact same reasons you do like it. To me, the lack of contrast in the strokes made it look boring. And the serifs and “oddities” in the letterforms give it a very awkward, blocky look. De gustibus non disputandem I guess. It had a vogue in the late 70s and early 80s, but I haven’t seen it used much recently. Thanks for the background.

  • 2. admin  |  February 11th, 2010 at 7:09 am

    It’s interesting how different people have different tastes in types. So I take it that you generally prefer Transitional fonts like Baskerville or Modern fonts like Bodoni? What are some more recently created typefaces that you like to use?

  • 3. Jane Mackay  |  February 13th, 2010 at 12:17 am

    I’m with you, Stephen. I’m partial to Old Style typefaces. I like the ITC Cheltenham, particularly the italicized versions. So often italics are difficult to read or just plain unpleasant to look at, but (on the screen at least) the ITC C’s itals are lovely to look at and easy to read.

    I’m not a designer, but I know what I like to look at for long periods of time. I want the words to enter my mind without the distraction of an obtrusive typeface.

  • 4. admin  |  February 13th, 2010 at 8:23 am

    I guess we just went to different schools together on this one, Jane, because I’m in total agreement. Maybe one of the reasons I hold on so tenaciously to the notion that a book’s design, from typefaces to page makeup, shouldn’t be a distraction to the reader is because I grew up such a voracious reader and never wanted to be interrupted when I was into a mystery or a baseball player’s biography, my early favorites. And Cheltenham, indeed all the Old Style types, with their muted contrast between thick and thin strokes always go easier on my eyes. Transitional and Modern typefaces’ sharper difference between thick and thin strokes never fails to make me stop and notice them, thereby interfering with the flow of my reading. That alone is reason why I almost organically lean to the Old Styles and newer turns on Old Style types.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed