Consider This Alternative to Baskerville
Fontribute Review of the Fonts Harriet by Okay Type
Last week we discussed surprising alternatives to the expected Old-Style typeface. This week, we’re moving on to an alternative to the go-to Transitional typeface, Baskerville. Baskerville is a good font, but let’s explore how another typeface designer studied the Transitional genre this week on Fontribute. With these discussions, you can expect to gain a deeper appreciation and understanding of typography.
Uppercase /H
Here I have the two capitals as next to each other. See is how the serifs are being treated in the H.
In Baskerville, the serifs are flat squares and then the brackets transition from the serifs to the stem in a relatively controlled manner.
In the Harriet, we see the serifs are angled but with a transition, so it is bracketing, but it’s very different if you compare the two of them, how they move. The degree of bracketing it’s much more in Baskerville than in Harriet.
Notice the thickness of the stem in Baskerville related to the serif and the crossbar, then look at Harriet and compare those two things. Obviously, the stems are heavier in both cases, but the degree of the difference of the weights is not nearly as much.
Uppercase /S
We can also see this pan down in the S. Notice how dramatic Baskerville’s contrast is. From the thickness of the spine, the heaviest part of that span its movement over to the thin part of the stroke, it’s much more dramatic in its effect than in the Harriet. Look at the thinnest part at the north of the S between the two of them you can see that Harriet’s is heavier; it’s thicker.
The size of these serifs is much larger and prominent in Harriet than they are in Baskerville. See how much like a fang tipping down the S is doing over here in Harriet versus Baskerville.
Lowercase /n
x-Height
When we go to the lowercase, we can see the x-height of the lowercase is much lower in Baskerville than in Harriet. Baskerville has a common problem in text because the smaller x-height size compared to most other typefaces. The smaller x-height leads to problems in smaller font sizes.
Serifs
Notice the serifs again are mirroring the uppercase in the bottom serifs. Baskerville’s flag serif seem to be more calling from its older style sourcing. Observe that tipping back of this portion of the stroke over here and then create this semi-flat serif. Harriet’s flag serif is more streamlined. There’s no dip over on the right side.
Contour Movements
Notice in Harriet’s a more continuous movement; it’s taking more time to move from the stem over to the shoulder. Baskerville’s more abrupt. The joint is starting from a higher point and moves more rapidly over; it’s a smooth transition abruptly moves over.
Lowercase /a
Ball Terminal
I think a big point of difference is the ball terminal, notice in Harriet’s much more articulated, it’s clear, it has a very precise contour, arcs over then starts abruptly and comes over. Baskerville is more smooth out and more gradual in its overall treatment.
Bowls and Counter
Notice how the bowls are handled; How the counters are handled. Harriet has a little bit of arching in the upper-right part and then moves over. Baskerville starts at a flat angle and then arches down abruptly. There’s more of a sudden movement heading over to the left bottom side and going back up again.
Lowercase /d
Contour Movements
In Baskerville the counters in the bowl try to catch up to each other by the time they get to the stem. Harriet’s bowl they go at different momentum on the top part. Then they sync in again at the bottom part as it’s joint connects to the stem.
Lowercase /g
Open Loop
Baskerville’s known for this open loop /g. A feature both of these fonts employ. Notice in Baskerville the sharpness of this terminal and how it’s drawn. Compare that to the smoothness and arching over in Harriet.
Ear
Harriet’s ear is mimicking what /a was doing in all its terminal. It’s very clear articulating what it’s trying to be; arches over then start abruptly in a very sharp point then comes back over again. Baskerville allows for more gradualness in its movement across the outlines, getting back to the bowl of the /g, between the two of them.
The interplay of contrast, proportion, and articulation leads to a typeface with a clarity and directness mixed with historical softness in a different manner than Baskerville.
Conclusion
Harriet is a great example of playing with the different ingredients of a font to produce a different tone. Baskerville chooses to be articulate in its joint contour, but yield in its terminals. Harriet chooses to be articulate in its terminals, but yield in its contours. The interplay of contrast, proportion, and articulation leads to a typeface with a clarity and directness mixed with historical softness in a different manner than Baskerville.
That’s Fontribute for this week! I hope you learn a new appreciation of letterforms. What would you use these fonts for? What do you see when reviewing these two different typeface? Share a response and let’s start the conversation.
Fontribute is a project of TypeThursday, the meeting place for people who love letterforms.
Come join us for the appreciation of letterforms at our upcoming meet-ups.
RSVP is requested.
San Francisco on February 19th
New York City on February 23rd
Enjoy Fontribute? Sign up to the TypeThursday mailing list to be the first to know about our next episode.
Thinking about using Harriet?
Rent Harriet from Fontstand.
Was this article interesting to you? Click the Recommend button below
