Talk:Fairfield (typeface)
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Type classification edit
I’m no expert in typography, but I’m not convinced it’s proper to classify Fairfield as an “old-style” typeface (as it currently is).
The best evidence I could find for this classification comes from the Wiki entry on serifs. Here, Fairfield is included in a list of examples of Venetian (humanist) old-style typefaces. However, this doesn’t appear to be referenced—the two references pertain only to the Hightower and Cloister typefaces.
Evidence against an old-style classification indirectly comes from its description on MyFonts:
With its straight, unbracketed serifs and abrupt contrast between thin and thick strokes, Fairfield harks back to the modern typefaces of Bodoni and Didot, but has a distinctly twentieth-century look.
From my understanding, unbracketed serifs and a big contrast between thin/thick strokes are completely antithetical to old-style typefaces, particularly the Venetian (or humanist) subset. My amateur guess would be to peg Fairface in the transitional category, or possibly the Didone (or modern) category, based both upon this description and how the typeface actually looks. However, I‘m entirely stumped as to why it’s currently classified as old-style, as it seems to defy nearly all the characteristics that define the old-style category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chidoelrey (talk • contribs) 12:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)