Vs.

A "more-or-less" Greek text typeface
design info
all characters
OT features

The need for the creation of Vs. (Versus) arose after serious deliberation over the transcripts of the round table discussion that took place between Nicolas Barker, Matthew Carter, Takis Katsoulidis, Jerome Peignot and Hermann Zapf during the “Greek Letters: From Tablets to Pixels” international conference organized by the Greek Font Society, back in 1996 (ed. Michael S. Macrakis, Oak Knoll Press, New Castle, Delaware). Although this discussion, concerning the history and future of Greek text typefaces, took place nearly 20 years ago, I really believe that, on the one hand, little or no attention has been paid to the resulting conclusions, and, at the same time, the discussion was never formally completed (at least within Greek borders).

Some of the most important and serious issues that surfaced in my mind include the following:

  1. Is historical typographical purity, which some would call ‘greekness’, still an issue when it comes to Greek typography or have we long gone past that stage of discussion? And if it is still an issue, do we still need to discuss current and ever-changing typographical design trends in advertisement and other ephemeral applications, or is it mainly a text typefaces’ issue?
  2. Are we done with any improprieties of the past (e.g. the wrong or excessive use of serifs in Greek letters, wrong use of ascenders and descenders, simply copying Latin letters and using them as Greek – e.g. n as η, s as ς, x as χ, z as ζ, etc.) or have we just (for better or worse) learned to live with them? Were they really improprieties and based on what principles were they defined as such? What should our predetermined and objective evaluative criteria be when coping with such improprieties: (a) functionality, (b) historical authenticity of the letterforms, or simply (c) the ability of a typeface to respond to modern design standards and trends? And how should a Greek designer stand against current standards? Should she accept them per se and try to ‘hellenize’ them, or should she try to find ways to incorporate historical authenticity into them?
  3. Are there degrees of ‘greekness’ and, if so, what could these degrees be (on a scale ranging between a fully ‘latinized’ typeface and a fully ‘hellenized’ one)?
  4. Can a contemporary, fully ‘hellenized’ typeface actually work in today’s globalized, digital and overly-designed visual landscape, without looking irrelevant or outdated?
  5. How is it possible that half a millennium since the first Greek typefaces were designed we are still arguing about the basic shapes of Greek letters and whether they are right or wrong, pure or contaminated(!)? Do such arguments have any intrinsic value and what is to be gained from them?
  6. What does it mean for a typeface to be ‘too Greek’ today? Where does historical authenticity stop and absurdity begin?
  7. In the long run, is the answer to all the questions raised and discussed 20 years ago concerning the basic form of Greek lowercase letterforms simply ‘Απλά’ (essentially their characteristic ‘non-conformist’ and inconsistent contrast axis and occasional reversed-stress strokes, see Fig. 1 on the pdf specimen) as proposed through the majority of Greek typefaces (if not all) designed mainly by (non-Greek) professional type design studios? And finally, what scope is there today for innovation in the design of contrasted Greek text typefaces?

Versus is a low-contrast text typeface with a vertical axis, whose latin letterforms are influenced –to a lesser or greater degree– by the work of Fleischmann, and other, mostly transitional designs such as: Christian Swartz’s Farnham, Hoefler & Co’s Mercury, Gerard Unger’s Swift, Kris Sowersby’s Newzald, Peter Biľak’s Brioni and Greta, Matthew Carter’s Georgia and Linn Boyd’s Century. The design of the Greek letterforms in Versus however is quintessentially an attempt to cope with some of the aforementioned questions; still, what it eventually succeeds in doing is to raise even more questions:

  1. Judged by historical standards (primarily the Απλά paradigm), even the use of a strict and consistent vertical or inclined contrast axis in Greek letterforms is inherently wrong. But is this really the case?
  2. Even though they can be found in historic Greek typefaces e.g. in the work of Bodoni (Fig. 2 on the pdf specimen), purely round or tear-shaped terminals are rare and occur mainly as the result of fluid, dynamic movement, as opposed to being merely decorative elements, as is the case in several corresponding Latin designs. Can such a device, however, actually work as a functional element in Greek letterforms (e.g. as a visual balancing device at the upper right ending of letters γ, δ, κ, ν, ς, υ and ψ – see Versus level 2, p. 9 on the pdf specimen)? And, if so, why should such a practice be considered wrong or to be a form of ‘latinization’?
  3. The same argument applies to the existence of serifs in Greek letterforms (which are considered to be a ‘latinization’ element). Some would say that these elements serve only a decorative purpose, which is superfluous in the Greek alphabet. However, one could argue that they provide a vital visual balance in certain letterforms or that they enhance text legibility, thus raising the question: can such elements be ignored at the risk of losing any benefits, solely in the name of maintaining purity of form and avoiding ‘latinization’?

Eventually, there are some more practical and urgent issues:

  1. Are there Greek letters that could be ‘hellenized’ further, and if so, which should these be?
  2. Should there be more/less degrees of ‘greekness’, and, if so, how could these degrees be distinguished? Could there be, for example, an additional degree on the scale where the strict vertical contrast axis is replaced by an inconsistent, ‘unconventional’ contrast axis, similar to that of Απλά? Would this be the last degree on the scale or should we go even further back in history, to forms based on handwriting (e.g. Les Grecs du Roi, Fig. 3 on the pdf specimen), or go as far back as Byzantine letterforms?
  3. The typeface is accompanied by an italics variation and a set of small caps, but lacks, however, a heavier weight. These variations are sufficient for use in flowing text (e.g. in literature). The idea, however, is to use the different levels of ‘greekness’, available as OpenType stylistic sets, as a means of creating hierarchy and/or emphasis in a way similar to using heavier weight variants. Can such an approach work effectively, or are the differences between the different degrees of ‘greekness’ too subtle to perform effectively in such a role?
  4. Eventually, can such an approach to the design of a contemporary Greek text typeface, that provides a variety of Greek styles/degrees of ‘greekness’ instead of weight variants, work? Does it make an interesting and practical point (if at all) or does it have nothing more to add to the discourse regarding Greek typography than simply creating yet another academic hypothesis?
Versus four degrees/levels of "Greekness"

!0021"0022#0023$0024%0025&0026'0027(0028
)0029*002a+002b,002c-002d.002e/002f00030
1003120032300334003450035600367003780038
90039:003a;003b<003c=003d>003e?003f@0040
A0041B0042C0043D0044E0045F0046G0047H0048
I0049J004aK004bL004cM004dN004eO004fP0050
Q0051R0052S0053T0054U0055V0056W0057X0058
Y0059Z005a[005b\005c]005d^005e_005f`0060
a0061b0062c0063d0064e0065f0066g0067h0068
i0069j006ak006bl006cm006dn006eo006fp0070
q0071r0072s0073t0074u0075v0076w0077x0078
y0079z007a{007b|007c}007d~007e00800082
ƒ00830084008500860087ˆ00880089Š008a
008bŒ008cŽ008e00910092009300940095
00960097˜00980099š009a009bœ009cž009e
Ÿ009f¡00a1¢00a2£00a3¤00a4¥00a5¦00a6§00a7
¨00a8©00a9«00ab¬00ac®00ae¯00af°00b0±00b1
²00b2³00b3´00b4µ00b500b6·00b7¸00b8¹00b9
»00bb¿00bfÀ00c0Á00c1Â00c2Ã00c3Ä00c4Å00c5
Æ00c6Ç00c7È00c8É00c9Ê00caË00cbÌ00ccÍ00cd
Î00ceÏ00cfÐ00d0Ñ00d1Ò00d2Ó00d3Ô00d4Õ00d5
Ö00d6×00d7Ø00d8Ù00d9Ú00daÛ00dbÜ00dcÝ00dd
Þ00deß00dfà00e0á00e1â00e2ã00e3ä00e4å00e5
æ00e6ç00e7è00e8é00e9ê00eaë00ebì00ecí00ed
î00eeï00efð00f0ñ00f1ò00f2ó00f3ô00f4õ00f5
ö00f6÷00f7ø00f8ù00f9ú00faû00fbü00fcý00fd
þ00feÿ00ffĀ0100ā0101Ă0102ă0103Ą0104ą0105
Ć0106ć0107Ĉ0108ĉ0109Ċ010aċ010bČ010cč010d
Ď010eď010fĐ0110đ0111Ē0112ē0113Ĕ0114ĕ0115
Ė0116ė0117Ę0118ę0119Ě011aě011bĜ011cĝ011d
Ğ011eğ011fĠ0120ġ0121Ģ0122ģ0123Ĥ0124ĥ0125
Ħ0126ħ0127Ĩ0128ĩ0129Ī012aī012bĬ012cĭ012d
Į012eį012fİ0130ı0131IJ0132ij0133Ĵ0134ĵ0135
Ķ0136ķ0137ĸ0138Ĺ0139ĺ013aĻ013bļ013cĽ013d
ľ013eĿ013fŀ0140Ł0141ł0142Ń0143ń0144Ņ0145
ņ0146Ň0147ň0148ʼn0149Ŋ014aŋ014bŌ014cō014d
Ŏ014eŏ014fŐ0150ő0151Œ0152œ0153Ŕ0154ŕ0155
Ŗ0156ŗ0157Ř0158ř0159Ś015aś015bŜ015cŝ015d
Ş015eş015fŠ0160š0161Ţ0162ţ0163Ť0164ť0165
Ŧ0166ŧ0167Ũ0168ũ0169Ū016aū016bŬ016cŭ016d
Ů016eů016fŰ0170ű0171Ų0172ų0173Ŵ0174ŵ0175
Ŷ0176ŷ0177Ÿ0178Ź0179ź017aŻ017bż017cŽ017d
ž017e΄0384΅0385Ά0386·0387Έ0388Ή0389Ί038a
Ό038cΎ038eΏ038fΐ0390Α0391Β0392Γ0393Δ0394
Ε0395Ζ0396Η0397Θ0398Ι0399Κ039aΛ039bΜ039c
Ν039dΞ039eΟ039fΠ03a0Ρ03a1Σ03a3Τ03a4Υ03a5
Φ03a6Χ03a7Ψ03a8Ω03a9Ϊ03aaΫ03abά03acέ03ad
ή03aeί03afΰ03b0α03b1β03b2γ03b3δ03b4ε03b5
ζ03b6η03b7θ03b8ι03b9κ03baλ03bbμ03bcν03bd
ξ03beο03bfπ03c0ρ03c1ς03c2σ03c3τ03c4υ03c5
φ03c6χ03c7ψ03c8ω03c9ϊ03caϋ03cbό03ccύ03cd
ώ03ce1e801e811e821e831e841e851e9e
1ea01ea11eca1ecb1ecc1ecd20132014
201520182019201a201c201d201e2020
2021202220302039203a203d
Alternate greek characters (Stylistic Set 1)
αγηικλμαγηικλμ η καλαμιάη καλαμιά
νξπτυχψνξπτυχψ ξεψυχώνταςξεψυχώντας
Alternate greek characters (Stylistic Set 2)
γδεκνγδεκν γδέρνωγδέρνω
ςυφψςυφψ ψόφησεςψόφησες
Alternate greek characters (Stylistic Set 3)
αβγδεζαβγδεζ γάβγισμαγάβγισμα
θικνξρθικνξρ ξεθύμανεξεθύμανε
ςυφψΥΫςυφψΥΫ ΎστεροφημίαΎστεροφημία
yy yesterdayyesterday
Old style numerals
01234567890123456789
Small caps (smcp, a2sc, c2sc)
abcdeαβγδεabcdeαβγδε
random pangram
48px
caps
The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog (en)
1. Vs. Pack (2 fonts) from €50
add to cart
The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog (en)
2. Vs. from €25
add to cart
The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog (en)
3. Vs. Italic from €25
add to cart
TOP