🚀 go-pugleaf

I think that fonts are really neat, and so I have lots and lots of
them.  I don't *use* them for anything (I don't publish newsletters),
but I love to play with them.  In fact, I own all three packages being
discussed.  Casady & Green's _Fluent Laser Fonts Library 2_ (aka C&G)
[120 typefaces, $99 mail order, both Postscript & TrueType], SoftKeys
_Key Fonts_ (aka SK) [100 typefaces, $49 mail order, both Postscript &
TrueType], and FontBank _Type Companion_ (aka FB) [250 typefaces, $95
mail order, Postscript only].  As an experiment I tried printing out
all of their Hobo clones (Harlequin, HobbyHeadline & Emmett
respectively) and compared it to a print out of Adobe's Hobo font.  So
I've graded their Hobo's on a 1-5 scale for different .

(1) Completeness of character sets.
	Adobe: 4.5
	C&G:   4.5
	SK:    2.5
	FB:    2.0
Both Adobe and C&G have essentially complete character sets.  Although
Adobe does omit some characters for no good reason I can see:
"#'+<=>@\^|~.  As far as the option characters, both include all the
standard accented characters.  Adobe does omit a few more characters
(dagger, section, paragraph, double dagger, per mill).  C&G has all
those, but omits all math & greek symbols.  (It does include some
fractions in their place, however).

Both SK & FB have far fewer characters.  Both have the numerals,
letters (upper & lower case) plus the !#$%&()*,-./:;?_ cent, pound,
(R), (C), TM, em-dash and curly single quotes characters.  SK adds
"'+<=>@[/]^`{|} dagger, section, bullet, beta, elipses, curly double
quotes, double dagger, per mill, en-dash (plus 9 I can't name or
reproduce) characters.  Both omit all accented characters and many
symbols.

(2) Closeness to the Adobe character shapes
	Adobe: 5.0 (naturally)
	C&G:   4.5
	SK:    4.0
	FB:    3.0
Hobo is a display face, so it wasn't originally created with a full
character set.  So it's mostly a judgement call for what punctuation
and option characters match the "real" Hobo.  The major differences are
with the lower case letters.  Adobe & SK have the descenders at the
baseline, while C&G and FB have the descenders below the baseline.
SK is further below the baseline than C&G.

The problems with C&G are minor.  The (R), (C) and TM symbols look like
Helvetica not Hobo.  The lower case letters have a lower x-height. But
it's a good Hobo.  SK has definite problems with the shape of the `d`,
`h` and `l` characters. The general characters are too fat.  FB looks
like Hobo Bold.  The 'g' is way off.  And overall it lacks some of the
nice little details of Hobo (the bowls of the 'p' & 'q', the curl at
the end of the '2', things like that).

(3) How much I like the overall collection, usefullness & quality
	Adobe: 5.0
	C&G:   4.8
	SK:    3.8
	FB:    2.0
Adobe is a very nice high quality collection, but is far too expensive.

C&G is wonderful.  See their ad in MacWorld, 11/92, page 232 for tiny
samples of the fonts.  A nice variety of fonts.  Several useful san
serif fonts that can be used for body text.  One san serif family has
14 faces (Regular, Book, Demi-Bold, Bold, Extra-Bold, Bold Condensed,
Extra-Bold Condensed [plus Italic of all of them]).  Some useful serif
fonts, several very nice script fonts, and many useful decorative
fonts.  The two uncial decorative fonts (Kells and Meath) are personal
favorites.  On the whole, this collection nicely complements the
standard offerings from Apple & Adobe.

SK is much more of a clone collection.  It has many faces for body text
(serif & san serif), but they are clones of standard fonts.  The
trouble with these clones is that it does not have complete character
sets, and the quality is not up to par.  But for messing around it's of
use to me.

FB is all decorative fonts.  Many of them are really weird looking, and
I can't imagine ever using several of them.  The character sets are
very limited.  Letters, numbers, some punctuation, and a handful of
option characters.  In fact, upper case only fonts don't even have the
lower case letters defined.  Three faces from this collection are
available via ftp: ballet, muriel & roostheavy.  Try the usual places
(sumex, archive.umich.edu) and judge the quality for yourself.

/John

donottrytosolvealllifesproblemsatoncelearntodreadeachdayasitcomes-ly