Warnock Pro versus Minion Pro

NeoPrimitive

unread,

Jan 1, 2003, 6:50:58 AM1/1/03

to

I recently came across a company annual report produced in Indesign 2 and set in Warnock Pro. At text sizes (10 pt) I find Warnock almost like Minion (or maybe I dont have that typographic eye?), but at display sizes, Warnock Pro Display IMHO is looks stunnningly distinguished. (But I must say I don't very much care for Warnock's Italics--Minion italics look better.)

I'd like to know the other users' experience and opinion on Warnock Pro Opticals versus Minion Pro Opticals, since I am so attracted now to Warnock I am thinking of asking my boss to order a set of Warnock Pro Opticals. But among my concerns is whether Warnock Pro is as rich in glyphs as Minion Pro. Has Warnock any other drawbacks that prevent it from being a strong competitor to Minion?

NeoPrimitive

John Nolan

unread,

Jan 1, 2003, 9:42:20 AM1/1/03

to

I think Warnock has more or less the same range as Minion - there are few other choices if you want to set roman text with a matching Greek, and I think they may be the only fonts offering matching Greek in OpenType.

Minion, is, I think, more neutral than Warnock. Warnock has more toothiness.

One thing you should note: Minion is more condensed - it sets more words in a given space than Warnock. This may or may not matter to you.

On the other hand, not being as condensed, Warnock may be usable at smaller sizes than Minion (I haven't tried, I don't own Warnock.)

If you want to see the two fonts in action, go to Charles Hedrick's site, <http://www.nbcs.rutgers.edu/~hedrick/typography> where you can download the same doc set in these fonts (and several others). It's a great page.

Neil Keller

unread,

Jan 1, 2003, 9:53:05 AM1/1/03

to

Neo,

They're both well-designed, readable type families, well-equipped to do most of what you might ask from them. You can go to: <http://www.adobe.com/type/main.html> and click through on the hotlinks and take a look at the full character sets of each font in their respective families.

But, it bothers me a bit that you are pitting the two type families against each other as if one were inherently "better" than the other. Font selection (as is with selecting anything that is well-designed and similar in general appearance) tends to run more heavily as a fuzzy subjective choice than a clear black-and-white choice. There is no clear-cut reason why one should be more favorable than the other as taste, personal experience and background, emotions of the moment -- the "feel" of the type -- all play a role in the selection process.

If you want a hard-nosed reason why to order either (or both) sets, it's because they're substantial, classically-designed, readable families that are flexible in how they can be used. They both have lasting power.

Maybe this answers your question.

Neil

Guy Smiley

unread,

Jan 1, 2003, 11:09:57 AM1/1/03

to

Minion is the house body-text typeface for the journal "Nature", arguably the most prestigious scientific journal in the World. They use it to good effect with Gill Sans as a display face. You can see an example of this here:
<http://homepages.nyu.edu/~mnn7630/Hes1_NV.pdf>

-Mike Nitabach

Guy Smiley

unread,

Jan 1, 2003, 1:11:14 PM1/1/03

to

Correction: I believe that the display face used by "Nature" is actually Stone Sans, not Gill Sans.
--Mike Nitabach

Peter Kahrel

unread,

Jan 1, 2003, 6:28:59 PM1/1/03

to

Peter Kahrel

unread,

Jan 1, 2003, 6:29:07 PM1/1/03

to

Mike,

It's neither--they use Frutiger (and Helvetica in the vertical text). Congrats with your Nature publication!

Peter

Guy Smiley

unread,

Jan 1, 2003, 7:59:59 PM1/1/03

to

Thanks for the clarification. The text face is Minion, though, isn't it?
--Mike Nitabach

Peter Kahrel

unread,

Jan 1, 2003, 8:35:54 PM1/1/03

to

It is. (In Acrobat, you can see which fonts are used in a document via File\Document properties\Fonts ...).

Peter