Design in Typography.
LI.
Banner And Drapery Designs.

Continuing the subject of Banner Combinations, after our digression in last month's issue, we need only briefly refer to American imitations. We know not with whom they originated, but we find them in Marder, Luse, & Co.'s specimen-book. In imitating the English model, the German engraver showed both originality and taste, and contrived to give his design an artistic unity of its own. The American, on the other hand, in attempting to introduce new features, produced an incongruous and inartistic result, greatly inferior to either of his models. The American Banner No. 1, containing 28 characters, is a coarsely-cut series, with a pole and a contrivance by which the banner may be represented as blown out obliquely. This device is of little value, as the perpendicular and horizontal lines of type on the face of the banner are thus thrown out of perspective, destroying any illusion that might otherwise exist. Series 2 has ten characters copied from Schelter & Giesecke, the remainder, twenty in number, being mostly the same as in No. 1, and altogether out of harmony with the others. No brass-rule is required with either of these combinations. We scarcely think that the design is by Marder, Luse, & Co., it falls so far below their ordinary standard.

The centennial year 1876 may be fairly taken as that of the new birth of typographic design in America. In England, and on the continent, it was a year or two earlier. The type-ribbon, simple though it appears, marks the beginning of an era of progress in England, while two continental designs of exceeding beauty and world-wide use—the Ivy and the Ribbon-and-Flower — stand out prominently from any preceding design. Derriey's artistic productions, now somewhat antiquated, had been found sufficient in the meantime. We have made many inquiries, but so far cannot say by whom the Ivy and the Ribbon-and-Flower were designed or produced —we suspect, however, that they are of Viennese origin. A prominent American founder (who casts the latter) once informed us that it was English, but English founders assure us that he was in error.

We well remember receiving from a friend at the Centennial exhibition a copy of the Typographic Advertiser, Nos. 83-84—our first introduction to American typefounding. We remember also the impression produced upon us, by the Drapery combination, the first original border of any importance produced by the Johnson Foundry. We lost no time in adding this and sundry other of their novelties to stock, and our little case contained the first American types ever landed in New Zealand. The design is evidently suggested by the Banners, but the idea is much extended and considerably varied. The following is the synopsis of characters, as originally shown: making 32 in all. The advantage of the additional pieces is manifest. After having used this combination in nearly all its forms, and become thoroughly familiar with it, we are inclined to doubt whether it is equal to the Banner. In most of the designs there is a want of definition. The simplest are the best—as a rule, the more they are elaborated, the worse they look. Before this border appeared, we ourselves had tried in various ways to sketch drapery folds adapted to rectangular types; but found certain inherent defects in any plan we attempted; and these defects exist to a greater or less extent in any curtain or drapery border yet in the field. The folds shown in the corner- and centre-pieces unnaturally disappear just where an artist would broaden them out and shade them off. In the second place, curved lines at the ends and centres are continued by horizontal lines, or rules must be specially and carefully curved for each pattern. Then the deep shades in the angles and folds are cut sharply off, as for example in the upper corner pieces in our first design, and in the folding-pieces. The suspender is good, though not very useful in this combination. The centre-piece had better not be used—it always gives trouble, and never belnds with the design. We dislike the effect of the knotted upper corners: those with the rod are better, but do not look well in use. The thin line at the head bears no comparison with the heavily shaded fold. The cylindrical curve of the pole should show through the curtain right across, and the shade could easily have been so arranged as to allow this to be done, or a special shaded piece in emerald for the top —a straight line with a shadow of curved lines falling from it—would have given a good finish, both to this and to any suitable shaded brass or metal rule. As it is, the striped little projection at the end spoils them—they will not join up with anything either in the combination or out of it. As originally designed there was but one corner, the large external quadrant. A square internal corner was afterwards added; but both are imperfect. An inner and outer corner on the body of the fringe should have been made a first essential. We have made the most effective use of the design as a fringe to other combinations, and the lack of such corners has often been felt. There is some really good designing in this border, though here and there faults are perceptible, as in the left-hand roller-piece, where the cords of the fringe, instead of becoming narrower in the curve, as perspective would require, are jammed together at the bottom, where they should be of the normal width. The chief fault, however, is unavoidable in a design of the kind. The deep wrinkles at the upper corners of a curtain fall in broadening curves to the very centre, and this effect cannot be imitated in any type-combination.