Abstract
As part of an increasing urge for standardisation, examples for executing utilitarian lettering appeared in the twentieth century. In the design world, standardisation was not uncontroversial: the customary opposition between commercial reality and the cultural elite. This article, partly based on archival research, examines the history and creation of NEN 3225, which is the best-known Dutch standard letter. The lettering project started in 1944, during the German occupation, and it was not until 1962 that this standard appeared in book form. The celebrated type designer J. van Krimpen was a member of the responsible committee. He had strong design ideals. Unlike the lowbrow German standard letter DIN 1451, NEN 3225 proved not to be easy to execute for less experienced craftspeople.
Introduction
In Europe, standardisation was widely taken up institutionally at the beginning of the 20th century.1 Increasing industrialisation and mass production gave an important impetus to agreements on the uniformization of, for example, nuts, bolts and screws. This development also had its impact in the printing industry. However, the history of standardisation goes back further. During the French Revolution, for instance, standardisation of weights and measures were instituted to prevent widespread fraud. This resulted in the current metric system. Standards for executing utilitarian lettering also emerged internationally. In the Netherlands, NEN 3225 from 1962 was the most ambitious lettering standard. The involvement of J. van Krimpen, the founding father of Dutch type design, enabled this standard to gain a place in design history.
The concept of standardisation was not received unreservedly. Some saw it as a threat to cultural freedom and diversity. In 1914, the conflict caused a heated discussion at the Deutscher Werkbund (DWB), a still existing German association of artists, architects, industrialists, critics and entrepreneurs. Prominent members Hermann Muthesius (1861–1927) and Henry van de Velde (1863–1957) appeared to hold entirely different views on this subject.2 Muthesius, an architect and civil servant, considered standardisation essential for good industrial design and Germany’s chances as an export country. Van de Velde, an architect and designer who worked for wealthy, private clients, saw Muthesius’ ideas as an attack on his profession. He desired individual freedom for artists, even when designing everyday objects. This discussion is known as the ‘Werkbund-Streit’. It was the well-known conflict between commercial reality and the cultural elite. At the outbreak of World War I, standardisation proved to be of military importance for Germany. After the war, Germany’s economic malaise and housing shortage demonstrated its social necessity.
In the year of the ‘Werkbund-Streit’, a major exhibition organised by the DWB was held in Cologne. The Dutch press paid ample attention to it and the artist and author Richard Roland Holst published reflective contributions about it in the newspaper Algemeen Handelsblad.3 In the Netherlands, partly influenced by the Werkbund exhibition, a plan developed to establish a similar association in which artists, representatives of industry and representatives of commerce would jointly strive for innovation in architectural and decorative arts.4 The initiators of this ‘Driebond’ (Three-union) were Willem Penaat, designer and chairman of the Nederlandsche Vereeniging voor Ambachts- en Nijverheidskunst (Dutch Society of Craft and Industrial Design), and Jan Gratama, architect. The fact that the Driebond ultimately did not materialise, had to do with the First World War and the distrust between manufacturers and artists/designers – it was no less prevalent in the Netherlands.
The Dutch Standards Institute
Although the United Kingdom already had an ‘Engineering Standards Committee’ in 1901, the Netherlands started relatively early. In 1915, civil engineer E.A. du Croo, gave an important impetus to a national approach with his ardent plea for ‘Normalisatie!’ (Standardisation!).5 This appeared in the Tijdschrift der Maatschappij van Nijverheid, a journal of Dutch entrepreneurs. Du Croo was co-owner of an Amsterdam company that specialised in the production of narrow-gauge railway material. He probably visited the Werkbund exhibition, which included a hall devoted to transport. In his contribution, Du Croo campaigned for standardisation in manufacturing, both of parts and finished products. He argued that it made no sense as an example, that there were so many different types of rivets and bridges. To clarify, he made a comparison with Meccano toys, which had been on the market for several years at the time: ‘We all know the “mechanico” [sic] with which our boys often construct various objects based on examples. Depending on the size of the box, it contains about ten to twenty elements, rods of various lengths and shapes, provided with holes. When the elements are combined, they can be used to build a bridge, an Eiffel tower, a house or countless other objects. That is where we have to go. Limit the elements!’ Du Croo’s appeal helped to prompt the establishment a year later, of a standardisation committee under the auspices of the main board of the Maatschappij van Nijverheid (Society of Industry) and the board of directors of the Koninklijk Instituut van Ingenieurs (Royal Institute of Engineers).6 This standards committee sought further professionalisation and established the Centraal Normalisatiebureau (Central Standards Office) in 1918. Contacts were established with sister international organisations, including the already mentioned British standards committee and the ‘Normenausschuss der deutschen Industrie’ (founded in 1917).7 Among the first published standards for Dutch industry in 1918 were rivets and threaded bolts.
N 27 & N 28: Standard Letters for Technical Drawings
Quite early on, the Dutch standards committee turned its attention to technical drawings. As a guideline for titles and statements, N 27 (letters) and N 28 (numerals) appeared in 1919 as ‘provisionally approved’ designs.8 These standards were finalised in May 1920, and were on sale in loose-leaf form (fig. 1). Printed examples for technical lettering, including for geographical maps, could already be found in nineteenth-century lettering model books. Since the early twentieth century, stencils were on the market for that purpose, such as the 1909 patented Normograph by Berlin teacher Georg Bahr.9 The standardisation committee’s proposal did not involve a new design, but made use of Bahr stencils, because it was easy to learn: ‘If no special aesthetic demands are made of the writing, the letters below, which are drawn with Bahr’s “Normograph”, are recommended.’10 Although Germany had introduced a written, inclined block letter for technical drawings earlier in 1919 (DIN 16), the Dutch standards committee still considered upright letters to be more aesthetically pleasing and clearer.11 Standards N 27 and N 28 were replaced in 1962.12
Hoofdcommissie voor de normalisatie in Nederland, Technische teekeningen, lettersoorten: N 27 (3rd edn.; [The Hague] 1933). A4 sheet, printed on both sides
Citation: Quaerendo 53, 1 (2023) ; 10.1163/15700690-20231158
DIN 1451: The German Standard Letter
At the Deutscher Normenausschuß, under which name the German standards organisation operated from 1926, the need arose to issue a widely applicable letter model for utilitarian use. It had to be usable in government, industry and traffic. In 1936, DIN 1451 saw the light as a definitive standard in three series: narrow, normal and wide, with oblique and bold variants (fig. 2). The driving force behind the project was the Siemens engineer Ludwig Goller (1884–1964), who served on several DIN committees. He also compiled an explanatory and detailed manual, in A4 format of course, which was a DIN paper format from 1922.13 The brochure presents the letter in even and simple form, and therefore easily applied in, among other things, working drawings, traffic and street signs and control panels of machines. The DIN 1451 had, as Goller put it, ‘the simplest, strictly functional form possible for a letter’.14 The design could be drawn by unskilled hands using an underlying grid of squares, and besides, stencils were readily available for sale. DIN 1451 is best known as the letter of German road signs, but a 1995 digital adaptation brought it to international popularity.15
Dinorm, Normschriften, Engschrift, Mittelschrift, Breitschrift: DIN 1451 (2nd edn.; Berlin 1940). A4 brochure
Citation: Quaerendo 53, 1 (2023) ; 10.1163/15700690-20231158
DIN standards attracted particular interest from the graphic design avant-garde of the time. The modernists pursued a machine aesthetic.16 In 1928, Jan Tschichold, in his handbook Die Neue Typographie (in A5 format), even called the engineer ‘the designer of our time’.17 The engineer was unburdened by tradition, had no aesthetic prejudices and worked strictly functionally.
NEN 3225: The Dutch Standard Letter18
The Centraal Normalisatiebureau in The Hague had initiated a plan to issue new letter and numeral examples in early 1944, during the German occupation. As a starting point, it considered adopting DIN 1451 which was officially accepted eight years earlier. The standard could be useful for utilitarian lettering on ‘warning signs, placards, lantern plates, stamps, etc.’19 An exploratory meeting of the Dutch main committee for standardisation was held on 14 April 1944.20 Invited were representatives of the Bedrijfsgroep Grafische Industrie (Graphic Industry Business Group, G.W. Ovink), the Dutch Railways (H.G.J. Schelling) and Philips’ light bulb factories (N.A.J. Voorhoeve). Due to a misunderstanding, Ovink was not present at that meeting. Schelling was very outspoken. To him it had to be a Dutch letter, with the collaboration of a Dutch artist. He was thinking of S.H. de Roos. In his opinion, the DIN 1451 could by no means be considered. Asked about this by the main committee, Schelling said he could create a design himself. He wanted to do so in a working committee consisting of a fellow architect and two graphic artists. Besides De Roos, he named architect G. Friedhoff and designer and academy teacher W.J. Rozendaal as suitable persons. They parted ways with the intention of setting up such a working committee. Ovink’s later response is included at the end of the report. Like Schelling, he appeared to be of the opinion that an artist should be involved and also saw no merit in the DIN 1451 (‘not attractive’). Apart from a sans-serif letter, it would be desirable, he thought, to develop a ‘mediævalletter’ (letter with serifs in Renaissance style). Finally, Ovink argued that the standard should be accompanied by an extensive explanation.
That five-member working committee for standardisation of letters and numerals, designated ‘Bo-d’, held its first meeting on 19 July 1944 at the Dutch Railway offices in Utrecht. Schelling was chairman and Ovink the secretary. As De Roos had decided not to take a seat, J. van Krimpen was invited.21 The other architect present, as proposed by Schelling, was Friedhoff. Rozendaal was absent and would soon leave the working committee. Friedhoff had to resign in 1946 due to his busy schedule as Chief Government Architect. The committee completed the work with the following members: Schelling (chairman), Ovink (secretary), Van Krimpen, S.L. Hartz (from 1946), C. Wegener Sleeswijk (from 1946) and H.A. Warmelink (from 1949). The railway architect H.G.J. Schelling (1888–1978) was a great admirer of Frank Lloyd Wright and collected ex libris. During this period, his personal stationery showed a vignette created by the traditional wood engraver Dirk van Gelder. Schelling had an active role in several standardisation committees (brick, plumbing and daylighting).22 G.W. Ovink (1912–1984) obtained a PhD in 1938 on Legibility, Atmosphere-value and Forms of Printing Types and joined Typefoundry Amsterdam as an aesthetic adviser after the war. He would later become a professor of printing history at the University of Amsterdam. Book and type designer J. van Krimpen (1892–1958) enjoyed international prestige. He and S.L. Hartz (1912–1995) were employed by Joh. Enschedé and Sons in Haarlem. This tradition-rich, graphic company suited them, as both adhered to classical design views and were averse to modernism. In the war years, during his period in hiding, the copper engraver Hartz had immersed himself in type design. From 1951, he worked for the English Linotype on the book face Juliana, that would be released in 1958. C. Wegener Sleeswijk (1909–1991) was an architect and, from 1953, a professor at the Technische Hogeschool in Delft (now Delft University of Technology). It is unclear why the notary and bibliophile H.A. Warmelink (1890–1959) was asked as a committee member. It is known, however, that he co-founded a dining club with Van Krimpen in 1948. There, he once referred to himself as a ‘letter-loving layman’.23
Schelling, who had previously collaborated on lettering models for the railways, immediately started designing in 1944. In doing so, he could count on the assistance of his employer’s drawing department for execution and copying. He visited Van Krimpen in Haarlem at the end of May, who also agreed to produce drawings.24 Presumably, after this meeting, Schelling abandoned his early concept: a ‘purely mathematical’ sans-serif.25 At the first committee session on 19 July, he appeared to have a modified trial alphabet ready, to which the other members immediately suggested changes. A point of discussion was whether a sans-serif was desirable as a standard at all. It was decided to make models with and without serifs in different weights and possibly in different widths. The sans-serif eventually turned into a design in the humanist tradition of the Johnston (1916) and even more so, Gill Sans (1928). For the principled Van Krimpen, there was no other option. He made the Romulus Sans in this style in the early 1930s (unreleased, fig. 3). In August 1944, Schelling wrote to him: ‘I very much hope that the joint work on the letters will lead to a good result. But even if it does not, I am still satisfied with what it has already taught me. Gladly I will continue to count on your cooperation.’26 In autumn, commission work came to a halt due to the war. Shortly after, the ‘Dutch Famine’ arrived. Consultations resumed after the war in 1947 and lasted until about 1956. In July of 1948, Van Krimpen sent Schelling a (sans-serif) ‘g’ with the following note: ‘I tried very hard to keep the line the same thickness everywhere but I am sure I did not succeed. Whether this is due to my astigmatism or something else I dare not say. However, it may not be so bad since it gives your draughtsman the opportunity to make some improvements’ (fig. 4).27 This draughtsman also appears to have assisted in converting some of Van Krimpen’s pencil drawings into ink drawings on tracing-paper. By the way, it is often difficult to tell from the correspondence which variant is involved. Ovink later labelled the sans-serif alphabet series as a ‘design by committee’, although it seems to be attributable mainly to Schelling, his draughtsman and Van Krimpen.28
Romulus Sans (unreleased), as reproduced in J. van Krimpen, On Designing and Devising Type (New York etc. 1957), p. 73
Citation: Quaerendo 53, 1 (2023) ; 10.1163/15700690-20231158
Letter from J. van Krimpen to H.G.J. Schelling, 16 July 1948. Carbon copy in Archive of Jan van Krimpen, Allard Pierson, UvA
Citation: Quaerendo 53, 1 (2023) ; 10.1163/15700690-20231158
The commission for the serif version went exclusively to Van Krimpen, who delivered the first version of the capitals to Schelling on 2 September 1948.29 In the summer of 1950, capitals and lower case of the roman serif progressed to an advanced stage. There had been talk of an accompanying italic for several years. As late as 1954, Van Krimpen informed the commission that he had a number of these drawings beyond the sketch stage. Since time was pressing, Schelling had already contributed a slanted version, made under his own supervision.30 But an italic serif would never appear. Schelling later states that it was waived, ‘because the italic’s personality would not fit well with the series of this book’.31
Van Krimpen’s type designs are generally variations on one theme, and his serif version of the NEN 3225 is no exception. While he was working on it, Spectrum was in production. His standard letter clearly demonstrates kinship with the contrast-rich book face, and with the earlier Haarlemmer. Almost inevitably, there are also similarities with drawn lettering from the same period, such as the capitals for the Amstel Brewery (c. 1948) and those for the National Monument on Dam Square in Amsterdam (1956).32 Although the brief entailed drawing standard letters for wide, practical use, ‘fitness for purpose’ was not really something that concerned Van Krimpen. For instance, his serif version of NEN 3225 offers no less than nine f-ligatures in addition to several capital variants – quite exceptional in a lettering book – and the Q features an extraordinarily long tail. Walter Tracy put it this way: ‘Van Krimpen thought like an artist, not like a designer. He worked from an inner vision, not from a broad view of practical realities and requirements.’33 In short, NEN 3225 is far removed from the principles of DIN 1451, as expressed by Goller: ‘Idiosyncratic lettering that corresponds to personal attitudes, however “beautiful”, would not serve the purpose in these cases’.34
So much progress had been made by October 1950, that a comprehensive preliminary report of the Bo-d committee was deemed expedient.35 This went to the main committee for standardisation with all the drawings available at that time. The document, signed by all members, provides an insight into progress from its inception in 1944. As it turned out, there had been monthly meetings since 1947, during which the submitted sketch designs were discussed in minute detail. Corrections were then executed in the drawing office of the Dutch railways, where copies, presumably as whiteprints, could also be made. The preliminary report underlines the cultural importance of the project: ‘By far the greatest application of the standard letters lies in the field of public lettering […]. The lettering of such objects contributes significantly to defining the aesthetic aspect of our everyday environment’.36 Because the main committee might have expected a more simplified draft proposal in the spirit of DIN 1451, the Bo-d committee explained: ‘In short, in our opinion, we do not consider the standardisation of letters possible if by this it means such a deformation and simplification of our letters and numerals that they fit into an extremely simple scheme, which can be described with a few figures. On the other hand, we are convinced that we can only achieve the stated goal by giving a series of good examples, designed to be easily reproducible without compromising good letterforms.’37 The committee appeared ‘neither able nor willing’ to change its opinion. And leaving no further explanation, it states that the usual procedure for review of a provisional publication makes little sense: after all, objective criteria is lacking in this instance. It is thus a principle ‘à prendre ou à laisser’.38 The alphabets and numerals, the committee believed, could also be of great value for ‘the professional education of painters, decorators, for advertising designers, manufacturers of facade letters, sculptors, etc., and in general for any education, in which drawn letters are used.’39 Apparently, comments had nevertheless come from the central standards office and from the Philips Company because, in a letter dated 20 July 1951, the working committee once again reiterated its views.40
Already in the October 1950 preliminary report mentioned above, the printed edition of the lettering models was tabled for discussion. The working committee expressly asked to be involved in their production and design and expresses a preference for loose sheets in a considerably larger format than the usual A4. The first draft of an explanatory note dates from early 1951. Thereafter, there was much discussion and correspondence with the main committee about text, design and production.41 There was some repeated confusion about the ambiguous Dutch term ‘romein’.42
In A4 format, Nederlandse letter- en cijfervoorbeelden: NEN 3225 (Dutch Letter and Numeral Examples) was published by the Dutch Standards Institute in May 1962, eighteen years after the project began (figs. 5, 6, 7). Van Krimpen had since died. Lack of financial resources had significantly delayed publication after the project’s completion in 1956. As a result, additional corrections could have been made. The publication has an adhesive binding and was printed on a two-colour press (grey grid with letters in red, blue, brown or green). It cost 15 guilders.43 Interestingly, Van Krimpen’s debut type Lutetia was used for the text. The publication may not have appeared loose-leaf, but the lettering models were printed one-sided, so they would not show through inconveniently in the event of any tracing. The letters and numerals were placed on millimetre paper, without fitting in exactly. The individual forms were placed in a rectangle, indicating the minimum spacing. The NEN family 3225 now consists of a serif roman in one weight (normal) and of a sans-serif roman in three weights (light, normal, bold), with a narrow version (normal) exclusively in capitals. Only the light sans-serif has a companion, not italic but slanted, as in the Romulus (fig. 8). This concept, borrowed from Van Krimpen’s friend Stanley Morison, of the slanted roman (instead of a proper italic) as a secondary type had soon turned out to be a failed experiment.44 The fact that it was repeated here, was presumably due to the more utilitarian context. The committee believed that missing variants could be made by interpolation. In particular, it saw as its area of application ‘public lettering, executed in various ways (painted, printed, cut in stone, in forged or cast material), applied in architectural context, or on directional signs, nameplates, counter inscriptions, gravestones, shop windows, and so on.’45 Of course, it explains why the DIN 1451 is unsuitable for this purpose: it is not clear, nor aesthetically pleasing.
NEN 3225, normal sans-serif (roman), in: Nederlandse letter- en cijfervoorbeelden ([The Hague] 1962)
Citation: Quaerendo 53, 1 (2023) ; 10.1163/15700690-20231158
NEN 3225, serif (roman) by J. van Krimpen, in: Nederlandse letter- en cijfervoorbeelden ([The Hague] 1962)
Citation: Quaerendo 53, 1 (2023) ; 10.1163/15700690-20231158
NEN 3225, serif (roman), f-ligatures, by J. van Krimpen, in: Nederlandse letter- en cijfervoorbeelden ([The Hague] 1962)
Citation: Quaerendo 53, 1 (2023) ; 10.1163/15700690-20231158
NEN 3225, light sans-serif (slanted), in: Nederlandse letter- en cijfervoorbeelden ([The Hague] 1962)
Citation: Quaerendo 53, 1 (2023) ; 10.1163/15700690-20231158
Schelling and Ovink would both publish on NEN 3225 after the project was completed.46 Schelling’s piece is an adapted version of the foreword, so at least a significant part of it may be attributed to him. Ovink published his report in an English typography yearbook. He attributes the serif design to Van Krimpen, which had not been done in Nederlandse letter- en cijfervoorbeelden: ‘Van Krimpen’s drawings, masterfully executed, convincing in principle and detail, and showing complete unity in style, were gladly accepted by the committee. Still, a number of smaller corrections were proposed by the committee, and agreed to by the designer.’47 Presumably these corrections are largely to the credit of Hartz, who then had considerable experience as a type designer.48 In his review, designer-author Fons van der Linden praised the serif version, but was less enthusiastic about the sans-serif forms: ‘they have much of the Gill sans-serif, but precisely at critical points, they do not deviate from it very happily’.49 The NEN 3225 would not really cause a furore. For that, the designs were simply too difficult for less experienced craftspeople to draw. By the 1960s, the market for lettering model books had shrunk considerably anyway. This was mainly due to the rise of ready-made letters, such as self-adhesive plastic letters and Letraset dry-transfer letters.50 The narrow sans-serif capitals acquired a certain cult status as the letter of Amsterdam street signs.51 In 2017, the standard was officially withdrawn.52
J. Heskett, Industrial Design (repr.; London 1995). See also T. de Rijk, Norm=vorm. Over standaardisatie en design (The Hague etc. 2010).
For a summary of this discussion see M. Kurz, Designstreit. Exemplarische Kontroversen über Gestaltung ([Paderborn] 2018), pp. 113–28.
Collected as R.N.R. Holst, Brieven over de tentoonstelling van den Duitschen Werkbund te Keulen (Rotterdam 1914).
See F. Huygen, Visies op vormgeving, vol. 1 (Amsterdam 2007), pp. 211–18, 462–3.
E.A. du Croo, ‘Normalisatie!’, in: Tijdschrift der Maatschappij van Nijverheid, 83 (1915), pp. 504–7; a response to this by D.H. Stigter appeared as ‘Gematigde normalisatie’, in: Tijdschrift der Maatschappij van Nijverheid, 83 (1915), pp. 540–4.
See ‘Normalisatie. Aan de Nederlandse nijverheid’, in: Tijdschrift der Maatschappij van Nijverheid, 84 (1916), pp. 243–4.
Hoofd-commissie voor de normalisatie in Nederland (Main committee for standardisation in the Netherlands), ‘1e jaarverslag 1917’, in: Tijdschrift der Maatschappij van Nijverheid, 86 (1918), pp. 246–50.
‘Ontwerp-standaardvormen der Hoofdcommissie voor de Normalisatie in Nederland. […] Toelichting bij de nos. 23, 24, 25 en 27’, in: De ingenieur, 34 (1919), pp. 713–15, and ‘Ontwerp-standaardvormen der Hoofdcommissie voor de Normalisatie in Nederland. […] Toelichting bij de nos. 20, 28, 29 en 30’, in: De ingenieur, 34 (1919), pp. 795–7.
See F. Hardwig & T. Maier, ‘From Lettering Guides to CNC Plotters. A Brief History of Technical Lettering Tools’, 2017. From the Typotheque website: https://www.typotheque.com/articles/, last accessed 12 October 2022.
‘Ontwerp-standaardvormen der Hoofdcommissie voor de Normalisatie in Nederland. […] Toelichting by de nos. 23, 24, 25 en 27’, art. cit. (n. 8), p. 714.
See A.-J. Pool, FF DIN Round. Digital Block Letters ([Berlin] 2010), p. 11.
Namely, by NEN 3094. See C. Rueck, ‘Letters en cijfers op tekeningen’, in: Normalisatie, 1962, pp. 168–70.
L. Goller, DIN Normschriften. Erläuterungen und Ergänzungen zu DIN 1451 und verwandten Normen (3rd., enl. edn.; Berlin 1942). Alongside this, the norm sheet itself appeared in 1936; seen by me the 2nd ed. from February 1940 (fig. 2).
Goller, op. cit (n. 13), p. 19.
See A.-J. Pool, ‘FF DIN. The History of a Contemporary Typeface’, Made with FontFont, eds. Jan Middendorp & Erik Spiekermann (New York 2007), pp. 66–73. Linotype released DIN Next by Akira Kobayashi and Sandra Winter in 2009.
See R. Kinross, Modern Typography. An Essay in Critical History (2nd ed.; London 2004), pp. 109–11.
J. Tschichold, Die neue Typographie (Berlin 1928), p. 11. See also De Rijk, op. cit. (n. 1), ‘De ingenieur als voorbeeld’, pp. 99–180.
The genesis of the NEN 3225 and its printed publication can be reconstructed through archival materials. Namely with the letters with enclosures as preserved in the Archive of Jan van Krimpen (UBA11) and in the Archive of G.W. Ovink (Tetterode, undisclosed), both held at the Allard Pierson, University of Amsterdam. I did not find any sketches or designs for letters, either as originals or whiteprints. The archive of the Netherlands Standardisation Institute (NNI) in Delft, as housed at the Noord-Hollands Archief in Haarlem, contains only the printed edition of the standard.
‘Voorlopig verslag van de Commissie Bo.d’, 5 October 1950, p. [1], carbon copy, Archive of Jan van Krimpen (n. 18).
A summary of this meeting, dated 8 May 1944, is held as a carbon copy in the Archive of Jan van Krimpen (n. 18).
The type designer De Roos endorsed the importance of standardisation but did not believe in letter standardisation, because in his opinion in that field the designer should be able to work in freedom; see minutes committee Bo-d, 19 July 1944, carbon copy, Archive of Jan van Krimpen (n. 18).
A. Evers, ‘Ir H.G.J. Schelling c.i, 70 jaar’, in: Bouwkundig weekblad, 76 (1958), pp. 509–11.
Namely Nonpareil; see Het Gezelschap Nonpareil 1948–2002, ed. T. Croiset van Uchelen (Amsterdam 2002), p. 77. Hartz, incidentally, was accepted as a member immediately in 1948, Ovink in 1949 and Wegener Sleeswijk in 1953.
See letters by Schelling in Archive of Jan van Krimpen (n. 18).
Minutes of the first meeting of the Bo-d committee, 19 July 1944, carbon copy, Archive of Jan van Krimpen (n. 18).
Schelling to Van Krimpen, 18 August 1944, Archive of Jan van Krimpen (n. 18).
Van Krimpen to Schelling, 16 July 1948, carbon copy, Archive of Jan van Krimpen (n. 18).
G.W. Ovink, ‘NEN 3225 Dutch Standard Alphabets’, in: Alphabet. International annual of Letterforms, 1 (1964), pp. 123–30, quote p. 124.
Schelling to Van Krimpen, 6 September 1948, Archive of Jan van Krimpen (n. 18).
See Bo-d working committee report, 30 November 1954, carbon copy, Archive of G.W. Ovink (n. 18).
H.G.J. Schelling, ‘Nederlandse letter- en cijfervoorbeelden’, in: Normalisatie, 37 (1961), pp. 113–15, quote p. 115. Ovink, art. cit. (n. 28), p. 130, also cites as reasons for the absence of an italic serif version the problems of redrawing and of determining letter width.
The monument lettering had been cut in travertine by J.M. Veldheer. Amstel lettering is reproduced in: K. Sierman et. al., Adieu aesthetica & mooie pagina’s! (The Hague etc. 1995), pp. 88–9. See also J.A.A.M. Biemans, ‘Rediscovered and Additional Calligraphy, Letterings and Drawings by Jan van Krimpen’, in: Quærendo, 42 (2012), pp. 201–18.
W. Tracy, Letters of Credit. A View of Type Design (London 1986), p. 120.
Goller, op. cit. (n. 13), p. 8.
‘Voorlopig verslag van de Commissie Bo-d’, 5 October 1950, carbon copy, Archive of Jan van Krimpen (n. 18).
‘Voorlopig verslag […]’, (n. 35), p. 3.
‘Voorlopig verslag […]’, (n. 35), p. 5.
‘Voorlopig verslag […]’, (n. 35), p. 6.
‘Voorlopig verslag […]’, (n. 35), p. 6.
H.G.J. Schelling (on behalf of working committee Bo-d) to the Central Standards Office, 20 July 1951, carbon copy, Archive of Jan van Krimpen (n. 18).
These documents are notably represented in the Archive of G.W. Ovink (n. 18).
It was then in use in the Netherlands for the opposite of italic – as is common today – and for the opposite of sans-serif, as in the explanatory notes to NEN 3225, or blackletter.
In current purchasing power, this is about 50 euros.
Tracy, op. cit. (n. 33), pp. 109–10.
[Dutch Standards Institute], Nederlandse letter- en cijfervoorbeelden: NEN 3225, ([The Hague] 1962), introd. (unpag.).
H.G.J. Schelling, ‘Letters en cijfers voor algemeen gebruik’, in: Bouwkundig weekblad, 5 April 1963, pp. 111–12, and Ovink, art. cit. (n. 28). See also Schelling, art. cit. (n. 31).
Ovink, art. cit. (n. 28), p. 129.
Hartz said in an interview in the late 1980s: ‘Van Krimpen was a very talented lettering artist. So he was ready in no time. And then you didn’t have to say anything more about it as far as he was concerned. But those letters had to be so simple that they could be used by ordinary craftspeople. We found the following solution: Van Krimpen sketched the letters; when he finished a letter, I criticised it and finally it was drawn out on millimetre paper by a technical draughtsman’, as quoted in: C. Kuitenbrouwer, ‘Bewegwijzering in Hollandse traditie’, in: NRC Handelsblad, 8 January 1987.
F. van der Linden, ‘Over letter- en cijfervoorbeelden: de niet-gedrukte letter behoeft een schone vorm’, in: Intergrafia, 29 April 1963, pp. 200–1.
See M. Lommen, Nederlandse belettering: twintigste-eeuwse modelboeken = Dutch lettering, 2 (Amsterdam 2018), p. 48.
Listen to Tjitske Mussche’s podcast, ‘Straatnaambordjes’, series Ongesigneerd, 29 May 2015. Accessed 12 October 2022, from the VPRO site: https://www.vpro.nl/programmas/ongesigneerd.html.
Many thanks to Robbie de Villiers and Jim Catel for their help with the translation.
