First time here? Maybe read the FAQ.
Captura de pantalla 2021-03-15 a las 5.49.30.png
asked by (110 points)

2 Answers

+1 vote

Only finding similar: Scout Bold Condensed

answered by Champ (10.8k points)
Many thanks for your help! However, I think Scout was drawn and ultimately marketed somewhere between 2006 and 2008. The record label in the image dates from the early 80s.

My guess is that it could be a case of DIN Bold Condensed, considering the general proportions and the straight leg of the "r".

Thanks again for your comment!
I only offered Scout as a similar (and I am well aware that it post-dates your image).

DIN is also similar, but the aperture of its G is too open and the spur at the bottom of the G isn’t square enough.
Unfortunately, not all phototypesetting faces from 36 years ago have survived into the digital age.
I truly thank you for your effort and your contributions. Maybe it is just that I want to carefully trace the provenance of the font. It may sound absurd, but knowing there is a history of typography eases my mind somehow. Maybe I should contact Rough Trade and ask them about the origin and evolution of their logotype. :)

Once again, thanks for your valuable input and your help.
+1 vote

Scout is a good alternative from Kevin. One possibility for the original source is Akzidenz Grotesk (or Standard) Bold Condensed with a redrawn ‘R’ replacing the curved leg with a straight diagonal. It's also possible that phototype versions of AG had this alternate shape.

Remember that if this logo was created in the mid 1980s it was probably phototype or hand drawn, not made with a digital font. So that can explain why there are no digital matches.

answered by Champ (7.7k points)

As I suspected, some versions of Akzidenz had a straight leg ‘R’, as you see on this 1963 cover.


Yep, Akzidenz Grotesk Extra is a pretty good match. 

Good match! However, I think Akzidez lacks a bit of the friendliness and warmth of the logotype, which is probably due to the fact that all hard edges have been softened, if you really look closely.

I tried to compare the original one with Din Condensed Bold and it is obvious that there some major differences. First of all, the stroke width is clearly wider in the original logo and hard edges have been softened. Secondly, the counters are visibly smaller, which may be or may be not attributed to the aforementioned stroke width.

Maybe there is a DIN Condensed ExtraBold that I do not know of?

I would love to hear your opinions on this.

Yes, this has far more in common with Akzidenz-Grotesk than DIN. I would stop going down that path.