49'er fonts - mid-late 80's.

[EndzoneSports]

Patrick,

I picked up on the fact that the numbers on the back are larger.
As fonts change size, the relative angles and proportions remain constant. It is these angles and proportions that a font unique and identifiable, regardless of it's size. If a certain "1", for example, has a 45 degree nose, then as the size increases, it will always keep that 45 degree nose. The nose will simply become longer and wider. These proportions also enable one font to be distinguished from another regardless of whether the 2 are different sizes. 45pt Arial can be distinguished from 12pt Verdana with no issues whatsoever. I could increase or reduce the 49'er pics below but the font on the front will always be different than the font on the back. For some reason, unbeknownst to most of us, the 49'ers chose 1 font for the front and a slightly different one for the back. Who knows..maybe they've got a real font connoiseur for an equipment manager.

Rudy.

Rudy-

I understand your point and agree with the "45pt Arial vs 12pt Verdana" analogy, though comparing modern TT fonts as generated by computer graphics to the vinyl (or tackle-twill, as applicable) lettering/#ing of 20 years ago, may be taking this a bit out of context. While not disagreeing with your statement, despite the differneces in angles, proportions, etc., I'd be willing to bet that at that time, the manufacturer (Russell in this case) still considered these to be the same font.

As an example, from the 1996 Wilson catalog (I use this as an example only because it was handy), the manufacture lists only 5 styles (fonts) of lettering and five styles of numbering. Each of these five styles is very unique and readily distinguishable from the other four (see attached .jpg). While plasuible that Russell may have offered numerous additional numbering styles for thier jerseys some 10-15 years prior to this Wilson example, it is not likely.

Whether or not the fonts differ may actually depend upon semantics and your point of view. To Russell and their client teams, circa 1985, these were probably identical fonts, just in different sizes. To current-day collectors of their wares, such as ourselves, there are noticibale differences. These differences, however, stem from the fact that we tend to nit-pick the most subtle of details. Not that this is a bad thing, only that from our perspective, it's a more important detail than it was to the manufacturers/teams of the 80s.

By the way, your obsevation of this fact got me wondering if this was something limited to the 49ers or not. Checking my own files, I think not. If you'll check the two photos atop p. 3 of the attached .pdf file (our specification sheet for a 1987 Broncos' jerseys), I think I could make the argument--looking at the length of the serrifs on the "2s"--that there is as significant a difference in these front vs. back numbers as on the 49ers "1s". What do you think?

Best regards,

[kingjammy24]

Patrick,

"comparing modern TT fonts as generated by computer graphics to the vinyl (or tackle-twill, as applicable) lettering/#ing of 20 years ago, may be taking this a bit out of context."

Typographically speaking, the correct representation of a font isn't dependent on the medium or the way it's being generated. It's either correct or it isn't. If it isn't, then an error in producton was made.
Typography is a meticulous discipline that's had very precise and codified standards for at least the past 100 yrs. In order to be referenced as a certain style, a font must strictly adhere to the established angles and proportions of that style. There is no such thing as "almost, kinda Arial". There's only one Arial and it's got a very specific, standard blueprint. This is regardless of the medium. Print, web, textiles. Isn't vinyl or tackle-twill lettering cut out via a computer anyway? It's not like there's some poor guy with a pair of scissors cutting each number and praying he makes it look like a Varsity font. The cutting machines have their patterns dictated by a computer reading font data. (Which should hopefully be a standardized, true rendition of the font).

"I'd be willing to bet that at that time, the manufacturer (Russell in this case) still considered these to be the same font."

Perhaps, but that's simply an error on Russell's part. The truth lies in the fonts themselves. Russell can think whatever it likes, but it doesn't make it so nor does it change the truth. I would think Russell would have typographers on it's staff? I could be wrong.

"Whether or not the fonts differ may actually depend upon semantics and your point of view."

Whether fonts differ depends on the fonts. Whether I can discern the differences depends on my eyesight and knowledge. Me calling a "Block" font "Varsity" doesn't make it "Varsity". It only makes me wrong.
A font will always be what it truly is. I simply may fail in recognizing it. Semantics and points of view will never make a font something it isn't, and two different fonts will never be the same.

"To Russell and their client teams, circa 1985, these were probably identical fonts, just in different sizes."

Then Russell and their client teams are wrong. A sports team is not a typographer. Their opinion regarding fonts is almost worthless. They can think what they like, it doesn't change the truth. Typographers, not sports teams, create the rules for the fonts they create.

"To current-day collectors of their wares, such as ourselves, there are noticibale differences. These differences, however, stem from the fact that we tend to nit-pick the most subtle of details."

To any typographer worth their salt, there are differences. The differences stem from the fact that fonts have established and specific 'rules'. The rules are what you referred to as "the most subtle of details". If a person is ignorant of these rules or chooses not to follow them, that's their issue. It's akin to saying that if you nitpick, then 2 + 2 will equal 4 but if you don't, then it may equal 5 or 6. You can call it nitpicking, I call it being right or wrong.

Typography has been around longer than any of the professional sports leagues and operates independent of them. The font choices or lack of typographical knowledge of any given sports team has no bearing on the long and independently established principles of typography.

re: your 1987 Broncos photos.
From what I can discern, the font on the back is not the same as the font on the front. I understand they're different sizes, but it's somewhat apparent that the relative proportions are different. You bring up the serif on the 2. Let's say, for example, that the serif on the 2 on the front is 4% of the total height of the 2. Then on the 2 on the back, the serif should also be 4% of the total height. Actual sizes change, but proportions remain constant.

Incidentally, the Texas Rangers are well-known for having "font issues" for many years. That is to say, they would mix up fonts and font weights on their jerseys. See the "Ebay Palmeiro" jersey in a recent thread for an example. "Palmeiro" on the back has 6 letters in Block Condensed and 2 in Block Standard. They're free to do whatever they like, but they can't say it's all the same font. No amount of pretending or ignorance will make them the same font.

Rudy.