A longtime interest in typefaces that imitate wooden structures and organic shapes was crucial in searching for a specific problem of the variable format. The starting point was the typeface Rustic No. 2 of 1845, created by the Figgins type foundry In London. From that point onward, the typeface made a long journey across the ocean, where dozens of copies were produced in wooden and metal form. At the end of the 20th century, there were dozens of incomplete digitalizations. The typeface Rustic No. 2 (in digital form under names such as Pinewood, Log Cabin, Woody, and others) lives on in imperfect forms.

A longtime interest in typefaces that imitate wooden structures and organic shapes was crucial in searching for a specific problem of the variable format. The starting point was the typeface Rustic No. 2 of 1845, created by the Figgins type foundry In London. From that point onward, the typeface made a long journey across the ocean, where dozens of copies were produced in wooden and metal form. At the end of the 20th century, there were dozens of incomplete digitalizations. The typeface Rustic No. 2 (in digital form under names such as Pinewood, Log Cabin, Woody, and others) lives on in imperfect forms.

The typeface In the Pines, in its loose reconstruction of the original model, literally grew by other weight variants. The question remains, though: where could such a typeface occur? Is the world of logs too unidirectional? It’s not just the variety of different types of wood that you can simulate with this font. In small sizes, it seems to be growing grass, and its illegibility leads us to compete for the most beautiful English lawn. In deep oceans, it can describe the magic of undulating seaweed or anemone. When better judgment is gone, it happily finds itself on a sex shop’s signboard, where the typeface changes into dozens of growing phalluses; let’s admit that it often happens in nature. 

Ultimately, not even the variable format fulfills all the functions of the typeface In the Pines. The question remains of the possibility of a variable-color font, which is incompatible with the variable format. Finally, I want to mention the addition of a typeface with an expanded set of characters and symbols, which is a (still) uncommon feature in an attempt to revive the Rustic No. 2 face.