moki said:Well, let's debate the issue at hand then. .
OK
OK1) Very often logos are created by taking an existing typeface, turning it into outlines, and manipulating it, to produce a unique logo that *can't* be duplicated just by typing some text out in Helvetica (and cited examples where this was done). I've no evidence it was done in this case, other than the fact that I've seen it done on many, many corporate and brand logos -- but you also have no proof that it wasn't done. However, let's say that's not the case here...
Sometimes a warning, but not always. Don't take my word for it, I linked to an article in my above post.2) Most DTP programs warn you if you open then on a machine that doesn't have the fonts that document requires; we'd have to assume people ignored these warnings or were using positively ancient programs that didn't offer such features (circa 1988)
Depends on the designer's relationship with the printer. But, typically if both are experienced and have worked together previously, then it's native app and non-embed all the way.3) Most DTP programs also let you embed fonts into the document you're printing, which is specifically done to avoid situations like this. You stated first that I had the wrong terminology, and then that this technology had "issues" and then that it could be done, but isn't often done. In my experience, none of this is the case. Yes, embedding fonts makes the file size large -- but it ensures that when you print it, you'll get exactly what you're expecting to get. As such, the file size for a final pre-press run is inconsequential to the cost of getting it right. As I'm sure we all know, setup and labor costs are a large chunk of the battle when it comes to printing. We'd have to assume whomever did the bands either didn't know or didn't care about this ability.
Of course it's absurd, but it is possible, that's all I ever said.4) We'd also have to assume that the machines being printed from and the press being printed to didn't have the proper typeface installed. I find this absurd; for something as major as the bands for prestigious cigar brands in Cuba. It'd be like the printer Coke uses not having the proper color to put on the cans.
Of course it's hard to believe, but it is possible, that's all I ever said.5) We'd have to assume that even if all this happened somehow, even if the fonts were not present, people didn't bother embedding them, they weren't on the printer, they ignored the warnings from the DTP programs, and printed them anyway, that they looked at the proofs and didn't notice the font was wrong. Yes, the difference can be subtle, but this is akin to saying that Coke would end up printing a series of cans that used the wrong typeface on them. Given the importance of branding, the known existence of fakes, I find it very hard to believe that something like this could pass through.
Of course we would have to make that assumption, that's what I said in my original post.6) Even if someone DID look at the proof, and ineptly say "Looks good, print it!" we'd have to assume that no one at SA would notice that their new batch of bands weren't quite right. Or if they did notice, they'd have to say "Screw it, use 'em anyway".
No argument. All I said is it is possible to argue that font substitution could occur. I suggested your best argument for proving the band was bogus was to examine the graphics. It is your strongest argument. The Font issue is super strong too, but it can be weakened by smart asses such as myself.The number of things that would have to either go wrong or be done in such an incredibly amateurish fashion in order for this to be caused by "font substitution" are simply mind-boggling. Certain things just are not done. If you as a printer screw up on the typeface of an important brand like Cohiba is to SA, you're not just fired, in Cuba, you're probably thrown in jail. It doesn't make sense.