An independent archive of typography.
Topics
Formats
Typefaces

The Beatles – Beatles ’65 album art

Contributed by Diego S. on Jun 15th, 2024. Artwork published in
December 1964
.
The Beatles – Beatles ’65 album art 1
Source: archive.org Internet Archive. License: All Rights Reserved.

The Beatles ’65 album was issued in the United States and Canada in December 1964, just in time for Christmas. It includes eight of the fourteen songs from Beatles for Sale, supplemented by “I’ll Be Back”, which was omitted from the US version of the previous Hard Day’s Night, plus both sides of the single “I Feel Fine” / “She’s a Woman”.

[More info on Discogs]

Back cover with liner notes and track list set in . The captions underneath the other album covers are in .
Source: archive.org Internet Archive. License: All Rights Reserved.

Back cover with liner notes and track list set in Century Expanded. The captions underneath the other album covers are in Futura.

Stereo release
Source: ecx.images-amazon.com License: All Rights Reserved.

Stereo release

Typefaces

  • West Ameristile
  • Venus Extended
  • Venus
  • Century Expanded
  • Futura

Formats

Topics

Designers/Agencies

Artwork location

3 Comments on “The Beatles – Beatles ’65 album art”

  1. Hello Diego, thanks for your submission!

    The typeface used for “Beatles ’65” might be West Ameristile, drawn by Dave West for Photo-Lettering. I don’t have a full specimen to compare against, that’s why I can’t say for sure. With some stretching, one can come close.

    A detail from the record cover (top) compared to West Ameristyle, stretched

    At least it has a fairly similar S and the right A with legs of different weight. What speaks against Ameristyle is that one would need to apply different amounts of stretching to match the cover typography. Also, the middle bar in E isn’t much shorter than the others. And Ameristyle isn’t shown in Photo-Lettering’s 1965 catalog, suggesting a later date for the design. Anyone who has a better suggestion: we love to hear from you!

  2. What’s really odd is that the two Es in “BEATLES” don’t match.

  3. Right, the second E has a wider stem. That’s a peculiar detail, no matter whether it started with a typeface or not. I can imagine this intervention was motivated by the desire for a more even color: the E to the right of L asks for more weight to counterbalance the large gap.

    It’s always possible that it’s custom lettering, without the involvement of any font.

Post a comment