I settled on High Tower Text about three years ago http://fontsgeek.com/fonts/High-Tower-Text-Regular. It’s unusual but no one’s complained so far so I stick to it.
And I use dark purple as the default colour for my e-mails.
I use Garamond for all the materials I make for my classroom–worksheets, handouts, that kind of thing. I wanted a subtle “look” so that my handouts would look like “English stuff” when shoved in a folder, and because I want them to know when it’s something I made vs. a commercial product (which I hardly ever use, because I am a control freak). Anyway, I settled on Garamond because 1) I like serifs. Sue me. 2) It’s just distinctive enough 3) the italics really pop. Some kids hardly notice italics, or really can’t see the difference.
Back in my tech writing days, Century Gothic was my go-to sans-serif font.
I prefer sans-serif fonts for the sake of readability, so I usually use Arial. I don’t think it’s worth the potential perceived loss of professionalism to venture from the standards. Blame it on comic sans!
Our Official Brand Font is Calibri. (Yes, we are expected to use the Official Brand Font.)
It’s standard practice - mine, anyway - to specify a subtly different font for a business’s use on all documents, for precisely this reason. The many readers may not know a font from a fart, but they learn to tell at a glance that a report or memo or such is from XYZ Company. Helps in things like multi-vendor presentations and anything competitive.
The only drawback of most Garamond variants is that the x-height is rather small, which looks peculiar to many readers. I don’t mind Adobe Garamond, but most classic Garamonds look… prissily old-fashioned. As for serifs, it’s long been established that serif fonts are easier to read in book-style layout (page after page of closely set text). Sans fonts are tiring to they eye after a page or two, no matter how “crisp” and “businesslike” they make memos and reports look. You’re also right that Garamond italics are as italic as Ezio Pinza, but they are also among the more difficult to read. But it sounds like big G does the job you need it to do.
One thing that even knowledgeable users and designers don’t know about the most modern fonts bundled with major apps - like Calibri and Cambria, and others - is that they were specifically designed to render well on LCD screens and business-grade printers. The reason many older fonts are disliked in the business world is because they don’t render well on these rather coarse devices - subtleties of curve and weight are lost. I have a few books set from metal type using the classics - Garamond, Caxton, Jenson etc. - and there is no comparison between those and any computer equivalent that doesn’t come off a 2400 dpi phototypesetter.
So these fonts are fine for office uses, but I would never use Calibri, Cambria, Verdana, Tahoma, Trebuchet etc. for typeset, graphic or branding work. They are dull and listless up against “real” typefaces that shine when rendered properly.
I have never understood the comic sans hate. It has a place. Not in emails or serious correspondence. But I use it a lot for making flyers. It is easily readable and brings a friendly feel to the text.
It’s the “emails or serious correspondence” that annoys me. I have no problem with it in the funny papers. 
Arial 10 is my default for professional correspondence. Arial 9 for spreadsheets. Palatino for personal use. I love Palatino.
All our books are printed in Goudy Old Style. Elegant and old school, but easy to read and clean.
Even used as a comic font it just looks so amateurish. It’s just ugly. There’s plenty of good looking comic fonts out there, but Comic Sans just looks hackish to me. It’s a font that looks straight out of one of those “free font” websites, where almost every single font is terribly designed. It looks like it was put together at the last second in about 5 minutes, with no regards to aesthetics or design. But I’ll get off my soapbox now. There’s fonts I like that plenty of people hate, like Times New Roman and Helvetica.
Many years ago I had a manager who thought that Comic Sans was a perfectly acceptable font to use in our technical documentation that we had to deliver to our customer. Ugh.
I use Courier New in (law office) emails. TNR everywhere else.
I use Monaco for fixed width purposes in preference over Courier or Courier New. Verdana and Helvetica not Arial.
For more literate material, Palatino and New Century Schoolbook.
It’s true (pdf, page 46).
That is very attractive. Interesting that the letters are spaced more widely than comparable serif fonts.
The relative x-height is one reason why I like it. Longer ascenders and descenders are more graceful, IMHO. That’s one reason I liked the High Tower Text mentioned above. I don’t know if Garamond is necessarily the best choice for big closely-spaced blocks of text, however.
It doesn’t give a “friendly” feel to anything. The only feel it gives to anything is “amateurish and sad.”
Why do you use it if you know it’s widely criticized and disliked? You may not see the problems with it, but why don’t you listen to people who DO know something about typography and design?
I’m not including myself in the “knowledgeable about typography and design” group, and even I can see how hiddy it is. Even if I didn’t see it, I wouldn’t use it because if everyone who has some design expertise says it’s awful, then I’ll take their word for it. There are countless other choices.
I do find it baffling that anybody can think this font is anything but hideous. Just look at that m! m m m m m Gah! My eyes!!
So does a drawing of a pony.
My boss uses Comic Sans. I’ve tried to lightly bring this up but he sticks with it and I’m not about to press the issue. I was hoping it was unintentional but I’m pretty sure now that it’s just his preferred font :smack:
No - Times New Roman for me in work e-mails, occasionally I might use Calibri or Arial but I prefer the look of serifs, in general.
The style guide at work requires us to use Verdana for emails and Trebuchet for other documents.