I personally think this
http://typophile.com/node/112994
is more promising.

hhp

Thank you hhp! Could you be a little more precise?

This just looks like a confused mish-mash of Lexicon, Sylfaen and I don't know what else. It will take a lot of "retrofitting" to be worthwhile. The other one is not a text face like this one, and it might not be entirely original, but to me it looks closer to something people would want to use.

hhp

My main impression is a certain inconsistency in weight distribution: The thin parts of letters don't have the same optical thinness from one letter to the next; the same is true of the thick parts; serifs and terminals vary in size and weight from one letter to the next; that sort of thing. Up close, there are also some issues with detailing (rare but exaggerated ink traps, coarse curves) and proportions (e.g., the /c is too wide compared with the /e).

Don't despair: This reminds me a lot of my first typeface on Typophile... it was an attempt at a text face, too, and it had much more serious problems than yours. Like you, I had a second project for a modern-style display face going. People recommended I concentrate on display fonts for a while, and that was very helpful. Display fonts are less harsh in terms of requirements and they have more room for "quirkiness", so they're a good place to refine one's skills while still having fun and being productive. After more than a year of display faces, I am now back to my original text face, and it's going much better now. :) Hang in there!

Thank you for your helpful comment – and yes you are right, it´s the first time I tried a text face and it´s more kind of research ...