I, for one, find it interesting, and worth pursuing.
Keep in mind, though, that it’s not an uncharted road: http://typophile.com/node/41687
http://typography.net/fontfamilies/view/39

Hi riccard0 and thanks for your feedback.

If I made it sound as though I'd stumbled upon some hitherto unknown design feature, I apologise. I only intended to say that the style was one I'd not experimented with before and that I am unsure of my execution.

What I meant was just that, if you think you need it, you could look at how others have tackled the style.
It’s always a tradeoff between avoiding reinventing the wheel regarding what works and what don’t,* and the risk of being influenced too much by others’ arbitrary aesthetic decisions.

* Which also depends on the underlying design decisions you make: most of the typefaces in the style are calligraphic in structure, while something like Fenland is not.
In any case, the M-Formula stands as a method to evaluate the result: http://typophile.com/node/18643

And I think this is at the heart of my issue: this font did not come about because of a carefully thought through set of design decisions, but more as a "hmmm... that might be interesting - I'll run with it and see where it leads me" sort of thing! :)

Thanks for the links - I take a good look before deciding whether to develop this font further. Meantime, I've addressed a couple of minor issues I found and also added terminals to the /a/, /c/, /s/ and /z/, which I think I prefer.

http://freepdfhosting.com/473450fd3e.pdf

I would continue working on this your second already pdf looks nicer - and I like the squarish o counter. Looking at the letters in a half-focused way the o's seemed to have a small pinch in the upper left corner of the counter. You can experiment with such a design idea, exaggerate it perhaps make a half or complete cut there, and start the letter as if it were made with a calligraphic rounded brush. Or end the stroke with a little flourish? Whatever you do carry on the new style to the other letters in a uniform way- now the the b for example looks too sedate and incongruent next to the o.

Steve, life is funny, isn't it.

Although you arrived at the peculiar countershape via a happy accident, to me the most notable thing is that it looks like a reflection of the traditional, calligraphic way of making letterforms via a broad-nib pen. So I think the main decision you need to first take is whether to revert to that construction and have a much easier time completing a font that presumably you and certainly many others would find attractive, or to instead try to avoid that reference and make something truly fresh, which however would be a greater challenge.

As for the caps, that's actually another tricky fork in the road. You can make caps that essentially look like a separate alphabet (the conventional way) or you can try to innovate and make caps that look like they belong with the lowercase (for which you might look to uncial).

hhp

Vladimir and hrant - thank you both for sharing your thoughts.

I have been experimenting this evening - the latest version is at:

http://freepdfhosting.com/146fbf183e.pdf

Vladimir - I pulled the outer contour in a little on the /o/ and changed the counter in the /b/, /d/, /p/ and /q/ as you suggested. I've also edited a number of other letters to try to get some design consistency, but I can't help feeling as if I'm reverse-engineering a design philosophy instead of being led by one. Thoughts?

hrant - I will expand upon the broad-nib pen characteristics, but I don't want to lose too much of the ruggedness. I've grown to really enjoy the unpredictable shapes and quirky features, and I don't want to sacrifice them. If that means the font ends up with a bit of an identity crisis, I'll chalk it up to experience and move on.

I think I will attempt the caps. The /C/, /O/ and /S/ draw themselves and I like your idea of looking to uncial for inspiration.

Cheers, Steve

Give this much more letterspace (and a narrower wordspace) and it will help you make judgements about where to go with it.

A couple of observations:
|x| looks a bit dark, and personally I’m not sold to the curve on the top right terminal. You could lighten the centre and/or increase the contrast of the strokes.
|g|’s bottom bowl doesn’t seem to work well, it ends up too conventional. Have you considered an open tail?

@ I've also edited a number of other letters to try to get some design consistency
Good it seems to be working

@but I can't help feeling as if I'm reverse-engineering a design philosophy instead of being led by one.

I am really no expert in Latin fonts, and had to struggle for years with my own; there may well be no one ideal way of approaching this sort of work - be pragmatic, adjust what you have done, what you imagine it should be, and - as happened with you - by trial and error. Keep on polishing this and that and see where that alley takes you!

@eliason - I've increased the letterspacing and it definitely looks better. Thanks.

@riccard0 - I agree with the /x/ weight - I'll take a look at that today. As for the top-right curve, this is something I've already started experimenting with, not just on the /x/, but also on the /v/, /w/ and /y/. I originally designed these glyphs with a curve because the standard form looked horribly plain in context. The same was true of the /z/, which I dealt with by adding a kink around 1/3 of way down.

I hadn't considered an alternative form the the /g/, but I really like the idea of trying an open bowl.

@Vladimir - the alley remains unfamiliar, but it's reassuring to have such good company! :)

Here's a link to the latest version.

http://freepdfhosting.com/036ca0ba41.pdf

Changes include:

- new /g/ with open bowl
- removal of curves from top right of /v/, /w/, /x/ and /y/ - replaced with subtle kinks to break stroke uniformity
- minor adjustment to /x/ weight (needs further adjustment?)
- minor redraw of /c/, /e/ and /s/ for balance
- more letterspace

I think this 'open' style of /g/ works better, but I'm far from convinced I have it right yet. I'd really appreciate any ideas about this, as well as any other ideas you might have for the other letters.

Cheers, Steve

Letters with diagonals: better, especially |v|. Some could use a bit more lightening, |x| in particular.
You could want to revise |z| too.
I think what doesn’t work in |g| is that the bottom right stroke is too weak to support the “pinch”, you could look at the top of |a|’s bowl for comparison.
Lastly, I would give a second look to |e|’s bottom stroke.

riccardo - I've widened the stroke at the 'pinch' in the /g/ and it does look a great deal better. Thanks!

I've also lightened the /w/, /x/ and /z/ a touch. I haven't been too aggressive with this, because I don't want to go too much the other way - do you think they're better now?

Finally, for now, could you tell me a bit more about what you don't like about the bottom stroke of the /e/? Do you think it should be 'pinched' at the 7 o'clock position, for example? It is almost identical (literally to within a tiny fraction of 1%) to the lower half of the /c/ - presumably, the /c/ trouble you in the same way the /e/ does?

http://freepdfhosting.com/4d39ded5ae.pdf

EDIT TO ADD:

I've made a change in anticipation of your agreeing to the idea of 'pinching the /e/ (and /c/) at the 7 o'clock position.

http://freepdfhosting.com/aeba27e1c1.pdf

I think they are all improvements.
As for |e|, and |c|, while ⅔ of the curve may be the same, |c|’s terminal and |e|’s bowl counterbalance it differently, and |e| could look a bit unbalanced. Also, not counting the ascender/descender stems, it’s the longest continuous “thick” stroke. I don’t think a pinch would work, but maybe a little tapering.

Ok, I have to step away for a while now, but I'll take another look at this later this evening.

Thanks for all your input - really appreciate it.

Revised /e/ and stroke weight adjustment to shoulders of /h, /m/, /n/ and /u/.

http://freepdfhosting.com/f3280183c2.pdf

Looks promising!

The thinning of the /a at the top right feels unnatural to me; it goes against pen logic.

I would rotate the tittles clockwise a bit.

Have you considered a round foot for /t?

Some of the abrupt endings (such as at the top of /b, tail of /z) and rectangular serifs and crossbars (/a, /f, /t, /z) strike me as off-character compared to the more organic shapes that prevail in the other characters. Consider adding some flaring to those.

There is no such thing as "pen logic" in type beyond the logic of nostalgia.

hhp

@Catharsis - thanks for your suggestions.

I've redrawn the /a/ so that it is consistent with the rest of the font. Having 'shaved' so much weight off of this font in an attempt to apply more calligraphic principles, it's nice to be able to put a bit of weight back in!

I also rotated the tittles (and, in the case of the /j/, repositioned it). The latest version is at:
http://freepdfhosting.com/d5e47c0c2d.pdf

The /t/ has been a recurring issue for me. The very first draft of the font, which preceded the first upload here, had a more conventional round foot, but I didn't like it. I have actually tried a couple more times to introduce it since discussing the font here, but I always end up preferring the straighter style. Do you think this font is desperately crying out for a rounded /t/?

As for the stroke endings, I've experimented a little here as well. Again, going back to my first 'pre-Typophile' version, the stroke endings you mentioned terminated with a curl, similar to the right sides of the /v/, /w/, /x/ and /y/ found in earlier versions (such as http://freepdfhosting.com/e290ad9e0c.pdf). They've since been 'iterated' out, but do you think the font would now work better if I reintroduced them, or some variation on that theme?

I have to say that really like the asymmetrical crossbars and the serifs, which use the same shape. That doesn't mean to say I opposed to change and I'll certainly experiment with other ideas.

@hrant - you said earlier in this thread that you thought "...the main decision [I] need to first take is whether to revert to [a calligraphic] construction...". I think you were right and, though my interpretation might be a little loose, the /a/ does work better without that 'pinch'.

As a rapid follow-up, I've edited the top vertical stoke terminals to match the /n/ and /m/.

http://freepdfhosting.com/793bd802d0.pdf

Personally, I prefer the straighter strokes to this particular alternative, but would be interested to have the community's view.

A version reverting to straight terminals, but with rounded /t/.

http://freepdfhosting.com/01700999d5.pdf

Thoughts as to best combination from my last three posts?

Sorry to flood the updates, but I wanted to add this to the mix.

I've tried to address the abruptness Catharsis pointed out by pinching the vertical stems slightly in the middle and flaring them slightly at the ends. The difference is subtle, but it does give a softer effect.

Is this an improvement or should I look for another solution? Or, should I simply leave them rigid?

http://freepdfhosting.com/5581b2e878.pdf

I don't like the version with the /n-like tops on ascenders much.

I do like the slightly flaring stems on /i and /f, for example, but I'd make the flaring a little bit stronger on the ascenders and descenders. The stem on the /b also looks a bit unnatural to me, maybe it's that "pinch" you mentioned? Make sure the left and right edges of the stem work together well; I think that might involve making the bottom of the stem a bit wider into the bowl.

The tittles don't quite sit well yet to my eye.

The break in /z looks like a fracture. Maybe a curve would work better?

The /g has a wood-carved, choppy character that feels a bit out of place among the smoother other characters. Maybe you could smooth out some of the kinks and give the tail a bit more flow? I know it's a hard one to draw, but it also has the potential to be particularly noteworthy if done right. Maybe also allow the eye region of /g to have slightly lighter strokes than the /o, since they're so close to each other?

Just an idea: What would the font look like if there were no serifs on /a and /z, just some flaring?

@Catharsis - since my last update, I've been experimenting with the possibility of turning this into a serif font, using the /f/ crossbar as a template for the serifs. I've linked to a very rough implementation to test the concept - I've not taken the time to ensure everything lines up properly and I am aware some of the serifs widths will need adjusting, but do you think this is likely to result in a better font?

http://freepdfhosting.com/a76d7ca427.pdf

Once I'm clear about the direction it will take, I'll address the most recent points you've made.

Just make a super family! ;-)
(I dig the asymmetric serifs)

@riccard0 - hehe, they are funky, aren't they? :)

If I can get the underlying letterforms right, I'll create a serif variation.

@Catharsis - I agree with most of what you said. I don't like the n-like ascender tops either, and I need to revisit the way the flare works.

I take your point about the /z/, and I will try alternatives, but I actually quite like it the way it is.

As for the /g/, I will lighten the eye, but do you really think the ruggedness of this letter is out-of-place? It is more rugged than most, for sure, but isn't that down to it's meandering nature more than execution? If I smooth it out, won't I be retreating from the calligraphic style I've been working towards? That said, I'll play around with it and see where it takes me.

Lastly, for now, you wondered how the /a/ and /z/ would look without the serifs. You can get a reasonable approximation by looking at my original PDF (http://freepdfhosting.com/e290ad9e0c.pdf). Do you think they work better?

I can see this working out both as a sans and as a serif. The merit of the serif version is currently a bit difficult to judge at the moment, though, since the spacing got messed up.

I see what you mean about the /g. I think there might be ways to reduce the number of kinks and still keep true to the style, but you'll have to see for yourself. (For instance, maybe if the neck were to join the tail in a corner rather than in a tight bend, that might tidy things up a bit?)

For the sans, I think your /a will do just fine without a serifed terminal.

+1 for the serifless |a|.

@Catharsis

Thanks for all your comments and suggestions. I really like the idea of changing the link of the /g/ from a bend to a corner - I think that will give it the flow you felt was absent without losing the character. I'm going to spend a bit of time working through this and all the other ideas we've discussed; hope to have a revision ready within the next 24 hours.

@riccard0 - would you advise removing the serif on the /c/ and /s/ also?

For |s|, I would say yes (lose the serif), it looks very closed with the serif (maybe also because it looks a bit narrow compared to other letters). I like the serif in |c|, but of course it need to be seen if it will feel out of place with the others.

Thanks for your thoughts. I'll have a revision sometime tomorrow.

Here's the latest version. It includes a large number of changes, ranging from the obvious to the almost imperceptible!

http://freepdfhosting.com/59204157c2.pdf

Changes include:

- removed serif from /a/ and /s/
- added/redrawn terminal flares on all stems, ascenders and descenders (excluding /v/, /w/, /x/ and /y/)
- smoothed the kink in the /z/ and flared the horizontal stokes
- resized, reoriented and repositioned the tittles
- redrawn /g/, including slight increase in counter to lighten stroke weight; right-shifted link; reshaped link; and a general smoothing out of the contours, especially in the loop

Latest version:

http://freepdfhosting.com/82b32336c5.pdf

In addition to the earlier changes (see post above), this version includes redrawn top of /a/ and adjustment to weight of /k/.

What does "gg" look like?

@eliason - email steve@explogos.com and I'll send you the TTF

I've been working on the caps and have linked to three PDFs showing them in different contexts.

http://freepdfhosting.com/766504ae02.pdf

http://freepdfhosting.com/9378bf3960.pdf

http://freepdfhosting.com/4d4f0c3fc6.pdf

I haven't applied kerning yet and I am aware of a number of drawing issues (poorly executed curves, flares, etc) but wanted to get some feedback before taking the next step.

Do any characters appear too heavy or light? Does the relationship between the caps and lower case work, both in terms if size and weight? Any other thoughts?

Thanks in advance and have a great weekend!

Very handsome, all in all!

Thanks! And thanks for your earlier comments - not sure if the strokes end in quite the way you envisioned when you made the suggestion to review them, but they currently look much better than they did.

Since posting links to the caps, I have edited the baseline stroke endings of the /H/ and /M/, making them asymmetrical (not sure why I made the symmetrical in the first place, since none of the lower case characters have symmetrical stroke ends!). The change isn't enough to warrant a new link, but I'll update it once I fix some of the other issues.

Meantime, if you (or anyone) see any issue you think I should take a look at, I'd really appreciate your thoughts.

Maybe think of ways to enlarge the two smaller counters and/or reduce the one larger counter in the /M/.
The other caps could probably stand to be a little darker, I think.
The intersection of /Y/ is low--I don't see that off-center balance on any other letters.
/X/ may be a bit too wide.

@eliason - thanks for your feedback.

I had already addressed the /M/. I thought it looked just a little too condensed, so widened it by around 4%. This allowed me to increase the counters without affecting the diagonal stroke weight.

Here's the revision:

http://freepdfhosting.com/d3346442af.pdf

I'll darken the caps a bit and address the /X/ width. I'll also the take a look at the /Y/ - I agree, something is wrong with the balance. I think this is because of the asymmetric stem flare. I'll see if shifting the weight a bit to the left works. I don't really want to remove the flare - that would be anomalous.

By the way... anyone have any ideas about a name for this font?

Here's my last update for tonight.

http://freepdfhosting.com/1c27316707.pdf

http://freepdfhosting.com/73e67dc10b.pdf

Changes include:

Wider /M/
Narrower /X/
Re-balanced /Y/
Tail of /Q/ thickened at juncture
Caps a touch darker - do they need to be even darker?
Smoother outlines of several glyphs

Top left of /e strikes me as too thin...

Not sure if I like the corner of /b/q.

/Y is still a bit tilted at the foot.

I do like the execution of the extender terminals now.

Names: How about Gravensteiner?

@Catharsis

I think you're right about the /e/. It needs to be a bit darker at that pinch point. On review, I think I need the lighten the /g/ just a little bit in the same area.

The /b/ & /q/ corners were shaved to solve a weight issue I had at that juncture. The curve of the stroke naturally thickens at that point. With the /p/ and /d/, I could get away with thinning the stroke because the descender gave balance, but a thinner stroke on the /b/ looked wrong absent a descender. I also looked at simply flipping the /d/ to create a /b/ but, aside from seeming a lazy solution, it left the pinch points on the opposite side to where they should be. I hope that makes sense, as I don't have time right now to post an image.

Any ideas on an alternative solution?

I'm similarly stumped for a solution to my /Y/ problem. Virtually all stems flare asymmetrically. Single-stemmed glyphs flare to the left at the base; double-stemmed glyphs flare to the left on the left stem and to the right on the right stem. In the case of the /m/ - the only, but logical, exception - the middle stem flares both left and right.

I treated the /Y/ in the same way as, for example, the /f/ - a single flare to the left. But, because the /Y/ stem isn't long enough for the flare to even out, the original version had a horribly unbalanced look, which I tried to address by shifting the arms to the left. If your view is that this remains a problem, the only solution I can think of is to remove the flare altogether, since going the other way and creating a symmetrical flare makes the stem too dark.

Do you think a flare-less /Y/ would be acceptable as an illogical exception? Or, do you have any other ideas I could experiment with?

Thanks for the name suggestion. What is your thinking behind that name?

FWIW, the balance I was talking about on the /Y/ was top to bottom--I just meant you might want the join of the arms and stem higher.

@eliason

I misunderstood. I thought you meant both that the junction was too low AND that it had an unbalanced (left/right) appearance. Re-reading your comment again, it is clear you were talking only about the junction.

In the event, I raised the junction to give the stem a chance to straighten a little and left-shifted the arms. I think the current one is all-round better than it was, but maybe not quite right?

A quick update:

http://freepdfhosting.com/1dd1f48992.pdf

- revision to /b/ and /q/ junctions
- increased weight of /e/ at pinch point.
- decreased weight of /g/ bowl at pinch points
- changed tittles and introduced period and comma.

No change to the /Y/ at this point.

My two cents:
|b| better, but I think you could go for something like |G|’s implied beard (jawline?).
Not sure about the new tittle (maybe too square? too low? too parallel?). Perhaps you could try a diamond shape.*
Same for punctuation. Comma seems a bit clunky, could be rotated a bit anticlockwise.
I agree with Craig about |Y|’s crotch being still a bit low.
I also find |a|’s tail dark, and see a bit too much contrast between top and bottom of |A|’s stems.

* http://typophile.com/node/97738

Hi riccard0 and thanks, as always, for your thoughts.

I'll take another look at all the points you've mentioned a little later this evening. But, I did want to share this with you for now and get some feedback, if possible.

This is my first design for the tittle, period and comma.

I changed it because the relationship between the angles seemed to jar, particularly when brought together in a semicolon. Also, the tittle/period seemed to rigid, but it would be easy to soften the edges a little (and probably make the comma a little thinner).

Do you think these two (or, some variation of these two) work together ok?

Ok, so maybe I shouldn't have been so quick to dismiss that style. Here's a quick rework, with the angles harmonised and the edges softened.

I think this style of punctuation could work.
But period and comma could maintain apparently different styles and still work: look, for example, at Palatino and Arno.

Final update for today.

http://freepdfhosting.com/9e10176ec1.pdf

http://freepdfhosting.com/8dcb5d2276.pdf

Changes include:

- redrawn junction of /b/ and /q/
- lightened tail of /a/
- reduced contrast between top and bottom of /A/
- raised junction of /Y/
- new tittles, period and comma

I like a dynamic quality of the font as a whole - as if a breeze is blowing through the letters - the effect at its most obvious in the curved diagonals of the /z. The /a is a tad too squarish compared to the other counters.

as if a breeze is blowing through the letters

Nice image, Vladimir! "Breeze" could be a good name for this face.
Or something about grass leaves bent by the wind.

Here is the latest version.

http://freepdfhosting.com/cc7c1cc824.pdf

Changes include:

- first draft of numerals
- revision to /a/ in response to Vladimir's observation

You'll notice I've included two 2s in this draft. Notwithstanding the fact both may need refining, which style do you think works best in the context of the font? Any other suggestions for improving any of the other numerals or, indeed, any other glyph?

@Vladimir & riccard0 - I also like Vladimir's imagery, but 'breeze' sounds a bit gentle. It strikes me as better suited to a face with smooth, flowing strokes and swashes. How about a more tumultuous meteorological term? :)

First |2|.

Looking better and better!

I like the new join on the /b, definite improvement. New /a is also very nice.

The /t is a bit narrow for my taste, but it might suit the font like that. In any case, though, it seems a bit low-contrast compared to the other letters.

Maybe it's just me, but the tail of the /g still looks a bit gooey to me. I'm wondering whether it might improve if the thin neck were more upright (to match the perceived pen angle) and the curve of the tail were more like the /s, i.e., expanding in a single motion after the pinch, and ending in a rather vertical cut rather than a foxtail.

Yes, first /2.

Oh, and Gravensteiner is a breed of apples that grows around here. It's rather rugged and tart, which fits with the texture of your outlines, and the faint association with "gravestone" fits the glyphic undertones I'm getting from the font as a whole and gives it a bit of a dark edge.

By the way, I'm wondering whether the font might profit from slightly larger sidebearings. Currently, there is a tendency for stems to clump in words like "pitifully".

I agree:
- second 2 (much preferred)
- g tail is not done (that straight sinking thick stroke is long, making the bottom loop both more angular and wider than it maybe should be)
- some tightness in spacing (esp. straight-sided letters)

@Catharsis - thanks for your feedback and the great support you've offered throughout.

I'll revisit the /t/ - maybe widen the crossbar and/or the tail?

More importantly, I'll go back and see if I can rework the /g/. I do quite like it as it is - and it is a great deal better than my very first draft - but I've had this nagging sense it could be better. I think your suggestion is spot on. I'll post an update sometime tomorrow, which will also include new sidebearings.

I like 'Gravensteiner' as a name and I like the idea that this variety of apple, like this font, was discovered by chance. If I hadn't inadvertently turned a mid-curved node into a corner node, I still be refining a plain old geometric face... on my own!

I'm not sure if or how this font will reach a wider audience but, if it does, I'll be sure to credit you. Same applies to everyone who has been kind enough to offer their thoughts.

@eliason - just to confirm, you prefer the second (red) /2/?

Whoops, sorry, I meant to say I concur that the first is better!

I thought that was what you meant. Thanks for clarifying.

Wow, this is getting pretty good much faster than one might expect. Some of the forms still need a good deal of polish, but some are exceptionally charming (and of a nature that arguably can only come from an "outsider").

Could we see a full character set of how it stands now?

hhp

Here is the latest update:

Body text version - http://freepdfhosting.com/ff13c199e4.pdf

Character version - http://freepdfhosting.com/5e18c7997e.pdf

Changes include:

- re-worked link and loop of /g/
- minor edit to /a/ where top of bowl meets the stem
- slightly taller top counter of /8/
- shortened descenders by ~5%
- a little extra on the sidebearings

The loop of the /g/ is now totally consistent with the other glyphs - does it work better? I have some reservations about the link, but I'm not sure if this because I'd become too accustomed to the previous version.

@hrant - thanks for your feedback. The font has come a long way since the interesting, but rather aimless first draft!

The second link (above) shows the characters I have thus far. I know I don't have very many right now, but I want to continue to refine the ones I do have as much as possible before tackling a wider character set. With that in mind, I would really appreciate you sharing your ideas for polishing the characters further.

@Catharsis - 'Gravensteiner' it is! Thank you!

How about a single storey /g/... or is that too lazy? :D

http://freepdfhosting.com/6f74417765.pdf

Nice, but I would keep it as alternate.

I don't really like the direction of the new binocular /g/--the openness of the loop doesn't feel right to me, and kind of looks like a printing error. If it were me, I'd return to the previous form and do some more pushing and pulling.
I think the single-story /g/ works pretty well (though its bowl appears too big to me). But offering both forms as riccard0 suggests is not a bad idea.
Is /f/'s hood a little weak?
Is the tittle a touch too big and/or too high?

RicardO and Steve glad you liked my characterisation -btw is the font adopting a 'no straight lines' policy? I rather like that. See Satyr font http://www.typophile.com/node/81129?page=3 Here is another meteorological image: shimmering (as of buildings seen in a mirage) .. but if you insist on more vigorous image go geological -but earthquake is a bit too much ;)

The latest update - two links with different /g/

http://freepdfhosting.com/b1d980c7c7.pdf

http://freepdfhosting.com/21745dffa2.pdf

Both files include the following:

- revised hood of /f/
- revised tail of /t/
- smaller tittles, lowered slightly
- revised /g/ - the first link shows a variation on the established shape; the second is based on the lower case /s/ - this relationship can be seen most clearly in the word /legs/ (10th line down).

I don't think either /g/ is quite there yet, but which is the better style to refine?

I have to say (and, maybe this is because of what hrant referred to as the 'outsider' in me), I prefer the single storey /g/. It may need tweaking, but the style fits perfectly and I believe everyone can agree on this. The double storey /g/, on the other hand, is like pulling teeth and I'm not at all confident of finding a solution that everyone will agree upon.

@Vladimir - this font has certainly evolved into something approaching a 'no-straight-lines' policy. It started out a little aimlessly, but I really like its current 'windswept' appearance, even if it isn't 'correct' in every way.

Another variation on the /g/.

http://freepdfhosting.com/a7aaf04f91.pdf

I like the way the loop looks here; it harmonises with the /s/ without slavishly following it. I'm less enthusiastic about the link, however - but isn't this how a pen would behave?

I'm not at all confident of finding a solution that everyone will agree upon.

What matters would be finding a solution you’re comfortable with.
You could always leave the binocular one as alternate.
I like the s-based |g|, but I fear I like it because it’s peculiar (so maybe not the best solution to work well with others). In any case I think the tail should be a bit wider than the eye (especially, or maybe just, on the right).

Forgetting the pen is exactly what makes this worthwhile.

hhp

@riccard0 - I have finally found a design I am reasonably comfortable with!

http://freepdfhosting.com/7fab431684.pdf

@hrant - any thoughts you have about polishing the face up would be greatly appreciated - just please save any suggestions you might have for the /g/ for another day! :)

That's the best /g/ yet, Steve!

I would bundle the single-storey /g with a single-storey /a and offer them as a stylistic alternate. Your current /a calls for a "grown-up" /g.

The newest one is very nice and works perfectly. I'm only wondering whether it might be a bit too conventional for the font. I really like the juicy, crunchy tension in your /s — maybe a similar feeling could be invoked with an open-tailed /g.

Maybe something like this? (Rough sketch only!)

As for the name, glad you like it. ;o) You might also want to consider the English name, "Gravenstein". »Gravensteiner« is the German term.

@eliason - thanks! :)

@Catharsis - I had the same concern about the /g/ and, despite resolving to leave it for a few days, spent time last night trying to make it 'fit' better with the font. The changes are subtle - a couple of pinches in the link and left side of the loop to harmonise with the counter.

Here's what I came up with.

I didn't consider reverting to the open loop again, but having seen your sketch, I will try again. But, not today ! :)

This font absolutely needs old-style figures. Your lining figures current strike me as a bit dark.

The /t still feels a bit out of place. Is it the only remaining letter with a completely straight stem? I think that's why it looks slimmer than, say, /l. The bend in the foot is a "strong" diagonal, how about giving it its proper weight? And thin down the outstroke to match that of the /e.

If I 'complete' this font, I'll certainly add old-style figures, as well as small caps, etc.

Yes, the /t/ is the only character with a straight stem, but I see no way around this unless I remove the tail. You're right about the weight - even though the middle of the /t/ and /l/ are the same, it appears much lighter because of the /l/ flares. I've modified it so that, when compared to the /l/, it is a little heavier than the lighter middle part and a little lighter than the heavier ends. I've also thinned the tail out slightly.

There are no other changes.

http://freepdfhosting.com/386238e091.pdf

Does it look more balanced?

Yes, that's better.

I meant defining the old-style figures as the default figures for the font.

Despite saying I'd add old-style numerals if I completed the font, I've already created the first draft! I'm so easily led! :)

Here are both sets for comparison.

Any areas you think I should address?

You could up the ante on unconventional and go for "french style" numerals: http://typophile.com/node/27918#comment-155219

I must admit, I've never seen that before - it looks more like an alignment error than a design decision!

Here's mine, with the /4/ adjusted as per the example in that thread.

Going back to Catharsis' observation that the lining figures were too dark, was this a mistake on my part? I designed the figures to agree in size and weight with the caps. Should I have made made them cap height, but have their weight agree with the lower case... or maybe the weight should be somewhere between the two?

I found the numbers a bit dark in the very first iteration. Now they look fine to me, but, of course they will need to be seen in a simulation of a "real life" setting to be properly judged.
As for the "french" numerals, the advantage would be more variation in ascenders and descenders (your |4| could be a bit shorter, I think). Outside running text, if not done properly, they could look a bit off, but so do "regular" OSN, especially in a sans (and I'm not sure I ever saw a sans with "french" ones, but here's a Baskerville: http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/glc/1785-glc-baskerville/).
You could always try hybrid (AKA ¾) numerals.
In any case, a proper critic for numerals (especially OS) could be done only seeing them along some letters.

Can't say I like the French-style figures. The old-style ones are certainly workable. I would maybe try out less strongly curved (more "diagonal") extenders for /6/9 and maybe also /3/5. The crossbar of the /4 looks too low. Something weird seems to be going on in the neck of the /6. I'd suggest a somewhat rounder /0 and more spacing around the /1.

As for lining figures: The reason why capitals need stronger strokes is not that they're tall, but that they have large interior and exterior spaces. Lining figures are tall but compact with relatively small counters, so they need less help.

I'm so easily led! :)

Why, yes you are. *gives biscuit*

A completely revised set of old style numerals. No other changes.

http://freepdfhosting.com/f2eb180c26.pdf

I've struggled a bit with the descenders, particularly on the /3/, but I'll go back and iron those curves out tomorrow.

Are they a better fit?

You're on the right track.
Tails of 3 and 5 may be a too limp now (especially in 5 given the "tightness" of its acute angle).
Change your specimen text to mix together figures and letters, like riccard0 suggested.

Yes, French-style please! I've been pushing them since before Typophile existed... Because to me they're not actually about style, they're about balance of vertical "presence" in the context of running text.

Also: ascending "2" please! Gill style.

hhp

The new old-style figures look nice at first sight. Up close, I think they're often a little low on contrast, sometimes almost monolinear (/2, /3).

The /5 looks pretty wonky; if anything, I'd make the top angle upwards, not downwards. Its central corner strikes me as too aggressive.

The /7 looks a bit heavy; maybe taper it down towards the junction, and make the top a bit heavier...?

The /8 looks top-heavy; I'd make the upper loop smaller.

Thanks everyone.

Here are the revised numerals ('old style' for now, hrant - we'll tackle the French style next, if you want).

http://freepdfhosting.com/86a0dede62.pdf

Changes include:

-stronger tails on /3/ and /5/ - this tightening of the curve forced the inclusion of the kink. Whilst this is consistent with the letters, it contrasts with the smoother tails of the /6/ and /9/ (and, to a lesser extent, the stem of the /2/). This seems to me to make sense, because the tails of the /6/ and /9/ remain 'open', but does this look odd? Should I increase the curve on the /6/ and /9/ tails so that they also kink?

- the /5/ has also been calmed down a bit. The curves angles are less pronounced and the flare extends up instead of down.

- stroke modulation on the /2/ has been increased very slightly.

- some weight has been taken off of the stem of the /7/. I haven't changed the weight of the top bar for now. It is the same weight as the base of the /2/, the top of the /5/ and the bars of the /z/. Hopefully, the change in stem weight gives a better balance to the glyph.

- /8/ changed as recommended

It's probably a matter of personal taste, but I don't really like the new finials on |3| and |5|.
Also, could be my astigmatism, but |5|'s top bar looks like is somewhat slanted, and the whole glyphs has a sort of SW to NE movement.

Hi riccard0 - I think the slant on the top bar is due to 'flipping' the flare so it opens above the bar rather than below it. I also see the SW/NE feel, but isn't this quite typical of old style /5/'s?

As for the finials, I did experiment with different ways of solving the problem eliason pointed out. My choices (as I saw them) were to either thicken them along their original path, which all but eliminates contrast, or else make the curve tighter, which demands a kink for harmony with the font style. Here's a link to two PDFs showing the alternative thicker version in text and separately.

http://freepdfhosting.com/86a0dede62.pdf
http://freepdfhosting.com/bab8fc41b1.pdf

Is there some middle ground I'm not exploring here?

I find the thicker tails less distracting.

I also see the SW/NE feel, but isn't this quite typical of old style /5/'s?

Yes, but OSF in a sans are ultimately frankenglyphs, so there will be compromises and trade-offs, especially since there isn't, in this case, a specific calligraphic structure underneath. And, also typical of old style figures is some lack of contrast or a form of reverse contrast.

Typical, shmypical. Consider instead the numerals with "rationalist" contrast distribution by Catich, Harvey, Bouwsma and yours truly.

hhp

I've changed the /3/, /5/, /6/ and /9/, making the finials more rounded, but not so much that they demand a pronounced kink.

http://freepdfhosting.com/0af09ef421.pdf

http://freepdfhosting.com/120baa9d73.pdf

numerals with "rationalist" contrast distribution by Catich, Harvey, Bouwsma…

Funny...

hhp

I like your current version.

Don't listen to these anarchists. ;o)

I like them overall. Just to nitpick: bottom of |3| ended up very wide, and top of |8| could perhaps be made still a bit less wide.

@riccard0 - narrower finial for /3/ and a slight narrowing at the top of /8/

@hrant - ascending /2/, which I really rather like!

http://freepdfhosting.com/6259cc01d4.pdf

So much better than the traditional cramped one.

hhp

Looking good. You definitely need more space around your /1/.

I have mixed feelings about that ascending /2, but it's probably for the better.

Your new /8 doesn't look narrower on top, only darker...

@eliason - I haven't adjusted that yet, but I will

@Catharsis - it is definitely narrower, but the stroke weight is the same, which probably makes it appear darker. Do you think the /8/ is still top heavy?

I've been drawing ampersands today - I have two styles to choose from:

http://freepdfhosting.com/242224fad0.pdf

http://freepdfhosting.com/ba20a38e2b.pdf

Which works best?

I think the “pretzel” |&| work best with the rest, the “Et” one looking more display than text. That said, I think there’s no such thing as too many ampersands! ;-)

LOL... I have a variation on the pretzel, with the NW/SE stroke extending below the line and curling back to the left. Not great for 'serious' text but, as you said, you can't have too many ampersand, so I'll include it as a fun alternative! :)

Latest update, with the following new characters - ß, æ, Ð, ð, Þ and þ.

http://freepdfhosting.com/888b037610.pdf

Any issues need to address?

Don't take this personally, but that /ß is oogly. ;o) It looks like your font didn't have it and a glyph from another font got subtituted. Lose the spur, make it as tall as the /l, and de-cramp it horizontally. Your font has this nice clean, no-frills look to it, and this /ß spoils it.

I don't have any useful experience with the Icelandic glyphs, but the /ð looks a bit dark where all the strokes cross — maybe you can make the junction of the bowl and stem a bit lighter?

I have trouble parsing the /Þ as a capital. I know it's difficult to make it work without serifs... maybe just try a slightly taller and wider bowl?

I'm not too fond of the /& yet. Its serif feels to finicky, and I have an inkling that a less closed design would work better with the font's many open apertures (which is also why I like the idea of a semi-open /g).

Is the /r a bit too narrow?

What Christian said. Also, for future reference, when present, the spur on |ß| should be at x-height (just like the bars of |f| and |t|, and the spur on |ſ|, and also on |l| in some French serif designs).
You could also be interested in “Thorn and eth: how to get them right”: http://66.147.242.192/~operinan/2/2.11/index.htm

There's serif fonts with a spur in the middle of /l? Oof, that's gotta be hard on the eyes, much like those /j designs with foot serifs.

It comes from the Romain du Roi, ostensibly as a mark of exclusivity, but pragmatically as a way to make its full-double-head-serif "el" distinguishable from the capital "I". But I've actually seen samples of handwriting (including from before the RdR) with that feature.

To me sometimes it's the bees knees.

hhp

Yes, I find it jarring. Example: http://www.identifont.com/find?font=sangbleu

But I would argue less jarring than thinking the "el" is an "I".

BTW see my third post here: http://typophile.com/node/31152

hhp

Thanks for all the great feedback.

I'm not sure if I'll get another chance to work on this font tonight, so thought I'd share where I'm at so far.

http://freepdfhosting.com/994e932455.pdf

Changes include:

- taller /ß/, without spur and de-cluttered at the bottom
- alternative serifless /&/, with larger lower bowl and an 'open' top
- revised 'open' /g/
- minor revision to /ð/ to lighten the junction

No changes yet to /Þ/ or /r/

I did get to spend a bit more time with this and here's the latest version:

http://freepdfhosting.com/9dca71a4a6.pdf

- the /g/ has undergone further modification, particularly to the loop.
- the /Þ/ has a taller and wider bowl
- the /r/ is a little wider

No further changes to any of the earlier edits.

I've left the 'open' ampersand in for now, but I think I prefer the previous 'closed' version. Maybe there's some more work I can do to the 'open' one?

Hey Steve,

/ß is much better now. It could probably still profit from a bit more space between the stem and the near-contact points, though. I feel like your design is characterized by open, springy forms, and this closed and aggressive double curve won't quite fit.

/ð is definitely better now! Can't say I noticed a change in /Þ, but you might as well leave it like that; it's pretty much impossible to make look right in a sans (except maybe in a very blocky one where you can exaggerate the bowl).

I rather like your open /&, but you should pick the one you like best for your default, obviously. If you want to tweak the open one some more, maybe try a slightly longer outstroke on the rising diagonal in order to balance out that large whitespace?

As for your /g... I feel like I've already meddled in your design choices far more than I should have, but I think the current one is a step backward. It's trying to revert to the Baskerville/Meta shape that it originally had, and I don't think it's a good match for your font (or for Baskerville and Meta, for that matter). The vertical upturn and tiny aperture clash with the "natural spline" feeling of the similar finials in /a and /s. I'd try to match that feeling by keeping the /g's tail low and with relatively little curvature towards the end, much like the /s's lower half. If you find that this leaves too large an aperture, maybe lower the middle part of the /g a bit to redistribute the weight.

Good morning, Catharsis!

I was just about to post an update, when I saw your reply above. I made a quick change to the /ß/ along the lines you suggested, but haven't reviewed the /g/ and /&/ yet, but I will.

This update looks at alternative 'shoulders' for the /h/, /n/, /m/ and /u/. I don't dislike the original version, but these letters have been largely untouched throughout all iterations and I thought it would be a good idea to at least explore other ideas.

http://freepdfhosting.com/978940a74f.pdf

Do these work better, or should I revert to the previous design?

Finally, for now, a quick response to this:

...I feel like I've already meddled in your design choices far more than I should have...

Without your 'meddling', this font would be collecting digital dust! I am grateful to you and everyone for the excellent advice I've received - it's been a real education.

Not sure about your new shoulders. Took me a while to figure out what you changed, and I'm not sure "more squarish" is a good match for your calligraphic style. If there's anything I'd change about your /n design, it would be the perceived divergence of the two stems. This is particularly noticeable in the /u, where, if anything, I'd expect the first stem to lean forwards rather than backwards.

As for /ß, it could still bear some more opening:

I preferred the original shoulders as well. I've reverted back. The stem divergence is an issue I might take a look at again later. I originally had the flares set up in the way I believe you would expect - on the /u/, the both stems flared to the right at the top. The problem was that this wholly right-leaning tendency made the glyph looked a bit 'drunk'.

Anyway, the latest version has a revised /ß/, /&/ and /g/.

http://freepdfhosting.com/5ef9071c61.pdf

The /ß/ is essentially as you suggested and the /&/ has a slightly longer stroke extending into the empty space.

The /g/ has had quite a facelift! The bowl is 5% larger to compensate for the space created by a wider opening at the loop. The middle bar is flatter and lower, and the tail of the loop is more closely modelled on the /s/.

Nice! :)

I just recently learned that two-storey /g often profit from being a bit wider on their lower right side so as to balance out the ear. I could imagine that to apply to your /g as well.

http://typophile.com/files/gg_4700.jpg

Definitely keep your closed /g and /& as stylistic alternates though! They produce a somewhat "calmer" look.

The latest update includes a selection of diacritics, as well as /!/, /?/, /@/, /$/, /¢/ and /§/.

http://freepdfhosting.com/7aee9e2fa8.pdf

http://freepdfhosting.com/1e8ce3ea49.pdf

I'm not worried at this point about the position of the diacritics, nor even if they're the correct form (I haven't, for example, replaced the regular caron on /ď/ with the correct vertical form yet); I am much more interested in the shape, and weight/size relationships.

All feedback welcome!

Some significant changes to the diacritics since the last update, including more upright acute/grave and reworked circumflex/caron, as well as the addition of a number of new diacritics and characters.

http://freepdfhosting.com/f40125d895.pdf

The font now has a lot of character excuse the pun - the glyphs have planted their feet firmly in the ground and look one squarely in the eye, resisting the breeze I talked about earlier. Perhaps you can now try kerning the font? That will do a lot to compact the words while you continue to study details here and there.

I think the umlaut may be a bit heavy still, and perhaps a touch too tight.

@Vladimir & @Birdseeding - this font has come a long way, that's for sure. I appreciate all the support you guys have offered.

I haven't started kerning yet, but I have made quite a few changes since my last update. These include a stronger hood on the /f/; taller ascenders; variations to the acute, grave, circumflex and caron for the caps (not visible in the PDF, since it's lower case only); and, as a result of Birdseeding's observations, a slightly smaller and looser umlaut. There have been a couple of other small changes too, but I forget what they are! :)

http://freepdfhosting.com/0ff63ba208.pdf

Vladimir, I should have been busy completing the character set and kerning, but I got distracted. I was reading another Typophile thread about the tendency to 'Latinise' non-Latin scripts, such as Greek, Cyrillic and Arabic. One Greek contributor to that conversation contrasted Latin and Greek by saying Greek was akin to a tango across the page whilst Latin was more regimented. This got me thinking about the way you described this font a couple of weeks ago:

...as if a breeze is blowing through the letters.

So, I wondered if it would be possible to create a Greek character set for this 'breezy' font that captured the energy of the Greek script without Latinising it. I've nearly completed the lower case characters and will post them here, probably in a new thread, since I want to attract native Greek-speakers to comment.

Then I'll get back to kerning! :)

Steve. Yes the latest pdf shines. Alas Greek is Greek to me, but I certainly agree with the sentiment against Latinizing Arabic. Can you please point me to the Greek discussion you read? All scripts turning to print need to undergo a certain kind of adaptation to account for modern needs on screen, print, signage etc. I call it the Sans Serification whether the 'serifs' are ragged brush endings in Japanese script or pen strokes in Arabic. Anyway yes if you have the gumption do a Greek set. From my experience however unless you are really knowledgeable about the nuances of a script the font will appear 'strange' to native users who grew up with the letters. This is true of the Latin I designed for my Arabic as well as of the Arabic one Mexican typophile user designed ! The thing I found about kerning is that it is not that difficult, and that it really helps a font.

Starting kerning too early may be the number one regret of early stage type designers (it was for me). I wouldn't start until you're confident the glyph designs (including caps) are quite certain.

I will comment only on the diacritics with which I’m more familiar:
Acute and Grave look very steep. It could be a stylistic choice, but then they should look more like they start from the center of the letter.
The macron could float a little higher, and perhaps the dieresis too could still breathe a little more (but on that you would want the opinion of someone with more familiarity at least with German than me).

@Vladimir - I've quickly searched, but can't find the specific conversation I was referring to. I'll have a proper look later this evening and post a link if I find it.

@eliason - this is why I haven't started kerning yet. I think I'm almost there with the design, but this experiment I'm doing with the Greek characters has given me the opportunity to take a break from the Latin, which will give me a fresher pair of eyes when I return to them.

@riccard0 - the angle was very much a stylistic choice - so much so that I actually had to raise the ascenders a little to accommodate them. I experimented with all sorts of shapes and angles before deciding I liked the taller, steeper ones best. The caps, on the other hand, have both shorter and shallower acute and grave (circumflex and caron too). I'll upload a text block showing both once I've gone back through all the diacritics and tweaked their position.

Chris Lozos:

My opinion is that Greek text should dance more than say Times Roman Latin. Many Latin faces have glyphs which appear as a single gestalt on the page and group together as words with a single gestalt. I feel Greek text swings together as a flowing, undulating tango rather than marching lockstep in very even time.

http://www.typophile.com/node/78525#comment-449891

I personally love the steep accents (but then I am Hungarian), but Riccardo is right: Using the classic "optically centered" method is less ideal when they're as steep at this, because it can look as if they are misplaced, sliding off to the left. This is especially noticeable with narrow letters like i and with the double acute. (Remember, the í and the double-acute letters in hungarian are "long versions" of letters that otherwise bear tittles/umlauts, and a positional relationship makes sense.) So carefully moving them right (without leaning the whole letter too much) can be a good idea.

Note: This is not a generally standard way of doing it, so feel free to disregard. Btw, much more harmonious umlaut. :)

Thank you so much, riccard0!!!

Vladimir, please see http://www.typophile.com/node/78525#comment-449891. I was also interested in the conversation you're involved in about Gill Sans Arabic - http://www.typophile.com/node/92658

Thanks for the guidance, Birdseeding - I'll post a revision once I've made those changes.

I started a new thread about the Greek character set I've been experimenting with. It at http://typophile.com/node/121394.

Here's the first attempt at small caps and standard ligatures. I see an issue with the bowl of the /R/ at the base... that aside, anyone spot any issues need to address?

P.S. I typed this in Illustrator but, for some reason, the small /Z/ doesn't show in the glyph list - any ideas why that might be?

It'd be easier to judge with words set in all small caps, but I think you might consider widening their proportions.

I've widened the small caps a little and adjusted the bowl of the sc. /R/. This image shows two sentences in three formats for comparison: all caps, small caps and normal.

The caps, small caps and lower case have the following approximate relationships:

Size

Caps - 100%
Small Caps - 80% Cap height
Lower Case - 73% Cap height; 91.5% Small Cap height

Stroke weight

Caps - 100%
Small Caps - 96.5% Cap
Lower Case - 94.5 Caps stroke; 98% Small Cap stroke

Are these ratios broadly typical?

The image in my last post is wrong. You'll notice the 2nd and 3rd examples of each sentence seem darker than the first. This is because I converted them to objects within Illustrator, whilst leaving the first example as text. This conversion adds weight and prevents proper comparison.

Please ignore the image above and use this one for comparison instead.

Those grumpy wizards have a nice font! At first glance the thinnest part of the P and R counters seems too thin. In the R especially because the diagonal stem is attached there.. but that is a 'standard' design feature of the font as a whole and it may be unwise to change only one or two letters. Do not rush to implement this hasty observation .

Hi, Vladimir... the font is coming together nicely!

As for the thin /P/ and /R/ counters... as you say, this thinning is standard (and I've tried to implement it as consistently as possible throughout the font), but I'll go back and have a close look at them. If necessary, I'm sure I can make a subtle change to these two characters without the need to apply the change elsewhere.

Thanks for all your suggestions so far. My time is split working on the Greek and small caps at the moment; if you have any thoughts on the Greek, I'd love to hear them - http://typophile.com/node/121394. When these are complete, I plan to add Cyrillic into the mix. And, though I've never attempted it before, possibly Arabic... there's something about the style of this font that makes me think it might adapt well. Maybe you could share your expertise when the time comes? :)

Wow, with Greek then Cyrillic you are hitting your stride. Arabic, as Eric Gill, found, is another matter. Please exempt me from participating in Arabic though - I just emerged from a solid year finalising my AlQuds fonts to be released soon. I hope never to see another glyph for some time afterwards ;) Best of luck whatever you choose to do.

LOL! I'm certainly not sold on the idea of attempting Arabic but, if I do, I'll be sure to give you a wide berth.

I look forward to seeing your AlQuds fonts... I hope they're a great success!

Thanks - I am not discouraging you from trying Arabic. - it is easy enough to make a simple font these days what with the trend of young designers trying to make Arabic look as Latin as possible.

It's been a long time since my last update and just about every letter has had a major overhaul. The latest PDF includes a passage from the UDHR in a range of Latin scripts, as well as Greek and Russian. I haven't started kerning yet, but you see any errors or issues you think I need to address, please let me know.

http://freepdfhosting.com/bb3bdb21ac.pdf

To me, it looks a bit stiff for comfortable reading. Perhaps it’s just because I find the letterspacing too tight.
Also |’| seems hanging too low.
Lastly, looking at Icelandic, I wonder if |Þ|’s foot could be allowed to go a bit under the baseline, like it happens sometimes with Cyrillic |Ф|.

Hi riccard0,

I've loosened the spacing a bit; tweaked the /Þ/; and raised the apostrophes and quotation marks. It really needs kerning, but I don't want to do that until I have the letterforms sorted out. Notwithstanding that, do you find this any more readable?

http://freepdfhosting.com/66c1395527.pdf

ETA: I recently made the /a/ counter smaller to match the /e/, but somehow managed to exclude it from the latest revision. I've added it back in and edited the link above.

I did not examine each leter minutely but the general impression is lovely and breezy! Wonder about the capital letters? Kerning will double the enjoyment of reading with this font. Good luck!

Thanks, Vladimir.

Here is the same text in capitals.

http://freepdfhosting.com/0237fcfac6.pdf

Well done! I looked at your very first sample and the last two pdfs - you have carried out your initial concept fully. The font looks good even in small sizes but its best qualities - the beautifully balanced curves making up each letter - are more apparent in large sizes. Doubtless in printing these qualities will shine.

Well done! I looked at your very first sample and the last two pdfs - you have carried out your initial concept fully. The font looks good even in small sizes but its best qualities - the beautifully balanced curves making up each letter - are more apparent in large sizes. Doubtless in printing these qualities will shine.

Thanks again Vladimir… I appreciate all your feedback and support.

Yes, this project has come a very long way since my first post. Back then, I was really unsure how best to develop the design, but it's since found its voice! I'm still ironing out a few wrinkles and inconsistencies, but I think work on this weight is nearly complete.

I've been working concurrently on the bold version over the past couple of weeks and will post a preview once I have something worthwhile to share.

Great three month's work Steve!