Ah. I forgot this board is pretty much broken. Apologies for the large image.

Some additional comments: The thinning of joins is not primarily inspired by pen traces – and hence, does not necessarily occur where expected. This makes me a bit unsure about how to handle contrast in other shapes. For the o, I’ve borrowed an idea from Fleischmann – something I’ve also echoed to some extent in b/d/p/q. Curves get a different treatment in terms of speed/angle/dynamism for inside and outside – if there is such a thing as inside and outside here.

The a and (the bottom of the) g breaks the logical shoulder treatment of n, but they’ve got each other (as does the numerals, ampersand and Q), and I’ve been pondering adding r to that party too. And X? X is a disaster!

I like it - The cap G is wonderful as is the Q. The font has a nice robust feel.

Very pretty and satisfyingly grippy.

I'm not sure how well the /G and /Q will work — would have to see them in context — but they're certainly original and plausible shapes. I really like the chunky ascender tops and the half-circle bowls. The Satyr /a is as gorgeous as ever, and I'm also fond of your solution for the ear of /g, which feels unnatural to me in many typefaces.

Is /U too narrow? The spine of /S a tad too straight? The tail of /Q a bit too straight and abruptly cut? I could imagine the latter to profit from some thickening or even a serif.

Most accents strike me as too small and too little differentiated for the intended small text sizes. The ogonek could also use more heft.

Dear Christian,

You can see the G in context in the PDF attached to the first post.

I think that this typeface despite looking unconventional in some ways is also a highly legible text face, and this combination of originality and utility is a good thing.

However, I could also imagine someone criticizing it as looking too much like Aldus (Hermann Zapf's Palatino Book, but not given that name) - if one disregards its very original shapes for some letters, the two faces have a similar feel at least.

Interesting. Care to explain what you see as similar?

Christian, I did look closer at that Q, and the U and S. I also massaged the G a little bit. I don’t think the U can be much wider than this. The shoulder gives it so much more white inside than for example H.

I like the new /S, /G, and tail of /Q. Does the body of the /Q have a subtle kink near the apex though?

The /U still feels too narrow to me. This width might work for a traditional /U with a thin right side, but you have two full stems, which raises its demand for whitespace. I'm not sure the low connection in the /U is that much darker than the middle of /H, and in any case your /O has much more interior space and doesn't look out of place.

Here's Perpetua's /U for comparison:

By the way, is the flag of /r perhaps a bit too light and/or finicky? At text sizes, I feel it seems to stand out from the level of detail established by the other letters.

We r never resting.