Cool!
I prefer your Serif "2" version.
Kobayashi's Calcite is an obvious reference here (and I like it very much), but this one looks more flexible, versatile.
Very nice.

I've always thought that Calcite nodded to some of Neville Brody's work, like Industria for example. When looking at the examples of Chagrin, I can't help but be reminded of both Berhold's City and Zuzana's Cholla. These aren't bad things. In fact, I love this type of character squarishness.

Chagrin has a friendlier feel to me, as compared to the others mentioned above. I'd have to say that I actually prefer the first version of the serif. It's more distinctive from the other variation. Although the second one blends better with the sans and semiserif weights, maybe that's the point.

Randy, this is gold.
Full feedback in the PM.

hhp

I love this one.. Very nice..

First of all, I think Chagrin is superior to Calcite, and certainly to the other fonts mentioned. It's novel without feeling affected.

Although I personally don't like very dark weights, it seems the Heavy embodies the most interesting essence. The other two weights don't seem genuine enough, especially not the Regular.

Your serif tests at the bottom give me an idea: maybe this is a good design to implement the concept that different weight can sometimes have different structures. Specifically, I see the Heavy as being happiest in the "Serif 2" scheme (the "Serif 1" has too many serifs), while the Regular might really get into its own as a sans. Which might mean the Bold should be a semi?

Also, some of the structures aren't translating well from the Heavy down to the Regular. Like the upper arm of the "a" is wonderfully short in the Heavy, but too long in the Regular. And the "e" is superb in the Heavy, but gets too square as it gets lighter.

So I suspect you're doing the "weight loss" too literally - I'd give the lighter weights more roundness for example.

BTW, that "rationalist" lc "s" (the one where the stroke stress is vertical) is just great. And your vertical proportions are right on.

Lastly: I'm getting a tingle when I think about italic possibilities for this...

hhp

It seems the Heavy embodies the most interesting essence. The other two weights don't seem genuine enough, especially not the Regular.
This is definitely true. The heavy makes the most of the square/round contrast while the regular just seems square.

So I suspect you're doing the "weight loss" too literally - I'd give the lighter weights more roundness for example.
Agreed. More roundness in the regular would make it more texworthy also. The trick is keeping the flavor of the heavy, with a different structure! Back to the drawing board for that.

Your serif tests at the bottom give me an idea: maybe this is a good design to implement the concept that different weight can sometimes have different structures. Specifically, I see the Heavy as being happiest in the "Serif 2" scheme (the "Serif 1" has too many serifs), while the Regular might really get into its own as a sans. Which might mean the Bold should be a semi?

Hmm, that's a thought I hadn't considered. Are there other fonts that do this successfully? My guess is that the serifs are going to be what keeps the the regular weight looking like it's part of the same family after I add more roundness. Anybody else have thoughts about this idea?

Lastly: I'm getting a tingle when I think about italic possibilities for this...
I'm just gonna oblique it! Ha!

Thanks,
Randy

its funny.
but... maybe is being too funny for lon texts.
its a neo techno font of text.

De Gregorio

Just finished redrawing much of the regular weight, adding
in more roundness. I think the result is more textworthy
and is in fact closer to the heavy weight than before.

Back to the drawing board for that.
Sometimes it's the only way.

Nice nice.
I only noticed it now; the f's ascender is too low, rise it a little bit.

Randy, I think you might have actually gone too far: don't lose the straight segments on the insides of the counters (not just for aesthetic reasons, but also for easy interpolation). Here's an idea: where the flats are in the Heavy, keep at least some flatness in the lighter weights, but make them angled (not horizontal), and then flowing into the curves. Did I explain that OK?

One other thing: you're getting this strange "butt jut" at the lower-left of the "e", even though the stem is straight (pun unintended). Maybe shorten the straight part of the stem?

Yeah, and the "f" height.

BTW, I don't know if you realize, but you're moving into Unger terrority here... Which to me is a Good Thing. Curiously though, I know of only one other instance of people making type like Unger: the recent Dagen fonts. Maybe his style is slightly too fringe to imitate comfortably.

hhp

...the recent Dagen fonts

Do you mean the danish e-types? Otherwise please specify,
because I

> the danish e-types?

Yeah, that's the stuff.

hhp

Here's an idea: ...make them angled (not horizontal), and then flowing into the curves.
Yeah, I follow you. Actually that was the first thing I tried, but was unhappy with the angles.

But also for easy interpolation
I was planning on drawing the three weights by hand. But, for interpolation purposes, I suppose I could add the neccessary points into the heavy (ie. a sharp corner could be sub-perceptably rounded). The bold will fall somewhere in the middle.

Unger terrority
I'll take it! I wasn't thinking of his work at all actually. After Grant's comments, in the back of my mind I fancied it as a Berthold City meets Dolly. But perhaps it is more Gulliver meets Teuton? Ha! That's heady company :-) The counters definitely are wide open. To be perfectly honest the day that I started doodling I was just drooling over this sketch by Gabriel Mart

> perhaps it is more Gulliver meets Teuton?

Or Paradox meets Cachet?

GMM's stuff is killer, but this has an iciness that really speaks to me.

hhp

Here's the idea I posted above, fleshed out to reg, bold and
heavy to give a sense of the progession. The spacing in the
pdf is terrible. I will get to that later. In the mean time, I'd
appreciate your comments. Thanks

I really don't get why so few are giving feedback on this font - it's one of the best ever shown on Typophile.

hhp

Yes, it is: I can't wait to see the caps.

Randy congratulations about this work, it seems something very versatil and interesting. I only put some question why l/c ( f ) have the a short ascender elevation, if we compare with other letters (b,d,h,k,l). I can wait too see the capitals, figures and the italic or oblique weights. Great work and good luck.
Ricardo

Quick comments:
-r looks light;
-s looks heavy;
-v and w: maybe the curved feature should be on
the right side (not left) of the stems? They seem
to be going "backwards";
-f's ascender still looks odd in text, align it
with the other ascenders;
-kx and punctuation: great!

Quick question:
What's about the name?
Is that Chargrin, Chagrin, or Chargin?
Chargin is kinda silly, but I think it sounds better... :-)

:-)

For the record it's
Chagrin (shuh-grin):A keen feeling of mental unease, as of annoyance or embarrassment, caused by failure, disappointment, or a disconcerting event: To her chagrin, the party ended just as she arrived.

My fingers really like putting a r before the g. One the humorous things about it is that it fits nicely into the tradition of font names being mispronounced (ie peignot!). Isn't that something to shoot for?

Others that I considered:
Chagrin
Salvo
Caedmon
Kortes
Katin

- Randy

Randy this is a really nice work.
the only thing that seems odd to me
is lc "s".
I think it needs less white inside
and less roundness.

> What's about the name?

Yeah, I was wondering about the name too. There's actually been three variants.
I couldn't figure out if it was about sadness, happy BBQs, or cavalry.

hhp

OK, I have some more feedback based on the cavalry PDF. Interestingly, the Regular seems to have more problems that the Heavy, and the Bold consistently has just a diluted subset of those.

Overall:
- Are you doing something funky with your "f" height? It might make sense since it's the only ascender that's not a stick, but if so it's too pronounced.
- I'd make the left part of the bar of the "f" longer.
- Those asymmetrical foot serifs (and not just the nice long right sides in the "f" and "r") are great.
- Love the dots!
- The "k" is a conundrum. I'm not sure about that separation.
- I'd give the "el" a stronger foot half-serif.
- I'd give the "q" a stronger ear.
- The bottoms of "v" and "w" are too soft.
- I'm thinking your "y" should be v-style.

Regular:
- The "a" is attractive, but it seems to have bypassed your early move to more curviness, and it's not "belonging" with the rest. Note that making it conform would actually make it very Ungerish.
- The leg of the "k" ends too delicately.
- I think the "o" is too square.
- The "r" beak is weak.
- There's something wrong with the "s". The terminals seem off, especially the top.
- The "t" is too shy.
- The right-bottom of the "x": same problem as the "k".

Heavy:
- You need some of that straighness in all the arches (like in the "h").

BTW, I'm really liking the idea of structural divergence between the Heavy and the others.

hhp

I agree with hhp when he says that it is one of the nicer types shown here...I really like it. I also think the Unger parallel is quite accurate, when I first saw it seemed like Swift and Cooper Black's bastard child...

nice

h

Or Sauna's serious sister.

hhp

- Are you doing something funky with your "f" height?
Not intentionally. I found if I made it taller it looked really goofy because of that hard angle in it. I can't get rid of that though! Since it has been a concern raised (pun intended) by many, i will oblige.

- The bottoms of "v" and "w" are too soft.
- I'm thinking your "y" should be v-style.
The diagonal letters in any square-ish font will cause problems. I introduced the curve to bring a bit more harmony between them. I personally like the k and x, though could be talked out of the v, w since at small sized they flatten out anyways. (Maybe a curve in the regluar graduating to a flat in the heavy

The heavy weight is so great.

I'm wondering whether some of the characters in the bold and especially regular weight would have more of the punch of the heavy if they were narrower.

> I couldn't figure out the tail!

I had the same problem with Patria, but suddenly found a very satisfying form. It might work for you too:
http://www.typophile.com/forums/messages/29/805.html

The "a": no, I meant the inside of the top arm.

> i Generally hate this kind of s

But it's really singing here.

I think "Sneaker" isn't half bad.

hhp

I am really enjoying this. I'm not sure if it has been mentioned, but I think this has a bit of a Fedra Serif flare to it. This is definately positive in my mind, a sort of geometric text face. Just don't loose too much of the geometric feeling, in my mind, thats what really sets this apart.

Kudos!

hildebrant.

i've only had time to skim the thread, so i don't know if anyone has noticed this yet, but in the very first post, the small setting of the heavy weight (where it says "chagrin", at the top) looks blackletter. which is cool. the sans is my favorite. very nice.

dubble

Thanks. I appreciate all the enthusiasm. I stalled out after some miscues on the caps. I've got some fresh ideas and will try them out when I get a chance. Right now I'm working on a different serif text face and have made major progress: uppers, lowers, small caps, figures and half the italics. The italics should be done next week - are they ever slippery buggers to design! Then I will get about dusting off this one.

Cheers,
Randy

I'm not the only one who gained a little weight over the holidays. Went through and reworked the heavy and made it black. Changes include:
- new g, new y, new serifs
- taller f :-) shorter ascenders, shorter decenders
- some letters condensed.

Caps forthcoming in the next week or so

The bulk of your changes seem to really work.

The effort of putting in a binocular "g" is admirable, but this is way too grot. It has none of the iciness of the overall. I think the head is fine, but the tail is too bubbly, too "naive". As for the "y", it's fine on its own (the tail ending is great), but I'm wondering is it's too off from the "v".

hhp

Nice. The new g makes it look like a modern, chunky woodcut.

You've been busy. Will any of your stuff be available in the near future?

The y diverging from v is ok, IMHO. About the g, I agree with Hrant. And maybe the x could be less curvy?

Minor observations: it seems that {rsvwxy} are too wide. OTOH, c looks narrow.

I agree with Hrant.

Your revision is very polished, but has lost the fresh, distinctive look of your first posted version of the bold. Both the binocular g and the heavy foot serifs take away from the original charm.

Oh well. I still like the new g, as well the revisions as a whole. But I'm a sucker for fat woodcuts.

This close up shows what I did with the foot serifs. As you can see they are a natural extrapolation from the heavy weight. Seeing all the ducks in a row, do you still think they are too chunky? I slanted them both forward as a practical space issue in the black. No room for any other kind of treatment. I don't think it changes the original too much. It might even make it a little more *icy*.

You can also see the interpolation changes the width of the bold and heavy weights but the regular remains at original width.

Finally, the g: I'm gonna reserve judgement on it until I've drawn a regular g so I can see what it looks like across all weights. The problem I saw with the original g is that it looks less like a g and more like a c + j (essentially what it is). It was my least favorite of the old set so I was hankering for change. We'll see.

Will any of your stuff be available in the near future?
I sure hope so. The only font that is anywhere close to ready is the jensonesque serif. That will hopefully be available in 2004. Can't say where yet. This has a long way to go, but I hope to finish it before spring. Given that this hobby has become a serious time gobbler, it'd be nice to see a some coin from the efforts!

Cheers.
Randy

By can't say where yet I meant only that there are a few plates spinning but my options are wide open right now.

To my eye the middle weights have too heavy 'boots' in the revised, interpolated version. I think your eye was better. With also the narrowing , it has moved toward wood type look which I don't particularly like, so this may be just my personal taste. The earlier version is, as I said, for me more fresh.

Hi Typophiles,

Here are some caps for you to chew on. These were a royal pain in the posterior. (A shoutout to Christian Robertson for his encouragement on them). The results, I think, happily relate to the lc. I intoduced the semi serifs because there is a little semi serifage happening in the lc, but also because it countered the woodtype tendency and leaves it feeling fresh. After developing this weight I'm pretty sure it will not be a straight interpolation to the regular weight. Too many quirks at this size.

(BTW I will be reproportioning the lc, per your comments Eduardo, William) Thanks one and all!

Hey, that UC looks exactly right! Very nice work. And the semi-serif action is great - I wonder if you should turn some of the full-serifs (like on the right leg of the "A") into semis.

Don't you think they're a little bit too small? I actually like smallish caps (especially since they alleviate the need for "true" smallcaps - which very few people actually end up using), but maybe a hair larger would make them more in their [alphabetic] character.

Some specifics:
A: I might make the top curl less pronounced - maybe with a short flat segment on the top-left. Your structure is working great when on the bottom ("V", etc.) but seems too soft on top.
B: If you can do so without destroying the rigidity, try curving the top and bottom more out, to couteract the optical effect of bowing in.
M: Isn't working.
S: Too sharp inside.
U: What about a full right stem?

This font is getting amazing - I feel like squeezing the glyphs to get some chocolate icecream out of them! Cooper Black as a triathlete. Or a female bodybuilding champion. If so, here's a source for names: http://www.fitnesspros.com/womenbuilders.html

hhp

Awesome. I want it. I think you should go back to the other kind of g though.

BTW, am I the only feeling this, or are there some font house hawks lurking on Typophile watching for promising fonts to sign up? Confirm/Deny?

hhp

Randy - this is sweeeet!

Count me in to throw coin when it's released...

bj

Lovely. On the semi-serif treatment, I only find jarring the lack of a left bottom serif on the H. The rest works very smoothly. I still, like Kevin, prefer the original g.

Are you only releasing a fat roman? Or, will you be doing multiple weights and an italic to join those?
The other weights are still in progress. I don't have master plan though. At least regular, bold, heavy + this one (black display). As for italics, if I can make them look decent I'll give it a go :-). Oh, man. That should keep me busy.

I think you should go back to the other kind of g though
Both will be there. Probably the double as an alternate.

If so, here's a source for names
Ahhhhhhhh! My eyes! My new years resolution to work out more just died a swift death. :-)

Hrant please elaborate on your U and M comments.
I know the U is structurally *wrong* but it needed weight.

Thanks for the positivity all.
Randy

Tiffany, on the contrary! I just wish they'd also make posts. Unless I'm just imagining them, in which case we could at least boast ghost posts (that was on purpose).

hhp