You do see U's like that in fonts sometimes. Utopia is one. I find them to be a bit odd myself, even thought there seems to be a certain logic to it. The O and H, for example, are symmetrical, why not the U? The only reason I can think of is that U was derived from V and, therefore, follows the same thick/thin pattern.

It is the result of historical evolution indeed, so there is no real "logic" to the stress in the UC 'U'. On the other hand it's difficult to shake the familiarity of centuries of consistent use.

One of the funny examples I can think of is the previous incarnation of the logo of Belgian telecommunications company Belgacom. It used a customised version of Template Gothic where the original O and M were flipped horizontally because the stress was inverted. The O didin't bug me that much, but the "correct" M looked so wrong to a nerd like me. :^)

The stresses I think were based on calligraphy. The U would have been drawn in one stroke (unless it is completed by a tail) whereas the lowercase u was drawn in two, as was the O.

> The U would have been drawn in one stroke

No, since the right stem would have to go up,
and that's a no-no in (conventional) calligraphy.

If the Romans had a "U", they would have done a better job than us.

Me, I like the one in "Carter's Caps", by William Carter.

hhp