I think it's unique -and cute- enough to finish.
Just mind your weight distribution (without making it too regular).

hhp

I think it has a somewhat Art Nouveau feel, that reminds me of Auriol or Arnold Boecklin, but it is much more simplified and perhaps nicer and more usable than those. I'd say finish it and see what happens.

I like your lc s - uc C but the lc m & UC F needs some help. Would you set something so we can see what it does?

Thanks Brad - I think it was Arnold Boeklin that was making me uneasy. Never really liked that face, but I've seen it (and its imitators) enough that apparently it's crept into my subconscious.

Here's something to see how it reads... I think no matter how great this turns out, it's not going to be something to set all caps!

It's pretty short too; lengthy paragraphs will have to wait until I get these things imported into fontographer.

Hey, I think it looks great in all-caps!
In fact I actually think it's looking better than the lc...

> ... apparently it’s crept into my subconscious.

If that's true, then I'd say deep down you actually like Boeklin.

hhp

Hey, I think it looks great in all-caps! In fact I actually think it’s looking better than the lc…

I agree. The lc t is weak next to it's kin. For some reason I find the UC E objectionable. Maybe it looks to Boxy in general. Maybe it would benefit from a smaller top story & a bigger Bottom... The UC A is a bit too tall & a bit too heavy on top.

Keep going.

What do you see this used for? Packaging come to my mind... maybe it's that CREAM.

>...is this face even worth continuing?
gosh, what a question :), it is really NICE! You hear that from a (normally) "who needs a script"-ignorant.

Update - finally got all the caps drawn, so now it's time for tweaks.

I wholly agree, Eben, and the E is now more roundy and bottom-heavy, t is a bit beefier, A is a little more grounded etc.

Thanks a million by the way, poms; everybody likes some applause now and then.

My first instincts: v, y, and z are a touch too light; m and J are too heavy and J is riding low; M's left leg is off-balance, and U is too square, especially on the right of the bowl. Any other spots jump out at you that could use some spit and polish?

v, - I bet you could pull the left side in a touch & solve that. Not totally sure because of the scale of the rendering...

y, - Maybe - or you could extend the foot slighty.

z - Yes.

m - m is tricky. Lighten the 1st hump & maybe think about a faux serif for the right side like you have for the v or the top of the R

J - You could pull it up. Or you could work on the curve & let it be more gentle maybe. Maybe the top should be more bone like. Your I has that.

j - I like it.

M - why that kind of M? You don't have to match the 'W'. Your ARD are really nice Maybe you should think what matches them better.

U - I think it's working well enough for now. I would go after biger fish for now.

Other things:

- The top of Q is too low, the vertical of the b seems a little heavy, Maybe the right side of the cross bar on the f could be made heavier?, I really like the movement in the top of the b and I see it in the i too. Maybe it could find it's way into other glyphs such as the l,h,f,

That C is tasty.

This is really coming along!

Thanks Eben and Hrant, very helpful. I know it's been forever, since I've been working on this only during "free time" at work, but it's coming along.

I widened the apertures and the decorative gaps between strokes quite a bit, because they were closing off at small sizes. I think I've evened the cap height out enough now, and I'm getting a better handle on the M / W question. I'm not sure now about the lowercase x though.

More comments please! All the help is greatly appreciated.

It looks more balanced.
The spacing however is too loose, at least for the
size I suspect this will end up usually being used at.

In the "x", try flipping the cursiveness of the diagonals.

hhp

The y has something really nice. I agree with Hrants points and would add maybe try a narrower lc 'a' to contrast with he rounder lc 'e' you have. I bet that will help.

In a way it's hard to say much more with this wider spacing - especially if you plan to pull it tighter which I think you should.

This is coming along really nicely.

Tests of 2 new lc "a"s and an "x" - with tighter spacing. I think the second a works better; when the first one gets that narrow it starts to look like a u. Actually I think I might widen the a out again, just a bit.

Of course now the l and stem of the d, u, and p are sticking out as too dark.

Thoughts? Thanks again!