woops... didn't think going back would still submit.

here we go again:

> has this been done already?

Only the name.

I know Hrant will be thrilled with the 2-pixel stem widths.

I really enjoy it at 5-7 pts.

I would drop the interior stroke on the 'Q' at
sub-10 sizes.

I do like the thick-and-thin stems - it has a nice Art Deco feel, and I can't remember a font like this offhand.

The main problem is that without an lc this can't be a text face... Why would the lc look terrible? Maybe it gains too much width because of the 2-pixel stems? I'd like to see what you have. Also, maybe try a version of 16-pixel height.

hhp

here's what I had for the lc:



the first 2 rows are trying to follow the same stem-width "rule" set by the UC - the 1st row is just more strict about it than the second.

the other option, the 3rd row, would be to leave out any thickness to the lc, which might work - but... I think that would also defeat the whole purpose of this font.

I think your second row is just dandy - and don't let "rules" reduce the functionality of your font. The only thing I'd change is in making the middle stem of the "m" thick.

hhp

> has this been done already?

well, i remember once i made a sketch of something that looks alot like this. and counting how creative the pool of type designers are, i guess some people have allready thought of this. but - this is a very nice font. ahnd i have never seen a family built on this idea. ive never seen any font like this. so i advice you to continue to work on it. the X's and W's look alittle broken in all wieght. and i think hrant is totaly right, a wider middle stem for the 'm' will make it look better. maybe a wider middle stem for the 'w' too...

yay contrast!
the Q is a little wonky looking...thought it was my screen breaking up the line.