It's not uncommon to come to similar design solutions independently. I think these two typefaces are sufficiently different. Don't worry. You might want to rethink your 'M'. The thin stems don't work so well and a different solution will set yours apart even more.

Thank you Stephen. I'm very neurotic with this kind of stuff... :-)
And I think you're right about the 'M', and I extend it to the 'N' to... They are not so consistent with all the other glyphs... Maybe I didn't saw it because the '@': it's killing me... ;-D
Thank you again.

Well, I already said I liked it! :)
And I agree with Stephen that similarities are not uncummon. Some of the shapes are almost archetypical in a sense that they can't really be any different because of the grid and general style, which might explain similarities with other typefaces in this style. Which is fine. And your design is different enough.

As for the 'm', I think the way you constructed the 'w' might give you some ideas.
And I like the idea of putting the diacritics and accents inside the characters.
I'll make a post with more comments on a later time, because I can't right now.

Oh, and on a sidenote, on page 2 of your PDF, it says 'cumbitos'... ;)

Thank you very much Jelmar.

I've did some quickly changes -- I'm moving to another house, so the things are chaotic this weekend :-P --, take a look...

But I think both can live together to, one more contrasted (original) and one more "normal" (with these possibilities). What do you think?

undr

I like the broader terminals. I'm not sure about the diagonal cut-offs, although I also somehow like it at the same time. But I think this typeface could use some alternates anyway, so you can always supply some of them as alternates.

I was going to reply to this new sample and the scrolled down to see Jelmar said exactly what I intended.

For type like this, I like it when there are several options of certain letters for me to choose from, like the variations between upper and lower case letters in Armchair Modern, which I used for a logo recently.

Sharon

After some experimentation and many additions of unnecessary elements, I decided to back to basic and to the original intention of Chumbitos: The less as possible elements over a square to build a glyph. I did a full revision and I'm thinking in release only Chumbitos-Regular and Chumbitos-Bold, without any Alternates. I don't know why, but I think this typeface don't need it with all this ideas behind it...

On the Regular, I worked always with 10% of the square size for all the elements over the square. On the Bold one, I changed it to 20%, but it affects only some vertical elements, leaving all the others unchanged. So, the Bold version don't has all its glyphs different of the Regular, but it offers a considerable increase of weight on use...

Here is a pdf to illustrate what I said.

Now I think it needs just some little adjustments and it will be fine to go... ;-)

undr

Just do it. It's nice anyway. :)

I really like it. Nice job.

Sharon

Yeeeah! Chumbitos is now officialy released and ready to go! Take a look: http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/fictilia/chumbitos/

And I would like to really thank some people who have collaborated in some way on the release of this typeface:

Jelmar Geertsma
Stephen Coles
Chester Jenkins
Dado Queiroz

Thank you very much guys!

Cheers,
UNDr

I think it turned out nice. Who knows, if I need something like it sometimes, I will buy and use it. :)