I don't have your perspective on this, and please consider that I am not a type designer…

You may have trouble keeping the descender depth right while trying to keep the weight right as well. One option might be to build some haphazard swash character and avoid the descender completely.

I'm sure someone will bring it to our attention if this a particularly awful idea.

That's a neat idea!

I'm not a type designer either, clearly. :)

Check out Old Standard's treatment (scroll to bottom for download).

http://www.thessalonica.org.ru/en/fonts.html

Wow. Problem solved. :)

thanks Nick!

If you have to crop it, I think it should be at the baseline. Leaving any more just calls attention to what's missing.

Yeah, the recognizable part of a typeface (glyphs in this case) is the upper part. There is a classic test, where they cut off either the bottom half of a line of type or the upper half. ANd then let people read these lines.
Most of the recognition aspects are in the upper parts.

Personal opinion: cut off at baseline does it for me.

. . .
Bert Vanderveen BNO

I did try trimming at the baseline, but the result looks confused, as though the f belongs to a different family altogether. It kind of kills the 'lively' in it. The descender, even trimmed flat, still contributes grace and movement. Here is the trimmed version in (partial) context. It feels right to me.

ps. I am aware of and addressing other inconsistencies in this piece :)

It looks great, especially the way you've integrated it into the design, which apparently was the whole point of the exercise.
It's nice that it's at a slightly different angle--puts some tension in the layout and gets it moving.

Thanks Nick!

Here is the original, which some found confusing. I liked the hook, but I suppose it could be too show-offy. At any rate, I'm fine with the change and I so appreciate your input.