Gosh! I forgot to mention o and O...they are very deceptive. To a novice they seem simple, but there’s a lot of things going on in that ellipse that need to be right. There isn’t the freedom...either it’s right or it’s wrong.

I struggle with x (and X). It’s a stealthy bugger. It’s a relatively simple beast to start with, but if it needs adjusting its simple demeanour hides a complex and time-consuming beast. Getting the optical compensation on the bottom-left to top-right stroke is a bugger to adjust if you need to flesh it out or slim it a bit. It being at the end of the alphabet doesn’t help either. You think you’re nearly there with your adjustments and x takes you an hour. The bastard!

oO0 are all a bit trecherous, but that’s probably down to the fact they are so fundamental. I mean, an o is primary, wheras an h falls out of an n.

8 is a toughie too. But an enjoyable one. 4’s a stiff beast. 2 is quite gratifying. I like the numbers in general. As Jonathan Hoefler pointed out in a talk recently, their open sides are (mainly) opposite to the Roman alphabet: They open to the left. When you get on to them it makes for a refreshing change.

I like g though. g’s a pleasure. Nicer than G, which I often have trouble disconnecting from the C. s & S are good too. Complex is often satisfying. Z, though simple, always comes out easily. It seems to sit more solidly than most. Sitting it back on its haunches is satisfying. I like the fact it’s ’backwards’ too — thick stroke on the ’wrong’ diagonal.