I'd say #1 is both truer to the source and more attractive.

ok, thanks ! that is what I thought ;)

I'd say the number 1 too, even if I like the angular design of the number 2. I'would suggest to reduce the thickness of the serif and probably do the same for the stem.

André

I agree with André. I like them both, but number 1 seems to be more true to the calligraphy. But slightly reducing the weight of the serifs / stem would be a good idea.

oh ! I forget to tell you that it is the bold weight ;)
I discovered during my last font design that it was very convenient to start designing the bold weights before the regular ones…

why do you think it is better to start with the bolds?

I've already started my first typeface by the bold weight and I will not do de same anymore. The problem to my point of view when you choose that way is that you have to draw almost all the weight without the benefit of the interpolation. For my second one I've start by the light one and I did the black in a second step. Choosing that way I've been able to easily work with the interpolation with less adjustments.

André

Drawing the bold is much more fun :) I used to draw the regular first then the hairline then the bold. But it turns out that I had too make so much corrections on the 2 first weights that sometimes I almost redraw them completely. The bold weight let you "push" the weight to the extremes you need. If it works in bold it will work in the lighter weight almost always, the contrary is not always true.
For my last 2 fonts I first draw the extra bold and the hairline weights and interpolate the regular. It was assle free for me…
And if your points are on the right spots it is super easy to do the rest of the weights.