Interesting dilemma about the P and R. To me it seems you might have two fonts here, the middle two lines (H-M and O-T) look like a different (darker) font to the rest because they're not using hairlines in the same way. I'd go one way or the other, and make it consistent throughout.

My suggestion: make the problematic curved glyphs a bit wider…

@Bendy
They look darker. There's not much I can do about it though.
/K/ with thin arms looks bad. Monoline /O/ falls out by being too thin.
I will try dual line /R/ and /P/.
Or fat /B/.

New sketchy /K/

Nice progress. I wonder if /H/ could have asymmetric weight like /U/? New /K/ is great!

An interesting way to conform the color of /H/ might be to reverse its contrast! Then it would have just one heavy stroke, the crossbar. Too wacky, or just wacky enough for "flawed and handmade"?

Haven't thought of this. But yeah, too wacky...

This is progressing pretty nice!

Have you considered making the /O/ and /Q/ in similar fashion as you are now doing with /B D, P/ and /R/? Asymmetrical that is? Im saying because I kinda agree with Bendy, there seem to be two systems in use within the font right now for using thin or thick strokes.

The other option would be to use the thin strokes only as horizontals/bars and as serifs, and make everything else thick. So stick with the original /K/ (you could also add serifs on the right side ad you did with the new /K/) and alter /B, D/ etc? That said, the thick/thin contrast is probably what makes the latest version so interesting - so you might want to stick with the current route.

Also, have you considered using a thin stroke for the tail of the /Q/ instead of a thick one?

Love the /E/ and /K/ by the way, nicely shaped!

@Stinger - How can /O/ be asymmetrical?
@Bert's suggestion to make /O/ wider.

>@Stinger - How can /O/ be asymmetrical?

Check out Broadway

^^ exactly what I had in mind, so the rightside would be a thin stroke instead of a thick stroke. It might sound like an odd idea but it would probably work - as a system in theory at least.

The Broadway typeface that Bendy linked is a good example that it works in practice as well

I'm surprised. This may actually work.

Bad spacing, I know. Haven't worked on it yet.

Try a Broadway H as well?

Nice. Several heads always better than one.

Not sure about /5/ the most.

Oh yes! It's working nicely man, great to see this evolve. /H O Q/ all much improved in combination with the rest. /H/ is very much a brother of /K/ now, awesoem.

Great stuff!

Makes me a happy panda :)

Now I'm wondering about serifs. Initial idea was to have them only inwards, like /A/.
But then all the other thick stem letters looked boring /E H I L M etc./ So I gave them "proper" serifs.
And now /U/ falls out. But if I add serifs at the thick top (like /I/), it will be closed and less legible.
On the other hand, I can pretend it comes from /V W Y/ group.

Awesome (spelled correctly this time), that's great to hear!

Hmm, maybe /U/ does stand out, but if so, then /V W X Y/ do as well, maybe even /Z/ and probably /A/ also (both at the top and at the bottom). You could say the same for the top of the /J/. Might be worth a try though? Not sure if e.g. /U/ would be too closed, of you look at the bottom or the /R/ I think it will have more space than that probably?

On the other hand it might become too predictable if you apply it everywhere, even though it's 'systematically' correct, if you see what I mean?

Oh, have you tried a thin tail for /Q/ yet? I still feel it's kinda in-your-face right now...

I've tried, but fat tail helps to distinguish from /O/ better. And gives more contrast.
The old /Q/ had a black spot on bottom left which wasn't tasty and is fixed now.

To be honest, I really like it! It's quite elegant actually. What if you add a serif on the bottom of the tail to enhance it a bit? Would that be allowed? (Im not sure if there should be one there or not). Don't think it needs that though.

I'm not so sure, are there a lot of words/instances where one would easily mistake a /Q/ for an /O/?

For me personally, the bottom "requiem" has the most aesthetic look, the best rhythm.

Yea, that's what I meant about the /H/, nice. I love the new /Q/ too. Still not totally sure of the logic behind the full and half serifs (HKMN vs AUVWXYZ).

The logic is that vertical stems looked boring without serifs.
Diagonal stems doesn't have outer serifs because of initial stylistic idea and because it adds even more white space to the outside.
And knowing that most letters are blocky, this doesn't help the stylistic unity.

Awkward lowercase being born:

Crap, forgot to add /g/

Interesting progress on the lower cases. I am assuming that the /a/ was becoming too closed up with a semi-serif topleft? I would say that it's logical to add that but you probably tried and deleted? Would be intresting to see though...

Right now I think the /g/ kinda stands out. Maybe because it breaks the rhythm (wide stroke left and wide stroke right within the same glyph). How about a single storey /g/ instead of a two storey one?

/b c d e h o p/ are looking really good!

K, U, and R don't seem to fit the vertical=full serif, diagonal=half serif logic. But I do love the look and the lower case is coming along nicely!

I intend to keep two storey /g/. It's more interesting and there are 4 homogenous letters already.

Looking good! Especially love the /t/!

I had expected a different /q/ though, one with a thin tail actually - have you tried that? Come to think of it, this might be an interesting experiment for /d/ as well (as right now it's almost an inverted /b/). It might look odd though.

I still think the /g/ looks a bit off, but im also not sure how to solve that. If the tail is completely thin (without the wide part) it might be even more odd.

Also, I like /a/ much better with the semi-serif topleft!

The height of the dots on /i j/ looks good to me, but I think they are a bit wide maybe? They now look a bit too fat in total (too much black). Not sure if it would fit the logic/system of the typeface but have you tried making them a bit less wide? Or round, even?

Funnily enough, I was thinking a similar thing about the tittles on /i/ and /j/. Something along the lines of Gill Ultra.

I'd like to see how /j/ would look with a thin tail. Bite a counter out of that stem as it hits the baseline and try a hairline descender?

/q/ or /j/ with thin tails are too drastic.
Besides, there will be monoline version to supplement this one.

I'm thinking about condensing everything to give more practical use.

Smaller dots

what if you take it a little further and make the dots actual circles? that is, even less wide?

Found a new font that looks similar:
http://new.myfonts.com/fonts/jnlevine/ormond/

Updated the OP

As it is right now I indeed like the previous dots better.

The other font is similar a bit, but it doesn't have any lower case glyphs?
I would say this is still different enough!

Started the small caps (omitted the obvious ones here).
Small /Q/ with thick tail looked silly, so it probably means that the big one will have to be changed accordingly too...

/r/ & /m/ seem a little odd to me. I think because the tops are flat where I expect a little valley. I see how it is consistent with other letters, but you might play around with it a bit. /y/ feels a bit overly geometric maybe? Have you tried /t/ where the top slant continues into the left side of the crossbar? Maybe it is just the way it is kerned with the /T/ but that area feels finicky. Love the small caps, and especially the thin tailed /Q/.

Yes, /r/ is poorly legible indeed.

Which should be comma/quote?

Second one.

:D
I expressed it wrong. Which should be a comma and which - quote?

If you need two different designs, first one quote, second one comma.

Final comma is awesome - I'd use it for both!

Bottom /r/ is much better a few posts above, i like the slight indent and it makes it much more readable - you could use the same trick for /m/ and /n/?

And yay for the /Q/ with a small tail!

Isn't capitals too dark?

Do smalcaps serifs have to be capital or lowercase size?

Neither one nor the other (sth. inbetween), but I use to draw them in capital size, because you often use small caps together with caps.

My logic is to use lowercase serifs, because they are to be used between lowercase letters. But since this is display font with different purpose, you may be right.
My small caps with big serifs were too dark though.

Discretionary ligatures for caps. Do small caps numbers have to be oldstyle?

Whoah those are pretty sexy mister! 'pologies for the language :)

RE: small caps. I recently used a typeface where the smallcaps were set to X-height and that worked out pretty rediculous. They were really way to small. They should be smaller than usual caps of course, but not too small. So I'm guessing somewhere between X-height and Capital height (often close to ascender height I think?) should be a better working method? Im no expert though so I am curious to hear what others say about this.

I had small caps done for quite some time now. They are at x-height.

And also this night I got an interesting idea for swashes (utilizing smallcaps):

Nice progress! I know it's probably unsolvable in a neat way, but the /m/ does disrupt the colour and stroke rhythm quite a bit to my eyes.

Love the ligatures. Love the over/under rules. /T/ does feel too narrow. You are getting very close!

Stylistic alternates

Some more:

Wow love that idea for the swashes! That gives a lot extra to this typeface.
Smallcaps and ligatures look great!

Agreed on n. Not sure about m.

Because of middle connection? Filled-up version stood out too much.

Try it with just the middle (right) connection filled. Not sure if it works, just a suggestion.

odd, i even though /m/ and /n/ are similarly constructed i prefer the new /n/ more than the new /m/. Can't say why though. Maybe try what LexLuengas suggest?

Then again, if you have to make a consistency call, i'd go for both new versions for sure.

I also wonder, now that you are using this in the /n/, should you consider the /p/ /b/ and /d/ too? How about /p/ and /q/? They have the same 'filled gap' (if you see what i mean) that you are now leaving unfilled in the new /n/ and /m/.

Also, did you have to change the name for Magnolia into Magnel for some reason??
Still love that typeface!

Had to change name because of MVG Fonts complain (they have font named Magnolia).

Too bad, loved that name!

This /m/ does look slightly weird to me. I'd go with the last version before this, where both connections are unfilled.

I think the last m could work (the "connected" one).

Why include small caps in a display face? At x-height they’re useless for text. Your decorative over/underlined caps are wonderful. Why not connect them with the H (and similar serifs)?

I use small caps for display quite often. The proportions sometimes fit well for logo work for example. I use them like an expanded version of the face, often times without the tall caps at all. I agree about connecting the rules, that would be a fantastic touch.

Better question would be: why NOT to include small caps?
Of course no one will use this for body copy, but the more features, the better.

Oeeehh, connecting those over/underlines would be very pretty!

More features does not = better.

Are you trolling?

Smallcaps can be used not only for abbreviations in body copy, but in illustrations, logos, you name it.
Yeah, I totally shouldn't include already finished smallcaps chars because one individual doesn't like that, for unknown reason.

If you think these aren't worthy to charge money for: smallcaps will be an OT feature (not a separate font).
Uppercase + swashes will be free to anyone.
Whole font will be free to forumers (including grumpy people like you) – what I did with Magnel.

I just saw this - it's quite charming!

I haven't read the whole thread, but:
My view on smallcaps has long been that they should not be included
in any low-price version of a typeface; it makes more sense to let the
clueless (like 95% of users) afford the cheap basic version and charge
a premium for people who are wise enough to pay for the good stuff.

hhp

Which is better?

Top!

hhp

I concur. Maybe the central stroke could be a little bit narrower.

Top shape is nice for vintage stuff as yours.

Oh snap! I like the bottom one better. It's much more readable to me, even though the top one is more original... maybe it's because the top & bottom stroke of the /E/ don't line up?

> much more readable

Although the font might look like books on a shelf, it's no book font! :-)

hhp

I was wondering adding a serif to the bottom of the Q's tail would be interesting, as the current tail is just a straight line..

Love the style!

Been working and re-working kerning all this time.
Here's connected swashes. It should be either 1st or 3rd.

Opera's 2nd option isn't pretty.

I've come to think that /A/ with vertical stem probably would work better there.

I like the cartouches!

hhp

What's a cartouch? :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartouche
Generally, a cigar-shape encapsulating some writing.

hhp

Why force the connection? It makes sense with seriffed letters, but not an O. Something’s wierd with your curve to straight transitions …

I could make connected capitals and if user doesn't like it, he just could not activate swash for capital and have regular letter. If it's slanted letter like /A/, advanced users could extend line by themselves.

Or I could just make both. Connected could be activated with SALT.

Is it readable enough?

Ran into problems when kerning Initials.

Updated the OP.
Solved swashes' kerning problem by using contextual alternates with special metrics instead of kerning.

Right now I'm finishing the dark's features and an exhausting kerning of every combination of lowercase / uppercase / smallcaps.

This is golden. Sell it well.

hhp

Like the title, I haven't decided about price. I kept changing my mind between $30 and $40 for a style (-50% when both) numerous times...

Consider where it will sell the most. I'm getting a strong American vibe out of this, so consider an English word, perhaps related to trees... Ah, I got it: Bark, which has a nice double-meaning (and this font does look like a bulldog too). And it's not taken. Move fast.

As for pricing, this thing has a lot of layers, so I would separate it into different tiers, and maybe try what Buivenga does so well: give the basic one for free, get people hooked, get exposure, but charge a decent amount for the fancies; you might even separate the ligature stuff from the cartouche stuff, although too much complexity does turn people off.

hhp

Interesting coincidence - this just posted:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/68178950@N08/7304902240

hhp

Not much of concidence. The only similarity is rounded corners.
But what kind of /N is that?

Hazelnut

Not bad.
And it leaves room for a whole family of nuts.

hhp

Released as Hazelnut Pro: http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/eimapas/hazelnut-pro/

Congrats!

hhp