Wow! Very nice. I love the 'g'.

hmmmm, i like it.

very good.

but, your "g"... i dont know.
its really a "g"?you have much problems with it.

your "a"is too much sad, its too diagonal, compare with "b", (too much horizontal)

"j" is not working too, you know why

Go ahead, and good luck

JP

So, if this is the Answer, what is the Question? (In other words, what's your intention for the typeface?) It can be helpful to start your design with a brief, like "This should be a text face in the style of Garamond, condensed approximately 5%, available for use with Monotype, Linotype, and hand setting." (That's a paraphrase of the brief for Sabon.)

If you want to use this for ad work/short text/headings, it has promise, and with a bit of polish, it would find a niche.

If you want to use this for book work/long text, there's much more work ahead. In addition to the items Juan Pablo mentioned, the cap J also is likely to stand out. Remember that text faces tend to be conservative, and characters that "pop out" at the reader are not likely to lead to the typeface being used.

Keep us posted on the progress!

wow, nobody can say it better

Looking the gif I think that you should go
below the discender with that 'g' if you
want to keep that 'g.'
The typeface looks nicely ginger and airy,
maybe you got some extra serifs piece ?

Best,
AS

i quite like your approach and the ideas you've got -- but i think it isn't commited enough. go for "quirkie" or for text, in each case you'd have to be more radical.

some things that came to my eye:
the top right extension of the Z looks a bit arbitrary to me.
the X is very top heavy.
the connection of bowl and stem of the b could perhaps be a bit lighter.

and without the intention of being offensive: the @ looks somehow elephantish!

Thank you all for your coments and encouragement.

"if this is the Answer, what is the Question?" hmm... As this is my first font (but not my first attempt) it was a massive learning experience. The Question was something along the lines of 'how hard can it be?'. I've lost my innocence now.

But my intentions for the font was to create something I would want to use. I'm an artist first, and I mostly use printed type to describe mine or others art. Catalogues, postcards that sort of thing. So short texts, information, presented in a smart and contemporary environment.

'that g': my thinking was sometihng like this - traditional g; elegant but inefficient use of space (cramped) - modern* g; inelegant but efficient. So i came up with a sort of hybrid of the two. I think it works for now, non-type-interested people i've shown examples to haven't noticed it until i pointed it out.(* i don't know if 'modern' is acurate historically).

The lowercase j and t. This typeface thinks the hooks traditionally put on these letters are calligraphic and inefficient and are therefore to be spurned. Plus i've been enjoying Futura. I know this has readability issues, and if my arm was twisted i would make a hooked t.

As for the quirkiness of it. Tiffanys coment about quirking other letters made me think. The phrase 'stopped short feeling' had quite a lot of resonance. I guess it comes from the influence of sans-serifs faces and my inner modernist.
It seemed that these letters could be quirked:


(original in grey)

I dont' think the k works, but i like the m, and arn't sure about the w. I don't want to make it into a semi-serif. So maybe I should go further back on some letters. But I want it to be a serious typeface. With useful quirks. The lack of a final serif on the new m reduces the width of a wide letter.

I've adjusted the 'sad a' and b as suggested by Juan Pablo. Totally redrawring the bowl of the a and making the top of the bowl of the b 2 degrees steeper. I think it is an improvement.



Titus, yes that corner of the Z is a bit arbitary, it'll probably go. about the X do you mean the junction is too low on the glyph, or do you think the heavyness is to do with the stroke contrast? i see what you mean about the elephantishness of the @ :-) I was wanting to make it as small as possible, the large @ symbols allways seem to be out of place written in lowercase email adresses, and often too light. I'll probably re-work it.

Again thanks for your critiques - keep it coming.

Ed

ugh! looking at my new k, m and w they feel terrible a rushed now. Why did you all have to make me think?!

(I guess I asked for it really... but life is easier in isolation.)

Ed

by top heavy i mean, that the X looks unbalanced as if it would fall down in a second.
the reason for this is, that the top has to be narrower to look optically as wide as the bottom.
i'll let my a picture speak to give you an idea of what i mean:

Thanks Titus. I've made amendments to the uppercase X. Hopefully it won't be falling over and crushing any poor lower case letters now :-)


(original in grey)

yes, i think it's definitely an improvement. perhaps the bottom right arm could be slightly heavier.

This is fun. I don't see it as a something that should be set in long books, but certainly in poetry or special editions of prose. This would be fun as something used in letterpress shops.

I also like the -g- but I wonder if a few of the other glyphs could sway a little further towards the same level of quirkiness? The -j- has that too, and the -f- is working towards it. I see the -y- and -t- also have some of that stopped short feeling. However, the uppercase should probably maintain more solemnity. What other characters can you quirk?