Basic font, with some unorthodox methods used. It is complete.
That is a very nifty ampersand. I wonder what the face might look like with all the ball terminals removed to match C, S, G.
Excellent suggestions from Hrant. I really enjoy the ‘g’, but he’s right — it’s not for this face. No proper quotes? The comma sets a good shape. Your lc ‘s’ is upside-down. Keep it as display type. There is room for headline serifs.
with minor changes as suggested.
Quotes look good. You still need a standard ampersand. I think what Hrant meant by the ‘J’ is illustrated in Primer. Take a look at Primer’s ‘s’ too. Yours looks wrong because it’s too top-heavy. Try shortening the top stroke so it doesn’t extend to the width of the belly. Good ‘g’.
The “J” is better, but I’d make it narrower, and it does need some kind of terminal. A ball terminal (like in Primer) is one option, and for that I’d look at your “f” — although that’s more of a “teardrop” terminal*. You could also try a serif (like in your “S”) for a terminal. * Now I’m thinking maybe your “f” needs a ball terminal instead. The ampersand in your main character set is OK to me. The new “g” is almost there: it just needs to move the stroke weight in its tail to either the bottom or -more unconventionally- to the right. (And I’d avoid the common practice of putting weight in the horizontal part of the join.) The eszet seems too dynamic — try making that curvy part less curvy. And to me a texty eszet beneﬁts from an abrupt shift where the top curve starts going in. hhp
I liked the ﬁrst one better. Of course there are some rough edges, but it has an original spirit. I think some of the coolest stuﬀ comes from people who are trying to ﬁgure out what letters are ‘supposed’ to look like. Once they ﬁgure it out, it looks like everything else. I think that’s what happened here. I think the super short serifs and miniature ball terminals are great. However, I agree that the terminals on C and the S from the ﬁrst version need something.
Thanx for the remarks, and the ﬁrst version is still there on my system. I will ﬁx that one up as is sometime. I do agree with your view that this constant change to suit others opinions ends up (sometimes) changing a font too much. The idea that someone has can end up being blanded out of existance. Yes it is nice to have a good looking font, but you do need to retain the originality. This fonts changes, and suggestions, have so far been helpful, and in no way ‘bland’ it out. That said The attached is some of the changes made (and I am happy to make these changes, as the suggestions have been helpful)
Aww, you went with the vanilla ampersand.
Both your S and s are still suﬀering from Inverted Trapezoid Syndrom. Scroll down in the following thread to see what I’m talking about: http://www.typophile.com/forums/messages/29/21083.html?1072536454 Bring in the top left, move out the bottom left, bring in the top right. That should provide a wider base than top and stablize the letter. Randy
Hi Graham. I assume some of the unorthodoxy you are metioning is the absence of certain ball terminals. Some unorthodoxy is good. I think you’ve got some other issues though, mainly stroke modulation and color issues. Caps: Seems like all of the thicks in your round letters could be thicker (they are all light) In the ﬁrst line, check the CO vs the INRP etc. Your bracketed serifs are making dark spots. Thin them out a bit. Check the Z vs the Y G needs weight on the right side. LowerCase: Again, rounds need more weight. Check out how dark the stem of the p is vs the round. Check all the rounds pqdbaeg etc. t: The weight gets too light too early as you move into the tail. g: Needs weight in the tail. Overall. It’s ok if you don’t want the ball terminals, but it leaves you with a problem. The ends of your letters are really weak. For example the sS should be as dark as the other letters. They aren’t though. I suppose you could really thicken up the spine and leave oﬀ the terminals, but that’s why they were put there in the ﬁrst place. I guess what I’m getting at is: You must solve that problem. Maybe in an unorthodox way
Forgot to mention, as I was browsing around tonight I came across a similar idea at Peter Bilak’s website: Didot Sans. It’s under: type -> unpublished -> didot sans http://www.peterb.sk/ He’s done some funky things to try and compensate for color. Check out the E and F! Interesting, but in my opinion ugly. Maybe that’s why it’s unpublished :-) Randy
Huh, that looks totally Cassandre. hhp
Thanx for comments and will do a few alterations. BUT, what the heck do you mean with the “Cassandre” crack, Hrant. The Cassandre font is 100% totally diﬀerent as is illustrated in attached image. You smoking something we are not ?
1) Sorry, I was actually talking about Randy’s Didot-Sans thing! 2) I didn’t mean the Cassandre font speciﬁcally, but A M Cassandre’s oevre. hhp
Sorry, was jumping to wrong/incorrect assumption from skimming through the message without thinking about it
right, have redesigned the whole thing from suggestions, as well as other postings elsewhere. Follows the latest version
This is looking much more polished, although it’s been “tamed” as well. It’s like a calm, neutral serif face — uncommon. It feels like something in the spirit of Bookman, with an aﬃnity for journalism. The glyphs that stand out: - “J”: needs a full curl. - “g”: needs to be more rigid. - “&”: very cool, but out of character. - “7”: very nice. Also, you need to decide if this is a text face or a display face. For the former I’d make it a bit darker and lengthen the ascenders; for the latter it’s ﬁne as it is. hhp