Avocet family

Nick Cooke's picture

Hi fellow Type nerds.

I've been working on these 2 weights of a new family called 'Avocet'.

As I've been slaving away in my artist's garret with no feedback, I was just wondering if I'm heading in the right direction. I think the ligated characters could look pretty good if used sparingly. I find that I get slightly irritated if I'm reading long text passages with lots of these. Does anybody feel the same?

The caps are a bit quirky, but I think they look unified nonetheless.

Any (positive) comments gratefully appreciated.

Thanks

Nick Cooke | G-Type

Stephen Coles's picture

This is lovely, Nick. Very much in the style of Chianti and Vista but more playful. As for the long reading potential, it would be good to have a PDF with 9-11 pt. type so we could print and test.

- The Q tail seems to straight next to the ears and tails of the other caps.
- Some of your straight stems (i, j, b) - especially in bold - could use the flaring found in other verticals (m, n, u) - but maybe that's just the low-res image playing tricks
- The bold 'g' could use some squaring to increase the counter size

tonicastro's picture

Sorry, I can't tell a very detailed coment about your typography because I don't have too much skill on that (and my english is poor), but I can tell that I like it. Only a couple of questions:

I think the lower part of the 'z' it's a bit odd, maybe too much curved?
Don't you think that when you put it in 10 pt some parts of the 'e', 'a', 'u', 'r' lowercase would dissappear?

Miss Tiffany's picture

This is very nice. I generally don't like letters that begin or end with flat terminals, but they seem to suit this one very well.

-q- needs to be more open, could be the stroke is too heavy
-g- both seem to sit too high on the baseline. I'd say both thin and bold need a little larger upstairs counter.
-E- (thin more than bold) Visually it is leaning to the left, probably because the stems appear to increase in length from top to bottom

I really don't like st ligatures, but yours is working. Would love to see it in a paragraph of text. I think they are generally over-designed and call too much attention to themselves.

Love both U/lc zeds.

paul d hunt's picture

You may want to choose another name, as Avocet is already the name of a font.

Stephen Coles's picture

Oh that's a shame. Avocet was a good name for this face with its gentle curves and upright forms. Egret is already taken too, and this is not condensed enough to be a Heron. How about the closely related Godwit? Ok, no. Plover? No, no graceful neck. Dowitcher? Curlew!

crossgrove's picture

Stephen has already mentioned Chianti, which this reminded me of; also look at Goudy Sans and Gary Munch's new Candara for Microsoft.

I think this is still busy with conflicting directions: pleasingly informal at times (VRac) and rigid at others (EMSAbox). I'd like to see it moved in the direction of informality, with less straight stems. Then, you might find that some of the little in-strokes (EFPZ) aren't necessary. I'd also consider allowing those entrance strokes to be at various angles, instead of strictly vertical. They could also have varying thicknesses, since you've introduced some tapering elsewhere.

The bold looks a little cramped in its character widths. LC 'a' especially doesn't feel as playful in the bold as in the roman. The bold shows a very predominant vertical stress, which I think fights the informal elements.

cerulean's picture

You might want to consider a small top left serif on the captial 'J'.

It seems to me that the bold lowercase 'o' has too much stroke contrast; that is, its top and bottom are too thin.

Syndicate content Syndicate content