Cuttlefish,

Interesting. The serifs and shape of some of the bowls have a very Art Deco / Jugendstil feeling. Personally, I am trying to link design elements like serifs, contrast, stress etc. with how letters where drawn with pen or brush etc. With that perspective, some of the letters feel a bit off (v/w: bottom serifs, o/g: contrast, s: no serif etc.).

Note that this is just one way of looking at it, which is probably a bit too restrictive. But in general, I think letters of a font should form a cohesive set linked by a common design language.

What about for instance use the same contrast / stress for all the letters?

Sebastian

I’m not sure what you mean about a lack of contrast in the “o” and “g”. I thought the entire font was lacking contrast. Or did you mean something else?

I have an alternate “g” around here somewhere... give me a sec...

So here I’ve swapped out for the alternate “g” and clipped the lower serifs from the lc “v” and “w”, and placed a ball terminal on the “y”.

Also I did up some of the ligatures that weren’t there before and expanded the numbers. They felt too narrow before, but some still don’t work for me. The “2” is much improved, but I don’t know about the rest...

not sure what I did here... can’t upload a PDF to a reply comment, I guess. I’ll try editing the first one.

You’re right, there is no contrast throughout. Maybe thats why I can’t seem to find that ’binding unity’.

I like this g and v better. Why did you put inktraps in the v, w etc?

The numerals seem a bit flat, besides the 1, they lack serifs and /or other common design elements.

The fi ligature is funny. It is sort of a non-ligature as the dot of the i is still interfering with the arc of the f!

Sebastian

Aww, and I had to make the “i” on “fi” so short to make the dot fit like that. I prefer to think of it engaging the arc of the “f” in a deep sensuous kiss than interfering with it.

The inktraps felt like a good idea at the time. With or without serifs, the angle joint of the “v” and “w”, etc., get too thick for my eyes. This might not be the best solution as I’ve implemented. I’m open to suggestions for a better one.

I had hoped the nearly consistent line weight would be enough to provide “binding unity” as you put it. The crossbars and the long, inconsistently applied serifs do throw that off a bit. I’m not convinced serifs would work on the “s” at all, and I’m debating whether to remove the one from the “c”.

But, y’know, it’s all an experiment until it goes to market, if it ever does. I wanted to do a monoweight font with long serifs and this is how it’s coming out.

I made some pretty significant revisions in this version, most notably in totally redesigning most of the numerals and the “g” again. Tell me if you can spot the rest of the changes. Vector PDF up at the top again. I know the space glyphs got too wide somehow this time around. That, I will fix.

So, what do I need to do now? I’m experimenting with serifs on the “s” and “S”, but I don’t really like them.
Do I need to put a right hand serif on the “i”?
Anything else?

Here it is again (and in PDF #5 up top) this time with the serif’d “S”s, an new “G” and “Q”, more universally applied ink traps and some other miscellaneous changes. I have a bigger view here of the numerals. I’m trying to keep them monospaced, which could explain why they’re still a little wonky, but much better than what I started with.

I’m still taking suggestions on the name, and anything else that might improve this.

Gee, is the only way to get any comments in the critique forum by whining that one isn’t getting any comments in the critique forum?

cuttlefish,

I don’t think whining helps. Sometimes it takes a while before you get a reaction. Also note that a lot of the experts in this forum make a living as designer and they just have to balance their time.

Anyway, I am not an expert but followed your updates lately. Here some observations.

-Still not sure about the razor blade ink traps. They seem distracting and if they are an integral part of the design, you may want to consider widening whilst shortening them so they are visible. Right now I feel they are off-scale. Also, why are they not in the Y, K, 7, 9 etc. as well?

-Crossbar of F and H is a bit low

-nr 1 a bit too narrow

-upper part of bowls c, d and e a bit too wide (seem top heavy)

-where arc of h becomes right vertical stem: kink

-Spine of S is bulging up at lower right

I hope you find this usefull.

Sebastian

Sorry. I came off a little jerkey there. I’ll try to suppress that.

I’ve taken out the ink traps and made the number 1 wider. Still working on the other details, and I have to generate another image. I’ll be back with that in a bit.

All right, this includes the above noted changes and a new “Q”. I can’t make up my mind on that damn thing. Canvas 8 has been giving me a hard time in this round. I couldn’t figure out how to make the upper bowl of the “d” narrower without doing the same to the bottom but I think I found a solution for the rest. new PDF 5b.

Are my umlauts too wide or something?

Are my umlauts too wide or something?

Yes (on the umlauts). I like seeing how this is evolving. keep it up. :)

Choz Cunningham
!Exclamachine Type Foundry
The Snark

Thanks Choz. I’ve put this one on the back burner a while to work on Agamemnon, but I’ll have something new here before too long with this one too.

Seriously, though, I seeded this design with small problems to spark conversation, and now I’m forgetting some of them. Could anyone help me out finding them again?

Finally, I bring you the next stage in this font’s development, but I think I might have done a bad thing to the G, J, O, Q, o, p, and q. At least the umlauts are closer together now.

Character set PDF 7 up top.

Maybe it’s time to have another stab at this, give Agamemnon a rest for a little bit. Any advice on proceeding?

I suppose. I think the g is out of place here; I actually like the second one you drew. The leg of the 9 could come farther left, and I think the bottoms of v and w are for a different font. Then keep going wherever you feel you need to do something.