i think it’s quite nice! the lowercase seems a bit too tight in places, esp the right side of the o, but in many other places as well. i think the lettershaps you’re questioning are just fine, but i found the u a bit ambiguous i stopped reading when i came to it because i couldn’t decide if it was a u or an en. The S seems wonky, something just not quite right about it. overall it feels very nice though, keep up the good work!

I like it... a very nice flow to the lettering... would be nice to have some alternates for when there are double letters, to make it look less ’digital’... however, if i could write like that, i’d probably not bother with digital :-)

Not bad, Jess! Paul is right about spacing. The ’s’ is just fine, just needs more room. Especially apparent in the ’ss’ pair.

unfortunately respacing a connecting script usually means redrawing the characters :(

But the ’s’ doesn’t connect on the right side, and doesn’t need to. “Jackson” looks fine, for instance, and will still with a little more space after the ’s’.

> The S seems wonky, something just not quite right about it.

Could that be because of the very thin spine?

I understand that the tool dictates the shapes in this case, but maybe if the weight would be on the spine a bit more, it might look better.
I think most writing tools put the weight on the ’ears’ of the S (because of the angle), so to speak, and that historically speaking, the weight was shifted to the spine, to balance the shape. Or am I mistaken?

Thanks everyone for the advice and compliments! Here’s a new sample with loosened up spacing and also the reworked S and u. I also reshaped the s and made a few other minor changes.

Jess Latham
www.bvfonts.com

this is really terrific. i especially enjoy the “y” and “g,” and i’m usually a bit uneasy with the “x” in connecting scripts, but yours works well. i know you’ll continue to noodle with it for a bit yet, but great job so far.

much better already! the dl combo seems a bit tight still, it could actually be the left side of the l that’s doing it. also the right side of the s seems a bit tight still.

I like this very much. It has a nice loose flow, but still looks a bit tight - you could easily make the lead-outs a bit longer to get more inter-character space. For a more authentic handwritten look you could also introduce many two or three character ligatures in OpenType, (especially duplicate characters together), and also have some replacement end characters without the long lead-out stroke.

Nick Cooke

Thanks Chuck, Paul and Nick! : )

I’m having a spacing dilemma. Everything looks ok to me except the double s combination. Would it be a bad idea to use kerning to move them away from each other instead of how a kern normally works? Here’s an example of how that looks with the double s kern:

Jess Latham
www.bvfonts.com

jess, the ss looks better to me, but even the sh looks tight to me. the s could probably use a bit more air to the right. (or it could be the h that’s problem, but i’m guessing the s)

This is a lot of fun.

At small sizes the exit stroke on the s (the little half loop) is a little flat. Or maybe I should say it is sharp. And the terminus on the e seems flat, perhaps the t as well. I assume you’re working on alternates?

This is fun. (I know I said that already but I couldn’t help writing it again.)

I’m not sure I’d add more space to the right of the s unless you are just talking about the pair.

Thanks Tiffany! Yes, I will have alternates. Here’s an example of an alternate G and endings.