Glengary NF

Alternatively, and probably a better digitization, at a cost: Mousse

probably a better digitization

Stephen: might I be so bold as to inquire about the basis for this supposition?

Stewf is right — Mousse has a g without the looped tail as well as the more open p (Glengary’s is more closed). Those had made me a little suspect, and now I know why. (I thought maybe the designer had customized it.)

Also: I’d pay for an Alejandro Paul face over the competition any day of the week.

That last part makes me think you didn’t know Nick was the designer of the other version. (Or is this rub Nick’s nose in it day?)

Nick - A fair question. I admit I am making a judgment of Glengary from onscreen samples alone, but here is what I can conclude: while the sheer number of fonts you release in a given month is impressive, the volume doesn’t bode well for their quality.

I do have personal experience with Paul’s fonts — Mousse Script in particular — and I can confirm that their outlines and metrics are sound. Thus the recommendation. But I certainly urge you to demonstrate your work. I’d be happy to know there are too fine digital versions of Glenmoy.

FYI...

I have been a commercial artist for forty years, and I have been a digital artist for seventeen years. Over the course of those years, I have developed speedy work habits, despite the fact that all of my outlines are created from scratch — no sloppy scan-and-convert jobs. Additionally, I check the integrity of my outlines in Fontographer, DTL Fontmaster and FontLab Studio. I set metrics by comparing every possible combination of uppercase+uppercase, uppercase+lowercase and lowercase+lowercase, and occasionally adjust letterforms on the fly if I find problemmatic combinations. I also kern every possible combination of uppercase+uppercase, uppercase+lowercase and lowercase+lowercase, so even words like Ljubjana, Kwanzaa and syzygy look good. I might also mention that making fonts is now my full-time job, and the sole means of support for my wife and I. I put in long hours and work every day of the week. So, please do not make “recommendations” based on unfounded assumptions and/or vague notions.

Finally, on the subject of revivals: while I try to capture faithfully the original type designer’s letterforms, occasionally I do not personally agree with some of the choices the original designer made, and I exercise my own judgment and make modifications to those letterforms as I see fit. If you don’t agree with my choices, that’s certainly your prerogative; but to call them “suspect” is a scurrilous and specious slam.

Below are, in no particular order, a scan from a broadside specimen sheet from Stephenson Blake of Glenmoy, the same characters in Glengary and the same characters in Mousse Script. Who wants to identify which is which (without checking outside sources)?

Nick, I apologize for being hasty in judging your work. I am afraid I let the past (such as Creampuff) influence my perspective. I commend you on your work practices. They sound well-founded. Still, they cannot take the place of careful drawing and skillful (re)interpretation of the original work.

Thanks for the comparison graphic. Though it might be more useful if we saw upper/lowercase words since those combos and their connections are vital in judging the quality in this face.

Let’s also not forget that Mousse Script comes with a set of alternates that enhance the value of the package.

I actually prefer how Nick has digitized it. He has kept to the original and the original has a crispness which Mousse lacks. Mousse is like the subtitle and Glengary is the display. Mousse is nice, but some of the changes made to it depart from the original in ways that I’m not sure I like.

might be more useful if we saw upper/lowercase words...

Unfortunately, the broadside specimen sheet was simply an alphabetic display, so — in order to compare apples and apples — the other type was set to match it; however, here’s a face-to-face comparison of the two digital versions under discussion...

Weird lower case p in the second, although the x is pretty cool.

FYI: Glengary is on top, Mousse is on the bottom. The lowercase p was one of the characters I took issue with, while Alejandro evidently did not; he, however, appears to have had an issue with the original x, which I did not...strokes for folks.

...strokes for folks.

That about covers it.
: )

On “suspect”: that was my word, and I only meant that I suspected my id wasn’t 100% right. It wasn’t a value judgment about Glengary in the least. I’m sorry for the confusion.

As for my side note, it wasn’t a slam against Nick specifically — it was more that if Alejandro Paul went head-to-head against anyone, I’d most likely choose his. What can I say? I adore the man’s work.

I adore the man’s work.

You can’t be blamed for that, I suppose.
: )
And Veer does a fine job of displaying it at their site. I’ve never got to play with one of his commercial fonts, but Veer seems to have a way to make it look like they are worth the extra $$.

I like that you tried to improve the ’p’ for modern legibility, but I’m not sure your solution works, and it looks like your ’x’ has a broken connection, but not too shabby in this sample, Nick.

Thanks for the id! I can’t believe how quick you guys are :D