reminds me of the thirstype font Bronzo only much smoother.Good job.

Dear Mr Bjharvey*,

Our customer records show that your organization does not own a current and/or valid license for the use of the phrase "that's a feature, not a bug" and/or "that's not a bug, that's a feature". Perhaps this was merely an oversight on your part**? Please expect a notarized and apostilled Formal Letter of Intent to Sue Your Arse to a Moderately Distant Quasar by one of our legal teams from the Terminology and Quaint Expressions Division, within the hour.

* As if that's your real name.
** Riiight.

--

Dear Mr Davidson*,

Please expect to received a full non-written apology for the above digression from our Posturing and Crocodile Tears Division, as well as a critique of your font** from our Patronization and Blind Encouragement Division, within the next 24 hours.

* A normal, honest name, with at most 2 consonants in a row and no hint of sexual proclivity.
** It's really nice.

hhp

Apologies, Paul, for

It's a bit like Bronzo as a grown-up: much smoother, but with some new individualistic traits. I like how there's enough organicity to give it a much richer character than something entirely mechanical; and it's not formally straight-laced, which is great (like the killer divergence between the UC "M" and "N"). The only UC glyphs that bug me are the "D" (too square), and the "Q": do something drastic with it, although since the font is so nice in all-caps I wouldn't ruin the line with a strong tail (except maybe as an alternate), so do something inside the bowl instead, like maybe cut straight from the bottom-left of the bowl to the (inside) top-left of the tail?

The lc isn't nearly as convincing. For one thing, I think this design needs body, so make the xheight as large as you can. The "m" is great and the "ae" is smart, but the "f" and "t" are especially weak. The numerals are really nice, except the "4" needs more presence. The peculiars: try a single bar on the Dollar and Yen; lower and lengthen them (towards the inside) in the Euro. The "?" needs more presence too. The rest are pretty nice!

Also:
1. This design needs at least one darker weight. But don't bother with an italic.
2. The rounded corners are a nice professional touch.
3. The name is right on.

Go all the way with it!

hhp

Nice Symmetry. Distant relation to Armada by Font Bureau. The comment on the 'Q', yes too conservative. The 'R' and the 'K' look pushed into a box, and too narrow (?). The middle stroke on the 'm' looks a bit out of place too. Nice '4'!

A little help for the 'X' (maybe?)

+ep+

i would suggest more spacing, it's a bit tight. how would a bold weight look like?

Pretty nice! The lc is improving fast.

The biggest problem to me is an uncomfortable conflict between round and flat. For example compare the lc "a" and "c". This is less obvious in the UC as a whole, for some reason.

The other "global" thing that bugs me is optical: at smaller sizes especially, things like the descender of the lc "g" and the top of the counter of the numeral "6" seem to be "splaying" at uneasy angles, disturbing the otherwise wonderful serenity of this design. It's an illusion, and since this is a display face you might just ignore it; or there might be a trick (like turning in the last tip of the flat part) that might help.

Some glyph-specific stuff:
- Consider giving the UC "I" bars.
- I know the UC "M" is one of your "mother glyphs" here, but I think it needs a small mod: take the middle "v" lower.
- The UC "Q" still needs work: the inside is a little bit too strong now; the bottom-right is messy: what about this - make the corner a total 90-degree angle, and the "tail" go into it. You'll need some optical compensation.
- The UC "X" seems a bit too smooth.
- The diagonal of the UC "Z" is too wavy. Make it more like the "X" - three clear segments connected with abrupt curves.
- Lower the bar of the lc "e" a bit.
- The "f" and "j" are malformed.
- That lc "r" is going to be a spacing fiasco.
- I think the lc "t" does need a curl.
- The BP currency is strange.

Keep it up!

hhp

the original Q is way better. just my opinion, but i couldn't let it go. the second X is more distinct as well. although by itself the m is interesting, it does seem a little out of place with the middle stroke breaking the baseline. i like both S's, but the original was making my day. nice and squareish, but not square. for the t, maybe a tiny little tail ala din or meta. the first one was stronger than the second. the 3 seems a little top heavy to me. maybe a little assymetry would help. v.0.2 "?" is good. the original S and B were great. i think that's the way to go. you can see how personal preference shows up in these critiques. interesting, eh? oh yeah... the counter in the first D was bowing the vertical stroke inward. the second D is much more succesful. also, the G stands out, but not in a good way. something to do with hrant's "round vs flat"* issue. anyway, time for church. i look forward to seeing more of this.

*copyright hhp

Paul wrote:

> There seem to be a lot of knowledgeable and/or
> opinionated folks here.

Hah. A worthwhile distinction.

Overall, it's farily even but I question the g and y. Why
not take them to the baseline? They sit slightly above
and add to the jumpiness.

Oh, and I like the x suggested by Eka Prasetya earlier.

Looking good! I think the curve/flat issue is mostly resolved - maybe a few tweaks here and there.

Nitpicks:
K: too curvy
L: too wide
S: something wrong
V: narrower base
Cedilla: simplify
f: still ungainly
m: wider
r: shorter beak
s: more open
t: more "timid"
v: narrower base
oe: "o" wider
eszet: narrower top
4: too open
diaeresis: dots

Otherwise, very shmoove.

hhp

This is too suave!
Just the spacing is too tight, especially where sequences of "i"s and "el"s are clotting like crazy.

The "v": look at "Jovian" on the third line: it's more like "Jouian". But the "t" doesn't seem as overpowering in text, although I still think it needs to be pulled back a little. On the other hand, I'm surprised how well the "r" works! But now I think the "e" needs a slightly smaller eye.

Your single biggest eyesore is the "f" though: it's ruining almost any word it's in.

BTW, the Space angle is right on!

hhp

metron at t26. considerably uglier than yours.
www.t26.com

The spacing on the right side of the 'f' is too much for the overall spacing and the spacing on the left side of the 't' is too big also. Hrant's suggestion of loosening up overall is a good idea. Another thought might be to remove the left half of the cross-stroke on the 't'.... maybe? Or just shortening it??

re: conflicting font name

Over in San Francisco we have a Sony megaplex called the Metreon. It's a big multi-entertainment center. Perhaps you could call it something similar along those lines to what you currently have. Although Sony might sue if you used theirs directly.

Or you could change the font name to Mootron and change the dingbat font to a cosmic cow motif!

<<==== ===>> ====>>

A good article on naming...by Emily King...@ typotheque...

http://www.typotheque.com/articles/gorilla.html

from the article: "With colleague Matthew Butterick, (Tobias) Frere-Jones invented a system for the naming of successful typefaces: the name must have three syllables; the stress must be upon the second syllable; the name must end with a vowel, preferably a."

Metrona? blah.

Metronica might be too ravy. (rave-y)

bj

Hi

maybe you should use your N (left vertical) as an alt character and make a original N (centered) similar to M or more related.
Just a thought, Its a nice font

i vote you call carlos at t26 and tell him to take his metron off the market because yours is better. i wonder if he actually has the name copyrighted?

i like the idea of alternates. more work for you, but i can live with that.

Cosmorton is available to buy from http://www.unionfonts.com from tomorrow.

I think maybe a more extreme cut off of the f would even be better. Maybe even leaving it angled upward would keep the letter consistent with the remainder of the alphabet, it could either be a smooth curve or even bend it like the n stems...