Chub rock

mitchell's picture

my very early version of chub rock

I'd appreciate any critique on this. It's an very simple concept and I wouldn't be too surprised if there is something very similiar around (I didn't want to get to far into it if so). I'm enjoying it so far, but what do you think? I've been thinking I would make it unicase

brennan's picture

Phat! like it!

The 'I' needs something. Maybe cut in from the sides to give top and bottom slabs?
'P' more consistent with the 'R'?

Bren

greatermark's picture

I'm not sure about the 'L' and the 'T'.
And you might try to make the different in 'U' and 'V' more clearly.

+ep+

hrant's picture

FF Extra. :-(

hhp

mitchell's picture

I knew I couldn't have too much hope of not seeing this already done. Though, from the smallish previews of Extra that I could find I do think that I've got some substancial differences. Like mainly I've stuck to the block more on certain characters (J, L, T, and especially I) which was something of a debate for me as the original concept was blocks with only the smallest of cuts to make them ledgible (and wasn't too worried about ledigbility at that), but obviously more traditional character widths/cuts could be good for those characters. But maybe now I'll just stick to the block for better or worse.

hrant, your :-( I'm translating as

Stephen Coles's picture

What Hrant probably meant (and should have
articulated) is that FF Extra does everything
that Chub Rock does, and does it better.

Here is a better showing of Extra Black.

Your J, L, T, I, and S do differ, but Extra's
solutions for these glyphs are more clear.

I'm not sure the remaining difference (the
straight edges) is enough to warrant a new
font of this sort of novelty.

Sorry to poop on your parade. It does look
nice and it is probably a good exercise, so
don't feel too glum spending some time on it.

mitchell's picture

Sorry to seem as if I'm parading. Yours was just the sort of post I was more or less waiting/hoping for.

Thanks for the link, that is a much better showing of Extra.

>Your J, L, T, I, and S do differ, but Extra's
>solutions for these glyphs are more clear.

which was what I meant to convey about my debate with them. they could be made more clear, but goes against the original gimicky concept. And though the original concept may be cheap and weak (chub rock, hehe, come on

hrant's picture

I'm actually not sure which is better/worse, and I don't want to discourage you. As long as you know what else is out there, and you make your own thing (mostly) independently, and the process turns you on, that's plenty. Hopefully it will turn other people on too, and maybe you could sell it better than FF? (Although that would be hard.) Type history is littered with plagiarism but also coincidental similarities. For example there's a part in Alexander Lawson's incomprable "Anatomy..." where Zapf expresses surprise at the similarity of Optima to a much older design by Middleton - but compare how the two designs fared on the street.

hhp

Miss Tiffany's picture

Although it is similar, and in some ways very similar, I also think it can be seen as very different. I prefer the rigidity in Mitchell's. And if I really wanted a "phat" face with more roundness, I would use font bureau's Asphalt.

The character's with any kind of counter-like space (or counter) seem to be a different weight than the others. That would be one critique from this corner. i'm not sure i like final solution for you 'J' either. The idea is nice but the solution isn't completed. :/

All in all, I do like it ... but, Hrant and Stephen's points (perhaps) shouldn't be ignored. See this as a challenge Mitchell and make it your own! Go Team!

Syndicate content Syndicate content