Thanks, I was worried everyone would accuse me of ripping of Museo (which I wasn't even familiar with when I started).

riccard0, I'm glad you like it. Regarding the contrast,are there any glyphs in particular that stand out as needing more work?

I don't normally comment on these threads, but I think you have some serious proportional issues that need working out. Your b,d,p,q don't relate well, your u looks like a y (it is a y) and they are both too narrow, and your caps are a mess. That M is going to kill you, and the J is going to catch itself on the ledge and break its neck. It would behoove you to show the caps and the lowercase at the same size. Sizing them to fit on one line does no one any good.

jmontalbano, that's exactly what I need to hear - thank you. The u is actually a y (a typo I didn't catch that when I typed these out).

The Capitals have been on the back burner for quite some time now (I was hesitant to post them) and I'm not very happy with most of them at the moment.

The attempt at the th was something I've just been playing around with and has seen very little revision.

Hrant's idea of gently slanting it is good. Off the top of my head i can think of Letraset's crillee which was only ever a slanted face.
I find the roundness of a and s out of synch with the rest. Have you tried an a whose top echoes the head serif of b etc something like this.

Gary, that's a good idea - thank you.

Actually, thank you to everyone who has commented. This is my first ever attempt at designing type (I'm sure you all could have guessed that) and as is my nature, I never concede to defeat and am willing, despite the time, to see this through. I'll post some updates in a bit.

I know this is going to sound harsh, given the amount of work you believe you have done, but the whole thing still looks sloppy.

From a proportional standpoint, look how much white space is present in the h, n, m, u, and then contrast that with the round forms (b,d,q,p,o,c,e). Either the round forms are too narrow or those others are too wide. The very vertical characterization of the p, b, d, q, seems at odds with the rounder o, e, c. The v and y look drunk in comparison those the other glyphs.The middle of the w is too wide compared to the right and left side. The f and t look to narrow, and the foot on the l does not need to be there. The bottom bowl on the g is too narrow and a bit square. the bottom diagonal of the k needs to move more to the left. The x is terrible, and overall the spacing is really, really bad.

I tell my students that a properly spaced and poorly drawn font is much more useful than a beautifully drawn poorly spaced one. If you concentrate on spacing this sucker, it will give you more insight into how to draw it.

Good luck.

I think, maybe, I'm moving in the right direction.

The w/x/v need the most work and the g looks too narrow. My biggest struggle with the w/x and v is due to the direction of the terminals and their effect on the balance of the characters. Hopefully, I'll eventually be able to sort this out.

It's been a while and I've been hard at work on this. Curious to hear your thoughts.

Trevor,

Thank you - I see what you mean and I have decided to take this in a slightly different direction to separate it from Museo.

The Uppercase F shows the new changes. I think if I carry this throughout (and keep some of the directional terminals), I'll be heading where I originally wanted (but couldn't adequately attempt).

Riccard0, I see what you mean... Maybe I'll pretend that was intentional ;)

After a few hours, I think I like this much more than the previous incarnation.

Thanks!

I really liked the idea at first but, over time, it just seemed to be too similar to Museo and whenever I tried to establish its difference it became to quirky to be useful.

Low and left.

Eliason,

They are pretty low and I wasn't too sure how to vertically balance them with the asymmetrical terminals. I think the j needs to be moved farther to the right due to the lack of the bottom right-ward terminal.

I'm really glad you like this direction. It took me a while to realize that I can't always force something to work (especially when the original concept is flawed).

I've finally created a pdf (attached to the first post). Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

It's been a while since that last update so I thought I would show a few quick snapshots of some of the progress
The Regular Weight

Regular Italic

Bold

just a topical comment: there is negative space on the overalp of your boldest weight of uppercase eth. Also the Æ & æ digraphs look really dark. I think some of those elements might need to be removed to create a lighter color.

I've been busy trying to work out the proportions on my caps so they don't look like a condensed mess. Ideally, I'd like to get the proportions similar to that of an Oldstyle typeface. Little by little, I'm working my way there.

The /k/ has been slightly annoying - you're right. My goal was to have it flow with the /hnm/ as far as the bowl's upper connection to the stem. I've been playing with it a little bit since the last update and have a quick screencap. I think I definitely need to smooth out the stem connection in all four glyphs.

I'm really grateful for any and all advice on this project. Like you, this is my first typeface and have learned quite a lot from everyone here.

I'm glad you like it! The character in the italics has been something I really wanted to bring out since most similar faces only seem to use slanted romans.

That app looks interesting. I'll have to see if I can find a PC version (no mac here).

Sorry, just realized on the Mac it's Ctrl instead of Shift, so Cmd+Alt+Ctrl+8.

Some new images showing the change in the capital proportions and the relation between the italics and the romans. I've decided the italics should be a bit narrower to keep in the theme of referencing oldstyle typefaces.

1996type,
That's something I'm not too sure about yet (the lc/uc blackness). Most oldstyle faces I've looked at seem to exaggerate this difference (I presume to help differentiate letters at smaller sizes), so I've gone that route. In the little example posted below, I think it looks alright to my eyes bit then again, I'm no expert and I'm still adjusting everything.

I'm am very glad to hear that you like the italics, it seems they are really showing me the direction of this typeface.

Nina,
I've really been working with adjusting that lately. I'm thinking of having the caps blend in with a lower case in the regular weight and have them stand out a little more in the bold and semibold.

Also, while I was working on this, I had a crazy though: would the second /W/ here be worth considering (right now, it's just two /V/s)?

Nina,

You're right and I did end up giving up on the alternate /W/. The apex is actually a bit lower but I suppose I should change it a bit more so it doesn't look like an upside-down /M/.

I'm glad you like the idea about the caps.