And some numbers:

Damn, this is some advanced stuff! First of all, I would like to see a pdf with some text samples, instead of jpg. For a textface, the upward serifs on the top of all stems are distracting. I can see that they are a main characteristic of the typeface, be I would rather have them pointing down. Actually, the same goes for your bottom serifs. For better legibility, just flip them horizontally. The italic allows you to play more with these concepts, but for a textface some of them are a bit too unconventional.

That g is redicilously beautiful!
k is distracting
Replace the ball terminals in the caps by serifs.
s looks to dark.

Keep going!

Top serifs facing down and not so stubby...

Yes, better r :-)

These shapes, particulary n reminds me of trying to write like a southpaw (I'm not).

Those top left serifs still feels a little undecisive too me, maybe they need a steeper angle? The y tail could need some more weight, and I think this also applies to the f. Some other trouble spots: “upstroke” in and general balance in r, œ/Œ joins, ø slash angle, downstroke weight and treatment in x + k.

The t “ascender” is really no ascender, so maybe that one could do with a little folding, like perhaps a bigger version of the top left serif?

I like this but my only concern would be confusion between characters with a grave accent and the serifs on some glyphs (most notably the /l/).

A preliminary look at some italics:

Thanks. Good idea. Like this?

Still on the Roman:

Great work again! It's already much better.

I quite liked the cut at the right in the e, but that's just my opinion.
n h m u could all go a touch narrower.
I have the tendency to make the crossbars in f and t thicker towards the and, so this might just be me, but making it thinner towards the end just doesn't look right to me. They look too thin as a whole.
It has cuts in the bottom of the bowl in d, but not in c e.
Try to be a bit more rational (not too much!) and think of the actual structure that you're using. Looking closely at this (http://cyreal.org/typefaces/florian) picture should show you a more rational approach to this idea. The cuts appear at the thinnest part of the curve, as they would with a broad-nip pen. Although this is (yet again) quite a big change I would at least TRY to place the cuts with broad-nip logic in mind, using this picture as a guideline.

If you decide to keep the cuts the same you should review them all the same. The bottom of the bowl in d, looks heavier than the top of n, for example.

This typeface would do great with short descender/ascenders, following a current trend. This is a stylistic choice that you should decide upon though, not me.

To be honest I think you're moving on to the Italic a bit too fast, so I won't critique that for now.

Keep going!

Cheers,
Jasper

I love the way this is progressing. I like that it has details which are seriously cool when large but it still works well set small. I disagree with Jasper that it's too early to start working on the italic. Working on them simultaneously will help, as one informs the other and it helps keep them harmonious. One of the biggest pitfalls I fall into it getting stuck on one particular font. I even think it helps to be working on a few different typefaces at a time (not just weights and styles of the same font). It stops you getting bored and what you learn from one can be applicable in another, nomatter how disparate they may seem... Although this could explain why I have about ten unfinished typefaces languishing in a state of perennial limbo!

My question about the /a/ is between these two approaches:

Wow! Great job again. You're a quick learner :-)

I prefer the first /a/, this is really quite a personal choice. Go with what looks most natural, disregarding the method behind it.

First of all, if you want to get useful feedback it would be wise to include a pdf with text at different sizes. I like what you've got going on here, and I would like to be able to print it, for better judgement.

I'm not sure about the funky serif at the top left of n, m, u, etc. I like it's quirkyness and it's perfectly understandable if you want to keep it, but it might not result in optimal legibillity to keep it this way. If you do want to keep it like this, than I suggest you lengthen them only when attached to an ascender (b, d, h, k, l, etc.). They don't work at all in the u, but it's not terribly bad to use a different structure there.

Download the RMX tools demo, from Tim Ahrens. Some of your outlines are just a little bit off (positioning of nodes, length of control points, etc.). The harmonizer from RMX tools will fix this easily, as well help speeden up the production process once you start making it into a complete family.

You might want to make the bowl of the /a/ a bit more diagonal at the top, to match with the top of the /a/ (for both the first and the second /a/ in the picture above), but it's not particularly wrong the way it is now. I would also suggest to make the middle bar in /a/ thinner, as well as the middle bar in /e/. I can see the logic behind it, but it just looks a little bit too thick to my eyes.

I would like the bottom right serif in /a d u/ to point up a bit, or maybe even make them into tails.

The bottom right of e and c ends a bit too low IMO. They should roughly match the bottom right of the bowl in d.

I would like to see the bar in /e/ a bit more straight (shorten the part that turns up), like it used to be in earlier versions.

It's your typeface off coarse, but I hope you carefully considered keeping the ballish terminals in /a c f, etc/, instead of just going the Florian way ;-) I quite liked those.

The bar in f and t should be thicker. Roughly the same thickness as the bottom of the bowl in d.

w is too wide, but I like the structure.

The gap between the serifs in x, is larger at the top than it is at the bottom. Should be the other way around.

Consider (just CONSIDER) to make the serifs in s and z more diagonal.

r is too wide and the arm looks a little bit off.

For better legibility, consider (just CONSIDER) a more horizontal ear on the g.

/C D G O Q T/ should be wider IMO.

The curves in D should be fuller. Extend the control points.

The modulation in the bowl of P and R is off. It looks as if there's a straight piece (bottom of the bowl) attached to the top of the bowl.

Lengthen the tail on Q a bit.

I would like to see diagonal strokes all over in the M, but I must say it's a cool quirk.

DON NOT TAKE ANYTHING I SAY FOR GRANTED. IT'S YOUR TYPEFACE, NOT MINE. If this long comment comes across as harsh feedback, it's not. I'm just a perfectionist. You got talent.

Keep going! It'll be worth it :-)

Cheers,
Jasper

Hahaha. Don't give up!

Just thought of these changes to the /R/ and /k/. (Little tail serif on the legs)

Noted. Could you explain what you mean by the modulation?

Just to make sure I'm clear, are you referring to the before and after of the bowls in these instances?

The gestalt of your font reminded me of this.

Somehow, I found your last changes counterproductive. You're good, but be careful to not lose your own style staring at other fonts for inspiration. Work, draw, and find yourself in the process. Keep being original as when you started.

Why is your font called Lamond, if I may ask?

So aside from any other elements, I pose this to you about serifs. I had been proceeding with version A but I really feel that version B fits more with the flavor of the original idea. (Plus it doesn't look like so many other faces.) Does this look like a good way forward?

Wow, I'm surprised how great this looks at text sizes. It still looks a bit too much like Skolar to me. Or maybe just the gestalt is similar.

Ack! Yes, it is a bit Skolar-ish. I hate it when that happens. Thanks for the tip. I think this latest round does well to keep its own personality. I'm much happier with the terminals on the /a/c/f/r/ and the serifs overall. Everything is based on this shape, where strokes are generally straight and get wider on one side. (see: tails of the /J/y/Q) Also, /B/K/P/R/ feels right, now that they have a little "air" in them.

Lamond 23

Looking good! It would be best to judge in a paragraph, but here are my quick observations. I like the funky letters A, G, J, R, f, g, y, z.

O: I'd maybe bring the stress round a bit further.

Diagonal of N looks a bit light?

I like the difference between K and R, it might even help readability by reducing confusability :)

Tail of g looks like a dark patch.

Tail of Q could be funkier; looks a bit unsure.

Roof of r may need more thinning where it joins the stem.

Don't you guys think the non-smoothness is the charm of this face? In which particular glyphs would you suggest the curves are not good? I do agree with Jasper that the inner and outer contours should be treated independently, but I don't see any massive difficulties in the curves.

Somebody told me that the most important thing is to keep the vitality of the original sketches even when there's a temptation to normalise everything and convert to neat mathematical beziers. I think that's especially true with this design.

Right. But it's also the type designer who makes the decision to enter the colosseum of the critique section, not by accident, but precisely to receive constructive and most of all heterogeneous feedback of the work presented. That's critique, isn't it? To expose your art to other's opinions ;b. Then, the designer takes into account only the ideas which fit best with his/her intention. And then, voilà, you make progress!

I agree with both of you that roughness is a main attribute of this font. When I wrote "polishing" I didn't want to say smoothen. Surely typefaces like Kinesis, Delphin or even Scala were polished although they still look rough and informal. Look at their italics! They seem perfectly rough to me :)

Bendy: I work with beziers all the time, and I doubt there is something mathematical when using them. The maths stay happily and safe within FontLab, and when I use beziers to draw my letters, I really draw them. The actual challenge is learning how to use them to get the desired result.

Ok, here we go again. I took advice to increase the x-height. I like it. (You may have some subsequent feedback because of it) I tried to address all of your comments. Please excuse me if I didn't understand the particulars of each one.

Lamond 26 - UC
Lamond 27 - lc
Lamond 30 - text

*Note that the spacing/kerning is rudimentary at this point. And Numerals and punctuation are still from old versions.