Interesting dilemma about the P and R. To me it seems you might have two fonts here, the middle two lines (H-M and O-T) look like a different (darker) font to the rest because they're not using hairlines in the same way. I'd go one way or the other, and make it consistent throughout.

@Bendy
They look darker. There's not much I can do about it though.
/K/ with thin arms looks bad. Monoline /O/ falls out by being too thin.
I will try dual line /R/ and /P/.
Or fat /B/.

New sketchy /K/

An interesting way to conform the color of /H/ might be to reverse its contrast! Then it would have just one heavy stroke, the crossbar. Too wacky, or just wacky enough for "flawed and handmade"?

This is progressing pretty nice!

Have you considered making the /O/ and /Q/ in similar fashion as you are now doing with /B D, P/ and /R/? Asymmetrical that is? Im saying because I kinda agree with Bendy, there seem to be two systems in use within the font right now for using thin or thick strokes.

The other option would be to use the thin strokes only as horizontals/bars and as serifs, and make everything else thick. So stick with the original /K/ (you could also add serifs on the right side ad you did with the new /K/) and alter /B, D/ etc? That said, the thick/thin contrast is probably what makes the latest version so interesting - so you might want to stick with the current route.

Also, have you considered using a thin stroke for the tail of the /Q/ instead of a thick one?

Love the /E/ and /K/ by the way, nicely shaped!

>@Stinger - How can /O/ be asymmetrical?

Check out Broadway

I'm surprised. This may actually work.

Bad spacing, I know. Haven't worked on it yet.

Nice. Several heads always better than one.

Oh yes! It's working nicely man, great to see this evolve. /H O Q/ all much improved in combination with the rest. /H/ is very much a brother of /K/ now, awesoem.

Great stuff!

Awesome (spelled correctly this time), that's great to hear!

Hmm, maybe /U/ does stand out, but if so, then /V W X Y/ do as well, maybe even /Z/ and probably /A/ also (both at the top and at the bottom). You could say the same for the top of the /J/. Might be worth a try though? Not sure if e.g. /U/ would be too closed, of you look at the bottom or the /R/ I think it will have more space than that probably?

On the other hand it might become too predictable if you apply it everywhere, even though it's 'systematically' correct, if you see what I mean?

Oh, have you tried a thin tail for /Q/ yet? I still feel it's kinda in-your-face right now...

To be honest, I really like it! It's quite elegant actually. What if you add a serif on the bottom of the tail to enhance it a bit? Would that be allowed? (Im not sure if there should be one there or not). Don't think it needs that though.

I'm not so sure, are there a lot of words/instances where one would easily mistake a /Q/ for an /O/?

For me personally, the bottom "requiem" has the most aesthetic look, the best rhythm.

The logic is that vertical stems looked boring without serifs.
Diagonal stems doesn't have outer serifs because of initial stylistic idea and because it adds even more white space to the outside.
And knowing that most letters are blocky, this doesn't help the stylistic unity.

Crap, forgot to add /g/

K, U, and R don't seem to fit the vertical=full serif, diagonal=half serif logic. But I do love the look and the lower case is coming along nicely!

Looking good! Especially love the /t/!

I had expected a different /q/ though, one with a thin tail actually - have you tried that? Come to think of it, this might be an interesting experiment for /d/ as well (as right now it's almost an inverted /b/). It might look odd though.

I still think the /g/ looks a bit off, but im also not sure how to solve that. If the tail is completely thin (without the wide part) it might be even more odd.

Also, I like /a/ much better with the semi-serif topleft!

The height of the dots on /i j/ looks good to me, but I think they are a bit wide maybe? They now look a bit too fat in total (too much black). Not sure if it would fit the logic/system of the typeface but have you tried making them a bit less wide? Or round, even?

/q/ or /j/ with thin tails are too drastic.
Besides, there will be monoline version to supplement this one.

I'm thinking about condensing everything to give more practical use.

what if you take it a little further and make the dots actual circles? that is, even less wide?

Updated the OP

Started the small caps (omitted the obvious ones here).
Small /Q/ with thick tail looked silly, so it probably means that the big one will have to be changed accordingly too...

Yes, /r/ is poorly legible indeed.

Second one.

If you need two different designs, first one quote, second one comma.

Isn't capitals too dark?

Neither one nor the other (sth. inbetween), but I use to draw them in capital size, because you often use small caps together with caps.

Discretionary ligatures for caps. Do small caps numbers have to be oldstyle?