Well, it can't be trendy because that trend was a decade ago. :-)

It's not my cup of Lapsang Souchong, but It Does Not Suck. To me it looks like a personal interpretation of what might be called the "Lexicon genre". And it seems quite personal since some of the "stroke" distribution is subtly funky (a good thing).

BTW, your target size seems to be right on, although the spacing is slightly loose (which does however depend on the repro conditions, since this is for a specific application).

hhp

It looks nice so far. Maybe it's just the pixel rendering (and it might look better at your intended size), but I think the bottom right of a, top right of the bowl on b, and top right of the loop on g might be a hair too dark.

I think you're right on with the light joins—I had originally thought to give my Hemlock some very light joins on a few letters, but someone pointed it out and I darkened them. After doing some proofs, I found that my original instincts were correct (and that I need to working on spacing).

Brian: The weight rotation is, in addition to the pen influence, a byproduct of the “typographic” part. See the red lines! I’ve tried not to make this 100% literally. I too think g is too heavy, but I’m not sure about bdpq theoretically although they might appear slightly darker then n.

Hrant: I will!

Looks Awesome!

- Not sure about the brush-like bottom of the 3 and 5. They can be more like the 'c', 'f', 'y'.
- Maybe you are creating a very dark spot in the 'd' when the upper part of the bowl joins the stem , also applies to the lower join in the 'p'. In 'b' and 'q' looks nice however.
- 'w' is a little to expanded maybe?
- 'B' the lower bowl looks a little weird.

I like the new /g/ but its ear could be more in line of the overall feeling, eg more of an upward whoosh… The bowl of the /a/ could be a bit wider to balance it with the upper part. /s/ is need of some widening, I think (the /se/ combo is unbalanced).

I like it, but am not convinced if it is a worthy addition to the spectrum of modern typefaces…

Btw, claiming something “not worthy” is not very constructive. Keep in mind this is my first serif.

s/g/a adjusted after your comments. (perhaps not enough on g?)

It's very well thought out with some clever details and nice proportions. Reminds me more of Trinite than Lexicon. I'd personally suggest the very sharp outstrokes could be bevelled (e.g. on the lowercase /e/ and /t/) but I guess you're liking it really spiky! Also, have you tested the contrast on the actual stock intended? It looks as though overall it might be rather shiny, maybe more like a display cut??

Rounds/diagonals seem a bit darker than long straights. Look at /c/, /o/ or /v/ next to /l/ or /h/.

/a/ I'd trim a little off the outstroke, at the notch, so the spur starts a little narrower than the main stroke width. I think Lexicon does that, and yours seems a little like the weight is pulling the stroke down rather than flowing out gently.

/b/ counter at bottom left looks slightly unresolved? Can't quite tell what the tool is doing, it's continuous but suddenly changing rotation? Or perhaps the pen angle round the bottom left is just too steep?

/u/ I'm seeing some boning on the left stem.

/t/ Short?

Great to see your skill, Frode! I think Gerard would approve :^)

Yes, the ascenders are also taller.

Lexicon's /a/ below yours:

I've observed this trick in a number of designs. It's as though the sideways flick of the tail starts above the join.

Re the /u/, it's an illusion to do with the transition from curve to straight. The straight section looks as though it's bending right in the middle (blue dots show where I see it waisting inwards). Actually I think a good solution might be to make that stem curve ever so slightly all the way through, and do away with the straight sections.

/t/ short in the height department?

Frode: a bit more enthusiastic, like a whippet’s tail! With a slight curl at the base.
I like the overhang of the lower bowl.

Yes, that's what I meant for the /a/. Also, I'd also pull the (righthand) handle coming out of that node a bit further to the right. There seems to be too much colour down there.

I'd do the same with the inner curve of the /u/. The straight section still creates a distortion to my eye.

Bendy:

I’m sure you are, Hrant, but I’ve got an end product to consider.

And, Bert: It’s very likely that I’m unconsciously inspired by de Does. (A true master.) I see the similarities (joins and serifs), and I also see quite a bit of another TEFF face in here: F. Smeijers Renard — in the weight rotation. Perhaps there are some changes I can do to steer clear, allowing me to focus on making this as good as possible? I don’t yet have a clear vision of all the stylistic details. I don’t know nearly enough about type yet. What I do know is the purpose it needs to fulfill in the end and the general feel I’m after, and this has informed my decisions so far.

Sure, what I meant is you might find yourself having to shorten the extenders.

If you don't want them to fill in, you have to make a stencil font. :-) Which is actually not as comical as it might sound, since Pierro De Macchi once made a phone directory font like that (called Nomina).

hhp

I attached a new PDF to the first post: man16apr0008.pdf.

Spacing is somewhat refined -- at least better than the previous version.

I’ve actually been working on a new R. The previous one was quite uninspired.

The R in context.

I prefer the direction of the previous /R/, FWIW.
But that wasn’t even an idea :) Anyway -- my ego prevails until it starts sticking out to my eyes.

Serif at top right of /N/ goes too far over left. I think a balanced shape like that at the same spot in /U/ would work better.
I think I need some “filling in” here, but perhaps not so much.

Are the thins of /O/ intentionally thick relative to others?
Not sure if I understand. It is comparable to similar forms (C, U, G, D), but thicker than S.

About that subtle Q tail: Better?

Impressive. First off, study Lexicon. The more I study it, the more I see the brilliance of it. It's also really helping me with my own serif typeface, although I'm wary of getting to close to the design of Lexicon. A few notes:

- The 'flatness' of your bowls is a bit exagerated, IMO. This causes a few problems: /c and e/ fall backwards, The white notch between the bowl and the stem on the top of /m n p and alikes/ is very small. I'm afraid it might completely disappear when printed with a lower quality of paper/ink/printer. The top of the stem, tilting to the right, only makes this worse. De Does cheated his way out of this problem by making the top of the stem extend (yes, optically) above the shoulder. It looks fine in text, but it's anoying at display size.
- The serifs on your uppercase could be wider/larger. They're a bit fragile now.
- The top vertical serif of E looks really small next to Z.
- Top of A looks a bit weak. Check Lexicon's A.
- Second stroke in W and /w/ looks too thin.
- I would like to see a version where the top serif on /i/ is shorter. About half its current length, I'd say. Keep the top serifs on ascenders the same, though.
- I get the system, but that serif on the very left on /v and alikes/ looks too long.
- The top counter of /a/ is quite small compared to the very open counter of /e, for example/. Perhaps make the terminal shorter.
- The bowl of /a/ has a very horizontal flow, compared the the diagonality of the top of /a/.
- Terminals are inconsistent. Try to get /f c a r y/ to work together a bit closer.
- /r/ looks a lot like /n/. I would make it join the stem at a much lower point.
- /g/ is too thin on the top right (just right of the very top).
- /v/ is wide.
- That little outward turn on the bottom right of N looks odd.

It's a very original and functional typeface as it is. As always, take my comments with some salt. You know your shit better than I do ;-) Cheers! jasper

I don't expect you to agree with me on all points. I merely gave you my thoughts :-)
Thought: Find a printer with a good laserprinter if you want to make this thing work. Designing a text font without testing properly seems an impossible job to me.

On my work vs. Lexicon: The line between character and quirk will always be thin. Lexicon is brilliant indeed, but after having seen it in intensive use every day in the NRC Handelsblad, some things about it just anoy me.

And uc vertical serifs:

PDF (with text samples as well) in the first post. The caps are rough, and I guess the rest is too -- more intentional, but not necessarily well executed. Spacing is a mess!

Very promising. This seems quite an assured design, despite spacing, very good!

I see a potential inconsistency with the outstrokes of /t/ vs /i/ for example.

I like the way the crossbars of /f/ and /t/ seem to be aiming downwards; I've never been able to get that to work.

Not convinced about the /R/.

Stem of /y/ may be too dark: compare with /f/.

Not sure I agree with HVB about the word 'cursive'. To me 'italics' is much more typographic than 'cursive', which implies more written forms. I've not heard of 'cursive' implying connected letterforms before.

"Kursiv" is simply the Norwegian word for italic.