I like the way you think. Imbalance can indeed be risky, but somebody's gotta rock this boat.

The glyphs that stand out to me as needing the most work are the Bold* "g" and the Regular "a". And don't be so shy with the ears of the "g"s.

* Which is more of a Black.

hhp

update

I was kind of thinking that about the K, but I quite like the x. Thanks for your praise of the numerals; I always find them some of the hardest glyphs to draw - especially 6 and 9. These are tabular figures so the zero can't go much wider without increasing the advance width of all numerals, including the light, which makes the spacing a bit too loose IMO. I'll likely have proportional figures too so that zero might be a touch wider.

Coming back to this after being on holiday... do you mean the number one or the whole black weight looks more condensed?

They are. Now that you mention it, black /g/ could stand to have its top counter widened slightly on the left side. In-between /g/ looks fine. At first I thought I could see what you were talking about with /s/, but I think what's missing might not be not weight but size. /s/ may need a touch more overshoot, top and bottom, in the whole weight range.

I'm thinking h n u and m could all do with having their legs pulled apart a touch.

Nice.

Related: http://typophile.com/node/94168

hhp

Looking good, Dave.
/v/ looks like it is riding high on the baseline.
/w/ looks taller than its neighbors.
Perhaps the humps of /m/n/h/ could be a touch taller. Loop of /k/ too.
That inside contour of /n/ (etc.) on the right side seems like the most tentative drawing.
Maybe the counter of /o/ could be tilted toward the italic angle more.
That form of /g/ works very well here. /z/ and /y/ are awfully nice too.

Can you get more white into that counter within the loop of /k/? That bit still looks cramped to me.
I would lower the bottom right of /m/n/h/. Optically that stroke is not sitting on the baseline like the flat-bottomed stems before it.

Looking at /h/ now next to the /T/, I imagine you'll need to both raise the one /h/ stem and lower the other a smidge.
The fun challenge of a design where almost no letters set the baseline & meanline!

I think there's a better reason than formal UC harmony* to make the feet flat: especially looking at the Roman** this is not a "normal" font (to me a good thing); your second sample looks like yet another polished contemporary Italic (even with those sharp arches). You don't want that, at least not here.

* Which can only be taken so far anyway - the two cases really are different animals.

** And things like the "2".

hhp

New optically corrected version

I like it! Especially |K|. I find |R| has still some trouble in the centre.

Not sure about the downward slope and/or the bar-like look (I’m sorry to not being able to better articulate it).
But please ignore it. It was just a superficial first impression.

Italics: I like the /R/, it has an original, distinctive shape, there's no need to tweak it in my opinion. It's lowercase counterpart /r/, however, is clearly too wide. It gives the impression of falling forward. /Q/ is wonderful! I'm not sure about the top right of /x/. The top right serif of /K/ could grow more to the right.

Roman: The last sentence also goes to /k/. /k/ is also too wide. The serifs of /u/ in the light weight are too short. In the bold and regular weight /e/ has a "big nose". To fix this bring the terminal nearer to the eye's right end (horizontally, of course). You may compare with the italics, where this problem is unexistant. The weight of the different serifs in /t/ and /x/ is unbalanced. I would definitely keep working on /g/. It reminds me of an intestine :-) which doesn't mean it's badly drawn, just that it's not what you're looking for.

In my opinion, you could improve it by taking into account the following:
- In practically all text fonts the blue area has an even thickness.
- The blue area normally slopes downwards or stays horizontal, and doesn't necessarily has to sit on the baseline.
- The thin-thick transition in the red area is "uncertain".

Personally, I would dispose of one of the two right crooks. /g/ has a very complex structure in comparison with the rest of your alphabet, not counting that it itself is the most complex constructed letter.

Hope it helps ;-)

Not wanting to just disregard objection to the |x|, I've tried a top right serif more closely linked to the |r|.
Thoughts?

#1. looks better.

I'm going to extend the serifs throughout the light weight

Thumbs up for that!

/R/,/K/,/X/ and /A/ are more interesting with a curved diagonal. As Riccardo said, especially /K/ profits from it.

Where to draw the line?

Which line? You mean it figuratively?

An idea/temptation: If you slanted the crossbar of the italic /t/ (which looks good to my eyes), why not also the descender-serifs of /p/?

Here's what uppercase diagonals look like with very slight curvature. Any more than this starts looking really forced.

Thought that's what you meant. I did try the bottom of the q the same as the bottom of the l but I didn't like it. I think there need to be some horizontals peppered throughout the lowercase or it starts to get a bit too blackletter (for my taste). Whether to have the serif edges on p and q slanted or upright, I have no preference, so if anyone can offer a decent argument for one over the other, I'll go with that.

Some letters in the Roman have ink traps, but in the italic I haven't added any yet. I'm indecisive about whether they are worth putting in or not. Here's the Black Roman with and without traps. Do they add anything that seems missing from the italic, or would I be better just getting rid of them from the Roman?

Tried with and without trapping. Used a variation on your trapping flower, Hrant, but I think it looks better without ink traps. Anyway, nothing's set in stone yet and I might change my mind on that, but for now, here's how the four styles are looking so far:

I agree, and maybe an upright italic is something to think about, but as well as the roman, not instead of. Definitely right about the tittles, I always seem to make them too low and never notice!

Ok, working on getting the roman and italic right before doing any other styles. I've changed |k| and |x| in the roman - you're right, Craig, that arm wasn't working. Raised tittles in light weight, and narrowed the |m| and (to a lesser extant) |w| in the light italic (I thought the black italic was ok as it was).
In the light roman, I've brought down the junction with the stem in letters like h, n, and b, and brought it up in letters like d, q, and u. I think this makes a big difference - getting closer to the look of the italic. Don't think it's needed so much in the black italic, so I left them alone.

That light roman ampersand is looking down a bit. gotta change that.