Download disabled

Please respect their decision and desist from requesting license changes in the comments.

If you would like to use the FontStruction for a specific project, you may be able to contact the designer directly about obtaining a license.

This one doesn't know what it wants to be when it grows up.

Info:

Created on 24th January 2009. Last edited on 20th February 2009.
License:

Creative Commons
Categories:
- Serif
- Display
Sets:
- -
Tag:
- -
Fave Tags:
- -

23 Comments

Any ideas how to harmonise the upper case welcome. I'm a bit tired of it at the moment.

Comment by intaglio 26th january 2009

I like the e. Maybe drop the lower bar on the P a bit?

I love, love, love the numbers.

Comment by aphoria 26th january 2009

I must admit I wondered if I was being a bit pedantic making all the crossbars in the U/C conform. The P definitely looks better "trousers on hips" rather than the waist.

I relegated the fancy e to the l/c acute-e space on the extended roman set. It's a bit clever-clever to be used in all instances, I think.

Glad you like the oldstyle numerals. I'm not much good at them usually. Practice makes perfect...

Hmm. Maybe I should make the lower bar of the P align with the crossbar of the e...

Comment by intaglio 26th january 2009

The lowercase and the numerals are things of beauty, as they say. Cheers, intaglio! I'm looking at your improved P, and think that your R would benefit from a similar modification. The uc W seems a bit awkward, with its straight sides, compared to the lc w. Can't help loving the fancy e, and the tails of y, 7, 9, etc. Rock on, sir!

Comment by SquarePeg 26th january 2009

charming :)

Comment by funk_king 26th january 2009

This one looks like your best. The lowercase has charm worth watching.

The disconnect between the lower- and uppercases may be because the uppercases are narrower than the lowercases. You could, perhaps, try to do one of two thing: 1. Make the uppercase a grid block or two wider, or 2. Make the uppercase a grid block or two shorter, leaving the tops of ascenders on the lowercase as is.

I, too, love the numerals. The loops in 6 and 9 should be smaller than x-height, though, methinks.

The e is gorgeous...and carries the whole font.

Comment by thalamic 26th january 2009

The e in the sample, I mean, the one with the diagonal crossbar. The standard e is too, er, standard...and dare I say?, boring.

Comment by thalamic 26th january 2009

Well, I shall reinstate it, then! And I shall try all these other suggestions too. It's funny how I have to force myself to make my characters wider. It's like I've got an inbuilt bias towards compression which I've got to allow for.

Tomorrow's little task. It's 11.30pm: not a clever time to start 'structing.

Comment by intaglio 27th january 2009

I like this one, probably because of the lc "e", I'm only sorry you didn't use that type of detail more often on the rest of the letters, it gives a calligraphic feel to it that's really cool.

Comment by jmarquez 27th january 2009

The new P is much better. I agree with SquarePeg that the R could use the same treatment.

I'm glad you kept the e!

Comment by aphoria 27th january 2009

Hey! you haven't changed the lc "e" back yet!?
Also the UC "N" doesn't convince me cause the "M" is very diferent.

Comment by jmarquez 27th january 2009

ups! (:-o)
I didn't notice the time and your post before. I'll wait till tomorrow to check it again.

Comment by jmarquez 27th january 2009

@jmarquez: yes, the M,N and W can't make up their mind. I'm loath to do away with the strange W. Which means I really should make the N conform to it if I'm going to keep it. And then there's the A...

I'll do alternates for them and generate another sample to see how they look.

@thalamic: I'll have a go at x-height versions of 6 and 9 but I'm smitten with the present 9, quirky as it is.

Comment by intaglio 27th january 2009

Oh I love the 9. I just think that the o part of the 9 could be shorter, aligned at the top so a bit more of the flippy tail is evident.

Comment by thalamic 27th january 2009

thal, you're brilliant. What a difference. I'll remember that little trick.

Ha! I've just seen your post, which is even better. It's so obvious I don't know why I didn't see it. I blame the heat.

Comment by intaglio 27th january 2009

Like this, I think...

Comment by thalamic 27th january 2009

AH! You already did it. Brilliant. I wish I could delete that my last comment.

Comment by thalamic 27th january 2009

No! I didn't think of the rotated ascender/descender treatment.

Comment by intaglio 27th january 2009

Since you chose to use 1969 as the sample (the significance of which I shall henceforth wonder), I think the 1 in oldstyle numerals is supposed to look like a squat I. And the zero is supposed to be shorter and rounder, middle-aligned from top to bottom. I'm going on memory on this, so I could very well be very wrong. ;)

Comment by thalamic 27th january 2009

I suppose I should really learn the basics of the form before going off on my own tangent. Sigh. Oh all right then.

Comment by intaglio 27th january 2009

I suppose I should really learn the basics of the form before going off on my own tangent. Sigh. Oh all right then.

Damn that double post demon.

Comment by intaglio 27th january 2009

Hehe. I also suggest adding small-caps. The possibilities are endless. When (if!) I become grown-up type designer someday, we should think about a collaboration outside of FontStruct. Then again, by the time that happens FontStruct may very well be so mature that stepping away from FontStruct may not be necessary.