As Yet Un-named Font

Rasendyll's picture

Here's a preview of the latest project I'm working on for Greater Albion Typefounders:

I'd welcome any suggestions or critique of the work to date. Also, does anyone have any ideas for a name for this one?

BeauW's picture

I can see the ink...

I find that the J is weak. The tail of the Q is less sophisticated than the design calls for; I could see a loop of some sort...

B is elegant but maybe a bit too high a sweep (of the center) when juxtaposed to the 'E' and 'F'

I love the '&'

Rasendyll's picture

I take yiour pooint about the 'Q' though I had tried a downturned tail previously and that didn't look right either...

Any suggestions on what would help the 'J'?

eliason's picture

Are C and G supposed to be short? They look like they've been knocked backwards.

I agree that the Q tail needs rethinking.

I find the ampersand, while beautiful, completely out of character with the rest of the letters.

Fat U made me chuckle but I think I like it! You could try to go wide with the J.

It might be fitting to lower the crossbar of A.

nina's picture

There's an interesting feel to this.

I agree about the "Q" – placement and shape of the tail seems arbitrary. A loop might work, or maybe look at the "B" for guidance and have the tail grow out of the left side of the bowl? (Not sure this would work.)

The "C" has an underbite to my eyes. May also be a bit wide (and I agree with Craig that it's short, as well as the "G").

I think the "H" may need to be wider.

One thing that strikes me as odd about the "J" (other than the left side of the curve, which somehow doesn't work) is the long left-side head serif. All your other horizontal serifs seem to be shorter (even on the "F", which might benefit from a longer one on the right), so I'm wondering why you're making an exception here.

I think the shape of the "U" is somewhat amiable! But you may want to work out the inner vs. outer curves a bit more smoothly where the curve grows out of the stem on the left side.

Is this going to have lowercase?

Rasendyll's picture

Here the same project is after a bit more work-though before reading Alaira's suggestions, which may necessitate a few more changes tomorrow:

Must admit I still like the original Q, ut have included an alternate here. I do intend there to be a lower case as well, and I agree the lengths of the serifs on F, J etc may need some more work-also widening the H and narrowing the C could indeed be a good idea.

nina's picture

Rasendyll, please take what I said/say with a grain of salt – I'm still in the beginner stage.

Re the "Q": I was thinking of a loop on the left side of the tail (inside the bowl). It's mostly the left-side onset of the tail that looks "arbitrary" to me – it feels like the tail doesn't deeply "connect" to the bowl, it's just kind of hanging somewhere.
Although that loop you made is cute too. :-)

Marcelo Soler's picture

A: The area over the bar seems a bit tight against the one below. I agree with Craig that lowering could help. The serif on the top looks too heavy compared to the lower left serif.
B: I'd look for guidance in the E and F to balance both bowls. Though I like the bar as is, I think it would take benefit from their sisters.
C: Some of our curvy letters (C, G, O, Q) could need to overshoot up and down a bit (as D and S do it at the top). Perhaps it's wide also, as Nina says, but I'd like to see it taller before judging that.
D: The stress seems much a bit, and makes it look slightly heavy.
E: I like it as is.
F: The serif at the right side of the stem needs to be quite longer to provide support.
G: The same as the C. I'd work more on the small spur.
H: It's too narrow in comparison, especially with the N or the O.
I: Well, it's the master glyph...
&: Very nice shape. I agree with Craig it's out of character.
J: It deserves a hard work. Look at the U –mirrored– for some help.
K: Where did it go? :-)
L: Might it be narrower just a bit?
M: Good as is.
N: I'd cut off some serifs here and there. Perhaps it's me, but it seems too busy. I like it as a whole, anyway.
O: See my thoughts on the C. Nice balance.
P: Hmmm... I lost it.
Q: You face a hard challenge here. Hear the guys.
R: Gone with the P?
S: Very nice and smooth!
T: I'd only touch the serifs at the base, coz the letter is wide.
U: Pay attention to Nina's comments. I like it as well.
V..Z: See you, girls...

All in all, an interesting job, Paul.
About the name, let us know your aims.


Marcelo Soler's picture

Your new Q is entagled, to my eyes.


Nachos's picture

This is a pretty sweet UC font so far.

On your latest rev posted I like the weight of the J better, but think the bend is a little over the top. Would like it to have more of a straight stem and less of a bow. Best of luck.


Rasendyll's picture

Here are today's round of revisions. Still deciding what to do with Q and ampersand:

Marcelo Soler's picture

I love that ampersand...
The A is now well balanced (though I cannot feel yet comfortable with the top serif, but don't take it in account).
I'd make the spur of the G sharper and less heavy.
Your J –the first one– now looks great; perhaps the left serif is still long a bit.
I like the newborn K, but the weight of the strokes is odd: the upper is too thick, while the lower is too thin (the should follow the same logic of the M or the V); it happens in both versions –the latter is pretty good; the fat J bothers me, but it's just me.
The open P is nice. I'd like to see an alternate P with the tail of the bowl ascending, more B alike, but not too much.
Your R suffers the same lightness in the stroke I pointed for the K; the bowl seems big, perhaps because of this; as with the K, I like the latter version the most.
The S is beautiful as is.
I think the U is still unresolved in its inner curves.
With the V and W I have the same concerns exposed about the top serif of the A, but in that case I'm strongly in favor of a thin vertex gently overshooting the baseline.
The X definitely needs contrast (see notes on the K and R); once it's done, you'll need to shift the extremes of the thin stroke.
The Y has a poor contrast as well.
I have to say the same about the Z, even though it's quite beautiful.
You'd have to clarify us some questions about the eventual lowercase set, guidance to find a name, and so on.


eliason's picture

I really like the progress on this.

K's high leg join is great!

Serifs on V and W are odd, but I think fittingly so. If you keep them, think about spreading those bottom vertices of W away from each other.

J's curled end looks too flat at the vertical (could be antialiasing).

The shorter thin stroke of M looks pinched where it intersects at the middle of the glyph.

Z looks like it has a little italic slope; is the top stroke too short?

I don't like any of the alternates at the end.

I think your A looks great as it, but did you think of toying with the flat-topped A (akin to your H)?

nina's picture

I think the "A" looks good in isolation, but looking at the "V" and "W", I might try a full serif on top. Or a flat-topped one as Craig suggested.

Rasendyll's picture

Thanks for all the feedback, guys! Think I've taken most things on board in the latest update-even had a go at the flat-top A:

I've also included a lower-case l-the first step down that road...

Marcelo Soler's picture

Good job!
That descending "J" is a nice try, though I guess it needs more weight/width.
The fat-flat-top "A" annoys me a bit; it think the top full-serif one is the best solution for much.
I'd try making the upper stroke of the "K" gets thinner top to bottom, at least a half its current width.
Now, looking thoroughly, the "O" –and consequently the "C", "G", "Q"– seems to be contrasted in excess, I mean: the thinner parts are too thin, especially against the other glyphs.
You've got a great challenge with the "Q". I'm not sure about saying anything.
The leg of the first "R" apparently needs more weight. Anyway, I like the second "R", though its bowl is excesively wide.
I'm starting to enjoy the "U", as well as the V and W.
About the "X", break the thin stroke to avoid the optical flaw that –precisely– makes it look broken.


eliason's picture

If you want to keep going down that flat-top-A road (which may very well be a dead end), perhaps try an A where the right stem is more upright and the left stroke bends inward to meet it. And (so long as it doesn't make too small of a counter) you could try a high crossbar like H has. Something like this (in structure):

I agree with Marcelo on the too-thin thins of the rounds (as well as most everything else he said).

formschub's picture

My spontaneous associations are somehow „nostalgic” and „french”. Thus, for a name, I could imagine something like „Salon”, „Boudoir”, „Brasserie” or „Marché”... (There are surely a lot more nice words like that)

Nice work!


Design means: thinking comes first.

Rasendyll's picture

I do like Brasserie....hhmmmm 'food' for thought there.

Just working on the lower case set now.....

Marcelo Soler's picture

"I do like Brasserie....hhmmmm ’food’ for thought there."
We have a bon-vivant gourmandaise there...

Brasserie sounds nice to my Spanish ears too.

BTW, Craig's sample is pretty good for inspiration.


eliason's picture

It looks more American than French to me. Early 20th century - I think of this sort of thing.

Marcelo Soler's picture

"It looks more American than French to me."
Actually, American and British, IMO (remember William Morris) ;-)
To be honest, I was thinking of French cuisine, not type...


Mark Simonson's picture

Interesting take on an old font...

Nick Curtis has a version called Rowan Oak.

Marcelo Soler's picture

I guess we've got a DNA test pending here.

Definitely, that ampersand figure is nice:


nina's picture

Wow! So that's where that funky "Q" tail comes from. And the original single-side-top-serif "A"…
It would have been kinda nice/helpful to state that influence from the beginning methinks. But maybe that's just me.

cerulean's picture

So I'm guessing you thought you were adapting "lettering" you found somewhere, and the significantly different letters were not present in the book title or whatever it was. Don't be discouraged, as you probably still have the right in this instance, and I think certain letters such as Z and J are much better than the original. The original K has you beat, though. The new P's have merit but I think you'll have to work harder to create worthy R's that go with them. You could also try other more fanciful changes; the possibility of a wineglass Y based on the U comes to mind.

Rasendyll's picture

Tis quite true-my inspiration was a 1930's photo that featured a London estate agent's board-and yes, just selected upper case letters and ampersand in the company name. I think the lettering on the board may also not have been 100% accurate as a copy Richmond either-defiite differences in the C's for instance...

That said, Icertainly wasn't trying to copy the signboard exactly, and definitely not Richmond, which I'd never encountered. Now backto that lower case...the wineglass y sounds interesting too...hmmm....

Rasendyll's picture

Here's the weekend's further progress. I've made some progress on the lower case set:

I've also refined the upper case glyphs a bit, and added a few more alternates:

On looking closer I'm sure the sign that inspired this font- I'm now thinking of naming it 'Almira' thanks to a helpful suggesion on our blog - and Richmond Old Style share 'DNA', but there a surprising number of differences too. Royund serifs vs squaure cut ones, gently tapered uprights rather than straight, extreme contrast in 'O', 'C' etc. I think the unamed signwriter might have seen Richmond and 'improved' on it!

Marcelo Soler's picture

All manking shares a lot of DNA code, so don't you mind it.
Let me comment on your lowercase set:
a: It seems bold a bit, especially at the top. I thik the bowl undershoots too much, or maybe you must compensate the serif.
b: Something in the bowl is weird, perhaps the lower part...
c: The bottom terminal does not work the same way it does in the e, where I find it balanced.
d: I think the end of the bowl where it reachs serif at the bottom of the stem needs more air. Currently, that tie is too heavy.
e: I like that design.I'd like to see it in context.
f: Both alternates seem pleasant to my eyes (though deeply in my soul I miss the left side of the cross bar).
g: Looks good. Need more work in contrast.
h: At a very first sight, I like it as is.
i: The tittle bothers me, as in the "j".
j: The tail is bold a hair.
k: As previously with the UC, you reversed the weight of strokes. I like the last one.
l: No comments.
m: As with the "n", "p", "r", IMO the join at the top-left corner lack of light. See my comment on the "d". All in all, the glyph is nice.
n: Beyond what I said about the m, I like it.
o: No comments.
p: Did you added a bowl to a "j"? Descending seems too wide...
q: Pretty good.
r: I'm not totally sure about the terminal, but perhaps is me. Definitely, it needs more light at the white space over the top serif. An unwritten rule states you sould rotate that space at the top 90°.
Go ahead!

Rasendyll's picture

Thanks very much for the detailed feedback. Here's an image or a-r reworked (s-z still to do):

You're right by the way- the original 'p' was basically the 'j' with a bowl added...

Meanwhile, here are a few words to put things in context:

Thankjs for all your encouragement with this!


Marcelo Soler's picture

A quick comment: the new "g" seems too winding IMO.
BRB with more.


Rasendyll's picture

Here it is at last- a full lower case, plus a few alternates:

Syndicate content Syndicate content