Unpolished Serif, work in progress

Phillipo's picture

During a typedesign-course at university, I started to develop this typeface, which is meant to have kind of a nordic touch to it.
The most basic characters are in it, but I feel it could be a lot better, so I'm looking for critique to eliminate errors and overall spice it up a notch.

I've started making a bold (or extra bold) version but feel, that the regular should really shine before putting all the effort in doing different weights.

What do you think? Any suggestions, critique and comments are highly appreciated.

sk1.pdf44.6 KB
sk2.pdf40.08 KB
1996type's picture

That's quite good. H U N are too narrow and L is too wide. Perhaps you should add something to make it a little more unique. Keep going!

Frode Bo Helland's picture

I'm not qualified to comment deeply on this, but I did notice a need for overshots. The thinnest weight does feel nordic (modern, sleek - I'm nordic but definitely not modern or sleek, but I know what you mean though), the heaviest: clumpsy. Like your R. Reminds me of Unit Slab. Maybe it's the overall width.

eliason's picture

Needs some polishing but it's a pretty likeable start.
/J/ looks narrow to me. /b/d/p/q/ may be a bit narrow too. /g/'s bowls look quite wide compared to other letters.
Terminal on /r/'s arm looks a bit harsh.
Is there a way to adjust /M/ so that its middle counter isn't so outsized relative to the two side counters?
Would you consider making the "x-height" of the oldstyle figures a little bigger than that of the letters?

Phillipo's picture

Thank you very much for your response.

1996type: I agree to H U N being too narrow (especially U!) and L being a bit wide, I’ll fix this.

frode frank: There is overshoot, but probably too little. The Extrabold is very clumsy, yes but I don't really know what to do about it. My plan was to do a multiple master (it's the topic of the course), that's why I chose such a extreme weight.

eliason: I agree on J, tail (or what do you call it?) could be longer, not sure about b, d, p, q, but i'm definately not cool with g, yes the bowl is kind of wide and the shape itself is bad I think. I think the balance of the M is fixed by slanting the outer strokes a bit, plus maybe narrow the middle counter a bit, so the letter doesn’t get too wide. About the osf: I probably should, shouldn’t I?


I got in a rush today and yesterday night and did numerals in capital height and a set of small caps. The weight of the small caps is a bit too heavy, as seen when mixed with normal text in the new PDF. However, I like the small caps much better than the orfinary capitals (they are a bit wider). I'm considering reducing the capital height a bit to make the capitals look less condensed and a bit more like the small caps. Maybe even reduce the ascenders and descenders a bit.

Thank you all again for you thoughts, It's really valuable to me. It's now 7am – I really need to go to bed. ;)

Best regards,


1996type's picture

Yes, the width and proportions in the smallcaps are indeed much better. I say scale them up, and use them as a mask to adjust the uppercase.

The bottom bowl of g is too large and I don't really like the shape of the bowl in a. I think it should be more horizontal. Next time perhaps also upload some text samples? Numerals are quite good, but I think 8 needs some 'squarishness'. The horizontals in z look too thin and the overall width of the lc is quite condensed. You could try just scaling the whole thing (including original caps) horizontally. This would also increase the contrast, but I don't know if that's a bad thing. Keep going!

Syndicate content Syndicate content