The last image doesn't load for me.

Looking at the previous image, I think the texture is most consistent in 3 but that binocular /g/ does need some work. I quite like 11 but I think the aperture needs to be a bit higher. I honestly think 12 is really cool though. It's difficult to choose one.

Polished /y/ in two versions and /g/ in two versions (including trying to solve the "skewed" look of binocular /g/).
Here are the possible combinations:
A shows classic /y/ and one-story /g/
B shows classic /y/ and binocular /g/
C shows u-like /y/ and one-story /g/
D shows u-like /y/ and binocular /g/

As has been suggested, I think the u-like /y/ and the one-story /g/ are a team, and the classic /y/ and binocular /g/ likewise. In other words, it's either B or C. I'm leaning towards the more interesting forms of B. Though I wonder if that /y/ will present continual spacing headaches even beyond the situations where I plan the docked contextual alternate (after /g/r/P/)...

I think the last image is the best option! I think you might also have to strip the /y/ from its serif when it comes after a rounded letter like /o/.

Latest thinking on my cap variants in the italic
First two lines show default forms of /E/K/L/Q/R/S/T/V/W/Y/Z/.
Third line shows stiffer forms of /K/R/V/W/Y/Z/ that I'd like to put into the caps feature.
Fourth line shows swash forms of /E/L/Q/S/T/W/ that will be triggered by swsh/stylistic set.
Fifth line shows small caps of these caps, which are based on the "stiff" versions as in the third line.

Which /s/?

2 is more tightly wound. I think the raised lower terminal and lowered top terminal might play more nicely with other letters, but the wound-upness is fighting against the italic slope a bit to me. It also looks narrow to me now...

Divergence, including of width, helps readability, as long as
it doesn't pop out to the reader. So "a tad too -anything-" is
exactly what you want. :-)

hhp

I'd say 1 is best.

6, even if it risks to become a bit top-heavy.
5 seems to sport a sort of lump.

Hi Craig, nice to see this progressing. I still think the beauty of this face is in its well-executed robustness rather than in the more idiosyncratic details; however, I prefer the first /Q/ with its loopy tail. Actually, I'd pull that tail down a bit on the left side, I think it's a bit too close to the bowl and that counterspace will clog. Q is a rare letter so I don't see a problem in its fluidity.

Re the /s/, remember not to consider it in isolation. Your other terminals will need to follow similar patterns. I personally like version 5, but add a bit more weight to balance the top terminal.

#2 looks too sharp.
#3 looks indeed retro, but so does your whole typeface (in a good sense).

Whatever you do, keep #1 somewhere!

Comma: I'd prefer a much longer tail, but as you know I'm particular about commas ;)

Are you looking at the most recent pdfs?
Also, how do the comma and quotation marks relate in your ideal?

I personally like version 5, but add a bit more weight

It's tricky to get more weight on that lower terminal, because the right slope and height are constrained by my intention to mirror the transitive serif of preceding letters. And given that, it's difficult to add more weight without the bottom turning too squarish.

I didn't see the same terminal carried through to the 2, 3, 5 etc from the new /s/.

Sorry, I realize now some of it I added since the last pdf was generated.
(Sheepishly I now realize that you asked after just this back last July! )

Re the weight, could there be more on the inside of the terminal, rather than the outside?

Well maybe there's wiggle room but at the same time that counter wants to be round and smooth.

For me (and this could be completely against others' views), the comma and quotes and any other punctuation needs enough presence to show it's a character in its own right. To me they're not incidental. I think quotes need to be smaller than the comma: comma needs the pronounced tail to differentiate from the full stop perhaps.

So here's another question for you: which size is your /quotesinglbase? :-)

Lumpy no more for me.
But I still prefer #6's attitude.

(the overshoot looks maybe a bit tame compared to a's, but could be something else.)

I'm liking the different structure for italic /p/ lead-in/ascender better (#2).

Only thing is, there’s just a bit too much of a 1 in it

Yeah, I saw that after I drew it. If that's to be fixed I'm not sure how it would be done.

While you were writing that I was drawing this:

Maybe #3 does what you said. It also relates to the preceding letter better.

#5.

Looking at oldstyle-figure heights

Top line has x-height and extenders matching lowercase. I feel like this is too up-and-down.
Middle line has extenders matching lowercase, larger x-height (at small-cap level).
Bottom line has x-height matching lowercase, extenders half length.

Here's an in-between version

Figure "x"-height is at small-cap level. Figure ascenders go to lc ascender height (but appear shorter because of the x-height difference); figure descenders go about 2/3 down to lc descender depth.

Is this figure "x"-height a little too big?

I think small cap height is the way to go. X height feels too small

Not yet anyway!

That's not a bad idea. In addition to vertical metrics, I think I could also toy with slightly condensed letters without compromising the design too much, to make a version particularly for where space is tight...

Just remembered this thread whilst leafing through Karen Cheng's Designing Type. The section on quotation marks tells us they descended directly from double commas. Looking at the examples, the general trend is that quotation marks are smaller than commas, though there are a couple of exceptions, New Century Schoolbook and Serifa, where they are longer and larger respectively. It seems it's an open choice for you.

This is quotes made of commas at 94% width and height.

There are more ways...

Here's what I did in Nour&Patria:

In the first two rows (Patria and Italic) the "fi" is a hybrid solution, since the x-height is rather large. In the third row (Nour's subordinate Latin) the "fi" is traditional, since the x-height is smallish. In all three the "fl" sees no contact between the two letters, and the "el" is trimmed instead of the "f" being neutered. There are many little tweaks (like pushing the tittles slightly to the right) to further balance the compromises.

hhp