I think there are a couple, three different styles of glyphs at play here--all equally nice. Like C E F seem to belong together while A B D with another. Maybe you could try out alt. glyph and see which ones work better. I think you might even get two related yet distinct fonts out of this one. Oh, and, maybe the M needs to widen a bit.
I wasn't fed up with this one -- I just tossed it off in a fit of petulance about Plain James. I threw it together with very little consideration. Well, no more than an hour or so, anyway.
But I liked the outcome. Ha ha. Yes I agree the M is too narrow but I like it wrong. I'm being wrong-headed today.
Absolutely. No, I agree! The ones I care about are the ones I do the most glyphs for. So it pains me that Plain James is not as good as previous efforts, even though I'm putting more effort into it.
Mind you, I am happy(ish) with the old-style figures of this one. Probably because I haven't tried them before.
4 Comments
I think there are a couple, three different styles of glyphs at play here--all equally nice. Like C E F seem to belong together while A B D with another. Maybe you could try out alt. glyph and see which ones work better. I think you might even get two related yet distinct fonts out of this one. Oh, and, maybe the M needs to widen a bit.
In short, 42.
But I liked the outcome. Ha ha. Yes I agree the M is too narrow but I like it wrong. I'm being wrong-headed today.
i hope you don't hate me but i think you did sooooo much better ones!
Mind you, I am happy(ish) with the old-style figures of this one. Probably because I haven't tried them before.
Please sign in to comment.