by fontcollector
See also BAPSolid by fontcollector.

Download disabled

The designer of this FontStruction has chosen not to make it available for download from this website by choosing an “All Rights Reserved" license.

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.

Finally, a non-monospaced version of Bevel'sAdvocateMono. This font was started eighteen months ago, so I suppose the time has come at last to kick it out of the nest and let it fly. I believe that several of these new glyphs are superior to those in my original monospaced font.


Great minds think alike, as I also did something similar about a year ago, although I never published it.
Comment by djnippa 3rd september 2011
@djnippa: Actually, when I released my Bevel'sAdvocateMono font, you were the first person to ask if I intended to create a non-monospaced version. At the time, the limits of the FontStructor were strained to the max, and I was very reluctant to try another huge project like this one. Since then, however, the continuing stream of FS improvements began tempting (or daring) me to make this proportional variation, so here it is.
Comment by fontcollector 3rd september 2011
A wonderful variation on a glorious theme. It just shimmers with excellence. 10/10++++
Comment by p2pnut 4th september 2011
@p2pnut: A positive comment from you never fails to make my day much brighter. Thanks, Ray!
Comment by fontcollector 4th september 2011
This version even surpasses the Mono. Beautiful special characters. I told you this concept is a winner. 10/10

@djnippa: I couldn't find NCD Nasca Black in your FS portfolio. The sample looks very cool though.
Comment by Frodo7 4th september 2011
@Frodo. I never published it. I also did several weights. I have many many complete fonts that I've not yet released.
Comment by djnippa 5th september 2011
This is an extremely accomplished work that gets better the more you zoom in. I mean seriously. Like it would have never occurred to me to to the V vertex the way you have. Similarly, the K is a mastery of angle joints. The way X flares out and up — man!

The leg of the R should maybe terminate as the K leg. With a pointed end, I mean.
Comment by thalamic 5th september 2011
On reflection, I think I agree with thalamic about the leg of the R. As it stands it provides a slight note of dissonance and makes the R look a wee bit 'top heavy'.

It's still a bl**dy marvelous piece of design!
Comment by p2pnut 5th september 2011
@Ray: It's interesting t* see which t** letters y*u decided t* c*nceal with the * because the effect is that the o's have m*ved up a bit is all. I l*ve it. :D
Comment by thalamic 5th september 2011
@Frodo7: Yes, you certainly did tell me so! Incidentally, some people dislike that phrase intensely, but not me. I use it frequently. Thanks, Frodo7!
Comment by fontcollector 5th september 2011
@thalamic: The angle joints of K and k were some of the most difficult to achieve when I created my original Bevel'sAdvocateMono font. Fortunately, I was able to use the same solutions here.

As for the V vertex and X, they weren't planned in advance. I've stated before that I'm not an artist, and that I have never made preliminary sketches of any glyphs before starting a FontStruction.

It's absolutely true, therefore, that most of the angle connections and the beveled illusion were merely happy accidents that showed up as I plodded along, trying various ways of joining the parts of each character. This fact makes your gracious compliments even more gratifying, Ata!

I struggled for a long time with the legs of R and r. Every time I tried to maintain the diagonal all the way to the baseline, there seemed to be too much space between the R's bowl and the next letter. Your suggestion, seconded by Ray, caused me to try again. The elusive answer was so simple: I just needed to increase the width of the bowl to match the base of the diagonal leg. And for the sake of consistency, I have also widened the bowls of B, b, P and p to make them equal to those of R and r. I don't know why I didn't figure this out at once.

Thanks for encouraging me to improve my most intricate font!
Comment by fontcollector 5th september 2011
@p2pnut: Once again, I appreciate your support, Ray! You truly are a gentleman.

Thanks for echoing Ata's constructive criticism concerning the diagonal legs of R and r. I hope you like my solution.
Comment by fontcollector 5th september 2011
I like it a lot, but IMHO you can try a very "real" great LC (lower case)... Be sure. You only must try it, the basis are on your generic glyphs.
Comment by elmoyenique 5th september 2011
I'm not sure if I can help if it's constructive criticism you want. Plain vanilla criticism I can do. One of that being, the R bowl now sticks out to much to my eye. I think it would be OK if the leg of the R sticks beyond the bowl. If it's the spacing that's your concern, just push W and reduce the character width by a few grid spaces. This will make sure that the R is always caught with one foot in the door. By that poor joke I mean to say that, the leg of the R will straddle the green vertical line that is the demarcation of the right side-bearing (or is it right-side bearing? Meek?) of the R glyph. The bowl of the R should have the spacing you require and the leg will extend beyond just a bit, which, in most letter pairs will not cause any serious concern, methinks. Wouldn't hurt to try it out anyway. :-)
Comment by thalamic 5th september 2011
@elmoyenique: Maybe I'll try a variation with a real lower case, rather than small caps. I'm glad you like my font!
Comment by fontcollector 5th september 2011
@thalamic: I don't think I've ever seen any criticism from you that wasn't 100% constructive, and I'm not talking about just my work. To me, you seem incapable of making mean-spirited remarks!

I've decided to return the bowl widths of B, b, P, p, R and r to their former dimensions. As for R and r, there will just have to be a tiny bit of extra space between their bowls and the letter that follows. If I employ your method of allowing the diagonal legs to straddle the green width line, there will be a spacing problem with any glyph whose lower-right corner is vertical; this includes A, B, D, E, F, H, K, L, M, N, P, R, W and X, and maybe some others. After all, nothing's perfect, right?
Comment by fontcollector 5th september 2011
Well, gosh, thanks.

It might just be possible to pull the R leg (no pun intended) over just a few bricks to the right without causing undue spacing issues. In the image below, I've kept the width of the R glyph the same as you have now, but pulled the leg over to the right a bit. I did this in Adobe Photoshop® so I have no idea how many bricks that translate to in this fs, but the leg starts at where the bowl ends. Hope this helps.
Comment by thalamic 6th september 2011
thalamic said: "the leg of the R will straddle the green vertical line that is the demarcation of the right side-bearing (or is it right-side bearing? Meek?) of the R glyph. The bowl of the R should have the spacing you require and the leg will extend beyond just a bit ... "

Hopefully this illustrates what he means -

Comment by p2pnut 6th september 2011
@thalamic and @p2pnut: I really appreciate the fact that both of you are spending so much time trying to make my font better!

In my original R and r, each diagonal leg started a couple of bricks to the right of where they are currently located. I decided to shift them to the left a bit when I followed your advice about maintaining the diagonal all the way down. This was done to minimize the inevitable gap before the next letter.

To my eye, this is the best compromise to deal with this issue.
Comment by fontcollector 6th september 2011
Congratulations! FontStruct Staff have deemed your FontStruction worthy of special mention. “Bevel'sAdvocateProportional” is now a Top Pick.
Comment by Rob Meek (meek) 8th september 2011
@meek: Thanks so much for the Top Pick, Rob! It's always an honor to receive your stamp of approval.
Comment by fontcollector 8th september 2011
And a Featured FontStruction. Just give it time, it'll happen.
Comment by Logan Thomason (xenophilius) 11th september 2011
@xenophilius: None of my fonts have ever been selected as the Featured FontStruction, so I doubt that your prediction will come true. But thank you for your vote of confidence!
Comment by fontcollector 11th september 2011
I share xenophilius's hope that this becomes a Featured FS in the not too distant future.
Comment by p2pnut 12th september 2011
@p2pnut: As I responded to xenophilius, I don't think it's going to happen. But I would be absolutely thrilled if my design became a Featured FontStruction!
Comment by fontcollector 12th september 2011
Dear font-cool-lector:
IMHO, the fonts that we made here they are all someway marked... by our own "egoism"... And that it's true. I use FontStruct to create a new way, a new font just because it isn't never made before that I try it... This is my way to let something living in the FS stream. And I'm happy being surprised for you all and your help, that "foolish" people like me! You all are making true ART day by day! Thanks.(And sorry for my theatrical style, please.)
Comment by elmoyenique 12th september 2011
@elmoyenique: I appreciate your kind words. And I like the new nickname you've given me!
Comment by fontcollector 13th september 2011

Also of Interest


Get the world’s leading font editor for OSX.

More from the Gallery

BAPSolidby fontcollector
BlackRhinoby fontcollector
BAPSolidStencilby fontcollector
LittleBlackFontby fontcollector
swallow tailby tortoiseshell
Dawn Chorusby four
STF_DOBINI BALWAUM (Inline)by Sed4tives
skhematiqueby tortoiseshell

From the Blog


The Numbers Competition Results


The Numbers Competition