Thanks a lot ! That's a remarkably interesting video. The questions should we publish as it is an unpublished type design project, or should we publish it optimized, or should we not (never) publish it ? On the other hand sould we call it a revival in the first and the second case or should we give another name to that ? (A "vival" perhaps ;-)
Wow ! Already very informative material and interesting points of view !
@Nick Shinn Your first link doesn't work for me. However I saw "Cartier" a long time ago, and what a good idea to digitize it ! I like its somewhat between Art Nouveau and Art Deco taste. It has also something in common with Goudy's Kennerley. Your version is charming. About Moderns I find me very unexperienced to talk about Scotch as I am for Didones too. But your Goodchild is interesting, it remembers me Legacy ITC which is also a good large x height Jenson revival. Your motivation at working on revivals is close to mine. Its a very immersive learning experience. I could complete your description with "trying to see through the original designer's eyes". I very well understand you don't work with printer specimens. If you do so you must always add comprehensive comparisons with "real world" prints to your process.
@Ray Larabie This area of typography history isn't less interesting than the study of "Great historical Ancestors". I appreciate your "what if scenario" concept :-)
@Hrant H. Papazian Aren't doing something not completely wholesome and beeing naïvely proud of the result parts of a normal learning curve ? ;-)
My first three outline fonts were revivals (before those I made original bitmap fonts). The first one by eyeballing, no scanning (like some of Nick's). Doing a revival felt like a necessary evil (due to my cluelessness) not something wholesome, although I was naïvely proud of the results.
Charles Mazé recently revived Deberny & Peignot's #16. I would have loved to do it myself! But only because its Italic helps open up an interesting future.