Which g?

Which italic g is most suited to accompany the Roman at the top? I know which I favour but I'd like to see what others think.
«1

Comments

  • Personally, I prefer the second italic <g>.
  • Chris LozosChris Lozos Posts: 985
    2nd

  • The second one, definitely.
  • #2 or #3 of the italic, in that order.
  • Second one, unless your "f" does not descend, then the first one (and a binocular "a").
  • I think I prefer the third, but the second is also very good.
  • John HudsonJohn Hudson Posts: 1,228
    Most suited to accompany that roman g? Well, only italic #1 has the same kind of awkwardness. :smile:
  • James PuckettJames Puckett Posts: 1,462
    I like #2, it fits the fun italic feeling best.
  • 2nd.
    I will also straighten the curve on the top of the /t, I find it distracting. Or at least make it much more subtle.
  • Ofir ShavitOfir Shavit Posts: 334
    #1 is most suited 
    #2 is most beautiful
    #3 my favorite
  • I'd first try to reconcile the Roman /g a bit more with its peers before worrying about the italic. It's a charming shape, but it feels out of place to me. All other letters seem to have a more generous relation to horizontal space.
  • I think the upright "g" only needs a stronger ear.
  • AbiRasheedAbiRasheed Posts: 112
    Though 4 doesn't complement the roman I think it's pretty sweet, different.  
  • AbrahamLeeAbrahamLee Posts: 111
    2nd. It follows the same simplifying transformation as the /a.
  • I would say #3 looks best as a single letter, but in the whole word #2 works better. #1 seems too different to /a in my opinion.
  • Thanks everyone. I'm glad most were in favour of #2, that's what I wanted to hear. Regarding the Roman g; I had an earlier iteration which I changed to the one above to make it more distinctive. The top image shows the 'awkward' g and very curved t top, while the bottom shows the earlier g with a less severe t curve. I wanted the t to be different and recognisable, but definitely not distracting/annoying.
  • Christian ThalmannChristian Thalmann Posts: 962
    edited November 9
    I find both the /g and /t better integrated in the bottom sample.

    The /g and /o look lighter than the /n and /r, for example, though in the case of /g it might be a deliberate measure to avoid clumping.

    In both samples, the /ngra/ cluster is much more tightly spaced than /lated/. Actually, I'm wondering whether the top /g would look more harmonious if it were just spaced a little wider.
  • Hrant H. PapazianHrant H. Papazian Posts: 844
    edited November 9
    The "g" in the second setting is entirely forgettable. It look like TNR's on Monday morning.
  • I find both the /g and /t better integrated in the bottom sample.

    The /g and /o look lighter than the /n and /r, for example, though in the case of /g it might be a deliberate measure to avoid clumping.

    In both samples, the /ngra/ cluster is much more tightly spaced than /lated/. 
    I agree with all this. Cap C also looks light. 
  • I thought you'd chime in with your contrariness :) but that is what I thought too. I thought the original (bottom) one was nice but maybe a little dull. Now I think the top one just needs to be a bit wider with a bit more space around it and a bit more weight in places:
  • Yes, that's much better!

    There's still the problem of the gravity well sitting somewhere around the /g/r boundary that appears to be pulling the letters close and thinning out the outer regions.
  • Here are the rest of the lower case itals:
  • And Display and Text styles:

  • It's all rather loose.
  • AbrahamLeeAbrahamLee Posts: 111
    It's all rather loose.
    Especially the "display" style. I think it's perfect for the "text" style, though. The problem I see is that the serifs on the "display" style are causing the loose spacing, in combinations such as /in/, /fr/, etc. Maybe they could be shortened in that style?

    I think the eye on the /e could be opened up a bit more on the "text" style since it will tend to vanish at smaller sizes with the weight you've added.
  • John HudsonJohn Hudson Posts: 1,228
    Nick, what's your thinking for the elbow of the roman g sticking out so far to the left?
  • Christian ThalmannChristian Thalmann Posts: 962
    edited November 9
    The display style seems to exaggerate the imbalances of weight that I mentioned for the text style. For instance, /a feels very dark and /o/c/s very light.

    I like the italics! The /j might benefit from a big more backbone.

    Yes, the Roman is a big on the wide side, but I see that as a design feature. I'd file it in the Mrs Eaves category.
  • Simon CozensSimon Cozens Posts: 251
    edited November 10
    [Removed] I had opinions about this and then went and looked at Bembo. You’re fine.
  • In your initial sample, the cursive "g"s are poorly spaced (the "gr" gap is big). I like your awkward g in the roman and I would keep the binocular structure in the italic but make it less odd, more Bembo-like.  
  • Here are the rest of the lower case itals:
    It's hard to judge because of the suboptimal spacing. Gaps "ga" in "gave" and "qu" in "questionable" are distressing. "ve" in "twelve" also. The shapes are nice though. 
Sign In or Register to comment.