Is this a 'w' ?

Yes, this is very close to how we learned to write cursive /w in primary school (Switzerland). We even had a hard corner in the top middle.

(Of course, no-one uses cursive anymore in their daily life, and where it does appear, it's usually to the detriment of legibility.)

Karsten Rohrbeck wrote something about this asymmetrical ‘w’ in 2009. Unfortunately his site is not available anymore, but the post (without images) can be found in the Internet Archive.

Zapf's Comenius used this form for its itals.

The italic w in TypeTogether's Marco is also asymmetrical, though the first part is not so n-like as in some of the above examples.

Jens, that’s a nice nod, thanks. That list was made a while ago and is not comprehensive. I will try to remember to add Hertz.

David, as Christian has mentioned, this form is present in several of the traditional “Schnüerlischrift” handwriting models taught in Swiss primary schools, see schulschriften.ch. It was also present in Austria’s school script as defined in 1969. This model has been replaced in 1991.

But was that not the æ Maxim? Now I am curious. I was (likely mis-informed) that it was an acceptable Germanic form. I have used it countless times in calligraphic work.

But was that not the æ Maxim? Now I am curious. I was (likely mis-informed) that it was an acceptable Germanic form.

No, this is indeed a variety of the Cyrillic yat. In late 19th – early 20th century this form, which looks like a П + Ь ligature, existed even in u.c.

Florian, how about establishing a tag for this w? w=nv

Albert, thank you for these pointers.
The display Fraktur looks like Koch’s Schmale Deutsche Anzeigenschrift (1923).
Sure, let’s use w=nv as a tag on Flickr. I’ve tagged all kinds of interesting or unusual forms of w – including but not limited to this form – with the Unicode, U+0077.

I think of the /y/ from Georg Trump's Delphin. 

(Its /w/ has some of that, though its middle apex is angular.)

I like the l.c. y in Kartsten Luecke’s Litteratra:

Dear Christian, thanks for your your suggestion. I do not think that it are the stems by which this kind of w can be best distinguished. Please take a look at these w’s here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/ninastoessinger/4712988808/ Or have a look at ITC Bauhaus. In these designs, the stems of w are upright instead of diagonal, still they do not resemble the style discussed here. I think that we have to look at the way this kind of w is usually written. What I think is characteristic is that the first upstroke is written with a clockwise turn instead of the traditional counter-clockwise turn (or a straight diagonal stroke in upper-right direction). When the first upstroke is almost completely covered by the first downstroke the stroke following the first downstroke connects at the top part of the first stem instead of the lower part. This also applies to an interrupted writing construction, as is typical for the Textura: https://www.flickr.com/photos/ralf_herrmann/11387216606/. Karsten Lücke’s w, which rather resembles Rotunda in its own peculiar way, is similar because it is a hybrid to our eyes. It mixes the traditional diagonal downstrokes of the roman w with a cursive-like anti-clockwise upstroke. The result is another cup of tea though.
Florian, I just searched in Flickr with w=nv. https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=w=nv  works (almost) perfect. We also have the machine tag type:face=xxxx which includes =. Am I missing something here?

Albert_Jan_Pool said:

I do not think that it are the stems by which this kind of w can be best distinguished. Please take a look at these w’s here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/ninastoessinger/4712988808/ Or have a look at ITC Bauhaus. In these designs, the stems of w are upright instead of diagonal, still they do not resemble the style discussed here.