Thank you John. I do both lettering and calligraphy. Neither are a subset of anything, Craig (like you imagine). Calligraphy is best considered what comes out of the pen, brush. I see lettering as a process of drawing, touching up, amending initial strokes etc. The definitions are fluid, but the worst ones to try and define are the ones that think themselves experts. It has all been blurred by the techniques contemporary letterers and calligraphers. I do not do the same thing Jessica Hische does. Gerard Huerta and I have been acquaintances for many years and he has a totally different definition than I do, I am sure, but who cares who is right other than those who assume to know it all. Both HOWEVER, require a set of fine tuned set of hand skills and an knowledgeable eye.
I would "draw " the character first with the originating "tool" otherwise it is the tail wagging the dog. Coming from my background, "automated forms" are exactly that. Ray, depending on what the rest of this font looks like, the weights look like they could be "mis"-distributed to me. There are thinner strokes in this W, that you did, which would mean it was "borderline humanist" which would indicate to me that it should be "heavy-thinner-heavy-thinner" instead of "heavy-thinner-thinner-heavy." Does that make sense?
I was commenting on the weight distribution, as a result of the process he presented, which Ray understood. But then you opined. I was commenting on form and weight. You would have known that had you read, before you went judgmental. You would not have placed an off topic icon (which you have now conveniently deleted) had that been the case.