Hi folks: Newbie here, hoping to get a little feedback on my first typeface.
Just to briefly introduce myself: I'm a graphic designer (my day job is in publication design) who's always been interested in type design, but I'm only now getting serious about it. I've been drawing letters most of my life and do some lettering here and there, so I'm no stranger to constructing characters and words — but I'm basically teaching myself the technical side of how to make typefaces, through trial and error and a lot of reading. I'm at a point where I could use some outside eyes on what I'm up to!
Anyway, the basic idea with this was a typeface with no curves, but in no way college-y or sports-y — so it's
got some contrast and some asymmetry. Definitely a display face. I'm pretty happy with where it's going.
My current struggles are:
1)
starting to second-guess myself on the spacing, so if there's anything
that jumps out as weird, that'd be good to know (see PDF)
2) trying to decide
between a more-pointy and a less-pointy version of the "round"
characters. (I might include both as stylistic alternates, but not sure
if the default should be more quirky or less.)
Thanks!

Comments
Always thought it a little weird that the London typeface's O was a perfect circle and the only round character. A reference to the Olympic rings?
I think your doing a good job avoiding the college-y/sports-y flavors, and your typeface is interesting.
Not such an expert myself but here are few things I've noticed...
The contrast is not very consistent,. While it's clear among the horizontal-vertical lines it get lost on the diagonals specially in the /K/M/V/W/X. I think that applying the classic rule of left diagons - thick, right diagons - thin (exception Z) might harmonize things a bit.
I'm not feeling too comfortable with all the diagonal endings/finals/tips, there are too much on the same direction (as in the /N). The /A for example feels more "stable" since it's left leg is chopped with the baseline. The /M looks like it is distorted and influence the "stability" of the line.
The /G's right bottom is "stabbing", maybe consider chopping it's tip.
Spacing - /C/E/G's right bearing can be reduced a little, it's not the distance between the characters that matters but the black and white balance, or as @Frode Bo Helland said: "The amount of white inside and between letters should be optically equal." and since these letters are open on the right it should be compensated by a smaller bearing.
Maybe the spacing of the /H and /o (as reference to all straights and octagons) should be checked accordingly as well, they might not need to share the same spacing.
The counters of the ampersand are quite small as is the upper B counter. Also, do the numerals, containing more angles, appear more refined than the latin glyphs?
With regard to spacing, the round characters, which normally have reduced sidebearings, are in this type flat-sided. They do probably require some optical correction just less than is typical.
Finally, where strokes converge, as in K, they may be slimmed to decrease the darkness of the join.
Congrats on putting this together, Austin.
Wes, I made the numerals that way to differentiate them a bit — At first 5 was looking too much like S, 2 too much like Z, etc.
Re: spacing the "round" characters, you're saying they currently look a little too tight? Their sidebearings are currently a bit less than fully straight-sided characters, but you're saying I've reduced them more than necessary?
Anyone have a preference on the two different versions of the round characters?
AWKWARD words like LAWYERS, HILLTOP, ALWAYS and SWIMMINGLY.
I see no one here has talked about blackletter. A more obvious antecedent?
Also, even though I'd conceived this as an all-caps face, I decided to draw a lowercase just to see what happened... and I like it! So now I'm wondering, does this deserve an italic?
Any feedback appreciated. (Kerning isn't finished on the caps; lowercase is not kerned at all yet.) Thanks!
Only one way to find out, I suppose.
Craig, I don't know if you noticed, but I've been using a few of your pangrams as test text!
But I realized that this made for a weird mix, so I tried to make things much more consistent throughout, with the "three-facet" style of curve. Also tweaked the widths of a few characters and altered some details here and there. I think it feels much more refined:
I'd hugely appreciate any other feedback about anything else odd or problematic — I've been messing with a lighter weight, as some have suggested, but I want to work out any bigger changes to glyph shapes (in this weight) before getting too far into that. Here's the full alphabet as it stands now:
I’m realizing I created a pretty difficult challenge for myself for my first typeface. Figuring out how to handle the overshoots on these asymmetrical “round” characters is rough!
(Also not sure about the angled stroke endings on the baseline — I've made them a little less pronounced than they were at first, and I flattened them in a few places where it was affecting stability. Not sure if the lack of complete consistency in that regard is strange, but I like that the angled endings impart an unusual character, and would hate to lose that.)
Thanks for your insights!