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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
I will also straighten the curve on the top of the /t, I find it distracting. Or at least make it much more subtle.
#2 is most beautiful
#3 my favorite
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.
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.
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.
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.