So
this illustration from Eric Gill's Essay on Typography recently showed up on my Twitter stream. In it, Gill shows that there is a limit to the boldness of classical serif typeface, since making the stems too heavy will lead the architecture of the letters ad absurdum. He calls this
overbold, and obviously means to discourage the reader from inflicting it on an actual typeface.
So of course, I did it anyway.
Is this worth pursuing? I know Gill's answer, but I'd like to get a second opinion...
Comments
The core flaw of Gill's sentiment arises from something most type designers misguidedly cling to: chirography as letterform architecture.
That said, when it comes to a text face, the useful range of weight is quite limited; far more limited than virtually all contemporary designers want to admit (and arguably stemming from the overly–screen-dependent comically dark Bold styles of the MS Core Fonts). In contrast (pardon the pun) Aicher had it right (which I've emulated in my Patria). Make all the crazy-dark weights you want. Just put them in the display cut, don't bundle them in the text cut. But I digress...
http://typedrawers.com/discussion/comment/39940/#Comment_39940
Although arguably less extreme, highly compressed or condensed family members often also have some design shifts, particularly straight sides—a phenomenon discussed in the recent thread Hrant linked to, above: http://typedrawers.com/discussion/3088/ultra-compressed-flat-siders
[ @James Puckett's Sybarite is a really nice revival of one of the Kinsley types, but not the heaviest, which I think was the twenty-line pica.]
BTW deliberately freakish is trending...
I wonder if instead of just thick and thin you could introduce a third medium-width stroke used judiciously to solve the trickiest letters like /R/ and maybe /B/. I have in mind the way that some bold eights cheat at top right and bottom left:
Did you try small tittles, in the vein of the /a/ teardrop or /Q/ tail?
Radius on the rounded tops of ascenders seems too wide to me.