Synopsis

Of the three fonts I’m analyzing, this one has the most handwritten feel. The strokes mirror the movement of the hand convincingly. However, whoever wrote this has sloppy handwriting. X-height is irregular, and there is little thought put into having consisten terminals. There is a very strong horizontal movement involved because some of the forms are so wide-- for example, the J and the q. Kerning is thus also very irregular. The low contrast in the thick strokes makes it seem undefined and connections between strokes seem muddled. This confines the typeface to being for display only, and as a wide font, does not maximize the space.





What Makes It a Brush Font?

Although the stroke thickness is not as varied as it should be for a display type, the variation is enough to make it seem like it’s brush-written. The rounded ends give the impression of a round brush, and some forms include a flourish, like the a. Intersecting strokes complese cross over each other in some cases, like the E or N. It gives the feel on a rushed hand, something that isn’t present in most fonts. The evidence of the human hand is also present in its inconsistencies.




Potential Issues

Issues with this font lie primarily in legibility. The E looks more like an I with a third, middle crossbar. The B is so dynamic and large that it overpowers its fellow letters. When it comes to lowercase letters, many are written without enough line-definition. The m and z are particularly difficult to see, even at large sizes because the creator eliminated the important, defining counter-forms. Other issues have already been stated-- from a lack of an x-height to the difficult proportions (too little contrast to be small, too wide to fit properly as display type).