From: Mark Simonson
> Chank's caps are much closer to Wotzkow's than the lowercase.
Thanks for checking the book. I'm happy that
the lc -the important part- isn't so close.
BTW, is Wotzkow's UC "M" like that?
> "Always endeavor to find some interesting variation."
From: Gary Munch
> Figured I'd got the message from
> the text of Wotzkow clear enough.
But different people take it in different directions,
and to different distances. You're a firm believer in
the role of handwriting in type design, so you'd never
allow yourself to make a "y" like Venis's.
From: Don Wilkes
> Is there anything in particular you'd
> like me to find in that book?
Well, Mark has made some observations,
but if you'd like to elaborate on the
similarities/differences between Venis*
and Wotzow's work, that'd be great.
From: Stephen Coles
> Has anyone asked Chank himself?
Not directly, but I let him read the review
before "publishing" it. Not to give him a
chance to make it cast a better light, but
to correct mistakes and false impressions.
If he declined to state to me that he took
the "y" straight from somewhere else, then
that would be [mostly] his problem.
From: Roy Preston
> Rubbish! You did it first! (If I remember correctly?)
You mean this?
I made that (out of Times) to ask people if they'd
seen that structure before, for the review itself.
If you mean my Reform "y", then that's totally different! :-)
The descender is straight down, and curls *rightward*.
And the righthand arm is curved.