It does stand! :-) (As lettercutter who - like a dressmaker - is used to work to measure, my fingers itch to adapt - stretch and compress - some of the letters to work on the rhythm of the image. However, as you choose for type which is rigid by nature, I guess you couldn't have done better. And you stay nicely close to Rogers' idiom)

Thank you :-)

As I am a not typographer, I would jump the more specific publisher's and publication matter.However, it would interest me to see the members introduce themselves more elaborated and in detail, see and read (hear) about what they make, what their design or work philosophy is. And maybe, if anyone would have an idea to dó something practical, if that is possible at all, living so far apart from each other.

Times New Roman is too specific, made for news-paper is has been used once too often for purposes it was not meant for.

I read it a long time ago. The diagram on the cover, and his clear division between flat nib letters (showing the principle of translation) and pointed pen letters (following the principle of expansion) brought me essential insights. After that I could better see through the outer appearances of letters. I learned more from it than from many of my thicker and prestigious looking books. I found his theory magnificent yet very hard to make abstraction of his peculiar (and to me rather annoying) writing style. His influence on the students of the Academy of The Hague has been considerable. Often I can immediately spot his influence because he takes the writing tool as primordial. This interesting way of looking at letters simultaneously shuts down alternative ways of building letter shapes. As a letter cutter - out of frustration about letter cutting being the little brother of ... - I have tried to develop letter shapes that are less indebted to calligraphy and type. I think design for digital type can also choose to follow some of the beauties and practical aspects of pen calligraphy if it wishes so but does not per se need to do it. I guess the technical side of digital type brings its specific possibilities, and less restrictions than hot type. A danger of a too wide range of possibilities though is to loose solid ground and design 'into the wild'. Always a tempting thing of course...

makes me think of the painting 'The Ambassadors' by Hans Holbein where you recognize the skull only when you look at the painting from its side. (last week I saw a riverboat called FUTURA , also not set in 'the' Futura ;-)