Spencerian: Controlled Speed?

[Iso*]

Greetings once again - I have been away for some time. As for movements, I tend to focus on the simplicity and grace of the letter - one or two major loops is sufficient. But then again, artistic penmanship has many individualistic styles. The flat starting oval is often extended, and is not a true oval, but the finishing ovals tend to be more rounded in terms of balance between minor/major axes.

 

I'd like to bring up two points of interest when it comes to practising this hand...

About paper - I actually use two types. One is a bit smoother, the other is rougher. I use Strathmore's so-called calligraphy paper designated for writing with a wove finish. The roughness of the paper encourages an absolutely light hand otherwise you will catch the paper. However, the friction due to the roughness of the paper encumbers freedom of movement.

 

The second paper is mead notebook paper, namely the recent batches with ink-resistive qualities. The paper is smooth, and ink tends to spread just a bit more - hairlines are not very easily produced on this paper, even with the finest nib I own. The purpose of this paper is to control the movement of the pen. The paper's smoother finish allows the pen to glide over rapidly, thus extending freedom of movement too much.

The diversity of movement I find creates a balance between too much and too little movement. I can't exclusively use smooth papers because my hand would weigh down on other papers. It helps to have diversity in case if the medium is not to your taste. What papers do you use?

//

 

Secondly, I have been carefully observing your forms, Mickey... have you read anything about hand elasticity? Just a suggestion, but I find it may be useful to add to your script. The difficulty lies in being able to go from shade to hairline nearly rapidly, creating thick swells. It has been said that anyone can create thick, elongated shades, but it takes a trained hand to create snappy, concentrated shades. It is best illustrated in P. Z. Bloser's publication, Lessons in O.P. ... page 57.

http://www.iampeth.com/books/bloser/bloser_page57.html

Combined with rapid arm movement to create graceful, balanced hairlines and loops, the challenge to add quick, sharp, snapped-like shades is a great challenge - even I cannot fully perfect the exercise listed ... yet. The variation in pressure is a real challenge - going from zero to shade, coupled with the rapidity of controlling speed creates a very complex challenge in mastering this hand.

[Mickey]

  On 9/20/2014 at 11:03 AM, Iso* said:

 

Secondly, I have been carefully observing your forms, Mickey... have you read anything about hand elasticity? Just a suggestion, but I find it may be useful to add to your script. The difficulty lies in being able to go from shade to hairline nearly rapidly, creating thick swells. It has been said that anyone can create thick, elongated shades, but it takes a trained hand to create snappy, concentrated shades. It is best illustrated in P. Z. Bloser's publication, Lessons in O.P. ... page 57.

 

http://www.iampeth.com/books/bloser/bloser_page57.html

 

 

Elasticity is not the limiting factor here, and as far as I know, hand elasticity is no particular term of art. In any event, my emphasis in this thread has been on the relationship of time and rhythm to the geometry of this hand - line - , not on shading. I believed it was more important to get the pen moving correctly in the plane of the page, before worrying about the dynamics of the shade. I felt, from personal experience, that is was far too easy to fixate on slinging huge blogs of ink on the page and miss that the rest of the page was a dog's mouth of spaghetti. Consequently, my explorations here have been mostly with relatively rigid nibs*, not well suited to dramatic shades or with pencil, not suited to shading at all. If you would like to begin a similar thread to discuss shade, I'm sure there are people who will appreciate the effort. I will continue pursuing my own demons. (To be perfectly honest, I'm not enamored of exaggerated shades, probably because, as I keep repeating, I'm a writer, not a calligrapher. I'm treating this as a living hand, not as display art, and my focus will continue to be on core techniques no less applicable to business writing than to OP.)

 

As long as I'm posting today, I'd like to put in another plug for Canson Pro-Layout Marker pads. It's not glassy smooth like Clairefontaine papers, but just subtly rough, (the top side is slightly rougher than the reverse side), - think very fine grained tooth. What is special about this style of paper is the way it takes ink. It almost doesn't. The ink sits up bold on the page, no line bloat, zero feathering. It encourages proper hand discipline, as you must keep the sweet spot on the page or the line starves, (the reverse side is more tolerant) but if you want to explore realm of hairline and subtle shade, this is the paper style to use.

 

 

* Esterbrook 358, 128, vintage Hunt 22, and similar. I do own and use the modern Principal, Hunt 101, Esterbrook 356, 357, Brause 76, et al. but they have played no role in this project.

[Iso*]

I see how you are developing your hand. As for rhythm and speed exercises, I use the finest nibs, without flexing them at all. You probably know that I use exclusively use the 356 for pen work...

I will look into your paper type as well! I have a high tendency to look for new papers that are consistent with unique properties.

As for myself, I find myself in the same league as yourself, a writer/penman, and not a calligrapher. When it comes to movement and controlling speed, I noticed that you have been practising mainly your majescule letterforms. Will you be going into a discussion about lowercase letters and the rhythms associated with them?

[Mickey]

Actually, I'm not so much developing my hand as I am trying to rediscover how the hand was written by the old timers. Sure, we have the exercises and method books they peddled and we have examples of their work, but that tells us only so much. We don't have them and we don't have the environment in which the hand was originally taught, the 'business college.' (A similar lack of scholae cantorum presents a similar problem to performers of early music.) Knowledge is embedded in the exercises, but without proper direction and shared insights, there is no guarantee the student will absorb it. I'm simply trying to extract a little knowledge and in the process provide to myself and others a bit of help we wouldn't otherwise get.

 

I've concentrated on the majuscules primarily because it was while working on a majuscule that this idea came to me. Also, I believe the benefits are more obvious in the majuscules. They're much harder to fake. I have, however, spent a little time on the minuscules, notably the i and e and on the looped ascenders and descenders, and I will probably get to other letters when I get to them. This is not so much a structured exploration as a purposeful wandering.

[Mickey]

Again nothing new worth uploading, but I've still got a couple of pearls to impart.

 

We've already demonstrated our Luddite sympathies by our interest in this hand. I think to succeed in Spencerian, we need to go a step further and become real knuckle-draggers. As I began my morning warmup, tracing circles, ovals, and spirals, I focused at least as much on the slide of my little finger* on the page as on the nib. As long as my little finger was tracing those same circles, ovals, and spirals, I could be pretty sure the other fingers weren't up to too much mischief.

 

In answer to two questions (one back channel) regarding shades and capital stems: thickness or heaviness is not as important as placement or, put more in the spirit of this thread, shade width is not as important as correct timing, with later being generally better than early. Going back to our old friend from post #2.

 

 

 

The most common mistake I've seen on this letter is beginning the major shade too soon, at point #5 or earlier. Not pretty. During my practice today, I tried writing this S fairly quickly, definitely not at drawing speed, intending to 'mash' the shade midway between points #5 and #6. At speed, this did not work well. The shade was always too early, but, I found that if I consciously delayed my actions, trying to be ever so slightly late, I got much better results. I believe a lot of people have this same difficulty, pulling the trigger too soon. Try to lose this gunfight. Your letters will look better. The other common mistake I see is for the line to lose curvature during the shade. Not pretty, either. Remember, and here I paraphrase Tom Hanks, "There are no straight shades in Spencerian." So my advice for today is mash late and keep turning.

 

 

* Depending on your grip, this might be the last two fingers nails, even the heel of the hand.

Edited September 22, 2014 by Mickey

[Anne-Sophie]

Lovely and such a comprehensive explanation.

 

I found myself tracing the letter in the air, in some sort of musical way.

[Mickey]

When all else fails, CLOSE YOUR EYES.

 

No time to upload today nor any particular reason to. I spent this morning contemplating with pen and pencil the beautiful Ls in http://www.iampeth.com/artwork/Lupfer02.jpg which we admired earlier in this thread. The beauty in Lupfer's L, I believe, is in its principle stem, a wonderful S curve without a hint of straightness, the difficulty is getting the stem to connect up to the rest of the letter.

 

Practice the stem separately, omitting the opening flourish, the second closed loop and finishing flourish. Since it is the S shape that is central to today's practice, I recommend starting with pencil. It's too easy to bury ones mistakes in the shade. When you can replicate that sinuous curve with some reliability and speed, add the second loop and final flourish. Next close your eyes and try to write it. Concentrate on the continuous turning and changes of speed. When this form looks pretty good, try adding the opening flourish, but just before you get to the top of the first loop, close your eyes and complete the letter from memory.

 

There are two reasons for doing this. First, your early attempts at the opening flourish will probably not be correct. That is, they will be incapable of mating properly with your lovely stem. If you're anything like me, you'd then try to make mid-course adjustments, ruining the stem in the process. Close your eyes where I suggest, and, when you've completed the letter, critique what your wrote. See how the flourish doesn't fit, then adjust its shape and placement, but still finish the letter closing your eyes where indicated. Eventually, you'll get it. The second reason for closing your eyes is that you will probably try to place the letter so that the lower arm lines up well with the horizontal writing line. Again, you (or I) will try to make (the wrong) adjustments and spoil the letter. Don't do it. We are trying to learn how to write this letter. We don't yet know how to make it line up properly. Once we do, we can then adjust everything upstream of the L's lower arm to make it fit where we want it. Let the guide lines orient your eyes, not shackles your hand.

 

That's probably it for today. More later, when I can.

Edited September 29, 2014 by Mickey

[Mickey]

Here's the letter L I was working on yesterday. I thought I'd post it because it demonstrates several of the concepts we've been discussing, not because it's particularly praiseworthy.

 

 

 

Okay, let's get the criticism out of the way. The line is a bit shakier than ideal and there is the obvious kink in the opening oval. The primary shade starts just a hair too soon and the secondary shade (above it) doesn't entirely get back to hairline. Other than that, it's not bad. I think you can see the subtle S curve in the stem I was writing about yesterday.

 

What I really want to focus on is the opening oval. One of the things I find most difficult is maintaining the speed, and thus the rate of curvature, while penning the bottom arm. If I speed up, the arm goes too far right before reaching the proper height, and if I slow down too soon, the arm reaches the proper height too soon. (Depending on how I try to compensate, this either changes the slant of the stem or destroys the balance between the loop and the shade.)

 

The place where the line usually goes bad for me is just about where the stem eventually crosses over it. The cause, I believe, is not being able to move smoothly parallel to the writing line while maintaining consistent circular motion and controlling linear pen speed. The solution is a fairly simple exercise to improve that skill. Start by tracing in place a moderate sized circle (c. 2cm) , either CW or CCW. Gradually increase the horizontal speed while preserving the tempo of circular movement and the height of the resulting figure). This will gradually change the shape from circle to oval. Keep increasing speed till the oval is twice as wide as any majuscule you are likely to write (c. 8cm). Repeat the exercise in the opposite direction. That's it - the tip for today.

 

Materials: HP 32 lb paper, Old World Iron Gall, Unique Oblique Holder, Hunt 101 nib; Actual height c. 4.5cm; Other than cropping and adjusting exposure of the scan, no image manipulation

[Anne-Sophie]

Nice and fluidly!

 

Thank you so much very soothing.

[Mickey]

To the five of you still faithfully following this topic, my apologies for today's post which will be even more esoteric (a kindly word for fuzzy) than usual.

 

We are all of us (at least) two different people, the actor and the critique, the one performing the play, the other judging the success of its execution. They are, unfortunately for what we try to do here, separated in time , perhaps as much as a 1/4 second (or more). The critic or Boswell, as I sometime think of him, goes about documenting and judging our lives, largely unaware of the little man behind the curtain doing the real work, and, for the most part, this arrangement works very well. Considering the time delay, it's a good thing. If Boswell were fighting a duel, he'd be dead before he'd digested the words 'en garde.'

 

So what does that have to do with penmanship? Nearly everything, but, for today, I'm going to concentrate on one tiny if important aspect of penmanship, "How come I never get that part of the letter correct?" The answer is, the little man already wrote it before Boswell was ready to start. Put in more pedestrian terms, the failure is in something up stream that you didn't do quite right, but not so poorly that you would easily notice it. Today (and yesterday and the day before...) I was working on a fairly ornate Z (sorry no post) and was having difficulty getting the descender to look right: too straight, too shaded, and the upstroke seldom ended where I could execute the final flourish correctly. Don't worry about the details. It just didn't work.

 

Then I noticed a tiny error in the loop (after the main shade) before the descender. Its shape was wrong. It was circular, not oval*. Diagnosis, I wasn't executing the primary shade correctly. I was slowing too abruptly before the turn-around and not accelerating soon enough after the turn-around. Again the details are not important. The point is, the error was several steps further back from where the train wreck finally occurred. The little man was perfectly ready to do the descender correctly - in fact, he was doing it correctly, the skills properly embedded - but a subtle error upstream destroyed the appearance of his work before it was begun.

 

Okay, here's the moral. Always look well upstream for the source of error, particularly persistent errors. Work backwards. If necessary, start with the final flourish. When you can do that reliably, add the next element upstream, and so on. For me today, Boswell needed to be concentrating on that pesky descender as he started the primary shade. Don't look were the pen is. Imagine where it needs to go.

 

* It isn't supposed to be oval, either, but an oval would be much closer to what was needed than a circle.

Edited October 9, 2014 by Mickey

[knarflj]

  On 10/9/2014 at 4:18 PM, Mickey said:

Okay, here's the moral. Always look well upstream for the source of error, particularly persistent errors. Work backwards. If necessary, start with the final flourish. When you can do that reliably, add the next element upstream, and so on.

 

Please feel free to submit such esoteric posts any time, Mickey. I appreciate this reminder - and it's frequently true of things other than penmanship, too. Thanks!

[Mickey]

Finally, something to upload. I'm posting this image not because it is particularly good - it's okay - but because this letter, I believe, demonstrates the concepts I've been pursuing in this thread: constant rotation, using speed to control contour, and the importance of timing.

 

 

I'll dispense with the up front criticism other than to say it's not perfect.

 

This letter begins with an immediate change of rotation (from counter-clockwise to clockwise). For me, this is difficult. Just learning to start this letter properly will pay dividends. The next challenge is not snagging at the first transition to push stroke (you can see my slight kink). Again, this is a technical challenge worth confronting. You must keep the circular movement going and your touch light as possible.

 

The next challenge is waiting long enough before accelerating the point and beginning the shade. (To look correct or pleasing, the beginning of this curve should align on the slant line, likewise the lowest point on the descender. I jerked the pen a little at the top, creating a small flat spot; consequently the curve and shade start a little late.)

 

At the end of the shade is another pot hole. The pen needs to keep circling while moving slowly (it can't stop!), otherwise, the loop ends up too pointed.) Now the pen needs to accelerate (while still turning) and continue accelerating till the point is almost traveling down the slant line. (Notice, the slight kink in this example - a booboo.) The last difficulty is beginning the finishing oval at the correct speed, so that it harmonizes with the other curves and the loop proceeds well past the opening loop, such that each of the 3 right hand loops travels farther right than the preceding one.

 

Can you see now why I spent nearly 5 hours of my practice time this week working on this letter?

 

BTW: actual size of letter is 2cm

Edited October 12, 2014 by Mickey

[Mickey]

I've decided to take today's post a little off topic - the relationship between grip tension/activity and finger/arm movement.

 

Lately, I've been thinking about my grip more in terms of deadness, than relaxation. In fact, I've firmed up my grip to make it more dead, i.e., less active. It's not tight, it's not loose. It's inert. The process is kind of like staring at your dog to make it stay.

 

I think about the pen and hand moving as a unit, not about using the wrist or the arm or the fingers or any other part of my body to move it. The fingers are dead, the hand and pen move together. That's it. I don't concentrate on the pen point. I concentrate on the line and the path my hand will travel to produce it.

 

Lo and behold, I suddenly become aware that my little finger is brushing the exact same path on the page as the pen point. I also notice that the point barely touches the page. The lines is spider silk fine and Gillott 303 in my holder feels as fat and easy as a G-nib. This is the lightest I ever write, yet my hand is not relaxed. It's not tight, either. It's inert. Grip pressure is irrelevant.

 

Comments? (Haloo out there...)

[knarflj]

I don't comment on this thread too often, because I'm not (at least so far) practicing or trying to learn Spencerian. But my normal cursive hand is a Spencerian derivative, so I have found the discussion not only fascinating, but helpful, because most of the principles are applicable at least to some extent even when one is not attempting flourished capitals or writing with a flex pen.

 

  On 10/13/2014 at 10:25 PM, Mickey said:

Lately, I've been thinking about my grip more in terms of deadness, than relaxation. In fact, I've firmed up my grip to make it more dead, i.e., less active. It's not tight, it's not loose. It's inert. The process is kind of like staring at your dog to make it stay.

 

I think about the pen and hand moving as a unit, not about using the wrist or the arm or the fingers or any other part of my body to move it. The fingers are dead, the hand and pen move together. That's it. I don't concentrate on the pen point. I concentrate on the line and the path my hand will travel to produce it.

 

 

This is one of the most helpful things you've said so far, Mickey. I've been trying for months to lighten my grip and use more arm movement. I have read and re-read many of the threads on this forum, and studied some of the posts and photos carefully. But I never seemed to be able to get it right and keep it that way, and most changes in my grip, no matter how lightly I held the pen, actually left my hand more sore than my old, tight grip. A week or two ago I had a practice session where everything just felt right - the hand glided, the forms were better than usual, I could keep the rhythm going, as if everything had just clicked, but I couldn't figure out how to repeat that. Last night I tried putting into practice what you said here, and immediately I had the "everything clicks" feeling that I'd experienced in that earlier session. And I could duplicate it this morning. Thanks!

[Mickey]

  On 10/14/2014 at 4:30 PM, knarflj said:

I don't comment on this thread too often, because I'm not (at least so far) practicing or trying to learn Spencerian. But my normal cursive hand is a Spencerian derivative, so I have found the discussion not only fascinating, but helpful, because most of the principles are applicable at least to some extent even when one is not attempting flourished capitals or writing with a flex pen.

 

 

This is one of the most helpful things you've said so far, Mickey. I've been trying for months to lighten my grip and use more arm movement. I have read and re-read many of the threads on this forum, and studied some of the posts and photos carefully. But I never seemed to be able to get it right and keep it that way, and most changes in my grip, no matter how lightly I held the pen, actually left my hand more sore than my old, tight grip. A week or two ago I had a practice session where everything just felt right - the hand glided, the forms were better than usual, I could keep the rhythm going, as if everything had just clicked, but I couldn't figure out how to repeat that. Last night I tried putting into practice what you said here, and immediately I had the "everything clicks" feeling that I'd experienced in that earlier session. And I could duplicate it this morning. Thanks!

 

Glad to help and gratified to know some of this is working for folks. What really excited me about this particular discovery/revelation/thing is that in concentrating on an inert hand I was able to leap frog over learning "arm writing" as a new or separate skill. It was like my arm bootstraped on all the kinesthetic knowledge my fingers had built up over the decades. The linkages between eye and hand were suddenly available to my arm. Line quality and form improved immediately.

Edited October 14, 2014 by Mickey

[Anne-Sophie]

  On 10/13/2014 at 10:25 PM, Mickey said:

I've decided to take today's post a little off topic - the relationship between grip tension/activity and finger/arm movement.

 

Lately, I've been thinking about my grip more in terms of deadness, than relaxation. In fact, I've firmed up my grip to make it more dead, i.e., less active. It's not tight, it's not loose. It's inert. The process is kind of like staring at your dog to make it stay.

 

I think about the pen and hand moving as a unit, not about using the wrist or the arm or the fingers or any other part of my body to move it. The fingers are dead, the hand and pen move together. That's it. I don't concentrate on the pen point. I concentrate on the line and the path my hand will travel to produce it.

 

Lo and behold, I suddenly become aware that my little finger is brushing the exact same path on the page as the pen point. I also notice that the point barely touches the page. The lines is spider silk fine and Gillott 303 in my holder feels as fat and easy as a G-nib. This is the lightest I ever write, yet my hand is not relaxed. It's not tight, either. It's inert. Grip pressure is irrelevant.

 

Comments? (Haloo out there...)

 

I have experienced that as well, the let it be, non grip.

 

I found that my shorter fountain pens, do not allow this to happen and the minimum length for the optimal let it be, non grip, is an uncapped Vista/Safari.

 

Lately I have been writing a lot, on run of the mill copy paper, it is not suitable for fountain pens but, a regular pencil is awful because it is too thin, however, a lead holder fitted with one of those rubber grips is perfect.

 

My to do lists, and other writings are getting more and more harmonious.

 

This is no small part because of this thread which tries to dig into the space/time/rhythm concepts involved in handwriting.

 

I am trying to be more mindful of not only the content of the writing but the form of the letters.

 

I would like to thank you for this thread Mickey, it is very very helpful.

Edited October 15, 2014 by Anne-Sophie

[Mickey]

Today's practice target was on page 46 of Lessons in Ornamental Penmanship by P.Z. Bloser (1948). http://www.iampeth.com/books/bloser/bloser_page46.html The subject is the reverse oval, which is not really an oval at all. It's closer to segments of 2 circles (of different diameters) joined on the slant angle (52 degrees). (It is called an oval, I presume, because there is no other short, convenience name for it.) That the reverse oval is not really an oval is even hinted in the directions. "These letters should be made with a full, free, circular action." (The emphasis is mine. Sound familiar?) Anyway, it's the reverse oval.

 

Two ideas came from today's practice. First, it is important to know how the pen should be moving just before it first touches the paper. Notice the arc that begins the figure. I believe it would be nearly impossible to create this arc if one simple laid the point on the page and began describing the arc. It seems much more sensible that the pen should be moving on that trajectory before it touches the page - take a rolling start. The remaining challenge would then be fairly simple; make the point contact the page at the correct time and place. Now, look at the first stroke. The pen is moving left. This means the stroke began not only below the writing line but also to the right. Starting from below and to the right, the point can already be moving on the correct path when it first contacts the page. Do this sort of analysis for all your letters. Learn from where to make your rolling starts.

 

My second point is just off topic. There is some debate as to whether the writing forearm should or should not be on the desk when doing OP or when it may or may not be on the desk. I'm not sure how much it matters as long as the pen is free to move where it needs to move. I would suggest, however, that, as one becomes increasingly comfortable with flexible points that one lessen the amount of pressure on the forearm, such that the question of arm contact becomes moot. The pen is free to move where it needs to move. Correct your posture, then adjust your desk and seat heights as necessary to take pressure off your writing arm. Another freedom of movement hint: when you begin your warm up, immediately confirm that your entire hand is moving, not just your fingers. Is your little finger (last two fingernails, whatever) tracing the shapes on the page along with the point? It should be.

[AllenG]

The reverse oval is my bane.

[Mickey]

  On 10/20/2014 at 10:48 PM, AllenG said:

The reverse oval is my bane.

 

For me, too. Spend some time on the second row figure on page 46. In some strange way, that version is actually easier (for me) than the simple reverse oval.

 

This is also a place where paying attention to speed changes can be a big help. Take the upstroke in a smooth, leisurely fashion, so that it is near circular. Continue at that speed (and rotation) well past 12 o'clock, then accelerate a bit (suddenly) – this flattens the curve – and when the point is midway to the writing line, mash the shade. Putting the shade on firmly, as Bloser recommends, will slow the pen, causing curvature to increase. Take a close look at the figure and I believe you will see what I mean.

[Mickey]

Following up for AllenG and anyone else who battles with the reverse oval, do not despair. Your (and my) problem may be that there is no such thing as a reverse oval or, rather, that there is no single reverse oval. Compare the first row of exemplars on page 43 http://www.iampeth.com/books/bloser/bloser_page43.html (labeled 'Pen Lifts') with the similar 2nd row of exemplar on page 46 http://www.iampeth.com/books/bloser/bloser_page46.html that we were looking at yesterday. Guess what? They're not the same. The 'vanilla' reverse oval (pg 46) is rounder than the reverse oval tuned to fit the majuscule H. (Also the shades are slightly different.) Now look at page 45 http://www.iampeth.com/books/bloser/bloser_page45.html – different again! Don't even bother with page 44, the most extreme variation.

 

The reverse oval is only a very general shape, more of a process or sequence, not really a counter in the way the italic 'a' is, a form to be replicated (rotated and inverted) throughout the hand. Don't confuse the two concepts! This kind of gets us back to this thread's theme - proper letter shapes require proper speed and it's cousins proper timing, rhythm, and ductus.

 

Speaking of ductus, page 43 also provides us a lesson in it's importance to this hand. Some have stated that it doesn't matter so much how you pen the letters as long as they look correct. Maybe, but if the way you pen a letter, observing its correct ductus, markedly increases the chances of producing a correct letter form, isn't it worthwhile to observe the correct ductus? In the case of the letter H, does it matter how one pens the right side of the letter? Coming to Spencerian from an informal italic base, my instinct was to pen it from top to bottom. This allowed me to continue the loop and flourish without lifting my pen. Perfect? The problem was that this practice frequently produced poor letter proportion (inconsistent width) and battling slant. By observing the correct ductus, i.e., beginning the left side from the writing line as a up stroke, I could insure that the slopes agreed (even when the main shade was less than stellar) and that the width would be correct. So while it was possible to create correct Hs with the incorrect ductus, the probability of success was poor, even when I successfully performed the more difficult left side of the letter. Ductus counts.

Edited October 21, 2014 by Mickey