The designer of this FontStruction has chosen not to make it available for download from this website
choosing an “All Rights Reserved" license.
Please respect their decision and desist from requesting license changes in the comments.
If you would like to use the FontStruction for a specific project, you may be able to contact the
designer directly about obtaining a license.
Another stencil font...with obvious influences from Glaser Stencil (because I love it so!). But to be fair, Glaser Stencil was not referenced even once in the making of this fontstruction.
Allow me to wax technical about FontStruct 2.0 for a bit. A lot of my fontstructions have been even thickness all around. However, the evenness have been approximated thus far—not so anymore. First there were the 45° bricks; then came the 26.57°/63.43° bricks. With the 2.0 Make Composite feature, 14.04°/75.96° angles became possible. These two additional angles provide a finer tune of thickness of stems. The preview does not do justice to the font, but I tested the thicknesses of stems in Illustrator—horizontals/verticals/diagonals. Each stem now is as close in thickness to other as possible. This really is an even stroke font[struction]. Other 2.0 features are also used (but may not be obvious at a glance). See that 'o'? That's just one quarter curve created and then rotated three additional times. Very handy. The horizontal and vertical flips were used extensively throughout the creation process. Quarter-ing of angled bricks became necessary when it became evident that the only even thickness of a stroke is possible at x.5 thickness when combined with a curve. This meant that each vertical/horizontal stem is 5.5 bricks thick, which in turn made it necessary to use angled bricks at a quarter scale, which, of course, was made possible with the Make Composite feature. The only place I couldn't get the brick I wanted was in 4 (zoom in to see the slight misshape). It was a joy to work on this fontstruction to get what I really wanted almost every time. Great update, Rob. Cheers!
As long as I am on the soap box: What's up with diaeresis? I understand the reason for their existence, but are they the best possible way to handle various additional sounds? Also, are they even necessary? For example, café in French means a particular thing. But does cafe (without the e with the grave on it) mean something else? If not, wouldn't the French automatically know how to properly pronounce café (with or without acute on the e) the correct way whichever 'e' is used? It helps in the pronunciation for the uninitiated but are languages really designed for the novice? There are 26 letters in the English alphabet but they cover the gamut of up to 44 different sounds (according to some). Improbable as it may seem, it does not stop people to choose the correct pronunciation of letters. Hop has one sound for the 'o' and adding an 'e' at the end does not add the 'e' sound at the end of 'hop' but changes the sound of the middle 'o'. Convention. Sure. What I am trying to get at is that written script functions much better with distinct shapes without the flow-interrupting addition of the diaeresis. So unless there are two words spelled the same with the only difference being the kind of diacritic on the letters, the diacritic are redundant, no? If there is a real need for certain letter+diacritic combo, wouldn't a new shape be better? There are no shortage of additional shapes in the scripts of other languages. Can't do without an 'é'? Replace it with, say, 'ө' from the Greek script...or whatever. It bears repetition: What's up with diaeresis?