We've been as excited as anyone about Helvetica recently (for obvious reasons), but it's nice to hear about some other typefaces out there making waves too, you know? That's what we were thinking when we ran into Typographica's response, "Questioning Gill Sans," to Ben Archer's piece in Typotheque, "Eric Gill Got It Wrong; A Re-Evaluation of Gill Sans." Both are tremendous reads, with lots of outside resources and many good points. Here's a little from Archer's essay to give you an idea of the tone and thought and research he's put in:

Aside from inconsistencies of the weights in Gill Sans, Gill changed proportions between capital height, stroke width and character width. This leads me to disagree with the many descriptions of the design of Gill Sans that still contend that the typeface is "based on Roman character shapes and proportions" or "does not reject traditional forms and proportions."