I've looked at these for a couple of months now from very very close. Fonts are code and the nature of code is that it's never perfect.

It had to be done, as the Garamond I wanted just didn't exist. Started feeling a bit weird after three months working on variable cap height regular, bold, 2 italics, and bold italics like a madman, so I brought it to a close. Two weeks ago, I read how Jony Ive spent the last 4 years on his Baskerville with a group of type specialists, and I went: "Ha!" https://www.fastcompany.com/90888571/jony-ive-spent-the-last-4-years-perfecting-his-typeface-heres-why-hell-never-be-done

We always deal with interpretations of music, and we always deal with interpretations of typefaces (printed, processed on different screens). Pure form, whether it's a triangle or a Garamond a only exists in our mind. A lot of the early Garamonds were photocopying the shape of the metal, ignoring both the nature of print and the the nature of the screen. That's one reason why early digital typefaces were lacking soul. Studying Garamond's original prints, f.i., is like reading sheet music.