I talked a bit with Tetchubah and Meisterin Katarina.

To quote Meisterin Katarina

"I think you are correct, the "1 pen width" rule applies to the vertical strokes, it the verticals as being the 1 pen width, not the starting of the letter. In other words, the serifs can touch, and the bottoms can touch, but there will be at least one pen width (give or take a bit) between all of the vertical strokes."

In another mail

"That was what they did in the Gothic era... those monks started to learn how to form those letters when they were children, their hands and eyes were trained to see just the right amount of space between each vertical. "

To quote Tetchubah
"

From what you've sent, though, I have to agree that gothic TQ is definitely "better" looking (and by that I mean more period) the more unreadable it is.  The picket fence look is exactly what you're looking for in this hand.  It can be difficult to achieve successfully thought - I've been trying for years and still aren't happy with the results.  Plus, I prefer to have my scrolls readable so tend to put spaces between the letters rather than run them into each other."

Yahoo!

The difference is between 'modern' g.t.q, which is more readable because it spaces between the letters, and the more historic version of g.t.q, which spaces between the verticals, as I described in the Straight Lines-Confusion post.

So I can do either. Since Paul has set me to do the script analysis of the Bedford Hours, Queen Mary Psalter and Geese Book, I guess that all my script practice and script produced from that activity will be 'the old way'. Who cares about readability when coming from that sense? (script analysis, knowing the proper historical way)

Tetchubah has promised me more information on the subject when she gets home to her computer later this week - which I look forward to avidly.