Logo Crit

[mark165]

I need a logo for business card printing tomorrow (short notice I know!), and could do with some criticism for them.

http://www.markgoodyear.co.uk/165studios.jpg

There is one that stand out to me, but I'll see if anyone else see's that particular one.

My old logo is this:

http://www.markgoodyear.co.uk/mglogo.jpg

However I am contemplating using a "business" name rather than my own name, 165 studios, as I dislike using the word "Design" in my logo because it's not part of my name. I'm not sure whether this is the way to go or not yet.

Any criticism is appreciated!

Cheers!

[morea]

I think that your old logo is stronger and more appealing than any of these new ones.

A few of the new ones look like you're working a dollar sign into your logo, which gives it the smarmy feel of a get rich quick scheme.

[Craig B]

My initial thought is that none of the 8 options adequately read as 165 Studios. The 1st option is cleanest, but it definitely reads as 165 tudios.

Why the force need to make the 5 and the S work together. Why not leave them separate?

[mark165]

I think that your old logo is stronger and more appealing than any of these new ones.

A few of the new ones look like you're working a dollar sign into your logo, which gives it the smarmy feel of a get rich quick scheme.

I never saw that! Kind of puts me off them a little. I did think number 6 was the better one out of them all.


@Craig B;
I was trying a play on the word and letter, it come's from "5" representing an "S" that people often do, an example being car number plates.

[Virgo Nightingale]

Perhaps if you could find a way to merge the two shapes better (may have to use a different font so the middle stroke of the '5' and 'S' shapes line up more).

[Craig B]

Oh, I understand the "leet"-ness of 5's being substituted for the letter s, but why are you forcing it? It seems unnecessary and it seems like you're doing it just to be "cute" instead of doing it for a reason.

[mark165]

It was just an idea, quite liked it at first, but there is no "real" reason why.

I've made some alterations below;

http://www.markgoodyear.co.uk/165logos2.jpg

Number 12 doesn't work at all for me, but no harm in showing it anyway. I think 10 and 11 have a less forced feel that Craig was talking about and number 9 I have made the 5 and the S line up, as mentioned by Vergo.

Any opinions on these?

Cheers :)

[Audentia]

10 is probably the best of the options here.
I'm not sure it's brilliant. but it mostly works.

[mervman]

I really don't think this concept will work. If I HAD to pick one of them, it would be either #9 or #10. I might rethink the design, personally. But to each his own :)

[mojoprime]

i agree with mo. #10 is the best of this new lot, but your original was pretty solid.

[mark165]

I really don't think this concept will work. If I HAD to pick one of them, it would be either #9 or #10. I might rethink the design, personally. But to each his own :)

I do agree with you. I have one more to show, and if they don't have potential, I can resort to keeping my previous logo, or just use my name on my business card, so the logo can change if I want too.

Here it is:

http://www.markgoodyear.co.uk/165logos3.jpg

It's all the same one, just various colours and a B&W version.

Any thoughts on this one?

[holycow77]

I pick #2 from the first post.

[mark165]

Right, last one, new font after hours of hunting for some new fonts! B&W, grey, and colour variations:

http://www.markgoodyear.co.uk/165studios4.jpg

The 5 and the S fit perfectly in half, so no forcing, and it doesn't feel as forced as the other font, which was edited a fair bit to align.

I actually like this one a lot. Any opinions on this one?

For the business card, I think I'll have the 165 a colour, and the Studios will be black with a UV varnish.

[mervman]

The newest versions are your best yet, and are the most readable.

[holycow77]

I think you've done pretty well. IMHO it seems just a tiny bit too boring for a designer's logo, but it's neat and balanced and not ugly - It's not a bad logo, just lacks a bit of flair.

The s on the end looks like it should be a bit closer to the o.

[mark165]

Cheers! Yeah, it's not the best logo out there, but for it's purpose, it does it's job.

Now to decide whether to go ahead and use that name, or keep with my name for the business cards!

[bulgariacalling]

The latest versions are the best of the lot ... the 5 and the S sit together better than any of the previous drafts.

Personally, I would go for the lime green / black combo and spot varnish the whole lot (may as well, you're paying for it, so why varnish only half the logo?)

:D

[BJMRamage]

#2 from Original post.

That is the only one I read 165 Studios.
Everything else is hard to read. the last go 'round is horrible (in my eyes) shapes work fine but readability is not there. reads almost like a "6" or an "8" rather than a "5"

[mark165]

Thanks. Obviously some people will like it, and some people won't, but it's good to hear why not so I can look for room for improvement!

I have about 2 weeks for refinement before my business cards go to print, today wasn't final, so I have plenty of time to see what I can do to make it better, or ditch the idea completely!

[BJMRamage]

Yep. and in the end, you can listen to all sides and make the choice that's right for you.
but good to see the progression and that you are listening and not just saying this is it, why don't you guys know what you're saying.

[Bob]

165, 165...

- in base 10, it's a 'Self-Number' (a number that cannot be generated by any other integer added to the sum of that other integer's digits)
- in binary form it's a palindromic number (10100101)
- it's sphenic (not to be confused with sphintic)
- and it's part of the tetrahedric number sequence (the ninth, actually)

Definitely not a square number... more of a triangular pyramid.

[Heartburn_02]

Can a shadow maybe be used someway to help the transistion from 5 to S? I didn't know if it was 16 Studios or 165 tudios, or somewhere between, until I read your comments.

[Shiz36]

http://www.markgoodyear.co.uk/165logos3.jpg




http://www.markgoodyear.co.uk/165studios4.jpg



I agree with the others and think this isn't as strong as your "MG" logo. I'm kind of curious why you're so stuck on the '5' and the 'S' sharing each other? When looking at all the logos you posted, they all share the same composition. Have you tried other looks/designs?

But working with what you've posted, I think the contrast of the box in 13-15 helps the logo pop a lot more. But I think the font in 16 definitely flows better.

What about a hybrid with the font from 16 and the box from 14?

Thats my $.02...

[shible]

I try to help :o see this photos

[Virgo Nightingale]

Shible please see this from our Forum Rules and Guidelines: (http://www.graphicdesignforum.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=42)

8. Do not take someone else's work that has been posted for critique and "redo" it for them. We encourage members to offer suggestions to improve a piece, and if the point that you are trying to make is difficult to explain a quick sketch might help to illustrate your point, but posting your own "alternate" design is not going to help another member learn anything. Even if your intention was to be helpful, the original poster may be offended that you did the work "for" them. Sharing your thoughts in your own words allows the original poster to interpret your ideas according to their own style and tastes and the work remains their own creation.

[dean_martin]

The first and second are the best IMO. But the old logo is the best overall. The number 6 dosnt work in my mind because the typeface is already thin so having something cut through the middle is distracting.

Ps same thing happens to me I can never decide on a logo for myself.