Please Critique My New Logotype

I just do this logotype and you love if some of you guys would critique for me. The word used is GOBA


Firstly there is no context whatsoever. We have no idea what sort of company this is for, so cannot make any sort of critical judgement.

I am afraid there is not much I can say that is favourable about it. The colour is nice, but again, that goes back to my first paragraph. I have no idea what it is for, so I can’t tell you if it is appropriate or not.

Practically, it reads GBF, more than it reads GOBA. The O is non existent. If you are going to use negative space to define a glyph, you really need to think about that negative space and how to affect the other letters to achieve it.

Additionally, from a visual, typographic standpoint, it is all over the place with stresses and visual weights. I think you need to learn a lot more about typography and type design before attempting something like this. There is no harmony or visual consistency in stroke weights. Therefore the whole thing has a disjointed feel to it.

Not as positive as I am sure you’d have hoped, but I hope it goes you some pointers on at least which direction to go in. Typography is a subject that takes a lot longer to understand and ‘see’ than anyone first imagines when they start out – and many, many years to get even close to perfecting – if you ever do. It is definitely a life-long thing and even then, there’s always more to learn.

Read, read and then read some more. Learn from the greats. Go back to the origins of Roman lettering (and before).

Hope this helps.


I agree with @sprout’s comments. I would not have come up with GOBA.


I agree with the previous comments, and would add that you’re trying too hard to pull too many stunts. The moment you start working on gimmick #2, you’ve got too many gimmicks.

With a logo type, you have two options:

  1. One, single visual trick that works so well, you can’t not do it.
  2. No visual tricks at all, just impeccably set type, perhaps very subtly altered here or there to enhance visual harmony.

If I really concentrate on the negative space, I’d read GCBFD. Maybe there’s an A involved, but I’d have to stretch it a little.

The thickness of the strokes is not disciplined.

As other replies indicated, a real critique cannot be made based on a vacuum.

1 Like

I love the color, but I’m also reading G-BF. Or GCBF.