name change

PimpinSquee said:
which one do yall like better? the new one or this one?
knife_sig.jpg
Click to expand...

I like this one
 
thats only cause you made it. i kinda like the one i did better cause its cleaner and sharper. i really appreciate the one you did for me.
 
During classes that I attended about name branding, logos and such, during some previous training at my company the advice was......Logos should simple to read, not complicated. When they are complicated and fancy the potential client has trouble remembering, or doesn't even really read it. If it is easy to read, the client will remember your name much easier. The J. in the one is so fancy it could be mistaken for an I or an L. Just my 2 cents worth. I would point out Indian Georges' in the previous post to mine. It is fancy, yet easily legible. Very well done! I like the one your currently using Pimpin'. It's fancy, yet easily legible like Indian Georges. Terry Barkes is also very easy to read. His reminds me of a logo for a man that makes knives for the working man (quality using knives), which is very appropriate for him. He makes very attractive cutlery, that looks solid and efficient, just like his logo. I'm getting long-winded here, but if it can't be read easily, then the clients attention is taken away from your work (cutlery).
 
i plan to use the font i have now. i just need to make a cleaner version of it for here and then just have the plain text version for the stencils when i get around to making them. i love the font in the one im using now.
 
to me it seems alot cleaner than the one barkes made for me. its also different thany the majority of the knife makers out there. not to mention alot easier when etching it onto a blade.
 
I like the one on the bottom better (The Barkes model). To me it has the same character as that old English thing without being gaudy and so pretentiously anachronistic.
 
JCaswell, are you talking about the one i have now, the first one i had. or the one barkes is using for his sig?
 
I like the one that you're apparently using now. I don't know who created which:confused: but I suppose it doesn't matter.

The extra needless complexity in the old English font just smacks of inefficiency to me. It's far too jarring to use for a logo in my opinion.

Don't mean to disparage anyone's work.:o
 
Well it's essentially the same, except one looks like puff paint. It's OK, but I prefer the flattened version.

Keep in mind you probably won't stick with one logo forever.

BTW, I don't make the hamburger connection to your name at all. Even after it's pointed out, I don't automatically connect your name to the Golden Arches. Maybe it's just me ...
 
i dont know which one im going to go with for a logo. its still too plain in a way. IMO i need to have someone draw up a logo picture that i can add to it. or find a cool background. im thinking about this for once i have the money to pay for a server and setup a webpage.
 
scottickes said:
...Logos should simple to read, not complicated. When they are complicated and fancy the potential client has trouble remembering, or doesn't even really read it. If it is easy to read, the client will remember your name much easier.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Simple is good. Bold is good. Depth is good. Fancy can be good on something big like a t-shirt, but not something small like a tang or business card. I like the one Barkes made.

What's your signature look like? I mean in your own hand. That can be very cool. I don't make the hamburger connection to your name either. I'll always think of ya as PimpleSqueeze. Maybe it's just me...

You get any mail lately? I rubbed some fresh curds on the envelope to give you a savor of the flavor of Wisconsin.

I almost forgot, there's a box you can untick to show your sig or not. Something to consider when ya post 4 times a page with a big red beacon :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top