logo critique

[AgentFitz]

tossing some ideas around for my personal portfolio/design site...

what do ya'll think?

http://www.verseonedesign.com/images/logos.jpg

[VersusMG]

I like #2

[Rockstar]

These logos are very cool. Very tight, makes it difficult which one to choose.
I would say I choose #3. It's very original. I like the color combination as well.
#2 has a similar idea. I feel both the type (verse one) and the big V logo are trying to compete each other in terms of its thickness.

Awesome

[Thy]

I'll vote for number 02 :P

03 is also very nice but the thinner letters might be a little dificult to read, on number 02 did you tried a litle less spacing between the letters?

[AgentFitz]

thanks for all the comments guys. definitely.

yeah, I was playing with the kerning a good bit...but I'll take another look and see how #2 looks with less spacing

[slinkyart]

I like #2 too.

[squan]

Number 2 but maybe put "design studios" in that blue.

Nifty work!

[Oli-G]

Nice one matey

Lovin #3

[j_polo9]

hmm i like 2 or 4. I think the drop doesn't match well with the V though. On 1 and 4 i think the v being in lines makes it look too retro.

I don't think your portfolio site reflects your work though, would be cool to see a redesign with the new logo!

[lunatic]

I would move the "verse" from #3 to #2 and call it great. :thumb:

[serkios]

I like number 4.

I would like number 4 even more if the 1 and circle on the left instead replaced the | between verse one. like so:

[AgentFitz]

good call serkios. that does give it a more uniform look. I like these ideas guys - and I really appreciate the comments.

I also like the idea of making "design studios" navy in number 2 squanman

[SessionDesign]

I like #2, but i feel that the orange color is a bit too dark... :)

[Zach-E2]

i like three, but i the "design studio" thing of two..

[.michael]

Here's my vote no. 3 = clean, sleek, hip, fresh, not cluttered, to the point, nice, simple, If I was your client, I'd pick it. ONLY suggestion is maybe trying a heavier weight on the VERSE face. Stick with the same type, but heavier weight.


1. = nice touch, simple and clean however the V in the middle is too distracting and turns me off.

2. = Again, great approach, similar to no. 3 but this one is too cluttered.

3. = w00t!

4. = Over done, way over done with the verse|one line thingy. And again the symbol of the 1 is too distracting for me. Reminds me of 80's design.

5. = I can't pinpoint on why I don't really care for this one. It's very clean and sleak, I don't know if it's the condensed typeface, but however I just don't care for it.

GREAT JOB! on all of them though, however I'd pick number3! :D

[Oli-G]

Agreed with above poster - the design studios phrase in #2 kills it. #3 instantly stands out from the pack as a "logo", the rest are just missing the mark in one way or another.

[BoonDock]

I dig 2 and 3 but i can see where the V would be misinterpreted as a Z . . . other than that, I dig it.

[imark]

3

[dinamik]

#2

[AgentFitz]

Here's my vote no. 3 = clean, sleek, hip, fresh, not cluttered, to the point, nice, simple, If I was your client, I'd pick it. ONLY suggestion is maybe trying a heavier weight on the VERSE face. Stick with the same type, but heavier weight.


1. = nice touch, simple and clean however the V in the middle is too distracting and turns me off.

2. = Again, great approach, similar to no. 3 but this one is too cluttered.

3. = w00t!

4. = Over done, way over done with the verse|one line thingy. And again the symbol of the 1 is too distracting for me. Reminds me of 80's design.

5. = I can't pinpoint on why I don't really care for this one. It's very clean and sleak, I don't know if it's the condensed typeface, but however I just don't care for it.

GREAT JOB! on all of them though, however I'd pick number3!
__________________

thanks everybody for the thoughts and thorough critiques


Agreed with above poster - the design studios phrase in #2 kills it. #3 instantly stands out from the pack as a "logo", the rest are just missing the mark in one way or another.

I totally agree w/ you on the design studios phrase....I need to rethink how to position that "sub-header"

[channel367]

what exactly is the concept? Just curious.