Critique my logo please!

arireznik's picture

Hi!

I've designed a couple logos for an accelerator called "WE". For some reason I've been struggling with how short the term "WE" is.

The first logo is based on an isometric grid. I don't know how legible it may be.
The second one is much simpler.

What do you think? Which one should I go with? What should I change?

Thanks in advance.

kthomps5's picture

Ari, I think both are rather smart solutions for a two-letter name.

One thing giving me pause is the double, overlapping Vs that make up the W in the second version--I find that overlap distracting, Also, the W doesn't intersect with/get cut off by the bounding circle as much as the e, which also throws things out of balance a bit.

Refine the second version, and you've got two solid choices.

JamesM's picture

I like them both. The first one (even in black-and-white) won't reproduce well in photocopies, if that's a factor.

hrant's picture

The "W" as crossing "V"s is very smart! But it's making the "e" seem like a third wheel; try to incorporate it inside the "W" somehow - maybe as a capital letter.

hhp

arireznik's picture

It's actually Scala Sans' default "W" :)

Vladimir Tamari's picture

WE prefer the first one it gives a 'high-tech' impression if that is what you want. I like it because at one time I used letters-in-a-cube for my own logo (now disused) - even made a wood sculpture of a 3-letter-cube once. A selling point is that the company can make small cubes for key-chains etc. as giveaways!

The first one's colors are beautiful but too subtle and as mentioned above will not appear properly in a photocopy. Experiment with black and white or grayscale versions and see how it appears at different magnifications and settings.
The second is nice but reminds too of the Volks-Wagen logo. Good luck deciding.

Vladimir Tamari's picture

Nice! But the third face is random.
Here is my EQR "a wooden sculpture made by Vladimir Tamari to symbolise the unification of Electromagnetism, Quantum Mechanics and Relativity in his United Dipole Field theory."
http://youtu.be/73WkoUA21uU

Syndicate content Syndicate content