New to Typophile? Accounts are free, and easy to set up.
1st Signs Lettering.
Posted by Hildebrant in
25 Sep 2005 — 12:07am
25 Sep 2005 — 12:07am
Normally I would never consider using -- let alone drawing -- this type of 'ultra-geometric' lettering. But for this application (a sign manufacturer) I think it is the most appropriate solution.
I'm eager to hear you throughts on the weight distribution and such. I have taken the top arm of the S glyph and brought it in a bit, to counter balance the character so it doesn't look like it it falling forward. I wonder if this is appropriate, etc.
Your thoughts?
[Edit: I attached another PDF which details what they mark will look like in normal application]
[Edit: I have posted the finished results]
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| 1stSigns_Trademark.pdf | 13.96 KB |
| 1stSigns_Trademark_BETA.pdf | 10.89 KB |
| 1stSigns_03.pdf | 13.82 KB |
| 1stSigns_04.pdf | 9.6 KB |
| 1stSigns_BusinessCollaterals.pdf | 78.92 KB |
User login
Support our Sponsors
25 Sep 2005 — 2:43am
The vertical stem of the G looks a bit heavy to me, the open counters on the S looks a bit shallow in their depth (especially in the reversed out versions) and I wonder if the top left of the 1 needs the angled shape.
Tim
25 Sep 2005 — 9:50am
I attached a new PDF.
I agree, the G needed to be thinned up a bit. But I dont think the vertical arm needs to be the same size as the horz arms on the S. I think it need to be a tad bigger optically. I opened up the counters on the S. Technically it looks better, but I think I might like the sophocating looks. This needs to be really tight and compact. The hacked off serif on the 1 doesnt work. There is a nice flow that is maintained from the top of the one through the S and the T. I want to try to kep this flow.
Your thoughts?
25 Sep 2005 — 10:04am
PDF 04 is a comparison of the more open horizontal counters vs. the tighter ones.
25 Sep 2005 — 10:50am
This looks fairly solid. The S works. I like the version with the smaller counters. The one minor quibble I have is the G form. In this case, because of the decreased counters, the G might work better with a very small horizontal crossbar that better distinguishes it better as a G.
Are the brackets part of the mark? I like, but I'm biased.
25 Sep 2005 — 11:25am
I did try the cross bar with the G, but it really just kills the counter space even more. The brackets will be part of the mark. I realise this is nothing original, but for the task at hand, I think it really works. The idea is that they form the 4 corners of 'a sign'.
Did you like the S with the more open counters, or the one which is a little tighter? I'm still found of the tightness.
25 Sep 2005 — 12:01pm
yeah, tighter counters seem to work better.
26 Sep 2005 — 6:13am
You are right to keep the original 1, the mod I suggested looks too precious in practice. I prefer the look of the opened counters, I think that it will need them if the logo is being used at a small(ish) size, although you could keep them for large applications like vehicle livery. The slightly smaller G works well.
Tim
26 Sep 2005 — 4:11pm
Any other suggestions?
2 Nov 2005 — 1:05pm
I thought I would post some of the business suite and collateral that we have developed for the mark.
(See PDF in original post)
Cheers!
3 Nov 2005 — 7:59am
Looks good, and always good to see the results of crits.
Tim
3 Nov 2005 — 8:42am
what font is used for the Italic 'sign of distinction' strapline?
nice work by the way
3 Nov 2005 — 10:15am
Thanks.
The font for the tagline is Reykjavik One, the B weight, from Psy/ops: http://www.psyops.com. The other is, of corse, custom.
They are making a really large exterior sign of this as we speak. I will post photos of that, if people are interested.
3 Nov 2005 — 12:02pm
I would like to see it. So, yes please post the photos.
I really like your solution. It has interest and verve without compromising use or taking on a hubristic bombast . Put another way - it has a nice restraint.
Cheers!
3 Nov 2005 — 1:10pm
Eben,
Many thanks for the kind words.
4 Nov 2005 — 1:45pm
I like them as well. Nice work.