I think this has some pontential. I would try joining the D and G. This could help with the "still the same person" part of your description.

[edited: I would maybe explore a version with vertical stress (or even monoline), so the mirrored D (that forms the G) and e wouldn't have reversed stress, make sense?]

Why do you have a problem with the concept?

I will concur with Hrant and Mitchell regarding the joining of the "G"s (and I don't mean "G" in the street slang sense). Right now it looks divided, which kind of contributes to your statement, but I think the joining of the "G"s is a stronger statement in relation to your "still the same person", as Mitchell identified. Also, I wonder what small cap "E"s would look like (about 70% of the vertical height of the "G"s). It might create a nice implied frame for the word, not to mention an interestingly strong shape.

Aloha, or shall I say "shaka" in this critique

Matthew - Welcome to Typophile.
You're off to a great start.

If the duality of the mark is going to be part of the
marketing, then Andrew makes a good point.
But if it's just an unspoken thing, then the mirrored approach will work very well, imo.

What if you tried it with some other widths, or even a
monoline, for comparison sake?

The forms seem relatively frail, especially the crossbars of your 'e'.

Also, you might be able to get away with lowering the vertical
stems on the G and D, just a bit, giving the G more legibility.

bj

The Ds make me think of breasts. Do I just have a dirty mind?

(sigh)

Hi Matthew,

For what it's worth, the cleavage issue is only happening in Scott's sample (because they're touching). Your idea is a good one. I'd either go for a full overlap, or leave a space.

BTW today I'm working on a project that requires I be drawing with a pencil, hence the sketching. These may be less edgy and more classy, but do with them what you will. (Also note your D and G shouldn't be actual mirrors of each other. It will be more like the modulation of a rotated D with the structure of a mirrored D. Make sense?)

R

no disrespect to Randy, Scott or anyone else.

We've all done it.

I just had a sense that it wasn't what Matthew came here for.

I agree with bj its one thing to suggest through words, but unless they ask

I never said not to post anything. This is my thread, I make the rules here.

Anyway - someone on another forum suggested this:


I think you all may be missing the point of why the D & the G are reflected. The "EDGE" is supposed to be in the middle of those two letters. When you combine those two letters first of all, it looks too much like the gucci logo - but more importantly, it looses the whole concept behind it. But I think this one addresses the issue of it being very similar but still different to the point where its not just a mirrored image.

> The "EDGE" is supposed to be in the middle of those two letters.

Oh, then I think you need to mark it somehow, like maybe shear the curves of each bowl to create an explicit vertical boundary.

BTW, the stress distribution in your curves is still funny.

hhp

It seems EDGE isn't the only brand seeing the need. Apparently *Bling Bling* has left the bulding.

R

>>>Apparently *Bling Bling* has left the bulding.

Thank God.

I think this is a great idea - but without the cube. The implied 3D orientation of the two pairs of letters would be plenty.

Or maybe it could just be a chevron, with no perspective play.

hhp

Hrant-

I was also thinking without the cube...I'm just not talented enough to actually DO it. But yeah, an implied cubical effect is what I had in mind...

Jeff