well, well, well...this is way too much FFcocon used in three different identities (one by a Romanian friend of mine, one by another dutch designer and this...) within one week beats my power of understanding. To me, this font (an original fontsmith font designed for durex collateral) would never do for a logotype ... it has too much distinctiveness in itself to ever make a good choice for a corporate identity ...
Durex condoms? Interesting. It does look a little rubbery. I think it suits logotype better than text, but it does have too much character. Perhaps a little refinement could personalize it.
Is that "s" part of the typeface? It looks a little wonky, particularly leading to the spurs.
The logotype looks a little tight in the "sim" or loose in the "pro."
The proportion of "simpro" to "solutions" is too extreme. If the logotype gets any smaller, "solutions" will become specks.
The molecular metamorphosis occuring on the left half of the "o" looks a little lumpy and complicated. The forms could be smoothed and simplified to better effect.
simpro
17 May 2003 — 11:08pm
I'm new here as well, and I can't see the logo you are referring to. But that could just be me
19 May 2003 — 10:09am
The ole .unk problem. That's what I'm seeing. How about this?
simpro.swf (2.0 k)
31 May 2003 — 12:27am
well, well, well...this is way too much
FFcocon used in three different identities (one by a Romanian friend of mine, one by another dutch designer and this...) within one week beats my power of understanding. To me, this font (an original fontsmith font designed for durex collateral) would never do for a logotype ... it has too much distinctiveness in itself to ever make a good choice for a corporate identity ...
george //.
31 May 2003 — 12:56am
I tought distinctiveness is good in identity, looking like everyone is death, isn
31 May 2003 — 1:03am
Durex condoms? Interesting. It does look a little rubbery. I think it suits logotype better than text, but it does have too much character. Perhaps a little refinement could personalize it.
Is that "s" part of the typeface? It looks a little wonky, particularly leading to the spurs.
The logotype looks a little tight in the "sim" or loose in the "pro."
The proportion of "simpro" to "solutions" is too extreme. If the logotype gets any smaller, "solutions" will become specks.
The molecular metamorphosis occuring on the left half of the "o" looks a little lumpy and complicated. The forms could be smoothed and simplified to better effect.
Hope that helps!
Cheers.
1 Jun 2003 — 1:50pm
I think it would look nice with just a dot pattern making the left half of the "o" - without the weird connectors and ambiguously shaped blobs.
I agree that "solutions" is too small. I would try putting it after "Simpro" in a font that is one to two-thirds the size. In dark blue, of course.
Paul