Which of the two is better ?

AbiRasheedAbiRasheed Posts: 236
edited February 2016 in Technique and Theory

So I worked on this ampersand incorporating PP like around last year sometime and left it at that.

 Here's the link to 1 &2

 Looking at it now, I noticed it had a few issues and addressed it.  However, I'm still kinda not convinced, something still looks off and I can't put a finger to it between the two versions.. Which of the two is better? or are they both bad, if so what are the obvious issues if any? 



  • George ThomasGeorge Thomas Posts: 612
    edited February 2016
    Considering that the only change was to the large curve (a slight increase in weight and glyph width) there's not enough difference to really say they are different. What I find most objectionable about both is that they are off-balance, leaning to the left.
  • Would dropping the serifs be a possibility? 
  • AbiRasheedAbiRasheed Posts: 236
    edited February 2016
    @George Thomas Hey, thanks for the critique.  how about this version?  1. was simply rotated, 2. The PPs were rotated and then the whole thing was slightly tweaked. The smaller icons underneath both versions them show the originals. Any better?
  • @Craig Eliason  I could, but the problem is then I'd have to remove all of it in the type  as well for the company name or do you mean I do it from scratch using a sans serif?  CHeers!
  • @AbiRasheed -- A huge improvement. The version on the right would be my choice. :)
  • I would say the serifs, and the little gap, seem indecisive because they're so small. All of this depends of course on the actual size at which it will be used. Might be smart to make several versions for different sizes (with the smaller ones avoiding those tiny details). 
    The rotation was a definite improvement. I would say the big curve of the latest #1 looks best.
  • @Craig -- I like the big curve too, but the reason I chose #2 was because at the bottom where the big curve comes around and crosses the vertical stem of the lower /P it seems to flatten out. #2 does not do that.
  • AbiRasheedAbiRasheed Posts: 236
    edited February 2016
    @George Thomas Thanks! Here's a link to one last version  . 1, 2 are the same from what I showed you guys previously. 3 is slightly more rotated and tweaked a tad more. I'm leaning more towards 3. but very curious what you guys think before I finalise.

  • AbiRasheedAbiRasheed Posts: 236
    edited February 2016
    @Craig Eliason Cool! For smaller sizes I never gave it much thought, but if I had to then likely I'd bump up the spacing. I'm kinda confused cause you said you prefer #1 but @George Thomas  goes with #2. So Here's a newer version 3., let me know what you think.

  • @AbiRasheed Either #2 or #3 would work for me. One more thing, though, which I just noticed. Although the /P slant above matches that below, it appears to slant more to the left -- an illusion, which you may choose to fix -- or not.
  • AbiRasheedAbiRasheed Posts: 236
    edited February 2016
    @George Thomas  Oh ok. I';m not sure how to fix the slant, cause If I change it such that one is different to the other, then the length of the stem is affected specially because of that spacing between the two P's. Do you mean just a slight rotation by 1° or so? 
  • @AbiRasheed -- Yes. It won't take much, just enough so optically it appears to match the angle of the lower /P.
  • @AbiRasheed That looks very good now. :)
  • @George Thomas Cheers thanks man!
Sign In or Register to comment.