How Can I Improve This Script Logotype?

Hey there friends! 

I'm working on perfecting a script logotype for a client and am attempting to make this as perfect as can be. I've reached the point where I've stared at this for so long I would love some additional eyeballs and thoughts! 

I've included the rough original sketch for reference and how I've cleaned / tweaked things since then. I think it's shaping up nicely but can still use some minor finessing to get things juuuust right.

Above is the current vector state of things. Below is the rough sketch.


  • Options
    Just some quick things I'm spotting . . . The Cap L should be taller also perhaps more wobble at the top to suggest it's a cursive L.

    Double check all the stroke thickness with a circle (aka: the 'ball' test) since it looks like they're inconsistent.

    Also do the 'squint' test to assure the color is balanced across the word mark - There are obvious spots of blackness within the forms and between the forms. Those lowercase 'o's have some blackness in the upper right that could be lightened.

    Feel free to play with the tail on the lowercase 'r' to give is more liveliness.
  • Options
    Something about the /e seems off. The rough sketch has a nice squareness around the top right and bottom left that matches the /o, but the current vector seems to have gone for a more rounded approach.
  • Options
    @Stuart Sandler

    Stuart! Appreciate the thoughts and feedback man. Agree with all your points. That "r" especially has been giving me trouble. Will explore that some more for sure.

    @Simon Cozens
    Thanks for the eyeballs on this — Noticed that too! Must have been lost at a certain point but definitely bringing that back in this updated file. That squareness was dearly missed.

    The work continues!

  • Options
    Speaking of exuberance, I'd be tempted to be more expressive with the tail of the /L, too. Maybe it echoes the curve of the neighboring /o? And the /L could still be taller, to my eye. I wonder if the dot of the /i should be a little shorter.
  • Options
    The L needs more vigour generally and more weight in the lower right part, now it looks too shy besides its fellow footmen.
    The bottom parts of oo look too heavy.
    The o’s are too wide compared to the m.
    The i-dot is to be re-evaluated after you beefed up the L.
    There is something about the e, I wonder what it may be.
    The connection e_r lacks character.
    The r is too wide and the endstroke, maybe, a bit overdone. Its bobble (on top) could probably well go with more prominence.
    The right downstroke of the r is too light.
  • Options
    While I agree with some of the earlier comments, I think overall this is a very cool logotype!

    Since many people have been pointing at something off about the e, here's what I noticed. This script is characterized by very squarish rounds. Look for example at the bottom of o or the top of m. The bottom-right part of the e, where it moves into the connection towards the r, is quite smooth and lacks that squarishness. I'm not sure whether you should change that, but I guess trying can't hurt.
  • Options
    @Marc Oxborrow
    Thanks Marc! Appreciate the input very much! 
  • Options
    @Andreas Stötzner
    Cheers for the in-depth feedback on each character! I'll take this into consideration as I make the edits!
  • Options
    Thanks so much @Jasper de Waard ! Completely agree, I'm adding that squarish aspect to the bottom of the "e" for sure. Thanks for pointing that out
  • Options
    Nick CookeNick Cooke Posts: 183
    I'd make the top of the L taller and probably add a bit more interest. I can see it in my head but I can't find the words to describe it. Something like my example but fitting in with your design. Maybe extend the tail of the L a bit. The out stokes inside the o's don't match the squareness or angles of the rest. Add a bit of space between the o's. The out stroke if the e is much thicker than all the others. It could be thinner/squarer at the bottom then thicken up towards the top of the 'r', also move it a bit right away from the bowl of the 'e'. The out stroke of the 'r' could match the 'm' at the bottom then thicken out a bit.
  • Options
    Totally my unlettered opinion but I would say that the whole e-r connection in the rough sketch has an gawkyness that is actually quite pleasing and adds colour and interest. The latest draft is smooth and "consistent" - nice continuous curves! - that under normal circumstances would be the right way to go, but here feels really boring. Embrace the awkward.
Sign In or Register to comment.