Revising old company logo
Hi all,
First post, but been a reader for a long time.
I’m updating a client’s logo and ran into a snag. The logotype basically hasn’t changed since 1975, we just updated the bug. However, the owner of this company just through a curve-ball and asked the we replace the ” curved y” with a “normal slanted y”.
Of course this drove me nuts, I thought their original styling was good, why mess with it? Especially at this point - we’ve already jumped into laying out new web and print materials. Anyway, I re-created the y, but it just doesn’t look right to me. Also, is the kerning OK? I was considering doing this and a “small” version with more character spacing.
I’m a graphic designer - just picking up what little I know about type here and in magazines / tutorials. I have thick skin though, so fire away. Any and all suggestions for the “y” as well as the rest of the type and logo would be appreciated.
Thanks for your input!
Daniel Peterson
Artesian Design Group
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| KellyPipe_1.pdf | 236.43 KB |
30.Nov.2007 10.29am
I think it loses a bit of its personality, but it does give it perhaps a slightly updated look. What if you slant the left side of the p as well. Both with the new y and the old y. that might tie the whole thing together.
All that said, I’m not sure you really need the bug...at least not used at the same time with the logotype. The logotype seems sufficiently unique to stand on its own.
30.Nov.2007 11.25am
I agree with aluminum about not needing the bug. logotype really has a unique presence and style. slanting the ’y’ and ’p’ might also create a sense of moving forward/progress etc. currently i don’t like the space created by the slanted ’y’ next to the ’p’. good luck.
1.Dec.2007 4.57am
You may also want to rework the ’y’ a little; it looks a bit heavy towards the middle.
3.Dec.2007 10.36am
Arun,
What you pointed out is particularly what I was worried about. However, I don’t know the right way to fix the heaviness without breaking any type rules or making it look disproportionate. Any suggestions on how to make the ’y’ less heavy while still keeping the proportions?
Right now, the ’y’ has the same thickness as the other stems.
Thanks for the replies so far.
Daniel Peterson
Artesian Design Group
4.Dec.2007 11.33am
OK, I’ve thinned down the ’y’ a bit and created a couple alternates.
Let me know what you think.
Daniel Peterson
Artesian Design Group
4.Dec.2007 11.59am
You could use the method of Melior
http://www.myfonts.com/search?search%5Btext%5D=melior
or try bringing the apex of the y counter down, or curving the stem and in the process narrowing it. Although the stems don’t have to be the same weight it isn’t a monoline style.
Tim
EDIT: we cross-posted your curved y is working far better.
4.Dec.2007 12.34pm
I agree. Alternate ’y’ number 1 fits the overall style of the logo much better than any of the other options.
- Lex
7.Dec.2007 2.48pm
For optical correction it’s nearly impossible to tell in a gif at this size.
However, your e’s look like they have issues:
The thickness of the top horizontal and the crossbar look reversed. The crossbar needs to be thinner and the top thicker. The counter of the e should start roughtly in the same place as the counter of the p. So just lower the counter a bit to start with and then cheat it if you have to. And the overbite is a little severe.
Also, on the curved-tail y version: consider relating the bottom counter of the e and the counter between the tail and body. Probably need to shrink the x-height a bit and increase the descenders a hear too.
If you do go with the diagonal y, you’ll want to make the left side slightly thicker than the right side. That way they will look even. And drop the crotch a little bit (or cheat it with a curved crotch if you prefer).
You could also try the diagonal y with a curved tail that echos the e. But my guess is that won’t work.
Would they consider changing their name to Kellipipe? :-)