Wordmark critique
Hi, all. I’d really appreciate your critiques of this wordmark I’m working on. It’s Helvetica Neue with the l borrowed from DIN Mittelschrift and slightly altered, and a single story a built from Helvetica’s d.
Thanks in advance.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| clashmore-typo.png | 6.5 KB |




























3.Aug.2008 5.29pm
Let me ask you this, why would you want the Clashmore word mark as opposed to the avatar you have. It, the avatar, is much more interesting, individualistic and thought provoking than a series of san serif letters strung together with no distinguishing marks other than some of them are altered characters.
Michael
3.Aug.2008 5.35pm
Michael/typerror: Are you looking for a more complex answer than “they still make fun of Prince for changing his name to a symbol”?
3.Aug.2008 6.09pm
The wordmark and the monogram in my avatar are actually for two separate things. Also, the wordmark is only part of the logo. I’m looking to get some thoughts on how it could be improved from a technical standpoint.
3.Aug.2008 6.42pm
Prince was a joke to begin with. I assume Robert is looking for a mark with some distinction. I rather like his avatar and yours Eileen!
The Clashmore is JUST fine.
Michael
3.Aug.2008 6.54pm
And I would not make fun of either of your symbols.
Eileen, does your avatar/logo appear on your printed ephemera? IF so/not why/not. Perfectly lovely, as is Robert’s.
If it is inappropriate, for purpose, then it should be changed. I was under the assumption that Robert’s avatar could have been his logo and thought he did not need to change a thing.
Michael
3.Aug.2008 7.00pm
Thanks, Michael. I really appreciate your insight.
3.Aug.2008 7.17pm
No problem Robert. I know a nice mark when I like one. : )
And I liked yours.
I am just soooooo done with the sans as the definitive modifier in the identity environment.
Unexpressive at best. Unless it is expressive.
And I would not appreciate me too much cause I am about to catch a ration for this remark.
Michael
3.Aug.2008 8.48pm
I agree with you, Michael, on both the aviatar comments and also on sans. Clashmore’s aviatar is excellent. An aviator is an important part of a typophile’s clothing. My own aviatar is crap, but it will do until I get around to doing something better and more appropriate.
3.Aug.2008 9.22pm
Graham, O my, so good to see your thoughts again. I lost your addie after our last contact.
Now you guys want to see some talent see this guy.
typerror@aol.com
Send me your info and I promise I will have the package off to you in less than 1 hour, provided the post office is open.
As to your avatar, being the illustrator you are I am sure it will be brilliant, no magnificent. But what you have is DISTINCTIVE as is Robert’s. It is so good to see your name. You were a voice of reason on the calligraphic site.
Michael
3.Aug.2008 9.46pm
Michael, I have not noticed your name on typophiles before!?
So good to hear from you. We will have to bring the voice of a calligrapher’s hand to the world of the bezier.
Best wishes, Graham
3.Aug.2008 11.00pm
Graham
Our predecessors have paved the way but many have missed the path.
I am not sure they are ready for the tour de ink. No pumped sans, just expressive nuance. Something that is sadly lacking in a lot of contemporary design.
Let us start a new thread in the a.m. Your a.m. Oh hell, you are on the down side of the work day! Ok, I will start it and you and some others can pick it up. I will nudge them. I got dirt on the calligraphers. That will be the title! OK?
Maybe Miss Tiffany will give us our own little corner. “Calligraphy, why I have black fingers!”
Michael