at first glance, it's a nice start. My personal opinion, and someone with greater knowledge cam come along and correct me later, is the A bar weight seems to be going in the wrong direction. It would seem to me that the left should be thicker as it's the start of the stroke and therefore more ink would gather there. The tail on the _u_ pulls away too far up and out for my liking. I haven't made up my mind on the _th_ combination and the counter in the second _e_ seems larger than in the first.

Overall though I quite like it. I hope you get more insightful feedback.
Cheers!

Looks a bit loose overall. Try "tracking" everything in. I agree with the rest of what jselig said.

Just for comparison have a look at Brody or similar. The stress on the e is wrong, th should probably join from the bottom of the t's vertical to the top of the h rather than from the bar. Generally the letters seem to get lighter as the word goes on, adjusting the kerning should answer some of that. I would increase the x-height of the r to bring the vertical to the same height as the others, the 'or' ligature is too light. The A's uprights are a little bowed and have a start-of-the-stroke which isn't reflected in the other characters. I would also look at more horizontal bars on the t, presently it gives the feeling that the logo should raise up on the left, something that is exacerbated by the low stroke on the A.
Tim

Thanks a lot for the response. It's great advise. I'll work a little more on it and post an update soon.

I really, really like it. Very nice. Even as it is now it would already make for a nice lettering logotype.

( The only things that would slightly bother me may be the bow / top loop of the 'h' and the 'or' combination. I think the 'problem' with the 'or' may be that it may seem / appear too thin, compared to the other connections. And the connection and 'loops' could be slightly 'smoother' as well. And something bugs me about the first 'e' but I cant really define what that may be. )

Dav