I feel that "a" is stronger because it is bolder, which is something I think would help in print work. I don't like one of the letters touching and the rest not touching. I would like to see more touching or none touching.



_Tom

Thank you, Tom, i think i understand your thoughts..

I also like your slightly changed version..
( But, the 'f' now somehow seems more like a 't' to me.. )

I agree with Tom that I would prefer to see
all the types "untouched" or if touched,
at least one more combination.
But as it concerns serif or sans serif
I would recommend to give more boldness
to the serif version before you judge which.
I think that you will have a very intersting
result if you make the contrast a lot more,
plus I would see it in a more condensed version
and more tight spacing.

As for the "f" Tom suggets, I think is legible.

christos

PS. Happy Birthday David!

Thanks a lot for your inputs and thoughts..

I also thought about some kind of 'medium
weight' for the serif version.. Maybe i will
try and play some more with it and post the
results later on..

( And thanks for the Birthday wishes..

David,

I like tom's edit. I still see an F quite easily. I would take Sans over serif as well

my 2cents

Slightly changed, and hopefully improved, serif version.:


( Thanks again for your comments and inputs, i am currently thinking about using both of them.. )

I like the sans serif better, and even that is perhaps a bit too playful for my taste ;-) With the new version, the f looks too small comaptes to the

David,

The (r) and the (m) seem too large/wide in comparison with the other characters. I'm sure it is a spacing issue. The open areas of those letters are larger than what you've left for the (s). The (o) seems to work in comparison to the (r) and the (m), but still the (f) and the (s) ... As Tom demonstrated, the (f) and (o) should perhaps not touch. and then add space in between the (sos). The arm of the (r) seems too large. The (f) seems too low, it is crowding the (o), and now that I notice this, maybe the (s) is crowding the (m)?

Two more thoughts. (1) What if the serifs were more slab like? (2) What if you add more contrast?

I think I do prefer the sans, but I can see potential in the serif.

hi all,

i'm happy to have found this really fine discussion board! i hopy my english is good enough to express myself on a typo forum - i don't know most of the numerous technical terms, i'm afraid.

on the topic i'd like to say:

1. like Tom Cannon (et. al.), i find the serif version too light for a logo and a bit to "sweet" (but, like Tiffany, i think there may be room for improvements).

1.1. while the spacing in the first serif version seems a bit to loose around the "rm"...

1.2. ...the second serif version looks a bit to narrow around the "ml" to me.

2. like HD Schellnack, i find the sans serif version a bit too playful. the sort of diagonally crossed out "o", the angled lower ends of the stems of the "r" and "m" and the peaks at the upper left side of the "r" and "m" (i don't know a better word) are too much and, in parts, not at all necessary, IMO. that's why i played around with tho logo for some minutes and came up with this "cleaned up" version, which i think i like better:



what i've done:

a. i cut off the stems of the "r" and "m" both on their lower and upper end
b. i took over Tom Cannon's "f" (which is easily recognized as an "f", IMO, but has more room too breathe)
c. i changed the spacing a bit (narrower around the "orml")

additional thoughts:

d. the letters should be heavier (i haven't changed that)
f. if you decide to keep the crossed out "o" for reasons of originality, i'd rather cross it vertically instead of diagonally (i tried that). either way, the "o" would become too light, i guess.

regards
peter

As i am currently a bit busy.:
Again, thanks a lot, for all your thougths,
hints, 'cleaned up versions' and your help..
( I am very thankful for your inputs and
constructive criticism.. )

( I am still thinking, scribbling and working
on these logotypes.. )

Thank god, theres typophile..

i sure would like to see the final result.

Nice Logo David ;)

David - I was just at your site the other day and admired
the logo. No need to change it. Tom's revision works well.
I still see the 'f'.

And Happy Birthday!