Oh sorry, the g's are different.
-Todd

Todd - Kudos for crafting something special for this craft-related job.

A few things you might look at:

* the connectors coming off the u, d and l seem too different from each other. The 'itti' works nicely because the connectors are uniform.

* You might omit the connection between the 'p' and the 'i' and also consider omitting the connector between the d and l.

* the g on the middle design is sweet, but the other g fits in better.

* You might look at the inconsistent height of the ascenders on the 'ddl'

* if your ascenders, descenders looped, it might look more...more homespun.

* The initial cap 'C' looks too large in relation to the 'K'

* Can any knitting tools be incorporated...can the descenders become loose thread?

hope this helps. good luck.

a few fonts that might work if the client suggests revisions -- P22 has a Needlepoint font, Dave Bastian has a font called Noodle Script, and My Fonts sells Coquette by Mark Simonson.


bj

This gives me alot of new ideas. Ive been looking at this a while with old eyes, so this helps. thanks bj.
-Todd

lower case "g"in green version is nice

Sorry, this isn't specific, but your font seems too mechanical for me. I see a cutesey handwriting font being more fluid, with no harshness to it.

I guess since this is a logo for a website, I was going for cutesey, with a dab of tech. Which ended up making it a little more vertical/rigid than fluid.

Yeah, I am going to tweak this logo a bit after the holiday here and post some new versions. Thanks for the feedback everyone.

I think the type choice is to thin and doesn't feel like knitting. I think of fat yarn and country style. tiny threads sticking out of a thick line...Something that is soft and cuddly.
so a typeface that has some weight

It took me a while to get back to this logo, but by sorting and absorbing
all the comments above Ive come up with these three variations. Its actually
more of a progression.
The first one: is similar to the originals except thicker, more yarn-like,
and I removed the connector on the p. The second: I started to make the
connectors and shape of the n's and u more uniform while leaving the varying
heights of the d's and l alone. I also added some breathing room. Third: I
just finished making the connectors and heights more uniform. What do you
think? Todd

The thicker style looks a lot better and taking the connector off the p looks nice as well.

I was liking the uneven ascenders on the d and l -- have you tried making the t's uneven? Crossing the t's at a slant if you do might help it not look so rigid/techy

For this logo I do like the uneven ascenders a tiny bit better. It makes look more hand crafted.
I havent tried making the t's uneven, Ill give it a go to see how it looks.

The differing ascender lengths gave it a sort of crafted naivet

I like the consistent connectors of the bottom with the uneven ascenders.

Thanks for the comments everyone.
I see now that the first stroke of the u looks a bit too much like its owned by the C. But I dont want to detatch it, i like it connected. Im going to take a look and see how other script fonts finish their C's.
Ill work on trying out some variations on the l and tt. Ill post the results. Keep m coming though.