I like version ’A’ but worry that the whole logo will disappear at small sizes. The size relationship of the type to the mark is also an issue for dynamic sizes.

What about a variation on the first one where you use color instead of outlines to differentiate the k from the m? Something like two values of the same color?

I like the first one too, but it does have a very strong ’origami’ connotation attached to it. Not sure if you want it and what it implies.

Just a couple I forgot to include. Just more variations on the M concept. Some very abstract.

@dave, yeah you’re probably right but I don’t imagine that I’d use that symbol much smaller than it is in that image. As for the type, none of that is finalized, I just wanted to show placement.

@graphicurious, I will definitely try that. I just want to make sure it works in 1 colour first.

@epsilicon, yeah no not really... seeing as I can’t do origami at all.

Interesting to see A is getting all the attention though.

Actually B is quite good too I think. Purely from a visual balance and being easy to recognize perspective. The C is close, but merging M and N is one thing too much for the mark IMO. The V-I treatment is already distinctive enough.

Is there any potential in the M marks at all?

For instance I rather like F as a mark.

F is my favorite. Simplest, and has most character.

penn

I like versions E and F very much as well, melo. Seems as though it would work well in many sizes, very strong, and I like that it emphasizes your distinctive last name. That’s 2 cents from a Typophile noob. First post!

@Penn. Thanks. Anything you might change or add? I have the little copyright glyph in there but I’m not quite sure what the restrictions are on that and if I’m even able to use that...

@coe, thanks for taking the time to offer some feedback and welcome to typophile!

I was initially attracted to “F” the most, to be honest. Though I think there is potential in “A” if you play with the mark a bit more (fill colors).

“F” is a great option, and I like the first one you posted in this thread, you’ve turned it from a scripty “m” into a spiral. A spiral can mean a lot for design. “motion” “moving” “progress” “progress bar” “controlled creativity”, etc.

I think A is great. Although the M seems to glare out at you, and a K is recognizable as well—BUT there’s nothing to tell us that it is in fact KM not KA. Anyone else see the italic A?

F is gorgeous. I guess I don’t see too many anagrams that are just one letter. I think its rather useful to have a mark recognizable from another orientation. I also get the read that these are waves—the creative flow.

@evanbrog Yeah I can definitely understand people seeing an A in there.

Thanks for the feedback everyone. I’m going to now play with F and incorporate the type. I’m thinking a very clean sans-serif.

latest version with name.

This logo has, I think, too much resemblance to the already existing (and somewhat known) hosting service - http://www.mosso.com/

But looking at their site right now it looks like they are deprecating it’s use so you may actually be okay... At any rate don’t put this latest effort into a rounded triangular shape. Just a heads-up.

@melo: Very nice. FWIW the mark has grown on me. It is simplistic, beautiful and it is memorable. A couple of things though that stick out in my opinion. One, the angle of mark doesn’t match the angle of the italics. Two, second line is overpowering the top one. I think smaller type in the second line might work quite a bit better. I’d also consider setting both lines in italic or dropping the italics altogether.

@bemerx25: This one ? Even if they were not deprecating its use, it is pretty far from Kevin’s version. As in “impossible to mistake one for another”. Three vertical strokes at a slight angle is a very generic pattern, so it all comes down to the styling and decoration. And these are different between these two logos.

@bemerx25, thanks for the heads-up. I’m always worried something I’ve been working on turns out to be to similar to an already existing work. It’s happen to me before.

@epsilicon, thanks again for all your feedback. I’ll take your advice as I continue to refine this.

Great results so far. However, you mentioned earlier that you did not want to brand yourself as a company, but in my opinion the copyright glyph seems to imply a sort of corporation attitude to the logo. You may want to consider revising that, otherwise all other aspects of the graphic are shaping up fine.

@CW ...very good point.

reminds me of

http://cargo.superfamous.com/media/100/20.gif

on http://cargo.superfamous.com/#100