I think it's a good concept! In my opinion you could go much further to emphasize the "morph." I'd like to see this with a swash or two; maybe try dividing the word more - "Simpl" and "icious." Or even some italics or calligraphy for the "icious" side. Do it up, why not!

/2 cents

Thank you for your feedback.

Do you think a morph from grotesk regular to antique italic (or some calligraphy) is possible? Well, I kind of like this idea a lot, but I am not sure whether this works or not.

I have uploaded a bigger version, so you are able to see the characters in more detail.

click here to see some more versions.

The morph from individual letter to individual letter is quite subtle causing some slightly awkward letterforms.

What if the transition was a little more variegated...perhaps each syllable gets a transformation instead of each letter (or even each word part simp|licious).

But...I like what you have. Not sure if my suggestion would be an improvement or not...but maybes something to try for comparison.

I like the idea of splitting the word like that. It would be much more abrupt than the slow transition, but I think it will make the concept easier to grasp. Maybe even do a literal split like aluminum has in his comment. I keep seeing a swash coming from the bottom of the "c" and going forward; I'd mock something up if I had a minute, maybe later on today, don't wanna step on anyone's creative toes either.

Thank you very much for your critiques.

to aluminum: I agree on your opinion about awkward letterforms. This subtle way of "morphing" the letters creates some diffusions, especially the "plici"-part has it's weaknesses. The reason why I decided to "morph" from letter to letter was that I wanted the finished logo to represent the word "simplicious" as a unit and not as two seperated parts. Do you think an abrupt change of the typeface after (or at) the "l" -- maybe by creating an unique "l" which keeps the two parts together -- and leaving the rest of the characters in their original typeface would work?

to Coe: I absolutely second you. An abrupt change of the typeface would definitely make it easier to grasp the concept. I am really looking forward to seeing a mockup ... especially because of the swash you've mentioned.

Here's a quick and dirty mock-up (gotta keep an eye on the printers!). Obviously a better execution would help, but I think the concept is there. Maybe the c-swash works, maybe it doesn't (looking at it, I still think it could), but perhaps it'll give you an idea for a different one! Also, with such a change in style the bar probably isn't necessary.

I would disagree with the direction of the abrupt typeface change. Based on your brief, this doesn't reinforce the name nor the concept of the company. I believe the concept can be done in it's original form, but maybe the typefaces are not the right fit for this particular process. I'd explore sticking to two of the same type of typefaces, instead of going from a sans-serif to a serif. You might want to play with the idea of taking one serif, and then create a metamorphosis into a more exaggerated serif typeface. I think that might help with the reduction of awkward letterforms.

to coe: Thank you for your work. I appreciate it a lot. I still kind of like your idea with the swash and so I also tried to mock something up. But actually I am not sure about it either. In my opinion the bar causes a too strong separation of the two parts but anyway, thank you a lot.

to imavery: Thank you for your constructive feedback. What would you think of starting the word in a modern serif and transform it into some kind of latin serif? Might that do the trick? Maybe end the word in a script typeface?

Yeah, perhaps put the whole swash thing on the backburner...I'm looking at both our mock-ups and I think we're both getting too much of a negative space between the "c" and the "i." I like the idea of a more exaggerated face. There have been some really awesome calligraphic open type fonts recently that feature lots of alternative glyphs and look just beautiful. Check this link

http://new.typographica.org/2009/features/our-favorite-typefaces-of-2008/

to see a couple of em. Also, some of the other fonts have really awesome italics that might be closer to what you're looking for. Again, these are just examples to get the ideas flowing.

Thank you a lot for your feedback and proposals.

I agree on awkward letterforms as well as on too subtle to grasp and so I decided to think about the whole concept again. I once wrote that I like the morph because it represents the word "simplicious" as a whole without seperating the two parts of it too much. But after some kind of an "internal monologue" I realized that the word "simplicious" will alwyas be presented as a whole because of the fact it's the word that's written down and so the "morph" is too unspectacular too make an obvious distinction of the two parts.

That's about the time where all your feedback (also from other forums) came in and offered me some kind of playground to experiment with the concept.

The latest version again consists of Univers for the "simple"-part but this time I choose the 65 typeface. For the "delicious"-part I've tried some very different typefaces. I ended up with Bauer Bodoni which I'm very comfortable with. The italic typeface has such a nice rounding which -- in my opinion -- transports the content very well. This combination of a bold typeface and a regular italic one creates a nice distinction concerning the grey value which I really like a lot.

All in all the new version is more "logo" than the first one. It still works at very small sizes which was the major problem of the first version because of it's subtlety which was gone as soon as it was smaller. It only looked awkward because of the customized letters and their quality of execution which was far away from the quality of the original letterforms of Univers and Sabon.

I hope you can give me such a constructive feedback on the new version as you have given me on the old one. I am really looking forward to your professional critiques.

p.s. I hope I got the kerning right. I'm not too sure about the "ci"
and the "ou" but maybe you can help me with this.

I'm liking how this is looking! I think the change to Univers 65 was a smart move. Regarding the kerning, I think maybe the "ci" and "ou" might look sort of wide because the other letters are connected. If there is a subtle way to connect that "c" to the "i" and the "o" to the "u," perhaps that would help.

I think that there's maybe chance to customize the finial of the "c" to make it look like the one of the following "i". But nevertheless I would have to reduce the distance which would make them a little too tight.

Annoyingly my laptop has just stoped working after the post and I'm a very infrequent "safer" which means that I have to rekern it. Nevertheless I will give it a try. Thank you a lot.

Definitely on the right track now. Looks good!

latest step is looking LOADS better

----------
Paul Ducco
Graphic Designer - Melbourne

Yes, it would be even cooler if you find a way to link the letters of licious.
Anyway it's MUCH MUCH better, you're on the right way.

I wonder if you could bring the i-dots closer to the same height without making them look too out-of-whack for either font.

It looks better, but now it reads "Simp. Licious."

I'd break it after 'simpl' so people don't try and figure out what a simp is.

Why would you try to put "ci" and "ou" together. Rather put some more space to other pairs and you're out of deep waters.

The last iteration looks much more professional than any of the previous ones...

The first one reminded me of the first step of this one:
advertus
___________
Robert Koritnik