I'd kill the head serif on the i.

I second that.

Hi James,
Thanks. I tried that but somehow was afraid of losing that little serif :) However, I agree it looks cleaner.

You can loosen up the kerning a little bit or as terminal said, kill the head serif.

Jeo.

I read your post and was about to tell you to kill the serif on the "i" before seeing the replies. It's a 1000 times better without it in this situation. Also adjust the angle on the "r" to match that of the "i".

Don't be afraid to do what is right. :)

> Thanks. I tried that but somehow was afraid of losing that little serif

But that's what makes the difference between a logotype and just typesetting -- working the specific letter combination until it's right.

BTW, notice James left a little swing in the top of i in his sketch.

You're going to want to include that swing. It's sexy.

best regards,
daniel

It is :) It also fits optically.

It looks good.

Where do I send the bill!

This is a very nice wordmark. I love the fact that the letters are looking fairly regular, but when you look closer there are all kinds of nice details.

And I also think that the chopped i-serif works best.

Nice work!
You might look at the "u"/"s" combination too maybe.

Thanks all. I didn't consider u-s pair as a problem but after Nina mentioned it I made a small correction so the letters are not that close. I simply shortened the lower terminal (finial?) of 's' glyph:

- The top of the "t" is too rounded.
- I don't think the "p" needs to go that low.
- I'd leave a slightly greater gap between the words
for when the logo is set in one color (and no shading).

hhp

Hey don't change stuff just cause I said so. :-\
That said, to my eye the distance between the "u" and "s" seems more comfortable now. I'm not sure if I would have shortened the "s" like you did or rather sheared it at a different angle to click better with the "u". Because now I'm not sure the "s" isn't falling to the left ever so slightly?

And Hrant, good point about the gap between the words!

Don't worry altaira! I just test it to see how it works out, and only if I agree with a suggestion :) I made more versions of the “s” and the above seemed to look OK. Skewing the glyph so that the spacing was good enough looked as if the “s” was becoming regular in between italic letters. I'll show other options too and hope for more comments :)

Hrant, as for the “t” I don't know - I think it is consistent with other letters. Or did you refer to something else? I like this warm and brush-stroke-like character of the typeface and while I agree to correct kerning and other optical problems I would prefer to leave the letters untouched. The designer of the typeface clearly spent his time making sure all the characters belong to the same family.

As for the “p” I could agree but shouldn't “h” be shortened accordingly? If so, shouldn't the dot of the “i” be lowered too?

The name PrintHouse is written as one word in all company's communication, as opposed to other print houses out there.

Thanks.

> I would prefer to leave the letters untouched. The designer of the
> typeface clearly spent his time making sure all the characters
> belong to the same family.

1) Everybody makes mistakes.
2) That person was making a font, not a logo! Big difference. Some people even believe that leaving a font alone when making a logo is a sin of sorts.
3) You already modified the "i". And SKEWING?! :-) Plus you seem be open to modifying the vertical proportions, which affects a "font" (which like I said this no longer is anyway) massively.

Now, if you prefer it like that, leave it alone, sure.

> As for the “p” I could agree but shouldn’t “h” be shortened accordingly?
> If so, shouldn’t the dot of the “i” be lowered too?

Well, I'm looking at how this thing is using the space, as well as letter confusability issues. Unless you remove the tittle (which I wouldn't advise) the ascender space is being used anyway and the "h" should take advantage, especially since its ascender keeps it from looking like an "n"; in contrast the "p" is sort of wasting the space below, and a short descender doesn't make it look like any other letter. BTW, even looking at this as a font I'd say the descender space is too much (because of letter frequencies in real text). In my book making the descenders exactly the same length as the ascenders (which looks like might be the case here) is a Modernist simpletonism.

> The name PrintHouse is written as one word

Ah, but look at the useful capitalization (which you're not using). If they like it all-lc they might still be missing the fact that decipherability might suffer -if only slightly- when it's output in one color with no shading. But I'm really only talking about the absolute thinnest of wordspaces.

hhp

Two other things:
1) I'd try out making the bar of the "e" flat.
2) In "CORPORATION" the "RP" is a bit tight.

hhp