Darren Beamen's new logo I design

[Brian SD]

This thread is fun

Shadows on logos are in my honest opinion not a good idea. And perhaps it is not a coincidence that there are no famous logos with shadow effects.

Yea, I agree. I've always learned to stay away from shadows on corporate identity because they are a "styled" thing and do not last as long as the institution itself. Look at General Electric, UPS, etc. they're incredibly simple, yet are iconic in their design and have lasted for decades. Although UPS changed their logo to that with a stupid gradient on it. It's hideous, the old one with the wrapped box was golden.

 

[Alexander Kabbaz]

(maxnharry) I think you owe him a .jpg of one of your shirts.

Done. Prefer a spread or Italian collar???

 

[Alexander Kabbaz]

I've always learned to stay away from shadows on corporate identity

You are correct and I mis-spoke. I meant a bit of a bevel, not a shadow ... especially for a logo which will be used primarily on the web. Chisel-hard to give it strength, not too deep to keep it subtle.

 

[newyorker]

Just for the record I am not a professional designer, although I have financed my wardrobe spending in college doing freelance work

Here's a little experiment. Ask yourself: a) Which one catches your attention immediately? b) Which one are you most likely to remember for a long time? c) Which one looks better (classier, more elegant)?

 

[Brian SD]

Just for the record I am not a professional designer, although I have financed my wardrobe spending in college doing freelance work

This is excellent. I am trying to do the same, but I have a tendency to find people who cannot afford to pay me even the amount that they pay to trademark my work that I did for them. Such is the constant issue of doing identities and stationery for small/start-up companies. I've done three full corporate identities and received payment for *drum roll* ----- zero. good portfolio material, however, as I am a designer.

 

[Alexander Kabbaz]

#3 obviously ... but that's a soft bevel and I prefer (as said above) a chisel-hard one.

 

[newyorker]

#3 obviously ... but that's a soft bevel and I prefer (as said above) a chisel-hard one.

Haha Alex.
(PS I'll reply to your sametime msg later)

You see why people like me (and probably BrianSD) would not do design as a fulltime career eventhough we're madly in love with it. We think we have terrific taste and understand the principles of good design well (and trust me, there are some -but not many- OBJECTIVE rules of good design). But clients don't always agree and it's hard to convince them that logo 1 is better than the rest - I mean, in the end of the day, what could you say to them? For me there is absolutely absolutely no question that the first logo is the best.

 

[newyorker]

Addendum: The person who designed the corporate identity and the logo for Sotheby's is a friend of mine. Look at it. It's simple, it's classy, it's to the point. When designing logos, more than anything else, one needs to focus on the core and the essence. Get the core and the essence right. This means the right font, the right spacing between the alphabets, the right color. Emphatetically, It is not about addings lots of goop.

 

[Alexander Kabbaz]

No. It is too weak. Has not got the strength to hold down any surface to which it is applied. It is too flat colorwise - no variation whatsoever to capture the eye. I am not speaking as a client, but as a designer. For with one exception (NYC's Madison Avenue B.I.D.) I have never not been paid for a logo design I did. And as to your addendum, the Sotheby's logo uses Gil Sans medium ... a catchy face in and of itself which contrasts nicely to the futura or helvetica below. Catchy Face + Typestyle Contrast = goop?

 

[newyorker]

Alex, I would never question your expertise as a shirtmaker but for the sake of discussion I honestly feel that your logo is incompatible with good design:

1) I am tempted to read just left to right "Alexander S Joelle M" which does not make sense 2) The words in the box have a grey shadow which make them very hard to read 3) The "& sons" appear in the middle out of no where It's a logo that in my opinion is notoriously hard to comprehend, and rather than convey a sense of refinement that should be associated with the superior expertise that you have, it looks like a logo of a drycleaner in Chinatown. But to be absolutely frank, you're so good at what you're do -- and I'm still so in love with the dark rose end-on-end shirt that was featured in the Departures magazine -- no one is going to care about your logo anyway.

BTW, can you please for my benefit post the scanned article from Departures? I can't find it on the forum anymore.

 

[jpeirpont]

Addendum: The person who designed the corporate identity and the logo for Sotheby's is a friend of mine. Look at it. It's simple, it's classy, it's to the point. When designing logos, more than anything else, one needs to focus on the core and the essence. Get the core and the essence right. This means the right font, the right spacing between the alphabets, the right color. Emphatetically, It is not about addings lots of goop.

I also like this logo. It is the type that could be posted everywhere without bothering you.

 

[lisapop]

I think the Sotheby's logo is exquisite in its simplicity and boldness.
Grayson

 

[newyorker]

I realize that it's not appropriate and rather rude for me to use the names of Darren Beaman or Alexander Kabbaz to discuss logo design. So I intend to not post anymore, at least not using their names. I appologize if this caused ill feelings, and assure you that all was done in a positive spirit.

 

[Alexander Kabbaz]

BTW, can you please for my benefit post the scanned article from Departures? I can't find it on the forum anymore.

Can't do that. Copyright thing, you know. And as for your last post, not rude not inappropriate at all. I agreed with your first take ... this was fun. And as for your analysis:

1) I am tempted to read just left to right "Alexander S Joelle M" which does not make sense 2) The words in the box have a grey shadow which make them very hard to read 3) The "& sons" appear in the middle out of no where

You are exactly correct. You are deriving everything from the logo which it was meant to convey ... except one thing. The Sons did not come from nowhere. We know exactly from whence they came. But, exactly as it appears in the logo, they did just sort of plop in right in the middle.

 

[newyorker]

Can't do that. Copyright thing, you know. And as for your last post, not rude not inappropriate at all. I agreed with your first take ... this was fun.

Alex, thanks for showing me kindness and consideration. I might not think that you are one of the best logo designers in the world, but I do think you are one of the best shirtmakers in the world. And I am more impressed with shirtmakers than logo designers