The original post and the twenty-odd replies are, all of them and especially those attempting alternatives, confirming instances of why sign people should generally refrain from attempting to do logos. Sign people do signs and a logo is supposed to be a symbol, an icon, preferably one that's recognizable without having to be able to read.
When a sign maker attempts a logo it invariably ends up looking like a little sign. More often than not, not a very good one. I have an associate and good friend that's a designer of catalogs, product packaging, brochures, etc. Every now and then he lays out a sign for a client just as every now and then something I do encroaches on his bailiwick. For his sign efforts I invariably tell him that it's supposed to be a sign, not a magazine ad. And, conversely, when it's his turn he'll tell me it's supposed to be a brochure [or whatever], not a sign.
To quote Inspector Harry Callahan: "A man's got to know his limitations." [Magnum Force, 1973]. A logo done by an otherwise competent sign maker usually turns out to be somewhat less than an optimum solution.
I needed this input because in the shop here I'm surrounded by "yes men". "yes! That's awesome" blah blah. haha
