signs101 logo

[Speedsterbeast]

What? No Comic Sans?

 

[Jillbeans]

I like this one better.

 

[Colin]

The one I'm presently looking at is ok, but seems slanted a bit too much.

 

[Clear Choice]

You know, reading this thread now is futile.
I feel left out! I only see the logo version now
appearing at the top and haven't a clue what all the
comments are about.


I think it's time for "Occupy Signs 101" because many
of us were disenfranchised.

Signs...we need some signs....anyone know where we
can get some?

 

[ProWraps]

im still wondering the same thing ive always wondered.... what is the black line on the top? i thought it was a bad render or something on the old logo, but i see its still there.

 

[grafixemporium]

I'm honestly not intending to be offensive. Just offering my professional criticism. Choose any script font you want. It won't help. The logo is antiquated and a tad amateurish. The space between "signs" and "101" makes no sense to me. The two highly stylized fonts don't go together at all. The paint brushes to the left of the logo don't really fit the times. The black bar across the top of the logo image looks like an accident. It makes the whole thing appear like a forums template that a beginner stuck a logo in.

Fred, you have a wealth of talent here. All you have to do is say the word and I'm sure we would all drop everything to contribute ideas.

 

[ProWraps]

Fred, you have a wealth of talent here. All you have to do is say the word and I'm sure we would all drop everything to contribute ideas.

glad you said it. i tryed to do a signs101 logo/skin contest years ago. i was promptly shot down.


http://signs101.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36801&highlight=logo+contest

man i had to dig deep to find that one. looks like my first post echoed your statement above.

i guess my enthusiasm at the time wasnt echoed by many. oh well. like it was posted many times on that thread. if it aint broke, dont fix it

but hey, we'll always have harvest! and brush scripts, and paintbrushes and black bars across the top. i kid, i kid.

 

[Fred Weiss]

im still wondering the same thing ive always wondered.... what is the black line on the top? i thought it was a bad render or something on the old logo, but i see its still there.

I'm honestly not sure why Chuck Davis put it there. My opinion is that it helps to give it a certain depth that isn't there without it. I tried it without it when I constructed the new file and it looked, IMHO, better with it as it is displayed than without it.

 

[ProWraps]

i dont know the backstory... was chuck davis the original owner?

 

[Fred Weiss]

I'm honestly not intending to be offensive. Just offering my professional criticism. Choose any script font you want. It won't help. The logo is antiquated and a tad amateurish. The space between "signs" and "101" makes no sense to me. The two highly stylized fonts don't go together at all. The paint brushes to the left of the logo don't really fit the times. The black bar across the top of the logo image looks like an accident. It makes the whole thing appear like a forums template that a beginner stuck a logo in.

Fred, you have a wealth of talent here. All you have to do is say the word and I'm sure we would all drop everything to contribute ideas.

I don't take your comments as anything other than sincere and well intentioned, so let me explain myself.

The logo was designed by Chuck Davis of Letterhead Fonts before I ever got involved here. The only copy of it is a 79 x 468 jpg file. Chuck did not save or pass along any of his work product. The dark turquoise background is part of the image and the resolution is so low that separating it out wasn't, IMO, an option. That same blue background has dictated the color scheme of Signs 101 for the eight years that I've run it.

Recently, I decided to introduce some additional, member selectable color schemes. That then required a better file ... one that supported transparency, to be created. That was the goal, to have a technically better and more usable version of the Signs 101 logo ... not creating a new logo design. So, not owning a license for Stanford Script and not liking it well enough to buy one, I elected to substitute a different but similar font to achieve a cleaner and easier to modify version.

I was happy with my first choice, A&S Valentino Script, but a few members differed, so several alternative versions were created and put on display until some satisfactory feedback was received.

Whether or not the brushes reflect realistic on sign making in 2011 or whether or not the font choices are suited to your taste is a whole other discussion. My effort was a makeover, not a redesign. I'm sure a discussion of a redesign of the Signs 101 logo would bring lots of posts and I am not opposed to that. But that is something for another thread, not this one.

 

[Fred Weiss]

i dont know the backstory... was chuck davis the original owner?

No. Chuck Davis is a font designer and the main guy at Letterhead Fonts. He designed the Signs 101 logo and also contributed this article back in 2003. My understanding is that Eli Browning, the founder of Signs 101, gave Letterhead Fonts some advertising exposure in return.

 

[ProWraps]

im sure everyone here would love a blurb somewhere about the history of the site. its awesome to say the least.

 

[Dentafrice]

im still wondering the same thing ive always wondered.... what is the black line on the top? i thought it was a bad render or something on the old logo, but i see its still there.

I didn't get the black line until now either I guess, in my opinion the logo looks pretty neat but the black line does look like a vBulletin template.

 

[Fred Weiss]

im sure everyone here would love a blurb somewhere about the history of the site. its awesome to say the least.

The search feature is your friend.

 

[ProWraps]

friends. i dont need no stinking friends.

 

[Fred Weiss]

friends. i dont need no stinking friends.

Clicky