Personal logo ready for crit

Hello everyone,

My first Typophile crit: So I'm finally at the point to be designing a personal logo, stationery, etc. I'll be graduating in May (finally!), and am ready to go out into the "real world." I've been working on this mark for a while now, and I feel it's at a point I'm happy with, so I'm ready for your insightful critiques to improve it further! I'm going to start soon on my name placement, typography, etc., but I wanted to nail this mark first.

My design style tends to be, in a few words, complex, clean and somewhat delicate/elegant, but not really feminine (unless the job calls for femininity). I also have a slightly unhealthy obsession with typography (as opposed to other design elements). I hope that makes sense; let me know if it doesn't...

Thanks in advance for the help!

1 Nov 2007 — 11:24am
Logos / Corporate ID Design

It is very lovely.

If anything I'd suggest taking the sharpest points and dulling them down ever-so-slightly.

It looks like a contemporary printer's flower. These things lend themselves really well to great patterns.

Is there meaning in this icon? I'm trying to make out some letterforms in there. I sort of see a C but mostly see lowercase g's.

Tiffany, Thank you! How's this? I'm not really sure which way to tilt it...

Jon, uh-oh, I can't believe I didn't see the g's before! Thanks for pointing that out. It is constructed solely out of lowercase italic c's and a modified lc italic f (my initials). I hope the g's aren't too strong ...

P.S. I know, I'm really excited about the patterns this will make.

It looks really, really nice! As Jon, I only see g's, but unless you really want to emphasize it as your initials, it's really pleasing to the eye as a mark.

I really like it. Great job. At first glance, I wanted to recognize something in there, but I don't think the viewer needs to recognize any single letter. That's not necessarily the point. It's nice to see a logo someone has clearly put time into refining.

Something beautiful and something ugly almost always works.

So I brought up the "g" thing in class, and it was a general consensus that that should be fixed, if possible. Here's my solution, which I think has much nicer Gestalt, anyway. I agree that the letters don't need to be über-recognizable, but I'd like to keep some nuances of them, if possible. Thoughts on this one? Better? Worse? Ways to improve it? Is the center too strong of a focal point (I kinda feel like it detracts from the nice flow of the outside of the shape...)? I know I'm into the final tweaking, but any suggestions are helpful.


I think the revision is beautiful and helps with the 'g' problem. The 'g' isn't as dominate as in the previous versions.


I agree. This is in did VERY beautiful.

All I'd change is the thinness of the G descender, because it becomes too thin too early. And getting a bit to close to the top of next C.

Really nice, Cassie. Show us the stationery when you have it.

My advice would be to promote those strokes which form the "c" and the "f", and reduce the thickness of the other ornamental strokes.

>My advice would be to promote those strokes which form the “c” and the “f”, and reduce the thickness of the other ornamental strokes.

Yeah, I've been playing around with that a little ... I think that's the last thing that's still kinda bothering me. Thanks for the suggestion, I'll keep working on it.

hi Cassie,

What is the mark for? Is it for personal stationery? To help you get a job or freelance work?

What is the concept?

It does look like a printer's ornament, and it's not clear to me what the communicative value is for you.


Yes, it is for personal stationery. It is representative of my general style of work, and it is constructed out of letterforms—a nod toward my love of type. It is also my initials. And it shows type more as image than as type, which is a great interest of mine.
As it is a personal mark, it is very difficult for me to explain its communicative value as I would any other mark. I guess the above is as good as I can do, without revisiting all the "who is the brand called Cassie" stuff I figured out before starting on this mark... it's so true that designing something for yourself is the hardest thing to do as a designer.

Okay, how's this?

Among a few other things, I added some space between the 'f' finial and the 'c', and I enlarged that center point, then tilted the whole thing a little to rebalance it.

I don't want to spoil anything, and I agree that the mark has been improved from the first sample posted here, but the problem I see with symmetrically constructed marks made from 4 identical parts is that they all look a little swastika™…


I know, I encountered that problem a lot during my initial sketches. The letter 'f' does not lend itself well to what I'm trying to do. I understand and appreciate your concern, but I don't think this says "swastika" at all. However, I don't want to ignore the possibility that some may see that, as it is something to be seriously considered.

Does anyone else see this? Is it something that should be addressed? or is the mark far enough from that to hold any sort of connotation? That would be, of course, the last thing I would want any logo (especially my personal mark) to imply...

Hi Cassie,

I think that your mark has a beautiful elegance to it. I personally cannot see any resemblance to a swastika worth worrying about. Hope it goes well for you.

Well, I think it is indeed something to consider. It doesn't look like a swastika, but somehow it did come to mind when I saw the sign.
I don't know, maybe you can - with some changes - make it more resemble a flower-like shape?

No no no...the softness and roundness of the logo eliminates any worries. You've got a beautiful little floral mark here, Cassie. Go with it.

I think the ornamental strokes which have nothing to do in forming "c" and "f" are still much too strong.

Hi everyone,

Stationery is up for crit here:

Thanks for all the feedback, by the way, it was very helpful!


ahhaah no it dosnt look like a swastika. It looks great, much improved on the originals.

it has more in common with Celtic art than swasikas IMHO

View original article