Pretty awesome start and it looks great on that background!
I think this just needs a few minor tweaks. I would tighten the loop of the "j", bring the horizontal stroke further down and keep the stem more vertical. With those changes you might even have to add a stem to what looks like an "n".
The typeface used on "Design Studio" and "Janmense" doesn't really compliment the custom script. I would try experimenting a little more with that.
I disagree with @ChristopherBurton, I think the script is perfect the way it is. If you make the 'j' look anymore like a 'j', the 'm' will look even more like an 'n'. It is very simple and the scribble works for a creative professional, especially if your name always accompanies it.
I do agree with Chris about the typeface of Design Studio and Janmense. The sharp edges are a complete contrast to the softness of the scribble. This causes tension. If that is what you wanted then great. Otherwise, I think something with flat serifs and consistent strokes would compliment it better.
@Schmotty Scribble? My feedback would result to @janmense having to re-loop the "j" completely and most likely have the "m" connect in another way. If you look at the curves of the "m" then, where the "j" connects to the "m", that whole loop looks odd as it's wider. That makes the "m" seem like an "n".
@janmense Hmm. You know, personally, all I would do is experiment. I would stay more on the modern side, though. That would certainly compliment the monogram.
Once you complete it, I can probably help you more with that.
On a side note - This thread inspired me to actually sketch my own version.
@ChristopherBurton I see what you are saying. I think that first loop should be closer to the size of the other loop. But I like that it looks just like some loops and a dot. Then seeing the name with it 'J'an'M'ense helps to make that connection of what it really is that you are seeing.
@janmense I like that last idea, but with that I would want to use the same typeface for the symbol and the name.
@janmense Sure. First, can you try removing the transparent checkered pattern but leave the texture? Also, remove the texture from the background and just have it on the diamond? I think these changes will make it look better. Or you can send me the file. Whichever.
Sorry to jump in so late, and good work on all of the iterations, but I still feel that the very first version is the best. It has so much more personality and character than any of the later versions. Why did you decide to go in a completely different direction?
From the feedback. Essentially in his first approach, it was easier to distinguish the script as "jn". Also the typeface below certainly isn't complimenting it as stated above.
Perhaps it could help with weight variations but still...
@ChirstopherBurton I agree, but considering that @janmense's name will always be shown next to it, it's not that big of a deal. I guess it depends on what @janmense's main focus is, to have a recognisable mark, or to clearly display his/her initials. Also, playing with the way the ligature currently connects could improve how recognisable the letters are. And yes, the typeface certainly needs to be changed.
Haha, it is when it clearly looks like an "n" and his last initial is obviously an "m". Makes the monogram confusing.
"Also, playing with the way the ligature currently connects could improve how recognisable the letters are." - Yes, pretty much what I said here with more additions.
@schmotty@smutek Just wanted you two to be aware that the correct term is "script" not "scribble". Hopefully this will benefit you in the future if you ever need help.
Personally, I still say first one is best as well. I agree with @joshuanhibbert regarding the "N" "m" issue...In fact at first sight it looks like an "m" then i noticed the j. I still think it is perfect, I wouldn;t ask others on help branding me it always ends up leading to something like the last example which is not even close to the original idea and (in my opinion) has been quite stripped down and is a little mediocre...
@kgscott284 Oh, no It's really not about trying to brand someone else. It's more about educating others on legibility and typography. I gave critiques on the initial idea and it was Jan who decided to take an entirely different approach. Perhaps he was experimenting and got carried away? And that's totally fine. That's how we learn.
I also don't find anything wrong with asking others for their opinion, even if it has to do with personal branding. In fact, there is nothing wrong with it. There's more of a benefit than any negative. People do it all the time - ever heard of Dribbble?
Maybe Jan should have went somewhere else to receive feedback that is more surrounded by designers, not developers.
@ChristopherBurton - "Just wanted you two to be aware that the correct term is "script" not "scribble". Hopefully this will benefit you in the future if you ever need help."
LOL. Yes, I know the technical term, but Jan's looks more like a scribble than a script, so I kept with it. I'm sorry if it bothered you.
@janmense I think that the second version is the better of the two. I also think that it works perfectly with your name. The first thing I see is an 'M' with a dot, then after reading your name, I realize that the dot is a 'J'. Not once have I looked at that and thought it looked liked a 'J' and an 'N', possibly due to the fact that the 'J' doesn't descend below the baseline.
I'm still think that the typeface choice could be tweaked a little, and I'm also unsure as to why you have 'WEB-' instead of 'WEB'?
@ChristopherBurton - thanks, I'm aware of what a script is. I'm in the (long) process of teaching myself web but I've been working professionally in print design and production for ten years. God help me if I don't know what a script is by now.
The mark had been referred to as a scribble prior to my comment so I referred to it the same, partly for consistency and partly just because.
i actually redesign my logo!
My name is jan mense and my name will allways be shown next to it!
Click me
Please give me some feedback, thanks!
As far as us real folk go:
Your logo is absolutely brilliant...that is even with out all the extra background stuff...
I love it, simple, clean and represents your name well! 10/10 from me.
I think this just needs a few minor tweaks. I would tighten the loop of the "j", bring the horizontal stroke further down and keep the stem more vertical. With those changes you might even have to add a stem to what looks like an "n".
The typeface used on "Design Studio" and "Janmense" doesn't really compliment the custom script. I would try experimenting a little more with that.
I hope this helps!
I do agree with Chris about the typeface of Design Studio and Janmense. The sharp edges are a complete contrast to the softness of the scribble. This causes tension. If that is what you wanted then great. Otherwise, I think something with flat serifs and consistent strokes would compliment it better.
Do you have a suggestion for the typeface ?
Once you complete it, I can probably help you more with that.
On a side note - This thread inspired me to actually sketch my own version.
got another idea:
Click me
or just like this:
Click me
Click me
@janmense I like that last idea, but with that I would want to use the same typeface for the symbol and the name.
The bottom text won't be legible if you need to scale it down a little.
like from a 1950's movie logo or something
I like this one too but it looks like an i instead of j
http://default.janmense.de/janmense3.jpg
@ChristopherBurton this should look more like a 'j'
Click me
Edit: Print Designer should be two words
Click me
Also, it seems you went in a completely different direction with your logo, why?
serif, sans-serif, slab-serif etc ?
From there I can try a few on my end.
first
second
and what about the typeface ;) ?
Edit: Nevermind, I have an idea for you. Check back later.
This typeface looks so much different than implied by your symbol. It doesn't work at all.
Have you tried capital letters? an 'M' with only two verticals would look incomplete without the 'J' ---> JVl (just a thought)
@ChristopherBurton thats nice, whats the name of this font? but i want to use a combination of my initials in my logo...
Click
Click
The typefaces are Koziupack by Sudtipos and Gotham by Hoefler & Frere-Jones.
The fonts would cost about $250 combined to purchase.
Sorry I couldn't help.
Perhaps it could help with weight variations but still...
"Also, playing with the way the ligature currently connects could improve how recognisable the letters are." - Yes, pretty much what I said here with more additions.
That last one is very clear. However, I do not like the personality of it (just my opinion).
Try the first symbol again (scribble), put it on the diamond and use the font you used on this one.
I also don't find anything wrong with asking others for their opinion, even if it has to do with personal branding. In fact, there is nothing wrong with it. There's more of a benefit than any negative. People do it all the time - ever heard of Dribbble?
Maybe Jan should have went somewhere else to receive feedback that is more surrounded by designers, not developers.
I was just saying from a personal stand point, I couldn't fathom it. I see your points though for sure.
Also, sometimes what I say comes off as rude but I'm totally being sincere when I say it!
Damn it i did...lol...and to me, you did not come off as rude at all in the entire post...I can tell you were just trying to help, no harm done!
back to the roots then.. here's the first one again, i think this shape fits better to the "script":
Click me and this one:
Click me
what do you think?
@ChristopherBurton - "Just wanted you two to be aware that the correct term is "script" not "scribble". Hopefully this will benefit you in the future if you ever need help."
LOL. Yes, I know the technical term, but Jan's looks more like a scribble than a script, so I kept with it. I'm sorry if it bothered you.
@janmense I still stand behind my initial feedback...but if you're happy, I guess that's all that matters.
I'm still think that the typeface choice could be tweaked a little, and I'm also unsure as to why you have 'WEB-' instead of 'WEB'?
The mark had been referred to as a scribble prior to my comment so I referred to it the same, partly for consistency and partly just because.
Sorry if this ribbed you.
Kidding aside. It helps those reading this discussion as well.
I'm using "WEB-" because its the correct grammar in germany!
what about this one?