How legible is this logotype?

[destere]

Basically, what I want you to do is look at the logotype and type what you think it says. If you've got any other comments on how to improve it (if you can see faults).

Thanks

 

[TwinCities Dan]

beamish?

 

[arkitect]

beamish…

although it "reads" as beomish to me.

The a needs a bit of work, perhaps.

 

[Aperture]

Yeah, it definitely reads as beomish. I would make the 'a' more obvious.

 

[LeviG]

yeah I read beamish too but the a does need a bit of work, maybe try using the older style a (like the one typed on here using verdana) and see if that works

 

[arjen92]

If it wasn't clear yet , beomish

 

[LERsince1991]

B e o m i s h
B e a m i s h
B e a r n i s h

 

[Designer Dale]

Everyone here is visually oriented by nature, so we might see it differently than others. Print it out and show it to folks on the street. I got it quickly, and I'm an old guy...

Dale

 

[needlnerdz]

beamish at first glance... possibility of beomish at second..

- maybe thickening the stem between the a + m would help define the a?

 

[Kwill]

hsimaed. .Dyslectic I am

An "a" instead of an "a" might help.

 

[thunderweb]

I get beomish at first but it wouldn't hurt to make the o more legible.

 

[MOFS]

Basically, what I want you to do is look at the logotype and type what you think it says. If you've got any other comments on how to improve it (if you can see faults).

Thanks

Is it regarding the Beamish museum? if so, with this in context it's clear what it's about. Even without that info, it still look looks like Beamish to me.

 

[destere]

Is it regarding the Beamish museum? if so, with this in context it's clear what it's about. Even without that info, it still look looks like Beamish to me.

It is Beamish, but has nothing to do with the museum.


The more I look at it, the more I see the 'o'. I will have a go at a traditional 'a', but have also been considering using the same 'a' but put a little flick at the bottom. I haven't had a go at it yet as the programme has packed up, but thanks for the comments!

 

[destere]

Improvement?

It's only a rough version and it a little bit ropey, it's just done to see if it looks right.
I've just added a bit of a flick off the a, but is it clear enough?

To see it properly, click on it to view it.

 

[LERsince1991]

the little flick helps

 

[THX1139]

Sorry, but if you have to ask, then the logotype has failed unless you are deliberately trying to under-code it. Not sure why you would want to do that with a logotype! Anyway, my advice is that you need to go back to your thumbnails and try again.

 

[DoFoT9]

It's only a rough version and it a little bit ropey, it's just done to see if it looks right.
I've just added a bit of a flick off the a, but is it clear enough?

To see it properly, click on it to view it.

impressive!! much better then the original, needs colour though

Sorry, but if you have to ask, then the logotype has failed unless you are deliberately trying to under-code it. Not sure why you would want to do that with a logotype! Anyway, my advice is that you need to go back to your thumbnails and try again.

no, not true at all. designers of logos/sites/anything often become mis-guided with assessing their own work. thats why its good to ask others

 

[TenPoundMonkey]

no, not true at all. designers of logos/sites/anything often become mis-guided with assessing their own work. thats why its good to ask others

True- sometimes we get too close to something or stare at it too long to be objective.