5 Comments Add your own

• 1. Joe Clark  |  May 17th, 2009 at 11:13

  Oh, come on, kids. You know this is by Tyler Brûlé and Winkreative (sic). And you seem to have some version of the logotype in which the r and t do not collide, as they do in the ineptly-assembled original.

• 2. John Ryan  |  May 17th, 2009 at 15:46

  Yeah… something’s not quite right here.

  The ‘e’ and ‘t’ are different from the original, and the kerning is also sightly less atrocious. The trailing ‘r’ on the original has always looked to me as if it’s about to tumble off the edge of the line.

  Where’d this come from?

  In my opinion, the porter wordmark is the least notable or engaging part of the identity.

• 3. j bowles  |  May 17th, 2009 at 19:14

  it’s just Helvetica rounded, is this even a logo?

• 4. Jeff  |  May 19th, 2009 at 13:59

  I actually quite like it. I think a font when chosen correctly to suit a word and a brand can act as a great and simple logo. I’d say a return to this kind of simplicity is good.

• 5. John Ryan  |  May 19th, 2009 at 15:17

  Couldn’t agree more Jeff, but when you strip it all back to typeface only, even the most miniscule details had better be rock solid. The porter logo looks like it’s been left with out-of-the-box letter-spacing.

Leave a Comment

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed