Comments on: The Original Champions of Design

By: Lauren

Lauren — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 23:46:01 +0000

I have to say, I like the original better. I see what they were getting at, especially the concept of the tipped shape at the bottom, which actually pays more homage to the 10-20s logo, but those bangs? You\’ve got to be kidding me! They\’ve already made the girls look more youthful by slimming them down.

As for the text, I don\’t personally like it but it does not add any complication.

By: teejaystudios

teejaystudios — Sun, 18 Jul 2010 13:42:58 +0000

Yeah, Most of the previous comments are spot on. The first design is much much better. and more modern if that makes much sense? The second ones look uneven and awkward. :/

By: Basquait

Basquait — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 15:20:21 +0000

The changes are not an improvement. They add unnecessary complexity to the logo. It is fiddling for fiddlings sake. But it would be hard to ask a paying client to pay the fee when the better advice would have been to request the logo remained as is.

By: ed

ed — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 10:32:51 +0000

The first two faces in the new version look closer to each other than to the third one. The balance is all off (look at chin distances/forehead distances/lip distances. The original is much better balanced as a trio. It looks like a problem brought about by the tightening of the shamrock curves, but it makes the whole thing look a bit awkward to me.

Other than that execution I don’t mind the thing, but I would tend to agree it’s fiddling for fiddling’s sake. Could’ve been better off applying the old logo in the more contemporary collateral styles. (Saks 5th ave anyone?)

By: Andy Russell

Andy Russell — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 15:01:17 +0000

I have to agree with most of the comments already on here… the brand development is a nice progression (patterns, stationery, colour palette etc) but the amends to the icon feel a little unnecessary.

I think Mat Dolphin sums it up.

By: Ranald Graham

Ranald Graham — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 08:52:06 +0000

I agree with David here, its been modified in an attempt to update it but to me it feels a cheaper version of the original. I can’t look at the two without seeing how obviously superior the original is. As a drawing it is just so much more elegant and timeless… this new version looks far too much like a shamrock to me.

By: karl escritt

karl escritt — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 21:30:33 +0000

Some really nice work here the brand looks more up to date with the redesign.

By: Mat Dolphin

Mat Dolphin — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 15:59:54 +0000

I can understand the brief requiring OCD to make the mark more contemporary, but take the new iD, simplify it, and you’re left with the old. That for me doesn’t signify an improvement that was necessary.

This for me demonstrates Saul Bass original ability. Hats off to the man.

By: David Boni

David Boni — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 15:13:45 +0000

I can’t say, if I was Saul Bass or Paul Rand (only not-dead), I’d prefer one of my original works to get little bits added on to it versus a completely different work replacing it (as was the case with UPS) despite how agonizingly contemporary and ill-suited the new logo might be. I liken the adding of bits to a child with a crayon drawing on a timeless photograph.

I think the bangs are fooling people into thinking “youthful”—they are way too contemporary in my eyes.

By: Sean

Sean — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 14:02:08 +0000

Hi David, thanks for the post, well put.

I agree with many of the points you make, what I admire is OCD’s respectful tip of the hat to Saul Bass by choosing to ‘refine’ the mark, and not overhaul it completely. (Such as the rebranding of Paul Rand’s classic UPS logo)

I agree the bangs does make it slightly imbalanced and adds a further layer of complication, however I do think that the bangs do help to make the three girls look more youthful.