Colfax’s reaction the the first round of logos:
First, Drew, thank you for this opportunity. There have been many comments on your blog about the logos and our comments echo many of them. However, at this time, none of the logos are acceptable to our group. We do not like the gazebos, because they do not reflect the gazebo that is in our community.
If our gazebo cannot be used or some accurate reflection of it, we do not want to use a gazebo. We also do not like the water droplets because they do not reflect our Mineral Water Heritage. Let’s stay away from any sort of water droplet or water feature it tells the wrong story. We also do not like the stick figures/people in the logos. They would be better suited for a health oriented company. Some of the fonts are ok, but there is not a single font that reflects our request of “graceful, classic, possibly scripted, easy to read from a distance, and appears to have a casual elegance.”
Logo # 1: It is simple, historic looking, and uses a gazebo. If a gazebo is to be used in the design, we would prefer to use the Colfax gazebo or better yet, a Colfax gazebo outline like logo #5.
Logo #2: It is fresh and modern. However, there is no historic aspect to this logo. The water droplets appear to look like balloons.
Logo #3: We would prefer a historic type font. We do like the people profiles in this gazebo. Also, we have the same gazebo comments as logo #1, use the Colfax gazebo or use a Colfax gazebo outline.
Logo #4: One committee member thought this logo was too whimsical. Also, we do not like the water droplets. Same comments as logo #2, the water droplets look like balloons.
Logo #5: Good scale on gazebo. The font is possibly too small.
Logo #6: We agree with other blog comments, that this logo appears to look like a health themed logo. The font is also not historic in nature. However, we do like the modern take with the people, but if people are to be used, we like the people profiles in logo #3.