(173 votes, average: 2.79 out of 5)
Logo Of The Day Award Winner:

2011-03-29 | Fog Mountain

Fog Mountain wine. Larger close up here.

Credits: CF Napa Brand Design


Related Logos:

16 Comments to “2011-03-29 | Fog Mountain”

Kevin Hughes
Mar 29, 2011 at 5:26 pm

Not entirely sure how I feel about this one.. standalone, it doesn’t look to great in my opinion.. but in the world of wine bottle labels in particular, there seem to be no rules–and I can see how this one would work well for that specific purpose.. past that, not so sure.

Either way, though–daring and unique concept!


 
Kevin Hughes
Mar 29, 2011 at 5:28 pm

Side-Note: It does somehow ‘feel’ like a red wine label to me, though… too bad I’m not entirely sure how to explain that outside of my own head!


 
Shannon
Mar 29, 2011 at 5:39 pm

I like it, wine labels need another push to be recognized between each other. I’m just not sure on the type.


 
Dave williams
Mar 29, 2011 at 6:16 pm

I know you are prepared for negative feedback on this Jacob, and your are right to be. This is awful. It breaks all the rules of good logo design. It isn’t clear, wouldn’t reproduce well when small and would be terrible when photocopied.

I know you probably enjoy the controversy logos like this bring to your site, but I really feel it damages the creditability of the site when there is a regular lack of quality logos.


 
Shannon
Mar 29, 2011 at 7:02 pm

Dave, who said anything about wanting it to be clear when made smaller or photocopied. In fact when this does get scaled down it will create even more of a fog effect.

Rules.. are more like guidelines..


 
Mark Delgado
Mar 29, 2011 at 9:10 pm

I am with Dave a little bit on this one. I feel it’s a creative idea for a logo, but it’s not very effective. There is something about it that keeps me from disliking it though, I can’t put my finger on it.


 
boxerdude
Mar 30, 2011 at 12:12 am

it’s not a logo. it is, however, a provocative wine label concept which would have good shelf presence. but to call it a logo is a stretch. as dave indicated, cross platform/application reproduction is difficult at best.


 
robrt
Mar 30, 2011 at 2:06 am

cool idea.
but don’t really think it’s a logo.
it would be a nice graphic element for an advertising or something…but as a logo it’s not very distinguishable to me. should a strong logo have definition? be easily read? i dunno…
my two cents.
thanks =]


 
PrintProofapp
Mar 30, 2011 at 3:11 am

What is a logo these days? Things have to evolve and be adaptable, as a graphic element this certainly has mileage in the usability stakes.
Love it!!
Any chance of a sample??


 
Dave Willams
Mar 30, 2011 at 3:24 am

Shannon: One of the first things every good designer will do when designing a logo is to consider how it would look when scaled down. Jacob has mentioned that himself over on his blog. Logos are often replicated on business cards, letterheads, websites etc that need to show it as a small icon. If it becomes unreadable (which this logo does) then it looses its impact and becomes worthless.

PrintProofapp: This has mileage? I couldnt disagree more. It works at the size above ok, any smaller would be unreadable, any bigger it would loose its fogginess. How would it work on a coloured background? On a website? It is far too detailed to be classed as a good logo. It is unclear as to what company/product it represents, it doesnt tell me anything about that company (only for Jacob telling us its from a wine bottle, otherwise I wouldnt have a clue) plus it looks more like a castle than a mountain!

If this is just a wine label theres a good chance it wont be reproduced anywhere else, but then in that case it isnt really a logo is it?


 
PrintProofapp
Mar 30, 2011 at 3:30 am

Fair points Dave, as I said in my opinion it’s a graphic element, mileage ie animation, projection, ambient media and thats off the top of my head with no thought.


 
Jennae
Mar 30, 2011 at 8:18 am

Personally, I think it works. If made smaller, the “fog” effect would be more pronounced. I don’t think the type used to make up the “mountain” is meant to be readable. I do agree that made much larger, the effect might be lost. I guess I can see the arguments on both sides.

Still, I personally like it. It is a daring approach that I think was executed well. This might not work for another company, but as a wine brand, it definitely will set itself apart from others.


 
Kevin Hughes
Mar 30, 2011 at 8:54 am

Dave: While I agree that this breaks many of the rules of a a ‘good logo design,’ it is equally important to remember that a logo is pretty rarely a standalone item–it’s a good idea to take the image in context, I think.

Even if it is only going to be reprooduced on that specific wine label, it is still a logomark representing that specific wine, and serves its intended purpose.. though, I agree, in other uses it might be a massive flop.

But what do you think of its use in-context? Does it work, or is it still a fail?


 
Shannon
Mar 30, 2011 at 2:45 pm

Dave: Yes every ‘good’ designer will consider how it will look when scaled down and maybe this designer has thought when I scale this down I will be able to create a fog effect using this type in the mountain, which i think is a very clever way to treat that issue.

When this is produced on smaller media then the Type ‘Fog Mountain’ will still be legible. The type in the mountain will not be, I agree with that, but I think that is the effect the designers going for.


 
Graham
Mar 31, 2011 at 3:30 am

As a logo, I am not convinced this works. However seeing in to a wine bottle label, it grows on you.


 
Sean
Apr 13, 2011 at 1:36 pm

I think it would look great as an element on a wine bottle. Maybe not as a standalone company logo, but is that really what it’s going to be used for? Probably not.

I like it.


 

Reply