(163 votes, average: 3.72 out of 5)
Logo Of The Day Award Winner:

2011-04-13 | ChurchShield

ChurchShield Church Accounting Services. See in use.

Credits: MilesDesign


Related Logos:

10 Comments to “2011-04-13 | ChurchShield”

robangle
Apr 13, 2011 at 11:06 pm

nicely done


 
boxerdude
Apr 14, 2011 at 12:14 am

love it.


 
Graham
Apr 14, 2011 at 2:51 am

Really nice concept and well executed. Great job.


 
Designer
Apr 14, 2011 at 5:15 am

Professionally executed and lovely font. However, broken shield – not a good image.


 
FDuarte
Apr 14, 2011 at 7:47 am

I Agree with “Designer”. I really like the concept, but I think a straight shield would be better. Even the cross at the intersections would feel nicer.

But is a good work.


 
Shannon
Apr 14, 2011 at 4:00 pm

Love the typeface, however isn’t the point of a shield, especially in this market, not to be be broken?


 
Douglas
Apr 14, 2011 at 4:48 pm

I love that currently there are 33 votes for this and it’s rated 3.33 out of 5. The church sure knows how to play up the trinity.


 
Eddy
Apr 15, 2011 at 3:20 am

I don’t see it as a broken shield, but as several small bits put together to create a shield. The fact that there are no gaps, but rather just overlapping makes me think of it on the “put-together” side of the scale than the “broken” side. However, when going with this sort of design, there’s always a risk of getting too close to a certain “no-no” symbol, but I think this one is safe.


 
Jean Martin
Apr 18, 2011 at 10:48 am

This one’s real close to being perfect for me. The “broken-up” shield is not much of an issue for me, I agree with Eddy (my dad’s name, by the way. Dad?) in this regard. I think I’d aim for more symmetry in the cross, though. Particularly on the vertical part. I feel this can be done without compromising the overall feel of the mark and would be beneficial…


 
DJ
Jun 16, 2011 at 3:26 pm

I don’t see it as broken so much as off-center or crooked, which makes it seem wrongly askewed to me. ;)

It’s close but no cigarillo IMO.


 

Reply