(268 votes, average: 2.24 out of 5)
Logo Of The Day Award Winner:

2011-07-12 | National Maritime Museum

National Maritime Museum.

Via Brand New.

Credits: Someone

Related Logos:

23 Comments to “2011-07-12 | National Maritime Museum”

Jul 12, 2011 at 4:59 pm

So cool. SomeOne rock.

Check out their Eurostar logo. It’s wild.

Jul 13, 2011 at 4:52 am

hm. logos on this site are geting worse and worse……..

Chris Lane
Jul 13, 2011 at 7:19 am

My first reaction was “what? that’s ridiculous!”
The typeface looks okay though

Jul 13, 2011 at 2:45 pm

This logo sucks;D

Samuel Guebo
Jul 13, 2011 at 3:42 pm

I was wondering what that logo would look on a white background then i checked it out (http://bit.ly/rpjt7P)..still i don’t appreciate the logo

Jul 13, 2011 at 6:01 pm

@Andrius & @marta Why is this logo so terrible?

Jul 13, 2011 at 8:07 pm

i would more perceive the text elements to be the logo and the image as being a dominant graphic in use. notwithstanding the materials in use are beautiful and effective but i’m hesitant to see this as a logo itself.

Chris Lane
Jul 13, 2011 at 8:25 pm

My thoughts were pretty much right in line with boxerdude above

Jul 13, 2011 at 9:35 pm

@Boxerdude. I’m not sure where I stand with this one. At first glance, my opinion was the same as yours (perceiving this as two separate elements – a logo and an cliche pretty stock image)

My opinion has shifted somewhat after visiting the ‘Brand New’ link. This is no pretty stock image – It’s a unique 3D CGI designed element, specific to its branding – Removing many technical limitations and opening up an array of opportunity to use this logo out of your standard static two dimensions.

Maybe its too real and it loses its correlation? Not sure.

I wouldn’t call it terrible though.

Jul 14, 2011 at 12:42 pm


A stock shot with a few alterations is a feeble attempt at branding. The uses pictured on the Brand New website suggest nothing that seems to take advantage of the CGI element anyways so I’m extremely sceptical.

Not impressed with this one but I’m glad it’s up here: good discussions to be had about basic logo design… My two cents…

Jul 14, 2011 at 12:53 pm

agree with Jeaver. this logo sucks.

although website is nice

Jul 14, 2011 at 1:23 pm

@adamo i hadn’t gone into detail with reading the “brand new” link – but when i saw the pieces in use i knew it was a complex custom image given the scale they were reproducing in….

this is one of those cases i think where the collateral and wayfaring are done at the same time of the brand overhaul – and they guide the new logo. i do that with my work as well usually with great results.

the rules are changing anyway – “new” brands can certainly stray away from some of the rigid confines that were established 4 decades ago….

the more i look at this the more i love it. the wayfaring in particular is beautiful. the ends certainly justify the means in this case.

Jul 14, 2011 at 2:41 pm

@boxerdude: “The rules are changing anyways”. While I don’t entirely disagree with that comment, I do think there are some “rigid confines” that are still necessary. I may be wrong here but in my book, a stock image does not constitute a corporate identity.

Jul 14, 2011 at 2:42 pm

… call me old-fashioned…

Jul 15, 2011 at 8:31 am

its not a stock image. that one you posted was similar, but if you look at them side by side..they aren’t at all the same..and as stated above, this is not a raster image at all, and the way they have used it on their materials have created a very effective branding system. Why do people seem to have this idea that EVERY logo must be as stripped-down as possible..it really has created a sea for over-used ideas from those trying to stay within the confines of the designer’s invisible rule book

Jul 15, 2011 at 8:38 am

yeah, but it does LOOK like a stock image.. sooo.. whats the difference? im just sayin – it doesnt look good.

Jul 16, 2011 at 10:12 pm

@marta do you like the assets? i agree with you in that at first glance the logo itself is unusual – even falling short – but the assets are gorgeous and i think very engaging. i’m not questioning your view on the logo as a standalone – i think it’s weak too – but what do you think of the branded collateral?

may loc nuoc nano
Jul 17, 2011 at 9:30 pm

It’s also awesome. it wasn’t completely similar, at least. We should encourage him for contribution

Aug 4, 2011 at 2:30 pm

I love the execution, application, typography, technical considerations, and the overall branding that Someone has done for the museum.

However, I cannot stop thinking that the logo should be framed and underneath it the logo it should say, “Influence: Like the ripples from a raindrop, we move people.”

Good design and strategy can be easily overridden by cultural associations. This unfortunately shares too much with a 80s-style motivational poster from a Skymall catalog on an economy flight.

While the average person isn’t exposed to or consciously aware of the redundancy of stock photography and won’t associate this with stock photography like designers, they do read Skymall when they’re bored.

Steve Hughes
Aug 5, 2011 at 8:46 am

Great execution both creatively and through rendering software.
Wether the less creative and less idea aware visiting public would see it as a ship over a splash because its “about the sea”, is another matter.
It seems most appropriate as a gold crown, but maybe because of the colouring.
Still aesthetically is pleasing to the eye, especially across other brand areas

Aug 2, 2012 at 1:23 pm

I like to use images in the overall identity, but don’t call them logo…

Mar 21, 2013 at 6:44 am

this is not a LOGO

Mar 22, 2013 at 12:53 pm

Sorry this isn’t a logo..it’s a nice graphic, but sadly it isn’t something I’d hand to a client and say \this is your iconic branding symbol\…