Personal Logo


New Member
Hello! I'm looking for critisism / suggestions towards a logo i'm trying to make for myself. I'm a freelance graphic / web designer looking to create a logo that is interesting and appealing. As i'm very keen with typography, i have decided to go down the name initial route, my initials being MG, an awkward pair to work with!

Here are what i have come up with so far, full B&W first column, and variation in column 2:

I've actually used the second logo from idea one for business cards, luckily, i didn't spend alot on them at all, so a logo change wouldn't be costly! I went to add it to my website-in-progress, decided i no longer liked it, and ended up with the rest!

Another reason why i dislike both logos from my first idea is due to the descender on the g, it doesn't feel right to me when it is justified left on a page, i don't know if that's just me though?

Any opinions to favorites welcome.

Just to note, i've not experimented fully with colour yet, wanted to get something that works B&W first.

Thanks in advance!
definitely not design idea 2/3.

you've gone for design over communication. if you glanced at that (as an impartial customer) chances are you'd have no idae what it stood for or represented.

design idea 1 is simple but effective imo, i'd personally just adjust the font to make it a little more "funky" if that's even possible. also, i'd get rid of "graphic design" - you've got your whole website/flyer/letterhead/business card to sell yourself as a graphic designer, for me that's just one push too far.
Thanks for the opinions Tim!

After many hours, variations, tweaks, i have come up with a final 2 logos, based from the first ones in my original post. Each one has 3 variations, which is making me hard to choose from!


1a; from the original post, removed "graphic" and altered the descender.
2a; changed the M to more of a slab serif.
3a; extended the slab serif across the top
2a; mixed the ideas together, using the m from the first idea, and the g from the second.
2b; a custom m, made from circles, this matches the contours of the G better, and has a constant width, like the G does.
2c; slab serif on the M.

I do like the first idea now, but still unsure whether a logo with "design" is professional enough. As Tim said, i have a website, business cards etc to show i am a designer. Also with the fact i do photography and web design / development alongside graphic design could cause some confusion.

Any ideas opinions towards these ones?
Top line IMO, Tim summed it up perfectly, in his post. Again the bottom logos people wouldn't have a clue who you were or what you do.
The logo will be going on my website, and most likely a new business card in time. Both of them will say who i am and what i do, which is basically what Tim said. Therefore do i really need a logo which says what i do?

If i removed the word DESIGN from the top line, the logo would look really unbalanced. Design is a word which i probably wouldnt associate with photography either, so unless i can think of a better word to some myself up, or something to fill the space in, i'm not too sure about the first line.

I prefer 1c of the latest batch. I see no harm in using the word 'design', but I would look for a bolder, more extended typeface. This one is a little 'straight' in comparison to the initials and needs to fit the chunkiness of the descender of the 'g'.
I would also consider colouring the 'm' or the 'g' to make more of the overlap before you commit to a final logo.

I created an identity which has some similarity in terms of the construction of the initials...
ENC/ GTC/ GSC Utilities | Logo identity | Paul Cartwright Branding
As i've been developing my website, i was using 2b from the set above. The more i see it, the more i think something is not quite right. So whilst developing, ive used 2b, and 1c, on alternatate pages, and so far 1c is looking the better. I can't belive i spent so much time, when really the first thing i did was more or less the one!

As to "fit in the chunkyness of the descender on the G", do you mean the height of the text should match the thickness height of the descender? If so, i tried that, and there is a big gap between the bottom of the M, and the top of the text, it doesn't look right for some reason, the gap is just too big.
Sorry, didn't realise you were expecting specific instructions!
It's up to you to take people's hints/tips and do it your way.

2b, by the way doesn't look like a 'g' whatsoever.
I quite liked the second row ones too but not sure if the "G" looks enough like a "G" :icon_dunno:

What about something like the attached (any good?) I'm not a logo designer so no slagging it off professionals :icon_biggrin:


  • Logo.jpg
    4.7 KB · Views: 5
@Boss Hog: I like that, never even thought of putting it to the side! could try experimenting with something similar!

@pcbranding: A few people have said that too, some have said it looks like an "a". I wasn't asking for instructions, i just wasn't sure what you were meaning :)

This how its looking on my site at the moment:


I'm warming to the idea of "design" in my logo now, it says enough for people to understand it, but not too much, so i can elaborate elsewhere.
Last edited:
Hi Mark

1a is working best for me at the moment, but I'd maybe try the word"design" at the same height as the thickness of the clipped 'g', also maybe consider a slightly different font as the straight edges of that font look ever so slightly odd when the m and g overlap into each other, there is something there that looks odd.

Overall more balance and some more refinement required
Just a quicky thrown together in Indesign as an example, but have you considered using a slightly more rounded font at all? m and g don't go so well with the square/serif fonts with them being such rounded letters...

Of course it all depends on personal preference - I cannot design for myself at all and am probably the world's worst at contradicting myself while doing it ;)


  • mg.jpg
    23.6 KB · Views: 7