Bradenton Pirates Logo.

[Spammy]

Hey, I'm back from hiatus, and to start it off, here is a logo that I finished.

Original sketch:

Finished Product:

Yes, I know Bradenton already has a team, but its an idea.

[cjzilligen]

Welcome back,

Looks pretty solid, but I'm not sure if you didn't notice but he has no mouth.

[The Fixer]

I'm not so high on the skull logo but the wordmark is really nice. Glad to see you actually finished one!

[chestnutz]

bahahahhaa sorry spammy, I'm cool with you and all, but I love that you're back from hiatus after a week.

The concept's not bad though. Wordmark has way too many strokes and they're too thick. He also needs a mouth, cause last I checked skulls had mouths.

[Spammy]

yeah, that was one of my errors, the mouth, I tried several different ones and they didnt work, but ill post one with

[infrared41]

bahahahhaa sorry spammy, I'm cool with you and all, but I love that you're back from hiatus after a week.

The concept's not bad though. Wordmark has way too many strokes and they're too thick. He also needs a mouth, cause last I checked skulls had mouths.

A week? He was already posting again a few days ago. I don't think there ever was a "hiatus" which is fine since he never needed to leave in the first place.

Anyway...on topic; It's not a bad start but I think it's a little busy. disregard that. I wasn't paying attention so I didn't notice you put a watermark on it. I like it.

Oh and welcome back troublemaker.

[Number 8]

i would give it a mouth

[Spammy]

Thanks guys, I'm back, but Ill try cutting down on idiotic remarks from now...

[The_Admiral]

yeah, that was one of my errors, the mouth

[CDixonDesign]

yeah, that was one of my errors, the mouth

Gold.

[DelayedPenalty]

yeah, that was one of my errors, the mouth

Gold.

Well spammy was cheering for Canada...

[elliott]

If you put "meh" in the subtitle, I already think it's gonna be bad. And...it's not good. Beofre you even start thinking about presenting a logo, make sure you get the basic shapes right. The skull looks absolutely nothing like a skull. It looks like an egg with random blobs on it. Distracting shading and a watermark are not the key to a good logo. It starts with a good rendering, and the lack of that here is why you need to take a few steps back.

[9erssteve]

If you put "meh" in the subtitle, I already think it's gonna be bad. And...it's not good. Beofre you even start thinking about presenting a logo, make sure you get the basic shapes right. The skull looks absolutely nothing like a skull. It looks like an egg with random blobs on it. Distracting shading and a watermark are not the key to a good logo. It starts with a good rendering, and the lack of that here is why you need to take a few steps back.

It's harsh but fair.

The whole thing has just become a bit of an amorphous shape. There is no real definition to it and the proportions are all out of sorts. The eyes to small, and I'm assuming that random line at the side of his right eye is meant to be an eye patch strap? Although how it will stay on is beyond me when the strap only goes half way round! Even logo's have to obey certain physical laws in order to succeed, and eyepatches have to have something to keep them on.

The nasal cavity is in the wrong place and while i think you've tried to indicate roughness or chips around the edges of the nose all you've really achieved is confusion as the shape now looks nothing like what it should. There is no sign of cheek bones or the outer edges to the eye sockets which help define where the temples are on the skull and the lower jaw appears to be a solid extension of the upper part of the skull.

All in all it's a prime example of someone drawing a skull from memory, and not giving research it's due diligence. Take a look at what you have here then go look at Davidson's Raiders concept and see difference. On the one hand there's someone who has very closely studied a skull and who understands all the parts that make up it and on the other there is yours which appears to have been drawn from memory.

The shapes you've created on the bandana suggest to me you have the necessary control of illustrator (or inkscape) to be able to achieve great results what is lacking is understanding of your chosen subject matter. Only when you understand how to draw a thing realistically can you simplify it effectively to create a logo.

9erssteve

[Brave-Bird 08]

Elliot, as always, was probably too harsh on this one. Let's remember Spammy is a youthful member, haha.

I just came across this thread--never seeing before. I actually think this logo has tons of potential if you keep working on it!

the overall execution and usage proves you are really getting the hang of logo designing. You did a good job with the strokes, and I definitely feel like the script part is near top notch.

The proportions on the face are just off. Get back to work on this Spammy! Elliot: You kind of treat this place like you are the head of a professional logo vendor. It's a forum. Using "meh" doesnt hurt the concept. Saying that this concept is "not good" seemed almost insulting. What spammy did was a finished looking concept that probably 5 percent of computer users in the country can pull off. (idk where i got those numbers...but i have confidence in them). IMO you have to show some MS painted mess to get the "not good" comment.

I dont usually get so expressive on a forum...but seriously. Calling that concept "not good" is absurd, to me.

But within the first post you say "take a step back"??? when the logo is a few facial tweaks away from being really good...and the watermark doesnt change it at all...it's a watermark, not part of the logo. you can take steps "forward" by removing the watermark and fixing the facial features.

Instead I feel like you might have been biased in being prompted to knock down Spammy's work...which obviously took some time to do...just b/c he's infamous for being an annoyance

[9erssteve]

Elliot, as always, was probably too harsh on this one. Let's remember Spammy is a youthful member, haha.

I just came across this thread--never seeing before. I actually think this logo has tons of potential if you keep working on it!

the overall execution and usage proves you are really getting the hang of logo designing. You did a good job with the strokes, and I definitely feel like the script part is near top notch.

The proportions on the face are just off. Get back to work on this Spammy! Elliot: You kind of treat this place like you are the head of a professional logo vendor. It's a forum. Using "meh" doesnt hurt the concept. Saying that this concept is "not good" seemed almost insulting. What spammy did was a finished looking concept that probably 5 percent of computer users in the country can pull off. (idk where i got those numbers...but i have confidence in them). IMO you have to show some MS painted mess to get the "not good" comment.

I dont usually get so expressive on a forum...but seriously. Calling that concept "not good" is absurd, to me.

But within the first post you say "take a step back"??? when the logo is a few facial tweaks away from being really good...and the watermark doesnt change it at all...it's a watermark, not part of the logo. you can take steps "forward" by removing the watermark and fixing the facial features.

Instead I feel like you might have been biased in being prompted to knock down Spammy's work...which obviously took some time to do...just b/c he's infamous for being an annoyance

And while that may be true, if the ONLY thing that the logos creator can say about it is a phonetic term of indifference what does that say about it? To me it says that the person creating it isn't happy with it, so for others to be able to find fault with it should really come as no surprise.

I'll be honest I think the take a step back quote is totally justified. On first glance Spammy seems to have been so intent on simplifying the features of the skull that he's totally lost track of what size they should be and where they should be positioned. I dont think it was meant in a derogatory or aggressive manner, but in the truly practical sense that he needs to stop looking at it as a logo and take a step back and look at it as a skull and see where he needs to make changes.

The "concept" is good, but the execution is, right now, more than just a little off. It needs serious work. Nothing lines up sizes are off and I dunno about anyone else but I'm not sure if that's an eye patch on the left eye or not... if it is it wont stay on with only half a strap. This needs more than just tweaking it needs work, from almost the ground up.

You're right about one thing though, however off the current one is Spammy has shown even with this, that he has a fair level of mastery in either Inkscape or Illustrator, and once he does some more research and understands the proportions of a skull properly there should be no reason whatsoever that he couldn't produce a far more successful rendering of this concept. But from his own comment about it I think we can all agree that in it's current incarnation it just doesn't cut it.

9erssteve

[ChuckDownfield]

Elliot, as always, was probably too harsh on this one. Let's remember Spammy is a youthful member, haha.

I just came across this thread--never seeing before. I actually think this logo has tons of potential if you keep working on it!

the overall execution and usage proves you are really getting the hang of logo designing. You did a good job with the strokes, and I definitely feel like the script part is near top notch.

The proportions on the face are just off. Get back to work on this Spammy! Elliot: You kind of treat this place like you are the head of a professional logo vendor. It's a forum. Using "meh" doesnt hurt the concept. Saying that this concept is "not good" seemed almost insulting. What spammy did was a finished looking concept that probably 5 percent of computer users in the country can pull off. (idk where i got those numbers...but i have confidence in them). IMO you have to show some MS painted mess to get the "not good" comment.

I dont usually get so expressive on a forum...but seriously. Calling that concept "not good" is absurd, to me.

But within the first post you say "take a step back"??? when the logo is a few facial tweaks away from being really good...and the watermark doesnt change it at all...it's a watermark, not part of the logo. you can take steps "forward" by removing the watermark and fixing the facial features.

Instead I feel like you might have been biased in being prompted to knock down Spammy's work...which obviously took some time to do...just b/c he's infamous for being an annoyance

Bumping a thread that is over a month old to bash elliot is absurd, to me.

[Brave-Bird 08]

Elliot, as always, was probably too harsh on this one. Let's remember Spammy is a youthful member, haha.

I just came across this thread--never seeing before. I actually think this logo has tons of potential if you keep working on it!

the overall execution and usage proves you are really getting the hang of logo designing. You did a good job with the strokes, and I definitely feel like the script part is near top notch.

The proportions on the face are just off. Get back to work on this Spammy! Elliot: You kind of treat this place like you are the head of a professional logo vendor. It's a forum. Using "meh" doesnt hurt the concept. Saying that this concept is "not good" seemed almost insulting. What spammy did was a finished looking concept that probably 5 percent of computer users in the country can pull off. (idk where i got those numbers...but i have confidence in them). IMO you have to show some MS painted mess to get the "not good" comment.

I dont usually get so expressive on a forum...but seriously. Calling that concept "not good" is absurd, to me.

But within the first post you say "take a step back"??? when the logo is a few facial tweaks away from being really good...and the watermark doesnt change it at all...it's a watermark, not part of the logo. you can take steps "forward" by removing the watermark and fixing the facial features.

Instead I feel like you might have been biased in being prompted to knock down Spammy's work...which obviously took some time to do...just b/c he's infamous for being an annoyance

Bumping a thread that is over a month old to bash elliot is absurd, to me.

I actually bumped it b/c I'm interested in the concept being finished. But, I couldnt help that notice Elliot's comment might have detered Spammy away from finishing the concept.

[ChuckDownfield]

Elliot, as always, was probably too harsh on this one. Let's remember Spammy is a youthful member, haha.

I just came across this thread--never seeing before. I actually think this logo has tons of potential if you keep working on it!

the overall execution and usage proves you are really getting the hang of logo designing. You did a good job with the strokes, and I definitely feel like the script part is near top notch.

The proportions on the face are just off. Get back to work on this Spammy! Elliot: You kind of treat this place like you are the head of a professional logo vendor. It's a forum. Using "meh" doesnt hurt the concept. Saying that this concept is "not good" seemed almost insulting. What spammy did was a finished looking concept that probably 5 percent of computer users in the country can pull off. (idk where i got those numbers...but i have confidence in them). IMO you have to show some MS painted mess to get the "not good" comment.

I dont usually get so expressive on a forum...but seriously. Calling that concept "not good" is absurd, to me.

But within the first post you say "take a step back"??? when the logo is a few facial tweaks away from being really good...and the watermark doesnt change it at all...it's a watermark, not part of the logo. you can take steps "forward" by removing the watermark and fixing the facial features.

Instead I feel like you might have been biased in being prompted to knock down Spammy's work...which obviously took some time to do...just b/c he's infamous for being an annoyance

Bumping a thread that is over a month old to bash elliot is absurd, to me.

I actually bumped it b/c I'm interested in the concept being finished. But, I couldnt help that notice Elliot's comment might have detered Spammy away from finishing the concept.

For your convenience, I have highlighted 'concept talk' in blue, and elliot bashing in red. Also you said, "IMO you have to show some MS painted mess to get the "not good" comment." I made this in MS Paint,

and I do not like to think of it as 'not good.'

[Brave-Bird 08]

Elliot, as always, was probably too harsh on this one. Let's remember Spammy is a youthful member, haha.

I just came across this thread--never seeing before. I actually think this logo has tons of potential if you keep working on it!

the overall execution and usage proves you are really getting the hang of logo designing. You did a good job with the strokes, and I definitely feel like the script part is near top notch.

The proportions on the face are just off. Get back to work on this Spammy! Elliot: You kind of treat this place like you are the head of a professional logo vendor. It's a forum. Using "meh" doesnt hurt the concept. Saying that this concept is "not good" seemed almost insulting. What spammy did was a finished looking concept that probably 5 percent of computer users in the country can pull off. (idk where i got those numbers...but i have confidence in them). IMO you have to show some MS painted mess to get the "not good" comment.

I dont usually get so expressive on a forum...but seriously. Calling that concept "not good" is absurd, to me.

But within the first post you say "take a step back"??? when the logo is a few facial tweaks away from being really good...and the watermark doesnt change it at all...it's a watermark, not part of the logo. you can take steps "forward" by removing the watermark and fixing the facial features.

Instead I feel like you might have been biased in being prompted to knock down Spammy's work...which obviously took some time to do...just b/c he's infamous for being an annoyance

Bumping a thread that is over a month old to bash elliot is absurd, to me.

I actually bumped it b/c I'm interested in the concept being finished. But, I couldnt help that notice Elliot's comment might have detered Spammy away from finishing the concept.

For your convenience, I have highlighted 'concept talk' in blue, and elliot bashing in red. Also you said, "IMO you have to show some MS painted mess to get the "not good" comment." I made this in MS Paint,

and I do not like to think of it as 'not good.'

the quantity of words I use does not directly reflect the intention of the bump. It's pretty clear the designer of the concept stopped working on it. I wanted to bump, tell him to finish working on it, and put a heads up to a poster who might have, as I said, detered the designer. i would normally, myself, welcome criticism...esp from Elliot...bc hes one of the toughest critics on the boards. but, Spammy...is...as we all know...moody? I strongly stand by my statement that calling anything as complete as what Spammy posted as "not good" isnt very constructive, and that goes to any poster on the boards.

and a MS paint MESS, and an MS paint masterpiece ARE two different things, for you to be aware. That logo you did is nothing of a mess. It's pretty sweet.

But sure, you can continue to try to make clever and quick witted posts to undermine my statement. it is in fact, just a board. And, unlike Spammy, I'm not going to go into a haitus...

[ChuckDownfield]

Elliot, as always, was probably too harsh on this one. Let's remember Spammy is a youthful member, haha.

I just came across this thread--never seeing before. I actually think this logo has tons of potential if you keep working on it!

the overall execution and usage proves you are really getting the hang of logo designing. You did a good job with the strokes, and I definitely feel like the script part is near top notch.

The proportions on the face are just off. Get back to work on this Spammy! Elliot: You kind of treat this place like you are the head of a professional logo vendor. It's a forum. Using "meh" doesnt hurt the concept. Saying that this concept is "not good" seemed almost insulting. What spammy did was a finished looking concept that probably 5 percent of computer users in the country can pull off. (idk where i got those numbers...but i have confidence in them). IMO you have to show some MS painted mess to get the "not good" comment.

I dont usually get so expressive on a forum...but seriously. Calling that concept "not good" is absurd, to me.

But within the first post you say "take a step back"??? when the logo is a few facial tweaks away from being really good...and the watermark doesnt change it at all...it's a watermark, not part of the logo. you can take steps "forward" by removing the watermark and fixing the facial features.

Instead I feel like you might have been biased in being prompted to knock down Spammy's work...which obviously took some time to do...just b/c he's infamous for being an annoyance

Bumping a thread that is over a month old to bash elliot is absurd, to me.

I actually bumped it b/c I'm interested in the concept being finished. But, I couldnt help that notice Elliot's comment might have detered Spammy away from finishing the concept.

For your convenience, I have highlighted 'concept talk' in blue, and elliot bashing in red. Also you said, "IMO you have to show some MS painted mess to get the "not good" comment." I made this in MS Paint,

and I do not like to think of it as 'not good.'

the quantity of words I use does not directly reflect the intention of the bump. It's pretty clear the designer of the concept stopped working on it. I wanted to bump, tell him to finish working on it, and put a heads up to a poster who might have, as I said, detered the designer. i would normally, myself, welcome criticism...esp from Elliot...bc hes one of the toughest critics on the boards. but, Spammy...is...as we all know...moody?

and a MS paint MESS, and an MS paint masterpiece ARE two different things, for you to be aware. That logo you did is nothing of a mess. It's pretty sweet.

But sure, you can continue to try to make clever and quick witted posts to undermine my statement. it is in fact, just a board. And, unlike Spammy, I'm not going to go into a haitus...

I thought you were referring to all MS paint work to be bad my bad on that. As far as spammy giving up, I don't think I have seen a single piece of his work that he hasn't given up on .