https://monetary-metals.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/monetary-metals.png 0 0 Keith Weiner https://monetary-metals.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/monetary-metals.png Keith Weiner2013-12-10 21:52:272018-03-07 03:05:16Help us select our new logo
Leave a ReplyWant to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Call us: +1-646-653-9729
Monetary Metals & Co.
4343 N Scottsdale Road
Scottsdale, AZ 85251
About Monetary Metals
Careers, media, investor and corporate information
I like the first one best, esp. the symbolism of having gold and silver “intertwined” or linked.
Agreed, #2 looks excellent.
I like the “M” in #3, regardless of color/font/layout.
#1 is the coolest by far. Interlocking M’s are quite meaningful. One cannot talk about money without thinking about gold metal. It has been that way since the dawn of civilization.
#2 looks too much like the Federal Reserve.
#3 and #4 are ok. But #1 is far more impactful.
I vote for #1.
Favor # 2, precisely because it reminds me of the Federal Reserve – ergo, what the Federal Reserve should be about: store of value, reliable economic calculation, honorable exchange. The Double M is subtle, while the substantial architecture imparts the notion of the durability of gold, as a monetary metal.
Agree. #1 for me,
Neither 1 nor 2 because the background is inflexible with white sales collateral
#4 is a non-starter because the colour gradient is passé . Number 3 is a lovely, clean, modern logo
#1 clearly wins here, hands down, without a doubt!
Numbers 1 and 2 will appear washed out when copied, as Monetary Metals documents will be. #4 will “spread out” too much to fit on a business card. I vote for #3.
Let’s do #3
#1 is my choice
#4 is my runner up
Number 4 looks best to my eye.
I add another vite for #4.
#s 2 & 3 will lend themselves best to being represented in a variety of media. Additionally, both have easily recognizable logo portions that can stand alone (I.e., without the text). #4 seems a bit too busy for my tastes. #1 might be more confusing to the eye when represented in B&W (even inverted, i.e., black on a on a white background). B&W representations are often useful to consider when applying for registered trademarks (at least in the US).
Personally, I prefer #2 to #3, but either is very nice.
FYI, for trademarking purposes, with regard to #2, just be aware of these guys: . You’re in a completely different industry than they are, so it shouldn’t be a problem, but sometimes companies and their intellectual property lawyers overreach (see, e.g., ). Dealing with such entities is has a non-zero cost.
Oops! It looks like WordPress doesn’t properly escape <s and >s. That should have read:
FYI, for trademarking purposes, with regard to #2, just be aware of these guys: [http://magento.com/]. You’re in a completely different industry than they are, so it shouldn’t be a problem, but sometimes companies and their intellectual property lawyers overreach (see, e.g., [http://www.bluejeanscable.com/legal/mcp/index.htm]). Dealing with such entities is has a non-zero cost.
I like #1 the best.
I like #2 the best. It’s classy and it conveys the idea that the monetary metals are a badge of protection against fiat.
#4 Feels the best thought-out and may look quite nice on a business card.
While black backgrounds are nice, the first two logos look weak and are overcome by the black.
#3 is Pretty good too.
Have fun deciding, Keith.
#1 is my fav
#2. The near-square is good for computer / web icons.
Use the hexagon in #2 with the text from #4 if you bother to do paper letterhead.
I think #1 shows the Gold-Silver motif the best. #2 Looks too plain although it seems very solid, like a steel building or something like that. I don’t like # 3 & 4 because you have carried the gold-silver motif into the letters and that is just not needed. You are going too far with a good concept. Also #4 has the added disadvantage of having the letters in METALS spread out to align it with MONETARY, and I don’t think it is as attractive as the other 3 logos’ lettering. Bet you needed all this comment. :)
Thanks everyone for your help! This change is important to us and we want to get it right.
#3 is best. It is more airy and spacious.
#2 looks like the gate to a medieval dungeon.
#1 looks like a financial firm.
#4 is a mishmash.
I like #2 as a stand-alone graphic, but I feel that something like #4 could be a better choice because it less symmetrical and feels more ‘light,’ visually, so it would allow you to use it on your publications in a more fluid way.
My second choice is the existing logo, which I never really looked at until now.
1 is the most striking against the background. 4 has a ‘distinguished look’ & would be my 2nd choice
3 is the most elegant and the simplest.
1 is also good but less elegant with the black background
4 is a little too
2 is too FED0like, as others have noted
all nice but 2 wins
1st choice #4
2nd choice #3
Either #2 or #3 Slight personal preference for #3.
#1 The black background makes the logo stand out. Also, the unique overlapping/intertwining of the M and M catches the eye.
#1, is my choice.
But they all look nice, which ever one you decide though.
I would go for the Ms in #3 bot a layout as in #4. Black background is inflexibel. And the layout in #4 is most elegant and useful. Also like the interlocking Ms in 3.
Or even better the Ms from 1 but layout as 4. That is perfect!
#1, runner up #3
Number 2 reflects greater strength and solidity.
Congratulations on your good job.
#2 is a prison window
#1 is a spider
#4 does not depict the equilibrium between silver and gold as good #3 does
#2 conveys more info/interest. It’s not just a double M but it is foundational/structural looking, it also can be viewed as shield as others have said and evokes a bit of sacred geometry to boot.
I’ve always liked/noticed your current logo. It looks a bit like the ancient Egyptian symbol for gold.
Good luck, have fun and thank you.
I like #3, but would like see it with gold & silver trim rather than gold & brown/black trim. #3 looks clean and simple
#1 is my second favorite, wondering if the word Metals should be silver trim rather than gold.
Thank you everyone for participating and for good comments!
I like #1- clearly shows the gold and silver, and both as money within the circular coin. When copied the interlocking Ms would still be fully meaningful without colour.
#2 for me with #4 runner up.
#1 and #3 are my favorit logos
I like #3 or #4. Both are brighter, more cheerier if you will.
I like # two. It conveys strength by utilizing a “metallic” motif and has the gold/silver motif in a way that I does not call attention to itself
i like the second one.
1 is my preference
#2 will reproduce best in all media. Background can be black, white, transparent or whatever.
I like #1.
I like Number 1, but Number 3 is also sharp!
I am a retired Architect, so I have a working knowledge of design principles.
If you don’t like it, don’t publish it!
I would go for 1 followed by 2 …in that order of preference..
When I saw the 4 proposals for the first time when I opened this post and went over them quickly to see which one I would choose without having the time to think/feel about each of them (as far as this is possible), I immediately chose #3.
I did notice in this quick scan that what #2 radiates is, for me, really repulsive. The two M’s seem to form an impenetrable, closed and dark building, indeed reminding me of the building of the Federal Reserve or an impersonal incarceration facility.
Then I took more time to see how I feel about/look at each proposal.
It is clear that #2 is a no-go for me. I do understand what might have been the idea behind this logo, namely, monetary metals are rock solid. However, for me, monetary metals are associated with freedom and independence, while #2 radiates exactly the opposite: darkness, inflexibility and being controlled.
#4 looks “cheap” to me. This does not seem to be in line with the purpose and background of Monetary Metals and someone holding a PhD in non-mainstream Austrian economics who has a more fundamental, serious approach to the metals. It also reminds me of other logos and especially the shine in the golden letters making up the word “Monetary” has been used too often already, often by people who needed something quickly, and hey, gold shines so… Finally, the big letter M on the left side of the logo is also a more conventional way of how the letter M is often used in logos and not very original.
This leaves #1 and #3. Both have their pros and cons, imho.
#1 has as con that it needs a dark/black background to make the color coding in the two letters M clearly visible and have the logo radiate a sense of “nobility” (pro) in-line with gold that is a noble metal. I’m not so sure how much will be left of the impact of this logo when the background would be white or even less dark than it currently is. Also, black does not match very well with for example the often used white, or more brightly colored, background of presentations, paper, web sites etc.
The logo #1 has also another pro and con: it has finer details than #3, the two letters M are an elegant construction with nice color coding (pro) but if I walk away from my screen and look at logo #1 and #3 more from a distance, it is #3 that remains clearly visible and easy to “interpret”, while the double M of #1 is harder to see and losses its M nature (con), also because it is encircled.
Logos should be robust in all kind of circumstances and #1 is definitely less so than #3 but the price paid is that #3 is a bit simpler (but the double M is still nice) while #1 is finer in detail (e.g. smaller lines, double M is encircled), and with the colors used, more elegant but less robust. One would immediately recognize #3 in passing, even when lighting conditions are not optimal, one is not really close, one sees it only briefly, the logo is damaged a bit etc. and this is not the case for #1, at least not to the same level.
Thus my optimal logo would combine the advantages of both #1 and #3 despite the fact that it is partially impossible. How about a proposal #5 that gives it a try?
#2 looks too much like Dr. Who.
#1 & #3 are clean and easily identifiable.
Definitely # 1, as it is the most visible, identifiable, telling, and clear.