Entry #50: The composition of this one feels really off. The mark really overpowers the type. Entry #49: This typeface does not have the feel I'm after. The concept of trying to use the "CG" to make a mark is not really working in this and many of the other concepts that have been submitted thus far. I think we need to move away from trying to do this. The CG is already prominent in the name, so it's redundant to create it again in the mark. Entry #48: The overall composition is ok as the mark and type nicely blend together, but again the mark is not really working for me. The typeface in this entry is not bad, but not really what I had in mind.
Entry #55 is what we really want to avoid as it's very cliche. We don't want any boxes representing buildings. Entry #56 I like this concept better than the earlier #48. The typeface works better as well. It's good, but we're not in love with it. I'm not really sure this overall concept is really heading in the direction we're after. Entry # 54: I like that you've tried to do something in 3d and that it is vibrant. I think the overall it does not feel as professional as we would like. It's a bit too cartoon-like. Entry #53: I think this mark feels too drafting like and not really in keeping with the high end visualization that our site covers.
Entry #79 and #80 really don't capture the essence of what our site or industry is about. Overall the mark seems very generic.
Entry #67 and #66: Entry #67 is the strongest of the two, but the separation of "architect" with two colors does not make sense. Overall I don't know if the concept is going to work as the "G" looks a lot like a "D" on first glance.
Entry #96: I like how you made the .com the same width as the "architect" and there might be some potential with the angled text you've tried. Overall I think there is something about this version that seems unfinished and not quite right, but this concept might have some potential with some work.
Entry #95: I do like this version and think it has some potential, but I worry about how thin and numerous the lines are in the background and how well it will translate when the logo is scaled down to be smaller or when it's screened over images etc.
Entry #94 This version is much better than entry #67 as it's easier to read and clean. I think this concept also has potential, but is on its own too plain.
Overall the last three all have elements that work, but none on their own seem finished. Might be some sort of combination of the three.
Entry #168: Hmmm, the first thing I saw in the mark was a Swatika. Probably not a good first impression. Entry #167: This is not quite the feel we are after. Nothing wrong with it, just not what we had in mind. I don't think this new typeface has the pop we want. I know it's similar to our current #1 rank, but is not quite as distinctive. Entry #166: I like the use of the lines to build the mark, but I don't think the overall shape of the mark is quite right.