# 4 - modern, and good for electronic media and video, but difficult to execute in print, etc... # 9 and #8 - Treatment of "+" signs compete too much with readability. eye is drawn.
#11 - pls consider variations on the design 1) that pull the existing lettering closer 2)same version but that use lower case letters 3) for existing and variation, please consider showing variations with a stronger communication of "medical devices, LLC" either by larger font, bolding, or different color as you see fit....current design is a bit recessive.
#12 remains interesting but cross is too similar to a US insurance company - blue cross...some variation to convey a medical device, or a design that conveys that we have a superior 'stretch' to competition in our existing product line, which results in better health outcomes for patients.
#86 - Thank you for all your design versions. Like the placement of the saturn ring, but would like to see slightly thinner ring, or larger ring we think, that does not crowd the lower left hand corner of the letter....that Letter boxes out the ring, and we can't decide whether that is a good thing, or not. It seems to add some cohesiveness with a long company identity, but also appear less fluid....of all the similar designs, we seem to like this angular treatment around the company identity, but its also not as smooth at this point. We also have some concern that it may not easily print or separate for readers who are less familiar if it bleeds together.
Thanks for considering my designs to be on your top list. If you have any further requests just let me know. For the meantime I hope you like my revisions.
#136 Please take a look at uploaded logo. Would you incorporate the stylized "M" with the shadow of the man into your "M". We recognized that the font and look might be inconsistent and detract from the design but would like to see this version. Please use judgement to optimize this. We can't get over our desire to keep this equity in the transition.
#145-48 - Thank for uploading revisions and trying to make it work. We like the original selection #136 more than the new designs where you incorporated the person from our current logo.
#145 was the most appealing, but we felt the new design had too busy an image in the "M", and that our existing logo was less busy because the person defined the "M" with the person as the negative image/shadow. We understand now that it is too far a departure to incorporate the negative image/shadow of the person into the new font in #136. We like #136, and will select your great work as the winner. We only wish that we might have started with a brief that established the need for this design feature as a requirement in the first place. Then, the feature might not be as busy and we could bridge our equity.