Chris "addressed" the question right at the end after being asked, by more than a few forumites, over 10 times. What was I looking for? The courtesy of more than a one-line answer that looked like ducking a major part of addressing the forum's concerns (which was the previously declared aim of the chat) on the logo.sproughton wrote:Chris did address the question at the end of the chat, he said that they tried it and preferred the one they went with. What more were you looking for? I'd suggest that the reason he didn't discuss having upper case as an option was because it wasn't an option - it was a discussion about the brand not a design meeting.tempus fugit wrote:On the logo, I admit I am a broken record - because they totally refused to comment on the UPPER CASE logo. If they have a nice font in UPPER CASE on the rotor (and so many of us said we like it!) why not be prepared to at least discuss it in the chat as an option on the dial, instead of blanking repeated posts by forumites in the chat?
You are quite right this was not a design meeting, and I don't think anyone perceived it as such. If I thought they would change their mind on LL Brown font on the strength of a few vocal malcontents in a chat forum over months of expensive design workshops, then I'd be a bloody fool wouldn't I? What I WAS looking for was for CWL team to tell me (hopefully) a) actually we are prepared to use a centrally-justified logo where balance would otherwise be significantly impacted, b) actually we are prepared to use the same upper case logo used on the rotor on our dials where it best suits the watch design. OR (less hopefully) c) no, sorry, this is the definitive dial solution and this is WHY we rejected centrally-justified upper case. What we got were poor pickings indeed for option c).
So are you seriously implying that discussion of the logo and their reasoning for choosing one style over another was not up for discussion as part of the brand discussion?