[signature] Which one is better

example #1

​

example #2

​

​

 

I would say the second one, bold/3D texts look more fancy and way better imho.

 

I like your current sig better, the interface done on the first one is done nicely although the main text is not as appealing.

 

example 2 looks so much better it pops out more, the first one is amazing but for some reason it looks simple , second one just adds something and sticks out

 

Second one BY FAR.

 

Second but its got that lame ass watermark.

 

Second one rapes the first one; any day. The subtext and boxes look heaps more appealing along with the effects and the organisation. The first one has unappealing shapes that looks like its gonna droop all over the place but the concept and idea of what it suppose to go for it good.

EDIT:

Its kina >_>

 

So what? Why would you have to watermark a piece of graphics that you have sold? I'd go with the first one just because of that watermark.

 

I was agreeing with you; my point was "Its kina.......:sick: >_< :noworry:" Was trying not to imply a negative perspective.

 

I do appreciate your feedback, but I've decided to change my signature because kinaesthic wont fucking edit this annoying '3' in my signature. Zu3el111 is not even close to zuzel111, so it's missleading in my case.

 

Hence made my point I made above. I think the 3 for z he was trying to use the running writing styled z but he should atleast change such a little thing since your a customer :/ Bet you if you pay him again, he'll do it lol.

JIWI FTW

 

If I pay him for new signature probly like another $12 or so lol

 

I would take the second one.
He made me one last time, didn't have any watermarks though.

 

1st one for shore. it has way better flow an it just fits right togeather. the 2end one is to boxey and the texture looks the same on all of the boxes. maybe if you used the stamp tool to maybe take out one of them big scratches an it would give the texture a bit more verity