Along with its new marketing and ad campaigns Jaguar's done a number on its logo: both the Leaper and the typeface have been reworked. The icon gets a metallic fill and shadow, the type gets wider and shorter, while its metallic look mimics the jewelry on vehicles like the XJ.

Jaguar said that "[the] dramatic alteration, including significant changes to the brand symbols of the 'leaper' and 'growler,' is the most extensive change Jaguar has made to its visual identification in 40 years."

But to us, one of the most interesting things about the the new logo is that it isn't exactly new: Jaguar had the practically the same transformation to its logo applied in 2002. Follow the jump to compare the differences and have a look at some of the print ad examples in the high-res gallery.

Which Jaguar logo do you like better?
The new one 1 (25.0%)
The one from 2002 1 (25.0%)
The old one from before 2002 1 (25.0%)
Who cares, logos don't affect what I buy 1 (25.0%)

In 2002 when Jaguar was under Ford ownership, Ford sought to revamp both its and Jaguar's logos. It chose a firm called The Partners to freshen the designs, and the result added a metallic burnish to the standard form of the Jaguar logo that had been in use for decades. The middle example below is from The Partners, the last is the new take from Spark 44:

Lined up like this, the new logo looks less like "the most extensive change Jaguar has made to its visual identification in 40 years" and more like an evolution of what was done ten years ago. And there's nothing wrong with that; we just wonder why that middle logo seems to have been ignored even though it's been in use since it was created.

The brand new logo appears to be speaking to the badging on the company's cars, like the XJ, which is the kind of cohesion one would expect from a rebranding exercise. It takes a while for these things to supplant their antecedents and take hold, but this is all part of the new appeal Jaguar is making to attract "nontraditional buyers with a broader mindset." How effective will it be is the question that remains to be answered.

I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.

    • 1 Second Ago
      • 3 Years Ago
      The new one is soft and mushy, not sharp and lean like the 2002 logo.
      • 3 Years Ago
      love everything except for the font.. looks like something your would find on a ford or chevy.. the old font is where it's at
      • 3 Years Ago
      The one from 2002 is the best one imo. It has a classy typeface where as the new one has a typeface that is very common on all cars.
      • 3 Years Ago
      I like the brushed look of the leaper for sure. I like the original font more, though. It's what's known as an "old style" font where some of the descenders break the baseline even in all caps. I think it's a great touch. The newer font will be easier to work into a line of type or into a nameplate perhaps, but that shouldn't be a concern to a car company like Jaguar.
      Evan Hayden
      • 3 Years Ago
      I agree with some of the other folks here. The typeface looks not-as-special now. I like the lettering on the old logo, as it was pretty unique among other cars. This looks like a font that would be used on several other brands. As for the leaper, I don't really have a problem with the new one. I like the design of the pre-2002 the best, but the new one looks more cohesive with how it would look on the actual car, so I guess that's something.
      • 3 Years Ago
      I like the 2002 better. The lighting on the cat is better. The new one is pretty good, but the 2002 one is better. Everyone has been updating their logos recently except Hyundai and Kia, who really need to update theirs.
      • 3 Years Ago
      That new font is going to go to the gutter in a decade... the older one is more timeless. Once you start adding gradients, the logo is not as versatile anymore.
      Karl T
      • 3 Years Ago
      New one is definitely less eloquent. More of a cheap, bold-type look. Looks like lettering that would be on a Toyota or Kia.
      • 3 Years Ago
      The new font looks like it belongs to Land Rover. I find it to be more utilitarian than elegant. But that should perception can be changed with appropriate marketing materials - which I shall look forward to.
      • 3 Years Ago
      The old Jaguar font was elegant and distinctive, the new one looks like a half dozen other automotive fonts. Jaguar has changed the leaper before, btw. Actually, it started out with owners putting mascots on their cars and Wm Lyons didn't like the ones he saw so he commissioned an artist to create an official Jaguar hood ornament. Frankly, I think he stole the idea from Edsel Ford's Lincoln greyhounds. More leapers here:
      • 3 Years Ago
      To any graphic designer worth their salt, the linear one is best, naturally. Gradient (2002-2011) and 3D modelling (2012-) don't constitute and don't belong in a logo -- they're a treatment, and can be used for particular media. It's simple really: if you can't carve it into a potato, it's not a logo. To a car manufacturer, the glitziest is the best because, to Joe Schmoe, the glitziest is the best.
      • 3 Years Ago
      before 2002 was crap. 2002 was perfect new one looks dated.
    • Load More Comments