Burberry’s Current Logo: Comparing It With the Previous Design
A focused guide to Burberry's current logo, comparing its observable design details with the previous version for vector logo research and redesign decisions.
Contents
What the current Burberry logo is
The current Burberry logo is a simplified, typographic wordmark combined with a reinterpretation of the historic Equestrian Knight Device. The identity introduced in 2018 removed the ornate serif wordmark that had accompanied the knight for many years. The current version joins a condensed, sans-serif Burberry wordmark with a restyled knight-and-horse emblem, placing the wordmark below the device in the most common lockup.
Within logo design this arrangement is best understood as a two-operator lockup: a pictorial emblem plus a supporting logotype. The scope distinction matters because Burberry uses several related brand marks across product and packaging, but the core identity is the emblem-and-wordmark lockup rather than the monogram or the house check alone.
Observable changes between the previous and current design
The previous design used a serif Burberry logotype with traditional stroke contrast, conventional capital forms, and a fuller overall footprint. It sat beneath the older Equestrian Knight Device, which was rendered with fine, illustrative linework and ornate detail influenced by the original historical insignia.
The current wordmark exchanges that serif treatment for a compact, monolinear sans-serif with tighter tracking and reduced letter features. Where the previous logotype read as a legacy fashion house signature, the current logotype reads as a contemporary brand identifier. The current knight device has been redrawn with flatter, cleaner separation and a more even internal density, which supports reproduction at smaller sizes.
| | Criterion | Current design | Previous design | |
| | Typography | Condensed monolinear sans-serif | Ornate serif with greater stroke contrast | |
| | Emblem rendering | Flatter, simplified knight device | Finer illustrative linework and detail | |
| | Spacing | Tighter, more compact lockup | Looser overall footprint | |
| | Color | Stronger reliance on monochrome contrast | More dependent on fine two-color detail | |
| | Scalability | Better legibility at reduced sizes | Emblem detail weakens more readily when small | |
Tradeoffs in the redesign
The sans-serif wordmark improves recognition in tight digital placements, small apparel trims, and single-color applications because it makes fewer demands on contrast and fine detail. The tradeoff is a reduction in the historic, ornamental character that the serif version carried through the legacy lockup.
The simplified knight device is easier to reproduce as a monochrome vector mark and more resilient across printing and embroidery techniques. The older detailed rendering retains more heritage richness but risks losing definition at favicon size, packaging labels, or low-resolution displays.
The comparison should be conditional on intended use. For digital interfaces, narrow layouts, and small-scale reproduction, the current design examines as the more practical option. For archival work, bookplate-style presentation, or a deliberate heritage treatment, the previous design preserves more ornamental value, but its performance should be tested at the actual output sizes rather than assumed from its appearance at display size.
Practical implications for vector logo assets
A current Burberry logo reproduction requires control over the lockup relationship between emblem and sans-serif wordmark, consistent stroke weights, and an even internal spacing system. The simpler form makes it easier to maintain clean geometric boundaries in a vector editing workflow than the previous illustrative version.
The previous design is more demanding as an asset because the fine knight detail, serif contours, and delicate connections need careful preservation during resizing and conversion. These are observable layout concerns, not claims about the official vector geometry; equivalent specimens and matched viewing conditions should be used before making any direct optical judgment.
Visual evidence gaps
The conclusions above describe observable design differences in general reproduction at typical sizes. Specific legibility performance at extreme sizes, embroidery distortion levels, or color-accuracy tolerances have not been measured in this comparison. Any recommendation that relies on those performance claims should be treated as untested and checked against the actual production environment.