LG Logo Changes, 1995–2017: A Visual Comparison

Essential Answer: The 1995 Symbol and the 2014–2015 Refinement

The core LG logo discussed for the 1995–2017 period is the circular, face-like symbol introduced in 1995 paired with the letters “LG” in a custom gray wordmark. The most significant change in this window was not a complete redesign but a refinement finalized around 2014 and widely used from 2015 onward. The 2014–2015 update kept the same fundamental concept—a round symbol with an “L” and “G” forming a face—but introduced a brighter red, a lighter gray for the wordmark, and a flatter, simplified rendering of the symbol. The change is often summarized as shifting from a three-dimensional, glossy badge to a two-dimensional, modernized mark.

How the Logo Developed and What Explains the Design

The 1995 logo was created to unify two predecessor brands, Lucky and GoldStar, under the single name LG. The round symbol is designed to represent the world, the future, youth, humanity, and technology. The positioning of the “L” and “G” inside the circle forms a stylized face, with the letter “L” suggesting a nose and the “G” suggesting a mouth or smile. In the 1995 version, the red symbol used a darker, burgundy-toned red and a three-dimensional gradient that made the circle look like a glossy button. The supporting wordmark appeared in a medium gray. This treatment reflected the skeuomorphic design trends of the mid-1990s.

The update released in the 2014–2015 period was driven by a broader digital-first brand strategy. The three-dimensional glossy effects were removed because they scaled poorly on small mobile screens and app icons. The red was changed to a brighter, more saturated magenta-red, often cited as “LG Red.” The wordmark was lightened to a softer gray. The symbol’s internal curves were slightly adjusted to improve legibility at small sizes, but the overall geometry and the face concept remained unchanged. Documented corporate statements describe the change as creating a more modern and friendly impression while preserving brand recognition.

Comparing the 1995 and 2014–2015 Versions

Criterion | 1995 Version | 2014–2015 Version

Color | Darker burgundy red; gray wordmark | Brighter magenta-red; lighter gray wordmark

Depth | Glossy, three-dimensional gradient | Flat, two-dimensional vector

Scalability | Less effective below 24px due to gradient noise | Better for small screens and app icons

Geometry | Same basic circle and face shape | Same face concept with slightly cleaned curves

Asset editability | Often supplied as layered PSD or complex vector with gradients | Cleaner flat vector, simpler to recolor and resize

The primary tradeoff is between visual richness and functional clarity. The 1995 glossy version has more surface detail and may appear more substantial in large print formats. The 2014–2015 flat version is more efficient as a vector asset, easier to reproduce consistently across digital interfaces, and less likely to show compression artifacts or color banding. If you are preparing vector assets for current web or mobile use, the flat 2014–2015 version is the safer default. If you are reproducing a historical document or period-specific packaging, the 1995 version provides the accurate visual reference for that era.

Practical Notes for Vector Asset Work

A file with an SVG or EPS extension does not guarantee that the logo geometry inside is vector or that the file is authorized for reuse. Vector geometry must be verified by opening the file and inspecting for paths, strokes, or embedded raster images. Permission to use the LG logo is a separate legal question from whether a usable vector file is available. The flat 2014–2015 version is generally easier to validate because a correct vector file will contain clean, closed paths with flat fills. A 1995-style version that contains gradients may be a mesh or rasterized image placed inside a vector container.

Documented corporate rationale confirms the move toward flat design for digital clarity. The specific designer credits for the 1995 mark and the exact internal release date of the flat refinement are not clearly established in the supplied material. That absence should be treated as a gap if you need precise attribution for archival or publishing purposes.