Old Salomon Logo: Comparing the Previous and Current Designs
A visual comparison of the old Salomon logo and the current mark, covering geometry, typography, color, scalability, and practical implications for vector logo use.
Contents
What the old Salomon logo question is really asking
The phrase old Salomon logo usually refers to a recognizable earlier version of the outdoor brand mark, as opposed to the current wordmark used across Salomon products and campaign material. Because Salomon does not publish one officially named legacy logo archive, the useful distinction here is between the longer-running visual identity built around a distinctive wordmark with strong letterforms and the current simplified mark that prioritizes clarity at small sizes. This comparison focuses on observable design characteristics rather than claiming an exact first release or a single definitive file.
Shared criteria for judging the two marks
A fair comparison needs stable criteria. The most relevant for Salomon are geometry, typography, spacing, color handling, scalability, and editability when the logo is delivered as a vector asset.
- Geometry: the overall proportions, symmetry, and relationship between letters and any supporting shape.
- Typography: weight, stroke contrast, terminal details, and whether letterforms feel industrial, technical, or soft.
- Spacing: tracking between letters and the distance from the wordmark to the edge of the safe area.
- Color: whether the identity relies on full color, black, white, or single-color reversals.
- Scalability: how details survive when the logo is reduced for a hangtag, zipper pull, or digital footer.
- Vector editability: usable paths, clean anchor points, and whether the file supports recoloring without rebuilding.
Observable differences in the previous mark
The older Salomon wordmark tends to read as denser and more assertive. The S is often the most identifiable feature, with a strong diagonal energy that anchors the name. Letter stems tend toward even weight, and counters remain open enough to stay legible in print. In historical uses, the mark appears alongside supporting typography and product naming rather than inside a tight container.
The old mark gains its character from the S, not from a separate icon.
This is relevant for design research: many recollections of an old logo focus on the S or the overall slope of the lettering. The level of detail can be higher than in the current version, which affects very small reproductions. When evaluated under comparable viewing conditions, the older design can feel more period-specific, especially where letter spacing is tighter and stroke weight is heavier.
Observable differences in the current mark
The current Salomon identity generally reduces the wordmark to a cleaner, more even construction. Letterforms are simpler, spacing is more open, and the design depends less on a single expressive letter. The result is a more consistent block of text that reproduces predictably across product embossing, screen printing, packaging, and apps.
This change is often described as a modernization rather than a full symbolic replacement. The name remains the primary identifier, but the rendering is quieter. The tradeoff is character: a more uniform mark can lose some of the visual friction that made the older version memorable. In practical terms, however, the current design is easier to scale and simpler to recolor for black, white, or tonal monochrome production.
Direct comparison
| Criterion | Previous mark | Current mark |
| Geometry | Stronger diagonal emphasis, more expressive S | More balanced and restrained construction |
| Typography | Heavier or denser letterforms | Lighter, cleaner letterforms |
| Spacing | Often tighter tracking | More open tracking and breathing room |
| Color versatility | Depends on the reproduced specimen | Commonly works well in single-color applications |
| Scalability | Detail can suffer at very small sizes | Better suited to small and digital sizes |
| Editability | Requires checking the actual vector file paths | Usually simpler to recolor if supplied as clean vector art |
Vector asset considerations
A common practical mistake is assuming that an old logo file is clean simply because it has a vector extension such as SVG, AI, or EPS. The extension says nothing about whether the document contains real curves, embedded images, unexpanded text, or a low-quality trace. The design may also be available for download without carrying any permission to use the Salomon trademark in a new context.
Before using either version in production, inspect the file in outline mode, verify that text is converted to paths, confirm that colors are defined as needed for print and screen, and test the mark at the smallest intended size. Performance claims about a particular old logo file should not be made without opening that specimen.
Which version to choose
If the goal is historical reference, archival reproduction, or a design study of the wordmark, the old version is the more relevant specimen. If the goal is a usable master logo for new layout work, small-scale product detail, or digital use, the current mark is generally the safer starting point. This recommendation is conditional on intended use and on the actual condition of the vector file available.
The main gap in any comparison like this is provenance. Without a dated brand guideline or an officially released asset, statements about the exact release year, designer, or authorized usage remain unverified. Visual comparison can still answer the practical design question, but it should not be presented as a complete corporate history.