I cant pick. They both looks great. Both fonts used suit the sig and its blended in well. The bg is plain which i like and Henry is blended in well. Theres nothing really i can see thats wrong. 8.5/10
They're alright. Text is prolly the best thng about it. I think you shouldve made the purple a bit more blue, and the background is a bit too plain. Cut is blended in prett good but could be better. 7/10 well done.
Hm. A little bit of both. Use v1 with the text from v2, excluding the 'Arsenal and France NT.' Makes it... classier.
There's no a huge difference . . . but i guess that V2 is better. Both are great !!! Which software do you use to make those signatures ??
Background's real nice but on both sigs the text could be a bit brighter as well as Henry, the colour around his head and his right side seems too close to the background, so fixing those things will make it look better. Not bad overall though, nice work.
I think he means that there's no need to put NT there, of course have France there but the NT isn't needed because some people might not even know what it means.
so because they do it you do it too? NT actually makes the sig look worse. i'd move Arsenal & France somewhere else.
I'm with Wolf on this one, it makes the sig look worse because it's all simple Arsenal & France and then there's the capital letters saying NT. Just because other people do it, it doesn't mean it looks good, yes it might on some sigs but this is one of them where it doesn't.
