• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


andrewharrington last won the day on October 9 2012

andrewharrington had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

111 Excellent

About andrewharrington

  • Rank
    The Go-Getter
  • Birthday 08/19/1985

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Cleveland, OH > Indianapolis, IN

Recent Profile Visitors

15,505 profile views
  1. That’s my point. You’re applying a completely different criterium and definition of “dated” to this thing than the one everyone else is applying to the A logo. It’s not an analogous comparison when you do that. As for the logo, well, for one, it looks like ice, not snow, and the signature form of an avalanche is the cloud that billows as it falls.
  2. This can’t be true. Ram horns are not smooth, and the detail seen here is clearly intentional. It wouldn’t be so rhythmic if it was unintentional. I really like the Chiefs’ helmet logo with a gold outline rather than black (and either a plain red KC, or changing the drop shadow on that to yellow as well). It matches the numbers perfectly, and maintains their unique look much better than integrating black into the rest of the uniform does. black doesn’t look bad, but it doesn’t look like the Chiefs. I think they would need to do something more interesting and unique with the striping if they were to add black to the uniform.
  3. “Dated” is an executional assessment of the A logo, whereas you’ve moved the goalposts to make it a conceptual assessment of the triangle logo. Those are two very different critiques, and you’re no longer comparing apples to apples at that point. The triangle logo is inspired by an old logo, but the execution of it is not dated. It’s true that it’s not instantly apparent the triangle logo belongs to the Avalanche, but the information is there, and that's what I find engaging about it; there’s something to discover and something to share with those who haven’t yet made the connection. That’s infinitely more fun than a logo that says everything it’s ever going to say in one glance. Now that you mention it, if you’re going to levy that as a critique of the triangle logo, you’d have to do the same for the A logo, because it’s not instantly apparent that it represents a Colorado team, and worse yet, there’s nothing there to help you figure it out. Also, when do we start docking points from the A logo for the trail behind the puck not actually looking very much like an avalanche? 😜
  4. The actual style of the mark is undeniably more timeless. That’s all I’m getting at. I’m not implying that it would or even should last decades (if it were to theoretically become the primary mark, that is). Objectively, the third jersey mark is simple enough that it could have been designed at any point in the last several decades, whereas it’s very easy to identify the time period in which the current logo was designed, meaning it’s not timeless in the least. I don’t think they’re pretending to be original six or older than they are, either. Their third jersey is a crisper, clearer look than their primary jersey. More conservative or restrained? Sure, but not old. The logo itself certainly says “Colorado” more than it says “Avalanche,” but there’s nothing inherently wrong with that approach. Personally, I think it’s preferable (for reasons already mentioned). In fact, I think the strength of the mark is in the way it *does* say Avalanche, which is very smart, engaging, and unexpected. It’s analogous to the Hurricanes using the hurricane warning flag as a graphic device; definitely a more successful approach than a logo featuring a puck being rained on and washed out to sea would have been.
  5. I’m kinda predicting the same thing. It just feels like they’re trolling everyone with this navy and white nonsense, and are going to surprise them with a beautiful blue and yellow uniform in 2019. I love the new pants. That’s the stripe design that should be used with the blue and yellow jersey, and I prefer the simple wedge on the shoulder like the wear now instead of overdoing the horn motif there.
  6. It’s not only about the Rockies v. the Avalanche. It’s about hockey in Colorado, and this was the origin of that, which is valuable and important. The visuals also matter, and the Rockies-inspired mark is a more versatile, timeless piece than the A logo. Compositionally, the triangle is a much more pleasing holding shape than the irregular mountain silhouette, and the snowy tip gives the proper indication that the triangle is a mountain. I do wonder if there’s a better way to define the C and puck without resorting to outlines, but that’s really the only change I’d explore. For those of you criticizing this mark because it doesn’t “scream ‘Avalanche’” or “depict the team’s namesake,” you haven’t done your homework. There’s a reason it’s a triangle in the first place. Sometimes literal works well and sometimes it appears trite, unclear, and/or forced. I find the current logo closer to the latter. A literal Avalanche is difficult to depict graphically, not to mention the fact that most people haven’t seen one. Is the logo an accurate representation of an Avalanche, or are we just taking their word for it? I don’t know. I do know, though, that anyone who’s been up a mountain where avalanches happen has probably seen the warning sign, thus making it a more familiar (and verifiable) association, especially for locals. Preach. Classic objective v. subjective battle. You call it a design trend, but that, too is a good brand identity; the brand identity of the state in which many of these fans, staff, and players call home! I’d argue that the location is often more important than the nickname for that reason, and it shows because people have obviously responded well to locally-focused design in general (depending on the locale and quality of the pertinent design elements, of course). People are proud of their home. If there’s no hierarchy in that logo, then what’s the hierarchy of the current logo? The giant A? The wraparound ice trail following the puck? The variable weight oval everything is stacked upon? And being dated certainly does carry with it a negative connotation. The only reason you concluded that “being dated isn’t a bad thing” is because you happen to like this particular logo. Subjectivity. --- Now, with all that said, you guys do realize you’ve just used t-shirts from a kids charity game to completely invent a freak-out narrative for which you have no other evidence, yes? Doesn’t that seem foolish? 🤔
  7. Assuming that’s correct (I haven’t been able to find any surviving artifacts, and I don’t know if one exists), it would only allow for a 6-inch number at the most. NHL rules state that a 10-inch rear number must be displayed on the jersey. Thus, an alternative approach was needed that was true to the era. Outlined numbers were very rare in this era, and the Leafs in particular never wore them, so I think it would have been just as questionable. Because there are no surviving examples of this jersey that we can find, it’s also difficult to verify the style of the numbers, which is why these were designed to match the character of the crest lettering.
  8. That’s a single example of what the Devils’ logo *could* look like if the N and J were separate. A good designer should be able to put together several specimens that are better than that one. :-)
  9. That’s the concept. The execution is the quality of what is on the paper, and like I said, the proportions are clumsy and it’s very poorly drawn.
  10. I completely agree.
  11. Twill is a fabric, my friend. :-) More specifically, it's a specific type of weave used to construct a fabric, but generally speaking...
  12. I think their logo is certainly a hockey icon, but from a purely visual standpoint... it's a mess. The proportions and balance are really not great, and the execution of the forms is pretty clumsy.
  13. Back to NCFC, can anyone figure out why the star is not the proper proportion/shape, or why the outlines at the top are irregular? I’ve gone through all the design-related theoreticals in my head and come up with nothing.
  14. Yeah, didn’t AC have an old crest like that?
  15. The sign itself is owned by Young Electric Sign Company. The design, however, is public domain because the artist requested it so when she gifted it to the city.