Jump to content

2015-16 NHL Uniform and Logo Changes


BigBubba

Recommended Posts

Perhaps being younger and having started being a fan in the 90s scews my point of view, but I don't see the Avalanche logo as being overly "90s". I think it's a very solid logo and one of the best in the league. And it does have a lot of history behind it to the point that there's no reason to mess with it.

The current uniforms are another story. I loved the old ones, but I don't want them to just go back to those. Come up with something new that's good too. Plus, in a flat graphic the mountains stripes appear slightly gimmicky perhaps, but on a player it wasn't as noticeable, particularly in the arms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 4.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Has anyone stripped numbers from a current Reebok replica jersey? I have a Hawks jersey I'd like to get renumbered, but I don't know if they use any kind of glue which would leave residue or ghosting where the numbers were.

I haven't done it to a Premier jersey, but there's definitely adhesive on those numbers. There's going to be residue/ghosting no matter what, but covering the numbers with new will minimize it. I'd send it to EPS or Triple Threat and let them handle it, because that replica material is so thin. EPS once stripped and redid a Graphite Jays jersey for me, and the results were very good.

I'd say make it a Teuvo or a Vermette.

On 1/25/2013 at 1:53 PM, 'Atom said:

For all the bird de lis haters I think the bird de lis isnt supposed to be a pelican and a fleur de lis I think its just a fleur de lis with a pelicans head. Thats what it looks like to me. Also the flair around the tip of the beak is just flair that fleur de lis have sometimes source I am from NOLA.

PotD: 10/19/07, 08/25/08, 07/22/10, 08/13/10, 04/15/11, 05/19/11, 01/02/12, and 01/05/12.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I'm in the minority. I don't think the Avs have ever had a good set of jerseys, ever. The 90's set looks pleasing, but it's too gimicky to be used now even though people are nuts on 90's nostalgia.

How is this even a conversation? They shouldn't be wearing their mountain range uniforms because people are nuts about 90's nostalgia, they should be wearing them because they're a 90's team!

People born in the 70s should stop wearing bell bottoms. Being born in the 80s doesn't mean you don't have to wear socks with your leather shoes. And teams founded in the 1990s shouldn't be burdened with that aesthetic legacy forever.

Then why are the Sabres, a team who have won nothing, bound to their poorly rendered 1970's logo? Yes, it spells "Buffalo Sabres" with symbols but there have been countless concepts to that have improved upon this concept and the silver outlined version wasn't one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone stripped numbers from a current Reebok replica jersey? I have a Hawks jersey I'd like to get renumbered, but I don't know if they use any kind of glue which would leave residue or ghosting where the numbers were.

I haven't done it to a Premier jersey, but there's definitely adhesive on those numbers. There's going to be residue/ghosting no matter what, but covering the numbers with new will minimize it. I'd send it to EPS or Triple Threat and let them handle it, because that replica material is so thin. EPS once stripped and redid a Graphite Jays jersey for me, and the results were very good.

I'd say make it a Teuvo or a Vermette.

Dano.

Trust me. Go with Dano.

PvO6ZWJ.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then why are the Sabres, a team who have won nothing, bound to their poorly rendered 1970's logo? Yes, it spells "Buffalo Sabres" with symbols but there have been countless concepts to that have improved upon this concept and the silver outlined version wasn't one of them.

You need to stop assuming there's one rule that covers every team. The Sabres' logo spells out the team name without the use of a single letter. The Maple Leafs' logo spells out the team name with all of the letters. Neither approach is wrong. Both work within the context of their respective teams' aesthetic traditions. Same with the Canucks. People want Johnny Canuck partially because he exists. We've seen what the Canucks COULD be wearing and want it over the non-representative orca they're currently using. It's a reason specific to the context of the Vancouver Canucks. It shouldn't be used to claim that ALL teams need literal logos. If the Canucks' aesthetic history started with the stick in rink and Jonny was never created? I think more people would be willing to settle for the orca. The team never would have had a literal logo in that hypothetical context.

I sometimes think we can, collectively, get up our own behinds here. We like to say "oh this works great because of reasons X, Y, and Z" all the time. In fairness? It can mostly be logical. There's nothing wrong with trying to articulate a set of "rules." It's just that this is a VERY subjective field. All rules have exceptions, more so with this sort of thing than in almost any other field.

Sorry but I have to "Ice Cap" this... Ice Cap an Ice Cap, Ice Cap :P.

IceCap-ception.

Well, they're the Colorado 'Avalanche' not the Colorado mountains. If any team needed to represent their namesake in their primary logo, it's them.

Why? What about the Avalanche's name indicates they need to be completely literal with their logo?

No, they're not the "Colorado Mountains," but the logo in question is a mountain, which is where avalanches take place. There's enough of a connection between "mountain" and "avalanche" to make the logo appropriate for team named the Avalanche.

Besides, why is it appropriate for a team to 'pay homage' to a franchise that has nothing to do with them? If it became their primary mark, they'd be ditching a logo with two championships behind it to pay homage to one of the teams they beat in the Stanley Cup Finals.

I wouldn't be in favour of adopting the logo if it were a straight recolour of the old Rockies' mark. It's not though. It's the same concept, yes, but redesigned and recoloured. There's enough of a difference there for me. It doesn't come across like the Avs trying to "claim" the Rockies. Rather it comes off as the team simply paying homage to the Rockies. Sort of like the Mets recolouring the New York baseball Giants' NY cap logo. Only a step further because the Avs redesigned the Rockies' logo whereas the Mets just recoloured the Giants' old mark.

Take away the actual 'avalanche' and it's an A within a circle. For a 90's logo, it's pretty restrained. You can say the 'avalanche' itself is depicted in an "Xtreme" manner but really, how else are you supposed to illustrate a rapid flow of snow going over 100 km per hour, down a mountain?

Taking away the actual avalanche would be to take away the logo's central element. I don't think you can really do that when evaluating the logo.

As for the logo needing to be extreme? Well that's why I like the new logo they introduced with the current alternate. It's cleaner, less tied to 90s' aesthetics. It forgoes the actual avalanche, yes. It does that in service of making a stronger overall mark, in my opinion. The mountain still hearkens back to the name though, so the avalanche connotation isn't lost.

I read somewhere that it was intentional on the part of the designer. It's meant to be subtle, like the hidden "SJ" on the current sharks logo.

I'm not seeing it. I'm not saying that you're wrong. If that's what the designer is claiming then it's intentional. I'm just saying it doesn't come across to me at all.

Everything is subjective and you're certainly entitled to your opinion but I vehemently disagree. I have a maroon replica, circa 2001, and it's one of my favourites of my collection. The logos, the striping and colours are all beautiful to my eyes.

The colours have never sat well with me, because they too are steeped in 90s aesthetics where everything had to be crazy, darker, and subdued. The downside was that a lot of uniforms from that era didn't really have a strong identity. Nothing really pops out when you're using maroon and slate blue. It's not as strong as just red and royal or even red and navy. It's another reason I like the new alternate. It trades slate blue in for navy. Overdone? Sure, but for a reason. It's better suited as a sweater's primary colour than slate is. It's just stronger.

Whether you think it works or not is irrelevant. Two championships and some of the greatest players in the history of game says it stays. If the Avalanche have any respect for their history and previous accomplishments, they will never change their logo. Ever.

Well it's my opinion, so whether I think it works is certainly relevant to that :D

It should be noted that two of those Avs greats are now helping run the team. So this emphasis on Colorado state flag imagery is going ahead with their consent. If not outright encouragement.

I do believe that teams, generally speaking, should try to stick with looks associated with championships. It's not written in stone though. The Lightning won a Cup with one of the worst logos in Big Four history. Yes, bring those uniforms back, but please change the logos. The Avs' championship logos aren't nearly the train wreck Tampa's were, but broadly speaking? It's the same principal for me. A look that just doesn't hold up should probably be changed. Ideally teams should stick with looks that they achieve greatness in, but ideally teams should get their looks right on the first try. Sometimes the latter doesn't pan out.

It might not clash as badly as the Flame's Alberta patch (not many things do), but it still contains two colours found nowhere else on the uniform. For that reason it doesn't work.

Logos containing colours not found in the uniform can work. Flags often don't, but hey. Exceptions to rules and all. The team claims the name of the state, with no in-state rivals. The state flag may not be ideal, but it's far from obnoxious.

Besides, I would rather they stick the flag on the sweater rather then apply the state flag's colour scheme to the entire alternate. THAT would cross the line concerning them potentially trying to claim the Rockies' history.

Fair enough but lots of people do, including 'The Hockey News' who placed it in their top 3...

The Hockey News' rankings of the NHL's best logos had more internal contradictions then a Paul Lucas article.

I get the Yeti reference, but it doesn't change the fact that it's just a foot. And a foot is just unattractive to look at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing really pops out when you're using maroon and slate blue.

I think you're selling the slate blue short here. Set off from the burgundy with black and white, it looks quite vibrant:

Joe+Sakic+Curtis+Leschyshyn+Calgary+Flam

It just can't abut the burgundy, the mistake the Edge uniforms make.

I know it's the kind of dark and fussy color palette that epitomizes the '90s, but burgundy is such a strong base color for sports uniforms ('80s Phillies, Redskins, Chicago Wolves, Loyola Chicago, Virginia Tech) that transcends the old dark-and-fussy trend. Powder blue would work well with it, as we all know, and slate can go on working fine if done right, but navy blue doesn't work.

♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All good points, IceCap, but I don't agree. I still like the Avs mountain uniforms and I'm not a fan of their Rockies knockoff. It looks more like the Rockies' logo than it doesn't if that makes sense. It looks too much like the Rockies logo. If you look at it and say "looks like the Rockies logo" then it's already too similar to the Rockies logo. And I maintain that was never a good logo to begin with.

To me they Avalanches problem is not a logo issue. Their problem (aside from their terrible EDGE uniforms) has always been that they use one too many colors and I think that color is black. I'm glad they're finally trying navy and ive been advocating that for years, but I want to see it applied to their mountain jerseys.

PvO6ZWJ.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing really pops out when you're using maroon and slate blue.

I think you're selling the slate blue short here. Set off from the burgundy with black and white, it looks quite vibrant:

Joe+Sakic+Curtis+Leschyshyn+Calgary+Flam

It just can't abut the burgundy, the mistake the Edge uniforms make.

I know it's the kind of dark and fussy color palette that epitomizes the '90s, but burgundy is such a strong base color for sports uniforms ('80s Phillies, Redskins, Chicago Wolves, Loyola Chicago, Virginia Tech) that transcends the old dark-and-fussy trend. Powder blue would work well with it, as we all know, and slate can go on working fine if done right, but navy blue doesn't work.

The key, and what Reebok ignored entirely, is that the blue and the maroon NEVER touch. They both look dark if they're touching, they blend and look muddy and awful.

Those Edge jerseys have done terrible damage to that color scheme. I don't think we'd be having this conversation if those jerseys weren't like that.

...oh, and let's not forget, the Avs are adding navy and emphasizing black in their two new jerseys. They most certainly aren't brightening up the color scheme.

I'll respect any opinion that you can defend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is, that logo IS good. It's an A, it has an avalanche on it (which as a concept isn't always easy), it features a puck. The colors are nicely balanced, the shape seems to fit in wherever, it's detailed in places but there's a lot of empty space as well...it's one of the best modern logos, hands down.

The only thing it doesn't expressly say is "Colorado". That logo could be for the Denver Avalanche or any number of other things

On the basis that the cascading snow forms a C for Colorado, you can flip it and interpret it as a D for Denver. Then they could be the Denver Avalanche and not have a big-square-state name, which I hate.

FBJ1DjL.png

If Colorado wasn't square, it'd be an okay name to use?? Is that really what you're hung up on? A square state name?

Anyway, I'd rather have it as Colorado...since there aren't any avalanches in Denver.

Smart is believing half of what you hear. Genius is knowing which half.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember reading in the paper that one of the players described the Avalanche logo (after it was unveiled back in 1995) as looking like "a Dairy Queen logo".

As far as others. I remember one of the Devils players remarking after the logo was unveiled (back in 1982) that he thought it was a cow sunning itself on a lawn chair.

I also rememebr when the Canucks unveiled thier "V" jerseys in 1978, one of the players remarked. "Hey. Last year we played like clowns, now we might as well look like them!".

I also remember reading Eddie Shore remarking on the New York Americans uniforms during thier inaugural season in 1925. "Gosh they look so lovely. Are we supposed to play hockey against them or dance with them?".

Its funny how I remember the most trivial things from eons ago but can't remember what I did yesterday. :lol:

The Catch of the Day!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also remember reading Eddie Shore remarking on the New York Americans uniforms during thier inaugural season in 1925. "Gosh they look so lovely. Are we supposed to play hockey against them or dance with them?".

Old time hockey...like Eddie Shore!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I'm in the minority. I don't think the Avs have ever had a good set of jerseys, ever. The 90's set looks pleasing, but it's too gimicky to be used now even though people are nuts on 90's nostalgia.

How is this even a conversation? They shouldn't be wearing their mountain range uniforms because people are nuts about 90's nostalgia, they should be wearing them because they're a 90's team!

People born in the 70s should stop wearing bell bottoms. Being born in the 80s doesn't mean you don't have to wear socks with your leather shoes. And teams founded in the 1990s shouldn't be burdened with that aesthetic legacy forever.

Then why are the Sabres, a team who have won nothing, bound to their poorly rendered 1970's logo? Yes, it spells "Buffalo Sabres" with symbols but there have been countless concepts to that have improved upon this concept and the silver outlined version wasn't one of them.

Is anyone saying the Sabres are using a version of their original logo only because it's their original logo? Because if not, that's a hell of a straw man you're building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone stripped numbers from a current Reebok replica jersey? I have a Hawks jersey I'd like to get renumbered, but I don't know if they use any kind of glue which would leave residue or ghosting where the numbers were.

I haven't done it to a Premier jersey, but there's definitely adhesive on those numbers. There's going to be residue/ghosting no matter what, but covering the numbers with new will minimize it. I'd send it to EPS or Triple Threat and let them handle it, because that replica material is so thin. EPS once stripped and redid a Graphite Jays jersey for me, and the results were very good.

I'd say make it a Teuvo or a Vermette.

I've only stripped Reebok authentic and mid-level football jerseys before, and I had no issue with residue (even on the mid-level one). I don't know if this jersey uses the same type of adhesive as those jerseys did five years earlier. I was going to do it myself and take it to Triple Threat. I guess I'll check with them to see if they do stripping. EPS charges $40-60 for stripping alone, then $55 for the customization and probably another $20 round-trip shipping. That's way too much for a replica jersey I got on ebay for $70.

If Triple Threat doesn't do stripping, I guess I'll give it a go myself and post an update. I was thinking about getting Toews, but it probably would be wiser to go with Teuvo. I guess I'll see how it goes. One of my Bears authentics was a former Urlacher (the 2002 version with dazzle mesh) which was turned into a Tommie Harris. Going from 54 to 91 obviously changed the proportions and placement of the numbers due to an unserifed 1, but you can't see any ghosting on either side of them.

OldRomanSig2.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also remember reading Eddie Shore remarking on the New York Americans uniforms during thier inaugural season in 1925. "Gosh they look so lovely. Are we supposed to play hockey against them or dance with them?".

Old time hockey...like Eddie Shore!
Oh, piss on Eddie Shore! Piss on Old Time Hockey!

 

CCSLC sig 2016.jpg

20kujjp.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, I'd rather have it as Colorado...since there aren't any avalanches in Denver.

Then don't call them the Avalanche since they play in Denver.

Isn't Denver in Colorado? No? The Avalanche play in Colorado, right?

The Minnesota Wild really don't focus on being St. Paul-centric either, yet it works pretty well.

Smart is believing half of what you hear. Genius is knowing which half.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, I'd rather have it as Colorado...since there aren't any avalanches in Denver.

Then don't call them the Avalanche since they play in Denver.

There are no "Rockies" in Denver, and the only "Nuggets" are those of the plant variety.

Well, there used to be traces of gold in the Platte River, but that was awhile ago!

Smart is believing half of what you hear. Genius is knowing which half.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need to stop assuming there's one rule that covers every team. The Sabres' logo spells out the team name without the use of a single letter. The Maple Leafs' logo spells out the team name with all of the letters. Neither approach is wrong. Both work within the context of their respective teams' aesthetic traditions. Same with the Canucks. People want Johnny Canuck partially because he exists. We've seen what the Canucks COULD be wearing and want it over the non-representative orca they're currently using. It's a reason specific to the context of the Vancouver Canucks. It shouldn't be used to claim that ALL teams need literal logos. If the Canucks' aesthetic history started with the stick in rink and Jonny was never created? I think more people would be willing to settle for the orca. The team never would have had a literal logo in that hypothetical context. I sometimes think we can, collectively, get up our own behinds here. We like to say "oh this works great because of reasons X, Y, and Z" all the time. In fairness? It can mostly be logical. There's nothing wrong with trying to articulate a set of "rules." It's just that this is a VERY subjective field. All rules have exceptions, more so with this sort of thing than in almost any other field.

General consensus as of late seems to indicate that every team should look the same, regardless of when they were established. My frustration lies in this trend of 90's and 00's teams forgoing solid and unique visual identities to look like older teams. Happened to Lightning, happened to the Hurricanes, and if what you're advocating comes to pass, it will happen to the Avalanche. I like a simple, classic looking hockey uniform as much as anybody but there is absolutely no reason for a 1990's team, with two championships to throw away a solid, and wholly original look to jump on the pervasive 'retro bandwagon.' If there isn't "one rule that covers every team," why do the Avalanche have to throw away something attractive and wholly unique, on account of it being "too 90's?" Why can't we have a few teams embracing 90's aesthetics so we can have a well rounded league with visual variety instead of everyone trying to look like the O6? I'm tried of "90's" being used a pejorative term. The Avalanche, Hurricanes, Sharks, Ducks, and Panthers all got their uniforms right the first time, in the 90's.

As for Buffalo; yeah great concept but for the love of god, update the imagery! I've seen countless concepts that do the 'buffalo & swords in a circle' concept better. Just look at the work of John Slabyk if there's any doubt.

Why? What about the Avalanche's name indicates they need to be completely literal with their logo? No, they're not the "Colorado Mountains," but the logo in question is a mountain, which is where avalanches take place. There's enough of a connection between "mountain" and "avalanche" to make the logo appropriate for team named the Avalanche.

Because they're the Colorado Avalanche. I really don't how to explain it any better. It would be like the Lightning having a logo with a cloud and saying "lightning comes from clouds so the connection is there." When I think of an avalanche, I think of a powerful force of nature, rushing down a mountain at great speed. Nothing about a flat representation of a mountain says 'avalanche' to me. The new alternate logo could represent any Colorado based franchise, sports related or not. With the current logo, there's no doubt. This mark represents the Colorado Avalanche Hockey Club. The 'C' is there, the 'A' is there, the sport is there and the 'avalanche' is there.

I wouldn't be in favour of adopting the logo if it were a straight recolour of the old Rockies' mark. It's not though. It's the same concept, yes, but redesigned and recoloured. There's enough of a difference there for me. It doesn't come across like the Avs trying to "claim" the Rockies. Rather it comes off as the team simply paying homage to the Rockies. Sort of like the Mets recolouring the New York baseball Giants' NY cap logo. Only a step further because the Avs redesigned the Rockies' logo whereas the Mets just recoloured the Giants' old mark.

It's close enough to the Rockies old logo, that the connection can be made and that's a problem. The Rockies are the New Jersey Devils, a team they beat to win their second championship while wearing their current logo.

The colours have never sat well with me, because they too are steeped in 90s aesthetics where everything had to be crazy, darker, and subdued. The downside was that a lot of uniforms from that era didn't really have a strong identity. Nothing really pops out when you're using maroon and slate blue. It's not as strong as just red and royal or even red and navy. It's another reason I like the new alternate. It trades slate blue in for navy. Overdone? Sure, but for a reason. It's better suited as a sweater's primary colour than slate is. It's just stronger.

Aside from the liberal use of white, the palette for the new alternate is pretty subdued itself. The Navy is considerably darker than the blue and would look terrible if it was matched directly with the burgundy. "It's not so what's the problem?" Same reason why the mountain range jerseys aren't a problem. The burgundy and blue are always separated by a lighter colour, providing contrast. And can you really refer to it as "slate?" Looks pretty bright to be called slate.

It should be noted that two of those Avs greats are now helping run the team. So this emphasis on Colorado state flag imagery is going ahead with their consent. If not outright encouragement.

I do believe that teams, generally speaking, should try to stick with looks associated with championships. It's not written in stone though. The Lightning won a Cup with one of the worst logos in Big Four history. Yes, bring those uniforms back, but please change the logos. The Avs' championship logos aren't nearly the train wreck Tampa's were, but broadly speaking? It's the same principal for me. A look that just doesn't hold up should probably be changed. Ideally teams should stick with looks that they achieve greatness in, but ideally teams should get their looks right on the first try. Sometimes the latter doesn't pan out.

Those Avalanche greats are indeed running the team, and if recent output is any indication, they are absolutely inept when it comes to design. The entire identity is a mess right now, as they can't seem to decide what direction they want to pursue. One of the biggest knocks against the Avalanche identity has been that it has too many colours. Adding navy to main set in the form of those shoulder patches is one of those gaffes that just makes you shake your head. If they want to replace black, or even the slate blue, with navy, fine. Adding it as a sixth colour? I question their competence in creating a solid look for this team going forward.

Logos containing colours not found in the uniform can work. Flags often don't, but hey. Exceptions to rules and all. The team claims the name of the state, with no in-state rivals. The state flag may not be ideal, but it's far from obnoxious.

Besides, I would rather they stick the flag on the sweater rather then apply the state flag's colour scheme to the entire alternate. THAT would cross the line concerning them potentially trying to claim the Rockies' history.

No it doesn't look as obnoxious as Calgary's 'Alberta' patch but it still looks tacked on, unnecessary and detracts from the overall quality of the uniform. But yeah, thank god those colours didn't migrate from the patch onto the rest of the uniform. We're in full agreement there.

The Hockey News' rankings of the NHL's best logos had more internal contradictions then a Paul Lucas article. I get the Yeti reference, but it doesn't change the fact that it's just a foot. And a foot is just unattractive to look at.
It's actually a footprint. More specifically a footprint in the snow, hence using the sparkling silver material. In that context it's a rather ingenious way of artfully representing Colorado's topography, and I love the way it stands out against the teams subdued palette. Looks great on the ice in my opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.