TheGrimReaper

2016-17 NHL Uniform and Logo Changes

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, worcat said:

It's a respect factor when you see fans wearing those respective logos. They aren't people wearing them trying to look cool or trendy. 

 

Umm...

 

6a0115709f071f970b0133f1f6dada970b.jpe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tragedy is that those two identities were ever vanquished in the first place.  The Dallas Stars could at least bring the Northstars identity back (minus the "N") since they are essentially a continuation of the original team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've yet to meet someone wearing a logo and give their reason as "because it looks cool" and not know what the team or it's history is apart of. So just throw that out of the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I said this in a thread here once, but I'm pretty sure a lot of these defunct teams are more popular now than they were when they existed. 

 

I'm sorry, but most of the young people I've seen wearing Whalers and North Stars gear are total hipsters. They either weren't born when the teams still existed, or were under the age of five when those teams moved. It's good that a lot of the better designs are getting exposure, sure, but there's something about the sentiment that seems bogus. They probably couldn't name any of the people who played for those teams, or explain why they moved. All you'll get from them is that it's a "vintage" logo that looked cool.

 

On a similar note, I like the Kings in black & silver. Sure, it may have been "jumping on a bandwagon," but I think that's a little bit better than the "brand synergy" of purple/gold and the universally-ugly purple/black/silver color scheme. Besides, with the Raiders most likely not returning to LA, the Kings can own that color scheme in LA. It was a mistake to abandon black/silver, and I'm glad the Kings came to their senses with their colors (not so much with logos and uniforms, but oh well). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Kings in purple and gold could have been a unique identity but I prefer their 90's black and silver logo and uniform over everything. The Kings in purple and gold would have been forever viewed as the Lakers little sibling. I understand the people claiming the same for the Raiders but now that their back in Oakland, it's a nice choice to see the Kings go a separate route. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NeverSayNever said:
 

Terrible analogies. The Whalers, Nords, and North Stars all left. Fans who love those looks love them because those looks were there when the teams left (or close to it, in the North Stars' case). None of those teams won Stanley Cups in those looks either.

If the LA Kings had moved while wearing gold and purple? Then yeah, the gold and purple look would be beloved, and would probably return in some form if LA proper ever got another NHL team.

 
Get a clue. These are actually spot on analogies. I live in Chicago and I see Whalers, Nords even the hated North Stars products all over often on kids who were not even alive when these teams played. They could care less these teams left those markets... They're buying  those products because they have cool colors and iconic logos ---they like the designs!!! Jesus.
 
Do you really think NHL.com, Old Time Hockey, Mitchell & Ness, etc. would produce thousands of dollars of throwback product inventory because of the heartbroken Whalers, Nords and Stars fans who keep buying those items to keep those memories alive? Are you kidding? Take a
business class --- then post.
 
The Kings current identity is flat out drab. They can win another 10 Cups and their current identity would still be dull, lifeless practicewear looking crap.
 
 

 

 

Maybe you should do some market research and see if the yellow and forum blue is really selling better than the black and silver gear. I believe I have seen a lot more black and silver, including the old chevy logo from the 90's than the yellow and purple. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a big part of why these former teams are popular is that they just kind of float out there in the ether; they don't do anything, and they're divorced from any competitive urges of other teams' fans. If the Nords and the Whalers had never left, you'd be fighting them for a playoff spot, going through a tough series with them, mad that they have a bunch of goons on their team, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anybody else noticed that the logo the Oilers are using on their new website appears to be  the lighter 1970s blue?  

 

oilers.png

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, steve61 said:

Has anybody else noticed that the logo the Oilers are using on their new website appears to be  the lighter 1970s blue?  

 

oilers.png

 

 

 

 

It could be just lighting or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, worcat said:

I've yet to meet someone wearing a logo and give their reason as "because it looks cool" and not know what the team or it's history is apart of. So just throw that out of the discussion.

 

Places like Urban Outfitters and JCrew don't sell these things because their customers have a deep and abiding knowledge for the history of defunct sports teams. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, habsfan1 said:

 

It could be just lighting or something.

 

I can't tell if you're serious...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, worcat said:

The Kings in purple and gold could have been a unique identity but I prefer their 90's black and silver logo and uniform over everything. The Kings in purple and gold would have been forever viewed as the Lakers little sibling. I understand the people claiming the same for the Raiders but now that their back in Oakland, it's a nice choice to see the Kings go a separate route. 

 

I prefer the 90's black and silver look over the current version. However, the Kings made a huge mistake by ditching the purple and gold and iconic crown. It's their original identity and it represented California, aka. The Golden State and royalty perfectly. The Lakers used to wear double blue and white prior to their switch to purple and gold. The Blackhawks and Bulls both wear red and black. The Capitals and Bullets/Wizards have both worn RWB and blue, bronze and black. 

 

As a long-time hockey fan, it was very frustrating to see colour give way to BFBS in the NHL while there was still a variety of colour throughout the NBA and NFL. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's always fun here on the Forum.

 

Are you surprised by how many hockey fans -- and not just in Hartford -- seem to have a strong affection for the design?

"Yes, I am. Really, it's incredible -- people have actually written doctorate papers on the Whalers logo! The team doesn't exist, so it's gotten into the popular culture, beyond sports. And you know, they did no market research -- it was just three people in a room who said, "Yeah, I like it." If you did it today, there would be focus groups and it would go on and on. And it would probably end up being changed during that process."

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, NeverSayNever said:
 

Terrible analogies. The Whalers, Nords, and North Stars all left. Fans who love those looks love them because those looks were there when the teams left (or close to it, in the North Stars' case). None of those teams won Stanley Cups in those looks either.

If the LA Kings had moved while wearing gold and purple? Then yeah, the gold and purple look would be beloved, and would probably return in some form if LA proper ever got another NHL team.

 
Get a clue. These are actually spot on analogies. I live in Chicago and I see Whalers, Nords even the hated North Stars products all over often on kids who were not even alive when these teams played. They could care less these teams left those markets... They're buying  those products because they have cool colors and iconic logos ---they like the designs!!! Jesus.
 
Do you really think NHL.com, Old Time Hockey, Mitchell & Ness, etc. would produce thousands of dollars of throwback product inventory because of the heartbroken Whalers, Nords and Stars fans who keep buying those items to keep those memories alive? Are you kidding? Take a
business class --- then post.
 
The Kings current identity is flat out drab. They can win another 10 Cups and their current identity would still be dull, lifeless practicewear looking crap.
 

Do I think companies make and sell retro gear, regardless of how well it's designed, because retro is in? Yep. Hipsters man. Everything that's old is new again. 

 

And no, you can't compare looks that were immortalized by teams leaving to a look that was replaced three times over by a team that stayed in one locale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, VancouverFan69 said:

 

I prefer the 90's black and silver look over the current version. However, the Kings made a huge mistake by ditching the purple and gold and iconic crown. It's their original identity and it represented California, aka. The Golden State and royalty perfectly. The Lakers used to wear double blue and white prior to their switch to purple and gold. The Blackhawks and Bulls both wear red and black. The Capitals and Bullets/Wizards have both worn RWB and blue, bronze and black. 

 

As a long-time hockey fan, it was very frustrating to see colour give way to BFBS in the NHL while there was still a variety of colour throughout the NBA and NFL. 

 

I'm sorry, but that was the best branding decision the Kings ever made. I'd also argue that black/silver represents the region just as well, with silver being a royal/precious metal color and black being a "nightlife of LA" color. 

 

I admit, I think both the Flames and the North Stars made huge mistakes in adding black, but I also think that the Kings needed to jump on the black/silver bandwagon to get out of the Lakers' shadow (as the Lakers were astronomically more popular than the Kings during the '70's and '80's). After the Raiders left LA, the Kings have really owned black/silver in LA, and the Stanley Cups have helped to codify that look.

 

Not all of the looks from the late '60's-late '80's were brilliant. The Kings, red/green Devils, Scouts/Rockies, yellow-centric Penguins, and the "Screaming for Vengeance" Canucks were all among the "not brilliant" looks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

I'm sorry, but that was the best branding decision the Kings ever made. I'd also argue that black/silver represents the region just as well, with silver being a royal/precious metal color and black being a "nightlife of LA" color. 

 

I admit, I think both the Flames and the North Stars made huge mistakes in adding black, but I also think that the Kings needed to jump on the black/silver bandwagon to get out of the Lakers' shadow (as the Lakers were astronomically more popular than the Kings during the '70's and '80's). After the Raiders left LA, the Kings have really owned black/silver in LA, and the Stanley Cups have helped to codify that look.

 

Not all of the looks from the late '60's-late '80's were brilliant. The Kings, red/green Devils, Scouts/Rockies, yellow-centric Penguins, and the "Screaming for Vengeance" Canucks were all among the "not brilliant" looks. 

 

We'll just agree to disagree with your concluding comments.

 

Variety of colour and originality but with simplicity is far better than what transpired in the 90's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, worcat said:

I've yet to meet someone wearing a logo and give their reason as "because it looks cool" and not know what the team or it's history is apart of. So just throw that out of the discussion.

Or not, because I actually know people born after the 90's relocations who wear North Stars and Whalers stuff. Kids who either don't follow hockey, or don't know anything about that team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, VancouverFan69 said:

 

We'll just agree to disagree with your concluding comments.

 

Variety of colour and originality but with simplicity is far better than what transpired in the 90's.

 

Hey, I'm not too keen on the '90's either. I don't like how dependent on black many of the teams became, when there were more colorful alternatives.

 

Avalanche - garnet/powder blue and a less cartoony logo would've suited them very well. If the Nordiques had stuck around, I'd have advocated for a double-blue color scheme and a better logo than that igloo (like this concept). It has complex striping, but it fills traditional striping areas in a way that might make you happy. "Simple" is too limiting at times. 

 

Ducks - purple/teal/silver, dark green/orange/light green, or even purple/yellow are all better looks that what they came up with in either the original or current brand.

 

Sharks - teal should have been the dark color, paired with a light cool color and silver.

 

The Capitals, Oilers, Sabres, and Canucks have thankfully eschewed their '90's colors schemes. I hope the Flames can follow in this example, and that the Avs/Ducks/Sharks also do something to eliminate the black in their color schemes. Heck, I kind of wish the Dallas Stars wore kelly green/yellow. I just want you to realize that I'm not all gung-ho about 1990's looks either. I like variety of color and simplicity too, but I also like both patterned and diagonal stripes and the occasional "dark" color scheme. There can be a nice balance of both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now