How much can you "update" a classic?

[PrimalCookie]

Hawks did a great job IMO.

Old:

New:

[Gothamite]

Yeah, that’s almost a Sabres Winter Classic-level update there. 

 

Not usually a fan of “make it angrier!”, but the old one was too bland. 

[andrewharrington]

This is actually the proper mark. You’ll notice the one above is actually not quite circular, but they fixed it when they introduced the new identity.

 

[BrandMooreArt]

this is a very interesting question, and for me it begs another question before i can give an answer: what is the intent?

 

if the intent is to be true to a past uniform and apply an old design to a modern uniform template, i would like it to be as accurate as possible. misses on details can destroy that nostalgia and emotional resonance, at least for me. but, especially in football, old decorations like stripes don't work any more for modern templates — old sleeve stripes were a solution to a different problem which proposes new problems today; the Steelers jerseys will never again look like they did in the 70's.

 

but if the intent is to take an old design and do something new with it, it has to be different enough from the original that it doesn't look like a knock-off. if you're too close to the old, its kind of like "what's the point? why didn't they just go all the way with the old design?". this is a very tricky direction to get right but the Blue Jays are probably the prime example of this.   

[WavePunter]

5 minutes ago, BrandMooreArt said:

this is a very interesting question, and for me it RAISES another question before i can give an answer: what is the intent?

 

if the intent is to be true to a past uniform and apply an old design to a modern uniform template, i would like it to be as accurate as possible. misses on details can destroy that nostalgia and emotional resonance, at least for me. but, especially in football, old decorations like stripes don't work any more for modern templates — old sleeve stripes were a solution to a different problem which proposes new problems today; the Steelers jerseys will never again look like they did in the 70's.

 

but if the intent is to take an old design and do something new with it, it has to be different enough from the original that it doesn't look like a knock-off. if you're too close to the old, its kind of like "what's the point? why didn't they just go all the way with the old design?". this is a very tricky direction to get right but the Blue Jays are probably the prime example of this.   

FIFY

[DTConcepts]

Isles did it perfectly.

 

A perfect update/modernization to a tired identity. Their fans loved it too.

 

(That was sarcasm, in case you couldn't tell.)

[johnnysama]

The Phillies' current set, now having been use for over a quarter-century, is a modernization of their 1950s-era togs. It is a modern classic, and the zenith of their identity (I also do like their 1970-91 burgundy era sets).

[aawagner011]

The Braves are the perfect example of making multiple minor updates that most people (non CCSLC folks) probably don't notice. They've updated their scripts and cap/helmet logos. I find the home update to be very nice. The letterforms and tomahawk were cleaned up. The away update feels a little too sterile to me, but does make that original "A" stick out like a sore thumb. At least it now matches the cap "A." Both jersey scripts did not match their actual wordmark logos for a very long time. They only just updated them a couple years ago.

 

Pre update home:

 

 

Post update home:

 

 

This script discrepancy was always odd to me, because the Braves have had their off white "fauxback" jersey for many years now (dating back to before the updates above), which has always featured the correct script. So for a few years, the Braves had two different on field versions of the same script worn in the same season. Now the updated home white script matches the alternate cream set script:

 

 

Pre update away:

 

 

Post update away:

 

 

The helmet "A" was also updated. This was a massive win. The previous helmet logo was stupid and simply "because that's how it had always been."

 

Pre update helmet:

 

 

Post update helmet:

 

 

The Braves also have a Cooperstown version of the "little a" logo, which I hate. Looks weak and thin. It is technically more accurate from that era:

 

 

 

It tends to sneak in every now and then on current day merchandise:

 

 

However, on-field new gear with the throwback logo, they have an updated "little a" which looks miles better to me. Much more balanced and better line weights. Even though it's not historically accurate, I wish they'd just ditch the Cooperstown version. The new one is great and should be a permanent secondary mark for the Braves.

 

[The_Admiral]

Any tiny graphic improvements the Braves made were undone by larger (and bad) stylistic changes like the all-navy road caps, getting rid of the vertical arches, the superfluous cream alternate, various other colored alternates, and whatever is going on with the finish of that batting helmet. I'd deal with a few idiosyncrasies in the shape of the "A" in "Atlanta" if it means the Braves look exactly as they did when their games were on TBS and they won the division every year.

[leopard88]

18 hours ago, Brandon9485 said:

 

 

The "Birds on the Bat" have changed in size over time, but now I think they are too big.

 

 

 

 

Now I'm not going to be able to unsee this.

[Morgan33]

10 hours ago, Zeus89725 said:

Isles did it perfectly.

 

A perfect update/modernization to a tired identity. Their fans loved it too.

 

(That was sarcasm, in case you couldn't tell.)

 

To be fair, this was a complete refresh not an update of their classic look.  It's only crime was replacing the dynasty set and not being an alternate.

[tajmccall]

34 minutes ago, leopard88 said:

 

Now I'm not going to be able to unsee this.

Really looking forward to that 2021 authentic, sponsored by Sesame Street, and the letter L. 

[Yac12]

16 hours ago, Magic Dynasty said:

Hawks did a great job IMO.

Old:

New:

I really liked this logo update, but wish they would have taken it one more step and updated the 80s uniforms.

[SFGiants58]

7 hours ago, the admiral said:

 I'd deal with a few idiosyncrasies in the shape of the "A" in "Atlanta" if it means the Braves look exactly as they did when their games were on TBS and they won the division every year.

 

...and won a solitary World Series. Winning the division every year for over a decade and failing to net more than one championship shouldn't be celebrated, it should be considered embarrassing for both the team and their division. It should put them in the same boat as the St. Louis Blues of the '80s-'00s.

 

While there have been visual downgrades (e.g., road hat), it's not like the original was all that untouchable. The Braves looked far better in their late Boston/early Milwaukee days, with contrast-colored tomahawks and the Northwestern stripes on the socks.

 

 

Put the "A" on the headwear, replace the black tomahawk with a navy one, and add the "Atlanta" script.

[aawagner011]

8 hours ago, the admiral said:

Any tiny graphic improvements the Braves made were undone by larger (and bad) stylistic changes like the all-navy road caps, getting rid of the vertical arches, the superfluous cream alternate, various other colored alternates, and whatever is going on with the finish of that batting helmet. I'd deal with a few idiosyncrasies in the shape of the "A" in "Atlanta" if it means the Braves look exactly as they did when their games were on TBS and they won the division every year.

I agree with you on a lot of this. Definitely prefer the traditional cap over the all navy one and agree they have too many alternates. The red one from the mid to late 2000s was bad. The navy one is a little better, in my opinion, but still unnecessary. I do really love the cream alternate. It looks great and is basically a throwback. As for the helmet finish, that was a one game thing for the opening of the new park and has not been done since.

[The_Admiral]

1 hour ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

...and won a solitary World Series. Winning the division every year for over a decade and failing to net more than one championship shouldn't be celebrated, it should be considered embarrassing for both the team and their division. It should put them in the same boat as the St. Louis Blues of the '80s-'00s.

 

The Braves won four pennants, large achievements in their own right. The Blues made the conference finals twice and lost. Different boats. John Smoltz has nothing to be ashamed of.

 

As for the Boston Braves uniform, I like the Northwestern stripes on the socks a lot, but I can live without them. The tomahawk should match the lettering, in my mind, because I think of it as a very very stylized underline. Maybe that's the wrong way to think of it, but red always made more sense than navy to me.

[BBTV]

12 hours ago, johnnysama said:

The Phillies' current set, now having been use for over a quarter-century, is a modernization of their 1950s-era togs. It is a modern classic, and the zenith of their identity (I also do like their 1970-91 burgundy era sets).

 

It's a soulless "modernization" of the 50s set, without any of the charm.  It's tweaked just enough that IMO it's a completely different uniform - a fauxback - and not an "update" of a previous set.

 

To the original question (which as usual, we've gotten WAY away from) if I was around in the 50s and had an attachment to that set, the current Phillies set would absolutely not have the same emotional resonance as the 50s one.  In fact, I'd rather them say in a whole other direction than to do what they did.  I'm not saying it's a bad uniform by any stretch - just that it's definitely not really an "update" of the 50s.

 

It's an example of tweaking just enough to make it a whole new uniform and not an update.  IMO the gray area is the Blue Jays.  I could see that one both ways, but would have to defer to fans of the team that were fans during the glory years or even before.  In situations like this, I'd rather the team "go back" to the original set that they plan to update, and then in a couple of years make the intended tweak.  This would rekindle that emotional attachment, and then introduce the tweak in a way that keeps it.  That may even have worked with the Phillies.  Going back, but not really going back doesn't always work.  I could see where a Blue Jays fan could argue that the navy, serifs, and numbers take away from the charming aspects of the OG, making it new.

 

 

17 minutes ago, the admiral said:

 

The tomahawk should match the lettering, in my mind, because I think of it as a very very stylized underline. Maybe that's the wrong way to think of it, but red always made more sense than navy to me.

 

That's the wrong way to think of it.  Think the right way.

[kroywen]

Honestly, I've always thought that the placket piping on the Braves' uniform served no purpose other than to add clutter, and that it bogs down the wordmark and tomahawk. There's no need for gigantic bold placket piping when you have a wordmark with embellishments or logos. The Cardinals' birds-on-bat and the Astros' shooting star from the '60s are both enhanced by a lack of placket piping - their respective logos stand out more because of it.

 

Though I'd go a step further and say that the Braves' super large placket piping wouldn't look good against any wordmark - it would just muddle down and mix in with the wordmark itself.

[DeFrank]

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

18 hours ago, BrandMooreArt said:

this is a very interesting question, and for me it begs another question...

 

18 hours ago, WavePunter said:

  17 hours ago, BrandMooreArt said:

this is a very interesting question, and for me it RAISES another question...

 

Thank you.  Thank you so much.

 

 

15 hours ago, aawagner011 said:

The Braves are the perfect example of making multiple minor updates that most people (non CCSLC folks) probably don't notice.

 

I will sheepishly admit that I am not aware of these changes to the Braves' wordmark.  Can you elaborate?

 

 

14 hours ago, the admiral said:

Any tiny graphic improvements the Braves made were undone by larger (and bad) stylistic changes like the all-navy road caps, getting rid of the vertical arches, the superfluous cream alternate, various other colored alternates, and whatever is going on with the finish of that batting helmet. I'd deal with a few idiosyncrasies in the shape of the "A" in "Atlanta" if it means the Braves look exactly as they did when their games were on TBS and they won the division every year.

 

It's true that the Braves' road caps are bad, because they rob the uniform of some of the needed accentuation.  (The same is true of the A's road caps.)  And I also agree about the alts, which I am against on principle, even if I will grudgingly admit on a rare occasion to tolerating one on aesthetic grounds (ex.: the Mets' blue alts, both home and road).

 

But getting rid of vertical arch for the player names is a huge upgrade.  I hate vertical arch for player names because, from a design standpoint, it is chaotic.  A given letter can have almost an infinitude of shapes.  That ain't right.  (Vertical arch for the team name is fine, because every player is wearing the same mark. But in player names it makes me itch.)

 

 

6 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

The Braves looked far better in their late Boston/early Milwaukee days, with contrast-colored tomahawks and the Northwestern stripes on the socks.

 

 

Good point on the contrasting tomahawk.  It should be either black or navy blue.  The contrast looks as sharp as the Orioles did when they had contrasting front numbers in the mid-1990s.  And those socks are gorgeous.  (Again this makes me realise that Major League Baseball should have rules about the wearing of the uniform, just as the NFL and top soccer leagues have. We need a rule that requires the showing of some sock.  Exchange this for 26-man rosters.)

 

 

 

6 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

Winning the division every year for over a decade and failing to net more than one championship shouldn't be celebrated, it should be considered embarrassing for both the team and their division. It should put them in the same boat as the St. Louis Blues of the '80s-'00s.

 

OK -- now you've gone and done it!

I cannot adequately express how wrong this is.  Winning fourteen f-ing division titles in a row (no division titles were awarded in 1994) is an astounding feat!  I realise that I said, in the argument over the value of division titles in another thread, that the division titles after 1993 are devalued.  But to have run this many, in a streak that began in the four-division era, is historic. 

The Braves' fourteen division titles, five pennants, and one World Championship in 1991-2005 compare favourably with any team apart from the various Yankee dynasties. If you want to find the team into whose company this puts the Braves, you should be invoking the Dodgers of the 1940s and 1950s, a consistently great team that won eight pennants but "only" two World Series.

 

"Embarassing", my hairy ass!