Gothamite

How much can you "update" a classic?

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

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

 

No. Most cursive scripts have tails. The Braves' cursive script has a tomahawk instead of a tail. It functions the same way, so a contrasting color would compete too much. I will die for what I believe in, this small detail of a team I'm not even a fan of

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, the admiral said:

 

No. Most cursive scripts have tails. The Braves' cursive script has a tomahawk instead of a tail. It functions the same way, so a contrasting color would compete too much. I will die for what I believe in, this small detail of a team I'm not even a fan of

 

If by "functions the same way" you mean that it underlines or creates a platform for the script, then OK, but considering one is connected and the other isn't, it removes any obligation to match the color of the script from the latter one, and the fact that it's a tangible object separates it enough from the traditional script tail to allow for more freedom.

 

You're equating these too things.  If that's the sword you want to fall on, then RIP - our cruel world was never deserving of one as beautiful as you.

 

 dream-dictionary_tail.jpg    indians_tomahawk_fighter.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

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!

 

Winning a division is no small feat, I'll grant you that. But to go 5/14 in pennants and 1/5 in the World Series is not good (if were talking the playoffs in total, they went 1/14 - or 0/3 and 1/11 if you divide between playoff formats). When you have the best rotation in baseball and amazing players that are in the postseason that often, only one World Series is a disappointment. 

 

It's embarrassing that they couldn't win when it mattered the most. I wouldn't call the Dodgers of the 1940s/'50s embarrassing at all, as they played against the best the AL had to offer. Those Braves often fell to less-than-stellar teams in the playoffs (e.g., five consecutive first-round exits from 2000-05), choked (e.g., 2-0 lead in the 1996 World Series, swept in the 1999 World Series, couldn't close it out in 1991), and ran into more potent. They should have dominated the 1990's in the way that the Yankees did, but instead they folded again and again. Maybe their competition was tougher, maybe the NL East (where they played after 1994) was a weak division (Mets being on-again, off-again contenders, Phillies entering a rut, the Expos falling apart, and the Marlins flopping around while somehow winning two World Series), I don't know.

 

The 1991-2005 Braves were a consistently good team, but they weren't good enough when it mattered the most. Think of them as the post-1977 Trail Blazers or the 1970s-90s Flyers, often a great team, but never the best and rarely looked upon without the modifier of "what could have been" or "they should have won more."

Share this post


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

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

 

Check my post above. I included some before and after pictures. They updated their home and road scripts, helmet logo, and also tweaked the throwback “little a” logo from the Hank Aaron era.

 

Uni Watch has also acknowledged this a few times.

 

https://uni-watch.com/2016/04/06/phils-braves-make-subtle-jersey-adjustments-for-2016/

 

https://uni-watch.com/2014/05/29/atlanta-braves-change-helmet-logo-in-response-to-uni-watch-column/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, aawagner011 said:

 

Check my post above. I included some before and after pictures. They updated their home and road scripts, helmet logo, and also tweaked the throwback “little a” logo from the Hank Aaron era.

 

Uni Watch has also acknowledged this a few times.

 

https://uni-watch.com/2016/04/06/phils-braves-make-subtle-jersey-adjustments-for-2016/

 

https://uni-watch.com/2014/05/29/atlanta-braves-change-helmet-logo-in-response-to-uni-watch-column/

 

I looked at those.  I and see the difference related to the placement relative to the placket.  But I am not seeing the difference in the B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, aawagner011 said:

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:

 

Chipper_Jones_-_2001.jpg

 

Post update helmet:

 

freddie-freeman-jaffe-faces.jpg

 

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:

 

9244975ba05138f7467a5bbd7338ec98--sports

 

1000764%20MLB%20From%20Canada%20Atlanta%

 

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

 

ff_2379011_full.jpg&w=600

 

ff_2702805alt3_full.jpg&w=600

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.

 

ff_2272999_full.jpg&w=600

FF_1582627ALT2_full.jpg&w=600

 

I've been a Braves fan since 1980, so, I may be a little defensive on this topic. Fair warning!

 

I agree with you on the home and road scripts, they are an improvement, more so on the home than the road. In my opinion, the quirky mismatch of the capital A lands in the same territory as the Yankees and Tigers mismatched monograms.

 

Where I disagree with you is on the helmet change and the lower-case a. I loved that the helmet A was fatter and different. It was a quirk, and it was part of the identity. Once Lukas bitched about it, it changed. And that actually may be my reason for hating the change so vehemently.

 

Regarding the lower-case a, I much prefer the Hank-era version for a couple reasons. 1: the historical ties to #715, and 2: it reminds me of memories of young Murphy and Horner. So that one is also a bit personal. Is the newer version bad? Not really. It's done well, but it doesn't fit the rest of the team's identity. If they had a 1970s fauxback in their rotation, in the same thread as their 1960s fauxback, then it would make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Frylock said:

 

I've been a Braves fan since 1980, so, I may be a little defensive on this topic. Fair warning!

 

I agree with you on the home and road scripts, they are an improvement, more so on the home than the road. In my opinion, the quirky mismatch of the capital A lands in the same territory as the Yankees and Tigers mismatched monograms.

 

Where I disagree with you is on the helmet change and the lower-case a. I loved that the helmet A was fatter and different. It was a quirk, and it was part of the identity. Once Lukas bitched about it, it changed. And that actually may be my reason for hating the change so vehemently.

 

Regarding the lower-case a, I much prefer the Hank-era version for a couple reasons. 1: the historical ties to #715, and 2: it reminds me of memories of young Murphy and Horner. So that one is also a bit personal. Is the newer version bad? Not really. It's done well, but it doesn't fit the rest of the team's identity. If they had a 1970s fauxback in their rotation, in the same thread as their 1960s fauxback, then it would make sense.

 

I’m also a Braves fan (have lived in Atlanta since I was young and still live here). As someone who appreciates and dabbles in design, the helmet discrepancy bugged me to no end. There was no reason for it to exist. As for the throwback logo, I can appreciate it for the throwback purposes because it is accurate for that time period. But for modern usage, the new one is way better, IMO. The old one looked hand drawn and is unbalanced. They can keep the 1970s version for throwback events, but I only want want to see the updated version on new gear that uses that mark.

 

14 minutes ago, EddieJ1984 said:

I agree, I don't like the fatter version on the hats.

And Lukas caused that? yet another reason to hate him.

 

Lukas acknowledged the discrepancy on the helmet (not the throwback cap logo) with the team and very shortly after, they updated it to match the accurate “A” found on the caps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, aawagner011 said:

 

I’m also a Braves fan (have lived in Atlanta since I was young and still live here). As someone who appreciates and dabbles in design, the helmet discrepancy bugged me to no end. There was no reason for it to exist. As for the throwback logo, I can appreciate it for the throwback purposes because it is accurate for that time period. But for modern usage, the new one is way better, IMO. The old one looked hand drawn and is unbalanced. They can keep the 1970s version for throwback events, but I only want want to see the updated version on new gear that uses that mark.

 

 

Lukas acknowledged the discrepancy on the helmet (not the throwback cap logo) with the team and very shortly after, they updated it to match the accurate “A” found on the caps.

 

I guess I should have clarified, I was talking about the lower case a logo.

 

Yea the fat capital A on the helmets was doofy lookin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fat capital A on the batting helmets was fantastic.. The new one looks like all the old cheap knockoff crap used to look because it was made by people who didn't know the helmet A was different.. I abhor the new "more accurate" helmet A

Share this post


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

The fat capital A on the batting helmets was fantastic.. The new one looks like all the old cheap knockoff crap used to look because it was made by people who didn't know the helmet A was different.. I abhor the new "more accurate" helmet A

 

A different logo on the hat and the jersey is one thing; they often have different application methods, different scales, sometimes different color setups, etc.

 

There’s no reason for a cap and helmet mark to be different. Same location, scale, purpose, a helmet should simply be a hard version of the cap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Frylock said:

 

I've been a Braves fan since 1980, so, I may be a little defensive on this topic. Fair warning!

 

I agree with you on the home and road scripts, they are an improvement, more so on the home than the road. In my opinion, the quirky mismatch of the capital A lands in the same territory as the Yankees and Tigers mismatched monograms.

 

Where I disagree with you is on the helmet change and the lower-case a. I loved that the helmet A was fatter and different. It was a quirk, and it was part of the identity. Once Lukas bitched about it, it changed. And that actually may be my reason for hating the change so vehemently.

 

Regarding the lower-case a, I much prefer the Hank-era version for a couple reasons. 1: the historical ties to #715, and 2: it reminds me of memories of young Murphy and Horner. So that one is also a bit personal. Is the newer version bad? Not really. It's done well, but it doesn't fit the rest of the team's identity. If they had a 1970s fauxback in their rotation, in the same thread as their 1960s fauxback, then it would make sense.

 

You won’t find many typographers who prefer this new A over the one Hank’s wearing. The update stripped out all the contrast and grace of the italic style, like someone asked a kid to cut a Braves logo out of construction paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

 

A different logo on the hat and the jersey is one thing; they often have different application methods, different scales, sometimes different color setups, etc.

 

There’s no reason for a cap and helmet mark to be different. Same location, scale, purpose, a helmet should simply be a hard version of the cap.

To your first point, the cap and helmet have vastly different application methods.. One is sewn onto a substrate using a method of puff embroidery, resulting in a 3D image that can't be found in any style guides or print media; while the other is a 2D adhesive decal cut with a blade from a sheet of vinyl and adhered to a substrate.. Some inaccuracies/inconsistencies are not only understandable, but almost expected at times (as you mentioned in some of your examples), and this happens to be one of those cases imo, where it's acceptable.. If the Yankees can have 4 different NY logos, the Braves can have 2 A logos.. (The moral being that the Yankees caps and helmets are different as well)

Share this post


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

To your first point, the cap and helmet have vastly different application methods.. One is sewn onto a substrate using a method of puff embroidery, resulting in a 3D image that can't be found in any style guides or print media; while the other is a 2D adhesive decal cut with a blade from a sheet of vinyl and adhered to a substrate.. Some inaccuracies/inconsistencies are not only understandable, but almost expected at times (as you mentioned in some of your examples), and this happens to be one of those cases imo, where it's acceptable.. If the Yankees can have 4 different NY logos, the Braves can have 2 A logos.. (The moral being that the Yankees caps and helmets are different as well)

 

but we're talking about different logos here, not variations that happened by accident due to the applications. theres no reason why you couldnt have 1 logo and no one would be able to tell the difference. also, the Yankees in no way should have 4 different marks. these things happen because there was no quality control over the years an some vendor did their own version for whatever reason, but today its much easier to have consistency, which should be the case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, BrandMooreArt said:

 

but we're talking about different logos here, not variations that happened by accident due to the applications. theres no reason why you couldnt have 1 logo and no one would be able to tell the difference. also, the Yankees in no way should have 4 different marks. these things happen because there was no quality control over the years an some vendor did their own version for whatever reason, but today its much easier to have consistency, which should be the case

They should have consistently used the 2 different A's.. I swear the newer helmets look cheap to me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, BrandMooreArt said:

 

but we're talking about different logos here, not variations that happened by accident due to the applications. theres no reason why you couldnt have 1 logo and no one would be able to tell the difference. also, the Yankees in no way should have 4 different marks. these things happen because there was no quality control over the years an some vendor did their own version for whatever reason, but today its much easier to have consistency, which should be the case

 

Both of you make good points. Both arguments are rooted from 2 different perspectives. The crux of the issue is that the yankess, braves et. al evolved from the analog world and you're absolutely right that that there was no QC because there was no leadership or requirement from the top saying that a single mark must be used in all applications. At some point along the way the equipment manager or helmet decal vendor for the braves went for the fat version because they could not replicate (most likely) or decided that a fatter die cut logo actually looked better.on the helmet. In the case of the yankees I agree that 4 marks is nonsense but try swapping the jersey mark with the hat mark and vice versa, it just does not look right.

 

Having come across a handful of style guides produced in the digital age, modified logos still exist for exceptional and special cases. Additionally you still have the occasional one offs like how do we do a logo application on an airplane? In short, there will be imperfections when designs ultimately make their way into the physical world for the numerous unplanned applications. The key is to keep them at a minimum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2018 at 7:33 PM, Zeus89725 said:

Isles did it perfectly.

515.jpg

 

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

 

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

 

On 1/11/2018 at 5:46 AM, Morgo said:

 

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.

 

You don't say!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rxmc89 said:

 

 

You don't say!

 

Well, being completely over-designed, but-a$$ ugly, and a complete nightmare for an equipment manager and/or lettering shop isn’t *technically* a crime.

 

The Islanders have so much potential. I hope one day they pull it all together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think they have that much potential. Every concept I've seen that tries a primary more abstract or conceptual than words, a hockey stick, and that turd-shaped island fails in my eyes. What sort of progress can we demand from an organization that's fleeing back to the suburbs whence it came because their fans don't like not being able to drive and park? 

 

You can clean up the type and the island and lose the pre-dynasty stripes that never looked right but I think that's their ceiling. The Islanders pretty much need to be the Islanders in perpetuity from here on out: nothing too clever, no navy, no fisherman, no Nets dress-up. Here's what little I'd do:

 

 

9nRqPE1.jpg

ffsQk0d.jpg

WJFwyy9.jpg

HbryAAX.jpg

I wonder if the I points roughly to Belmont Park on the extended island. Feels like it might.

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