Miami Marlins 2019 Rebrand

[MJD7]

Looking at the uniforms now, I’m starting to realize they remind me a lot of the Twins home uniforms, and a lot of the problems that comes with it: Both have a color scheme that we ideally would like to see work, but the colors might unfortunately just end up muddling together from a distance with the way the outlines and shadows currently are colorized.

 

Also, I think this set shows that baseball desperately needs to modernize some of its design conventions. The piping on the sleeves is way too small to really mean anything, to the point where the colors muddle together and are indistinguishable on uniforms such as the Twins and Marlins. If the sleeve stripes were even the size they were on the original ‘93 road uniforms, it would be a significant improvement.

[rmc523]

19 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Why is “slate” gray always tinted blue? Not just here, but in pretty much any context? I ordered “slate gray” curtains that were basically blue, and have seen slate paint that’s bluish. 

 

In nature it can often have a bluish tint to it.

 

18 hours ago, Survival79 said:

 

 

Looks better - they're just kind of empty otherwise.

 

14 hours ago, TSHARE18 said:

Love the look, but why not have multiple hat options? Blue hat with black bill would look really good. 

 

I'm sure they'll come eventually - 100% with you on the blue hat/black bill.

 

5 hours ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

The blue jersey being for BP was apparently said by that same Marlins marketing person though I admit I haven't heard the interview myself yet.

 

If she did say it, the reason I believe her, besides the fact that she works for the Marlins, is the lack of a sleeve patch on that jersey which definitely makes it feel different from the others. 

 

With that said, whether it gets used as just BP or not remains to be seen of course. 

 

I listened to the interview - she never specifically said "this color is home, this color away, etc", but she said they showed "home, road, alt, and bp jerseys", and from that' you can deduce which is which.

 

I was in South Beach last night, and this is clearly the effect they were going for:

[BJ Sands]

Have we seen the pants yet?

[Quillz]

9 hours ago, skip88 said:

like the Yankees

The Yankees actually had a couple different looks before their pinstripes, which came in the late 1930s.

[SilverBullet1929]

Marlins prospects were already given new uniforms for the Arizona fall league. The commentators made note that it was just the jerseys and the pants were likely leftover from the previous set so pay no attention to the pants.

Check out @AlexSimonSports’s Tweet:

 

 

[SFGiants58]

31 minutes ago, Quillz said:

The Yankees actually had a couple different looks before their pinstripes, which came in the late 1930s.

 

Let's use Dressed to the Nines to corroborate that. Apologies in advance for the image bomb.

 

-1909 features the debut of the "NY" on the sleeve:

 

-1912 features the appearance of pinstripes, only for them to drop off the next year, then return two years later):

-1917 sees pinstripes w/ no chest insignia appear, with the basic road uniform appearing in 1918. A pinstriped home cap appears in 1919 and 1921, while the 1927-30 teams used a "Yankees" wordmark on the road uniform:

-1935 features the last non-insignia home uniform, with the 1936 team restoring the "NY" to its proper place:

 

 

I would say that your statement is not entirely accurate. The modern look didn't stick until the 1930s, but the pinstripes long predated the decade. The 1930s were a great period of codification for many of baseball's classic looks. The Yankees, Red Sox, Giants, Cubs, Tigers, and Dodgers all debuted designs/colors that would reappear throughout the ensuing years:

 

 

Back to the original point of your post, none of those "classic" teams got it right the first time (not counting the Orioles for the Yankees). Here are their 1903 (year of first World Series) looks, with the Cardinals tossed in (I'm not going to go into the boatload of birds-on-bat variations and how the modern version is a descendant of the 1956 script redesign):

 

 

I must admit, I wouldn't mind seeing the Yankees break out that road uniform in Spring Training or against a similar pre-1910 uniform set.

 

"Got it right the first time" only really works if we're talking about post-1961 expansion or relocation changes. The Marlins didn't even really get it right the first time, with the teal being overpowering on the set from 1993-96. The 1997 tweaks put it over the top (if you're following the thread, you know what they did). I'd argue that a teal-billed cap on both home and road sets would have been the perfect hat (as well as a teal jersey and all-teal hat for select home games), but '97 was closer to a strong brand than '93.

[AgentColon2]

Slept on it. They still look like a steamy pile IMO

[Marlins93]

I was just browsing the online store on my phone and you hardly even notice the accent colors on the home white in the preview image. I'm dreading how these will look on TV and at the stadium unless you see them in extreme close up.

 

I'm still pleasantly surprised with the cap though but I wish the Marlin looked less like it's covered in oil.

[Old School Fool]

1 hour ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

Marlins prospects were already given new uniforms for the Arizona fall league. The commentators made note that it was just the jerseys and the pants were likely leftover from the previous set so pay no attention to the pants.

Check out @AlexSimonSports’s Tweet:

 

 

 

Okay, this looks much better than the crappy quality store image we've been seeing.

[SilverBullet1929]

Here's the road uni and PANTS... they've got the same sleeve piping along the pants, very good there...

Check out @Marlins’s Tweet:

The script looks great here but again the trim is hard to see. The numbers look good because the red trim is more noticeable. Still think a not black front number would help. I'm over the collar piping too as i perused other teams unis and was stunned by how many teams have sleeve piping but no collar piping. 

[rmc523]

The bigger stroke/outline on the numbers looks so much better - you know, so you can actually see the colors.

---

 

Here are a few pics I've taken after getting some of the merchandise.....the blue is the same as the current blue jersey.

 

 

The colors DO pop in bright lighting:

 

 

 

They start to dim/get lost quickly though in less-than-ideal lighting conditions.  I guess luckily the team will be in bright lights in uniforms on the field.

[The_Admiral]

The greys look like the Diamondbacks' alt greys from the back, and the Art Deco M looks worlds better with the two side-by-side. This is not the best.

 

Experiment: close your left eye, or your right if that one closes more easily for you, and lean back in your desk chair (or do the equivalent for being in phone) and look at the two caps. The one on the left basically becomes a plain black hat. Not good!

[Marlins93]

So it seems like if you look at the cap and jerseys close up and under direct lighting conditions you can notice the accent colors.

[habsfan1]

20 minutes ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

Here's the road uni and PANTS... they've got the same sleeve piping along the pants, very good there...

Check out @Marlins’s Tweet:

The script looks great here but again the trim is hard to see. The numbers look good because the red trim is more noticeable. Still think a not black front number would help. I'm over the collar piping too as i perused other teams unis and was stunned by how many teams have sleeve piping but no collar piping. 

 

I need a close-up of those caps with an X of some sort. First time seeing those...

[IceCap]

Everything about this seems...underwhelming? It still strikes me as the first draft of something you would have seen in the Concepts section five-eight years ago. 

 

The whole thing strikes me as rather plain, given the marketing emphasis on colours. The murals have bold usage of neon red and blue against black, but the logos, wordmarks, and uniforms use these insubstantial keylines. 

The idea that the red and blue will “glow”? I don’t buy it. Even in the era of HD tv. It’s going to be a struggle to get the intended effect during living tv and for a crowd watching the game live. 

 

Nothing about this strikes me as a brand that could last 50 years. It seems...trendy isn’t the right word, because it already looks a bit outdated in my opinion. It just seems like the sort of thing that will end up looking rather tired sooner rather than later, and they’ll be right back to the drawing board. 

[rmc523]

3 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

Everything about this seems...underwhelming? It still strikes me as the first draft of something you would have seen in the Concepts section five-eight years ago. 

 

The whole thing strikes me as rather plain, given the marketing emphasis on colours. The murals have bold usage of neon red and blue against black, but the logos, wordmarks, and uniforms use these insubstantial keylines. 

The idea that the red and blue will “glow”? I don’t buy it. Even in the era of HD tv. It’s going to be a struggle to get the intended effect during living tv and for a crowd watching the game live. 

 

Nothing about this strikes me as a brand that could last 50 years. It seems...trendy isn’t the right word, because it already looks a bit outdated in my opinion. It just seems like the sort of thing that will end up looking rather tired sooner rather than later, and they’ll be right back to the drawing board. 

 

The AFL game is on now with the new uniforms, and on TV, you can barely see the colors at all unless it's a closeup or direct lighting/sunlight.

[IceCap]

Also the #OurColores thing seems contrived. When a team says “our colours” it ought to be somethat that resonates with the fans. If the Leafs say “our colours” you know it’s blue and white. When the Packers say it you know it’s green and gold. And so on. 

 

Using #OurColores implies that these colours mean something to the community and team. And they just don’t. That’s not even a judgement call on the quality of the redesign. These colours can’t mean anything to anyone because the team hasn’t actually worn them! They’re still too new for “our colours” as a statement to mean anything. 

 

3 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

The AFL game is on now with the new uniforms, and on TV, you can barely see the colors at all unless it's a closeup or direct lighting/sunlight.

Well that’s not ideal. 

[SilverBullet1929]

22 minutes ago, habsfan1 said:

 

I need a close-up of those caps with an X of some sort. First time seeing those...

Salt River Rafters of the Arizona Fall League if I'm not mistaken. The X is two oars crossed. Prospects wear their parent team's jerseys with their Fall League team's caps, all games look like an MLB all star game.

[The_Admiral]

39 minutes ago, Marlins93 said:

So it seems like if you look at the cap and jerseys close up and under direct lighting conditions you can notice the accent colors.

Our Easter Eggs

[skip88]

2 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

Let's use Dressed to the Nines to corroborate that. Apologies in advance for the image bomb.

 

-1909 features the debut of the "NY" on the sleeve:

 

 

-1912 features the appearance of pinstripes, only for them to drop off the next year, then return two years later):

 

-1917 sees pinstripes w/ no chest insignia appear, with the basic road uniform appearing in 1918. A pinstriped home cap appears in 1919 and 1921, while the 1927-30 teams used a "Yankees" wordmark on the road uniform:

 

-1935 features the last non-insignia home uniform, with the 1936 team restoring the "NY" to its proper place:

 

 

I would say that your statement is not entirely accurate. The modern look didn't stick until the 1930s, but the pinstripes long predated the decade. The 1930s were a great period of codification for many of baseball's classic looks. The Yankees, Red Sox, Giants, Cubs, Tigers, and Dodgers all debuted designs/colors that would reappear throughout the ensuing years:

 

Back to the original point of your post, none of those "classic" teams got it right the first time (not counting the Orioles for the Yankees). Here are their 1903 (year of first World Series) looks, with the Cardinals tossed in (I'm not going to go into the boatload of birds-on-bat variations and how the modern version is a descendant of the 1956 script redesign):

 

 

 

 

I must admit, I wouldn't mind seeing the Yankees break out that road uniform in Spring Training or against a similar pre-1910 uniform set.

 

"Got it right the first time" only really works if we're talking about post-1961 expansion or relocation changes. The Marlins didn't even really get it right the first time, with the teal being overpowering on the set from 1993-96. The 1997 tweaks put it over the top (if you're following the thread, you know what they did). I'd argue that a teal-billed cap on both home and road sets would have been the perfect hat (as well as a teal jersey and all-teal hat for select home games), but '97 was closer to a strong brand than '93.

well, the Marlins have had 3 very different looks in a span of 25 years, to me, that is a joke.  It will never be a classic team with a great identity. it all falls to pieces as soon as you mess with it.  I will say it again, Marlins had it right the first time, a couple adjustments, sure that is okay. but the complete change? No.

 

And now it' does' t even matter. This identity will probably only last 6 years or so, and who cares.  Jeter won't pay any good players, nobody shows up to the games, so all they have left to stay relevant is to change uniforms ever so often just to generate a bit of buzz.